Movie Times -OR-
 
 

Script to Screen

BLOG POST

The End Of Injustice: Pixar Finally Given A Best Picture Nomination


 In  Animation, Awards

 Back at the 64th Academy Awards in 1991 a ground shaking event occurred in the world of film that had never happened before, and until this week had never happened since.  Up against the stiff competition of films like "Bugsy", "JFK", "The Prince of Tides" and "The Silence of the Lambs" (the eventual winner of the Best Picture award) stood an ANIMATED film... "The Beauty and the Beast".

It was the first time in history an animated film had ever been nominated for the top prize at the Oscars.  Think about that for a moment.  Not "Cinderella".  Not "Snow White".  Not "Pinocchio".  Not "Bambi" and not even "Sleeping Beauty".  None of these memorable films that have become a part of our collective culture and have endured for 60+ years had ever even been nominated for best picture.

"The Beauty and the Beast" burst onto the scene in all of its wonderful beauty, it's memorable music, its intense laughter, its touching moments and its glorious characters and the drought was at long last ended.  Could this mark the beginning of the Academy embracing animated films as legitimate members of the cinematic community?

Sadly no.  On the contrary, it marked the beginning of a cinematic version of segregation.

There were those in the film community who scorned the idea that an animated film could be nominated for "Best Picture" at the Oscars and hated the fact that "Beauty and the Beast" was nominated at all.  Not because it lacked the required quality and magic that a Best Picture nominee should have, but rather simply based on the fact that the medium used to tell the story was animation.  And so, in 2001 the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences created the "Best Animated Feature" category as a proverbial "ghetto" to sweep animated films into.

The only requirement for a "Best Animated Feature" award to be given out at the Oscars was that there had to be a minimum of 8 animated feature films made that year.  What that means is if you made a feature length animated film... you stood a 40% chance of getting nominated for an Oscar.  Congratulations.

The Academy thought their "problem" had been solved and that the controversy over animated films at the Oscars would quietly go away.  However, as the quality of animated films began to grow in leaps and bounds, the questions began to rise again.

DID YOU KNOW, THAT SINCE 1999 THE #1 CRITICALLY RATED FILMS OF THE YEAR HAVE BEEN ANIMATED FILMS EIGHT TIMES?

That's worth repeating - Since 1999 the #1 critically rated films of the year have been animated films 8 times.

According to Rotten Tomatoes (a website that compiles and averages the reviews of multiple-hundreds of film critics from television, print and the internet):

1999 - The #1 critically rated film of the year was Pixar's "Toy Story 2".  Not even a nomination for Best Picture.

2000 - The #1 critically rated film of the year was "Chicken Run" (the only film on this list not from Pixar Studios), and yet not nominated for Best Picture.

2001 - The #1 critically rated film of the year was "Monster's Inc".  Not nominated for Best Picture.

2003 - The #1 critically rated film of the year was "Finding Nemo".  Not nominated for Best Picture.

2004 - The #1 critically rated film of the year was "The Incredibles".  Not nominated for Best Picture.

2007 - The #1 critically rated film of the year was "Ratatouille".  Not nominated for Best Picture.

2008 - The #1 critically rated film of the year was "Wall-E".  Not nominated for Best Picture.


It should be noted that the non-animated #1 critically rated films of 2002 ("The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers"), and 2006 ("The Queen") were both nominated for "Best Picture" at the Oscars in their respective years.  2005's documentary "Murderball" was not.

Several film pundits (including myself) began asking how such a situation could exist?  According to the Academy, animated films were still ELIGIBLE for the "Best Picture" award at the Oscars... and yet none of them were being even nominated.

There would be those who would argue (like segregationists) "oh they (animated films) have their own place (the Animated Feature category), let them go there".  The situation had evolved from a simple snubbing to an outright cinematic version of social injustice.

An argument can certainly be made that just because a particular film is the #1 critically rated movie of a certain year doesn't mean is necessarily needs to be nominated for best picture.  However, we're not talking about one particular year.  As you saw above, we were talking about a systematic pattern where one studio (Pixar) held the #1 rated spot 6 times from 1999-2008.  SIX TIMES, and yet each and every time was shut out of consideration for Best Picture specifically because of the medium it used to tell its story.

To me, the "best pictures" are the "best pictures" regardless if they're live action, silent films, black and white, color, comedy, musical, documentary... or even animated.  The best films are the best films and if you're going to call your big award "Best Picture" then you must nominate the best pictures.

This week the trend was finally broken.  The movie "UP" marked Pixar's 7th film to come in as the #1 critically rated film of the year, and although it took the Academy expanding the number of Best Film nominations from 5 to 10, an animated film has once again been nominated for the top prize.

Free at last!  Free at last!  Thank... ok maybe that's exaggerating the importance of this all little bit, but not only do I see "UP"'s nomination as a victory for Pixar or animated films in general, but rather as a victory for the entire movie industry.  Once again we are celebrating the BEST in film, and that's good for everyone, including the Oscars themselves.

Had this been any other year with only 5 nominations for "Best Picture", would "UP" still have made the cut?  I like to think it may have with it also getting a nomination for "Best Original Screenplay", but we'll never know for sure.  The important thing is, it got nominated.

This is not the end of the struggle for excellence in animated films to be recognized, but it is an important first step, a step in the right direction and a step long overdue.

 

Posted by: John Campea | 2/3/2010 | 1:29 PM | Comments: 11
Permalink

Log in to rate Rating Help Rate this

 

COMMENTS

  • Ann Ora
    2/3/2010 | 2:35 PM

    Log in to rate

     

    I must first say that this article is very well written! With that said, it still amazes me the amount of times animated films have been snubbed for Best Picture nominations and even awards when they are clearly deserving of the honor. Like you said, Best Picture means Best Picture and I am glad they got it right this year. Even if it took them expanding the nominations from 5 to 10. And I certainly hope this isn't the only reason why UP received the honor. That movie was absolutely perfect to me.

     
  • Ryan Roche
    2/3/2010 | 2:44 PM

    Log in to rate

     

    Hey John,

    The article was a great read! I have always enjoyed animated films and the the work they put into them.

    If you don't mind me asking, what are the reasons why animated films don't get the spotlight and award ceremonies?

    Thanks!

    Ryan

     
  • Mikano
    2/3/2010 | 7:14 PM

    Log in to rate

     

    In 2006, Casino Royale was the #1 critically rated film of the year

     
  • Mikano
    2/3/2010 | 7:20 PM

    Log in to rate

     

    Even if it was still 5 nominees I still don't think Up might have made it just on the fact of it getting a Best Original Screenplay, because Ratatouille and WALLE were nominated for Best Original Screenplay, and they weren't nominated.

     
  • John Campea
    2/3/2010 | 7:56 PM

    Log in to rate

     

    Hey there Mikano,

    Actually, "The Queen" was the #1 critically rated film. "Casino Royale" was second with a 95% rating while "The Queen" had a 97% rating.

    You may be right about "UP" not getting the nomination if it was just 5... but I like to think it would have (although that might be naive of me).

    Cheers!

     
  • triflic
    2/4/2010 | 11:22 AM

    Log in to rate

     

    Except that #1 Rated film doesn't mean that people feel highly PASSIONATE about the film, merely it didn't do anything wrong.

    I like pixar as much as the next guy, but their films rarely inspire or move, or hit me like a lot of films that polarize critics or even are not well loved. I would say 'most positively' reviewed film is more an indication of Milquetoast than Magnificent.

    (That being said, Ratatouille, Toy Story 2, The Incredibles and Monster Inc. are pretty f'n good films.)

     
  • triflic
    2/4/2010 | 11:24 AM

    Log in to rate

     

    ... Up on the other hand is pretty middling-Pixar, not even as good as Finding Nemo or Toy Story 1. The only thing that elevates UP (ha) is the silent opening montage at the beginning. If that was a short film, Wow, give it all the awards available, but the talking dogs, grumpy old men who do not seem too troubled by their age and can walk a full hot air-ballon thru the jungle was kinda ho-hum.

     
  • John Campea
    2/4/2010 | 12:35 PM

    Log in to rate

     

    Good to see you on here Triflic,

    I've got to disagree with a couple of points. A film can't just "not do anything wrong" and get a 98%. It also ended up on far too many "10 Best Of The Year" lists to say people weren't passionate about it.

    I'm finding this just on the first page of reviews:

    _____________________________________

    "A hugely enjoyable work, whose care, craftsmanship and creative courage are rarely found in mainstream films"

    "One of its best: touching, funny and graphically exciting."

    "Pure joy and one of the best films of the year."

    "a funny, moving, beautifully made argument that dreamers can move mountains."

    "The creative leadership of the Pixar team restores clarity, simplicity, and courage to storytelling, establishing a daunting gold standard"

    "Filled with wonderment and intrigue, it tells a timeless tale of adventure and aging that touches on almost every emotion. "

    "Up is breathless perfection, a dream ride of vivid colour and wit. It also has emotional depth."

    "Up is one of the year's best."

    "A joyous, wacky, sometimes bittersweet story of love, loss and making your dreams come true, Up does what Pixar movies usually do - it far exceeds our expectations."

    "It's beginning to seem as if Pixar's delivery of one of the very best films of the year will be an unstoppable annual tradition."

    "Uplifting, upstaging and uproarious, this beautifully crafted animated adventure is buoyed up to the heavens by a heart-gladdening story of genuine warmth and poignancy."

    ________________________________________

    That's just what I found instantly on the front page. You can't honestly say "no one is passionate" about this movie.

    Did "The Dark Knight" get a 94% just because no one was really passionate about it, but it didn't do anything wrong?

    I totally respect that you weren't as enamored with it as I was, but you simply can't discard how widely loved the film is.

    Hey, I admit I wasn't all that taken with "Blade Runner", but I totally acknowledge it's one of the most beloved sci-fi films of all time.

     
  • triflic
    2/4/2010 | 3:37 PM

    Log in to rate

     

    Well, my comments were more directed at Pixar Movies in general. I'll give you that they appeal to the widest audience people (A buddy of mine jokes that Toy Story 3 will be the first FIVE quadrant movie, meaning that dead people will try to find a way to see it...).

    But movies that are truly great rarely appeal to everyone. You Mention Blade Runner, and many, many people have a strong dislike of that film, but it is still likely in the 'best 5 Sci-Fi films ever made. Ditto 2001: A Space Odyssey. Now consider Kubrick, almost every film he ever made is a masterpiece and yet, there are loads of people who dislike them.

    The Dark Knight is a bit of a baffler. I'm surprised that it got such a wide appeal, as it is a very uh...er... Dark ... film.

    What I'm saying is that Pixar's genius is great at making films that everyone likes, and that is more akin to getting the near 100% ratings, sure people are even passionate about the films, but really, they go see Pixar the Brand over individual films.

    Yes, I'm not making my point well, but something like EASY RIDER or BONNIE & CLYDE or hell, even UNFORGIVEN is not going to have the wide appeal that something more innocent like Toy Story or Monsters Inc. will.

    While I didn't exactly love UP, I certainly still think it is better than most childrens films (by a long shot), and that is how Pixar films almost always hit 100%.

    All that being said. Cars, quite simply, SUCKS.

     
  • Nicodemus77
    2/4/2010 | 4:06 PM

    Log in to rate

     

    While I'm not a big fan of the Oscars going to 10 nominees, it will make it harder for the Academy to dodge animated movies, especially if Pixar continues their string of quality movies, perhaps even increasing the odds of an animated film eventually winning the best picture award.

     

Pages: 1  2    Last

LEAVE A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in | Register

ACTIVE COMMUNITY BLOGGERS

 
 
Loading...

BLOG ROLL

 
Server: SVD0WEBDMZP03