Picture what you would normally consider an “Oscar bait” movie. Do you see a Waspy woman adorned from head to toe in extravagant attire delivering an emotional monologue? A lieutenant on the battlefield giving an inspiring speech about brothers in arms? A swelling score composed by someone like John Williams or Hans Zimmer? The mere presence of Meryl Streep? These are the kinds of ingredients that even the average moviegoer have identified for a recipe served directly to Oscar voters, who subsequently lap it up and check its name in every category. These films are sometimes affectionately, sometimes mockingly referred to as Oscar bait, movies that seem genetically engineered to win shiny gold statues.
Even the purest of Oscar voters who believe their taste to be unbiased has to admit that history has proven why these cliches have proven true. Biopics, films based on the incredible lives of brilliant men (curiously, no women) have won Best Picture 12 times in 89 years, including: The Great Ziegfeld (1936), The Life of Emile Zola (1937), Lawrence of Arabia (1962), A Man for All Seasons (1966), Patton (1970), Chariots of Fire (1981), Gandhi (1982), Amadeus (1984), Out of Africa (1985), The Last Emperor (1987), A Beautiful Mind (2001) and The King’s Speech (2010).
There are even more war films or films set in war times that have won Best Picture, 17 in total, including: Wings (1927/28), All Quiet on the Western Front (1929/30), Gone With the Wind (1939), Mrs. Miniver (1942), Casablanca (1942/43), The Best Years of Our Lives (1946), From Here to Eternity (1953), The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), Lawrence of Arabia (1962), Patton (1970), The Deer Hunter (1978), Platoon (1986), Dances with Wolves (1990), Schindler’s List (1993), Braveheart (1995), The English Patient (1996) and The Hurt Locker (2009).
That’s not even mentioning the amount of serious-minded dramas that examine the frailty of man (and woman), like Hamlet (1948), All About Eve (1950), One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975), Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), Ordinary People (1980), Terms of Endearment (1983), American Beauty (1999), Crash (2005) and 12 Years a Slave (2013).
Occasionally voters have gone for an anomaly, such as — gasp — a comedy like Annie Hall (1977) or a horror/suspense film like The Silence of the Lambs (1991) or a Bollywood-style film like Slumdog Millionaire (2008) but otherwise, the formula speaks for itself. As long as the film as some level of importance or prestige, with overt acting and a social message that tackles one of life’s greatest subjects (war, marriage, how we treat our fellow man), there’s a good chance it will be nominated for Best Picture and probably win. Here’s an excellent CollegeHumor video spoofing how cliche the Academy’s choices have become:
Yet, we have seen a change in recent years. While we still get “baity” acting wins, like Eddie Redmayne for playing Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything or Viola Davis as a long-suffering wife in Fences, what it means to be an Oscar bait movie has shifted. The last three Best Picture winners have been decidedly unlike most that have come before, throwing Oscar predictors for a loop and making them reconsider the perceptions they had once strongly considered.
Birdman‘s victory in 2014 signaled that something was changing within the Academy. That year featured baity dramas like The Imitation Game and Selma and The Theory of Everything, while perceived frontrunner Boyhood was a unique film about the passage of time. Very few saw Birdman coming, an irreverent dramedy about the life of an actor. It seemed that voters were looking past their old biases to pick something truly innovative and daring.
Then there was Spotlight‘s victory in 2015. While centered on an important topic (sexual abuse within the Catholic Church), the movie itself is very understated, never giving in to unrealistic theatrics for the purpose of making its story more flashy for the big screen. Compare that to revenge epic The Revenant starring Leonardo DiCaprio and it would seem like there was no way Oscar voters could resist its flashy bombast. But they did, and Spotlight proved that a bare-bones drama could go all the way.
What really signaled that the Academy was evolving, though, was Moonlight‘s win over La La Land. The latter is a splashy musical set in Los Angeles that celebrates the power of Hollywood, while the former is an indie made for $4 million about a poor, gay, black man growing up in Miami. It seemed like a no-brainer that La La Land would take Best Picture, based on their history, but once again they zigged when we thought they would zag and Moonlight won Best Picture (in what will go down as the most memorable announcement in Oscar history, no less).
It is now November, which means Oscarologists are starting to discuss which films might be set up for Oscar glory in the coming months. Some have suggested Dunkirk, the Christopher Nolan World War II drama, to be the frontrunner considering its grand scope and glowing reviews. Others have said Darkest Hour, a Winston Churchill biopic about the prime minister’s early days battling Hitler, which is said to have a legendary Gary Oldman performance. While both are likely to get Best Picture nominations, I do not see this Academy going for these specific kinds of films when picking the winner anymore, at least not until one undeniable film comes around.
There are a number of factors that indicate this assertion, starting with the changing membership of the Academy. In an effort to combat their lack of diversity, AMPAS has invited record numbers of voters to join, many of which are female and minority artists. I’m not sure that these voters, a majority of them young, will be so taken with the traditional Oscar fare served up year after year. This may have helped a small movie like Moonlight overcome the odds, and I expect other films like it to have a seat at the table now.
There is also the preferential vote to consider, which had not been in effect through most of Oscar history — 1946-2008 to be exact. The old system, a straight popular vote where the movie with the most no. 1 votes on the first ballot was announced as the winner, was heavily weighted toward the taste of white men over 60 in the Academy, considering they were the overwhelming majority. This is probably what led to many of the same kinds of films winning. Now, the preferential voting system (demonstrated succinctly by Steve Pond in this video) gives power to every member by valuing no. 2 votes as well.
Most importantly, though, is that we are now in a different world, or at least a different country. The 2016 election was a fulcrum point in our history that divided us even further down ideological lines, with some feeling vindicated about “taking the country back” and others feeling hopeless and scared for the future. Everyone is now hyper-focused on politics and what is happening on a local, statewide and national level and the status quo has changed. This is an angry, bitter America on both sides of the aisle, and Hollywood has had its own nasty business to deal with, with the revelations about Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Brett Ratner and dozens of other sleazy old men. There is a feeling, especially in the show business industry, that we are at a low point, and we can’t keep going the way we’ve been going. There have been numerous accounts of casting couches and depraved Hollywood behavior for decades, but people are now fully awake to what is happening, and they are justifiably outraged.
So what does all this have to do with the Oscars? As it turns out, a whole lot. This year, the success of Jordan Peele with Get Out and Patty Jenkins with Wonder Woman has been widely celebrated, showing the power of black and female representation both in front of and behind the camera. There’s also box office hit Girls Trip and critically acclaimed films like The Big Sick and Lady Bird that tell fresh perspectives and delight critics, audiences and Academy members alike. This is why I find it hard to believe that a traditional film about World War II can win Best Picture in a year like this.
This is why I think the definition of Oscar bait needs to be revised. Smaller films like Birdman, Spotlight and Moonlight are nothing like the traditional definition of the word. If there is any comparison to be made between these three wildly different films is that they snuck up on people with how good they wound up being. None were really discussed as the “early frontrunner” because of their respective subject matters or level of talent involved. None had even been hyped that much before film festival season. The same goes for the wild success of Get Out and Wonder Woman.
If I had to call my shot now for a Best Picture winner I would guess that Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri fulfills the new criteria for Oscar bait, as a celebrated indie film that highlights subjects like justice and corruption in small-town America. Those that have seen the movie, which opens on Nov. 10, have acknowledged how timely it is. It touches on the anger of our times between the everyday person and the failing institutions we once held dear, the concept of free speech, and how none of us are necessarily good or bad, despite our need to make things black and white. It also centers on a woman, played by the indomitable Frances McDormand. I presume that the notion of a “traditional” movie having it in the bag for months and months until it inevitably wins has faded away. This should make for a more exciting Oscar race, as bold films from innovative artists are hailed above the same old-same old.