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.

Blast from the Past: The Future of 3-D Films

The latest news to be brought to the attention of readers of The Vault is this: a decades-old fad may soon be coming to a theaters everywhere. On October 1, Disney, Fox, Paramount, Universal and Lionsgate signed a deal with Regal Cinemas, AMC and Cinemark to cover "the majority of the costs" to upgrade their cinemas with new digital systems. Roughly 14,000 locations will be affected by this agreement, which will take three years to fully enact. While the main benefit is that films can now be transferred to venues "over a phone line" instead of in physical reels, studios are licking their chops about an intended side effect: these 14,000 screens will now be ready to play 3-D pictures. The contract is the newest manifestation of what seems to be a growing interest in this format, as evidenced by its use over the last year in the films Beowulf and Journey to the Center of the Earth. Disney announced in September that it is developing sixteen three-dimensional movies, including the nearly completed Bolt, which is scheduled to release in November. The prominent animation company is not the only one diving headfirst into this niche in the market. Given that this style of filmmaking has often been much maligned, it may be surprising to some that the technology is being invested in so wholeheartedly. But the revelation that the three-dimensional version of Journey to the Center of the Earth sold three times as many tickets as the standard version has many rethinking their past criticisms. It is my opinion that a combination of poor content and inadequate projection capabilities has been largely responsible for the failure of 3-D to gain traction. Both of these obstacles appear to be well on their way to being conquered, making the format a viable medium for the future.

As I just mentioned, a large hurdle preventing the proliferation of 3-D films has long been the technology itself. In his article on the history of three-dimensional effects, Andy Rose of Movie Maker discusses how early products created "severe eye strain after short periods of time" or required the head to be held at a precise angle for the effect to work. This is certainly not an experience that will garner repeat business. But today, companies such as RealD 3D have resolved many of these problems through such innovations as digital projection and polarized glasses that allow freedom of movement and prevent physical pain. RealD has even made it possible for those who are color-blind to view three-dimensional pictures. Not everything is completely solved, however, as filmmakers are still discovering the best way to handle the new medium. When Journey to the Center of the Earth was screened for test audiences, they showed a dislike for the rapid cuts inherent in an action movie and instead wanted longer sequences that would allow a full appreciation of the depth of the image before them. This may mean that the three-dimensional method should not be used for fast-paced adventure films and instead be reserved for more contemplative pieces that allow for longer camera shots. Like all new techniques, it will take some time for a total understanding of 3-D to be realized, but this should not discourage its use altogether.

The process of 3-D is hardly new and innovative. Jeremy Kay at The Guardian explains that it is actually over a century old. It gained popularity during the 1950s as studios tried to compete with television by providing an experience that could only be found in theaters. But the craze died out, aside from a few sporadic releases over the next few decades. Why? A good portion of the blame can be charged to poor storylines that most likely would have failed even without the added projection "gimmick." By examining a list of 3-D movies during the 1950s (scroll down to find the relevant section) one can discover such gem titles as Cat Women of the Moon, Revenge of the Creature and Jesse James vs. the Daltons. Admittedly, some, like Kiss Me, Kate and Hondo, were of quality content, but by and large these were overshadowed by the plethora of cheaply made horror and fantasy flicks. Films in later decades were hardly better; Jaws 3D is a prime example. With the future of 3-D resting on the above-mentioned material, it is little wonder that studios saw small promise in the format. But the pictures that are slated for development seem to be aiming for a higher level of excellence overall. For instance, Disney's Pixar, which has turned out one hit movie after another, will release all of its future products in 3-D according to the announcement I referenced earlier in this post. Studios with solid credentials such as these can hopefully be trusted not to sacrifice elements like plot when putting this new technology to work.

Some, including none other than prominent film critic Roger Ebert, believe that 3-D detracts too much from the story itself; Ebert goes so far as to say he will view Journey again in standard form "to see the movie inside the distracting technique." I concede that, for a long time, his criticism has held true. As Ebert points out, viewers of many 1950s movies were unable to become engrossed in the plots since they were continuously being startled by "thrown" objects. But 3-D was a novelty several decades ago and as such, the studios could not resist showing it off. Today's audiences are much more familiar with the process and are already accepting of how the film is being presented, allowing them to enjoy the experience as a whole. I recently had the opportunity to view Hondo in a restored three-dimensional print. Although the Western was not devoid of spears hurled towards the camera, the intimate feeling it created, akin to watching a stage show, albeit on a large scale, impressed me. The screening proved that 3-D can enhance a performance by being an adornment that aids in the overall production, not the key idea around which a film is constructed. The technology will most likely continued to be perfected to render the clearest picture possibles. It is up to the artists of the cinema world to make the most of it.

Hollywood Insight Roundup: A Look at Useful Websites and Blogs

It is no secret that the internet is abounding with a plethora of websites and blogs to provide any and all information a person could want to know. But the sheer amount of data can make it difficult to find quality resources to use. This week the Vault, using Webby and IMSA criteria, will point readers in the direction of a variety of online sites that are useful in perusing the goings-on in Hollywood. The most basic of these, of course, are those that are a vast repository of film knowledge that provide visitors a quick stop to find basic facts regarding movies. One of the most popular of these is the Internet Movie Database (also known as IMDb.com). Its main strength lies in the ability to connect one to an incredible amount of information in a matter of seconds, with a nicely laid-out front page and easy-to-use search engine. Navigation becomes tricky beyond the front page, however, as the number of links in tiny print becomes overwhelming. Contrasting with this is the more user-friendly Hollywood.com, which focuses on current and upcoming releases in both film and television. It encourages interactivity among its guests by giving them a space on the site to create their own personal fan page. Hollywood.com is hamstrung by a few faulty features, such as a theatre locator which only sporadically works. For those looking for the latest box office tallies, look no further than the helpful Box Office Mojo. The shoddy visual design hides a treasure trove of data that can be delved into through the use of logical links that allow the guest to progressively narrow the scope of the figures provided.

Several websites are useful for a daily perusal of stories, including Cinema Blend (left). Its layout makes navigating a simple task, but is literally overshadowed by film advertising pop-ups that take over the screen until they have completed playing. EW.com, companion site to the magazine Entertainment Weekly, is hampered by a tabloid-like layout that makes it a bit difficult to take seriously, though the "Today's Most Popular" sidebar allows quick access to hot stories. The Video Network found on The Hollywood Reporter offers a change of pace in stories done in video fashion. Text stories, on the other hand, are difficult to search through as they are lumped on the pages in tiny print, making the Reporter middling at best. The New York Times: Movies section employs a diversity of media in a much better way that provides amazing features such as DVD-like commentaries on movie sequences by directors; detracting from this well-done content are film reviews that contain barbed political comments that are irrelevant to the reviews themselves. Another good mainstream source of Hollywood stories is Variety which makes maneuvering easy through a navigation bar that uses dropdown menus to break its news and resources into concise categories to allow readers to find exactly what they need, though the slow loading of its pages on some computers can discourage extensive browsing. For a look at Hollywood from outside the U.S., look at British Times Online: Arts and Entertainment. An outdated Oscar section mars an otherwise decent website that does a good job of providing a variety of content that is sometimes arranged in unique categories, such as "Countdown to the New 007." Combining a look back at the classics with a look at new releases is film critic Leonard Maltin's Movie Crazy which easily allows readers to purchase recommended movies through well-placed links to Amazon, but whose visual design causes entries to blur together, making Movie Crazy a bit disappointing. First Showing, a website focusing on upcoming releases, is well-designed, including a marquee that slowly flashes featured articles to examine, though some pages are not kept current, which keeps First Showing from being polished. To truly stay up-to-date with Hollywood, turn to the MTV Movies Blog, which provides the latest news and interviews to its readers in a concise manner. Its functionality and versatility is exemplified in the video footage that is placed directly in stories for effortless use, but a lack of an archive feature means that looking for a past story involves backtracking page by page. Another good blog is The Big Picture by Patrick Goldstein. It contains a timely, critical look at the intersection of entertainment and pop culture, with multiple posts a day; the blog could be improved with more links inside the posts to point its readers in the direction of other or complementary views to his own.

There are also a host of sites dedicated to official organizations within Hollywood. The National Film Preservation Foundation, a solid site that has clips from some of the footage it has restored available to view online, allowing the guest to get a feel for the work of the NFPF. It does not allow much other interactivity, however, which gives it a static feel. The American Film Institute, on the other hand, is full of things to do in its well-designed website, complete with video, podcasts, and movie quizzes that provide a variety of media to enjoy. Its lack of a forum or other discussion area is one of the few things that stops it from being truly interactive. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has a pleasing layout that unfortunately turns austere when one realizes that this is an informational website that allows no interactivity at all. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the official website for the Golden Globes, does a wonderful job of employing video footage by providing a navigable video gallery of acceptance speeches and interviews from the last awards show, though lack of updating when the Globes are not ongoing makes the pages a bit stagnant.

For Academy Award discussion, one should turn to In Contention, a site devoted to every bit of minutia related to the Oscar awards coverage. The ability to comment on every article or post made on In Contention, as well as daily round-ups of links to relevant news stories, makes it a great springboard for discussion among those who have a passion for the Oscars. Unfortunately, the poorly organized posts make it difficult to sift through stories. The Envelope (right), the Los Angeles Times's self-professed "Awards Insider," does a good job of making news stories easily accessible with links arranged into categories, but sometimes provides outdated links that can lead to details for previous award years, instead of current information. Within The Envelope lies a rather good blog entitled Gold Derby, written by film critic Tom O'Neil. O'Neil combines his analysis with comments from other critics, complete with links to the original source, that allows easy access to a host of opinions. There is no permanent section of links to sites outside of the Los Angeles Times, however, which does not provide the reader resources to further his exploration of other Hollywood news. But the Vault does provide a linkroll, and it is my hope that it will provide guests with many venues to delve into the world of Tinsel Town.