Oscar ® Voters Unplugged:Letting Their Voices RoarOn Campaigns, Bloggers,Q&A’s and WhateverHappened to Margaret?By AnthonyD'AlessandromargaretOf all the penal offenses that could be committed by an Academy voter during thepost-nomination phase, exercising their rights to free speech about any contenderis grounds for getting expelled – more or less.14 The Awards Edition <strong>2011</strong>-<strong>2012</strong> Issue 07While speaking positively about a nominee is frowned upon, anyOscar ® voter who publically criticizes a competitor’s campaignor film risks losing their Academy membership or at the very least,their voting rights. Rules notwithstanding, people in the middle ofthe awards game have opinions, and given the opportunity to sharethem anonymously, they will. Luckily we talked to these Oscar ®members – all of whom have personal experience with the awardsmarathon, one way or another – before noms were announced in themost subterranean of all parking garages (actually, we just spoke withthem over the phone). In essence, we asked them: What are you reallythinking this season? The prestigious participants on this panel –polled from the actors, producers, writers and public relations Academybranches – are fully protected, and their identities are completelyconfidential. The other ground rule was they could not campaign fortheir own projects. What they had to say might surprise you … ormight just confirm what you long suspected about the idiosyncraticgroup that makes up the Oscar ® voters.<strong>AWARDS</strong>LINE: Which contender or individual has had the most impressivecampaign?Producer 1: Bridesmaids. Clearly it refashioned itself intoa worthy comedy, which always gets disregarded.Publicist: You could say The Artist. It has been all overthe place. But I don’t think the movie is that great. TheWeinsteins got the support of the critics because they understandthe film.Actress: I loved the Q&A for Carnage with John C. Reillyand Christoph Waltz. I enjoyed the movie tremendously.Publicist 2: I loved what Paramount was doing with Rango.I went to one of their Q&A’s and they’re not overdoingit. The whole concept of Gore Verbinski doing a nonhumanmovie was fascinating.A|l: Which contender has waged the most ridiculouscounterproductive campaign?war horse
Producer 1: The War Horse campaign was too smug. ExtremelyLoud & Incredibly Close was overconfidentin its co-mingling of tones.Publicist 2: The opposition against Midnight in Paristried to go after Woody Allen with an article about hispersonal life in the New York Post. But then the ill word ofmouth stopped. However, when it comes to scuttlebucket,Academy rules forbid such foul word of mouth from happeninganymore. In the end, these are people’s lives we’retalking about! This type of stuff doesn’t happen anymore.The publicists who used to spread such acidic whisperingcampaigns are either gone or retired!Writer: I’m dodging the ludicrous spots for Sherlock Holmes:A Game of Shadows. They’re so annoying and it’s such a terriblemovie. The same two TV ads keep flashing the samequote, but in different phrases. I know it’s not a contender,but it’s the same principle when it comes to pushing filmsfor Oscars. ® Essentially the studio’s attitude is ‘We’ll buyyour attention, we’ll buy your vote, we’ll buy your ticketand buy your ballot.’ By spending so much money, the notionis that we’ll cave in. The Descendants is a perfectlynice movie, but it’s being overhyped as if it’s something,which it is not…The whole [awards campaign] conceptjust strikes me as something that isn’t in the spirit of creativefilmmaking … With the possible exception of TheArtist, there isn’t a single Oscar ® contender that’s going tobe remembered 20 years from now.Producer 2: I don’t like in-your-face campaigning. Harvey(Weinstein) does a good job at in-your-face campaigningand quite frankly for me, it’s counterproductive. Andthat’s not a personal thing…I’m bothered that it becomes abeauty contest and that the studios are selling me on what Ilike or don’t like. If I don’t see the movies up for Oscar ® thisyear, the likelihood is that I won’t vote for them.Publicist: What’s counterproductive isn’t so much onecampaign, but the Academy’s new rules during the postnomination period limiting distributors to two Q&A’s pernominee. A film like Hugo can have 22 post-screeningQ&A’s (two per each of its 11 nominees), but a film likeAlbert Nobbs can only have six post-screening Q&A’s (2per each of its three nominees).A|l: How impactful are Q&A’s?Producer 1: Very impactful. I personally go to a number ofscreenings and to see Michel Hazanavicius and JeanDujardin speaking about where they were coming from[with The Artist] is helpful. I went to an early screening ofYoung Adult and obtained a better sense of the film followingthe Q&A.Writer: On this type of promotion, I’m a bit of a hypocrite.With Q&A’s, there are certain things that allow [me as awriter to get my] film written up intelligently. Ideally, afilmmaker shouldn’t have to talk about the film that theyhave made.Producer 2: I’m sure they’re impactful. If a voter goes toa movie and looks up to the Q&A, it means that they’rethinking about the movie. With Young Adult it took me aday to think about that movie and to let it sink in before Irealized how smart it was.A|l: How much are you influenced by other guild awards and Oscar ®bloggers when deciding how to vote on your Oscar ® ballot?Producer 1: I thought Fox Searchlight’s Margaret by KennethLonergan was one of the best films of the year. Thoughit had no shot, when it came to questioning whether Ishould put it on my ballot or not, a blogger’s word neverinfluenced me. Reading New Yorker critic Anthony Lanehas a bigger effect on me than Gold Derby. In regards to awork of art or music, my relationship to it changes overtime. At times, the bloggers turn me off if someone is toohigh on a movie; it makes me dislike it more.Writer: I am influenced by my own mind. I’m negativelyinfluenced by people trying to influence me to believesomething that I know is a crock of shit. Yeah, go aheadand tell me to see Sherlock Holmes 2 6,000 more times…I am shocked when Meryl Streep [after her GoldenGlobe ® best dramatic actress win for The Iron Lady]says she’s “shocked” by the win. She’s shocked after thestudio spent some $30 million to promote the movie?You mean that paid off ?! She acts as though nobody everheard of her movie. You mean there’s a connection betweenthe amount that is spent and the reward?!Publicist: No! The Oscars ® bloggers are like a gaggle of chattywomen in a beauty salon, getting their nails done. Thepeople who read them are studio executives and agents. Myjob as a publicist is to get the film to speak for itself.sherlock holmes: game of shadowsProducer 2: No, I don’t read the bloggers. As far as guildawards, nobody remembers who even won the previousyear. It’s always yesterday’s news.A|l: What film or contender surprised you the most this year?Actress: Michael Fassbender in Shame. Where did this hunkcome from? I never heard of him before. Now he’s my favoriteactor. I thought Angelina Jolie’s In the Land of Blood andHoney was touching and extraordinary and Glenn Closein Albert Nobbs was courageous in doing her part.Producer 1: Margaret had some challenging editing. But I didsee the first screening of The Artist and I thought, ‘This isgoing to win best picture.’Writer: Like this year in politics and the Republican candidates,there really isn’t any film to get excited about.Nothing really elevated occurred. You watch the GoldenGlobes ® and the Oscars ® and it’s just a bunch of old peoplegetting excited about themselves.Producer 2: The Artist. It’s a black and white silent film thatpays homage. I prefer watching old silent comedies andall of us grew up on the films of the ’40s, ’50s and ’70s.The silent film is like an anomaly, like watching yesterday’snews reels.A|l: What is your least favorite film or contender of the year?Producer 1: I didn’t react to Iron Lady. I thought The Tree ofLife was super-ambitious and super-flawed. Hugo isn’t anemotional movie, but just wows you with its shots. Overallthere was a lack of well-written satisfying entertainment.I also didn’t enjoy the [indie] film Bellflower – I thought itwas too aggressive and too inhumane.Actress: Leonardo DiCaprio really stretched this year inJ. Edgar. Also, I had a tough time understanding thatGary Oldman film [Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy].Producer 2: I wasn’t blown away by War Horse or Hugo. BothSteven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese are greatwhen it comes to capturing old movies. It’s always workedfor them before, but neither film did it. I can’t walk awayfrom these movies feeling that new ground is covered. It’sthe movies that I want to remember forever; those are theones I want to walk away from.A|l: If you ran the Academy, what would your first edict be?Producer 1: Five films, not 10.Actress: I love going to the Academy screenings and I don’tlike watching the screeners.Writer: It would be the same edict as the political world:Put a cap on awards campaign spending. Spendingpollutes the movie atmosphere … It’s perverse and Iresent the absurd amount of money that is spent on afew pre-determined contenders. My initial reaction isto turn them off in my brain as one [campaign] overshadowsthe other. … That some small group of promotershave access to huge amounts of money so theycan hype their piggies for their piggy banking is unethicalto any type of serious filmmaking. It’s not thatthese films [contenders] are bad or better than 50 otherfilms…this is analogous to how much a movie grosses.It’s inadequate to ask how much a film made at the boxoffice. That question needs to be preceded by the question:How much was spent marketing it?Producer 2: The Academy is all about ratings and theamount of money that the [Oscar ® ] show generates.I’m not sure if the institution is about anything else. TheAcademy has the library, but the night of the awardsis what it’s all about. Getting 1 billion people to watch:That’s what the Academy Awards ® are all about ratherthan the excellence of making movies. •
Change language