Is it just me, or has it become predictable to pick an Oscar winner? Each year I wonder why I get excited when I am always disappointed by the spectacle. When Argo (Affleck 2012) won best picture over Amour (Haneke 2012), I wondered if I had missed something. Don’t get me wrong the film was good, but safe, when you compare it to the other nominees. Argo is not the sort of film we’ll be coming back in 10 years time and commenting on its cinematic influence. In other words, is it right that Ben Affleck and Milos Foreman (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest 1975) are both Oscar winning directors? I may be relying on a nostalgic perspective rather than supporting present day winners, but there is a reason films are labelled “Oscar Bait”. However, I am not basing my argument on this model but what I believe to be a decline in cinema recognition.
 |
| Some of the cast from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest |
 |
| Belive it or not, you won. |
The term Oscar Bait, arguably, started in the 1990s when winners such as Dances with Wolves (Costner 1990), Schindler’s List (Spielberg 1993) and Braveheart (Gibson 1995) provided evidently winning themes. In short, they were highly produced and epic costume dramas. Using well- known actors and directors used skewed political and historical subtexts to drive its narrative forward. Today, The Kings Speech (Hooper 2010) fits into this regal costumed category.
Have we progressed from the 90s? Well
maybe, we’re not using celebrities like Costner and Gibson anymore but have
moved towards lesser known actors like Dev Patel and Freida Pinto (Slumdog Millionaire, Boyle 2008). These
guys gave an American audience a taste of India, while the Oscar crowd feel in
love with French actor Jean Dujardin’s (The
Artist, Hazanavicius 2011), winning speech. Without using such obviously
high production values, these films allude to the idea of independent
filmmaking and ‘culture’. However, their narratives are typically underdog
stories and end with some kind of closure opposed to the other non-conventional
nominations like The Master (Anderson
2012) or the political truths of Zero Dark Thirty (Bigelow 2012). Perhaps,
in order to obtain the same standard of cinema recognition the board should
re-examine current nominees with awarded work of the pre 90s, when the Oscar was awarded to benchmark films
like The Apartment (Wilder 1960), The French Connection (Friedkin 1971) and Annie Hall (Allen 1977). The only
time I’ve felt like the Oscars went against this new norm was when No Country for Old Men (Ethan and Joel
Coen 2007) won best picture. It proved that the Oscars were un-predicable and
recognised a film with all its lack of closure and disruptions to character arc
to adhere to the level of the masses. However the Coen brother’s latest Inside Llewyn Davis (Ethan and Joel Coen
2013), didn’t receive any nominations.
When 12 Years a Slave (McQueen 2014) won best picture, I thought that’s
pretty typical. In fairness to the film,
I’m yet to see it, I have enjoyed McQueen’s visionary in other films. The sceptic
in me believes 12 Years a Slave won
because the Oscars wanted to come across PC and respond to film’s subject
matter. Else, why wasn’t McQueen’s controversial but excellent film about a sex
addict, Shame (McQueen 2012) nominated?
It seems winners are the result of what constitutes as an appropriate narrative,
subject or perhaps director, going on the debacle that flagged Kathyrn Bigelow
and her ‘pro’ torture themes. In a
similar sense Her (Jonze 2014) was nominated for best picture, but let’s
be honest, stood no chance against 12
Years a Slave. Although, Her did
win in the best original screenplay category, it feels narratives that don’t
comply to the Oscar bait rules can only be regarded in alternatives categories,
certainly not best picture. Her is a
refreshing look at the digital age and where we’re heading. It has beautiful
cinematography and a progression too Oscar bait, the sort of narrative that
would have been recognised pre 90s.
The mechanisms of the Oscar Bait label still seem relevant when historical narratives reflecting American history or the appropriate underdog story wins. It’s a shame to see unrecognised work ‘miss-out’ when they should be awarded for their progression in cinema and upholding the standard of the past.
If you need more convincing. Check out the history of the Oscars:
