Pop Oscars: Do Box Office Winners Deserve a Chance at the Academy Awards?

After taking a look at the growing interest in three-dimensional movies, it is time for The Vault once again to train its eyes on the vigorous debates that surround the Academy Awards. A stone was recently thrown into the pond when the New York Times ran an article by Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes about a trend they are calling the "pop Oscars." The term refers to the apparent recent dominance of big box office movies in the award race, as The Dark Knight, Wall-E, Tropic Thunder, and even Iron Man are increasing their bids for nominations. As a result, Cieply and Barnes argue that there is a shift in studio focus from quieter films such as No Country For Old Men which are "critic-friendly but [have a] limited audience" to blockbusters with mass appeal. Indeed, the reporters characterize the move as "pushing" these big-budget movies into the limelight. Quite a bit of discussion has been generated around the blogosphere by the derogatory tone the article takes towards the idea of letting any of these films anywhere near a golden statue. Deciding to get involved in the ongoing dialogue, I first commented at Monkey See, a blog by Linda Holmes on the website of NPR. Her post "Beware the Pop Oscars! (Whoops, Hang On: False Alarm)" rightly points out the ludicrousness of eliminating a film from award consideration simply because it was popular. Similarly, Brad Brevet of RopeofSilicon.com critiques the article from another angle, analyzing the logic used by the writers, as well as details they gloss over or ignore. My comment to his post "Oscar Update: Blockbuster vs. Contender...Setting the Record Straight" as well as my comment at the blog Monkey See have been posted below for easy access.

"Beware the Pop Oscars! (Whoops, Hang On: False Alarm)" by Linda Holmes
Comment:
Thank you, Ms. Holmes, for your extremely well-written critique of the New York Times article on the supposed phenomenon of the "pop Oscars." I particularly liked your use of humor to point out how the fears of Cieply and Barnes are largely ridiculous. Their harsh reaction to the bids of these prominent films probably has quite a bit to do with their worry that the chances of independent movies to secure an award will be diminished as a result. There are, after all, only five nomination spots, and every one that is taken by a multimillion-dollar grossing film is one that a small-budget film cannot fill. But while there are certainly many lesser-known pictures that should gain attention, they should not automatically take precedence over the "Popular Movies." Success should not be penalized. It is unfortunate that, as you point out "Good Movies" and "Popular Movies" are today regarded as mutually exclusive categories. I believe that it is possible for a "Good Movie" to speak to themes that are important to everyone and to do so in a way that appeals to a mass audience. Wall-E was well-reviewed, dealt with materialism and environmentalism and was both genuinely funny and touching; all of those elements just happened to appeal to movie viewers enough to make it one of the best box office grossers of 2008. Why should all the merits of Wall-E be discredited simply because it happens to be well-known? The fact that it managed to entertain millions of people with its message should only be a tick in its favor. On another note, do you think that a film necessarily has to deal with weighty issues to be worthy of Best Picture? To me, that category implies that those involved in making the movie took all the elements of cinema and united them better than anyone else did in Hollywood that year. If a comedy (which you point out is widely shunned by Academy voters) can accomplish this as well as any drama, it should at least be considered for an Oscar.

"Oscar Update: Blockbuster vs. Contender...Setting the Record Straight" by Brad Brevet
Comment:
Mr. Brevet, thank you for a wonderful post on the flaws of the "pop Oscars" article in the New York Times. I think it particularly enlightening that Cieply and Barnes fail to adequately mention how both Wall-E and The Dark Knight were extremely well-reviewed. While they do mention the attention Wall-E got for some of its more innovative cinematic techniques, there is no mention of The Dark Knight's critical success. What is more, the writers obviously think that popularity tarnishes a movie's reputation, regardless of how much praise is heaped on it by critics across the country. The fact that it appealed not just to movie commentators, but to the public at large, should only enhance its status, not degrade it. You also rightly ridicule the idea that the Warner Bros. suddenly "decided" to campaign for a nomination for The Dark Knight, as if they looked only at box office receipts and not the dozens of reviews that hailed it as a seminal piece of work. Any studio that possesses a film as lauded as The Dark Knight would be looked at incredulously if it did not attempt to ride the momentum to the Academy Awards. On the other hand, do you think there is any validity to the worry that big-budget movies could overwhelm smaller independent films in the Oscar race? Given how many pictures in the competition over the last few years have been relative unknowns, I do not believe the trend will reverse overnight. After all, only three or four of the films in the running for the major categories are what the Times would label "pop"; the vast majority are in the same vein as contenders from past Oscar ceremonies. I was also as baffled as you were about the notion that Academy voters were unaware they could nominate a film for both Best Picture and Best Animated Feature. I would certainly hope that voters would have the wherewithal to double-check the regulations before they submit their ballots. It seems that the New York Times is merely trying to predict the doom of Wall-E before the votes are even cast.