The "New" Rules of Oscar Season

Matthew Belloni over at The Hollywood Reporter wrote a rather concise and insightful article regarding "old" Oscar rules as they apply to this year's slate of ten nominees.  The gist of Belloni's argument is that despite the supposed changing of the Oscar race, the expanded field did little to change the state of the race.  Admittedly the slate of nominees matches up well with the usual field of nominees, but with an extra five pictures thrown in.  Despite the lack of change I've been firmly on the record regarding my support for the ten nominee field.  Movies that have otherwise missed the shortlisted have been allowed their just recognition (District 9 and Up being my two favorites).  There are plenty of quibbles regarding the lack of Star Trek, The Hangover, (500) Days of Summer and Moon among others, but these films have always fallen outside of the usual Academy favorites.  A few short thoughts on Belloni's rules follow:



1. "No Laughing Matter" 


As Belloni points out, Annie Hall was the last fully comedic film to win Best Picture at the Oscar, though the film was released in 1977 not 1976.   Very few films have even successfully earned that coveted Best Picture nomination.  Instead comedies are usually reserved for nominations in the Screenplay categories, and occasionally acting categories.  Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda and Alan Arkin in Little Miss Sunshine are some of the few examples of awards winning performances from comedies in recent years.  Many expected the expanded field to benefit The Hangover or It's Complicated,  but The Hangover is too much of a "guys nite out" and It's Complicated failed to gain the needed reviews of box office.  However, (500) Days of Summer is a quirkier comedy and more romantic than the other two, a quality lacking in the other two, but its lack of screenplay nomination doomed this critical favorite.  A greater inclination towards comedies would have been appreciated, but for now the Academy looks just as adverse to laughing as before.


2. "Brand Support"


Belloni's next point focused on The Coen Brothers and A Serious Man.  Given the Academy's inclination towards the Coen Brothers I was less than surprised than others to see this make their short list.  A Serious Man had serious supporters to help propel it towards a nomination in a nomination process that favors fervent support in small pockets as much as it does wide-spread acclaim.  In the past the iconic brothers needed their film to garner enough broad support to make the short list, but with the expanded field it only made sense for them to sneak in with a nomination.  Had the field been expanded to ten in the past I'm sure O'Brothe Where Art Thou would have been a nominee.  If the Academy likes a writer or director they get stuck on that director, look at Woody Allen's many writing nomination.  Much like Joel and Ethan, Woody would have likely seen more success in the Best Picture field.  The expanded field also benefited Pixar, as Up finally got the Lords of Animation a coveted Best Picture nomination, something I'm sure most other Pixar films would have achieved.    


3. "Performance Art"


This is one category I'm less inclined to side with Belloni on.  Belloni's assertion is that a performance with strong buzz (Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side) can propel a movie towards a best picture nomination now.  However, he seems to neglect that Jeff Bridges couldn't translate that buzz into a nomination for Crazy Heart.  Of course The Blind Side has made close to 200 million more than Crazy Heart, so box office success may have influenced part The Blind Side's inclusion.  Belloni cites performances of Bates, Lange and Theoron in their Oscar winning performances as films that won Best Actress without any other nomination.  However, for much of the same reason Bridges' performance (though Crazy Heart took two other nominations) those movies lacked the box office pull of The Blind Side.  Whether strong performances will fuel other Oscar nominations in the future seems more questionable to me.


4. "Cost of Doing Business"


Oscar campaigning has become a major part of the Awards season, and strong campaigns can certainly help in gaining actors and movies nominations.  In the past this hasn't always worked, Road to Perdition had a beautiful campaign some eight years ago, only to receive six nominations without making the shortlist in Picture.  Campaigns also help voters stay aware of smaller films they might otherwise miss, Little Miss Sunshine had a campaign critical to its awards success.  The Hurt Locker this has also used a well run campaign this past Winter.  Yet as Belloni correctly points independent films like Hurt Locker are funded by distributors with considerable clout and more money to spend then truly marginal distributors like Magnolia or Oscilloscope have.  Belloni points to the later distributor's failed effort to gain a picture nomination for The Messenger.  Belloni is dead on when he says you still need money to get your film in the coveted ten.


5. "Franchise flounder"


Belloni's last rule focuses on the lack of franchise films in the field of 10. However, I don't know if citing Harry Potter supports his argument, as the Harry Potter series has never garnered serious consideration at the Oscars.  The Academy still sees the series as geared towards youngsters to seriously consider it.  On the other hand is reference of Star Trek makes a strong argument.  However, Stat Trek is seen largely as a genre film (Sci-Fi) something the Academy avoids, particularly the sci-fi genre.  Yes, District 9 gained a nomination, but that also boasted larger critical support.  There was certainly hope that a commercial hit like Star Trek could make the field, but without the universal acclaim a franchise type film is still going to be shutout.   


My only problem with Belloni's list is his lack of attention towards genre films in general.  Genre films were expected to make a larger impact on the race given the expanded field, but aside from District 9 genre films struggled again.  Additionally, his exclusion of Up when talking about many of these categories is also confusing, Up seems to support several of his arguments.  Of course we might have to wait next year to see how these rules hold up again, but for now the movies that make the most sense next year should be our ten nominated movies.