March 05, 2006
It's Oscar Night: Does Anyone Care?
I know I don't, but there are obviously people who do. Most notably, of course, Hollywood and the sycophants who feed off it. 
An article in today's WaPo tackles the topic of Hollywood and social change:
The awards season in Hollywood is by its very nature a self-congratulatory affair. But this year, the filmmakers say their serious, somber movies really do matter -- not just as entertainment or art, but politically, socially. Hollywood thinks the movies are important again.
Ang Lee, director of "Brokeback Mountain," speaks of "the power of movies to change the way we're thinking." Steven Spielberg, director of "Munich," has called this year's Oscar-nominated films "courageous" for the risks they took with stories about racism, terrorism, government and corporate crime, and homosexuality. Mark R. Harris, a producer of "Crash," said "this movie has changed people's lives."
Perhaps they have changed the lives of a handful of people. But as my friend Gary at Ex-Donkey Blog points out, these films haven't been seen by the multitudes the moviemakers want to think:
Look at the five films nominated for Best Picture and look at their box office gross:
"Brokeback Mountain": $76,078,000
"Crash": $53,404,817
"Munich": $46,227,050
"Good Night And Good Luck": $30,506,195
"Capote": $23,441,493
Total Combined Gross: $229,657,555
Combined, these five films earned 25% less than "The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe", which earned $288,193,914. That's a difference of $58,536,359 (room for an extra nominee or two).
Gary goes on:
Now consider some of the films that earned more than four of the five nominees (put "Brokeback" aside for one moment"):
"Fun With Dick and Jane", a remake of a 1970's comedy with Jim Carrey and Tea Leoni: $110,333,000
"Flightplan", a mystery aboard a commercial airliner staring Jodie Foster: $89,700,000
"Cheaper By The Dozen 2", a sequel to a remake starring Steve Martin: $81,528,000
"Big Momma's House 2", Martin Lawrence as an undercover cop disguised as a large black woman - also a sequel: $65,800,000
"Underword: Evolution", Kate Beckinsale as a hot vampire chick fighting werewolves - and, yes, it's a sequel: $61,426,000
"The Pink Panther", another remake with Steve Martin: $60,847,000
Right now you're saying "OK, dude. What's your point?"
Hear me out. I'm willing to bet that the above films weren't all that great. I'm also willing to bet that most of the people who payed to see these films probably knew going into the theater that they weren't going to be all that great.
But that means that more people were interested in paying to see these mediocre movies than four of the five nominees for Best Picture! This speaks volumes to the Academy. Yet they choose not to listen. I'm not saying that box office gross should be the only factor in determining Oscar nominations. And I'm certainly not saying that the five films that were nominated are without merit. What I am saying is that they have limited appeal. And all the hype in the world isn't going to change that. (emphasis mine)
Gary hits it right on the nose. Films that have limited appeal aren't as likely to move mountains as Hollywood wants them to. Most people go to the movies to be entertained. I know I don't go to be preached at. If I want to be preached at, I can give any number of family members a call.
Hollywood can preach all it wants. George Clooney, Stephen Spielberg, Ang Lee and the rest can try to tell the rest of us what's important and what's not. But if we aren't going to be entertained, we won't be buying the rest of the package either.
Not that it matters to them. They have Oscar to think about!
Show Comments »
I'm trying to imagine how I could care less about seeing the Oscars.
Nope. I got nothin'. Could not possibly care less about watching it.
Posted by: JimK at March 5, 2006 09:54 AMI am one of the biggest Oscar fans around. I love movies and I love the big show called the Academy Awards. That said, I must admit that this year's selection is one of the worst in history. Last year was gripping with the battle between two great films and their directors. You could cut the tension with a knife. This year, I have more interest in Ollie North's Fox show about Hollywood going to war--I may watch that instead.
Posted by: THIRDWAVEDAVE at March 5, 2006 11:37 AMthis year's oscar selection looks fantastic. munich was beautifully directed, brokeback mountain told a love story unlike any other, capote revealed an amazing american writer...
widespread appeal doesn't make something good. and the lack of widespread appeal doesn't make it bad.
Posted by: steve at March 5, 2006 03:24 PMBooks that win the Pulitzer and other prizes sell less than spy novels. Should academics write spy novels?
That's about the level of your reasoning here.
Posted by: paul at March 5, 2006 06:05 PMnot really. my point is the worth of a film is not established by its box office success.
i'm not really sure about your "academics..." comment, what are you implying?
Posted by: steve at March 6, 2006 02:17 AMsteve;
No, a film's quality is not all about its box office take, but the box office take is a measure of how many people are choosing to see the movie. And if a film-maker wants to get his/her "message" out to a broader audience, perhaps a little moderation might prove effective. We live in a capitalistic system and a larger box office take might make financing a director's next movie easier.
Sometimes it is the "blatancy" of a message that puts people off. No, I haven't seen "Brokeback Mountain", but perhaps if the director had gone more in for the "un-requited/un-resolved" sexual tension between two lonely cowboys, i.e., weave a little more mystery into the story, there might have been more widespread appeal. If it could have been done without the illustration of a marriage (or was it two?) being broken-up, it might have had more widespread appeal.
As for "Capote", too many Americans have already forgotten who he was and some of us that remember him think he was just a little too weird. And some people felt that "Munich" was just a little too sympathetic to the Palestinians involved in the murder of the Israeli athletes.
Another thing that puts off the "mainstream" is when the "Hollywood elites", e.g., George Clooney, Michael Moore, Spike Lee, et al, look down their collective noses, denouncing loudly those of us in "flyover country" as hayseeds, just because we choose not to see their movies. Some of those "hayseeds" might have chosen to rent the movie on DVD (see below) if they had not been insulted by the director and/or stars of said movie.
Another issue is the ever-rising cost of tickets and the behavior of theatre audiences (cell phones, talking, etc.). If there is some doubt as to whether or not a movie is "worth the cost", some people may choose to stay home and wait until the DVD comes out. With a rental DVD in hand, a person can watch a "complex" movie over and over in the privacy of their home and if they feel that it is worthwhile, word-of-mouth might revitalize the film as they tell others "you ought to rent this film".
Posted by: joe-6-pack at March 8, 2006 01:27 PM
