When Oscar Gets Boring, Bloggers Bring the Drama...

It's been a very quiet year 'mongst those that watch the Oscar races.  As the Carpetbagger noted earlier today:

"This is the Bagger’s fourth season at Kudo Camp and he has never seen such a lack of oxygen. The lack of a best-picture throwdown, combined with a class of nominees that don’t have huge traction at the box office, means that we are spending a fair amount of time talking to ourselves...

Oscar bloggers, including the Bagger, are recycling old stories because there are no new ones with a little over a week to go, and when that doesn’t work, we are just ginning them up.  Philip Seymour Hoffman trumping Heath Ledger?  Could happen. Except it won’t."

On that note, we come to Kris Tapley's out-of-left-field assertion yesterday that those of us who have basically called the Doc Feature race for MAN ON WIRE are missing the forest for the trees.  In fact, not only is MAN ON WIRE "quite vulnerable" in the category:

"(I)t may be the least likely of the nominated docs to win the Oscar in a little less than two weeks’ time."

Tapley admits such crazy talk is "controversial" and that he may be "dead wrong", but insists that he's not making the assertion "carelessly":

"Having finally viewed all of the nominees, I can’t deny how impactful each of the other contenders is.  Furthermore, James Marsh’s film is largely composed of talking head interviews and pre-existing footage, not to mention dubious reenactments.  Each of the other contenders, meanwhile, are the result of original filmmaking."

and

"Overall, I can’t imagine the film would have the same emotional resonance if it weren’t a sort of ghost story, given the fate of the twin towers.  And I can’t help but marvel at the innovation of the other contenders more so than the piecing together of older material and manifestation of scenes to push WIRE’s story forward."

Like a lit match to gasoline, this has set the movie blogiverse akindle.  Karina Longworth, Sasha Stone, Jeffrey Wells and the Bagger  (and now us) all responded to Tapley's prediction, unanimously saying that, while anything could happen, they like MAN ON WIRE and goshdarnit, other folks do to.

While I agree that anything could happen - I could make a pretty good argument for why each of the films in the running has an outside shot - Tapley's assertion that it's the least likely to win is just nonsense. 

Over the past week, I've talked to more than a dozen folks who either have or will be voting in the Doc Feature race (you must see all five films to be able to vote) as well as folks who talk to a bunch of Oscar voters and not one, not a single one, felt that MAN ON WIRE was rife for an upset.

Now, sure, other films had their partisans.  And, like me, people could imagine scenarios wherein another film would win, but they were nearly evenly split as to which film was on deck, a sign that folks have not coalesced around another title.

But, since Tapley quotes recent Documentary Feature history - "it seems there's always something of a surprise waiting (in this category)" - we should look at what has actually happened in the post-COLUMBINE era (whence nominees were more likely to be successful theatrical films)...

Oscar winners since 2003:

BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE
FOG OF WAR
BORN INTO BROTHELS
MARCH OF THE PENGUINS
AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH
TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE

Of these six films, none was truly a surprise.  Three (COLUMBINE, PENGUINS and TRUTH) were the highest grossing nonfiction films in the category.  The other three (FOG, BROTHELS, TAXI) were expanding their theatrical release just as Oscar nominations were announced - they were dead in the middle of their theatrical run.  (Not to mention that two of the latter films were directed by veteran, esteemed directors who'd been previously passed over by Oscar.)

So, if you are just going by the recent past, you'd have to argue that the winner in this category tends to be either the big film of the year or the film that is just then hitting theaters (with the attendant press, buzz, etc. that accompanies). 

Let's look at another aspect of the winners since 2003, the films' distributors:

United Artists
Sony Pictures Classics
THINKFilm
Warner Independent Pictures
Paramount Vantage
THINKFilm

One thing that has not happened, at least since the rules were changed to promote films that had had a theatrical run, is for a film that had not had a traditional theatrical OR for a film that did not have a high profile distributor to pick up the award.  As one Oscar vet told me today, it's not just the films themselves, it's the campaign that is run for the film.  Yes, kids, even in the documentary race.

So, yes, while anything could indeed happen, and I could be blogging on Oscar Monday that Scott Kennedy's THE GARDEN was the first undistributed film in the post-COLUMBINE era (should I just shorten that to p.C.e.?) to win the statue, it's probably not likely.

Although I have personally made the argument that fans in other branches of the Academy might throw enough votes toward beloved filmmaker/cinematographer Ellen Kuras or legendary provacateur Werner Herzog, thus giving one of them the win, I just can't bring myself to fully embrace this possibility.

And while I can make a strong case for TROUBLE THE WATER to prevail, and there is no question that the film has strong partisans (including Tapley), I also have to acknowledge that there's no recent precedent for that film's path to the win.

Indeed, the sheer fact that there's an argument for almost everyone might make the strongest case for MAN ON WIRE to win - along with the fact that it's one of the most accomplished, honored and adored (not just respected) nonfiction films in recent history.

A week from now, after talking to more folks, I may have a different opinion, but for now, my money remains firmly on MAN ON WIRE.