Since the first Academy Awards ceremony in 1929, separate acting Oscars have been presented to men and women. Women at that time had only recently won the right to vote and were still several decades away from equal rights outside the voting booth, so perhaps it was reasonable to offer them their own acting awards. But in the 21st century women contend with men for titles ranging from the American president to the American Idol. Clearly, there is no reason to still segregate acting Oscars by sex....And from an interview with Oscar winner Matt Damon:
[S]eparate is not equal. While it is certainly acceptable for sports competitions like the Olympics to have separate events for male and female athletes, the biological differences do not affect acting performances. The divided Oscar categories merely insult women, because they suggest that women would not be victorious if the categories were combined. In addition, this segregation helps perpetuate the stereotype that the differences between men and women are so great that the two sexes cannot be evaluated as equals in their professions....
Collapsing two major categories into one would have the added value of reducing the length of the awards show, a move that many viewers would laud. But if the academy wanted to preserve the number of acting awards, it could easily follow the lead of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which has, since 1951, offered genre-based Golden Globe honors, for best performances in dramatic, and comedic and musical roles.
For next year’s Oscars, the academy should modify its ballots so that men and women are finally treated as full equals, able to compete together in every category, for every nomination. And if the academy insists on continuing to segregate awards, then it should at least remain consistent and create an Oscar for best directress.
“I actually think the way they should do the awards, I really think this, is they should give them out 10 years later,” Mr. Damon said. “Like the way they do the Hall of Fame in Baseball. They do it in five years, but if you did 10 years later, if this year, we were voting on what was the best picture of 2000, I think it would be much more honest. It’s like, when you pick up great old movies and you go, why the hell didn’t Brando win the Oscar for this one? Who won that year? Whatever the sizzle was about that year. 50 years later you’re looking at a movie and going, this is a historic cinematic performance.”A decade later, does Traffic or Wonder Boys [insert: or Almost Famous**] best Gladiator?
Of course, Mr. Damon added, “nobody would ever host that award show.”
** Seriously, I meant to say that the first time. It's not a perfect movie -- I don't think Fugit was a good enough actor to pull off the angry-at-Penny-in-the-field scene ("There is no Morocco!"), but there are few films about which I have warmer feelings.
I like Damon's idea, but I'm not sure how much Hollywood would value a "retrospective" award, even if it's an Oscar. I initially loved the idea of Best Directress, but the more I think about it, the less I like it. Plus, how many movies were directed by women in 2010? Or in 2000, for that matter? Not that we won't be able to find five, but I feel like we should work more on getting female directors working than establishing a category to honor them exclusively.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't happy with "Gladiator" as Best Picture/Actor even the day after the awards. I think Crowe's win played more into being honored for not winning for "The Insider". Would trying out Damon's idea eliminate this kind of win?
Looking back, the movies that stood out for me (for various reasons) in 2000 were "Memento", "Almost Famous", "American Psycho", "Wonder Boys", and "You Can Count on Me".
Guilty pleasures that became more significant as time wore on? "Bring it On" and "Ginger Snaps".
If we honored the movies from 2000 this year, would Bjork still wear that dress?
my first reaction to Elsesser's theory is that men and women can't really compete for the same roles (except for maybe Jaye Davidson in the Crying Game), which is why directress doesn't make sense as a category but actor/actress does. And undermines her claim that "biological differences do not affect acting performances." But then again, an actor like Colin Firth couldn't compete for Jeff Bridges's role in Crazy Heart. And, Robert Downey, Jr., aside, we've thankfully done away with blackface. Still, keeping separate categories for the most part gives a better apples to apples comparison, since you could say "I can imagine Meryl Streep in the Blind Side but not Sandra Bullock playing Julia Child." (True, btw.) The historical analogies are interesting, but don't really tell us anything about film or acting. The claim that it suggests women couldn't compete with men is totally unsupported -- Bridges will probably get an Oscar out of obligation, but I think in a heads-up competition, Streep would kick his ass. (And women would beat men in ski jumping, fwiw.)
ReplyDeleteI'm for collapsing original and adapted screenplay into one, though.
You could argue that adapting another person's work involves a different talent than fleshing out your own idea.
ReplyDeleteFor 2000? Requiem For A Dream or Almost Famous.
ReplyDeleteFor 2000? Requiem For A Dream or Almost Famous. (Neither of which, of course, was nominated.)
ReplyDeleteOr, yea, Memento.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely make that argument. It's a different skill and a different accomplishment.
ReplyDeleteAnd I love Damon's idea, though I think it's generally done anyway through the Best of the Decade retrospectives. There's no way the Oscars would ever do it, but I like him better for proposing it. And yeah, Almost Famous or Memento. Probably Memento.
ReplyDeleteBut -- and I've argued this before -- it doesn't seem like Best Adapted is awarded on the basis of how difficult it was to adapt a particular work (a straight play versus Upton Sinclair's OIL!), but on a pure evaluation of the resulting screenplay.
ReplyDeleteJust adding that the "Almost Famous" DVD commentary is one of my favorites. Whoever thought of putting Cameron Crowe and his mom in the same room and recording it was genius.
ReplyDeleteI wish I could find (and I have looked and tried) where I read an article that contended that in the early days of Oscar men needed the actor category to get awards on their own because the likes of the leading ladies of the 30's and 40's whupped on their asses. I mean think Betty Davis and Joan Crawford, and in a certain year in the early 40's the men hardly scared up 4 nominees (3 from the same film) and the women had six and all of them were legends--pointed out in this article which i thought was in slate but seems not to be! Just give 10 nominees in each category.
ReplyDeleteBut, as an actor, yeah I think they should go head to head. Why not, a good performance is a good performance and a bad one a bad one.
What I hate about the Oscar acting awards is any award going to someone who should have won for 'insert other awesome role here' and the propensity to give them for scenery chewing and ignore the kind of performances where the person seamlessy disappears into the character. Scenery chewing is more impressive but showing the work isn't (IMHO) a mark of a better performance than someone else who covered up the idea that any effort went into it at all. Plus scenery chewing rewards big stars more.
(Plus IMHO it usually shows a lack of ability or interest to connect with the other members of the cast--unless they are all super bad--and of self-service over service of the story which is really the thing).
Thank you, Lisa, now I have to listen to that!
ReplyDeleteI'd still take Gladiator. Especially over Requiem for a Dream. The only good thing about that movie was the soundtrack (which is now used for roughly half of all new movie trailers).
ReplyDeleteI think it would be interesting to see men and women go head to head. Nominate 10 in best actor and best supporting if you want. Or separate comedy from drama, which makes more sense as a division to me than Actor/Actress.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Heather K, your comment about becoming a character versus scenery chewing is exactly why I'm fine with Jeff Bridges winning this year. I thought he embodied Bad Blake in a full, messy, complicated way that made me believe he was that guy.
I already liked Matt Damon, as an actor and as someone who seems to do his own thing in Hollywood but succeed anyway. But, yes: an intriguing idea that would never get the support of Hollywood.
ReplyDeleteKeep posting stuff like this i really like it
ReplyDelete