It’s the dirty little secret that’s hardly a secret to movie devotees. The best pictures, actors and directors don’t always win the Oscar.
But Entertainment Weekly inadvertently shines a klieg light on this phenomena in its latest issue. Read it, and you’ll never view the Oscars the same way again. That is, if you haven’t already tuned them out.
The mag quizzed one actor, one director and one film executive, all Oscar voters, all anonymous, about who they chose this year.
Their answers speak volumes:
The Actor on choosing Kate Winslet: “She had two amazing performances this past year … it’s kind of a vote for both performances, quite frankly.”
The Actor on choosing David Fincher as Best Director: “It took me three nights to get through ‘Benjamin Button …’”
The Director on choosing “Milk” as Best Picture: “It’s an important film … and if I have to pick one film, it’s something that makes a difference, and for me that’s ‘Milk.’”
The Executive on choosing Mickey Rourke for Best Actor: “I kind of want Mickey Rourke to win because I find his personal story so moving …”
The Executive on not choosing Kate Winslet as Best Actress: “Her speech at the Golden Globes when she said [to herself] ‘Gather.’ I just thought, ‘I don’t know if I can ever see her in a movie again.’”
There you have it. May the “best” men and women win come Feb. 22.
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Link?
Having trouble finding it … I read the print version. I did link to another site which printed out the articles text in toto.
Thanks.
Oscars = beauty contest.
Gotit.
The subtext being that movie workers don’t give a tinkers damn for either the tastes of their audience OR the artistic quality of their medium. Sad for movies, sad for the audience.
Not to be melodramatic, but it’s really sort of upsetting for me to how flippantly the selections are made. I really enjoy the Oscars because it’s like a big event for movie people, but the past few years have been difficult to stomach. This one won’t be much easier: films such as “Frost/Nixon” and “Milk” getting tons of noms but vastly superior ones such as “The Dark Knight” and “WALL-E” being relegated to the lesser categories is a sincere disappointment.
Guaranteed that in 20 years books about the Oscars will lament this sort of thing. Or am I being far too liberal with my time estimate?
It upsets me, too, James. I know the Oscars aren’t “important” like life, death, taxes, the Super Bowl, etc. But it was once the pinnacle of movie making … if you had an Oscar it meant something – that for one special year you were the best in your field. And few could deny that.
Is there any hope of the Oscars pulling out of this decline? It seems unlikely to me because of the shift in membership. The people casting the votes simply aren’t as interested in honoring good mainstream fare, instead focusing on politically oriented art-house fare like “Milk.” 10 years ago, “The Dark Knight” would have been a lock for a nom, now, who knows if it even came close.
James – if “Titanic” came out in 2008 – does it get a Best Picture nod, let alone the golden trophy?
I wouldn’t worry too much about the Oscars – some years they’ll be good, others they’ll be awful no matter what. What’s important is whether people generally have informed, thoughtful opinions on movies: can they critically evaluate them?
The answer is most certainly yes. The best film criticism online comes from a variety of places, but Pajiba might be the best site online. They’re fun, irreverent, and very learned. Dana Stevens at Slate is just incredible.
I think the trick is to give critics of that caliber as much popularity as possible, so much that they’re competing with actors and directors and what-not. The Academy will fall into line fast when having to confront serious opinion, and while it will still make awful choices, the sort of garbage we saw this year will be less frequent.