Opinion: Oscar

Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Oscar. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Năm, 23 tháng 2, 2012

Are Oscar voters too 'old, white, and male'?

A new study breaks down the demographics of Academy Awards voters, revealing that they are far more homogeneous than previously thought As Hollywood prepares to dish out the 2012 Oscars on Sunday night, a new report detailing the demographics of the 5,765 Academy voters is sending a jolt through the film industry. According to a study conducted by the Los Angeles Times, 86 percent of Oscar voters are over age 50, 94 percent are white, and 77 percent are male — demographics that do not exaclty mirror the typical moviegoing audience. Just how troubling is it that the overwhelming majority of Oscar voters are "old, white, and male?"

This is extremely worrisome: "The Oscar demographics seem to both reflect and perpetuate a much bigger issue," says Angie Han at Slash Film. When a voting population is so heavily comprised of a single demographic, "that demographic's general preferences can't help but be overrepresented." And in Oscar's case, that has major consequences. When certain movies score Academy Awards, that "in turn encourages Hollywood to keep making and promoting certain types of films… while overlooking others."
"Shocker: Oscar voters mostly old, white, male"

And the Academy's reforms aren't enough: These findings are "even worse than I ever imagined," says Katey Rich at Cinema Blend. To be fair, the Academy appears to be making an effort to diversify its membership by inviting the likes of Beyonce and Seth Rogen to cast ballots. But it's not enough. So on Sunday night, when you're "slamming your head against the table because Shame didn't get nominated and The Artist is winning everything," you'll know why. "If you're not a a white man over the age of 50, there's a good chance the Oscars don't represent your taste at all."
"Find out just how old, white, and male the Oscar voters are"

It's time for dramatic change: Last year, there were no major Oscar nominations for people of color, says Gregory Ellwood at HitFix. This year, there are just three. And because of the arcane system by which the Academy inducts new members, it could take decades to remedy the situation and make the body younger and more diverse — in other words, to have it reflect the actual moviegoing public. It's time to take a dramatic step to fix this. "Perhaps 7,000 or so phone calls will make it more of a priority the Monday after this year's big show."
"Surprise: The Academy is more white, more male, and even older than you probably thought"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Thứ Hai, 20 tháng 2, 2012

Oscar night: How are the winners picked?

The world's biggest awards ceremony, unfolding this year on Feb. 26, has a history of playing it safe When did the Oscars begin?
The first Academy Awards ceremony was held in May 1929, over dinner at Hollywood's Roosevelt Hotel. It was attended by 270 people, including some who paid a $5 fee as guests of those with invitations, and was hosted by silent-movie actor Douglas Fairbanks, who handed out the awards in just a few minutes. The 15 winners had been disclosed three months earlier, and the very first Oscar — a 13-inch-tall gold-plated statuette designed by MGM's art director, Cedric Gibbons — had already been presented to German actor Emil Jannings, who had sailed to Europe a few weeks before. The silent-movie star was actually the runner-up in the leading-actor category. Celebrity dog Rin Tin Tin had picked up more votes, but was denied the award by an embarrassed academy.

How did the Oscar get its name?
Legend has it that a librarian at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which awards the prizes, took a peek at a statuette and said, "Gee! He looks just like my Uncle Oscar." The name stuck, and so did the "Little Man," which remains the single most prized award in the movie business. And this year's 84th Oscar ceremony will be much like the previous 83, with studio bosses, actors, directors, sound editors, and makeup artists doing their utmost to be called up on stage. Their fate rests on the votes of the Academy's members, whose numbers have climbed from 36 in 1927 to 5,783 today.

SEE MORE: Will Michelle Williams' 'sexy' GQ cover help her Oscar chances?

How do you become a member?
You're either invited to join after being nominated for an Oscar, or you're elected by at least two other members for your services to the film industry. Members join for life, making the Academy a large and unwieldy band: Among those in this select club are anonymous insiders, major Hollywood players like Steven Spielberg, and the occasional outlier, like Mother Dolores Hart, a 73-year-old Benedictine nun who appeared opposite Elvis Presley in 1957's Loving You.

How does the Academy vote?
It has used the same Byzantine voting system since 1936. In stage one — choosing the nominees — members of the Academy's 15 branches vote in their own fields. So directors vote for Best Director, cinematographers for Best Cinematography, and so on, with each voter naming five choices in order of preference. (Everyone gets to nominate for Best Picture). Using a complex system to weight the votes, auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoopers then tabulates the results and determines the top five nominees in each category — or the top nine, in the case of Best Picture. Stage two — choosing the winner — is simpler. All members are allowed to vote in each category, and the nominee with the most ballots wins the statuette.

SEE MORE: Petty controversy: The Oscars diss singing Muppets

What's wrong with the system?
Not only is it confusing even to the members of the Academy, it produces some very puzzling results. The movie industry's most prestigious honor somehow managed to elude Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Richard Burton, Cary Grant, and Greta Garbo. Academy voters chose How Green Was My Valley over Citizen Kane in 1942, and Rocky ahead of Taxi Driver in 1977. Critics of the Oscars say the Academy's voters routinely discriminate against certain genres — comedies, science fiction, and Westerns — and shrink from any kind of controversy and "brave" filmmaking, instead favoring strong, crowd-pleasing story lines. Popularity, in other words, often trumps art.

How is the system to blame?
The biggest problem is that the average Academy member is 57, white, male, and looking for his next Hollywood project. Only a minority, some 1,500, are actors or directors. The rest are the producers, set builders, visual-effects specialists, sound guys, and PR execs that make the industry tick. They're known as the "steak eaters," because they're mostly red-blooded males, and when it comes to the decisive second round of voting, they are by far the Academy's largest voting bloc. "Call it the steak-eater vote, call it the old-geezer vote, call it the babe vote. They always vote for the babes," says Jeffrey Wells, who runs Hollywood-Elsewhere.com. Steak eaters are not big fans of films with gay or foreign themes, like Brokeback Mountain or Munich, and in any given year, about 700 of them will be associated with an Oscar-nominated film, quietly lobbying their peers on its behalf.

SEE MORE: 7 curious facts about the 2012 Oscar nominees

Does winning matter?
You bet. In crude financial terms, winning an Oscar, or even being nominated, can have a huge effect on a film's success. U.S. ticket sales for Slumdog Millionaire jumped more than 200 percent when it was nominated, in 2009. Studies have shown that nominations alone can extend a film's presence in cinemas for weeks. At the real business end of Hollywood, however, Oscars are a bonus but don't massively boost the grosses of box-office smashes. Of the top 50 grossing films of all time, just three have won Best Picture: Titanic, Forrest Gump, and Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

How to win an Oscar
When it comes to winning an Academy Award, it pays to be a drama queen. A study by the University of California, Los Angeles, and Harvard University found that performers who appear in a drama rather than a comedy are nine times more likely to be nominated for an award. And actresses are twice as likely to be nominated as their male co-stars. "Because there are fewer female than male performers in films, and both are eligible for the same number of awards, actresses stand a better chance," said sociologist Nicole Esparza. "It's simple arithmetic." Perversely, not showing up at the ceremony — a sure sign that you're an established megastar — can also improve your chances. Marlon Brando didn't pick up his Oscar for The Godfather in 1973. Paul Newman turned down an invite in 1987, convinced he wouldn't win on his seventh attempt. And when Woody Allen's Annie Hall won Best Picture in 1978, he was already tucked into bed in New York, having unplugged the phone and soothed himself to sleep by reading Conversations With Carl Jung.

SEE MORE: 2012 Oscar nominations: 5 burning questions

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Chủ Nhật, 19 tháng 2, 2012

This Means War: Is Reese Witherspoon squandering her Oscar?

Witherspoon's choice of roles since winning "Best Actress" for The Walk the Line hasn't thrilled critics. Her new film probably won't change that What happened to Reese Witherspoon's career? In This Means War, a "cheesy" spy-flick–meets-romantic-comedy directed by Charlie's Angels' McG that hits theaters Friday, the once-acclaimed actress plays Lauren, the love object of best-bud CIA agents Tuck (Tom Hardy) and FDR (Chris Pine). Since winning the Best Actress Oscar for Walk the Line in 2006, Witherspoon has delivered a series of box office and critical disappointments, and few expect War to break the losing streak. As the Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips advises Witherspoon in his review, "This Means War is the sort of consumer product you're supposed to test before you win an Academy Award, not after." Is she throwing away her talents?

What was Reese thinking? If movies had a scent, This Means War would "reek of cheap cologne," says Mary Pols in TIME. The "hyper saturated color and lighting scheme" makes everyone look bad, both FDR and Tuck are casually misogynistic, and even the promising pairing of "ladylike Oscar winner" Witherspoon with "foul-mouthed late night comedy queen" Chelsea Handler falls flat. Still, "the one to worry about is Reese Witherspoon." She's better than "immature garbage like this." Could she not "smell disaster?"
"Who is the victor in This Means War? Not the viewer"

Let Witherspoon have some fun: Is the movie "totally frothy"? Yes, says Leah Rozen at The Wrap. But "that’s a good thing, at least here." In this deliberately un-ponderous "adult version of Mad magazine's venerable Spy vs. Spy feature," Witherspoon "gives a likable performance, always impressing as just a little smarter and more competent than either of her swains." Sure, This Means War isn't Oscar bait, but at a time when Hollywood seems to have lost the knack of making "glossy, light-hearted fare," it's shamelessly entertaining.
"Spy vs. Spy love triangle makes peace with its frothiness"

Witherspoon has to pay the bills somehow: Like any good romantic comedy, the movie "is full of longing looks, tender touches, and deep professions of eternal love," says Stephen Whitty in New Jersey's The Star-Ledger. "Unfortunately, they all pass between Pine and Hardy." It's a little embarrassing seeing Witherspoon play "such a disposable character," but that's what she signed up for. She may have won an Oscar for a biopic, but "rom-coms pay her bills, and if taking parts like this keep her in the game," who can blame her?
"This Means War: A bromantic comedy"