When the Oscar Looks Both Inward and Outward

The 96th Academy Awards will be known for different things by different people. For me, its importance lies in its return to the traditional positioning that balances art and money.

Unlike the kudos doled out by prestigious film festivals, the Oscars come from peers, now at a staggering 10,000-person size. As such, it represents something that a dozen discerning jurors cannot possibly amass – a consensus or even a trend. For one, an Oscar sticker can noticeably move the box office upward and let the winner be seen by a sizeable audience otherwise ignorant of the film.

Because of the enormity of its voting bloc and the nature of the Hollywood industry, the Academy Award is rarely about artistic achievement per se, but rather, a combination of many factors, which also include market clout and social relevance. There is never an exact ratio, but what comes out of the Best Picture race tends to be a work with both artistic merits and decent box-office results.

However, the rapid addition of new members to the Academy has changed this dynamic. “Moonlight” and “The Hurt Locker” barely registered on the commercial radar, translating to negligible attention from movie-goers. Young Academy members don’t seem to be bothered by recognizing movies that may not boost their opportunities for work – something that can be a plus or a minus depending on one’s point of view.

The year 2023 gave the world both “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer”, two veritable blockbusters that hit the billion-dollar mark (worldwide). Hence, the “Barbenheimer” phenomenon. It’s almost an after-thought that the duo also received rave reviews. As a matter of fact, “Oppenheimer” stands as the third highest grossing Best Picture winner, after only “Titanic” and “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”. It also explains, at least in part, the uptick in the broadcast ratings of the award show, making the Academy very happy as it derives much of its budget from selling the broadcast rights.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not advocating for the Academy Awards to be aligned with the People’s Choice Awards. The inclusion of small, arthouse fare in the nomination list, such as “Anatomy of a Fall”, “Past Lives” and “The Zone of Interest”, adds greatly to the mix and helps solidify the award as one that straddles art and commerce. Such classics as “2001: A Space Odyssey” and “Mulholland Drive” not making it to the Best Picture nomination served to highlight the near-sightedness of the Award, and the fact that their directors got into the Best Director race showed this category as more art-oriented.

Award recognition comes in various layers. Now with ten nominees in the big category, diversity of excellence is not only desirable, but achievable. By “diversity”, I mean works with different scopes, sizes and aesthetics. It forms a mini-cosmos with a core, periphery and even outliers. Different film awards focus on different areas in this universe. If Oscar voters repeatedly drift far from the center in their choices, as is seen in the previous decade, it essentially turns itself into a second Cannes, Venice, Berlinale or Sundance.

That’s why I call the winning of “Oppenheimer” as a way to return to its roots, or its tradition of finding and highlighting its core. One may argue that this kind of movies may not be the absolute best in artistic supremacy or daring - many feel that “The Zone of Interest” is more eligible for that definition – but they represent the common ground for various interests and tastes. And Christopher Nolan, with masterpieces from both ends of the spectrum, from “Memento” to “The Dark Knight” trilogy, is the perfect filmmaker to occupy the center of this universe.

And now, to be officially recognized for it. As if he needed this recognition. The way I see it, the Academy needed him more to cling onto the guardrail of relevancy.

• A world outlook

It may sound like a contradiction, but my appreciation of the Academy Awards as grounded in the mainstream of aesthetics does not mean a rush towards populist output. To the contrary, I cheered when I saw “Anatomy of a Fall” (my personal best), “The Zone of Interest” and “Past Lives” make to the final list in the big category. To have three movies, out of ten, featuring mostly non-English as their language of dialogue, is a marvel. I don’t know of any other nation-based prize that is more welcoming of works beyond its border.

In the old days, Hollywood loved tales of bygone eras and faraway lands, be it one originated with Brothers Grimm or a Babylonian queen. But invariably the stories were refracted through a typical Hollywood lens, removing the edges and showcasing the warm fuzzy feeling. It probably reflected the state of mind of its market, which is often referred to as Middle America. The rationale was: Middle America was not familiar with the ways of an Asian or Latino, but still attracted by the exoticness. So, the way around it was to present heavily Anglicized versions of them.

I have been pondering this issue for decades, sometimes by reversing the equation.

For example, Chinese in China are generally not offended by “yellow face”. The practice robbed Asian Americans of their chances for fair competition. But here in China, mostly out of necessity, we have had Chinese playing white characters on the stage and sometimes even on the big screen, fake nose, dyed hair and all. It was only in recent years, with the emergence of expatriates from other countries with the necessary language and acting chops, that authentic casting becomes a possibility.

Hollywood movies have been in the Chinese market for a century now, some better understood and accepted than others. Our way of increasing the accessibility is dubbing. A more extreme approach, if the story is relatable but the telling is considered esoteric, is remaking by setting the story in a Chinese context. Most in a Chinese audience are unable to distinguish a southern accent from a British one, or Spanish from Italian, but we generally treat realism as the reigning film aesthetic, which is in stark contrast with stage casting and directing, especially for musicals, known for stylization and innovative ways to break the rules of realism.

Before I delve too deep into this issue, let me get back to this year’s Oscar fest.

What surprised me with the global outlook was not just the three non-English-language movies in the Best Picture lineup, but the unexpected winning of “The Boy and the Heron” as Best Animated Feature. Almost all pundits in North America had pointed to “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” in their prediction. And we know that they built their crystal ball around schmoozing with voters in their circle.

It was quite possible their circles did not include many international voters, now at one fifth the whole size of the Academy. And it was totally conceivable that those who do not hail from Hollywood revered Hayao Miyazaki even more, and possibly saw this new story of his in a more holistic way.

There was another international production in the Best Animated Feature nomination. “Robot Dreams” seems to have taken a middle road. Though a Spanish-French animation, it sets the story in New York and features no dialogue at all, thus bypassing the obstacle of language. No need for dubbing or subtitling.

Speaking of international contribution to this year’s Oscars, the Best Documentary Feature went all out by nominating five international productions, which truly attests to the global reach of its ambition.

Of all cultural products, movies may have the longest legs, so to speak. They travel the farthest. While each work should define its own focus and target its own audience, it should not overlook the potential for wider appeal. There are many ways to broaden the market size. And there may not be one right way. It takes trials and errors, and possibly strokes of luck.

I don’t know how much Christopher Nolan or Hayao Miyazaki thought about the acceptance of their works by other cultures. But one thing I’m sure of: they do not pander; neither do they exclude.