The Three Faces of Oscar

Posted by Greg Ferrara on January 25, 2012

With the release of the Oscar nominations for 2011, I’m once again forced to acknowledge my utterly pointless, irritating and relentless love-hate relationship with the Academy Awards. First of all, Academy? Har, har, give me a break! Here’s why the “prestigious” Academy formed (from Wikipedia):

“The notion of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) began with Louis B. Mayer, head of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM). He wanted to create an organization that would mediate labor disputes and improve the industry’s image.”

I’d tell you the whole story but I don’t hate you so I’ll just link back to the Wikipedia entry on it instead. Last week, I wrote up romcoms and the Oscars (it’s Oscar time, folks, expect more Oscar posts from me as TCM kicks off its 31 Days of Oscar) and in the comments (and the comments on a previous post about Oliver! taking Best Picture) we had a good discussion about how the Oscars may not mean much, quality-wise, but how they do reflect the attitudes and trends of their time. More often than not, I don’t agree with their choices but I can’t deny, sadly, that they affect me, usually in the form of disappointment or anger, almost every single year.

When I was a kid, we had a set of encyclopedias that ran all the way through… ahem… 1968. Encyclopedia sets cost a lot of money and so, generally, you bought one set every twenty years or so. In the meantime, you got these add-on “annuals” that gave you updates on what happened in 1968, then 69 and so on. Most people never even got the add-ons (we didnt’) so reading the encyclopedia for anything current was a futile endeavor. But for reading up on film history, they were perfect. I loved the section on “Motion Pictures” and read it again and again. The tail-end of the entry listed the Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Director and all the acting categories. It went through 1967′s winner, In the Heat of the Night. As I watched films in the seventies, no one who was big in them, or was winning for anything, was in that encyclopedia. It’s not like it is now where the moment anyone achieves even the slightest level of fame they are instantly enshrined in Wikipedia. No, back then, even if someone like Francis Ford Coppola had been around in movies well before 1967, he still had no entry. He just wasn’t important enough yet. George C. Scott had been around since the fifties and been nominated for a couple of Oscars by that point and, still, he had no entry.

But in 1977, Star Wars was released. It was, of course, huge. And in it was Alec Guinness. I knew Alec Guinness! The name was familiar! It was in the encyclopedia, right there, in the Oscars entry for Best Actor, 1957, for Bridge on the River Kwai. Finally, someone in the encyclopedia felt connected to something new, cutting edge and groundbreaking. At that point, I had not yet seen Bridge on the River Kwai but from that moment on, it became my quest. Very quickly, it became my quest to see all of them and, in only a few years, with the aid of PBS, newfangled cable, even newer-fangled VCRs and revival showings around town, I had seen them all.

Then, slowly, very slowly but steadily, I realized that I connected the Oscars to years and, to this day, the first thing I think of when hearing any year is what won Best Picture. Say “1933″ and I’ll think “Calvalcade” first, then the fact that my parents were born that year. Say “1941″ and in my head I’ll say “How Green was My Valley” then I’ll think, “Pearl Harbor and America’s entry into World War II.” The tug is so strong that I will always consider Casablanca to be a movie made in 1943 because it won Best Picture for that year. In reality, it was made and released in 1942. Here’s the deal: originally, the Academy had used a July to June year, hence the first six Oscars were for 27-28 (Wings), 28-29 (The Broadway Melody), 29-30 (All Quiet on the Western Front), 30-31 (Cimarron), 31-32 (Grand Hotel) and 32-33 (Calvalcade) which, since they decided to go to a calendar year for 1934, won from a group of films released between July 1932 and December 1933, the longest period of eligibility in Oscar history . After 1934, the rules were simple: A movie must premiere in either New York or Los Angeles prior to midnight on December 31st to be eligible for the Oscars for that year. Casablanca premiered in New York in November of 1942. It’s general release was in 1943 and the Academy ignored its own rules (and has time and again) to nominate Casablanca for 1943 instead. So, even though it was made and released in 1942, I always see it as a 1943 movie.

So the connection to time and dates was already very strong. The connection to the movies, oddly enough, was secondary. By the seventies, I was reading film books from my school library and it didn’t take long to notice that the movies mentioned in the film books didn’t often match up with the movies awarded at the Oscars. The movie world itself seemed split in two. I thought of those movies in the books as the “real” cinema and the Oscar winners as the “industry” cinema. That was the cinema that belonged to the industry insiders themselves and despite the fact that the “real” cinema seemed to be of higher quality, I wanted all my favorite films to be honored in the “industry” cinema. If I saw a film and loved it, I wanted it to be nominated and if it wasn’t, was very disappointed. It still happens today.

The award itself has three faces: In the first face, it stands for quality (“It’s an Oscar worthy performance!”). Many critics who, in fact, deride the Oscars, will nonetheless use it as a measure of quality when convenient (“A great performance, it deservedly took home the Oscar.”). In the second face, it stands for mediocrity (“It’s the kind of performance that wins Oscars” for, say, an overly sentimental performance or “The movie stinks but it has a noble purpose so it’ll probably win Best Picture” for movies about a great cause or event or person that is, perhaps, not of the highest quality). And in the final third face, it stands, above all else, as peer recognition and acceptance. Inside the industry, no one cares about the first two faces, they only care about the third. They want to know they’re accepted. People make fun of Sally Field for her speech made when accepting the award for Best Actress for Places in the Heart when she said, “You like me” but, really, she was just expressing what they all feel when they win.

I once watched an interview with James Woods where he spoke of his nomination for Best Actor for Salvador. He said he was talking with his friend Richard Dreyfuss after it happened and was playing it down. Dreyfuss told him that wouldn’t continue. Woods said, no, he’d been up for many acting awards before and won a few and he never got excited or concerned with any of it. Dreyfuss told him this was different. This was the industry itself. This was the top peer recognition award there was, period. He told Woods that when the day came, he would want the award more than anything in the world. Woods scoffed and then, as he related in the interview, on Oscar night it grabbed him. By the time the nominees were read, Woods said he would’ve made a deal to sell his soul if they would just read his name when they opened that envelope. They didn’t and his soul was safe. We think.

When I see a performance I like or love, I feel much the same way. First, I want it nominated because even if I don’t care about the Oscars as a measure of quality, I do care about them for the performers and artists as a measure of recognition on a job well done. Same goes for anything with the Oscars, really. Songs and scores, for instance. The great Alex North never won an Oscar for any of his great scores. Randy Newman, who finally did win for Best Song, still has none for score. Or how about cinematography? Roger Deakins hasn’t won yet though he’s been nominated multiple times. Best Director? Best Actor? Best Actress? Don’t even get me started. Too many to name.

So when my friend, Richard Harland Smith, tells me not to care, I can’t do that. I understand he doesn’t (that heartless, cold-hearted knave) and I wish I could as well but I know how much the awards mean to those in the industry and, honestly, when I feel connected to a performer or director or composer or anyone in the biz, I want to see them honored. Not to prove to the world that they’re good – their art does that all by itself. No, I want it for them. I want them to have that feeling of satisfaction and encouragement which, as any of us who pursue any kind of creative endeavor knows, can be the real reward. Love them or hate them, the Oscars are the industry standard. It’s one of the top two most recognized awards in the world (yes, in polls it generally flip-flops 1st or 2nd place with the Nobel Prizes) and when a favorite doesn’t get a nomination, even though I know it shouldn’t matter, it affects me. Usually it burns me up and I tell myself that this time, I’m going to take Richard’s advice and not care but I do. I can’t fully understand why but I do. Every damn time.

34 Comments |

submit

34 Responses The Three Faces of Oscar

Posted By swac : January 25, 2012 9:29 am

Funny, the intro reminds me of this old encyclopedia set my mom had that was from the early ’30s, so when you looked up Germany you see Adolph Hitler and a writeup that says that despite his persecution of the Jews and other minorities, on the whole his regime was good for the country and helped pull it up out of the mire of the Depression.

Posted By Tom S : January 25, 2012 11:31 am

I think in the year to year sense I care about the Oscars in the same way I care about the Superbowl- as a general rule nobody I really like is included, it’s a bloated and overlong presentation I can’t be bothered to watch, and I like it largely as an opportunity to complain about things.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : January 25, 2012 11:48 am

swac, yikes! In later years, I enjoyed reading up on Nixon who was only President-elect at the time of publication so there’s nothing on his presidency except the campaign and everything before. The future looked bright for him.

And any entry on technology is always fun to read after a certain amount of time has passed.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : January 25, 2012 11:50 am

Tom, I watch because I keep up with friends on Facebook and twitter during the course of the show which makes it a 1,000 times more entertaining, being the bloated and overlong presentation that it is. Unless you’re talking about it (or making fun of it or complaining about it), it’s unbearable.

Posted By Richard Harland Smith : January 25, 2012 1:07 pm

I will not rest until I am branded with the title “Oscar refusnik.”

Posted By Greg Ferrara : January 25, 2012 1:08 pm

Next time I write an Oscar post, you will be branded, my friend. You will be branded.

Posted By Brian : January 25, 2012 1:13 pm

Great piece, Greg. As you and I have discussed on the blogs, I also have a love-hate relationship to the Oscars (just your mention of the dull CAVALCADE makes my blood boil), but this year I must be immune– I did not even know the nominations were yesterday until my wife mentioned it. I’ve been seeing fewer contemporary movies in recent years (more out of a lack of time than anything), so I guess I don’t feel the same connection to it. Although I’m sure I’ll still watch the show.

Thanks, too, for mentioning those encyclopedia “yearly updates”– we had a World Book set, and we would get those every year for several years in the 70s and early 80s, and I was always curious to read the annual movie overviews.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : January 25, 2012 1:58 pm

Brian, I haven’t seen Cavalcade for so long now that all I can remember is the couple on the Titanic. I do know that of the nominees, I would have gone with I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang and if I could go with any movie from 1933, nominated or not, it would be King Kong.

My top two films for this year are Melancholia and Tree of Life. I was happy to see one get nominated but the other didn’t.

Posted By JeffH : January 25, 2012 2:55 pm

Brian-right on about CAVALCADE-like watching paint dry.

I also have a love-hate relationship with the Oscars: TERMS OF ENDEARMENT over THE RIGHT STUFF? FORREST GUMP over PULP FICTION? THE GREAT ZIEGFELD over DODSWORTH? The last few years have been more pleasant and I have to admit that I am torn this year-my two favorite films of 2011 are up for the most Oscars (HUGO and THE ARTIST) and while I loved HUGO, I am favoring THE ARTIST because I would love to see another silent film win Best Picture and it was so damn good!

Posted By Greg Ferrara : January 25, 2012 6:32 pm

I really want to see Calvalcade again, now. It probably doesn’t bode well that I can remember nothing about the story.

And I liked The Artist a lot, really I did. I am sick and tired of all the backlash against it, quite frankly. Seen plenty of folks online dismiss for variously weak reasons, primarily being that it isn’t truly representative of a silent film. First of all, it’s a modern movie playing with the idea of a silent film. If it were purely representational of a silent film, it would have no chance to offer anything new. Chinatown got some of the same reactions (I’m old enough to remember) in that it was a mish-mash, an unconvincing pastiche, blah, blah, blah. It came from people trying to prove how oh so smart they were and how dumb all these people are that didn’t know anything about noir. And now… well, we’ve forgotten all those idiots and Chinatown speaks for itself, much as The Artist does now and will continue to do.

Posted By David : January 25, 2012 8:03 pm

As someone living in Australia, I’m not really familiar with the mechanism by which Oscar nominees are decided on and voted for by Academy members. I’ve heard, over the years, that if members were lobbied/feted hard enough then the film being lobbied for stood a good chance of being nominated/voted for (a bit like selecting a city to host the Olympics). This, supposedly, explains the not infrequent, inexplicable final choices when it comes to actual winners.
If this theory is dead wrong, please feel free to explain the actual process (call me suspicious but I often feel that Oscar winners are not selected purely on merit).

Posted By Jenni : January 25, 2012 8:22 pm

I must also be getting immune to the Oscars, as I didn’t know the nominees had been announced. The only nominated film I saw was The Help, and am glad a few of its cast are nominees, however 2 of the ladies are going up against each other for best supporting actress. What I can’t stand about the show is the new production idea they added where past winners in the acting catagory stand on the stage in a semi-circle and gush and gush and gush about a certain nominee, who has to stand up from their seat in the theatre, and look all smiley-faced and humble. That lame-brained part of an already too long show needs to be given the hook! Oh, and Greg, skip Calvacade. I saw it 3 years ago, and paint drying on the wall would be more exciting.

Posted By dukeroberts : January 25, 2012 10:45 pm

David- You are fairly right about that. The Oscars are chosen by voters and there is always the possibility that they can be influenced by campaigning, by the swag they receive with their free screeners of the films and so on.

I remember reading about how Chill Wills lobbied hard for votes when he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor in The Alamo. He was great in the part, but people considered what he did tasteless. Not so these days.

Greg- The Oscars very often upset me too. The first Oscars that I can remember was the 1982 awards show when Ghandhi beat E.T. I was 8 years old and I was pissed. There have been several “prestige” pictures since the 80′s that have won Best Picture instead of movies that I thought should have won. Ordinary People might be fine, adult, sobering drama, but Raiders of the Lost Ark is infinitely more entertaining and in my mind “better”. The Last Emperor and Ghandhi are overlong and not as good as others nominated in their respective years, but they were more “Oscary”. Out of Africa? Really? The English Patient was the best movie that came out in 1996? Really? Titanic was better than every other movie that came out in 1997? I think not. The members of the Academy think very highly of themselves and their duty and they don’t want the Oscars sullied by too much middle-brow entertainment. They must make the noble choices for the nominations presented before them. Hence, The Reader was nominated for Best Picture in 2008 while neither The Dark Knight nor Wall*E were invited to the Big Dance. So….

I will watch in anticipation this year, as I do every year, and hope that the movie I want to win wins and I’ll get mad if it doesn’t, just like you, Greg. Go “The Artist”!

Posted By dukeroberts : January 25, 2012 11:40 pm

I haven’t seen The Help, Tree of Life or Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, all by design. However, I make a point of seeing the Best Picture nominees each year so now I guess I will see them. Over the years I did avoid seeing Brokeback Mountain and Precious, but did see The Reader and The Blind Side and wished I hadn’t.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : January 26, 2012 9:34 am

David, the Oscars are picked by those working in the industry. Generally speaking, they vote for what makes them feel good about themselves. So, a vote for Gandhi for Best Picture makes them feel like they’re making an important statement about India’s independence and Gandhi himself. They vote according to sentimentality, nostalgia and yes, lobbying. When they give Best Picture to something that most people would agree with, like, say a Casablanca or a Godfather, it’s usually just a blind stumble on their part.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : January 26, 2012 9:36 am

What I can’t stand about the show is the new production idea they added where past winners in the acting catagory stand on the stage in a semi-circle and gush and gush and gush about a certain nominee, who has to stand up from their seat in the theatre, and look all smiley-faced and humble.

Jenni, you have hit upon my most hated element of the show. I cannot believe, still, that anyone thought that was a good idea. I hate it so much. It’s so awkward and forced. My goodness, every year it happens I just start squirming and cringing. Please, someone make it stop! It’s been, what, three years now? That’s more than enough. Let’s never do it again!

Posted By Greg Ferrara : January 26, 2012 9:43 am

The first Oscars that I can remember was the 1982 awards show when Ghandhi beat E.T. I was 8 years old and I was pissed.

My choice that year would be The Verdict but, lawd yes, anything but Gandhi! Richard Attenborough has no feel for pacing and flow. His films just sort of lay there. Still kind of shocked that a director as clumsy and stiff as he won Best Director.

I loved Tree of Life and of the nominees, it would be my choice but I absolutely would support a win for The Artist as well. I have four movies to go of the nominees (The Help, Extremely Loud, War Horse and The Descendants. Probably see most in the next week or so.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : January 26, 2012 9:45 am

Oh, also, Ordinary People won for 1980, beating out the much better to my mind Raging Bull. Raiders of the Lost Ark was nominated for 1981 and lost to Chariots of Fire, a film I personally like very much but I’d probably have to concede that Raiders is the better film. However, my choice for that year would be neither. I’d go with Atlantic City. Raiders would be a close second.

Posted By Juana Maria : January 26, 2012 5:33 pm

Richard Harlan Smith & Greg Ferrara: You two are so silly! I love it! I know what this is all about; you are referrring to the time when George Campbell Scott refused the Oscar for his amazing performance as Gen. Patton. I saw that movie, it was much better than “The Dirty Dozen”, which Lee Marvin referred to as “a dummy movie made for dummies”. All right, maybe I’m a dummy but I just so happen to like “The Dirty Dozen”. Just like I stated awhile back in the blog about blow torches(anyone remember that article?)I stated:”Yes,I’m a girl and I like “The Dirty Dozen”! Of course, I would have to say it is because of the fine cast of actors and not for all the violence. I wanted to write how I love when character actors win oscars,Walter Brennan,Ernest Borgnine,Yul Bryner,James Coburn,Ben Johnson,Martin Landau,Lee Marvin, Jack Palance,Eli Wallach,and Anthony Quinn. I’m sure there are plenty of wonderful actors and actesses I didn’t list if you can think of a “character” actor/actoress I should have listed, please write about it! Oh, I still like “Olver!” better than “2001:a Space Oddyssey”. Also, “High Noon”(an oscar winner!) is my favorite movie, that and “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre”. I’m gonna say like “Linda Richman” of “Coffee Talk”,now..discuss.(Hand wave infront of face)Ha ha ha :D

Posted By Christopher : January 26, 2012 6:54 pm

I hope the Artist is a big splash at the oscars,but more so that much more people will get out and see it or rent it on DVD and therefore develop an interest in real classic and silent cinema.

Posted By dukeroberts : January 26, 2012 8:49 pm

Greg- I totally did screw up with the 1980 awards, didn’t I? Prior to writing it I was thinking Chariots of Fire but then made the error. My personal pick from 1980 would have been The Empire Strikes Back, but that’s just me. I’m kind of a populist. Of course, it wasn’t even nominated.

Posted By dukeroberts : January 26, 2012 8:52 pm

Christopher- I’m with you! Hopefully there will be at least a spike in the popularity of classic films and silents.

Posted By Tom S : January 27, 2012 2:57 am

I’d love it if The Artist inspired a renaissance in interest in silent movies, but I don’t know that I’m optimistic about it- I don’t think Mel Brooks’ Silent Movie did, and honestly I thought that was both a better and perversely a more respectful work.

Actually, of the newly minted silent movie fans I’ve met, the most common entry point seems to be Metropolis- it’s such a visionary and didactic work that one doesn’t need to know a lot about the grammar of silent film to get absorbed in it, and it’s so obviously a work of great power that it inspires people to look for more. For me, The Artist was certainly easy to follow, but it doesn’t have that elemental and overwhelming flood of images that makes you want to seek out more.

Posted By Jenni : January 27, 2012 8:19 am

It was in the news about a group of disgruntled moviegoers who were demanding their money back when they found out that The Artist, the movie they were viewing, was silent! I think that idiotic demand by a group of movie goers doesn’t bode well for a renewed interest in Silent movies.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : January 27, 2012 3:05 pm

Richard Harlan Smith & Greg Ferrara: You two are so silly!

Richard’s sillier. It’s his goatee.

And Juana Maria, your favorite movie, High Noon famously lost to the DeMille snoozer, The Greatest Show on Earth. At least Zinneman and Cooper won for it, though. My pick would have been the un-nominated Singin’ in the Rain.

Also, Treasure of the Sierra Madre is, quite simply, a masterpiece. That it lost to Hamlet still stings.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : January 27, 2012 3:07 pm

Duke – The Empire Strikes Back, easily the best of all the Star Wars films. Agreed, it should have been nominated for Picture and Director (Irving Kirshner) but I still would have gone with Raging Bull.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : January 27, 2012 3:09 pm

Christopher, Duke, Tom and Jenni – I agree that The Artist probably won’t renew anything more than a short term spurt in silent movies but it may strike a chord with just a few people who then discover the joys of Murnau, Pabst, Chaplin, Keaton, DeMille, Vidor and so on. That’s all we can really ask anyway. Most will view it as a novelty and move on.

Posted By swac : January 27, 2012 5:24 pm

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is hands down my favourite movie of all time, but I can’t feel too bad about it losing to Hamlet, even though I think Huston’s is the better film. TotSM was probably too dark for the Academy voters, and where’s the love interest? (Although those are two of the reasons why I love it so much.)

Posted By Tom S : January 27, 2012 5:26 pm

@Greg

Getting back to an earlier post, it pains me a little to hear “Also, Treasure of the Sierra Madre is, quite simply, a masterpiece. That it lost to Hamlet still stings.” even though I actually agree that Treasure is the superior movie- because I also really love Olivier’s Hamlet, and I feel as though it has an unfair and unwarranted reputation as middlebrow, draggy garbage. Unfortunately, the very process of pitting one against the other sort of automatically makes people pick favorites, despite the fact that in both goals and methodology the movies are so different that they might as well be different media, and thus creates a sort of slobs vs snobs narrative any time something with literary or highbrow cachet wins.

Basically, I don’t want to see poor Hamlet lumped in with the Driving Miss Daisies of the world.

Posted By Juana Maria : January 27, 2012 6:53 pm

Swac & Tom & anyone reading this: I love “the Treasure of the Sierra Madre”!I love the perfomances of everyone in that picture. A true classic,and might I add chosen as one of the Essentials awhile back too. Take that “Hamlet”,spooky,creepy Shakespeare with men prancing around in tights. OK,there was a time and place for that sot of thing long ago. I still don’t know why Curly Bill Brocius and Johnny Ringo and the other Cowboys didn’t make “cat-calls” and wolf whistle more in the movie “Tombstone”? I do not unserstand why they thought Billy Zane’s speech was so great. I guess I’ll never truly know. I don’t know why more Wasterns don’t when OScars. It is so unfair!!!

Posted By jbryant : February 1, 2012 7:06 pm

Greg: Zinnemann didn’t win for HIGH NOON; John Ford took it home for THE QUIET MAN. Zinnemann did win the following year for FROM HERE TO ETERNITY though, and then again in ’66 for A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : February 1, 2012 7:59 pm

jbryant – Aargh! I knew that! Hell, I know all the Oscars. I hate making a mistake like that. Thanks for the catch.

Posted By dukeroberts : February 23, 2012 11:32 pm

I just read this article on the Smithsonian web site.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/movies/2012/01/the-never-ending-tussle-between-box-office-hits-and-award-winners/?utm_source=smithsoniantravandcult&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=201202-Travel

Posted By Greg Ferrara : February 24, 2012 12:01 am

The writer seems to be of the “I like the blockbusters better, myself” mindset. Critics give good and bad reviews to a wide variety of movies, including Avatar. A lot of people assume that the big blockbusters always get savaged by critics and the art films always get praised but often, the most popular movies also have great reviews behind them.

MovieMorlocks.com is the official blog for TCM. No topic is too obscure or niche to be excluded from our film discussions. And we welcome your comments on our blogs and bloggers.