The Academy Awards DO Matter

Since the Oscar nominations were revealed this year, a lot has been made of the fact that, yet again, no minorities received any acting nominations. This has caused the latest bout of hysteria regarding Oscar, with talking heads opining that it's just a popularity contest that doesn't really matter.

Personally, I can't understand this line of reasoning. Of course the award show itself is often silly, but receiving an Oscar reflects recognition of highest levels of achievement from one of the most respected and influential bodies involved in the movie industry (The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences). The Academy's entire raison d'etre is the advancement of the art and science of motion pictures. Recognition from them is significant, no matter how much you want to put your nose in the air.

Now do I always agree with their decisions? Of course not, but with any prize where winners are determined by a vote, there is rarely going to be a winner by accolade.  But you know what?  I almost always agree with their nominations.  More on that in a second.

Some of the complaints about the Academy center around the membership's average age of 62. How ridiculous. In order to have an appreciation of what is good and bad in film, the more experience they have the better. Would you honestly suggest that Denzel Washington or Meryl Streep can't recognize a great performance? That Jeff Bridges, Kurt Russell or Michael Keaton are out of touch with movie audiences? They're all older than the average Academy member. To suggest that being in your early 60s is too old to understand the modern movie-goer is..... just wrong.

Then there are the “snubs”. This year it's “Straight Outta Compton” and “Creed”. I've heard claims that there should have been multiple acting nominations for these films for the African-American actors in them. Having seen and appreciated these films, I just can't fully agree. “Straight Outta Compton” is a good movie with good performances but in my opinion should not be considered any kind of shoo-in for Academy Awards. Best Picture nominees need to be a great pieces of storytelling – “Compton” was good but I saw nothing really great about it.

Ditto “Creed”, the sixth sequel to 1976's “Rocky”. It makes me want to say, “Really? You're complaining that a Rocky sequel wasn't nominated for enough Oscars? Really?” Perhaps people are unhappy that the one performance from the film that actually was nominated was Sylvestor Stallone. But I'm sorry to state the man flat out deserved it – his performance was better than anything else in the film. I really enjoyed “Creed” and Michael B. Jordan's performance, but the idea that he wasn't nominated was not some travesty. I wouldn't have argued if he had received a nomination, but it's not as though his performance was so transcendent that it DEMANDED a nom . Just like if “Compton” had been nominated I would have been okay with it, because I did think it was a better movie than “Bridge of Spies”, which is one of the nominees. But in all honesty, neither of those films would have stood any chance of walking away with the big prize.

Personally I would love it if the Academy would go back to having only five Best Picture nominations instead of the current ten. If they did, I think there's no way anyone would try to argue that “Straight Outta Compton” was better than “Room”, “The Revenant”, “Spotlight”, “Brooklyn” or “The Martian”. It's clearly not a good a film as those are.

So lets review Oscar's history instead. One of the so-called "greatest travesties" from the Academy was in 1981, when "Ordinary People" won the Best Picture Oscar over "Raging Bull". This comes up often because "Raging Bull" is considered one of the truly great movies of the 80s, while “Ordinary People” is not. I look at this slightly differently however. "Raging Bull" is (let's be honest) overlong and for lengthy periods of time, dull and tedious. What it has going for it is one of the greatest acting performances of all time - DeNiro as Jake Lamotta. He was deservedly recognized as “Best Actor” that year, but if you take away his performance what else did that movie have going for it?  Good cinematography?  Certainly not enough to deserve all the accolades it gets. I'm an enormous boxing fan, but I've watched “Rocky” twenty times and will watch it many times more.  I've seen “Raging Bull” twice and unless suffering from insomnia will never look at it again.

But at the very least, “Raging Bull” was nominated for Best Picture. It was the vote, which is always going to be subjective and subject to the winds of change and the feeling of the day, that selected “Ordinary People” instead. Personally, I think the nomination is far more important than the actual award when it comes to Oscar, because it is the nomination that reflects the recognition. Do I think any less of, for instance, Michael Keaton in “Birdman” just because the Academy picked Eddie Redmayne? No way. I would have considered it a bad miss if he hadn't been nominated at all, but winners are entirely subjective. I've heard people say that Daniel Day Lewis should have won Best Actor for “Gangs of New York” instead of Adrien Brody for “The Pianist”. Personally I can't imagine anyone thinking that anyone, EVER, was better than Brody was in that movie. So subjectivity is always a big part of the vote. It's unavoidable, and suggesting that some robbery occurred simply because the voters came up with a different winner than you did..... absurd.

So what about movies that come up in discussion that weren't nominated at all, like "Groundhog Day". There are many films like this that people suggest should have been nominated for Best Picture. But let's consider it.....

“Groundhog Day” came out the same year as "Forrest Gump", "Pulp Fiction", "The Shawshank Redemption", "Quiz Show" and "Four Weddings and a Funeral". Was “Groundhog Day” really better than any of these? If “Four Weddings” had been left off the ticket in favour of “Groundhog Day”, the outcry for ignoring it would have been far louder and more deserved. That “Groundhog Day” is a terrific comedy that will be remembered for decades is not ipso facto evidence of it deserving a Best Picture nomination.

Now don't get me wrong. The Academy does fire and miss. For instance, that Leonardo DiCaprio wasn't nominated for Best Actor for “Titanic” blows my mind. Not only should he have been nominated, I think he should have won.  I think Jim Carrey was more deserving of a nomination for “The Truman Show” than Edward Norton was for “American History X”. I think Naomi Watts deserved a nomination for “Mullholland Drive” instead of Rene Zelweger for “Bridget Jones' Diary”. But these instances are very, very rare. That the Academy doesn't do exactly what I think they should do 100% of the time is.... well, that's life. Like Mick Jagger said, you can't always get what you want.

So for all those suggesting that Oscar misses the mark sooooo often, I challenge you to come up with some real examples. And not just “this movie/person should have been nominated”, but look at the year, the other nominees, and why your suggestion is CLEARLY better than the one you suggest replacing. I think you'll be surprised to find that there are incredibly few examples where you can absolutely justify a clear miss by the Academy.

Let's stop complaining about the Oscars and remember what it is: a celebration of film-makers and performers. It is supposed to represent our love for movies, not be some kind of cutthroat competition. Films and performances that can sweep you away into a world of make believe, forget your cares and worries and for a brief time immerse yourself in a wonderfully told story.... that is what the Academy Awards are all about.

That being said, if you have any clear examples of where you think Oscar missed the bus, please post them. I would really love to discuss your ideas with you.  And to kick it off, I will start with the one clear miss I think the Academy had this year.  Jacob Tremblay gave an other-worldly performance in "Room", but didn't receive a nomination.  I believe you could easily have dropped Mark Rylance from "Bridge of Spies" to have Tremblay in there.  He deserved a nomination, no question in my mind.

Anyone else?