Two weeks ago, the nominations for the 87th Academy Awards were officially released. Awarding the greatest cinematic achievements of the past year, time and time again, the Academy Awards (or Oscars) proves itself to be a perfect encapsulation of the year in film.
Yeah, right.
Every year, the Academy Awards become the universal punching bag by critics, analysts and especially audiences. Not to mention, yours truly.
In fact, if you picked up the Valley Vanguard two weeks prior, you were able to read all about my biggest Oscar beefs for 2015. In my eyes, I felt the Academy snubbed a number of highly deserving pictures in respective categories: “Gone Girl,” “Nightcrawler,” “The LEGO Movie” and “Selma” being among them.
That’s not all, however. It seems that, year after year, the Academy tends to award films that satisfy the short-term needs of audiences, but end up lacking real substance down the line. Seriously, when was the last time you popped in “The Artist” or “The King’s Speech?”
However, with all of the complaining I do about Oscar, I have to give credit where credit is due: This year, while there is an unforgivable lack of recognition for some films, they did end up getting a lot right.
Is it perfect? No, but I still think there are some nice additions that are worth talking about. Kind of, sort of.
One quick glance through the films nominated this year, and the films that seem to be the most widely recognized are “The Grand Budapest Hotel” and “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)”.
While I’d consider neither to be great films, or at the top of their class, it’s wonderful to see both acknowledged for either their top-notch technical or acting achievements.
Additionally, while there is an overall lack of gutsier choices for Best Picture, like “Gone Girl” and “Nightcrawler,” I’m still thrilled to see the wonderful indie drama “Whiplash” up for the night’s biggest award. Though its best chance for Oscar gold stand with J.K. Simmons’ stellar supporting performance, it’s nice to see the film receive some love.
What’s most exciting of all, however, would have to be for Richard Linklater’s coming-of-age darling “Boyhood.” Shot over 12 years, “Boyhood” follows the story of a suburban middle-class Texas family and takes its audience on a nearly three-hour journey through the ups and downs of childhood.
It’s a whirlwind of emotions, yet still ends up being the least intimidating film of the year. “Boyhood” isn’t just a complex experiment that paid off – it’s a film that speaks volumes about the highs and lows of growing up.
So yes, overall, the Oscars are not and may never be a perfect reflection of what cinema has to offer – but when you look at what Oscar gives us year after year, it’s still not as terrible as it could be. I mean, it’s not like they’re giving “Annie” any nominations (Golden Globes, you’re still on timeout for that one).
It still gives credit to films that deserve to be seen, and understands the basic elements of what makes a film universally loved – even without the proper means of getting the word out. More so, if it means more people end up seeing “Boyhood” and “Whiplash” because of it, I’m all for it.
So yes, I’ll swallow my pride and say it: Kudos, Oscar. Kudos.