Cannes Film Festival 2013

Oscar Postmortem: Lessons learned from the 2011 Awards Season

Moving the Academy Awards to late Feb or Jan needs to be top priority

<p>Christian Bale, Natalie Portman, Melissa Leo and Colin Firth celebrating their acting Oscar wins on Sunday night.</p>

Christian Bale, Natalie Portman, Melissa Leo and Colin Firth celebrating their acting Oscar wins on Sunday night.

Credit: AP Photo/Matt Sayles

Well that was fun, wasn't it?

This year's sad excuse for an Oscar telecast will no doubt go down in Academy Awards history as being one of the most boring ever, but the producers and mismatched hosts certainly didn't have the benefit of either upsets or great speeches occurred during the broadcast.  Oh, apologies, were unexpected wins in cinematography and art direction supposed to be true television drama?  No, but it's not even about upsets at this point.  Part of the fun with awards season is seeing who pulls out a close race at the last minute.  Besides some questions between "Avatar" and "Hurt Locker" winning best picture last year and the race between "Departed," "Babel" and "Little Miss Sunshine" in 2007 that hasn't really been the case.  Will that change in 2012?  We can only hope.  

That being said, it's the rest of the season where the maneuvering and surprises are really occurring.  Yes, "The King's Speech" was a front runner after the Telluride and Toronto Film Festivals in September, but by December it seemed impossible for any film but "The Social Network" to win it all.  Welcome January and the whole season turned upside down.  And that's nothing new.  Such turns are part of the fun of following the season.  Unfortunately, the Oscars have now ended all the fun with a consistent thud for the past two years. 

After taking a few days to gather my thoughts over the ups and downs of the past six months, its clear there are a few lessons to be learned from the 2010-2011 awards season.

The season needs to get shorter
Seven years ago, the Academy smartly moved the telecast from a traditional late March slot to a late February slot.  This made ABC happy because the ratings grabber was now part of February sweeps.  It made studios happy because "in theory" they would spend less on shorter Academy campaigns (ha!).  But, most importantly, it meant the public wasn't celebrating the best films of the previous year  almost four months into the new year.  If this year is any indication, there is no reason not to make the schedule shorter again.  There are too many pseudo awards events between the end of October and the current Academy Awards date that only lead to Oscar fatigue and a lack of drama once the main category winners are revealed (when the biggest upsets over the past two years are best adapted screenplay and best cinematography, you've got a problem).  The NFL's attempt at extending the regular season to 18 games may be the final catalyst to move the Oscar date earlier, but at a minimum the Academy should look at the first weekend of February or -- even better -- the last weekend in January.   And yes, that may mean the Grammys would be revealed after the Oscars, but that's O.K.  The world will still keep turning and life will go on.

Ballots got sent in early…again
The big takeaway from Melissa Leo winning the best supporting actress Oscar wasn't that Academy members didn't care about her increasingly odd behavior or her strange for your consideration ads.  In fact, it was hard to find anyone who wasn't talking about it. Instead, it points to the fact that a large portion of members send their ballots in earlier rather than later.  It's also one reason why the controversy over Nicolas Chartier's E-mail to members last year, in clear violation of Academy rules, had so little effect on the best picture vote as "Hurt Locker" still won.  By the time nominations have been announced, most Academy members know who they are voting for.  In fact, the approximate three week long voting period is likely unnecessary.  Sure there are members overseas who need to submit their votes, but in this digital age are paper ballots really needed?  (Another example of why the season is unjustifiably too long).

Want More...

Academy Awards?
  • Oscar-statues-outside-the-82nd-academy-awards-at-the-kodak-theater-in-hollywood-ca
    Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.

The Academy didn't dislike 'The Social Network' they just liked 'The King's Speech' more

If I see one more tweet or hear one more person somehow insinuate that it's a tragedy that "The Social Network" didn't win best picture and that "The King's Speech" is one of the winners ever I might pull a Keifer Sutherland.  "Speech" is a critically acclaimed drama and don't give me that "It's just a good HBO movie" crap either.  The film had an 88 on Metacritic, higher than "Inception" (74), "The Kids Are All Right" (86), "Black Swan" (79),  "127 Hours" (82) and "The Fighter" (79) and "True Grit" (80) .  Only "Toy Story 3" (92), "Winter's Bone" (90) and "Network" (95) had higher averages.  And let's be clear, there isn't a big difference between 88 and 95 with the nation's top critics.  "Speech" is not "Crash."  It's not "A Beautiful Mind."  It's not "Shakespeare in Love," "Driving Miss Daisy" or "Ordinary People."  Give the movie some respect.  And as Spielberg noted Sunday night, there are a hell of a lot of amazing films -- even in the past decade -- that didn't win best picture. And when it comes down to it, more members just liked "Speech" more than "Network." C'est la vie haters.

10 pictures works
When the new expanded best picture field was revealed last year there was some grumbling after "The Blind Side" made the cut.  Whether the disdain for the blockbuster's inclusion increased or decreased after "Side's" constant rotation on HBO remains to be seen, but you haven't heard one peep that there were any undeserving nominees this year.  In fact, "The Town," "Another Year," "Exit Through the Gift Shop," "How to Train Your Dragon" and "Rabbit Hole" all could have made the cut without setting off alarms.  Considering "Finding Neverland," "Seabiscuit," "Chocolat," "The Cider House Rules" were all relatively recent nominees  with just five nominees, that proves the Academy now has enough taste to continue to select 10 deserving films.

You can't ram a potential Oscar winner down the Academy's throat
Sony Pictures and their award season consultants may have made a huge tactical error regarding "The Social Network."  While many studios let holiday box office and critical reception speak for their pictures during the Christmas break and the first week of January, "The Social Network" went full board with a big advertising spend and numerous events all over town.  After dominating the media landscape in December by winning almost every single critic's group honor, it just became too much, too fast and too soon.  And when publicists for studios out of the best picture race started talking about it ("What are they doing?") red flags were raised.

The overall shorts voting process has to change
It's too difficult, at least for this pundit, to determine if there were any animated, live action or documentary shots mistaken left out of the nominated fields, but the voting results -- for the most part -- show that some true change is needed.  Right now, to vote, members have to view all of the shorts at Academy screenings held mostly just during the week and during the day.  That means a primarily retired and older audience is voting.  While the live action short went to a deserving film, "God of Love" (and there were other worthy winners), the animated short and documentary short winners were certainly not up to par.  There is no reason the Academy cannot figure out a registration system with Vimeo, Apple or even YouTube to allow members to watch all of the shorts on their own, at their own schedule and then vote.  And not only will a bigger pool of voters lead to more appropriate winners, but make the overall membership realize just how important short films are to the industry. (You could also make the argument a watch at home system could work for foreign language film and best documentary as well, but hey, baby steps).

Tom Sherak may have outlasted his use as Academy president
It may be time for Tom Sherak to go.  Unlike Sid Ganis, Sherak's short tenure has featured one near disastrous Oscar show (last year) and one utterly disastrous show (this year).  Sherak is responsible for hiring the producers for the show and he hasn't chosen well so far. Most Academy presidents last around four years.  Will the board of governors give him one more shot?  We'll see, but I'm not sure he'd have my vote.

People have to stop turning down hosting the Oscars
If this year is any indication, some of Hollywood's biggest talent needs to stop turning down the chance to host the big show.  There has to be some pride here in representing your industry (cough, the one that has no doubt made you a millionaire numerous times over).  Sure, there are jitters and nervousness, but Ben Stiller, Steve Carell, Tina Fey, Will Smith, Robert Downey, Jr., Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock and Will Ferrell (or any combination of the aforementioned)?  Bite the bullet and save the sinking ship.  Quickly.  Before they invite Ellen DeGeneres to host again.

It might be time to leave the Kodak Theater

There are few alternative venues at the moment, but it might be time for the Academy to end its run at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood.  Production designers are finding it difficult to come up with new sets and concepts in the facility and they will only become more hamstrung once the new permanent Cirque du Solei show begins later this year.  Unfortunately, the Nokia theater is just a horrible black box and Staples already shuts down for the Grammys kicking the Lakers, Kings and Clippers out for over two weeks.  Perhaps that covered NFL football stadium isn't such a bad idea…or, how about taking Oscar on the road?  

The Governors Awards need to be televised
While having the honorees for the yearly Academy lifetime achievement awards come out for a bow during the big show has become something purists will have to live with there is absolutely no reason why the Governors Awards themselves can't be televised.  The Academy puts in a good deal of effort into the production of the two-year-old endeavor and it seems like perfect, classy material for TNT, AMC, HBO or even big show network ABC on a Saturday night.  AMPAS is doing these legends a disservice by not presenting their tributes to the widest audience possible.  It just makes no sense and, honestly, is a bit insulting to the honorees.

And for the most part that's a wrap until potential players reveal themselves for the next go around at this year's Cannes Film Festival in May.   Until then, remember "Like Crazy," Anton Yelchin, Elizabeth Olsen and "Rango" as potential players for next season.

For the latest entertainment news and awards commentary year round follow Gregory Ellwood on twitter at @HitFixGregory.

Do you have any final thoughts on this year's Oscars or awards season?  Share them below.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Raylan_-_copy_talkback_profile

    Jonnybon

    Benjamin Button/Slumdog must have been close too.

    March 2, 2011 at 8:09PM EST Reply to Comment
  • 500full_talkback_profile

    velocityknown

    My issue with The Social Network not winning is not that I think The King's Speech is bad. I thought it was a fantastic movie and any other year I would've been happy with it winning Best Picture, but I feel that the voters really missed out on awarding a movie that will become looked back on as one of the best films of this generation. I think The King's Speech will become much more obscure because of how conventional it was. Once again, that's not a slight towards the movie, but you can't deny it's conventionality when compared to TSN.

    No it's not Shakespeare in Love or Dances with Wolves, but people will look back and say that The Social Network should have won. They shouldn't say, "I can't believe The King's Speech beat it", because it is a great movie.

    But in the weeks leading up, knowing The King's SPeech would win, I have been saying the words that Steven Spielberg basically spoke on Oscar night: Citizen Kane didn't win Best Picture either.

    Something else we learned: Ads taken out for yourself don't necessarily lose you an award. Sorry Greg, couldn't resist. I too wish she hadn't won. Would've spared us that horrendous, self-absorbed speech.

    March 2, 2011 at 10:54PM EST Reply to Comment


  • I agree! The season is getting too drawn out now and "fatigue" would be an understatement. They need to move the awards to the opening of February or the end of January.

    And another thing, which Alan Sepinwall noted in his review, was that there must be some common sense in arranging the order of the awards for the broadcast. If the Best Director prize is one where there may be an upset and which will certainly act as an indicator... then DON'T keep it forty minutes before Best Picture! Completely evaporates all potential suspense.

    March 2, 2011 at 11:16PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Max

    I can't believe people are still bitching about "Shakespeare in Love" all these years later. It was a good movie and deserved to win, much moreso than the overrated "Saving Private Ryan." The first fifteen minutes were amazing, yes, but the rest was just typical Spielbergian angst/schmaltz, just with a WWII backdrop. Seriously, they should've just cut out the rest of the movie and won a best live-action short that year.

    March 3, 2011 at 2:01AM EST Reply to Comment
    • When was the last time you watched "Shakespeare"? Watch it again. You might change your mind. "Elizabeth" and "The Thin Red Line" more deserving than "Shakespeare."

      March 3, 2011 at 6:10AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Pett Shakespeare was better than Private Ryan. Thin Red Line was better than both. (I haven't seen Elizabeth in years, but that sequel "the Golden Age" was awful)
      Rushmore and Lebowski were better than all of the nominees that year.

      March 3, 2011 at 11:10AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Max Okay, you guys are right…I automatically went to “Shakespeare vs. Private Ryan,” since that seems to be the film loss that I seem to hear most people reference. I didn’t take the other contenders into consideration. Yeah, I’d have liked to have seen “Thin Red Line” win (and definitely count me in on the “Rushmore was robbed” group). Sorry for the confusion/knee-jerk reaction. :)

      March 3, 2011 at 2:33PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Andy

    Lots of good points here.

    They could move the Oscars to the weekend between the NFL championship games and the Super Bowl. The NFL would have to move the Pro Bowl to Saturday night, but nobody watches that anyway.

    I definitely agree with airing the Governor's Awards - based on the clips from the past two years, it packs a lot more star power and they seem to be enjoying themselves a thousand times more than the Oscars.

    And I think they not only have to convince Hollywood's biggest talent to host, they have to convince them to attend. A shot of the audience shouldn't look like an Amway convention - it should be packed with stars. Like the Globes.

    March 3, 2011 at 11:19AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    firstmom

    Write a comment...

    March 3, 2011 at 1:08PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    firstmom

    The Oscars need a comic - Or at least someone who can deliver a snappy comeback when unexpected things happen. Most Actors are only great with scripts. An Adam Sandler type - edgy but lovable -

    March 3, 2011 at 1:13PM EST Reply to Comment
    • You lost me when you called Adam Sandler "lovable".

      March 3, 2011 at 11:19PM EST


  • Hosting is a no-win situation for any of the mentioned performers (or anyone else for that matter). Too much instant criticism by people trying to make a name for themselves or simply making sport of being snarky.

    The Oscars should be the FIRST awards mentioned. Absolutely nobody among the general public cares even a little bit about any of the other awards. But when there are headlines and stories about various and telecasts (do we really need a Broadcast Film Critics award show?) seemingly every day in the weeks leading up to the Oscars, the phenomenon of Oscar fatigue is inevitable. The other organizations (DGA. SAG, etc.) should hand out their awards after the Oscars if they are truly interested in promoting their industry. Even better: all of these other guilds and societies ought to get together for one night of festivities. Get everybody in a big room with a bunch of liquor and a truly funny host and let the frivolity rip.

    And the various studios and agencies really should stop with all the campaigning. It's unseemly, low-class, and I think really turns people off.

    March 3, 2011 at 1:26PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    joejoe

    Elizabeth Olsen will be nominated for Best Actress next year. Trust me. I saw Martha Marcy May Marlene and she was brilliant. And I did not expect the Olsen twins little sister to be talented.

    March 3, 2011 at 10:17PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Ed

    Honestly, I think you're assertion that just because The King's Speech is critically acclaimed then it isn't bad is rather foolish. I saw every on of the Best Picture nominees this year and several others that have been counted as being "robbed" by a lot of folks.

    The King's Speech was, I will absolutely admit, a delightful little film. Unfortunately, that's what it should have stayed, a delightful, LITTLE, film. The Academy are claiming to recognize with these awards the year's "greatest cinema[sic] achievements," specifically noting that in each category, the award is given to that which is most outstanding. There is simply no excuse for The King's Speech being recognized with this honor. As a movie it isn't necessarily bad per se, but it is inexorably far from anything that could be called the greatest achievement in cinema of 2010.

    For one, the King's Speech is for the most part going to be forgotten, and quickly, outside of the discussion of undeserving Oscar winners, and perhaps also it will remain in the common vernacular as a landmark incident in the battle of art versus censorship if Weinstein actually decides to push the PG-13 version into theaters.

    As a second, in another year it would be perfectly alright for an entirely traditional film, in every sense of the word, to win best picture if it really was a spectacle to behold, however, this year saw no less than eight movies which would not only qualify as outstanding ACHIEVEMENTS in cinema but also are going to, not may, will, forever affect filmmaking as we know it.

    Black Swan continues Aronofsky's tradition of performing a fantastic blend of modern independant and traditional large scale cinema, while also weaving together a highly symbolic and metaphorical story in a very original way, without ever really risking a severe disconnect from the audience, by way of engulfing the viewer in the story from minute one. Also it solidifies film as a medium through which High Art can be accomplished and then released to a wide audience to gain a ridiculous profit no less.

    127 Hours is simply and undeniably a look into the future of movies. Every aspect from the cinematography done with only digital means, and even making use of the hot topic format of DSLR's, to the inventive editing, to the score, to the spectacular way in which Danny Boyle was able to tell a story lasting an hour and a half without a dull moment, while only having a single actual concrete location within the context of the film, all while providing one of the most satisfying emotional journeys any artistic venture has accomplished.

    The Social Network saw most notably David Fincher telling a story that people want to hear. He was able to almost traverse into the realm of post modern with only the story being told, he then manages to transcend that and tell it in a very modern way. I will grant not unlike his previous films, however, Fincher has since he began making movies been on the cutting edge of narrative technique. He also did so with use of purely digital cinematography, like most of this year's films that can be called truly great. On top of that, unlike Black Swan and 127 Hours, The Social Network is not at all inaccessible. Where those two falter in having abstracted quality able to be divine by most people, The Social Network can be appreciated in every aspect of it by anyone with even half a brain.

    Inception saw Christopher Nolan, like it or not, crafting a not too terribly, for lack of a better word, original story with very terribly original methods. All kinds of argument has been circulating that Nolan did not make a movie like no one's made before, but he has. Everything about Inception not even challenges but questions traditional filmmaking and it's method of storytelling. And even apart from the simple achievement of it, the way he tells the story is also very exciting and very satisfying.

    The Fighter, complain all you want, was an overdone and worn out story told in a completely new way. No offense intended to the family, but that tale has been done to death.

    The Kids Are Alright managed to tell a story that while may not have been original or modern in nature, is absolutely modern and completely original in context.

    The Seventh is Cyrus, a completely forgotten film which blends perfectly the distinctions of mumblecore with enough of more mainstream filmmaking techniques as to attract a wide audience, and as a result will more likely than not forge a good deal of influence upon mainstream films themselves.

    I ask anyone and everyone to provide evidence that The King's Speech has or will make any more of a footprint than any of these films, including Cyrus, and to explain how it is in any way an outstanding achievement in cinema, and is indeed the greatest of 2010 before saying it unequivocally deserves the highest award honoring this.

    As a matter of interest, my personal opinions are that Black Swan was the best movie of last year and that, given it's abysmal chances to do so, The Social Network instead should have received the highest honor on Sunday

    March 4, 2011 at 4:12PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    M

    The question that has to be asked is not was The King's Speech a good movie, but was it the year's "greatest cinema[sic] achievement." That's a quote from the Academy website. Any other Best Picture nominee would have more accurately fit that criteria and was better than The King's Speech, with the possible exception of Winter's Bone.

    March 4, 2011 at 4:19PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Awards Campaign

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web