Jack Nicholson explains the Oscars for you
Don't know how I missed this from last month's Variety, but in an interview with Peter Debruge, Jack Nicholson (most-nominated actor ever) gives his contrarian take on the Oscars that is typically blunt, not at all original, but realistic. And he speaks from a front-row perspective:
"I'm a big supporter of the Oscars from the beginning because I look at it for what I believe it was intended. However, for a very long time -- and I don't voice this very much -- I'm disturbed by what they call the 'Oscar race.' I've noticed that it's gradually spread, as though it were an election."This thing totally possesses the movie business for three months -- and it's now spreading to five months. Well, this cannot be really good for movies. [...]
Nicholson's complaint is that so many filmmakers -- actors, directors, writers -- are so distracted by the Oscar attention for their previous films that they can't concentrate on the ones they're still making. He recalls the overlap between the Oscar campaign for "The Aviator" and work on "The Departed" -- which went on to win Oscars for director Scorsese and for Best Picture of 2006:
"Marty and Leo and all of 'em ... I knew they wouldn't do anything for the three months between when we started and when the Oscars were over -- and of course I was correct. And then the day after the Oscars, I landed on them, and from there on in, it was wonderful..."In 2002 it was announced that "Oscar season," which some found so protracted that the ceremonies themselves seemed anticlimactic by the time they were held in late March, would be shortened by a month, beginning in 2004. Harvey Weinstein, then co-chairman of the Disney-owned Miramax, where he was (in-)famous for mounting massive and often successful Oscar campaigns ("The English Patient," "Shakespeare in Love"), told the New York Times:
''It took a long time for these small, indie movies to find parity in the Oscars with the big studio movies.... And this shift will only benefit the movies that get out to thousands of theaters in December and penalize those smaller movies on the back end.''Coincidentally or not, Weinstein and his brother Bob (who left Miramax in 2005 to form The Weinstein Company) have not been listed as executive producers on any Best Picture nominee since "The Aviator" (2004).
UPDATE: Here's a question: Have you ever been watching a movie and gotten the impression that the actor(s) are thinking more about Oscars than their characters? I have...
(tip: MCN)
Comments
Richard Quest was interviewing Jeremy Irons during last year's Oscar season, and he asked him how far back in campaign goes.
Irons recalled the first public screening of Reversal of Fortune, which was held in Cannes - so almost a full year before the next year's Oscar ceremony. Anyway, he was filming in England, and received a phone call from the producers who said: "That's it - we're going for an Oscar campaign." And the producers started working the town, REALLY working it, the moment their plane landed in L.A.
The Oscars can bring out the worst in people. The way Richard Harris worked the town - totally in vain, as it turned out - for The Field has become legendary in its cringe-worthiness. Similarly, I can't help but flinch when I recall Morgan Freeman's reaction to Daniel Day-Lewis winning Best Actor.
But all that is part of the game - part of what makes the Oscars so much fun. Studios make more money, filmmakers receive validation, and audiences try to forget that it is February, and that there is absolutely sod all on at the cinema. Everyone's a winner.
Posted by: Ali Arikan | February 11, 2008 11:46 PM
I understand that the Oscars can be a major financial boost to a lot of filmmakers of all professions (director, actor, writer, editor, etc.) What I don't understand is why established, successful stars really give a rat's ass about winning an Oscar. It's not exactly the ultimate marker of quality, as I'm sure most filmmakers know. Why does someone like Martin Scorsese give a rat's ass whether or not he wins an Oscar? Maybe he didn't care; I don't know him. But why would it matter? He's hardly struggling to get funding for his films. He's hardly languished in obscurity for all those Oscar-less years.
I guess I'm a little biased here, but I'd take greater pride in the praise of the critics I respected the most, or from audience feedback, not from a bloc of Academy voters.
Maybe it's fun to go to the ceremony (actually, it seems like a total drag, but I don't like crowds) but other than that, what's the big deal? Is it really just about the extra money a film usually gets from a nomination and/or win?
Posted by: Christopher Long | February 12, 2008 12:57 AM
I think validation from peers is a big thing for these people, and understandably so. "You really like me," and all that...
It's also the most important award in the world. It outshines the Nobel (I don't agree with it, but it does - can You name last year's Nobel Prize winner for Chemistry?).
And then there's the lay-deez...[/halfjoking]
Posted by: Ali Arikan | February 12, 2008 02:28 AM
Have you ever been watching a movie and gotten the impression that the actor(s) are thinking more about Oscars than their characters? I have...
Oh, absolutely.
And, you know, going back to my previous point about seeking validation, it is not necessarily a bad thing per se – an actor’s thinking about an Oscar more than their character doesn’t have to automatically equal whoring or selling out.
Jim - You've just inspired me to do a piece on this subject...
Posted by: Ali Arikan | February 12, 2008 03:23 AM
In response to your question, yes there is a long history of this and people working inside Hollywood are all well aware of it. Not that I'm an insider or anything but I know from years of reading Oscar history and Hollywood history books that it is front and center with newly awarded Oscar winners and nominees. They often try to follow up with something they believe will garner more Oscars (like a gambler's addiction kind of).
Rather than bore you with ancient history, if we go to recent history there are films that Kevin Spacey did after American Beauty that everyone working on them thought would be Oscar bait - and they were dead wrong. The two movies were Pay it Forward and The Life of David Gale.
These were movies designed for Oscar in spirit but complete miscalculations in execution (no pun intended).
Also going back a little further, a movie like Dying Young was clearly designed to win Julia Roberts a Best Actress Oscar (or at least get a nomination) and was another complete misfire.
Sometimes actors even outright admit it. Ian McKellen said in an interview in 1999 that his primary reasons for selecting Apt Pupil and Gods and Monsters were that they had Best Actor Oscar potential and he wasn't afraid to admit he wasn't above that.
Posted by: Jonathan Lapper | February 12, 2008 05:10 AM
I don't think anyone can deny the importance to posterity of the ubiquitous Oscar lists. If you win, you know they will be talking about you 100 years from now (even if only on some blog about Worst Oscar Winners). If all you have is a bunch of work of extraordinary quality--well, who knows? I would say: hard not to care. Particularly since most people, even here, don't automatically dismiss Oscar-winners. If you believe you actually deserve it there's no downside to winning and going on that list.
Posted by: Dane Walker | February 12, 2008 08:45 PM
"Similarly, I can't help but flinch when I recall Morgan Freeman's reaction to Daniel Day-Lewis winning Best Actor."
Ali, I've only been watching the Academy Awards since 1996 and didn't see the 1989 awards ceremony. What did Morgan Freeman do exactly when they cut to him after announcing Daniel Day -Lewis as the winner?
Posted by: Richard Johnson | February 13, 2008 12:26 PM
He, quite literally, jumped up on his feet, clapping a bit too enthusiastically -- it just did not feel right. I've just searched for it on YouTube but it's not there, unfortunately.
When it comes to the Oscars, I am ALL about the kitsch. It's the mock-emotions that i have a problem with.
Posted by: Ali Arikan | February 13, 2008 10:41 PM
The reason why The Weinsteins haven't had a best picture nominee in so long is because their movies haven't been as wonderful. "Scary Movie 4"? It shows where their focus has been.
I only seem to remember some of my favorite hollywood actors going for gold and stumbling just out of the gate... Harrison Ford in "Random Hearts" (look he's trying so hard not to tear up!), Bruce Willis in "In Country", Bill Murray in "Razor's Edge". It's always when the Hollywood types try to get a little too serious suddenly. I always felt like Ford should have grabbed onto "Traffic" when he had the opportunity.
I'm almost certain John Travolta was looking for attention with his role in "Hairspray" (and he was the worst part of the film.)
Posted by: Phillip Kelly | February 18, 2008 10:02 AM