This morning I cracked open my Sunday supplement copy of the New York Times (yes, I read an actual hard copy newspaper: three, in fact) to find the first section devoted to the biggest award of the season, the Academy Awards. Naturally I began to look, and I was disappointed but not surprised by the articles and ads begging the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences (AMPAS) to consider certain productions for nomination.
When the movie industry began, it seems that every motion picture was simply produced to entertain the general public. It was a baby industry learning to walk before it needed to talk, and even when “talkies” came to the theatres people were aghast at the concept of adding sound. Which is what parents have also complained about since time immemorial.
Eventually movies found themselves being categorized into romance, drama, horror and musical and such, but still anybody who had a few coins in their pockets could enjoy a movie (and often receive a free snack). Those were the days of news reels and travelogues, when information was sent out in any way possible. The filming of events overseas were duplicated and sent to what must have been hundreds or even thousands of screening houses. A visit to the movies was an experience for everybody. Children were exposed to general grammar, and foreigners could even learn English as a second language.
When the turnaround happened, I’m not certain, but sometime after the 1970s and the dawn of summer blockbusters, the films considered for awards began to shift from movies everybody could watch to art house productions produced by a certain class of people and which only selected people saw. The feel of the events shifted from the general public to the micro percentage of the population.
Two of the Times’ staff–Manohla Dargis and Alissa Wilkinson–provided a comparison of who and what they considered the best films for consideration. The only films I recognized in the listings are Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon. The former was released in the summer and enjoyed the distinction of popularity with a film apparently released for the general public: Barbie. Nowhere did Barbie get a suggested best picture nomination. The latter film came out in the last half of the year. Which seems to be the norm for this new ritual: the films nobody got to see are released at the end of the year to be fresh in the minds of those who did see them, and the rest of the year be damned.
The other films listed for a hopeful place in history have never appeared on a movie screen in my area (except perhaps one AMC with the reputation for art house fare from its past incarnations which it cannot abandon). Movies with tiles such as May December, Menus-Plaisirs – Les Troisgros, The Taste of Things and Asteroid City left me scratching my head. One is based on a true story about an older woman’s affair with a tween boy. One is a documentary film in French (English subtitles) about a renowned Michelin star restaurant, so why it would be considered for Best Picture rather than Best Documentary or Foreign Film is beyond me. Another is a romantic story about food (again), this time a cook and her gourmet employer, and the last is a dramedy about UFOs.
These are movies that most people would not see. The “general public” has become the recipients of mass market pabulum, while the few percent attend the art houses and generally have the biggest say in anything to do with awards. Barbie is meaningless as a film to be memorialized, but it is possible that its director, Greta Gerwig, may be honored for her work on the project. The exclusivity of it all takes away from what the movie industry was designed for; not just entertainment, but enlightening the general public. We no longer need newsreels in the cinema, but we do need something to stimulate our brains.
Of course I realize that the ordinary people out there wouldn’t want to see a film with subtitles, but I would consider seeing anything if I knew it existed first. The isolated publicity behind these films are keeping them away from even the curious. That isn’t fair if they also have some money in their pockets.
A friend asked me if I would be willing to watch the Golden Globes, which tends to be a precursor to what pictures and persons win at the Academy Awards. Sure, I said. I’ll watch.
But I will still be scratching my head.
Susan's Scribblings the Blog 