Artificially produced “hits” for Oscars. Some die as quickly as fruit flies

Some people laugh that it’s not that difficult to win, you just need to know how. What’s more, it’s not a secret closely guarded by strange secret brotherhoods, because in fact, just a little bit of effort is enough to analyze which productions have won in the main “Best Picture” category for 95 years. Trends may change, cinemas may sell out for completely different titles, but the recipe for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ most coveted cookie has, statistically speaking, remained quite constant over the years. However, you need to be sensitive, because even if you meet all the criteria, you can make such a mess that it will be spectacularly omitted from the nominations.

A recipe for an Oscar-winning film

First: measure the length.

Statistics show that the probability of winning the film of the year increases with the length of the screening. From 1929 to 2019, only three of the 90 winning titles in this category were shorter than 100 minutes, and just 28 of them were less than two hours long. Since 1960, it has been seen that over 3/4 of these productions are over two hours long. You yourself admit that in recent years it has been clearly visible that more and more films, including mainstream action films and superhero fights, are already three hours long. This is really getting unbearable for the viewers. If during “Black Panther” you feel that the editor could have skipped half an hour of someone walking or thinking, then something is wrong. Why does the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences love long films so much? “Because longer films seem more important,” the journalist laughs in his text about how to win an Oscar.

Secondly: don’t spare your tears.

The Oscars for best films are almost always won by dramas, and the Academy itself usually ignores action, comedies, sci-fi and fantasy films when making nominations. Research shows that actors and actresses are nine times more likely to be nominated for a role in a drama than in any other genre. Lee points out that, for example, neither “2001: A Space Odyssey” by Stanley Kubrick nor “Psycho” by Hitchcock even made it to the list of nominees. And animations, someone might ask? These simply got a separate category, but there are more and more opinions that this type of productions deserve nominations for best film. For now, it’s probably a pipe dream.

The Academy stubbornly sticks to drama and for a long time had a habit of rewarding regular funnymen from the entertainment category when, for example, as part of changing their image and fighting to be taken seriously, they made such a serious, classic or even melodramatic film. If by some miracle, however, a nomination goes to a comedian actor or actress, it will probably be mainly because their character suffered in the film anyway or had to overcome some life obstacles while laughing through tears or vice versa.

What does an Oscar-winning film have to have?

Third: look at the book.

To put it more bluntly, to win an Oscar, it is best to make a depressing drama, but it won’t hurt if it is also uplifting and very inspiring. To do this, it is best to focus on a historically important topic. Filmmakers often chose the Holocaust, World War II and I, slavery, racial persecution, moral changes, mental illnesses, stories about examples of disabilities and social inequalities. It is also best to base the script on famous source material. Apart from a famous “true story”, it may be a best-selling book, a short story, a scandal, a controversial court case, a scandal publicized by a newspaper, etc.

Fourth: take a hero.

It is also welcome that these are also costume productions. The more cynical point out that additional points are awarded for the appearance of famous historical figures, people with disabilities, activists dealing with persecuted minorities, “fallen” athletes, writers, politicians, parents, people despised by the system and so on.

Fifth: don’t skimp on ingredients.

It is useful that the hardships and problems outlined in the plot are properly emphasized by the moving and pathetic music by the most recognized film composer in Hollywood. It would be advisable for artistic or otherwise distinctive photos to be shot by a renowned cinematographer who is known for originality or particular sensitivity to compositions, frames, colors, etc. Elements such as exquisite decorations and impressive decorations will also not hurt – the greater the attention to detail and the spectacular visual changes, the absolutely better. That’s why actors are actors, so they don’t look like themselves, right?

Sixth: no spices.

There are also spices in this Oscar recipe: the better the ratings from critics and the audience, the more willing the members of the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will be to vote for a specific title. It also helps if there is someone in the crew or cast who has either been nominated or won an award.

Since 1980, nearly 90 percent winning films meet at least one of these criteria – says “Business Insider”. Let’s also note that, with the exception of a courtesy nomination for “Top Gun: Maverick” and James Cameron’s record-breaking “The Shape of Water”, the nominations in recent years have actually been given to more intimate and character-focused dramas, which viewers learn about, e.g. announcement of the Oscar list. It wasn’t necessarily like this in the past – extremely popular and mass-watched productions such as “The Godfather”, “Jaws”, “ET” and “” were definitely nominated in the best film category. Now viewers are willing to check what the Academy has chosen and why, but fewer and fewer people have the patience for it.

To sum up: we need to make long, serious and reflective films showing the dramas of human existence in basically any nature. For this you need big names (there may also be promising debutants and public opinion favorites), “Important Matter” taken from real life, moving music, an inspiring hero/heroine, nice photos, sophisticated make-up and costumes and, once again, general depression, sadness, reflection and pathos.

Oscar-bait. What could go wrong?

There is a catch to all this, of course. History knows cases in which films that met the above conditions to the letter were painfully omitted from the Oscar nomination lists. Because you can go too far with this fawning, which is not a good thing either. Those who are too clearly tailored for the Oscars are slightly mocked.

There are plenty of jokes about Bradley Cooper, who spent six years practicing conducting one piece to play Leonard Bernstein in “The Maestro,” which he directed. His film received seven nominations, but no one believes that it will win anything except perhaps sound, editing or makeup. Many people predict that the statuette for “Maestro” will be won by Carey Mulligan rather than Cooper. Everyone knows that the actor really, really, really wants to win an Oscar, and both “A Star Is Born” and “The Maestro” were literally tailored for awards.

The most spectacular example of a film tailored for the Oscars was found by scientists from the University of California. In 2014, they analyzed three thousand films shot since 1985 and concluded that the 1990 social drama “Come to See Paradise” best fit the definition of the phenomenon. We have everything that is theoretically needed to win the hearts of the Academy members: historical events (the action begins in 1936), a young trade union activist, friendship with a Japanese, forbidden love (marrying against the father’s will), social stigmatization of emigrants from Japan (after the attack on Pearl Harbor especially), arrests, persecution, forced imprisonment in a federal camp, exile for military service, and lovers separated for many years. The main role was played by Dennis Quaid, directed by Alan Parker, and composed by Randy Edelman, known from such films as “MacGyver”, “Ghostbusters II”, “Diabolique” and “Dennis the Menace”. Ultimately, despite positive reviews, the film did not receive any nominations and was a commercial failure.

In fact, there was a whole list of Oscar-bait films whose creators were hungry for statuettes but failed miserably. These are, for example, the absolutely terrible, long and boring “Alexander” with Colin Farrell in the main role, about a police-journalistic investigation into an undetected serial killer, “Zodiac” with Robert Downey Junior and Mark Ruffalo, “Diana” with Naomi, shot in 2013 Watts or “Beautiful Boy” with Steve Carell and Timothée Chalamet. On the IMDb website, in a similar list, you can find, for example, “Schindler’s List”, “Lincoln” with Daniel Day-Lewis, “The Iron Lady” (as Margaret Thatcher), “Darkest Hour” (Gary Oldman plays Churchill), “The Revenant” ( this is the pro-ecological film in which he sleeps in a bear’s corpse and for which he finally received this unfortunate statuette), “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”, etc.

Filmmakers must remember that when shooting to suit the tastes of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, they must be careful not to overdo it. Gabriel Rossman of UCLA, who led the study, noted: “We found that audiences generally don’t like the aesthetics of these most Oscar-winning films. These films are usually serious and downbeat, and audiences don’t like that. So making an Oscar-worthy movie is a risky strategy. because the average viewer is unlikely to appreciate it” – from the analysis, and added that viewers may not like Oscar-winning films, but they still like the Oscars themselves. And it should be remembered that times are changing, and the Academy is fighting dramatically to regain viewers’ interest in the gala itself.