After two years of having 10 Best Picture nominees, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences seems to be having pangs of buyer’s remorse (and no doubt pressure from its members and the filmmaking community to re-align itself), as the number of Best Picture nominees will now RANGE between 5 and 10 potential slots.
I guess this is an attempt to add a sense of faux-excitement to the Oscar process, but the biggest issue with the Best Picture race is… the wasted drama of the whole affair.
WHAT’S WASTED DRAMA?
Wasted drama is a phrase I use when talking about screenplays and movies in which a certain amount of the narrative is wasted space because the audience/reader doesn’t care about some element that the screenwriter/filmmaker wants you to care about. I coined the phrase back when Robert Zemeckis’ CONTACT was released; in the trailers, you saw Jodie Foster climbing into the spaceship and making contact… yet in the movie, there’s this whole sequence in the 2nd Act where the spaceship gets destroyed and the characters’ hopes of getting into space are dashed (but we knew from the trailer and just the layout of the film that Jodie Foster was going to go into space in that spaceship)… and then it’s revealed that a “shadow back-up” of the spaceship (which supposedly was prohibitively expensive and required some rare parts and elements to even make) was being concurrently built in Japan(?!?!?!). And so Jodie got to make contact in that ship.
Now that whole sequence, which was maybe 20 to 25 minutes of screen time, was wasted drama; we knew the outcome and weren’t fooled, in fact bored, by the diversion… regardless of how high quality the filmmaking is/was.
I KNOW THE SCORE BEFORE THE GAME IS PLAYED
The same thing has transpired in the last 5 or 6 Best Picture races (and Oscars in general); think about it, we all knew that THE KING’S SPEECH was going to take home the top prize WHEN THE NOMINATIONS were announced (not that it was undeserved, that movie is great and inspiring; exactly what you want from a movie). Even though Fincher’s THE SOCIAL NETWORK was supposedly running neck-n-neck, Hollywood insiders and Vegas bookies knew the score… so it’s wasted drama, the idea of putting 10 films in the pool, or even 5 these days! I think maybe the year BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN lost to CRASH was the only year in the last decade that it was NOT writ large what film was going to grab the gold statue days, if not weeks, before the ceremony.
Take a quick look:
2010: Hurt Locker beat Avatar (the only two films that were in truly in contention)
2009: Slumdog Millionaire (it had to win, too unique and transcendent of a film not to).
2008: No Country For Old Men (it was the creative Coen Brothers’ time)
2007: The Departed (it was Martin Scorsese’s moment)
2006: Crash (upset!!!)
2005: Million Dollar Baby (Clint doesn’t loose)
2004: Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (too much weight of the whole Tolkein event)
2003: Chicago* – last time it was anybody’s guess who was going to win, and I think everyone thought Gangs of New York or The Pianist was going to win that year (probably split the vote).
The major anticipation with this years list of films is going to be the actual number of nominees… it surely won’t be ten again, perhaps only 6 or 7… and then we’ll know the front-runner/shoe-in is a week later, if we don’t know already.
It’s kind of like the NBA Playoffs when they expanded the first round from a 5-Game Series to a 7-Game Series, all but guaranteeing that the No. 8 Seed will lose. Sure, it didn’t happen this year with the Memphis Grizzlies (but they’re not really an 8 seed, if you look at their personnel and record), yet it’s such a rarity… and that kind of rarity does happen (witness Crash…), but the whole reason for watching is to see who won. Why watch if you know who won ahead of time… it’s like DVRing a game, knowing the outcome, yet watching it without skipping the commercials anyway!
When it comes what’s going to happen with the Oscars – 10 films, 5 films, 7 or 8 films – there needs to be less shoe-in films. Now the answer to that could be that less impact films are being made (too risky). However, all the films are usually very good (and let’s not talk about the snubs that happen every year), and at least deserving of the nomination, if not winning… yet of late there’s seems to be little guesswork. And that’s all that I’m saying, I spend three hours of my Sunday watching the Oscar broadcast and would it kill for there to be some sense of surprise?
MASS MEDIA MARKETING HANDCUFFS
Although perhaps the real reason why it’s snap to choose the best picture winner the day the nominations are announced (and that’s the real the anxiety-filled moments) is that movie-making is a victim of the marketing departments controlling the fate what’s going to be in the theaters or not.
The skyrocketing and punishing marketing costs that a film must incur usually outstrips nearly every other element in the process – more expensive than all A-List Stars on film, the CGI budget or all the producers. And oddly, the marketing expense isn’t included as a line item in the budget (yet it is on the profit and loss statement) – when it needs to be, so the true profitability of a film can be assessed or even estimated. The marketing is everything, take a look at Warner Brothers’ Green Lantern with its estimated $100m in domestic (!) marketing! [$35m is typical, $70m on a big summer tentpole], and because marketing IS everything, it’s 150% of everything when it comes to Oscar campaigns and races.
Obviously the Academy can’t go back to 5 films (hence the range of 5 to 10), but the process in itself is flawed due to the narrow focus of the state of cinema in the US in the first place.


