The Oscars and the Critics – A Trial Separation

2010’s Oscar year proved that no amount of critics awards for a film can influence industry voters when it comes down critical acclaim versus emotional response. ¬†Without any extra need to award an overdue director (Scorsese, the Coens), and without any extra need to make history (Kathryn Bigelow), there was really no driving force to award The Social Network Oscar’s Best Picture, or the DGAs, PGAs or SAGs, for that matter. The critics and the Oscars took two different, distinct paths. Time will have decide who was the better for it.

But in the meantime, looking ahead to 2011’s Oscar race, it’s hard now to look at a film that might get the acclaim of critics. You want good reviews, but you don’t want so many awards that your movie buckles under the weight of them. Once that happens, perception and expectation kick in. Many people said to me “I just don’t get why that movie won so many awards.” But if someone asks you to explain what you love about a great film that is as complex and intricate as The Social Network, it is hard to put it into one sentence. ¬†It is so much easier just say, “God, I really loved that movie,” which is what people were saying about The King’s Speech. ¬†There was no real need to ask why — everyone understood why.

Of course, an overdue, popular director or making history can trump a strong emotional response, as we’ve seen. The King’s Speech going up against The Hurt Locker, The Hurt Locker still wins. The King’s Speech going up against The Departed, The Departed still wins. Good will trumps all. And there was no good will to be had with any of the other films in the nominated ten this year – no overdue director particularly, no history to be made, no “Oscar story.”

I was intrigued by this column written over at Life in Equinox which described what I think to be the psychology of film critics, audiences, bloggers and ultimately industry voters. We apply both our identities of self and our dislike of others to what we eventually vote for. The critics historically view the Academy’s choices as middle-brow. Likewise, the industry, more often than not, bristles at liking a critics darling (American Splendor, Sideways, etc):

Believe it or not, this spills over far too often into the realm of mainstream film criticism. From people who believe they are superior for liking some movies to those who believe they likewise because they don’t. There are those of us who won’t watch certain films simply because of these associations. Then there are those of us who refuse to like films because of them. It’s a debilitating perception that fails to capture the essence of what film criticism should be.

As I’ve said before, we are not unique entities, separable from the societal influences that surround us. So it should stand to reason that any review of any film is likely to have some aspect of social criticism trickled throughout. Yet, it is important to note the fine line between criticizing a film based on those influences and basing your criticism of a film on your perceptions.

The difference: one is an inherent quality fixed at the time of viewing, the other is a variable quality with high fluctuation. For example, if you’re surrounded by four people you generally dislike and they’re raving about a film they just saw, odds are you’re going to build an immediate negative association with the film. Let’s say you go and watch it, and your brain takes that negative association and applies it to the film. You’re not watching the movie, you’re watching for the negatives of the movie. Not a good way to go about things, and it will be reflected in your review.

Now, fast forward a few years. You’ve changed your surroundings some and are now surrounded by people you think highly of, and they love the movie. That original negative association slowly breaks apart, and eventually you garner the gumption to watch it again. However, you’re still not watching the movie. This time you’re looking for positive associations with the movie in an effort to fulfill your mind social influences. It’s a mind boggling world of contradictions.

I would like to say that’s really the end of it, but I’ve found that people tend to not draw the line at the viewing. I’ve seen people write a positive review of a movie, then go out into social situations and suddenly pull a 180 due to the various influences and external associations they encounter. Sometimes these are valid alterations, perhaps due to a missed observation brought to light. But I would argue that is an exception, and not the rule. More often than not I find people are willing to bend this opinion just because it conforms best to their desired surroundings. “Want to bash the hipster group? Step right up and use this film as your pedestal. How about people who disagree with your political affiliations? Well this film is the one for you!”

It’s hard not to see this year as a reactionary year in various ways. First, starting in September when the Toronto Film fest gave their audience award to The King’s Speech and all of the Oscar pundits put it right at number one to win (except two or three, those of us who had seen and felt The Social Network was the better, more vital choice — given the Academy’s recent voting patterns, they would continue awarding daring, critically acclaimed work over traditional crowdpleasers, Slumdog Millionaire notwithstanding). Had The King’s Speech continued to win stuff, like the National Board of Review, where it was expected to win, or the Golden Globe, also expected to win there — the industry might have reacted to that and voted for something else. It’s hard to know what they would have done. But there is little doubt in anyone’s mind that the overwhelming support and unanimous approval of The Social Network made it suddenly the film to hate. Moreover, it had to do battle with people who already hated Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. In other words, who cares about a bunch of people who got rich?

The King’s Speech, ironically, managed to make people all over the world care about the stammering King due to the brilliant performance of Colin Firth. Easy to care, hard to find fault with it, The King’s Speech is a film you can recommend to anyone and feel certain that most, say 95% of them will like it, if not love it. Does that make it a great film? No, it doesn’t. But does that matter? No. The truth is that film history is mostly written by critics. You will never find any film class at any respectable university studying Oscar winners. It will just so happen on occasion that a great film will somehow win the Oscar but for the most part, the Oscar race has its own history.

The modern race, which has changed a bit from decades’ past, is really about those three weeks at home for the holidays with a pile of screeners in front of you. Of all of the people I talked to who watched the pile of screeners, they all praised The King’s Speech as the one of all of those movies that they liked best. The Social Network was good but they didn’t get what all of the fuss about. ¬†And that is how the race was won this year. It was done, I think, not by Harvey Weinstein shenanigans (although they certainly helped), but by the unreasonably high expectations placed on The Social Network, and the universally moving aspect of the King’s Speech. So why all of the drama? ¬†Because for some people watching the race it isn’t about those few weeks and a pile of screeners: it is about making history.

One has to assume going forward that there isn’t one way of “being right.” Those who changed their minds from The King’s Speech to the Social Network and back to the King’s Speech were not wrong. In fact, those who held on to The King’s Speech, even as The Social Network was winning everything in sight, did so on nothing more than a hunch. A hunch can pay off, as it did here, or it can not pay off; after all, that same hunch that led Anne Thompson to stick with The King’s Speech failed her when she picked Helena Bonham Carter for Supporting Actress. It also failed other pundits who figured The King’s Speech would win more than just four Oscars.

Some years emotional investment pays off. If you happened to be someone who loved Return of the King the year it clean swept the Oscars you would have done very well with your predictions. This year, as every year, I did two sets – one was complete emotional investment and wishful thinking and the other was removed, emotionless predicting. The former gave me a very low score of 12/24. The latter gave me a very high score of 18/24. It wasn’t hard choosing the latter.

But just because it worked out that way this year doesn’t mean it will work out that way next year. ¬†It just depends on where your tastes line up with the general public. ¬†There are still some things about the Oscar race that are hard to predict. And that is what keeps many of us coming back. Sure, people knew The King’s Speech would win. But most of them had no idea it would only walk away with four out of its twelve nominations.

We don’t know yet if our ten Best Picture nominees will be as rich and vibrant as this past year’s slate. We don’t know if they’ll keep shuffling towards the middle and find their Blind Side again, or if they’ll still take their initial cue from the critics. It’s a trial separation. ¬†What we do know is simply that a film can win all of the major critics and still lose to the industry, those who make movies, if they decide to go for something that moves them. ¬†You can’t really argue when the heart is involved.

So we’ll take this piece of information and we’ll have to disregard the critics heading into the next year. ¬†The reviews still have to be good. ¬†But unless there is an “Oscar story” or some other reason to award a film, you’ll have to go with what one makes strong men also cry. It is a good year, I think, to take some of the importance off of the top prize. ¬†After all, if mommy and daddy are getting a divorce because the sex isn’t good, perhaps we should take focus off of the orgasm and more on the romance and discovery. ¬†The getting down to it might turn out to be more arresting and memorable than the outcome.