In Contention
By Josh Spiegel
December 14, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Keep that in mind as we look at 2010. This year, Bening stars opposite Julianne Moore in what I could consider the highly overrated The Kids Are All Right. She is pretty likely to get nominated for an Oscar once again. And, as with 1999 and 2004, Hilary Swank was the lead of an Oscar-bait movie, Conviction. Conviction has a lot of what matches up with the Oscar checklist. Starring a former winner? Check. Based on a true story? Check. Heartwarming film about the determination of the human spirit? Check. Conviction, just like last year’s Amelia, should be a shoo-in for Oscar gold, but it has just about disappeared from theaters, and any hopes of Swank pulling another victory away from Bening are mostly dead. This doesn’t stop Oscar writers from assuming that, hey, since it could happen, let’s talk about it as if it will.
I don’t mean to spend too much time this week focusing on the chatter of the Oscar season as opposed to the actual awards, but it’s just before the time when predictions of who will and won’t get nominated for the late-February ceremony make any sense. Today, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association announces its nominees for the Golden Globes, and over the past few days, the New York and Los Angeles-based critics announced their awards. But it’s still way too early. Next week, we can get into the nitty-gritty of what films will fill out the ten nominees, but even with that, there’s less guesswork than just assuming that the movies getting the nod now will get the nod later. The King’s Speech, The Social Network, Inception, True Grit, Toy Story 3, Black Swan, 127 Hours, The Kids Are All Right; these eight films are probably the top eight nominees.
More unfortunately, the Oscar writers wouldn’t have much to talk about if not for the endless chatter, so why not focus on that for a little bit? Right now, as the final movies in contention for 2010 are released (since last time, True Grit opened for critics, and opened strong enough to be appropriately considered a strong contender, though not strong enough to immediately dethrone Speech or Network), we can only speculate on which films will or won’t dominate, which films should dominate, and why they should. Hence, we get opinions turned into fact just like straw spun into gold. This week, let’s talk about why everyone hates Toy Story 3. Okay, I’m being unfair. Very few people hate Toy Story 3, and that’s mostly because...well, who could hate a Pixar movie? Who could hate Toy Story 3? But there is, as previously mentioned, an anti-animation bias equivalent to hate.
For decades, animation was present in film, but it never threatened live-action in any way. Oh, sure, animated movies make a lot of money, but when it comes to prestige, when it comes to handing out little trophies, they weren’t posing any serious threat. With the advent of Pixar, however, the Academy had a problem. Clearly, Pixar movies were a cut above most animation; they almost singlehandedly sunk Disney’s hand-drawn animation studio by simply being better in every respect. Since the Pixar films avoided lots of memorable, toe-tapping music, how could they be honored on live national television? Even if Toy Story 2, for example, was a great sequel, a great movie, it didn’t stand a chance of being nominated as the Best Picture of the year. For this reason and others, the Best Animated Feature category was created. Pixar would get an award or two. Everyone goes home happy.
The hitch, of course, is that over the past few years, Pixar movies have not only been vast, amazing improvements on their predecessors, but they’ve been among the best films of any year. Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up, and now Toy Story 3 are all achievements of the highest esteem. With 10 nominees in the Best Picture category, mostly to encourage more popular films showing up on the list, Toy Story 3 looks to follow in Up’s footsteps and be one of the nominees. This is not the issue at hand. Few, if any, Oscar writers are arguing against the film being nominated. But more than a few are not only pointing out the anti-animation bias in the Academy voting ranks that puts the kibosh on the film winning, but engaging in said bias. Saying the movie won’t win isn’t the problem; saying it won’t win because you can’t stand animation winning is.
“What anti-animation bias are you talking about?” Good question, person I just made up. Seriously, here’s the thing: the biggest voting bloc in the Academy are actors. Even though every Pixar movie features the voices of actors (and the Toy Story series stars Tom Hanks, an Academy leader), they don’t actually feature actors. The presumption — and it’s more than that, seeing as actors usually cop to it — is that an actor won’t want to vote for an animated movie no matter how good it is, simply because it’s animated. So, despite Toy Story 3 featuring a big, diverse cast including one of the most beloved actors to come out of the Hollywood system, don’t hold your breath for Toy Story 3 to come away victorious on Oscar night. The bias is what it is: disappointing, selfish, but not shocking.
And, yeah, that other Oscar writers hold this bias isn’t surprising, but it’s annoying that those who inform the opinions of Oscar voters (more often than you might think) are trafficking in a foolish line of thought. A phrase I feel like we need to use more and more is that a movie is a movie is a movie. Maybe you, dear reader, saw hundreds of films this year. Maybe you saw family movies, horror films, mainstream, indie, and so on. And maybe you think Jackass 3-D is the best film of 2010. Having not seen the film, I can only imagine that others who have would think you’re nuts, but hey, it’s your opinion. If you’re an Oscar voter and you have that opinion, you’re probably not going to be happy when the nominations are announced, but so what? You voted what you felt.
So what if Toy Story 3 is animated? Does this matter? The same goes for a foreign film. Maybe you thought the Russian submission for Best Foreign Language Film is the best film of all in 2010. Vote for it for Best Picture. Should it get penalized for not being in English? Of course not. A movie is a movie is a movie. Right now, I’m stuck between a few films as the best of the year, but Toy Story 3 is right up there. What Pixar has been doing almost 100% since 1995 is make movies that put live-action films to shame. There are, unfortunately, a lot of filmmakers and Oscar writers who do not like this. Would you want to be shamed by movies about toys or rats or monsters or superheroes? For the filmmakers, it’s an embarrassment you can fix in the ballots.
For writers, though, it’s more fruitless to wage a war against animation. What is in it for someone who says that Toy Story 3 shouldn’t win just because an animated movie winning is a disgrace to Oscar? (I will not say who has intimated this, but you can feel free to find it. Just know it didn’t come from this site.) Having an opinion is fine, and having a biased opinion is also fine. Having a biased opinion just to piss people off is what loses me. Toy Story 3 is, I’m willing to wager, not winning the Best Picture Oscar for somewhat sad and somewhat understandable reasons. But the idea that an animated movie ever winning the award is bad for the Oscar is standing in the way of progress for no good reason.
One day, an animated movie — perhaps not from Pixar, either — will be as much of an unstoppable force as No Country For Old Men was three years ago. Those against this kind of change will just look more foolish than they do now. So, just remember when you read my article, or the others here, or elsewhere on Oscar sites. Look for the facts, and remember that very few Oscar writers have as much of an impact as they’d like. Look for the facts within their opinions, and if you see none, just remember that a movie is a movie is a movie. Anything should be worthy, and those writing about the season should be willing to accept that idea.