Back in January when the Oscar nominations were announced, it sure seemed like the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences had finally entered the 21st Century.
The traditionally behind-the-curve organization announced that “Joker,” a movie inspired by Batman’s most infamous enemy, would compete in 11 categories, more than any other movie from 2019, including such more conventionally “awards worthy” films as Martin Scorsese’s “The Irishman,” Quentin Tarantino’s “Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood” and the World War I-set, tour-de-technical-force “1917.”
On the heels of last year’s Oscar race, in which “Black Panther” became the first superhero movie ever nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, “Joker’s” surprise showing certainly appears to indicate that the Hollywood establishment’s quality mavens, i.e. academy voters, have at last accepted the dominant popular genre of the past two decades — comic book movies.
Ask veteran observers of both those kinds of films and Oscar contests, though, and they’ll say not so fast, Flash.
The 92nd Oscars on TV: Sunday, Feb. 9, 5 p.m., ABC-TV
“What you’re seeing here is not a change in general in the world of academy voters, or a shift in the zeitgeist of any kind,” observed Anne Thompson, editor-at-large for the website Indiewire.com and one of L.A.’s most respected movie awards columnists. “It’s still hard for ‘Star Wars’ or ‘Avengers’ or any number of genre film to be taken seriously outside of the tech categories at the Oscars. That’s still a thing.”
Asked if he sees comic book movies regularly getting considered for top Oscars from here out, Blair Marnell, managing editor of the comics and fantasy film/TV-focused SuperHeroHype website, was only a little more optimistic.
“On a regular basis?” Marnell responded. “No, not at all. Remember, the Marvel and DC movies aren’t designed to win Academy Awards. They’re made to bring in $1 billion or more worldwide. That said, superhero movies can and probably will have more top Oscar nominations at some point in the future. It’s a genre like any other. In the hands of the right filmmakers, a great cast, and a talented crew, superhero movies can fly just as high as the other films.”
It did take remarkable filmmaking for superhero movies to get even this far with the fantasy-averse academy rank-and-file. Not counting the historical footage-altering “Forrest Gump,” the only Best Picture winners ever built around impossible elements were 2003’s “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” and 2017’s “The Shape of Water.” The 2014 winner, “Birdman,” was about an actor who played a superhero, but it was a realistic character study with limited fantastic moments that could mostly be written off as psychological delusions.
That’s not because the functionaries who run the Academy Awards show, and are therefore always concerned with its broadcast ratings, haven’t been trying for more than a decade to encourage voters to get with the popularity program. The main impetus for increasing the Best Picture nominee field from five to as many as 10 at the start of the 2010’s was the failure of “The Dark Knight,” by any measure a superbly crafted and hugely profitable Batman film, to garner a Best Picture nomination.
Still, practically the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe – an unprecedented, multi-quality cinematic achievement – and a massive effort to bring younger and more diverse members into the academy, had passed before the desired effect was achieved. It came, after nearly 10 years, with “Black Panther.”
Arguably, that film was the most remarkable cultural and commercial entry in the genre since “Dark Knight.”
But then, so was “Avengers: Endgame” in the next annual cycle.
So why was 2019’s 22-hit-capping supermovie only nominated for visual effects in the same year Joker – a 10-figure grossing worldwide blockbuster to be sure, but hardly on the scale of “Endgame’s” all-time record $2.798 billion – got a load of major noms?
“ ‘Joker’ resembled some of the great Scorsese films,” Marnell said of director Todd Phillips’ psychological drama, clearly influenced by “Taxi Driver” and “King of Comedy.”
“’Avengers: Endgame’ was just the ultimate superhero blockbuster,” Marnell said. “The Academy rarely rewards blockbusters, even the great ones. ‘Endgame”‘ was well-crafted, with affecting performances and an engaging story. Regardless, it just wasn’t enough to win the Academy’s love. And that’s OK. Disney and Marvel aren’t going to complain. They’re more than happy with ‘Endgame’s’ box office records.”
Thompson was even more blunt in her assessment of why academy voters preferred “Joker” to “Endgame.” One was unmistakably a superhero supershow, while the other . . .
“ ‘Joker’ is not a comic book movie, OK?” she said. “ ‘Joker’ is an elevated movie that happens to ride a wave of commerciality based on the fact that it’s using a DC character. It’s a question of how voters perceive the genre.”
Indeed, while it may not be very plausible, everything that happens in “Joker” could occur in the real world – and the movie has gotten prestige mileage out of varying perceptions that it’s a commentary on troubling, contemporary issues, something which has always been Oscar catnip.
Whatever it has going for it, however, “Joker” does not look like it will be the big winner on Sunday. At this year’s gazillion-odd pre-Oscars, industry awards orgies, only lead actor Joaquin Phoenix has consistently come away with all the prizes (as, it must be noted, Heath Ledger pulled off a similar sweep, posthumously, for playing the same – albeit more criminally capable – character in “Dark Knight”).
Smart money is on “Joker” snagging only the Best Actor statuette — and maybe one other Oscar, likely for composer Hildur Guðnadóttir’s Original Score.
Why? Well, even though no less an eminence that Scorsese had some apparently quite minor, early influence on “Joker’s” development, it’s his public disparagement last fall of Marvel movies as equivalent to “theme parks” that resonates more deeply with many academy veterans.
“The academy looks down on comic book movies,” Thompson pointed out. “I never thought Martin Scorsese’s comments were ever going to hurt him with the academy, because they all agree with him. They’re all mourning the loss of a certain kind of mid-budget drama that used to be their bread-and-butter. A lot of people don’t have any work because those kinds of movies aren’t getting made any more.”
Well, not exactly. Such award-fodder projects still get green-lit on Netflix, which was the only Hollywood entity willing to back Scorsese’s own, expensive “Irishman” project. Whether or not the academy’s prejudice against made-for-streaming movies will ever be overcome is the other big, 21st Century question that the Oscars will have to come to terms with one of these days, and hopefully before the 22nd Century. But knowing them . . .
“The academy would probably be more comfortable giving the award to Scorsese himself for ‘The Irishman’,” than to “Joker,” Marnell wryly observed. “Even if that would give Netflix the vindication that it’s been trying to buy for years.”
Regardless of Sunday’s outcomes at Hollywood’s Dolby Theatre, the door’s at least been opened by the loved-just-about-everywhere-else comic book movie crowd.
Maybe all the genre needs to generate Oscar superstars is to evolve in some new, interesting, compelling directions. That’s what popular genres have always had to do to remain viable creatively and commercially. And as hidebound an institution as the academy tends to be, many of its members can probably appreciate the artistry that comes out of that process.
“I think that they’re exploring how to expand genre and established intellectual property so that there are more intelligent options for moviegoers,” Thompson said. “To broaden the palate a little bit. The studios have to figure that out to stay alive, and I think they’re doing what they’re supposed to do.”
Let’s block ads! (Why?)
