The Academy Sells Out (In the Truest Sense of the Term)

I expected that the most publically pretigious council in the film world would embrace the prospect of ten best picture nominees. After all, I remember reading that films like The Dark Knight were annually getting snubbed because only five films were nominated for Hollywood's top prize. I mistook this argument as a suggestion that The Dark Knight was a great movie, therefore should be mentioned among the year's elite. I should have realized that in the eyes of the Academy, The Dark Knight was last year's Avatar. The ten nominees aren't there to honor universally praised films like Where the Wild Things Are or Goodbye Solo, but rather to draw in the same massive crowds that flooded theaters for weeks in a row.

Its hard for me to imagine that the Academy Awards is merely a ratings ploy but its also hard to argue with its desire for a large audience when its best picture nominees are made up of Avatar (#1 at the box office in 2009), Up (#5), The Blind Side (#8), Inglourious Basterds (#25) and District 9 (#27). Whether or not some of these films are worthy of the years top ten is irrelevant. Comparitively, in 2008 the best picture nominees stacked up as follows... Slumdog Millionaire (#16), Curious Case of Benjamin Button (#20), The Reader (#82), Milk (#89), Frost/Nixon (#120). I wonder what won?

If a field of five can include some great films (Benjamin Button not included), the majority of which earned less than 50 million, then why must the expanded field leave out films like Adventureland and Bad Lueitenant to make room for The Blind Side and District 9. Its kind of a shame when there is an element of surprise when Star Trek misses out on a best picture nod. My first reaction to the announced nominees was that box office successes made up the majority with a couple of indies sneaking in so no one would notice what's going on. After all, The Hurt Locker and An Education barely made 20 million combined.

Am I being bitter and just making a case for my favorite films of the year, only three of which were given best picture consideration and none in my top five? Perhaps yes. However, looking at my top ten, it would appear that I took more time to find some of the smaller films in 2009 than all those Oscar voters who get screeners mailed to their house. Box office statistics are all I have at my disposal to gauge how many people have seen a movie. If I haven't seen it, I can't plug it. Its why Precious is left off my lists. With all its accolades, I could make a good case for including it on my lists just out of assumption (Of course, I'm glad I didn't do that with Sandra Bullock). So low box office numbers for a given movie means fewer people have seen said movie, thus fewer people can vote it into consideration. Well, out of every film nominted for an Oscar this year, I spent approximately $96.00 seeing eight of them in the theater. For several more, I spent $10.00 a month for a year on rentals. That $96 only includes Oscar nominated films. It doesn't include Where the Wild Things Are, Adventureland and Bad Luietenant, films I believe to be among the year's best. My point... I believe a lot of the Academy's voters get screeners free of charge. If I can spend over $200 in a year on seeing films so I can compile a meaningless list, surely a little more effort can go into putting together what the world will consider the best of a given year.

To be fair, the box office doesn't decide everything... well it kind of does. Going back to 1980, only two best picture winners have been outside the top 25 at the yearly box office and that was No Country for Old Men and Crash beating out box office runts Good Night and Good Luck, Munich, Capote and upsetting Brokeback Mountain. Those may not have been the best of 2004 but at least something other than income was considered. So maybe people like good movies. Or maybe networks like good ratings. Well, both are likely true but the fact remains, networks will always like good ratings but people very often also like bad movies (see #2 at this year's box office).

This year, however, the two films vieing for the statue are Avatar (601 million to date) and The Hurt Locker (12 million and holding). If the past has taught us anything, there should be no argument as to which film will win. In the past decade, only four best picture winners were not tops at the box office among their competitors. Two of those films were A Beautiful Mind and Chicago, both hitting theaters the same years as Lord of the Rings films (Just one of the most popular stories ever). Another, Million Dollar Baby, just missed the lead by two million less than Aviator. That having been said, interesting stories boost ratings and the ex-spouses at the helms of each of these vastly different films in financial terms kind tightens up the race. Kathryn Bigelow could become the first woman to direct a best picture winning film as well as become the first woman to win best director. That combined with that she was once upon a time married to her primary opponent, James Cameron, and the small little factor that, you know... a lot of people think The Hurt Locker is a way better movie could give her an edge. Its a situation where I hope I'm wrong, but if I was a betting man... and I am, I would put my money on Avatar. It is, afterall, the big money maker.