Last year the group that rallied
against 12 Years a Slave, which in my
humble opinion was the greatest feature film of the year, had to preface their
derogatory remarks with, “I’m not racist, but ….” While the Academy Awards is the biggest of
all the awards shows when it comes to filmmaking accolades, that doesn’t mean
it is the be all, end all in deciding what is and is not the best picture, or
who had the best performances/work from movies the previous year. Sure, they are usually in the right ballpark
when the announcement is made at the end of the night as to what gets to tout
itself as the greatest film from that year, but mistakes are made. I will go to my grave believing that Saving Private Ryan was robbed the Best
Picture statue.
So it came as no big surprise
that starting on Monday the criticisms of Birdman
being the best movie of the year really ramped up. A repetitive theme in the snarky comments was
the win came as a result of the Academy showing love for its own group because Birdman is about the life of
acting/Hollywood. Essentially the
argument is that movies about Hollywood/actors will win more because it is
Hollywood/actors voting for the films.
At face value and without any
actual evidence to support or oppose that claim, I feel like that is a somewhat
ludicrous premise. The Academy members
that vote for the best picture of the year are made up of not just actors, but also
directors, casting directors, cinematographers, costume designers, editors,
executives, producers, public relations people, sound and visual effects
employees, writers, and others. The thought
that actors are only going to vote for a movie as best picture because it
features their own profession would be a valid one if the majority of the
voters were just that single line of business, but with 17 categories of
Academy members it would take a lot more than just the actors’ votes to make a
film about Hollywood the best of the year.
So now let’s look at past
winners. In the 87 years the Oscars have
been happening, a total of six movies associated with Hollywood or the acting
profession (which I am including Broadway in that category) have been crowned
the best. Those films include The Broadway Melody, The Great Ziegfeld, All About Eve, The Artist,
Argo, and Birdman. That puts movies about
movies winning the best movie award at a 6.8% win rate. In fact, there are three genres that have a
better win rate, and they are war films, biopics, and epic period pieces. Dramas about British life have also won six
times.
It is worth noting that three of
the past four winners have been about the Hollywood industry, but prior to that
you have to go all the way back to 1950 to find a Best Picture winner that
involved acting.
Looking at the eight nominees
from this year’s ceremony, claiming Birdman
was the obvious winner because it was about Hollywood could be a valid one if
it weren’t for the films it was up against.
War films, biopics, and epic period pieces, historically, have a better
chance of being named the best picture, and dramas about British life have an
equally good chance. So really, the
movies that fall into genres with a similar or better winning percentage at the
Oscars include American Sniper
(war/biopic), The Imitation Game
(war/biopic/British life), Selma
(biopic), and The Theory of Everything
(biopic).
If you want to make a case for
why one of the other nominated films is the worthy winner, that is fine, but
don’t disparage Birdman because of an
unproven theory about Hollywood and the Academy members.