I agree with Holden that a large box office should not be a criteria for awards recognition, including a Best Picture nomination, and that it isn't and never has been a prerequisite for Oscar recognition. At the same time, it can be viewed as a proxy for being "widely liked and appreciated," and I think, as I stated before, the perception of the Oscars as going smaller, has impacted their legitimacy in the eyes of many in the public, and it is likely that it will continue to do so.
I think for me, the Oscars are simply selecting Best Picture award winners that are qualitatively different than they were before. There are a couple of reasons that could explain this. I think my original premise was that this was intentional, and that the Oscars membership as a body was choosing award winners that fit diversity and inclusion criteria, even if unofficially. Movies that were smaller, more like independent films, and which were either made by, or made about, minority and underrepresented groups, or that reflected liberal themes that the Academy wanted to promote and give its imprimatur. That is one explanation.
Another is that the types of films that are now widely seen and appreciated, and that have become popular, are now comic book movies, or sequels or remakes to existing films. The Academy, this thinking goes, can't award those because they don't represent the true excellence in filmmaking that the Academy Awards was designed to recognize. In support of this, some say that the types of films that used to be widely seen and appreciated, which were popular, and which still represented excellent filmmaking, are now instead limited series, and that streaming series have supplanted motion pictures as the home of mid-budget, quality content for adults. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It's kind of hard for me to believe that the same Academy that will soon impose diversity and inclusion mandates as criteria for being awarded an Oscar, is not also allowing that same ethic to currently determine, or influence, the nominees, and especially the winners, that it chooses for Best Picture.
I think a way that I could explain this in another way, which may be less divisive, but still get to the same point that I'm trying to make, is that the movies that were awarded Best Picture 10 years ago, for example, generally met two criteria. They were broadly entertaining, and were usually widely seen and appreciated by the public at large, AND they also were technically proficient and represented excellent filmmaking. I think for me, now, the Academy seems to have moved away from awarding films that meet both criteria, and that seems different, to me, than what was done as early as 10 years ago.
For example, there are a lot of films that I recognize as being technically proficiently made, which represent excellence in filmmaking, but that are less entertaining, and I think the fact that they are seen by some as less entertaining, also makes them less popular, and them being less popular leads to the Academy losing some of its cultural relevance and influence.
For example, since I'm a Clint Eastwood fan, I will use a couple of examples to illustrate this point, "Gran Torino," and "Letters from Iwo Jima." To me, "Gran Torino" doesn't represent excellence in filmmaking. While it has an engaging story, and it's a good role for him and Clint is great in the film, the acting from most of the other main characters, especially the Hmong costars, is pretty terrible. "Letters from Iwo Jima," on the other hand, in my mind represents excellence in filmmaking. It's one of his best directed films, and it's technically very proficiently made. In my opinion, it even stands apart as being one of the best war films ever made, but, again, it's not his most entertaining film. Since it's in Japanese, it's less accessible than "Gran Torino," and thematically, it's also quite depressing. The subject matter of the film is also far less entertaining than "Gran Torino," which limits its mass appeal. I'd much rather watch "Gran Torino" more regularly than "Letters from Iwo Jima." The point I'm trying to make is that, in my mind, there are films that are excellent in a technical capacity, that may also be less entertaining, and viewed as less entertaining by the public. My point is not that depressing films are always less entertaining, because they're not, but that in some people's minds, the films that are viewed as most entertaining are often not the ones that represent excellence in filmmaking, and that in years past, the Academy seems to have chosen more reliably films that simultaneously met both of these criteria. Some films, which are more rare, like "Million Dollar Baby, to stay with this theme, represent both, and those are the films that typically won Best Picture. I recognize that not everyone may think of films this way, and that's okay too.
This is kind of how I think of the Oscars now. They are awarding films that, to them, represent excellence in filmmaking, but many of them are not as accessible, and partly due to that, they're not as widely seen and appreciated. Films that met both criteria are what I think of as Best Picture award winners. I think prior to five or so years ago, the Academy typically recognized films that were both thoroughly entertaining, as well as that represented excellence, while now, I think it many cases, they are choosing less entertaining films. I'd personally like to see both entertaining as well as technically excellent films be recognized more regularly by the Academy. More like "Argo," "Gladiator," Titanic" or "Braveheart." It remains to be seen if the Academy will return to once again honoring those films.
Last edited by AKA23; 04-14-22 at 06:14 PM.