Before I begin to make my point, let me make one thing abundantly clear. Boyhood was the greatest motion picture of 2014; no amount of tiny, golden statuettes can disprove that. I do not even care that Boyhood topped the most critical year-end lists or has a perfect 100 Metacritic score. Those are just numbers and words. It was an epic that packed the emotional punch of all three Lord of the Rings films on a fraction of the budget. It redefined the ways stories can be told and set a new artistic peak in the world of cinema. That is why Boyhood is 2014’s best film.
But the Academy, being who they are, did not see fit to reward these achievements - not even with a Best Direction win for Linklater. Birdman walked away with the hardware, as most predicted. It had a third-quarter boost and the statistical edge. Be clear that my mission is not to drag down Alejandro Iñárritu’s masterpiece, and a masterpiece it is. There is no denying the virtuoso work that went into every tier of the production. From the one-take (gimmick) to the side-splitting takedown of Hollywood’s superhero obsession, Birdman was a marvel. It was my second favorite film of the year, after all. Without dragging down either film, my mission is to prove why it could be a good thing that Boyhood was not crowned king.
Historically speaking, the Academy rarely awards the year’s best movie with the Best Picture Oscar. Crash? Forrest Gump? For this article’s purposes, let us just look at this decade. The King’s Speech over The Social Network? Aside: Fincher wasn’t even granted a nomination this year. End of aside. The Artist over The Descendants or The Tree of Life? Argo over Beasts of the Southern Wild or Zero Dark Thirty? And that was the year The Master came out, a film that was not even nominated. The fact that the Academy got it right last year with 12 Years a Slave should have been a red herring that an upset was coming this year.
Take a look back at all of the winners I just mentioned. What do most of them have in common? A black-&-white nod to Hollywood’s Golden Age (The Artist), acting helping a king (The King’s Speech), Hollywood saving the WORLD (Argo); they all give a big pat on the back to Hollywood and the movies. There’s nothing the Academy likes more than a nice big pat on the back. Which film, Birdman or Boyhood, fits this trend better? Even if Birdman’s view of the industry is slightly negative; what can I say, any publicity is good publicity. Maybe Linklater should have made Mason pursue acting in the end.
So why is it OK that Birdman won? Time has shown that an Oscar loss could lead to an even greater level of fame and notoriety. Not a single one of Stanley Kubrick’s films ever won Best Picture and the man himself was never honored as Best Director. Looking back now, Kubrick is hailed as one of the greatest visionaries of all time. Martin Scorsese went nearly four decades with a win. He won big for 2007’s The Departed, but classics such as Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas (just to name a few) were shunned in favor of lesser films like Ordinary People and, Heaven help us, Dances With Wolves.
The Dances With Wolves fumble would be a low-point for any award show, but nothing compares to 1994. You may already know what I am talking about. This was the year that the Academy saw fit to reward the aww-shucks, heart-warming tale of Forrest Gump over the cinema-changing impact of Pulp Fiction. Gump taught us that if we wonder through life clueless and mindlessly do what we are told, we will more than likely come out a gazillionaire. Nice. 'Merica! Pulp Fiction taught as that cinema literally has no bounds and that the storytelling possibilities are endless - accomplishments shared by last night’s loser Boyhood. Will last night’s decision leave a box-of-chocolates shaped stain on the Academy’s reputation? Probably not, Birdman is about ten times better than Gump. The point I am trying to make is that the Academy rarely acknowledges groundbreaking films. Tarantino was not named Best Director, and I would hold up his films against those of Robert Zemeckis any day. That’s all I am saying.
There is one more point to be made, and I will make it brief. In 1941, How Green Was My Valley took home the top prize. Know what went home empty-handed? Citizen Kane, of course. I think it can speak for itself as to how time has treated it. I don’t see How Green Was My Valley still being played - or even talked about, for that matter - in theaters on an annual basis. That is all.
Sure, I am annoyed that Birdman won the Oscar, but it’s just a stupid trophy and the winning film sure as hell earned the praise. In the end, the 87th Oscars seems to parallel closest with the 80th ceremony. This was the night that No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood went head to head. The masterpieces of both the Coen brothers and Paul Thomas Anderson were already instant classics, but No Country took home the prize. Was it my pick? No. Like Boyhood, There Will Be Blood is one of my favorite films of all time. Has Blood diminished since its loss? Again, no. Having topped many best-of-the-decade lists, I would assume some may say it has only grown in power. I believe the same will be said for Boyhood in five, ten, even twenty years. Time is the only judge, as Iñárritu most eloquently said in of his three acceptance speeches.
But the Academy, being who they are, did not see fit to reward these achievements - not even with a Best Direction win for Linklater. Birdman walked away with the hardware, as most predicted. It had a third-quarter boost and the statistical edge. Be clear that my mission is not to drag down Alejandro Iñárritu’s masterpiece, and a masterpiece it is. There is no denying the virtuoso work that went into every tier of the production. From the one-take (gimmick) to the side-splitting takedown of Hollywood’s superhero obsession, Birdman was a marvel. It was my second favorite film of the year, after all. Without dragging down either film, my mission is to prove why it could be a good thing that Boyhood was not crowned king.
Historically speaking, the Academy rarely awards the year’s best movie with the Best Picture Oscar. Crash? Forrest Gump? For this article’s purposes, let us just look at this decade. The King’s Speech over The Social Network? Aside: Fincher wasn’t even granted a nomination this year. End of aside. The Artist over The Descendants or The Tree of Life? Argo over Beasts of the Southern Wild or Zero Dark Thirty? And that was the year The Master came out, a film that was not even nominated. The fact that the Academy got it right last year with 12 Years a Slave should have been a red herring that an upset was coming this year.
Take a look back at all of the winners I just mentioned. What do most of them have in common? A black-&-white nod to Hollywood’s Golden Age (The Artist), acting helping a king (The King’s Speech), Hollywood saving the WORLD (Argo); they all give a big pat on the back to Hollywood and the movies. There’s nothing the Academy likes more than a nice big pat on the back. Which film, Birdman or Boyhood, fits this trend better? Even if Birdman’s view of the industry is slightly negative; what can I say, any publicity is good publicity. Maybe Linklater should have made Mason pursue acting in the end.
So why is it OK that Birdman won? Time has shown that an Oscar loss could lead to an even greater level of fame and notoriety. Not a single one of Stanley Kubrick’s films ever won Best Picture and the man himself was never honored as Best Director. Looking back now, Kubrick is hailed as one of the greatest visionaries of all time. Martin Scorsese went nearly four decades with a win. He won big for 2007’s The Departed, but classics such as Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas (just to name a few) were shunned in favor of lesser films like Ordinary People and, Heaven help us, Dances With Wolves.
The Dances With Wolves fumble would be a low-point for any award show, but nothing compares to 1994. You may already know what I am talking about. This was the year that the Academy saw fit to reward the aww-shucks, heart-warming tale of Forrest Gump over the cinema-changing impact of Pulp Fiction. Gump taught us that if we wonder through life clueless and mindlessly do what we are told, we will more than likely come out a gazillionaire. Nice. 'Merica! Pulp Fiction taught as that cinema literally has no bounds and that the storytelling possibilities are endless - accomplishments shared by last night’s loser Boyhood. Will last night’s decision leave a box-of-chocolates shaped stain on the Academy’s reputation? Probably not, Birdman is about ten times better than Gump. The point I am trying to make is that the Academy rarely acknowledges groundbreaking films. Tarantino was not named Best Director, and I would hold up his films against those of Robert Zemeckis any day. That’s all I am saying.
There is one more point to be made, and I will make it brief. In 1941, How Green Was My Valley took home the top prize. Know what went home empty-handed? Citizen Kane, of course. I think it can speak for itself as to how time has treated it. I don’t see How Green Was My Valley still being played - or even talked about, for that matter - in theaters on an annual basis. That is all.
Sure, I am annoyed that Birdman won the Oscar, but it’s just a stupid trophy and the winning film sure as hell earned the praise. In the end, the 87th Oscars seems to parallel closest with the 80th ceremony. This was the night that No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood went head to head. The masterpieces of both the Coen brothers and Paul Thomas Anderson were already instant classics, but No Country took home the prize. Was it my pick? No. Like Boyhood, There Will Be Blood is one of my favorite films of all time. Has Blood diminished since its loss? Again, no. Having topped many best-of-the-decade lists, I would assume some may say it has only grown in power. I believe the same will be said for Boyhood in five, ten, even twenty years. Time is the only judge, as Iñárritu most eloquently said in of his three acceptance speeches.