"The purpose of award-season films has become too complex."
On the veranda of a charming wooden house in Beverly Hills, Peter Bart, his hair white with age, shook his head as he spoke to his companion over afternoon tea. "Some people make films not for the sake of cinema but purely to win awards!"
The person sitting opposite him, also white-haired and seemingly older, put down his teacup and nodded slightly, appearing to agree with his old friend's perspective.
Peter Bart had been a member of the Academy since 1969, which also meant he was an Oscar voter. Like his counterpart Frank Pierson, they were among the most senior members of the current Academy.
However, compared to himself, Frank Pierson held a higher status and had a more significant influence within the Academy.
Frank Pierson had been involved in the creation of classic films like "Dog Day Afternoon," "A Star Is Born," and "Cool Hand Luke," and had previously served as the rotating president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Indeed, the rotating president might not hold much power, but anyone who had served in that position invariably had an extensive network of connections.
Thus, Peter Bart had accepted a request from CAA's renowned agent Bill Rossis to subtly influence Frank Pierson.
"Those who make films just to win awards," Frank Pierson said, shaking his head lightly after setting down his teacup. "They're turning the Oscars into something different."
"Exactly," Peter Bart could tell where his friend's stance lay and, recalling what Bill Rossis had mentioned, immediately said, "Such people are indeed detestable. For example, Leonardo DiCaprio, who takes on roles specifically to win the Best Actor Oscar."
He glanced at Frank Pierson and, seizing the perfect moment, continued, "Allowing people like Leonardo DiCaprio to win Best Actor would be condoning such behavior."
"Leonardo DiCaprio wants to win Best Actor?" Frank Pierson sneered. "Even for the sake of the Oscars, we won't let that happen!"
Some critics believed that the Oscars reinforced a lack of diversity in the decision-making process of films and studios. Frank Pierson wholeheartedly agreed with this viewpoint. The Oscars' purpose was to encourage, not to limit, and the Academy had always strived for diversity.
However, the existence of numerous films and people chasing awards purely for the sake of winning severely hampered the Academy's efforts to promote diversity in Hollywood films.
"Diversifying film styles is not easy," Peter Bart sighed. "Hollywood films today suffer from severe homogeneity. Not to mention the summer blockbusters, even the award-season films all seem to be cut from the same mold."
Frank Pierson agreed, "Nowadays, there are too few directors in Hollywood with a strong personal style who can maintain the quality of their work. Without directors with diverse styles, there won't be films with diverse styles."
"I think," Peter Bart said at the right moment, "we should encourage directors with strong personal styles."
"Yes," Frank Pierson nodded.
After chatting a bit more and having a few cups of tea, Peter Bart took his leave. He knew not to say too much, or it might backfire. He also knew that Frank Pierson had a habit of reading "The Hollywood Reporter," which would feature a special review article the next day.
Coupled with today's conversation, it was certain to influence Frank Pierson's perspective somewhat. This influence didn't need to be extensive; just a slight bias toward Bill Rossis's heavyweight client would suffice.
As Peter Bart predicted, the next morning, during breakfast, Frank Pierson opened the freshly delivered "The Hollywood Reporter." This publication targeted Hollywood insiders and was a must-read for most industry professionals.
As soon as Frank Pierson opened this issue, his attention was immediately caught by a heavyweight review article.
"Review of 'The Wolf of Wall Street': A Distinctly Un-Oscar-Like Yet Uniquely Styled Film!"
Just by reading the headline, Frank Pierson recalled yesterday's conversation with his old friend and felt a strong interest.
"The Oscars is a hall of fame; everyone knows that. Most filmmakers can't escape the lure of fame and fortune, but these aren't easily obtained. To win the favor of the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences members, one must truly be exceptional."
"Having difficulty is a good thing. Since the establishment of the Oscars in 1928, driven by the unrelenting pursuit of fame and fortune, smart filmmakers have mostly figured out the winning formula, enough to compile an 'Oscar Guide to Fame.' Under this guidance, there are even 'custom-made' films, burning through real gold and silver to ignite a blaze, all to win an Academy vote."
"Unfortunately, things get strange. It's like trying to win over a goddess: the more you flatter, the worse it gets. Some present grand productions, big emotions, significant eras, plus universally relatable human themes, almost stamping 'Oscar contender' on the film. The result? They fail. Not only do they miss the Oscar, but they also don't even get a nomination."
"Post-analysis reveals that while the film is well-made—excellent visuals, sets, props, performances—the central theme is off. The Oscars, being an academy award, staunchly upholds Hollywood's traditional values. They encourage the story of a group sacrificing for one person. But if you reverse it, emphasizing hierarchy and the sacrifice of the weak, it gets problematic."
"The Oscars have such high standards, needing advanced ideas, correct values, breakthrough filming techniques, touching plots, high artistic quality, and commercial success... In summary, comprehensive excellence with no weaknesses and correct values. Only then can the Oscars maintain their old-school arrogance and guide the world's cinematic trends."
"From this perspective, it's a miracle if Murphy Stanton's 'The Wolf of Wall Street' gets an Oscar nomination."
"Because it's such an un-Oscar-like movie! Reportedly, some Oscar voters felt extremely uncomfortable after watching it, as if they had undergone three hours of torture. Some even confronted the famous director Murphy Stanton, pointing fingers and cursing him, calling him disgraceful!"
"Can such a film meet the Oscars' standard of correct values? Many viewers and critics believe it essentially exposes and criticizes reality. However, during screenings on Wall Street, the audience of financiers cheered and whistled at every licentious scene."
"The debate surrounding this film is intense. 'The Wolf of Wall Street' is an Oscar wolf, brazenly charging into a flock of sheep, challenging the shepherd's authority, and disrupting the Academy's rules. While others bury themselves in telling moving or thrilling stories or reflecting on the Iraq war, the young director Murphy Stanton directs his friend Robert Downey Jr. on how to drip wax, make love, and do drugs."
"This is indeed too untraditional, too incorrect in values. If this film gets an Oscar nomination, it will surprise those well-versed in Oscar tactics."
"But such surprises shouldn't be too shocking. After all, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has always advocated for film diversity. Murphy Stanton's strong personal style is exactly what Hollywood needs today. Encouraging Stanton could promote film diversity."
"The Academy is the authority of Hollywood. Guiding the severely homogeneous industry towards diversity could lead to a new golden age."
"Finally, about Murphy Stanton and 'The Wolf of Wall Street': this film reflects an era's truth. It's a movie about the reality of a crazy era."
"Stanton's film will undoubtedly become another classic reflecting that mad era's reality. He satirizes without taboo, daring to show the only positive character, an earnest FBI agent, suffering humiliation and continuing to endure unjust isolation in a dirty subway."
"Such crudeness, sharpness, satire, and darkness are like a bloody knife, abandoning sentimentality and stabbing at the era's heart of sin."
"Truth is always hard to accept, but we are all responsible for facing it."
After reading the review, Frank Pierson took a sip of his coffee and leaned back in his chair, contemplating.
This was awards season, and articles like this likely had backing from CAA or 20th Century Fox. However, he found some of the points very valid. Films and directors with strong personal styles, like Murphy Stanton, deserved encouragement and awards, unlike those formulaic, politically correct, war-reflective, and racial-themed films.
These films, designed solely to win awards, had lost the essence of cinema and were detrimental to Hollywood's long-term development.
With this in mind, Frank Pierson stood up, feeling it was time to discuss with like-minded old friends. Films with overly strong award-chasing purposes shouldn't appear on the Oscar nomination list anymore.
_________________________
[Check out my Patreon for +200 additional chapters in all my fanfics! $5 for all!!] [[email protected]/INNIT]