A few commenters in yesterday’s Oscar nominations thread seem to be under the misapprehension that film critics are actually involved in the Acadamy Awards — voting for nominations and wins — and it suddenly occurred to me that this might be a more widespread belief. So I figure it’s worth promoting my response to them as a post of its own.
Film critics have nothing whatsoever to do with the Oscars, except as observers, just like regular movie fans. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is made up of people who work in the industry as actors, writers, directors, costume designers, cinematographers, etc. There are no critics among them. And not everyone who works in Hollywood is a member of the Academy. AMPAS is not like the unions. For example, it’s a virtual certainty that anyone you see with a speaking role in an American film or television show is a member of the Screen Actors Guild. (I’m not privy to all the arcane rules and regulations of SAG, so there may be a few rare exceptions. And I think SAG may have a reciprocal agreement with BAFTA, the British actors union, so that their members can work on projects overseen by the other union, but still — the point remains.) But the Academy is an exclusive group within Hollywood: you have to be sponsored by current members to even be considered for membership. And you have to be involved with actually producing movies.
Now, of course the Academy members who nominate and vote may be swayed by the awards they see critics’ groups giving, but that is the extent of any influence critics have over the Oscars. And when it comes to, say, Sandra Bullock’s Best Actress Oscar nomination for The Blind Side, obviously there was little influence at work there at all. (I think only the Broadcast Film Critics Association gave Bullock their Best Actress award.) It’s a sure bet that many critics are shaking their heads over that nomination just like many serious film fans are.
Here’s the key thing: If and when individual critics declare now that Bullock is the frontrunner for the Best Actress Oscar this year, it doesn’t mean that we suddenly changed our minds and no longer think that, oh, Carey Mulligan in An Education or Meryl Streep in Julie & Julia didn’t actually turn in great performances or don’t deserve to be recognized as the year’s Best Actress… or even that we’ve reconsidered and now believe that Bullock’s is the best performance this year. It means we’re resigned to the fact that Bullock is extremely likely to win, because the Oscars are frequently not about honoring the actual best of anything but, instead, about the stuff that the members of the Academy are excited about honoring. Bullock’s status as frontrunner has little to do with her performance… or, at least, not in comparison to the other nominees this year. Academy members — who are, remember, Bullock’s peers, her friends and coworkers, in many instances — will reason that this is Bullock’s best performance ever (it is) and because she’s not exactly an artiste, there may likely never been another chance to give her an Oscar. (They’ll be comparing Bullock’s work here to her previous work, not Bullock’s work here to the work of her fellow nominees.) And they want to give her an Oscar because they like her, they really like her. When Bullock wins that Oscar, it will be for sentimental reasons.
Film critics are only acknowledging that, not approving of it. But perhaps some critics could do a better job of explaining that.
Thank you for the clear explanation.
Remember when Eddie Murray was the frontrunner for an Oscar for Dreamgirls, but the voting was happening while his face was on posters all over town for Norbit? Bye-bye, Oscar chances.
Sandra Bullock should count her lucky stars that All About Steve opened last year, not this February. And Academy members are sincerely hoping that One of the Guys, Jingle, Kiss & Tango and The Sprinkler Queen aren’t going to be another All About Steve. But given those titles alone, I’m willing to bet there’s another stinker approaching soon post-Oscar.
AFAIK, BAFTA is the Brit equivalent of AMPAS. Equity, I believe, is the union.
This cogent explanation should be read by anybody who still thinks that certain films/individuals do or don’t “deserve” an Oscar based on merit alone. It’s never been (solely) about merit; the Academy is a movie-biz mutual appreciation society and nothing more. (I almost used a different word than “appreciation,” but one needn’t be so crude.)
So, I’m still confused. Are you saying critics only have a little influence on the awards? Also I still don’t understand why you critics call Sandra Bullock the frontrunner if you don’t think her performance wasn’t the best. Well don’t vote for her then, duh!
There’s nothing to be confused about. She explained it all very well.
Sandra is the frontrunner because that’s what all the buzz is saying. The critics are are just going by what they are hearing. It’s looking like the industry has decided that this is Sandras year. It really has nothing to do with whether her performance was the best of the year or not.
That’s why sometimes you’ll see MaryAnn( do two different lists.
Who SHOULD win, and who WILL win. Two very different things.
MAJ shouldn’t vote for Sandra Bullock if she doesn’t think Bullock should win is all I’m saying.
Er… CB, I was just about to tell markyd that you were being ironic, but now *I* can’t tell if you’re being ironic. You did read MaryAnn’s explanation that the critics don’t get to vote at all, right?
I couldn’t tell if he was serious or not, so I assumed he was. I’m still not sure after his latest post.
If critics can’t vote, then how come the ones they say are going to win are usually the ones who end up winning?
And yeah, I was so not being serious.