About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Why doesn't sci-fi win best picture?



By Tim Masters for BBC News


Sci-fi has barely dented the Academy Awards through the years. When it comes to the Oscars, science fiction films are rarely rewarded outside the technical categories. So what chance does British director Chris Nolan's nominated film Inception have of being named best picture this year? "Inception hasn't got a chance of winning in the same way that District 9 didn't have a chance last year," says Dave Calhoun, film editor of Time Out. "If we had five instead of 10 best picture nominees it's unlikely that Inception would have been nominated." The Academy increased the number of best picture nominees in 2010, which saw District 9 and James Cameron's 3D juggernaut Avatar rubbing shoulders with low-budget indie fare like the Coen brothers' A Serious Man and The Hurt Locker. It was the latter film - Kathryn Bigelow's bomb disposal drama - that won on the day. Oscars history shows that sci-fi films haven't fared well when up for best picture. The original Star Wars (1977) may have starred a robot that looked like a golden Oscar statuette, but the top prize that year went to Woody Allen's Annie Hall. George Lucas's space adventure was rewarded with seven other Oscars, including editing, visual effects and music. In 1982, Steven Spielberg's blockbuster ET: The Extra-terrestrial was beaten by Gandhi. "There's definitely a sort of film the Academy likes to honour," says Calhoun. "It likes to honour the craft of acting, the craft of writing. Sci-fi is seen as a showcase for the technical art of film-making. I don't think anyone walks out of Star Wars and thinks - 'wow, wasn't the acting terrific in that?'"



Calhoun sees Avatar in a similar way. "I thought Avatar was an impressive technical spectacle, but it wasn't about the acting. A lot of Avatar fans say the 3D looked brilliant, and the way they captured human performances was fascinating, but it was a pretty corny story." When science fiction films spring from traditional literary sources, then it is more likely to be taken seriously, Calhoun points out. "That says something about the attitude toward sci-fi - in a literary sense it's not seen as being very credible," says Calhoun. Author Kazuo Ishiguro, whose science fiction novel Never Let Me Go was adapted by Alex Garland for the big screen, echoes that sentiment. "Never Let Me Go certainly has that speculative, dystopian dimension to it," he tells the BBC. "If you're a novelist of my generation, we grew up with a prejudice against sci-fi - we felt slightly snobbish about it, whereas people of Alex Garland's generation embrace computer games, manga, and graphic novels. They mix all these things with highbrow ideas. "I've learnt a lot from them, and being friends with those guys helped me lose my prejudices and a whole exciting world opens up. In cinema it's never been like that. Some of the greatest highbrow films like Metropolis, 2001 or Solaris have been sci-fi movies."



Director Neil Marshall, whose films include Dog Soldiers and The Descent, describes sci-fi genre as "the cinema of ideas", adding that since many Academy voters are actors - they might favour a film that's more performance-led. "Maybe it's just too popular. Avatar and Star Wars get the money so they give the awards to the other films," he says. At the Venice Film Festival in 2007, director Sir Ridley Scott declared that the science fiction genre had "nothing original" to offer and was going the same way as the western. But the western genre is seeing something of a resurgence this year with the Oscar-nominated True Grit, produced and directed by the Coen Brothers. The siblings have enjoyed huge success at the awards with more than 30 nominations for their films. So is there any chance they will ever tackle a sci-fi movie? Ethan Coen tells the BBC: "That's one genre that I don't know that we would know what we were doing," he says. "It's funny given the degree to which some of our movies are stylised, but there has to be some kind of anchor in reality in order to get our minds around a story." In Time Out's own recent list of British Top 100 Films, chosen by industry experts, science fiction barely makes a dent. Its first appearance is Terry Gilliam's Brazil at number 24. Says Dave Calhoun: "I suspect if we polled a wider group of the film-going audience you would get a bit more sci-fi/fantasy. "Frankly, the industry itself is a little bit sniffy about sci-fi, and that applies to the Oscars as well."


[As I suspected Inception doesn’t really have a chance on Oscar night – at least not at the top prize. SF has always been looked down on by the critics not matter what its quality is. SF is often seen as juvenile and escapist without any real substance. Even philosophical films like Inception and The Matrix before it are still not considered to be ‘proper’ films. No wonder then that they get a nod for FX and for little else.]

13 comments:

dbackdad said...

I love stuffy English period pieces probably as much as any American male, but there is no reason why they should consistently be viewed more favorably than quality science fiction. Certainly, from a relevancy standpoint, sci-fi says more about modern social and cultural issues than do your average Merchant/Ivory film. District 9 (apartheid), Avatar (environment), Matrix (artificial intelligence, the nature of reality, philosophy), etc. bring more to the table than another story about the class system.

It certainly doesn't help when someone like Ridley Scott, who arguably has made 2 of the top 10 sci-fi movies of all-time (Blade Runner, Alien), appears to make light of the genre in his comments. Hopefully, he has changed his mind in the last few years. The fact that he is working on Prometheus would seem to indicate that sci-fi still has something to offer for him.

dbackdad said...

BTW, I had not seen that movie poster for Inception before. Love it.

Thomas Fummo said...

All I know is that no matter how better How To Train Your Dragon is than Toy Story 3, Pixar will go away with best animated feature.

sorry, waaay off topic.

ORISITTT?????

p.s.
word verification: LOBARSE
pffftnnnhaahahahaha.

CyberKitten said...

dbackdad said: Certainly, from a relevancy standpoint, sci-fi says more about modern social and cultural issues than do your average Merchant/Ivory film.

Most definitely. SF has always had more to say about the period its written in then the future it often portrays.

dbackdad said: It certainly doesn't help when someone like Ridley Scott, who arguably has made 2 of the top 10 sci-fi movies of all-time (Blade Runner, Alien), appears to make light of the genre in his comments.

I did find that rather surprising.

dbackdad said: BTW, I had not seen that movie poster for Inception before. Love it.

Interesting isn't it? I had several to choose from and thought the one I posted was the best.

TF said: All I know is that no matter how better How To Train Your Dragon is than Toy Story 3, Pixar will go away with best animated feature.

Haven't seen TS3 so I can't compare. I liked HTTYD very much though.

Sadie Lou said...

Inception isn't good enough to win an Oscar, period. I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that it's a Science Fiction movie. Usually, when a movie is nominated for Best Picture, you can bet your ass that the director and a handful of actors will be nominated as well. It's is absolutely not a conincidence that nobody was nominated to represent this movie in the individual performance awards.
Part of the reason a movie is Oscar Worthy is because of the stellar performances within it. In the case of Inception, there were none to speak of. I have never seen a more discombobulated, disconnected cast. It was almost as Leonardo DiCaprio was acting indepentantly from his fellow cast members.
Sorry, if a Science Fiction movie is worthy of an Oscar nod, I'm sure it will happen without predjudice but I wouldn't be looking to Inception to pull off that miracle.
*wink* District 9 was the best shot so far.

dbackdad said...

Sadie -- While I don't share your general disdain of Inception, I do agree that it won't (and shouldn't) win Best Picture. But I do think it was deserving of a nomination. I loved District 9.

My point (and the article's) is that it seems as though sci-fi movies have no shot whatsoever to win a Best Picture in any year.

Sadie Lou said...

Lance, I agree on District 9. It was Science Fiction's best shot to nab one, in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I liked Inception...it was well done in terms of effects and story (although the character development left a lot to be desired). I'm just surprised that the article insinuates that Sci-Fi can't win an Oscar and Inception is used as the "...see?"
Disctrict 9 had a way better chance but it was up against a plethora of in depth character study movies like "A Serious Man" and "Precious" and "An Education" not to mention the winner, The Hurt Locker was in the Academy's pet genre. They love to award the big one to wartime movies. Anyhoodles...no disdain for Inception.

CyberKitten said...

I did a bit of research. Apparently in the 83 years of the Oscars no SF movie has *ever* won Best Picture. That seems a little odd to me. Surely there must have been some SF movies worthy of the honour?

I can't really comment on the competition to 'Inception' this year as I haven't seen any of them. I'll probably see 'Black Swan' and 'Social Network' when they're out on DVD.

Agree with 'District 9'. That was a great film. Was it nominated for Best Film?

Saw 'The Hurt Locker' a few months ago. I actually wasn't that impressed.....

Sadie Lou said...

Yeah, District 9 was among the nominated films last year although I suspect it only got in because 2010 was when the Academy went from only 5 nominated movies, to 10 nominated movies.
I haven't seen the Hurt Locker because I really don't enjoy wartime movies.
Honestly, I think the Academy Awards don't do a good enough job honoring many different genres of film. What about comedy? Horror? Action? Mostly, Dramas are what make up the bulk of the nominated movies. I guess they can't do a break down of every genre though. I could do without the animated movie genre.

Sleepypete said...

I suspect it's not just the sci-fi thing that lost it for Inception, it's also the time it was released.

Look at who wins the Oscars and you'll see a definite bias towards films released around November -> Feb. The films freshest in the mind (like King's Speech and Black Swan) get the awards. Like the good but not Oscar material Avatar getting heaps of nominations.

I doubt we'll ever get away from that, although dvd&blu-ray releases coming sooner after cinema release that may change.

dbackdad said...

I saw The Hurt Locker, and it was OK, but I definitely don't see what the hype was about. I'd have picked just about any of the other pictures over it.

Karla said...

Inception was a fascinating movie. I enjoyed it. It does seem the awards go to the most elite movies rather than the ones most enjoyed by the public.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: It does seem the awards go to the most elite movies rather than the ones most enjoyed by the public.

What do you mean by 'elite'..? By the elite, about the elite or for the elite?