This &That: Makeup Finals, Foreign Beauties, Rule Changes
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 6:00PM So I spent all of last night exuberantly "Oh No You Maggie Smith'nt!"* with friends over the 2 hour season premiere of Downton Abbey. Then I spent the better part of today at a table full of Oscar voters picking their brains (in a polite conversational way, mind you) at a luncheon for The Artist. More on both of those events soon but between last night and today, so many OscarQuakes or at least golden tremors.
*joke stolen from Patton Oswalt
Let's discuss four of them immediately!
1. Hunger Games beauty Jennifer Lawrence will announce the Oscar nominations.
Usually people dress somewhat sedately for that super AM event but we're hoping Jennifer pulls out another one of those va va voom numbers she kept finding for last year's awards circus. The nomination event happens so early in the morning and if Jennifer wears skin tight white or form fitting red again, that's better than a pot of steaming coffee as an eye opener.
P.S. Is the publicity team behind Hunger Games the hardest working team in showbiz? You know this is all part of that evil world domination blitz.
2. Documentary Rule Changes
Michael Moore and others proposed some Oscar Rule changes to the Academy and they've been adopted. The most controversial one, which we're totally fine with, involves requiring a review from the Los Angeles or the New York Times. The idea behind this rule is that the papers have a policy of reviewing each film that opens for a full week engagement. But it seems silly to stipulate that a review is required when the whole point is to get the movie in theaters for a full week. Why not just say "must play a week in Los Angeles and New York City to qualify?" Seems strange to put the qualification requirement on newspapers. According to Michael Cieply at the New York Times documentarians are not on board with these changes which would drastically reduce the number of qualifying entries.
I take a rather hard stance on this topic all the time and I assure you that it is not an anti-filmmaker stance. My stance is only a pro audience stance. I do not believe that films should be eligible for awards if they are not playing for the public. I'm tired of this elitist film culture where people only show their films in very discreet ways for very select audiences and hope that they'll win awards by which they will then try to lure paying audiences. On an individual case by case basis it's easy to see why the vast majority of pundits and filmmakers side with filmmakers on this topic and back these rules that make peekaboo engagements possible. But if you back up and look at the full picture it is much healthier for the survival of cinema if theatrical engagements are required and the audience is included. If movies aren't made to be seen there is no point in making them. If you want an engaged audience you have to create one. And to create one you've got to get the films out there in the marketplace.
3. Makeup Citations
The bakeoff for Oscar's continually confounding Best Makeup category has finally happened and seven films are moving on to compete for the 3 wide nomination list. I've never found any reasonable explanation as to why this category has such a tiny amount of nominees given that a huge portion of movies require wig and makeup and prosthetics work but it is what it is. Despite "Best" often equating with "Most" J. Edgar and Green Lantern did not make the cut. Neither did that much talked about Michelle-to-Marilyn transformation wow them.
So your finalists go like so...
- Albert Nobbs
- Anonymous
- The Artist
- Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
- Hugo
- The Iron Lady
I am not remotely a fan of The Iron Lady but I think it'd be a very deserving nomination in that category since the makeup work on Streep is just flawless / transformative. The rest of the field I don't have strong opinions of. Do you? It's worth noting that no Harry Potter film has ever been nominated for Makeup though a few of the previous films have made it to pre-nomination lists like this one.
4. Foreign Film Finalists Will Be Announced on... TBA?
I wish I knew when. If so I could plan better. Every day I wake up in fear that I will miss my chance to tell you how much I liked movie A or B before Oscar cuts them in the winnowing process, he says pessimistically. And every day I run out of time. I need a deadline! Last year they announced a week ahead of the regular nominations so I guess that gives me... 5 or so more days?
Left (France's Declaration of War) Right (Denmark's SuperClásico with the always awesome Paprika Steen)
For the record in case I get no other chance to say it should the Academy not respond well to them the 'Movie A' in question is France's cancer dramedy Declaration of War which is super lively, passionate, funny, and tearful (Take that 50/50... You are nothing to me now!) and the 'Movie B' in question is Denmark's divorce comedy SuperClásico starring the inimitable Paprika Steen (Applause) who you already know I 'stan for whenever I get the chance.
I interviewed her recently (we'll get to that eventually) and much to my delight she dubbed me a "nerdy film blogger!" Her exact words! Now I love her even more. I wish American directors would hire her because she speaks English fluently and is a great actress who can do both intense drama and spiky comedy. What more do they need? Why should the Nykqvists, Mikkelsens and Skarsgaards be the only Scandinavian actors Hollywood has on speed dial? Paprika can act circles around so many people. Get on that, Hollywood! Time is a wasting.
Reader Comments (16)
I really liked "Declaration of War," too! As I was watching it, I kept thinking of Danny Boyle...it's sort of directed the way I could see him directing it.
I feel really limited since I've seen so few of the candidates (e.g. "A Separation," which only opens in Montréal two days before the Oscar ceremonies). One which ran here last spring, and which I really liked, was "Octubre," the Peruvian candidate. It's a quirky, very indie-style comedy.
As for the Canadian candidate, "Monsieur Lazhar" is good...but not as good as "Incendies" was, and that one didn't win, so I don't have much hope of it getting a nomination.
I totally agree on The Iron Lady-- it was my least favorite film this year and yet I love the make-up.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on Le Havre. I see that you didn't have it on your "possible nominees" list. It seems 'feel-good' enough for the AMPAS FL voters, but is it too quirky? It's a little spastic.
The gorgeousness of Jennifer Lawrence is something I literally cannot deal with in addition to the tension of nomination morning.
I'm going to rupture a thousand blood vessels before 9am.
Nathaniel...
What do you think the eventual Harry Potter nomination tally will be? I see anything from 2 (AD & VFX) to 5 if the aural categories have some space. Perhaps 3 seems most likely?
I think we're losing sight of the fact that in practical terms the Oscars aren't actually a tribute to merit anywhere near as much as they are a massive advertising campaign for films that aren't about superheroes. Which is fabulous. Because films without superheroes need all the help they can get.
"But if you back up and look at the full picture it is much healthier for the survival of cinema if theatrical engagements are required and the audience is included."
Hm. That sentence would make perfect sense if you replaced the phrase "the survival of cinema" with "the survival of this secretly trivial awards show". Around this time of year it becomes dangerously easy in the blogosphere to confuse one for the other.
"If you want an engaged audience you have to create one. And to create one you've got to get the films out there in the marketplace."
Wow, this sounds totally simple. Now, you do it.
And try doing it without a superhero, prequel, theme park or cult tv show attached to your brand.
Documentaries need all the help they can get when it comes to creating audiences (which incidentally is a very sexy buzz phrase, but in like real life, like sorta hard to do). I cannot put into words how much easier it would be for the documentary if there was an Oscar nomination attached to the ad campaign.
Also, an Oscar nomination is not meant to be a reward for creating an audience, it's a part of creating the audience (often for the DVD, but ideally also in theatres - especially for documentaries, which already struggle creating audiences in theatres). It's not like a film has to fit within Oscar-qualifying rules in order to properly 'exist'. Why should December 31st of a given year be the deadline for engaging with an audience?
I know you're a good supporter of foreign language movies, but I must say I don't think Paprika Steen and a lot of other actors need to go to Hollywood, at all. I'm fine with them in their home countries, acting in local movies.
I remember once an interview with Fernanda Montenegro. She said she had a lot of offers to act post her Oscar nomination, and she was asked why she didn't accept. She said she was fine with Brazil. She had success. She didn't need Hollywood. That's it.
Cal -- oh i don't either. But Paprika says she wants to so there is no reason for that not to happen besides Hollywood being stupid.
Goran -- we'll have to fundamentally disagree on this. if you don't think the survival of cinema is endangered by films NOT BEING RELEASED FOR AUDIENCES i don't know what to say. It's not about the Oscars. The Oscars will survive anything. They're an institution like Disneyland. If all that is available to them in 2050 is superhero pictures, they will just reward them.
i never said it was easy to create an audience. Lord knows i've struggled for YEARS to build one here. But .... but... the very idea that you don't even try to get the audiecne without the oscar nomination is the problem. I honestly don't believe films should qualify for Oscar if audiences can't see them. I believe in the audience as part of the equation.
i've talked to enough moviegoers who live outside of the major markets to know that the current distribution system and the idea that they only get these movies IF Oscar approves of them actually creates resentment. It is not fostering interest in cinema to give a bunch of awards to movies no one is able to see each year.
If the Oscars were only a promotional situation, and not a badge of perceived merit, the studios would figure out some way to do without them since most of the money spent is in vain since there are very few winners. If it's only promotion, they'd be better off just buying more commercial ad space.
If the epilogue scene of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is what constitutes as "best makeup", I don't want to see the worst.
1. Yay Jennifer Lawrence and the wonder of that simple red dress from last year.
2. Yay audiences, basically.
3. Yay for those films. I guess. I don't really care about Makeup this year.
4. Yay for still keeping the hope alive for some of those entries that won't have a shot with those crusty old FL voters.
LOL @ you admitting you stan for Paprika Steen. I still can't find a copy of Applause anywhere - and by 'anywhere' I clearly mean 'Netflix doesn't have it yet!'
"if you don't think the survival of cinema is endangered by films NOT BEING RELEASED FOR AUDIENCES i don't know what to say."
What is this, a Republican debate? When did I ever say that?
If a documentary is released weeks before nominations are out, it risks losing out on the publicity and tickets sold that come with a prospective Oscar nomination. If a documentary is released in the week of nominations or weeks directly after, it doesn't take that risk. It's in the best possible position to exploit the possible publicity bonus (and resulting box office bonus) that comes with an Oscar nomination. If it misses out on a nomination, well then, it's just playing against the same odds that it would have been playing against earlier - except in this case, we can be sure it didn't potentially miss out on the boost of its theatrical audience that would have come with an Oscar nomination.
I never ever argued that if a film doesn't get an Oscar nomination, it should just ditch all release plans and stop existing. I only said that from a commercial point of view, it makes perfect sense to tick all the boxes by way of a qualifying run, and then just schedule the release in mid-to-late January and cross fingers.
I wasn't saying that without an Oscar nomination you give up on trying to create an audience. I was saying that if an Oscar nomination is a prospect, you work your release dates around that to maximise potential publicity and box office.
If the film then misses out on the Oscar nomination, it can still get a release. And it will do just as much box office as it would have in November or December and just as many cinemagoers in country towns would get to see it all the same.
"If the Oscars were only a promotional situation, and not a badge of perceived merit, the studios would figure out some way to do without them since most of the money spent is in vain since there are very few winners. If it's only promotion, they'd be better off just buying more commercial ad space."
Once again, I cry BS.
Firstly, from the perspective of a Hollywood studio, "a badge of perceived merit" is entirely and almost exclusively "a promotional situation".
Secondly, just by way of example, we have George Clooney and his gang speaking in interviews while promoting Good Night and Good Luck back in the day. He continued doing this way past the stage where it became obvious that his movie was never gonna win Best Picture. But as he said in an interview at the time, he intended to continue promoting the hell out of it throughout Oscar season because there is a huge difference in profits between an adult drama DVD and an adult drama DVD than says "Nominated for 6 Academy Awards" on the cover.
Apart from reasons of common sense, I can assure that this strategy is worthwhile based on experience. I worked in a video store for years and I watched the "Nominated for X Academy Awards" tag work a charm. It also works very very differently from just a promotional ad campaign (and I would argue, much much more reliably) because consumers interpret the Oscar stamp of approval as a recommendation from people who don't have a financial interest in the film unlike the people who paid for a 30-second TV spot to convince them to go and see it. And of course, it's a hell of a lot cheaper for a studio to just copy and paste the "Nominated for X Academy Awards" tag on DVD's upon release and re-release rather than continue running expensive ad campaigns for years and years and years and years.
"i've talked to enough moviegoers who live outside of the major markets to know that the current distribution system and the idea that they only get these movies IF Oscar approves of them actually creates resentment."
This may be true. But what is also true is that the moviegoers you are talking to are most likely those who commit themselves to arthouse/independent cinema to begin with, and too often, they do not constitute enough of an audience in a minor market. And what is also also true is that IF Oscar approves of these movies, a larger audience will likely follow.
I used to live in one of these minor markets—Las Vegas, which at the time (if not still) ranked 51st in the nation. Arthouse and foreign films tended to last only one or two weeks in the one theater that would be showing it. Outside of Oscar season, that is—although there was that time that No Man's Land left its theater after one week, only three days before winning the Best Foreign-Language Film Oscar. (Everybody expected Amélie to win that year, but still.)
But you can't blame the theaters when audiences don't show up. One of the Las Vegas alternative weeklies reported that all of one person was in attendance at the evening showing of 24 Hour Party People the Friday it opened. There were about a dozen in the audience for Dogville at the matinee I attended—but half walked out in the first 30 minutes. (I wonder if they asked for refunds: "There are no sets in the movie!")
But the Oscar-relevant example that comes most readily to mind is The Last King of Scotland. Had it opened in Las Vegas at the same time as it did in New York and L.A., in September 2006, it likely would have lasted two weeks, maybe three, and only in one theater. It certainly would not have lingered in theaters for five months. Instead, it officially opened, if memory serves correctly, the Friday before the nominations were announced, when Forrest Whitaker was a lock for a nomination (if not the outright frontrunner)—and not just in one of the two theaters that showed arthouse films, but in several multiplexes, with decent-sized audiences (judging by the screening I attended), and lasting at least a couple weeks beyond Oscar night.
For this sort of thing, the studios are convinced that this is the right strategy, and I'm inclined to agree. Had Last King been more widely released before the end of 2006, it would have left many theaters prior to the nominations announcement—and while all of us reading this site are swept up in Oscar-buzz fever well before Thanksgiving, the fact remains that most of the country isn't paying a bit of attention until the nominations are announced (often greeting them with a big "Huh? I've never heard of half of these movies!"). It may be a sad state of affairs that many movies need Oscar's badge of merit to get proper releases, but if anyone's to blame, it's the largely unadventurous audiences out there that require that imprimatur.
One other thing...if your standard is "films should not qualify for Oscar if audiences can't see them," are you extending that to the short films, as well? If not, I'd like to hear your argument why not.
Goran and JP -- i've never disagreed with the points that it's easier for films to do it this way.
Your making your points more eloquently than I am but my point is harder to make ;) ...see, I just don't agree that doing it this way is good for films or cinema in the long run. I have never argued that this "only open when you can use Oscar as ticket buying leverage" strategy does not work for individual films. But I do believe that it has aided in creating a terrible anti-audience climate in which hollywood has essentially trained audiences with more adult-oriented taste buds to not expect anything that might appeal to them until one tiny window of the year. Consequently there is cultural reinforcement that is you want more complicated nuanced movies they aren't in theaters. Consequently adults stopped going to movies. It is SO much easier to find quality adult-oriented material on television and it is not slated into any tiny window of the year.
It's a complicated problem and it's hard to argue against this because everyone has accepted that this is the way it's done. But the way it's done has been terrible for cinema. Oscar has been around for 84 years but this obsessive "don't risk showing it to audiences until Oscar approves!" system is not 84 years old. I really think it's been one of many contributing factors in the decline of moviegoing.
JP i am not extending this argument to short films. Why would I do that? They've never functioned in the same way as features -- how could they -- and the same rules should not apply.
Hullo Nathaniel,
The Foreign Film screenings finish on Friday evening (January 13) with the screening of Argentina's western "Aballay". AMPAS should announce the finalists sometime between next Monday and Wednesday (my guess is January 16).
I've been busy trying to get information on all 63 films....Overall it's a weak year for Foreign Films, and some unfavored films could wind up on the shortlist....I strongly believe the brilliant "A Separation" is the favorite for the win.....
I'll blog my final predictions over the weekend, but as of today, I think the shortlist will very likely include Canada, Finland, France, Iran, Israel, Mexico and Poland while I'm less sure about Austria and Hong Kong taking the last two spots over China, Morocco and Spain.
I just read through the entire article of yours and it was quite good. This is a great article thanks for sharing this informative information. I will visit your blog regularly for some latest post.
Coe cleanse
aminogenesis
@dzong2, I'd be rather surprised if the Moroccan film, "Omar m'a tuer," made the longlist. I didn't think it was particularly outstanding.
Billthebear,
You don't have to be outstanding to get voted out of the large committee! Just emotionally manipulative....And this committee has selected films by the same team twice before ("Indigenes", "Outside the Law"). It might miss the Top Nine, but I think "Omar" has a decent chance at making it.