June
5Why Downey is a Sure Thing for a Non-Oscar
Oscar season is still many months away, but at this time of year I find myself keeping a non-Oscar list. My list consists of those performers who will surely be excluded from Oscar contention by the Academy for one key reason: They’re in a hit movie.Robert Downey Jr. is a “definite” on my non-Oscar list. He was a superb “Iron Man,” but his movie already has rolled past the $520 million mark worldwide. Oops, a hit!
That means the Oscar probably will go to Benicio Del Toro, the star of “Che.” Few people will ever get to see “Che,” which, in its present 4½ hour form, won a few critical accolades at Cannes. Academy voters will like that.
If you’re skeptical, remember what happened last year to the “The Bourne Ultimatum” and Matt Damon. Academy voters don’t like success.
Another sure-fire non-Oscar winner: Sarah Jessica Parker and “Sex and the City.” This show has a triple whammy: Not only is it a hit, but it also was based on a TV show. And the New York Times trashed it.
A generation ago, Oscar voters were tolerant of success -- witness such best picture winners as “The Godfather,” “The Sting,” and, god forbid, “The Sound of Music.” However, a curious bipolar behavior has set in lately. Members of the Academy serve dutifully as professionals in the industry throughout the year, going about their tasks of producing, acting, editing, composing, etc. Then Oscar time sets in and they all think they’re members of a festival jury. “Art” is in and “commerce” is out.
Lately, several important studio executives have met with the Academy to review these trends and also propose possible changes in the Oscar show. They advocated a tighter show, fewer awards and a greater stress on entertainment value.
They hit a stone wall. The bipolar Academy is sticking to its ways.
Here’s the problem, however: The Board of the Academy is committed to raising money for a formidable museum that could cost more than $300 million.
In trying to raise this money, the Academy finds itself facing a community that is troubled by its resistance to change -- witness its clunky Oscar show.
Bottom line: Downey won’t get an Oscar. But the Academy may have a tough time raising money for its museum.
Subscribe to Peter Bart's Blog Feed
With all due respect Peter, it is Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Not Academy of Box Office Dollars. For that kind of recognition, people can enjoy the MTV popcorn awards.
Posted by: Ian Peterson | 6/10/2008 10:57:14 AM
If anything Downey Jr. will get nominated for The Sololist which comes out in Dec. How was no one mentioned this? Its pure oscar bait. True story, dircted by Joe Wright, Jamie Foxx, uplifting. Granted Downey doesn't have the showy role, but i am sure there will be a big push for him.
Posted by: nemo | 6/10/2008 2:39:28 AM
It's not enough to disagree with you, Mr. Bart, the obviously emotionally invested commenters have to insult you too.
Posted by: David | 6/8/2008 11:15:32 PM
The Grammy''s bow down to commerce. The Oscar''s do not. We get it. But, the fact is the Oscar''s can be snobs. "We will reward a good performance when it merits it." Really? Tell that to Bill Murray when he got beat on the ham-fisted nothingness of Mystic River. (cue helicopter shot of Sean Penn over-emoting.) Oscar does not reward the comic performance, and their little lame argument attempt last year spearheaded by John C. Riley seems to say -- well, do a serious role and we''ll consider you. Okay -- so does a dramatic actor need to do a comedic role so we can consider him worthy? Cuz on that logic -- Meryl Streep''s gotta give back all those Oscars because of She-Devil. If you play a great comic role, why do you need to play a dramatic one to get nominated? That sounds suspiciously like a body-of-work argument -- which we are all told is NEVER a factor. It''s also saying that your comic role was, well, just mugging. Show us the drama, because dramatic actors never have stock facial expressions they fall back on, conversely.
Let''s also address poster Daniel''s tired variation of the actor is just "playing themselves" argument. There''s only one test -- do I believe the reality I am watching on screen. Am I carried away. Do I have emotional responses. Thoughts.
If you can make audiences do this without donning a wig, a hunchback, a hack accent -- then you win. You''ve created a believable reality. The other stuff is for oohs and ahhs of the people who really don''t understand the goal of the craft and continually think playing retarded in some form is difficult.
I mean -- "The English Patient"? Will anyone be watching that dreary soap opera ("I died a long time ago") years from now -- or will they be watching Trainspotting, Scream, Basquiat, Fargo, Dorf on the Diamond, Breaking the Waves or Cable Guy, from the same year?
So it''s not only commerce that''s held against you, it''s comedy. That the second part of the academy''s snobbery. Jack Black got double-whammied on that for "School of Rock." Years from now someone will be sitting in a film class marveling at Black''s comedic touch combined with musical acumen, and the ability to make a slightly ridiculous reality come to life, and go -- how did this not get nominated? And Ernst Lubitsch will whisper from above "you tell me" ...
Posted by: Big Bomb | 6/8/2008 5:06:11 PM
The Oscars don't exist to reflect public opinion, but to reward excellence. If the general public wants to see their opinions reflected at an awards show, there are many others that members of the public can vote for, such as the People's Choice Awards or MTV Movie Awards. Also, the members of the Academy have often proven that they're happy to reward financially successful movies when those financially successful movies deserve to be rewarded. And I think we all know what "a tighter show, fewer awards and a greater stress on entertainment value"? would mean: it would mean that those artists who are integral to a movie's quality, such as composers, editors and cinematographers, wouldn't get the chance to be celebrated like everyone else. I think it's outrageous that anyone with a passion for the filmmaking business should actually encourage the Academy to trivialize its awards show in such a way by implying that the fact that it is "sticking to its ways"? is actually a bad thing. Every time I hear someone complain that the Oscars are boring because they haven't seen any of the nominated movies, I have to suppress the urge to tell them that they should start watching better movies. Furthermore, the nominations are announced more than a month ahead of the show, giving anyone who is interested in enjoying the show enough time to seek out the nominees. The fact that the Academy is willing to risk a lower profile and lower ratings by taking into consideration the widest-possible range of movies and then basing their choices on artistic merit rather than box office numbers is something to be championed, not ridiculed. And with that in mind, Robert Downey Jr. should have been nominated last year for his brilliant work in "Zodiac".
Posted by: Remy | 6/7/2008 6:23:03 AM
Hm, how about Meryl Streep in 2006?
Posted by: Walter K. | 6/6/2008 1:38:29 PM
LIZ- You know how Johnny Depp's nomination for "Pirates of the Caribbean" factors into this? It doesn't. That's why Peter would never mention it. Because, you know, his central thesis is both specious and tenous and showing any awareness of its limitations would cause it to collapse entirely. I'm hoping Peter will eventually clarify why wildly popular movies are always nominated in technical categories, the animated category and, really, in a dozen other categories. I'd also like a clarification on multiple nominations for folks like George Clooney and Leonardo DiCaprio and Will Smith in movies both popular and otherwise. You'd think if those snobby Oscar voters hate popular movies so much, they'd also hate popular actors. Peter would say that Will Smith's lack of nomination for "I Am Legend" proves his point, ignoring that "Pursuit of Happyness" was an out-of-the-box smash and yet Smith was still nominated. Sigh.
Posted by: Daniel | 6/6/2008 1:25:49 PM
How does Johnny Depp''s nomination for "Pirates of the Carribean" factor into this? Seems like Downey Jr.''s in a similar position this year.
Posted by: Liz | 6/6/2008 12:53:44 PM
Peter --- have you lost your mind?! Absolutely lost it?!!!
And to the commenter "Rich" who posted as a fan claiming to be bored by the Oscar ceremony because he didn't recognize the "average movie goers." The did you even see the Best Picture nominees this year? Five great films. None of them were obscure either. Just because you didn't see them doesn't mean the rest of the genuine cinephiles have to cater to your tastes.
Posted by: Jay | 6/6/2008 12:01:46 PM
Downey will be nominated for Tropic Thunder.
Posted by: Herman Scobie | 6/6/2008 11:53:44 AM
I''ve got to credit you, Peter, for one of the most brilliantly reductive arguments I''ve ever seen in online (and bloggers are *nothing* if not simplistic and reductive). It saves you the trouble of ever having to analyze anything EVER again.
If Robert Downey Jr. doesn''t get an Oscar nomination? It *must* be because Oscar voters don''t like popular movies. Not because his performance was a marvelously snarky variation of Downey''s general screen persona and not really all that much ACTING at all.
And if Matt Damon didn''t get an Oscar last year for the "Bourne" movie, it *must* be because Oscar voters don''t like success -- never mind that "The Bourne Ultimatum" dominated the technical categories at last year''s Oscars -- and not because he was playing a variation on a character he''d played twice previously.
Did Shia LaBeouf not get an Oscar nomination last year because of the success of Transformers? Will he be denied an Oscar nomination for Indy 4 for the exact same reason?
Might "Don''t Mess With the Zohan" be more embraced by Oscar voters if it tanks this week? Clearly, Adam Sandler must be rooting for the movie''s failure. Then again, Sandler''s done movies in the past that seemed like Oscar bait, but they didn''t get enough attention because, um, they weren''t successful.
Since your argument doesn''t go an iota deeper than "Oscar voters don''t like success, therefore actors in successful movies don''t get Oscars," your readers have nothing else to go on...
Posted by: Daniel | 6/6/2008 11:46:01 AM
Peter..
You are so right on the button. I am a fan..a movie goer..or as some would like to say..one of the many who pay the bills. I TRIED to watch last years academy awards, and i realized why i have stopped watching it in the past few years.BORING!! ok if that is what the Academy want..fine..but do not expect the advertisers to buy it or the viewers to watch it, Go have it in a corner somewhere and pat all yourselves on the back. Hey that is fine with mer.
I agree it should not be all about blockbusters..but give me a break. You ask many of those actors in those movies..and they ahve put in some hard work, and many gave fine performances.
I wonder how much of it ...is throwing rocks at glass houses?
How many of those were involved with the big blockbusters in the past..and were passed over by the academy, so when it came there time.. they passed them ovet..a big "Tit-for'Tat"
Hollywood needs to understand we the average movie goer has fewer dollars today. We want to spend out hard earned money on that which we will enjoy, and hey if we see a movie that we enjoyed up for an award, we will proably watch it more. so we can root for our favorite. Hey i understand..it's the Academys vote..not mine. I can only vote with my wallet, and my viewing time.
Thank you.
Posted by: Rich | 6/6/2008 9:04:13 AM
It''s well observed by many, I believe, that whether you''re writing your posts here, or your columns in the printed editions of Variety, or even on your TV program, you tend to look down at anything that''s art, quality and of culture. You always make fun of film critics and once you asked them to stand behind what everyone else will consider trash, because this is what the audience wants. I wonder, what''s your role really in this profession? Do you realize what your responsibility as the chief editor of one of the most respected film publications in America requires of you ?
On what bases, I wonder, you were chosen a year ago or so as the head of the jury in Karlovy Vary film festival? how did you manage to judge films there?
The other day you commented on a critic's view as saying she needs a better editor. Don't you think, from this same point of view, that some chief editors needs a better publihsers?
It''s a matter of respect to the American cinema itself and to a huge portion of public to try to understand that while you prefer commercial hits, you should also be proud of those films that are trying to say something different, useful and serious in an artistic form of story telling. I don't see the Academy doing any wrong by thinking higher than those who hold ideas like yours. While Hollywood is it's not asked at all to produce only films like 'Letters From Iwo Jima', 'The Visitor', 'Once', it should always be encouraged to attend this kind of films which are the real pulse of our lives. Culture, Mr. Bart, is good.
Posted by: Marj. | 6/6/2008 8:54:55 AM
I'm one of the few people who have not seen "Iron Man." I plan on seeing it fairly soon, but from the looks of it, the performances don't appear to be "Oscar-worthy." I think this is mainly a matter of accessibility to the subject matter, in the sense that the more sci-fi or fantasy-like it is, the less likely people will view the performances in it as worthy of consideration. Has anyone ever been nominated in such a movie in recent memory? Ian McKellan in "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" alone? Has anyone ever won? Contrary to what may be popular opinion, the Academy members take their votes seriously. It's harder for them to relate to something that they don't consider as serious as their votes--and in the case of "Return of the King," they had the other two movies as a set-up. They knew what they were dealing with when it was released.
Posted by: Prim | 6/6/2008 7:15:10 AM
Peter,
First rule of blogging: if you have nothing to say, don't post. I've wondered in the past why your editorials in Variety are even called 'editorials' when they are generally nothing but pieces of fluff no doubt thrown off in a matter of minutes. This blog makes your so-called editorials look like pieces of Pulitzer genius.
I used to think Nikke Finke was being harsh, but she's right to pull you up for this. Variety deserves better and so do its readers. If the launch of your blog is newsworthy enough to be a topline item on variety.com then it had better actually bring some news to the table.
Keeping this updated is soon going to turn into a grind. Do yourself (and what loyal readership you may have happened upon) a favour and bring some effort to it.
Unfiltered? Unwritten.
Posted by: Appalled | 6/5/2008 3:51:00 PM