|
- First and foremost, to win, the Academy must *see* the movie. And many Academy members, the majority of whom are white men over 50, are too busy/too indifferent to see every movie they hear buzz about. So they prioritize. They see "events" first and foremost. They want to know what is most likely to win, and they want to have an opinion on those films. This helps those backed by major studios, but this is precisely why the indie critical darlings/truly fucking great movies often fall by the wayside. Because...
- In order to get "buzz" and become an "event," you need to run a hardcore publicity campaign to keep people talking. You need DVD screeners sent to every single Academy member, Guild member, and critics group. You need For Your Consideration advertisements in magazines, billboards, TV commercials to air in Los Angeles markets, etc. And in order to get those, you need money-- the types of money that only major studios can really afford to spend.
- There's also a glamor problem. Academy members are more likely to see your movie if (a) there's someone they know in it, or (b) there's a "name" attached that draws people in. Those are two problems Boyhood has. (A) It has a cast of, what, like 4-10 people, really? How can that compete against the ensemble dramedies and war epics that have tons of people that everyone recognizes and loves? (B) If an Academy member has to choose between the Boyhood screening with Linklater and Hawke in the house, or the screening of Unbroken with Angelina Jolie in the house, 99% are going to Unbroken first.
- Finally, the movie is not terribly "showy." The majority of the Academy likes movies with big acting, first and foremost (hence, why DDL and David O Russell actors get accolades). It's a small cast with mostly understated acting. (Which is why Linklater's movies generally settle for Best Screenplay nominations-- writers appreciate the difficulty of the execution, but actors don't see the "big choices" being made as often. This is a grand generalization, but the more I talk to people out here, the more I believe it to be true.)
Boyhood is a phenomenal movie. It's also a small cast film with a small budget from a tiny studio that likely won't run a big campaign on its behalf, so when the hammy David O Russell movie comes out or some stiff regency costume drama comes out, don't be surprised when they scoop all the nominations and Boyhood is stuck with one or two at best.
Arquette has the best chance for an acting nod, because she has The Scene (general rule of thumb in trying to predict what actors get Academy noms: pick their most dramatic scene and determine if it's bigger and more memorable than the others)... but it depends on competition. Last year, Octavia Spencer in Fruitvale Station had The Weinsteins behind her and one HELL of a scene in which she prayed for her dying child. But The Weinsteins decided they'd spend their money to back other potential nominees, and for that reason ALONE, Spencer was left nom-less.
This year, there will be new films with Meryl Streep, Jessica Chastain (two!), Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, Naomi Watts, Vanessa Redgrave, Emma Thompson, and Rooney Mara all in supporting roles backed by studios more willing to spend than IFC likely will be.
I hope this helps illuminate why I'm skeptical of Arquette, Boyhood in general, and indies from smaller studios in general every Oscar season. My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Pass The Popcorn
