Why are Oscar movies so depressing

I get where you're coming from, but you should embrace any movie that gets an emotional response out of you. The most depressing films for me are ones where I don't feel anything at all.

Plenty of awards films fit that bill (Mr. Turner, Thin Red Line, Manchester by the Sea)
but there is an ocean of commercial-tuned fluff with zero heart or soul put into them (Jurassic World, Avengers 2, Spectre, Ant Man, Rogue One, Hobbit Trilogy, Iron Man 3, Amazing Spiderman, Captain America 2)

__________________

Oscar bait is based on the idea that the Academy and its voters have a history of rewarding certain types of films more than others, mainly because of their subject matter. The most obvious examples involve movies about Hollywood and acting (e.g. Argo, The Artist, Birdman) or those involving real-life historical tragedies (Schindler's List, 12 Years a Slave, Spotlight). The reason why it's called Oscar bait is because the Academy's overall voting preferences have become so easy to identify that any film that happens to fall in line with said preferences can be interpreted as the creators deliberately aiming to "bait" the Academy into giving them awards. The problem is that it reflects a sort of stagnation from both Academy voters and filmmakers alike that suggests that there is an arbitrary list of criteria that a film needs to aim for in order to be considered worthy of awards recognition. Not only does this come across as a generally limited way of appreciating films as artworks, but it implies that creators and executives can cynically exploit these preferences when they make their own films in order to chase awards over making a truly resonant piece of work. This is why "Oscar bait" is usually used as a pejorative - because it is most frequently used in conjunction with films that seem to aim for that kind of acclaim but fall short because the films themselves aren't particularly good.

As for nepotism, it's sort of the same thing since the concept of a person's success being attributed more to their connections than their ability reflects the rather disagreeable idea that filmmaking is less an inherently artistic medium than it is a heavily commercialised industry.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Leaving aside whether or not I could contest some of your examples, I wonder what you make of "hating" movies. Would you consider getting angry at a movie's badness preferable to not feeling anything at all over a movie's badness?

Eloquent answer, Iro. I appreciate that. Maybe down the track this needs it's own thread to flesh it out some more because it's very interesting IMO. Or if the OP doesn't mind we can keep discussing it in here.

I'll defer to the mods if necessary, but I do reckon the two ideas overlap enough for the discussion to be relevant. The Academy almost always favours dramatic films over comedic ones when it comes to handing out awards (and some of the comedies they do recognise skew towards the negative side of emotion anyway - Birdman is technically a comedy, but OP counts it as a depressing movie). I think there is a bit of a pretense there where drama is considered superior to generally lighter genres like comedy or action, presumably because it's "easier" to make people laugh or thrill them with spectacle than it is to get them to have Real Feelings about a film.

Ok so I'll continue on a bit unless the OP doesn't like the direction. I can't remember when I first saw 'Oscar bait' mentioned but I don't think it was long ago. To use an example The Danish Girl was bashed for being 'Oscar bait' and 'the hollywood gay agenda'. What do you think? To me it was just a beautiful, expensive film about two people going through a journey that doesn't necessarily have a happy ending. The gay agenda, as such, doesn't affect me; I just like seeing lush productions that make me think, feel, and do some research so historical, even loosely based, is going to prick up my ears. Flame and Citron, for example, has me sniffing around for references re Denmark in WWII. Danish Girl has me wanting to read the diaries. so in this sense, is 'award bait' a bad thing?

Make sense?

Sometimes. Movies that I really genuinely hate (The Room) are at least are a little bit more memorable than stuff that was just mildly mediocre. Although in the case of Human Centipede 2, I would prefer that the movie be removed from existence.

I couldn't say too much about The Danish Girl itself since I never got around to seeing it (I may yet, but it doesn't seem urgent). The main concern I kept hearing about The Danish Girl was that it was going to be a movie about a transgender woman who was being played by a cisgender man. The problem comes from the fact that trans women already face discrimination due to the prevailing perception that they are "men in dresses", so the idea of a man being given public acclaim and awards recognition for merely pretending to be transgender carries an unfortunate double-standard about what is considered acceptable. To tie this back into the concept of Oscar bait, when it comes to acting the Academy does like to recognise the performers who go for "difficult" or "challenging" roles. This often involves the actors being challenged on a physical level,whether through physical discomfort or through transforming themselves physically. A good example of this is Eddie Redmayne winning an Oscar for playing Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything, which involved him having to act almost completely disabled. Him getting nominated for his role in The Danish Girl the following year involved him taking on another physically demanding role, so it already came across as Oscar bait. However, the transgender identity politics made it seem even worse because of how it was trying to tell a story about a transgender person without actually involving a transgender person. It's the kind of thing that Tropic Thunder was parodying with Robert Downey Jr.'s Oscar-winning "serious actor" character turning himself from white to black in order to play a black man; the joke comes from the idea that turning a famous white actor black is considered a more acceptable/profitable/ingenious decision than just casting any actual black actor. If The Danish Girl is willing to make that kind of choice, that does not speak well of the filmmakers' intentions.

I figure it's the kind of thinking behind Film Crit Hulk's "Never Hate A Movie" column where Tarantino tells him that you should treat movies you don't like as learning experiences rather than just objects of empty scorn. The idea that you can learn as much about filmmaking as art from the worst movies as you can from the best movies is an interesting one, though I also agree that I can't even think about what net gains I'd get out of watching a Human Centipede movie.

I have to mull over this a bit but good post. I don't have an opinion on a cisgender man playing a transitioning person anymore than if a gay man plays a straight man or vice versa. I have to ponder this some more. I know it caused a stir at the time, but the initial choice I believe was Nicole Kidman so yeah, I can see that he might have just been going for a 'Name'. I know Hopper consulted quite a few (dont remember numbers) trans people but I've never read an interview where he was asked how he went about the casting choice.

re Tropic Thunder with a white guy playing a black guy who is actually white, I actually thought that was a dig at the controversial skit of the Jackson Five on hey Hey it's Saturday Night. (you're aussie, I think?) You would have seen the fall out when the american singer on the panel called it racist. the guy playing Michael jackson with white skin foundation is actually a POC and he was dumbfounded.

Any actor should be allowed to play any role. Political Correctness will kill creativity and pigeon hold us with unnecessary labels.

That's the stance I tend to take as well, Rules. I also don't mind in reboots if a gender or ethnicity is changed. Not sure how I feel about an all women's ghostbusters or ocean's 11, though. Why not write a new story all together.

will? or has?

"Oscar bait" is a term thrown around a lot, but actually has some weight to it; there are indeed types of movies that get awarded more than others. For example, zero science fiction films have won Best Picture, and one horror film has won it (The Silence of The Lambs).
The Oscars also have a tendency to get Best Picture winners "wrong"; Annie Hall won over Star Wars, Jaws lost to One Flew Over The Cukoo's Nest, The English Patient beat both Fargo and Jerry Maguire, and Shakespeare in Love won over Saving Private Ryan. Even performances are subject to this; subtly loses a lot of the time, and not always for the right reasons. Why do you think performances about real people or those with diseases win so often? But despite this, it doesn't mean that the Academy is worthless, many of their decisions age well, like The Silence of The Lambs. Overall, the Acedemy isn't worthless, but needs to open its spectrum of what can be considered "award - worthy", and shake some of their bad habits.

__________________
A man's got to know his limitations.

Good post, Dex, but I would also ask, how much of it comes down to campaign dollars being thrown at them? Is this an urban myth or real?

I suppose that's still better than what happened with Jared Leto being cast as a trans woman in Dallas Buyers Club - not only did they not even try casting any actual trans actresses, but the character in question is fictional anyway so the controversy could have been avoided by just making the character a cis gay man. Casting a cis woman like Kidman in The Danish Girl would still have been a compromise, but at least it would be a slightly more acceptable one.

I didn't think that skit actually got any notoriety outside Australia, but both reflect a greater problem regarding blackface and the degrees to which people will consider it acceptable or unacceptable, whether for the sake of a novelty act or award-baiting grand-standing. Also, does one of the guys being a POC (which kind of POC exactly?) in whiteface really make the four white guys doing blackface acceptable? It comes across as a defensive measure, and unlike Tropic Thunder it doesn't even have some deliberately absurd satirical justification.

This just in, Citizen Rules thinks Channing Tatum should be allowed to play Barack Obama.

But seriously, when people play the "being PC kills creativity" card I contend that there is a flip-side where being un-PC can also kill creativity by encouraging low standards and thoughtless complacency. In the examples cited, it goes beyond whether or not the creators are failing to appease the narrow standards of some restrictive boogeyman and into actively questioning how much they really care about making something that is artistically worthwhile. Dallas Buyers Club becomes an example of mediocrity for the reasons I mentioned above - namely, that its creators' decisions and justifications indicate ignorance and insincerity regarding the very issues that their film is supposed to address. This naturally reflects poorly on the film itself and ends up being further indication of how it comes across as a cynical exercise in award-baiting instead of a sincere dramatisation of an important and still-relevant true story. This isn't about imposing a rigid set of arbitrary standards onto every single film regardless of context, it's about actually thinking critically about what the film is doing and whether or not it can genuinely justify any choices that immediately stand out for the wrong reasons. It's not so much about reflexively saying "this is bad!" so much as asking "but how exactly is this supposed to be good?"

Because brands sell, that's why.

Give me Roadhouse over a Oscar movie anyday.

__________________

You have multiple Oscar-winning movies in your top 10 - but not Road House.

I remember seeing some american panels bash it.

Should that make a difference? That was his reaction - 'I am a man of colour'.

I don't understand the difference. People put on makeup to change their ethnicity and skin tone. How is that any different to a POC (and keep in mind australia does not have the same history as america with 'black face') or a person at the upcoming sydney mardi gras dressing up as Kylie Minogue? Reminds me of the stir caused over the two football fans dressing up as their favourite footballer. He loved it; the media went berserk. When I was acting in high school I had to play the role of an old black woman. Is it wrong that my pasty white skin and blonde hair were covered in makeup?