Open Forum Friday: Should the Oscars Be Awarded Ten Years Later?
With all the Oscar talk continuing to build as we head into the weekend, I thought I’d pose an interesting question brought up this week by former Academy Award winner and current Best Supporting Actor nominee Matt Damon. The New York Times caught up with him to get his take on the phenomenon of Oscar smear campaigns, and after discussing how silly the whole thing is, he also made a pretty interesting off-the-cuff suggestion:
“I actually think the way they should do the awards, I really think this, is they should give them out 10 years later… Like the way they do the Hall of Fame in Baseball. They do it in five years, but if you did 10 years later, if this year, we were voting on what was the best picture of 2000, I think it would be much more honest. It’s like, when you pick up great old movies and you go, why the hell didn’t Brando win the Oscar for this one? Who won that year? Whatever the sizzle was about that year. 50 years later you’re looking at a movie and going, this is a historic cinematic performance.”
Clearly when it comes to judging a film’s merit, longevity is something that needs to be considered; often you don’t know how well a movie will really hold up until you can look back on it from a comfortable distance. (This issue came up a lot when we were counting down our Top 20 Movies of the Decade last year.) However, while this idea sounds great in theory, it wouldn’t necessarily work because the Oscars are also used to actively promote recently released films that many moviegoers wouldn’t otherwise see. Also, since the Academy often waits to honour people near the tail end of their careers, if you tack another ten years onto that, you might be giving out a lot more posthumous awards! What do you think? Is Matt Damon onto something here? Should movies be judged only after a few years have passed, or do they need to be evaluated in the moment and in the immediate context in which they were released? Should they give out Oscars ten years later? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (21)
I think at the end of all time we should pick a movie and watch it.
Posted by Henrik on March 5th, 2010What if time never ends?
Posted by Dave on March 5th, 2010That Matt Damon is smart. Even if he doesn’t SOUND smart in Team America: World Police.
But yes, this is a great idea.
Posted by Less Lee Moore on March 5th, 2010And I thought movies where supposed to be timeless.
Posted by slekvak on March 5th, 2010Maybe a category for best picture from ten years ago would be the ticket. I think Damon is right that ten years can provide some much needed perspective and kind of give the Academy the chance to right some of their wrongs (or knowing them, give them another chance to screw it up) while still maintaining the marketing vehicle that the Oscars can be for current films.
Posted by Nate on March 5th, 2010I wouldnt change the entire show, but even another category celebrating the top films a decade later..
Posted by AdamH on March 5th, 2010thats a great idea actually
Posted by mitch on March 5th, 2010Maybe they should just have a ‘Lifetime Achievement Award for an Individual Film’ during each Oscar ceremony. Like in Damons example as HoF does for players. They still give MVPs and Gold Gloves every year but those guys dont automatically get into the HoF.
A ‘Film Hall of Fame’ exhibit with memorabilia would be cool like the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame. A 10 year gap of release required for induction and the first films could have a giant bulk of inductees and then kinda taper it off to 2-3 a year. Votes could come from a variety of ‘Academy’, AFI, Film Critics, etc.
Posted by Rusty on March 5th, 2010The Oscars are ridiculous, but they’re an advertising platform, and as such they serve the purpose they’re made to, get current films on people’s tongues. It would provide a lot more credibility and respect if it was choosing films which stand the test of time, but they could do that if they examine current films fairly and don’t reward such garbage as Titanic.
Posted by AdamA on March 5th, 2010It is really disappointing to look at an amazing film or performance and know that because they didn’t win that year, they’ll never win.
On the other hand, the film is there forever – who cares if the academy didn’t choose it to win, we can watch and re-watch as many times as we like and have these incredible arguments with other film fans about why that film is better than the winner that year or that filmmakers other efforts, etc.
Take this year, Basterds SHOULD win because ten years from now, it will be held in very high regard. The Hurt Locker will absolutely not. Avatar will always be a milestone but Basterds has everything going for it. I don’t think Quentin has a chance, however.
Posted by Nick Robertson on March 5th, 2010Nah, it’s all about instant gratification. Give it to them while they’re still hot. The academy awards have always felt, to me, like it’s been political. Whether it’s to boost this guy or that woman’s career or even giving a nod just for the sake of like with child actors. This year will be no different. Expect many of the Avatar noms to win.
Wouldn’t that be fucking weird to see someone like Heath Ledger get the best supporting actor award years later?
There are people who have definitely earned awards early on in their career like Scorsese. With him winning it for The Departed instead movies like Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Casino, Mean Streets, and Taxi Driver. You’d think he’d won several best director awards.
I still think they get it wrong most of the time and I don’t think 10 years is still enough time for them to get it right.
If Tarantino doesn’t win for best director or best film, well let’s just say of course he didn’t. I believe he made the best directed film in not just of 2009, but one of the best of the last 10 years.
Posted by Primal on March 5th, 2010I’ve come up with this idea on my own before. But why 10 years ago? Why not 20? (I’d pick “Do The Right Thing” from 1989). Can movies that were nominated the first time around get renominated? Sure, why not. If a movie wins it again 10 or 20 years later, that would be a true sign of staying power!
Posted by Mason on March 5th, 2010So now we want to make an already very long Oscar telecast even longer by honoring films from 10 years ago? And ya’ll think that there’ll be any less politics involved in the voting of those films than there are for current films? Puh-leeze!
Posted by Mo Bitches on March 6th, 2010The problem is not necessarily when the award is awarded but the often fickle and unfortunate habit of constraining the award to only comparing films that came out in the same year. A great film can come out in the same year as a bunch of other films that may not have been as good but had bigger box offices and bigger buzz and hence got the awards attention. A film should not have to be punished because of that. This isn’t sports where you obviously have to beat the competition that you are directly facing. You can’t directly compare films in general or directors, or writers or actors or anyone. I mean, I think that it’s pretty easy to tell what is bad, but when it comes to picking out what is the best it becomes far more subjective. Actually you guys can use this idea. Why not come up with your own ten years after Oscars. So this year, you look at the best of 1999 and pick out who really should have won the top 5 awards. Or maybe just stick to top 3, picture, actor, actress. Whatever, but something like that.
Posted by Maopheus on March 6th, 2010Yes!! I like this idea. DO IT, FILM JUNK!
Posted by Less Lee Moore on March 6th, 2010I love the idea of looking back and then deciding the best of that year. It seems so much more fair. But realistically it would be many movies are overlooked or true good acting movies would more be dismissed as there is no success to be gained in the short term.
It is the sort of thing they ought to do at the Oscars or at Cannes or something. Just best year of a movie 10 years ago. It captures something which really did inspire and influence film making.
Posted by Billy Boyd Cape on March 6th, 2010I think everyone should stop thinking the Oscars matter like I do.
Posted by Ryan M. on March 6th, 2010If that setup actually came about Scorsese’d finally get all those missed Oscars for films that actually deserved to win!
Posted by Fatbologna on March 7th, 2010And the academy award for the movie that stands the test of time goes to!!!!!
(see it could be done) and i am copyrighting that line.
Posted by john on March 8th, 2010Inspired by this post, I took a look back and picked out my fantasy nominees for Best Picture of 1999.
13th Warrior
Blair Witch Project
Iron Giant
Last Night
The Limey
And the imaginary Academy Award goes to… Last Night!
Posted by Wintle on March 8th, 2010SIZZLE? damon is a trannie
Posted by kris on March 9th, 2010Leave a Reply