Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Topic Of The Day: Behind The Outrage Of A Snub (Part II)
Hello, Bloggers, welcome to another episode of Topic Of The Day. For today's segment, I will once again discuss the Oscars. But I will give another look into why there is an outrage behind not just a snub, but when a film gets robbed for Best Picture. This is Behind The Outrage Of A Snub: Part II. You can check out Part I right here. Here we go:
First I'll go into what makes audiences tick when a certain film gets denied Best Picture. A few examples of that kind of outrage include when Brokeback Mountain, Pulp Fiction, The Social Network, Black Swan, and of course, Goodfellas lost. When Brokeback Mountain missed out, that led to cries of homophobia. But I think the real problem with it losing is not just that, but it winning Best Picture would've allowed change. It would've been them saying "Hey, we're ready to be more accepting of queer cinema and the LGBT community. We're ready to move forward." But they said "no" and after that loss, I feel that LGBT cinema in general never recovered from that snub.
Also, the reason people are still scratching their heads over the losses of films like Social Network, Goodfellas, and Pulp Fiction and putting the films they lost to on Worst Best Picture lists is because the aforementioned three films are not only modern but invented the filmmaking wheel. When they were up for the big prize, it allowed the Academy to take a chance by picking these films over the more safer, sentimental baity films that constantly get rewarded (The King's Speech, The English Patient, Dances With Wolves, etc.). Those types of sentimental films never reinvent the wheel and always force the older voters to get stuck in the past.
This kind of outrage can even be sparked when films don't even get nominated for Best Picture or any other major category. Take for example, when The Dark Knight got snubbed for Best Picture. If it did sneak in, then it would've been the Academy saying "You know what, comic book movies can be cinematic and artistic" and it would've allowed them to possibly break the mold continuously. There is also the year 2011 which saw a slew of modern and cutting-edge pieces of cinema, like Drive as well as decent genre fare like the final Harry Potter and Bridesmaids. Yet, they included the likes of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close mainly because it has two well-liked movie stars and it's about 9/11. But its nomination for Best Picture still caused an immense backlash due to its mixed to negative reception. They also had an opportunity to include Michael Fassbender for Best Actor for the graphic and edgy Shame, but the film's content probably left voters nervously sucking their thumbs, sadly costing Fassbender a spot in the Final Five. So, in that year, as a whole, they ended up nominating safe films by their buddies or people they really like.
Now, while I enjoy watching and following the Oscars, one of my biggest pet peeves with them is how they always include safer films starring or filmed by their buddies, so to speak, or at least people within their circle.
So, and this may sound harsh, but this kind of thumb-sucking political correctness is what is preventing voters from taking chances and rewarding films that are inventive and at times edgy and modern. I understand that the older voters like to be nostalgic, but this is 2015. It might be time to look past Meryl Streep in another transformative role or look beyond what kind of films Tom Hanks or Clint Eastwood are doing. Of course, I am not trying to make a dig at these filmmakers. I am just saying that there are other great filmmakers out there who don't get the recognition they do that should be included within their "club".
Overall, these are more of my thoughts on why certain snubs make people tick. Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to write your thoughts in the comments section. Thanks for reading!