Oscars face unusual problem due to lack of stars
March 6, 2010 06:20 pm
In many ways,
For the first time in years, the motion picture academy has
a bona fide blockbuster, Avatar, as frontrunner to take home armfuls of awards.
It also has a plucky David to the CGI monster´s Goliath, in the-low budget
And, of course, it has its own soap-opera style battle of the ex-spouses in the head-to-head competition between the two films´ directors: James Cameron, the director of Avatar, and his former wife Kathryn Bigelow, who made The Hurt Locker.
Yet, for all the appearance of drama, this year´s Academy Awards are distinctly short of the one commodity the occasion surely cries out for: movie stars. Neither of the frontrunners features a big name actor in a leading role: although Sigourney Weaver appears in the sci-fi blockbuster, neither of its leads, Sam Worthington or Zoe Saldana, are established household names. The Hurt Locker´s cast has no major names. The lack of big stars continues down the line: no blockbuster names (aside from Mariah Carey, in a minor role) in Precious, or A Serious Man, or District 9, or (at least for non-British audiences unfamiliar with Carey Mulligan) An Education.
That leaves just three out of the 10 films in the expanded best picture category with big-name leads: George Clooney in Up In The Air, Brad Pitt in Inglourious Basterds and Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side. Of the three, only Bullock is fancied to win a major acting award.
The drought might seem more extraordinary if it weren´t for
a broader trend in
It is not just the stars that are missing. The box office bump traditionally associated with Academy Award nominations has been somewhere between modest and invisible this year. Avatars takings – $2.5bn worldwide and counting – were unstoppable anyway, while some of the other films – the animation feature Up and The Hurt Locker – were released too long ago to enjoy much benefit now.
"It used to be for years, the [nominated] pictures would be re-released at Oscar time," motion picture academy president Tom Sherak said. But its not viable to do that any more, so most studios don´t.
This year the academy has doubled the number of best picture nominees from five to 10, an attempt to shake things up and guarantee the presence of a few more crowd-pleasers and big-name stars and thus attract a bigger television audience.
"The press said we had better start doing something different," Sherak said. "The committee listened to what went right and what went wrong."
But it is far from the clear that the gambit has paid off. Avatar aside, the best picture nominees have added a paltry $24m at the box office since the list was announced last month. As Paul Dergarabedian, of the industry tracking website Hollywood.com, put it: "The bottom line is adding five more movies didnt necessarily add two times the gross to the crop of films."
Much of this year´s Oscars race has been like a presidential
election primary. First the frontrunner (Avatar) found itself in an
unexpectedly tight race with The Hurt Locker. Then the accusations and
recriminations began: Hurt Locker was not all that accurate. Hurt Locker was
engaging in unethically negative campaign tactics, leading one of its producers
to be denied tickets to the big night. Hurt Locker, finally, may have been
ripping off a real-life bomb disposal expert who launched an 11th-hour lawsuit
deemed frivolous by most
Unlike the outcome of presidential primaries, of course,
none of this really matters. And it is unlikely to do much to shift the opinion
of academy voters´ a cautious, rarely adventurous crowd who like to find a
movie to champion and then stick to it. What that means in practice, well have
to wait until Sunday night to find out." (The Guardian,
