The Projector #25: Awards Season Is [sigh] Here Again! (Patreon)

by Keith Phipps

Yesterday saw the announcement of nominations for the 92nd Academy Awards, followed, sometimes even before they ended, by complaints about who received nominations and who got left out. We won’t revisit those nominations here — we’re saving that for a bonus episode — beyond a tactful head nod that acknowledges most of the complaints seem pretty legit. But the experience got me thinking about my own relationship with the Oscars, and wondering if it mirrored that of others.

Stage 1: Discovery and Unquestioning Acceptance

For budding cinephiles looking for guidance about what to seek out, the discovery that there’s an institution that gives out awards for the best movies and performances is something of a godsend. Finding a list of Oscar winners — I’m guessing via World Book or a source like The People’s Almanac — gave me a list of the greatest films ever. How could they not be? They won Oscars. This phase ended around the time I tried to watch Chariots of Fire as a 9-year-old and ended up very, very bored. (I really should give it another shot.)

Stage 2: Active Participation

In the next phase, I started following Oscar races by way of Siskel & Ebert, the local paper, Entertainment Tonight, and whoever else was covering them. I got a sense of what sort of films got nominated and figured out the conventional wisdom behind why winners become winners — and the realization that it’s not just about objective assessments of quality. This stage can last a long time, in part because it’s fun, if often frustrating, like following sports. 

Stage 3: Over It

Oscars? Feh. They never award the best movies. Did you know that Michelangelo Antonioni never won an Oscar? Did you know that Jean-Pierre Melville never even received a nomination? Do you really think Oliver! is one of the best movies ever made? Have you ever noticed that some movies seem to be made just to win awards? Best just to ignore them.

Stage 4: Pragmatic Acceptance

The Oscars may not matter but they do have an impact on the film industry and help determine whose career advances, whose stalls out, and what sort of movies get made. It’s best to pay attention, cheer when they do things right, call them out when they do things wrong, and hope for gradual improvement over time.

Stage 5: Stoic Acceptance

Same as Stage 4 but with the hard-won wisdom that the Oscars will never fundamentally change but they will always be with us. Attention should be paid. But it’s best to protect yourself from heartbreak.

Anyway, we’ll have more about the nominations in a soon-to-drop bonus episode and then more as the awards season progresses. This week, look for the first part of our Little Women double feature as we talk about Gillan Armstrong’s star-packed 1994 version. Also, I don’t know if anyone saw this on Twitter, but I published a Top 30 of the decade list accompanied by art for each film. It’s just me creatively tracing over stills. No big deal. But it’s fun and people seem to like them, so I might throw some occasional art into this newsletter or elsewhere in the Patreon feed, as I’ve done with a 1994 Little Women drawing attached at the end of this one.

Before you get to that, here’s a few articles to read:

Speaking of Little Women (as we have and will some more), here’s a Vulture piece about the ambiguous ending of Greta Gerwig’s version.

War? What is it good for? Short answer: Absolutely nothing. Longer answer: movies and movie-related articles. For instance:

For The Guardian, Scott Tobias wrote about the changing face of World War I movies.

For Vulture, Keith Phipps attempted to name the 50 greatest war movies.

Also for Vulture, Nate Jones wrote about the hardest day on the set of Sam Mendes’ 1917 (a good move to catch if you want to stay current for an upcoming podcast episode). 

Moving on from war (but not from Vulture), Scott Tobias also wrote about why nobody is talking about Todd Haynes’ Dark Waters (but should be).

Finally, some Little Women drawings (one B&W, one in color)