Awards Page Index * OSCAR coverage here
2008 Year in Review
Hyperbole Gone Wild / Hall of Shame / December Glut
Under Appreciated Films / Top Ten of 2008

by Nathaniel R December 30th

Year December in Review

In lieu of the traditional deep thoughts overview on the 2008 film year, I am opting to get something off of my chest regarding the imbalance of movie distribution. I'm tired of feeling overwhelmed every December. I want a steadier film diet. I am not bulimic and don't enjoy being treated that way by the studios.

I've discussed this before and I do tire of repeating myself. So, herewith, a decree. In 2009, no matter what Oscar buzz befalls Hilary Swank in Amelia, Clint Eastwood's Mandela picture or the collected December '09 offerings, three of my five biggest Oscary pet peeves (#2. December-Only Oscar Release Strategies #4 Clint Eastwood #5 Hilary Swank) will be mostly verboten here at The Film Experience. In other words, though it would be difficult not to mention them at all in Oscar discussions, I shan't dwell. [Editors Note: The other two biggest TFE pet peeves will still be fair game: that'd be 1. Category Frauds and 3. the crushingly narrow view that biopic mimicry is the only type of acting worth celebrating.]

The Prime Prestige Poster Girls
Disturbing Factoid: You're unlikely to spot Kate or Cate on movie screens outside of Oscar season. Of Blanchett's 20 most recent films, a full 50% were released in December. Kate works much less often but of her past 20 films (excluding voice work) 45% of her work debuted in Oscar's favorite month. At this point aren't both of them more accurately described as Oscar Stars rather than Movie Stars?

 

Since 2008 has been a particularly egregious stocking stuffer year and since Hollywood continues to assume that no one would ever want to watch any type of movie other than a seasonally mandated type (corporate write-offs in winter/spring, action in summer, dramas in fall/winter), I am moved to discuss it in detail one final time.

The prime reasoning behind the December Only Oscar Strategy is twofold and clear:

1. Come out late and be fresh in the minds of voters.
2. Come out late and have your Oscar campaign dollars double as marketing dollars.

Does this strategy work? Duh! Why does this strategy work? Why is it working better every decade? I regret to inform that it is. I've done some research into the matter that I hope you'll find interesting.

One of the most widely held beliefs surrounding the Academy Awards is that December is the best time to release an Oscar hopeful. I'd wager that that's a self fulfilling prophesy more than a cold hard fact. Do Oscar voters really have such tiny memory banks? I've been hearing it all my life but it's truer today than when I first heard it. Research shows that the problem is getting worse. I took all the release dates from the IMDB stretching back 50 years to see what was happening. The "December Glut" problem does indeed worsen each decade. Check it out in easy to read chart fashion.

Think of the blue nominees as waves. See how the further back in time you go the less dominant the December tsunami becomes? The waves used to roll more moderately throughout the year. Did all the AMPAS members with mnemonic skills die off in the mid 80s?

Despite decades of complaints about the Academy's poor memory it doesn't look so bad prior to the 1980s, does it? Can the pendulum ever swing back to where it once was? And, if the Oscar nominees reflected the movie going experience a little more wouldn't audiences be a little more invested in the outcome? I'm not talking about that semi-lazy "vote for the blockbusters" argument so much as suggesting that if audiences had opportunities to see the movies they might care more. Doesn't the possibility of rooting interest motivate people more than being told what to think before the chance to see a movie ever presents itself? It seems that nowadays the people who are most obsessed with the Oscars are the ones who like it as a political guessing game. This type of Oscar fan doesn't even need to see the movies to be interested. Which is good since many of those same people would be out of luck should they want to see them. Many Oscar hopefuls wait out any real wide release, banking on unreliable Oscar nominations before risking the multiplex.

The problem is complicated but I believe it comes down to three things.

1. More movies are released now than in previous decades which means there's more chaos involved in finding films that speak to you and remembering the ones that resonate most.
2. Oscar campaigning has become a very expensive, visible and brainwashing seasonal sport. When such loud marketing (that's what it is) precedes a release, people are less able to form opinions that aren't affected by it. If you hear that Doubt is an amazing Best Picture candidate for 11 months prior to seeing it you might still reject it upon seeing it but you will definitely be seeing it and, what's more, you'll be taking the possibility of its merits far more seriously than, say, Rachel Getting Married or Vicky Cristina Barcelona about which you've digested much less force fed "Oscar-caliber!" suggestions. I use these two as examples because both had fairly positive critical reception and, at least to date, more box office than Doubt but neither are considered serious contenders.
3. The awards precursors. More on them in a minute.

These seem like intractable problems unless something drastic happens to the system or AMPAS changes the rules to quiet the deafening campaigns. Maybe they should just get stricter about when a movie has to open and for how long it has to be open before being considered eligible. My suggestion: an eligibility rule demanding that films be in a certain amount of markets (say, the top 8 at least, even if it's only 1 theater in each) by Christmas day --not just one theater in Los Angeles by Dec 31st as it currently stands. This would help the system even out a bit and it would make the awards year more relatable to the year it's honoring.

Among this year's six supposed frontrunners we have two from December (Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon) two from November (Milk, Slumdog Millionaire) and two hits from the summer (WALL•E and The Dark Knight) but the most telling detail is that nearly all of the expected statue hopefuls occupying supposed runner up land are December films (The Reader, Revolutionary Road, Doubt, The Wrestler). The final month of the year has dominated all conversations of "BEST" even though it only represents 8% of the cinematic year... or slightly more if you adjust to number of films released in each month.

Three of the major precursors in 2008 (BFCA, SAG, GG) and their love affair with December as indicated by number of nominations doled out to each month of the year.

It's probably too much to expect working actors, directors, costume designers and whatnot within the Oscar branches to keep charts around all year of things they've loved and found award worthy. But it's definitely not too much to ask that those writing about film (such as the Broadcast Film Critics Association or the Hollywood Foreign Press Association) keep an eye on all 12 months of film rather than one. What little attention they have been paying to earlier releases this year -- see how crazily their nominees lean December above -- seems to have been forced upon them by their own "specialty" categories (like comedy, action, young actors, what have you) rather than being an organic reflection of any desire to judge the entire year of cinema before settling upon a notion of "BEST".

Siskel & Ebert once floated the idea for an Oscar system that involved semi-finals and ballots passed out half way through the year so that films released earlier in the year could have more of a shot at sticking around. Today's leading critics/pundits don't seem to harbor any similar generosity or idealism. They're just eager to point out which awards hopefuls they'll be rooting for, and in some cases admit that it's just about predicting the Oscars anyway for them. Even Oscar pundits who watch the game closely are guilty of this, often suggesting shame on precursors who don't "guess correctly" by excluding a probable Oscar player.

Would Doubt and Frost/Nixon be viable candidates for Best Picture if they were released in June? I have my doubts. I have so many doubts. Are they simply viable candidates because the media circus surrounding the Oscars is now so entrenched that foreordained contenders and December Oscar players are automatically given the benefit of the doubt? It's a question I keep having to ask. The titles of the films change but the problem remains the same.

 

also:
Hyperboles Gone Wild / Worst of the Year
Under appreciated Films & Special Citations
and
My Top Ten of 2008