The Autumn of the Oscars

 In U.S.

To pick a representative year from my adolescence, in 1996 the academy nominated five movies for Best Picture — a classic-novel adaptation and romantic comedy in “Sense and Sensibility”; a historical epic-war movie in “Braveheart”; a work of can-do Americana in “Apollo 13”; and then an ingenious children’s movie in “Babe” and a foreign film in “The Postman” (“Il Postino”). The foreign movie made “only” about $21 million in domestic United States box office (still a large haul for a subtitled movie); the other four made about $354 million combined, with “Apollo 13” the easy leader. Adjusted for today’s ticket prices, that works out to well over $700 million in contemporary dollars between them …

… which is more than the total earned by the nine movies nominated for Best Picture in 2018. The winner, “The Shape of Water,” is the most popular trophy-getter in five years — and its current box office take is just $58 million.

What has happened in the intervening years is well known to everyone. The combination of a global audience (which doesn’t necessarily relate to a lot of old-Hollywood genres and tropes), the ease of substituting special-effects work for storytelling, the ascent of geek culture and the lure of online life and the flight of talent and viewers to the ever-expanding realm of prestige TV have turned Hollywood into a comic-book blockbuster industry with an Oscar-bait subsidiary.

The result is a cinematic common culture increasingly reduced to Marvel sequels and other genre remakes and reboots and spinoffs. Half the Top 10 highest-grossing movies in 2017 were superhero movies; you have to go 13 spots down the list, to Pixar’s “Coco,” to find a movie that isn’t based on a “presold” pop culture property. This is the landscape from which the academy has to pick its nominees, and it basically offers them a choice between mass-market mediocrity and the more rarefied fare that now dominates the Oscars.

Could the voters do a better job sifting through the reboot-remake mediocrity to find high-grossing jewels? Perhaps: A list of nominees for this year’s Oscars that included “Logan” and “Blade Runner: 2049” might have boosted the nominees’ popular appeal without sacrificing quality.

But there’s already been a respectable attempt to nominate the better genre efforts, from “Mad Max: Fury Road” and “Arrival” (probably the best movies of their respective years) to this year’s garlands for the low-budget racial horror of “Get Out.” And there’s little to be gained from having the academy go down the same path as certain fanboy (or bullied-by-fanboys) critics and ask us all to pretend that “Wonder Woman” was more than just a fun vehicle for the charismatic Gal Gadot, or that “The Last Jedi” really deserves its absurd 90 percent “fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes, or that Marvel’s assembly-line showcases are actually good movies the way “Sense and Sensibility” or “Apollo 13” or “Braveheart” were.

But the alternative to such a lowering of standards, as the sharp Hollywood observer Richard Rushfield notes, is an Oscars that increasingly resembles the Independent Spirit Awards — which in turn tends to politicize the awards beyond the movie business’s usual broadly liberal bent.

Recent Posts
Get Breaking News Delivered to Your Inbox
Join over 2.3 million subscribers. Get daily breaking news directly to your inbox as they happen.
Your Information will never be shared with any third party.
Get Latest News in Facebook
Never miss another breaking news. Click on the "LIKE" button below now!