Tuesday, January 18, 2005

The Globes, The Oscars, And Why None Of It Matters

The 62nd annual Golden Globe Awards went off without a hitch Sunday, paying out little gold men to favorites in most categories: Sideways and The Aviator for motion pictures, Leonardo and Jamie Foxx (the justice of the latter to be addressed another time) for actors, and so on. The Golden Globes are almost like the home stretch of awards season; a precursor of and prelude to the Academy Awards, the Globes are often cited as having an influence on Oscar outcomes. That's not the case now: a shortened awards season puts the Globes ceremony only two weeks before Oscar nominees are announced, although it's possible that buzz around Golden Globe nominations might have some impact on Oscar nods. Regardless of the truth of this, a bigger picture exists: the awards have a remarkably short half-life, and in the long run are virtually meaningless.

Don't misunderstand me: Most films that receive Oscars genuinely deserve them. Critics might prefer one film to win Best Picture over another, but rarely does the award go to a film that shouldn't be considered. Similarly, acting Oscars are handed out both for exceptional performances, like Sean Penn in Mystic River (2003), or as nods of approval for an entire body of work despite the lower quality of the award-nominated role (e.g., Al Pacino for the forgettable Scent of a Woman [1992] and Julia Roberts for the pandering hackery of Erin Brockovich [2000]). And nobody denies that Oscars are currency: Oscar-winning actors, actresses and filmmakers are given projects meant to capitalize on their newly bestowed status as "award-worthy," although most follow-up projects aren't as good as their award-winning predecessors (e.g., Ron Howard followed up A Beautiful Mind [2001] with The Missing [2003].)

That's what Oscars (and the Golden Globes, to a lesser extent) really are: a boost in popularity, studio clout, and rentals and returns. A good film only becomes a classic when it's embraced for years or generations, and its award status then becomes secondary to its enduring power. Sure, The Godfather (1972) won several Academy Awards, but that's not why we watch it.

The proof is in the pictures. Films like Being John Malkovich (1999), Dr. Strangelove (1964), Full Metal Jacket (1987), Taxi Driver (1976), The Thin Man (1934), 12 Angry Men (1957), Singin' in the Rain (1952), Easy Rider (1969), The Shawshank Redemption (1994) and Rear Window (1954) were all nominated for Oscars but went home empty-handed. Even worse, the following films weren't even nominated: The Big Sleep (1946), Sullivan's Travels (1941), The 39 Steps (1935), Miller's Crossing (1990), and more.

And acting? Orson Welles, Glenn Close, Buster Keaton, Marlene Dietrich, Jim Carrey, Maureen O'Hara, Cary Grant, Morgan Freeman, Peter O'Toole, and many others have never won (or, obviously, will never win) Academy Awards. Directors Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman, Michael Mann, John Frankenheimer, John Cassavetes, Francois Truffaut, Spike Lee, Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles, Peter Weir: all respected, revered, and ignored by Oscar.

I know this probably doesn't amount to anything to anybody, and even less to those who watch awards shows for the witty pregame banter by inane, cloying red carpet pundits. But the point is this: a great film is a great film, and a popular but ultimately dated one will remain just that. You can keep your temporary flames, your Roberto Benignis and your Halle Berrys; I'm happy with Max Fischer, Tyler Durden, Andy Dufresne, Donnie Darko and other memorable characters from films with genuine stories, movies built to outlast hype and entertain generations.

posted by Dan Carlson @ 5:17 PM   3 remarks

3 Comments:

The last paragraph made me cry. I love you, but not like that. Like I want you to hold me and tell me it is ok... that I haven't seen all of the movies that you have, but you will walk me through the good ones.

Hey, how was "Sideways" anyway?

By Blogger Master Baron Von Tuckenstein the First Esquire, at 5:34 PM, January 20, 2005  

In the end the Globes and the Oscars are kind of a popularity test inside the politics of the rich and famous. They reward not who is the best or most popular amoung the fans, but who they feel deserves credit amoung themselves. Sometimes the awards can help make or break a career, but they don't always translate into big money. The fans will still go see what they want even if it doesn't win an award. I agree about Donnie Darko and Andy Dufresne. They will be in my mind long after these awards are gone.

By Blogger Azathoth100, at 2:20 PM, January 21, 2005  

However, I am still glad that "the fans" aren't the ones voting; the Oscars aren't the People's Choice awards, which is why Armageddon didn't win the Best Movie Ever Y'all I Cried So Hard award. And, yes, that's what awards are: a group of people bestowing special credit or recognition on themselves. And, sadly, the success of Meet the Fockers and others of its ilk is sad proof that the fans will still go see whatever they want. But the whole point of attempting to approach film critically is to get people to raise their filmgoing bars, to choose Hotel Rwanda over The Polar Express, Sideways over Alone in the Dark. (Payne's movie is one of the deserving ones, the pleasing confluence of well-founded critical acclaim, memorable characters and solid writing.)

By Blogger Dan Carlson, at 3:33 PM, January 21, 2005  

Post a Comment