By refusing to broadcast Honorary Awards for the second year running, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences is blowing a raspberry at the luminaries of film history. Perhaps we should return the favor.
by Joel Bocko
This is not a clever “Top 10” list of reasons why not to watch the popular broadcast this Sunday. There are many reasons to ignore, criticize, or make fun of the Academy Awards, but right now I’m only interested in one. That said, a brief bit of background may be in order.
ORIGINS AND INTENTIONS
About eighty-five years ago, the Academy was established as a studio-run guild – the producers were seeking to stem trade union growth within the film industry. The awards ceremony was one of the group’s earliest gestures, so from its very formation there was a top-down, conformist nature to the awards, an element of condescension as the bigwigs patted their underlings on the head. Though the members themselves were voters, votes were cast within a context created and facilitated by the industry’s elite.
Over the years, for better or worse, the Academy has become, if not a beloved institution at least a widely influential and famous organization. Its actions are paid attention to – and the ripples produced by the Academy Awards can ultimately have a tsunami effect on the public’s perception of movies and the movie business. Over time, the Awards ceremony has, in addition to honoring the favored films of a particular year, established and maintained a vital link between different periods in its own history.
HOLLYWOOD HISTORY
Through occasionally cumbersome but nonetheless well-intentioned and often enjoyable montages, and more importantly through the presence of living and deceased legends and icons on the ceremony’s stage and screen, past Academy events clearly implied some continuity between cinema’s past, present, and, presumably, its future.
Certainly there are questionable undertones to these gestures – oftentimes the present does not live up to the past (do latter-day celebrities deserve to ride their predecessor’s coattails?); on the other hand, history is perhaps being over-idealized in the Academy’s gauzy nostalgia.
And yet ultimately these tributes are important and valuable – particularly the Honorary Awards, which often rectify past oversights or snubs (think Alfred Hitchcock or Orson Welles, neither of whom ever won Best Director). In an environment where intense marketing, profit margins, and the hype machine determine what “matters” to the show’s viewers, a space has been created for the vital traditions and accomplished figures of film history, many of whom were unjustly ignored by the Academy in their prime.
NO HONOR
Hindsight is 20/20 – one reason the roll call of such trophies is more illustrious than a list of actors and filmmakers awarded for contemporary films. Look at 2011, for example. Honorary Oscar recipients include historian Kevin Brownlow, actor Eli Wallach, and filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard (arguably the greatest living director). They are bound to outshine just about anyone else holding a trophy at night’s end.
The same is true of Thalberg Award recipient Francis Ford Coppola, responsible for some of Hollywood’s greatest triumphs – you’d think if anyone deserved center stage on the town’s signature night, it would be him.
Yet all of these people have been shunted out of the spotlight in the interests of a broadcast increasingly focused on being “hip” and “of the moment”: Brownlow, Wallach, and Coppola were honored at a private ceremony last November. (Godard, rightly, ignored the self-important yet condescending event.)
In 2011, for the second year running, the Honorary Awards will not be included in the Academy Awards broadcast. Presumably, this is so the show’s producers can liberate more space for corny and instantly dated jokes, bad musical numbers, and appearances by starlets and celebrities who will be probably be forgotten within the limited lifetime of the ignored, elderly Honorees.
The irony is extreme. With the advent of Netflix, the Criterion Collection, and the internet, the classics have become more accessible than ever – now is the perfect time to introduce home audiences to the wonders of cinematic history. Instead, the Academy has decided to flip off the past – its own history, as well as that of the industry and the art form it ostensibly honors.
TUNING OUT
My own history with the Academy Awards goes back pretty far. I started following them in the spring of 1991, when I was 7 years old, too young to have seen most of the films nominated but fascinated by the process nonetheless. I read books on the Academy and casually memorized the Best Picture winners of every year. To this day, if someone names a year I can tell them instantly what won – an amusing party trick particularly popular with those who don’t have any particular interest in the medium.
I’ve watched every single broadcast, either live or via VHS tape the following morning, for twenty years, even last year when the Honorary Oscars were first axed from the show. But not this time. If anyone wants to start a petition or spread the word, I’ll sign on…but of course I doubt it will make much difference. My personal boycott is less an effort to change anything than an individual statement: enough is enough.
Any institution which ignores or disrespects its own history – especially when that history is far more bountiful than the present – merits only contempt and scorn. Despite its troubled history and mixed legacy, the Academy Awards has served as an intermittent beacon, a reminder to its millions of viewers that the motion picture medium is an art form, one with a rich and powerful legacy. This coming Sunday, all is dark – the beacon will be turned off.
And so will my TV set.
Well said Joel.
Whatever reservations one has over main event winners of Cannes, Berlinale or Venice Biennale (that they’re all properly humble ‘film festivals’ helps), they are much less synthetic in their celebration of cinematic excellence.
Very nice Joel.
Your criticism is a much more important and valid one than an attack on opinions or populism or market forces.
I think you’re right that they may want to present a world of cinema that is young and fresh and always (and only) looking forward. There is also the possibility that those tuning in may wonder who Godard is, a lack of exposure to what can be enjoyed only exacerbated by this decision.
Joel, I agree with essentially everything you say about the Academy’s ill-advised decision to relegate these honorary awards to a separate event. Their PR people can rationalize all they want about how this change allows them to bestow more honorary awards each year. I don’t buy it. As you have suggested, I believe AMPAS wants to boost its ratings by appealing to a younger demographic and also by shortening the show — and I think the motivation boils down to ad revenues and a “better brand” designed to accumulate more profits for the industry.
I guess honoring the past just isn’t marketable enough to the most desirable demographic.
Where I disagree with you is that I won’t be boycotting the event. You see, I’ve been cynical about the Academy Awards since the late 1960s. Practically from the start I began to recognize the facades, hypocrisies and paradoxes that accompany this institution. This annual (and ongoing) spectacle often is crude and vulgar despite efforts to maintain a veneer of quality and noble purpose.
In other words, it’s pretty much a microcosm of the Western way of life.
But I’ve always been fascinated by Hollywood and in particular, the Oscars, from a sort of anthropological perspective. To me, it’s kitsch. It’s something I do instead of following the NFL, the Super Bowl, or NCAA basketball’s “March madness.”
Maybe it’s time someone started a Facebook page on this issue. I’m not suggesting that the AMPAS board of governors would respond as readily as did NBC’s Saturday Night Live when Betty White was recruited by popular demand to host the show. But it would be a way to quantify the amount of discontent on the matter and bring it to the Academy’s attention.
I hate the Oscars, yet I’m also tired of all of us complaining about them. Its starting to dawn on me that the Oscars are like the super pretty girl none of us can get with. She goes to the prom with Mr Golden Statue Man while we all stay home whining about being rejected and ignored. I’m just as guilty as anyone else when it comes to bashing the event… yet I will never do it again. We all sound like elitist brats. I’m over the whining and bitching that has taken place. I’m not really attacking this particular piece which is well written and argued. Just the accumulation of vitriol over these past few weeks which has grown extremely tired and boring. Joel brings up many good points and they are all valid, but the Oscars is nothing that should be evaluated too deeply or worthy of special attention. On a side note I don’t even consider Godard a top five living director (maybe top ten depending on who is still breathing). He made some really good films like Contempt, Breathless, Alphaville, and Band Of Outsiders, but the last oh so many years, I would describe him like Harry Moseby once did Eric Rohmer…
He isn’t the greatest living director, Maurizio, but he’s in the top 5. I’d have Yoshida and Rivette as the only ones ahead of him. Then Resnais, Bertolucci and Oshima.
Lynch, Polanski, Herzog, Marker, Scorsese, Malick, and Coppola.
I’d have Godard ahead of them. And ahead of Jancso, Davies, Diaz, Haneke, Menzel, Wong, Lee, Polanski, Leigh, Wajda, Von Trier and any others.
Marker over JL Godard is high comedy, bested only by you mentioning (in a roundabout way) that he hasn’t made a ‘great film’ since ’65 or so.
I never said Marker was better. I just listed directors that could possibly be in the conversation. I’m not sure Coppola is better either though his 4 best films are all 5 star masterpieces. As for Godard I just listed my four favorite movies without a specific timeline. Where I said anything specific about when Godard lost me is not mentioned (though it would not be in the 60’s as I also like Weekend and Pierre Le Fou). The only thing that is high comedy is you…
Weekend and Pierrot le fou are both 60s films.
Thanks Ed.
I saw Godard’s EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF (1979) recently, and for me it’s a masterpiece, along with about 3 or 5 others he’s had post-NUMERO DUEX (with that one also being a masterpiece)
Jamie, Every Man For Himself was the first post-60s Godard I ever saw, and it triggered my exploration of his later work. It’s a great one indeed, a funny and poignant examination of sex, commerce and political disappointment. Really, Godard’s whole 80s run is fantastic, along similar lines. Godard completely reinvented himself during his late 60s and early 70s political film period, and then his 70s video work, and he emerged in the 80s with a wholly revitalized aesthetic and sensibility. Pretty remarkable, really.
Also agreed about Numero deux, a sadly overlooked masterpiece that’s completely unlike any other film.
“Pierre De Plume said,”In other words, it’s pretty much a microcosm of the Western way of life.But I’ve always been fascinated by Hollywood and in particular, the Oscars, from a sort of anthropological perspective. To me, it’s kitsch…”
I guess Pierre De Plume’s comment sums up my opinion about the Oscars@ and place it in that “proverbial nutshell.”
Maurizo Roca said,”I hate the Oscars, yet I’m also tired of all of us complaining about them. Its starting to dawn on me that the Oscars are like the super pretty girl none of us can get with. She goes to the prom with Mr Golden Statue Man while we all stay home whining about being rejected and ignored…”
This is a Omg…Laugh Out-Loud 😆 comment…I think that the Oscars@ is just part Of a “game” that “some people” play in the “Western world”…Sort Of, like holidays…we celebrate them even though we know that they only lead to commercialism.
Such as: Before and After Christmas, Thanksgiving and President day sales etc, etc, etc…(What do these sales have to do with the holidays…Now, the question is what do the Oscars@ have to do with films? Well, it’s all about commercialism…after all is said, and done it leads to more DVDs sales, and opportunities for the winners (directors, actors, actresses, etc, etc, etc…) that clutch that Oscars at the end Of the night…to be offered additional scripts and work.
Personally, I like to take a look [that don’t mean watch…] at the Oscars@ because so many of my fellow bloggers, and friends discuss these films in the blogosphere and Offline leading up to this event. However, the Oscars@ don’t determine what films that I will watch or purchase.
DeeDee 😉
There are numerous reasons why I won’t be watching.
1 The time difference. I refuse to stay up into the early hour watching what are, in many ways, foregone conclusions, and which even when they are not, hold no interest. Hence I don’t watch the BAFTAs, GGs or any other ceremony either.
2 The nomination process is deeply flawed, the foreign language category particularly, as well as reminding us of who should have been nominated if the AMPAS weren’t so zenophobic to anything not in English.
3 It ruins careers even for the winners, at least as serious artists. It may buy them fame and a place in the comformity house of the accepted, but it stops them making brave choices and turns them into subservient creatures. So many careers become less adventurous after receiving one. Then look at the rollcall. Hilary Swank a two time winner when Emily Watson, Julianne Moore and Samantha Morton, to name but three, have none. Tom Hanks a two time winner when Ralph Fiennes, Edward Norton, Robert Downey Jnr and Kevin Bacon have none.
4 As Joel says, the disrespect for anything to do with history, the awful obituary montage in which anyone slightly modern gets a round of applause, but Bergman or Antonioni barely get a hand clap. Not to mention the moving of the honorary awards away from the limelight to allow another 30 minutes of focusing on startlet’s clothes and fake sincerity as they or their beloved fail to win.
5 As I have always said, the AMPAS and other awarding bodies are merely the Salieris of the modenr era, representing mediocrities everywhere at the expense of mavericks and those who refuse to conform – how many Oscars did Von Stroheim, Von Sternberg, Kubrick, Sturges or Welles win, pray, as opposed to Ford or Capra, who showed the America they were interested (ie. a fake one).
6 The obsession with impersonation. Look at how many of the Best Actress and Actor winners of the last ten years have been based on real people – Eidht Piaf, Elizabeth II, June Carter, Aileen Wuernos, Virginia Woolf, Harvey Milk, Idi Amin, Truman Capote, Ray Charles, with probably George VI to come. This doesn’t even count the numerous nominees. Half of the performance is in mimicry, so performances started from scratch are lost.
I remember David Lean saying that being nominated doesn’t matter but that when you lose it matters, and that rather sums it up. They are a perfect microcosm of what is wrong with the 21st century, with its obsession with celebrity, glitz, glamour and artificiality. At least when it started out it wasn’t televised or broadcast, they just slapped each other on the back in private, now they make the world suffer it.
If only someone had the integrity to win an award they didn’t deserve and summoned up the real worthy winner onto the stage. One recalls Tom Hanks telling Nigel Hawthorne he should have won for The Madness of King George. Better to do that on the podium, Tom. It would endear them far more to the viewers who actually know anything about cinema.
Anyone taking it seriously is someone with absolutely no appreciation of cinema, only appreciation of glamour.
Anyone taking it seriously is someone with absolutely no appreciation of cinema, only appreciation of glamour.
Yeah, that about sums it up. The Oscars never had any credibility to begin with, but now that they’ve shunted the Honorary awards off the broadcast, there’s really no reason to watch. It would’ve been nice to see a montage of Godard clips during the Oscars, even if JLG himself would never show up, but of course that would be a minute of the ceremony that would be lost on a lot of viewers who never watch a foreign film or, indeed, a film other than the biggest new blockbusters.
Indeed, Ed. Indeed. As Salieri said..
“I represent mediocrities everywhere. I am their champion.”
“My own history with the Academy Awards goes back pretty far. I started following them in the spring of 1991, when I was 7 years old, too young to have seen most of the films nominated but fascinated by the process nonetheless. I read books on the Academy and casually memorized the Best Picture winners of every year. To this day, if someone names a year I can tell them instantly what won – a amusing party trick particularly popular with those who don’t have any particular interest in the medium.”
Joel, I share every count with you here, though being much older I began my ill-advised fascination with this annual rat-race back in 1968, watching Sir Oliver Reed’s “Oliver!” win the Best Picture prize over “The Lion in Winter” and “Romeo and Juliet” and never looking back. I’ve hosted a party (in most recent years more accurately, a “get-together”) and just recently engaged in a long analysis of this year’s awards with Dennis Polifroni that Jason Giampietro plans to post at the site as a yout tube later this week. I’ve suffered many disappointments over the years, but my anger was self-inflicted, caused by my foolish infatuation with a silly ritual that inflicts far more damage than good on the system, and as you note constitutes sure kind of artistic blasphemy.
Yet, maybe in a masochistic sort of way, it provides low-grade entertainment for the drama queen (of which I am one) and looking at the bright side it provides the a kind of discipline or starting point to engage in some interesting cinematic discourse. The winners are sometimes deserved ones, but with any contest that will always be the case.
The best way to take it is to never take it seriously; that way you can forget it all in a day or two.
Extraordinary piece here!
“If only someone had the integrity to win an award they didn’t deserve and summoned up the real worthy winner onto the stage. ”
Aha! As you may recall, this (sort of) happened once (albeit at the Golden Globes) when Ving Rhames called Jack Lemmon to the stage and gave Lemmon his award. I’m not sure Rhames truly understood the significance of the moment, but it was fun to watch.
Back in the late 1960s/early 1970s, when the “counterculture” surfaced as a palpable movement, film artists were more likely to eschew the underlying premise of this stuff and state so publicly. Since then, though, most of them have fallen into line and decided to play the game — many of them opting instead to alternate between making commercial films for big bucks so they can afford to take on projects (“art”) to make themselves feel better about it.
But, to paraphrase Michelangelo Antonioni, the secret of happiness lies in one’s ability to adapt.
“But, to paraphrase Michelangelo Antonioni, the secret of happiness lies in one’s ability to adapt.”
Indeed Pierre, indeed. And this is precisely where those who can find some entertainment with this each and every year (as you and I do)
For all the Oscars’ artistic slights and crass promotions and politicizing, thy stilll over the years have commanded the begrudging attention and respect of amny who wouldn’t sit in the same room as some of the voters. In Pauline Kael’s “1001 Nights at the Movies” the great critic makes reference to the winning of Oscars no less than about 300 times during the coaurse of the book to embellish the film’s historical and artistic standing. I think many use them as a kind of concensus building.
If you take it all with a grain of salt, I think it can still provide it’s moments. And I think it’s less an infatuation with glamour (as Mr. Fish suggests) than with competition. The problem is that in recent years everyone seems to know who will win, and there are few surprises.
The last time I paid serious attention was 2007, supporting TWBB over NCFOM (it won for score and acting but I so badly wanted PTA to win). So in that respect, I agree with what Frank says, “it can still provide it’s moments….it’s less an infatuation with glamour than with competition.”
Dualist, 2007 was the only time I really watched a Oscar broadcast for any extended period of time. Those two films you mention piqued my interest. Still nominating Juno over stuff like Assassination of Jesse James, Eastern Promises and Zodiac is telling.
You just knew they’d go weak on the knees and award Diabolicody.
I can’t remember precisely when I gave up on the Oscars– perhaps it was when Ron Howard beat out Ridley Scott and Robert Altman for best director. Perhaps it was when LOTR swept the awards (not for the first film, which was okay, but the third, which was boring as hell), reminding the odd spectre of “Star Wars” losing out to “Annie Hall”, of all things. Perhaps it was even when Scorsese finally got his Susan Lucci trophy, thus belatedly righting one of the many wrongs the Academy has piled up over the years. I didn’t watch last year, but I thought it was nice that Kathryn Bigelow finally broke through that old glass ceiling by scoring a win for female directors, though let’s face it, you can’t get a more masculine movie than “The Hurt Locker”.
At a certain point, you just give up on the whole idea of awards, to begin with. Even all the respected festivals like Cannes are mostly meaningless when it comes down to the paperweights they hand out every year– all that really matters are the films they choose to exhibit. Especially nowadays in an age where media has become so democratized and the need for these traditional monopolies of cinematic authority are increasingly obsolete, we don’t really need to know what the preferred choices of insiders’ peers are, anymore.
We know our own tastes. That’s all anybody really needs.
Joel, as angry… or at least confrontational. I love it.
Well said Joel, and knowing your fondness for the Oscars (that you mention in this piece) this argument is even stronger; you gave them countless ‘outs’. At a certain point you just have to say “Enough”.
When one loves film as much as most around here do you don’t really need an academy telling you what to seek out and what’s ‘good’.
No, I don’t tend to seek out the Guild of Village Idiots when asking for directions.
yep, exactly.
At this time of year I always feel really swamped by the conventional wisdom that the Oscars matter. Thanks for this great piece — articulates a lot of my own feelings.
If I may, linked below is another interesting perspective on the relevance and meaning of the Oscars. I think Sasha Stone’s piece complements Joel’s thorough knowledge, accomplished writing, and insightful commentary:
http://www.awardsdaily.com/2011/02/who-cares-about-the-oscars/#comments-wrap
Pierre: Thanks so much for post Sasha’s sensible and persuasive essay here. I will say as much at Awards Daily in the comments section during the course of the day. I think she sizes up what they are all about, conceding they are not for critics or even for the best film or performances of any given year. Working within those parameters from the outset, I think it’s easier to accept how they define the film industry and the knee-jerk reactions that may spur on a vote for a specific film and performance. Leave it to Ms. Stone to bring sanity to the often expressed outrage.
You’re welcome, Sam.
I can’t help but recall that one of Old Hollywood’s most revered figures — Katharine Hepburn — waited more than 40 years before making an appearance at the Oscars. Even then, she showed up not to announce the winner of one of the competitive races but, rather, to present an honorary award to veteran producer Lawrence Weingarten. My point is that, if Mr. Bocko and others decide not to switch on their TV sets come February 27th, they’ll be in good company.
I will watch again this year as like every other year will applaud some of the choices, while deriding others.
Good discussion, which I’m just catching up with now (I was away from a computer for a few days). As dopey as the Oscars are, I’m willing to watch them for entertainment value/horse race etc., but feel that the sheer arrogance and disrespect of dropping the honoraries is the last straw. I don’t judge anyone who watches of course, just for myself this combined with my complete lack of engagement with contemporary film means there’s no reason to tune in this year.
I agree that a Godard montage during the Oscars would have been fascinating to see. What a lost opportunity – think how many people would have discovered or re-discovered his work through that.