Johnny Deadline: Marketing Oscar

 by JB

As tastes change and theatrical exhibition continues to evolve, could we see the Oscars become nothing more than a niche marketing strategy for smaller, non-blockbuster films?

As Oscar season heated up last year, I began to notice a trend of smaller independent films that seemed to have one thing in common: a single stand-out performance from a big star that normally doesn’t do indies. These were plentiful: Pamela Anderson and Jamie Lee Curtis in The Last Showgirl; Richard Gere in Oh, Canada; Hugh Grant in Heretic; Kate Winslet in Lee; Angelina Jolie in Maria; Daniel Craig in Queer; Amy Adams in Nightbitch; and Jude Law in The Order all made my list; I’m sure there were others. The films in question seem to have been greenlit for one reason: to get said star an Oscar nomination. Of those I've seen, most aren’t very good. I will leave it to my readers to sort the wheat from the chaff. I’m also guessing that, like me, most readers haven’t seen all of them.

TANGENT: This strategy obviously worked for The Substance, which garnered five Oscar nominations, including Best Picture. I would argue that the fact that it only won for Hair and Makeup proves the Academy continues its nearly 100 year-long disdain for horror films.

Also, is it just me or does both The Substance and The Last Showgirl continue the sub-genre of “Hag Horror” started in the 1960s with films such as Whatever Happened to Baby Jane; Straight Jacket; and Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte? Hollywood takes some beloved, older actresses and proceeds to debase them. SEE: Jamie Lee Curtis’s make-up in The Last Showgirl and the various indignities suffered by both Ms. Moore and Ms. Anderson in their respective films.

The Golden Globes has become a reliable vehicle to get niche films awards attention. This was certainly true this year, as awarding Demi Moore Best Actress made her the perceived front-runner for the Oscar. Emilia Perez and The Brutalist got similar bumps from their Golden Globes wins. The Golden Globes have become the warm-up before the main pageant.

I find it sad that there is now such a divide between popular success and artistic success at the movies. Say what you want about the grim 1970s, but Patton, the Godfather films, The French Connection, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest were all fine films that were also huge commercial successes. The Golden Globes did not need to invent the “Best Cinematic and Box Office Achievement” category in the 1970s; popular and artistic tastes were more aligned. I wish modern movies didn’t need to be potential “Oscar Bait” to get made or seen. Were movie audiences more sophisticated in the '70s, or am I just flattering myself? I remember in 1976, hoping beyond hope that Network would win Best Picture over Rocky. I was 14! What can I say? I was precocious.

I wish in our culture that popular and artistic tastes could somehow re-align, but I don’t see that happening. I fear what we have in store is an even longer parade of films made with the sole purpose of snagging a nomination, and then said films being quickly relegated to the landfill of history when they fail to do so. Only between five and ten films get a Best Picture nod. Last year, 569 films were released in North America. If that's a film's only goal, the outlook is bleak.

Have you seen Flow? TV's Rob DiCristino loved it. An 85-minute, PG-rated, animated post-apocalyptic animal story doesn't sound purpose-built for a statuette, but Flow won a bunch—including both the Golden Globe and the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. The Latvian National Museum of Art decided to display several of the film's awards; reportedly, there was an hour-long queue just to see them. This is the kind of thing that gives one hope: just make a great film.