Mantlepiece or a doorstop?
EXEPOSÉ
www.exepose.com
SCREEN
25
Victoria Bos questions the validity of award ceremonies, asking if they are worth anything anymore
U
NLESS you have been hiding under a rock for the last few months, you are probably aware that 28 February 2016 marks the 88th Academy Awards, also known as the Oscars. Yes, it is that time again. Time for celebrities to walk down the red carpet in clothes that are eyewateringly overpriced, for those involved with the films to put on a fake smile as their competitors win and for us to be told what the best films of the year are, apparently. Ricky Gervais recently quipped that he uses his Golden Globe as a door-
stop, and the same question here has to be asked: are the Oscars really fair or worth anything now? The first issue with the Oscars is how films are nominated and voted for. In December, the list of potential nominations is sent to members of The Academy, an honorary professional organisation. This has just under 6,000 members, who then rank them in their designated category with those with the highest scores being nominated. The winners are then determined by a second round of voting, from the same group, when they are allowed to vote in all categories. Now, this sounds fine, until you find out that the Academy membership is hardly representative of the film industry today. So do the awards given really represent general opinions? This brings me on nicely to another major issue, which is that the awards are so disconnected from what we, the viewing and paying public, think and care about. We, as the public, are the
target markets for these films, yet our opinions are never taken into account, even in terms of us voting with our feet and our wallets. For example, the biggest grossing film of 2015, and indeed in history, Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, did not receive a Best Picture nomination, or anything to do with its acting. The second highest grossing film of the year, Jurassic World, got no nominations.
This is hardly representative of the film industry today, or indeed the world Now, I’m not saying it should all be based on footfall, but I think we as the intended audiences of these films should have some say in how we reward the productions we think have done well. After all, we are the ones paying for the privilege of seeing them. A final clear issue is the built in bias
towards certain genres within the Academy Awards, especially in regards to the coveted Best Picture award. Generally speaking, the films that win this are dramatic films, which focus on social or historical issues. In the whole 88 years of the Oscars, a horror film has only ever won Best Picture twice, with The Exorcist in 1973 and then Silence of the Lambs in 1991. In terms of fantasy films the only film to ever win was The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King in 2003. More damningly, despite some well-loved films being nominated, such as Star Wars in 1977 and Avatar in 2009, no science-fiction film has ever won Best Picture in the history of the Oscars. In 2015 combined the genres of science-fiction, horror and
fantasy had a combined market share of 39 per cent, so why are there only two films nominated (The Martian and Mad Max) which could possibly fall into these categories, whilst the rest appear to fall into the Drama category which only secured 18 per cent of the market share? On top of this, even though they were nominated, the chances of them winning are slim-to-none. Still, it’s all fair and above board, isn’t it? Congratulations to whoever wins at the Oscars, but these issues could very well mean the films could fade away into obscurity, despite the fact they won the awards. After all it is down to those of us who watch them to keep them alive, not a trophy.
And the Oscar goes to...
Joe Oxlade argues for the Academy Awards’ value in today’s cinematic climate
T
HE Academy Awards, along with many other film awards around the world, including the BAFTAs and the Golden Globes, are
unique opportunities for filmmakers and actors to be rewarded for their challenging craft. In an age where anyone with a phone camera can film something and upload it on the Internet, we must have these opportunities to reflect on the very best of world cinema. This is also a chance for the greatest films that don’t have the budget of the big blockbusters to get the credit they deserve. For example, the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar was introduced in 1947, which provided a life-changing opportunity for the film industries of countries other than the UK and US; one of this year’s nominations was Theeb, a Jordanian film with a budget of just over £250,000, the price of a Lamborghini Aventador. As Brits, we let decisions like ‘Every-
thing is Awesome’ from the Lego Movie not winning Best Original Song, (which admittedly was a joke) completely mar our judgement of the prestige of these awards, in the same way that that we let one wet day become ‘typical British weather’ and one late parcel become ‘bloody Royal Mail’. The Academy is built up of approximately 6,000 filmmaking professionals (mainly Americans), with the Los Angeles Times recently conducting a survey that states the voter population is, 94 per cent white, 76 per cent male, and have an average age of 63. However, despite this blatant, old-malewhiteness inherent to The Academy, I think that their criticism does provide something of worth. These people have seen a substantial amount of the films produced each year, completely separating their judgement from online criticism, where anyone can post a review without knowledge of the industry. One of the major criticisms of the Oscars this year is that none of the nominated directors are female, but this is only the case because the biggest names such as Kathryn Bigelow and Sofia Coppola did not produce films this year. Accusations exist of institutionalised sexism within the film industry; that’s not something I’m trying to deny, but that
is a larger fault with Hollywood or even a more prominent societal fault; the Academy Awards panel can only make their judgement based on the quality of the films produced that year, not the ones they wish had been.
It encourages the industry to create truly great cinema As for the accusations of racism, one of the main criticisms last year was Chiwetel Ejiofor not winning Best Actor in 2013 for his performance in 12 Years a Slave. No one seems to have remembered that his co-star, Lupita Nyong’o, won Best Supporting Actress and indeed 12 Years a Slave won Best Picture. Sydney Poitier was the first black actor to win Best Actor for the 1963 film Lilies of the Field, which occurred right in the heart of the American race riots, where traditional institutions such as the Academy Awards would have been looking for any excuse to show disapproval. Despite the glamorisation of the event, the Oscars provide us with a valuable occasion to explore the best of the year’s films and performances. It encourages filmmakers and actors to create truly great cinema, rather than focus on profit, and provides an outlet for lower budget and foreign films to gain mainstream appeal.