Oh Oscar, Where Have You Gone?

The Academy Awards used to be on par with the Super Bowl, in terms of anticipation and excitement for the annual event. Enthusiasm for the ceremony is on the verge of disappearing. Once considered to be a fair judge of cinematic excellence, the Academy Awards have digressed to the point where the nominees are almost un-recognizable to the general public. Back in the day, movies were nominated for awards solely based on the quality of the film. The decision making process behind choosing the best movies has become corrupted, thanks to the boneheaded film executives angling for more publicity for their respective films. As long as jack-asses such as Harvey Weinstein keep their jobs, the Academy Awards will continue to be corrupted by the excessive marketing directed at the Academy's voters. After last year's minimally watched ceremony, I hope the Academy realizes that something needs to change. Quite honestly, I did not find any of the five Best Picture nominations from last year to be worthy of such a title. 

There Will Be Blood had some phenomenal performances (Paul Dano should have got a supporting nom), and Daniel Day-Lewis gave a memorable performance. But the movie itself, in my mind, was forgettable and not Best Picture worthy.

Atonement was the worst of the group. I felt the film was over-hyped, and ridiculously overrated. Quite frankly, I thought it was just garbage all together. Maybe it was just me, the movie was just way too confusing to recieve the sort of recognition it did. (I am still appalled by its Golden Globe victory)

Michael Clayton was a solid film, and the nominated performances from Clooney, Swinton and Wilkinson were well deserved. But, as with TWBB, good acting does not make a film worthy of a Best Picture nomination. The fact that this was helmed by a first-time director is even more impressive. But this movie deserves recognition more for its individual acting performances then the overall quality of the film.

Juno may have been the outcast in a year of 'dark' films, but an argument could be made that the quirky comedy was the most deserving nomination. The film was well received by critics, and performed extraordinarily well at the box office, outpacing the other four films and by a wide margin. As for the performances, I think the film was cast perfectly and nearly every actor and actress held their own. Each pairing and relationship was a believable one and everybody seemed to have great chemistry. There were no supporting nominations, in large part because each supprting character was worthy of such an award (J.K. Simmons, Bateman, Garner, Cera, Thirlby to name a few). The combination of critical reception, commercial success, and acting performance is what makes Juno worthy of its nomination.

And finally No Country For Old Men. This was flawed film, and in any other year it would not have won best picture.But thanks to a lack of competition, that was not the case. The Coen Brothers did a masterful job directing the film, probably their best work to this point in their career. The ending was kind of strange but i wasn't as pissed about it as many others were. The long moments sans dialogue really helped the mood of the film and Javier Bardem's character will go down as one of the best human villains in any movie. But, even with some great performances, it still ranks as closer to the bottom in terms of Best Picture winners, and it trails all but 2005's Crash in the 2000s. 

After maybe the worst batch of best picture nominations in recent memory (even in Crash's year there was still Munich and Brokeback Mountain) I hope this year is not much of the same, but we won't be able to determine that until after the nominations are announced.

In my future blogs on the subject of the Academy Awards I'll discuss a few ways that I think could help fix the declining ceremony.