Rory Lynam
If you haven’t already seen Steve McQueen’s latest film 12 Years A Slave, you’ve more than likely been told to do so, either by a friend, family member or any number of the endless reviews and blogs imploring you to watch what will be the Best Picture Oscar Winner of 2014. The film is based on the harrowing 1853 autobiography by Solomon Northup, a free, black New Yorker who is deceived and subsequently sold into slavery in Louisiana. McQueen’s third feature began the Oscar conversation in earnest after its release stateside back in October. And that’s a problem.
The film was greeted with statements like “Your Best Picture winner will be 12 Years A Slave” (Kyle Buchanan: Vulture) and “Steve McQueen deserves every gong going for his unflinching portrayal of slavery” (Mark Kermode: The Guardian). High praise indeed, but frustrating for someone who believes that we have let the behemoth that is the Academy Awards dominate our conversation about film for far too long. Critics, bloggers, vloggers and websites – please stop. Your Oscar pieces are hurting cinema.
we have let the behemoth that is the Academy Awards dominate our conversation about film for far too long
To say that 12 Years a Slave is Oscar-worthy conveys no useful information about the film, but is certainly an efficient way to write badly. Critical writing on film should be insightful. It should create a greater understanding of a film, or at least express a reaction that may resonate with a reader or cause them to question their opinion of said film. Criticism should aspire to more than empty chatter about award potential, or making flimsy predictions for future success. Unfortunately the vast majority of film reporting in this day and age is geared towards traction based on click-baiting titles like “10 Oscar films you have to see” or “Look what Jennifer Lawrence did when she found out about her third nomination”.
To say that 12 Years a Slave is Oscar-worthy conveys no useful information about the film, but is certainly an efficient way to write badly
Every year, as we edge closer to the big night in the Dolby Theatre, more and more critics begin to regard the award ceremony like a pesky fly that should be swatted away. The hypocrisy is rich. When the time comes for last-minute Oscar predictions and evaluations year gone by, journalists persistently label the Academy Awards as a vacuous pageant in which deserving nominees are typically overlooked. These are the same critics who have spent the previous few months identifying Oscar frontrunners. They bemoan the uselessness of award season yet continue to contribute to this culture by ranking each film by Oscar potential.
They bemoan the uselessness of award season yet continue to contribute to this culture by ranking each film by Oscar potential
Certain websites and magazines will always engage in Oscar talk, and they are only writing what the public demands. However, plenty of the more respectable film critics are being forced to engage with awards season because, quite simply, the demand is there. Film writing has the potential to be a lofty pursuit. At its best it is a critical discourse that provides a valuable cultural commentary. But it is also a business. You need to sell a product, and the Oscars sell. The problem is that this film writing is increasingly being aimed at the widest possible demographic. Why write for an engaged minority when you can make more money writing for an uninterested mass? This is idealistic and I realise the way film writing is conducted is unlikely to change. So the next question should be: Why are we interested in the Oscars?
Why write for an engaged minority when you can make more money writing for an uninterested mass?
People seem to acknowledge every year that the Oscars are pointless but yet still engage with all the hype that surrounds them. Most people don’t even watch the ceremony but can talk about the results for days. The public is being sold a product every year that we buy and then bemoan. How film reporting is carried out is determined by us as an audience. So maybe don’t click on the ‘Oscar contenders’ headline. I get it. The Oscars are essentially the Super Bowl of the film world and even the most contrarian of critics is probably compelled to talk about them whether they like to or not. That said, let’s stop pretending they’re an indication of importance, cultural relevance or even quality.
The public is being sold a product every year that we buy and then bemoan
The awards chatter surrounding 12 Years A Slave is a particularly interesting case in point. The film is a powerful and unflinching examination of one of the darkest chapters in America’s history. To watch it is an experience so bleak and emotionally draining that some have theorised that no-one will need to make another film about slavery for a very long time to come. If this film is indeed the definitive take on slavery, then it comes after long period in which very few people choose to tackle what remains an underexplored topic in mainstream culture. If one compares the amount of films made about the Holocaust to those which focus on slavery, the numbers way far heavier in the former’s favour. It is for this reason that the value and importance of McQueen’s film transcends any gold statuette or pat on the back from a mostly white, male and over-fifty academy. His film is an important text, and will remain one long after the last long and tedious acceptance speech at this years blowout.
the value and importance of McQueen’s film transcends any gold statuette or pat on the back from a mostly white, male and over-fifty academy.
As much as I’ve been criticising the critics, they are of course not the ones who created this system. That honour goes to the studios who more or less determine what films will compete in the Oscar race by unloading their prestige pictures in the months of November and December. So much so that by the time these pictures make their way to this side of the world we’re left with little interesting to watch between February and April and are besieged by comic book movies and gargantuan SFX epics all summer long before awards season kicks off again in late November. Why can’t we be drip fed a series of challenging and entertaining films all year long instead of being forced to gorge ourselves on eight of them in as many weeks?
the studios more or less determine what films will compete in the Oscar race by unloading their prestige pictures in the months of November and December
Every year Oscar talk ultimately dominates the discourse in the film world. It’s clear that many critics mean well when they argue that certain artists or films deserve award recognition, but they often do more harm than good just by participating in this conversation. Roger Ebert once said that he loves film because it can make you feel more than any other art form. Film is implicitly about emotion. Award shows are not about feeling but about spectacle. Many critics will continue to critique the Award Season for this. Hopefully they will manage to do so while avoid headlines like ‘Chiwetel Ejiofor is DEFINITELY going to win Best Actor’.
