Oscar Matters: Joining the Conversation

Movies influence our national conversation and the Academy offers Oscar nominated films to frame a specific discussion. This year I find myself less concerned about the winners and more interested in finding out what the Academy has on its mind. So, I decide to see as many Oscar nominated films as I can.

On Saturday, February 23 I spend nearly six hours at the National Archives to watch three hours and forty-two minutes of Oscar nominated short films. The two hours and change not spent watching film is spent standing in line outside. The temperature on the National Mall peaks at 36 degrees while a wintry mix drizzles non-stop. I don't mind the weather conditions because I'm in a robust conversation with several people about the film scene in DC, this year's Oscar nominees, and the movies in general. No doubt some of the people out here want to ensure they win their office Oscar pool. I point those competitors to David Carr's comment about the Oscar nominated Live Action, Animated, and Documentary shorts in The New York Times, "If you really are forced to choose these obscurities in your office pool, you should probably switch jobs." Picking Oscar winners is not hard. At my own Oscar shindig, having seen more nominated pictures than anyone in the room, I should be the expert, but I fail to pick more winners than anyone else. There are reasons, other than the hollow glory obtained by guessing more Oscar winners than your cubicle mate, why I or anyone else spends an entire Saturday watching these particular Oscar nominees.

Granted, there are practical considerations. These short films live obscure lives on film festival screens mostly in Europe. Of the 14 nominated shorts, 11 of them are made outside of the United States. Americans love the movies and will pay $10 or $12 to see Spider-Man 3, but we are not going bundle up the kids , drive to the movie theater, buy $40 worth of refreshments and watch a 20 minute movie about a child who recently contracted AIDS in Iraq. Even if avid film enthusiasts want to see short film, their local art house might show the Oscar nominated shorts for few days a year, but that will be the extent of their yearly short film schedule. (The same sort or analysis applies to many of the films nominated this year. Juno is the only nominated film that grosses over $100 million at the US box office. It doesn't win.) Living in DC, I can go to the E Street Theater and pay $30 to see these films or I can go to the National Archives and see the films for free. As one of my fellow film goers says, "I don't know what these films are about, but the price is right."

But besides practical considerations I brave the elements to learn the vocabulary for this year's Academy discussion. Innovation in film making is always on the Academy's mind. The reason the Academy honors Live Action, Animated and Documentary shorts is because, and I'm stealing this from Margaret Parson, Curator, Department of Film Programs, National Gallery of Art, these films, unencumbered by commercial constraints, are the laboratories for film experiments. Hollywood serves a fickle public so it must present new and different techniques to keep the public interested. Sort of. Only three of the short "laboratories of film" were made in America. Hollywood leaves the lab work to someone else and capitalizes on their innovations when the market is ready. In the mean time the Academy rewards many of these innovators by giving them Oscars and enough time at the podium to stammer in broken English until they give up and thank their friends and families in their native language. To me this suggests that, as far as craft, that is the mechanics of telling stories using film, Hollywood is looking abroad for ideas. But this discussion, while interesting to film nuts, is really for the industry professional. I care more about what the stories are telling us.

Atonement defends fiction's place in telling us stories which is interesting and innovative but the Academy seems more interested in films that ask Americans, "Who are we?" Four of the Best Picture nominees are American films that deal with U.S. specific issues. No Country For Old Men, a western, the most American of genres, wins best picture. But it isn't a western that we've seen before. There is no show down at high noon at or near the OK Corral. The West in this picture seems to have the same rules, but not all the players know the rules and if they do they break them intentionally. This is very unsettling to see as an American. Our entire national myth is tied up in our expansion West and if the rules that govern that place are falling apart, how are we falling apart? This idea is further explored in Michael Clayton and There Will Be Blood, where the American Dream belongs to corporations who rent it to individuals as long as they protect corporate interests. And finally Juno unmercifully strips away the glossy veneer of the American family. These films show that America is not the woman she used to be. She's maturing, and we can not keep treating her like a child. She's an adult and needs to start acting like one.

I encourage you to see as many nominees as you can so the next time I run into you we can talk about what Hollywood thinks is important and try to come to a consensus on whether or not it matters.