Online Research Project

While many writers offer opinions of the Academy Award nominees, and even the show itself, it seems that no one has addressed this issue. Small budget, independent films are beating out the Hollywood blockbusters for awards. This is becoming a very popular trend, and in my opinion, it’s unjust.
Mainstream films are becoming less likely to win an Academy Award in a major category. This year’s best picture, “Slumdog Millionaire,” was nominated alongside “Milk,” “The Reader,” “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” and “Frost/Nixon.” Most of the nominees had an “A-list” name attached to them. For example, Brad Pitt starred in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” Pitt has been nominated for two Academy Awards in his career. He also has starred in a string of Hollywood blockbusters and critically acclaimed films such as “Fight Club.” I find it strange that such a Hollywood darling has never received an Oscar. Other Hollywood stars such as Josh Brolin and Leonardo DiCaprio have never won an Academy Award. Both have had parts in major Hollywood films, and are often considered to be two of the best actors ever. How is it that neither of them have been recognized? After all, shouldn’t the Oscars recognize the best?

Mainstream films such as “The Dark Knight” should get a better chance at receiving an Academy Award. The televised portion of the Oscar ceremony has experienced decreasing ratings in previous years. Over the past three years, ratings have been steadily increasing. I think that certain nominees could affect TV ratings. If “The Dark Knight” was in running for best picture, would the ratings increase? I would think so. After all, “The Dark Knight” made $1 billion in worldwide box office sales, and received acclaim from notable critics such as Richard Roeper and Peter Travers. Therefore, it’s safe to say that it’s a popular film. When the news broke that “TDK” was not in the running for best picture, I think it turned a lot of people off. If the Academy wants to continue to increase TV ratings, they need to listen to the people. I know it’s not fair, but it’s business. The current state of the economy has taken a toll on the movie industry. “The Dark Knight,” in terms of revenue, single handedly kept the industry afloat last year, amid Writer’s Union strikes and other work stoppages. Why wasn’t it nominated?

I don’t want make it sound like I am disregarding the efforts of independent filmmakers. This article shows how smaller films like “Slumdog Millionaire” are financed, and they stack against films like “TDK.” In terms of quality, a lot of people felt that “Slumdog Millionaire” was a better movie. The story of the film was very poignant and deep, which probably influenced the Academy’s decision to nominate and later award the film. “The Dark Knight,” despite very positive reviews, was seen by many as another superhero flick, lumped in with the likes of “Spider-Man.” Despite it being action packed and full of mystery, the story of the film was a lot less relatable to real life.

Films such as “Slumdog Millionaire” are art-house films, in that they are marketed toward a certain group of people. The subject matter of these films is generally serious, and is considered to be noncommercial. “Slumdog Millionaire” was nearly unnoticed before its release. It was shifted around from studio to studio, and nearly went direct to DVD, because of the studios felt that the film had little marketability. “The Dark Knight” was meant to be a blockbuster, and it was. The film was purposely made to make money. It was marketed to everyone. There was no specified audience. However, I feel that the audience to which a film is marketed to should not matter when discussing Oscar nominations. I feel that the Academy probably nominated “Slumdog Millionaire” because of that. It was one of the underdogs in the industry, and eventually became a success story. “TDK” was a success from the beginning. I think the Academy should revaluate their nomination decisions.