When Louis B Mayer, the dictatorial head of MGM studios, overheard two of his guests at a dinner party in 1927 talking about the need for an organisation for film folk, he acted immediately. Thirty-six Hollywood notables were invited to a dinner at the Biltmore Hotel, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, in all its glory, was born. Prize-giving followed swiftly, and the winner of the first best-picture award went to Wings, a drama about two airmen in World War I.
Ah, simple days: you could have fitted all the members of the academy on to a Greyhound bus. Now there are 5Â 722, and the contenders among them will travel to the Oscars ceremony in vehicles as long as a Greyhound, but less economical. Then they will all sit through a prize-giving as long as a biblical epic, but with less amusing dialogue.
In the old days, a comparatively tiny community decided the winners, but who really decides now, and how do they go about it? Do they vote for pals and sentiment, or great work and artistic pioneers? We asked five academy members – an actor, two writers, an art director and an editor – how they make their choices, and who they think should win this year.
All five are American, all have worked on Oscar-winning films or with Oscar-winning directors. Two have been nominated themselves. And all have delivered their initial ballots – voting for a film in their specialist field, and a best picture – that have led to the nominations announced this week. Last year, a Wall Street Journal exit poll predicted most of the winners, so this year the academy has asked members not to talk to journalists who might ask them for their nominations. So the ones we spoke to remain anonymous.
“I think most actors take it very seriously, which is why some of the nominations sometimes shock me because they are not for really complex and interesting performances,” says one of the five. “Take this year. Why should you give the award to someone just because she’s got a nice personality, makes millions of dollars a movie, is adorable – hey, why don’t they just give her a pony? But best actress? No!
“In the days when Bette Davis tripped up those little stairs and picked up her award, it was because it was an honour from her colleagues, but now? Joan Rivers ought to be shot or put on the rack for making it such a circus. The ceremony is embarrassing: ‘What dress are you wearing? Giorgio Armani? Kiss, kiss, kiss.’ Please! What about the days when Vanessa Redgrave walked out on stage with glasses and a simple little black coat?”
The editor we spoke to is voting for Billy Elliot as best film and Chicken Run for best editing. He explained his voting method: “I involve my two teenage children and my wife. We sit around with the ballot and my kids say which five films they think should be nominated, and then we look at each other’s lists and argue and discuss – I changed one of the films based on one of those discussions. I’m thinking about Wonder Boys, Chicken Run, Traffic, or Erin Brockovich.”
Is he influenced by personal likes and dislikes? “I would be hard-pressed as a liberal Democrat to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger or Charlton Heston, or one of those actors who is a supporter of conservative causes, knowing that if they won it would mean more people would go to hear them speak at rallies. On the other hand, I don’t think I would vote for someone just because of their politics. I think the idea of recognising people and giving them awards is a nice thing, but I would hope that nobody would believe that just because something gets an Oscar for best picture, that it means it is the best picture.”
One of the writers agrees. “In the past I sometimes haven’t even bothered to vote because I try not to take it too seriously. It’s not that important and if I get cooked up about it, it’s because it’s a small universe in [Los Angeles]. It would be better if they didn’t have them at all.”
This year he is voting, but is sorry that the films he has liked best – The Yards, Chuck & Buck and Best in Show – stand little or no chance of success.
“When you know how many great movies over the years were overlooked, you know it’s not that important,” he says. “Even so, when you get nominated, you get jealous, you get hopeful, it interferes with your work. And when you get nominated and you lose, it’s annoying! I’m glad when the whole awards season is over.”
Views vary on whether this is really such a bad year. As the actor says: “I’m one of the people who thinks it’s a bad year, but then I feel bad about everything about America right now – it was a very wobbly year with the presidential election. Best film? It’s difficult. There’s Quills … You hope people are not put off by the subject matter.
“They’re all so old at the academy. Do people vote for sentimental reasons? That’s what they say about the academy – ‘not a brain, but a heart’. They have a reverence for seniority. Gladiator has cinematically all the elements, Thirteen Days will be ignored because the mike came into the frame three times. Crouching Tiger? Yoga on wires. There were bad years in the past – Braveheart was ridiculous – but this has been a particularly bad one.”
So how does she make her choices? “There are a few actresses I will chat with, but a lot of people do not want you to know who they voted for. I’m sure people vote for themselves.”
And how conscientious are they about seeing the dozens of nominated films? “I try to see interesting work on a big screen,” says the art director. “One of the problems is that good work in films that are not commercial is overlooked, whereas work that is mediocre, when it’s part of a winning project, gets success by association.”
And, yes, sometimes she would vote for someone for reasons beyond the film for which they were nominated: “I think one is susceptible to a bigger body of work. But I do not feel that the best work always gets rewarded … For instance, people tend to be impressed by period work in the visual categories, when it’s more of a challenge to do contemporary work on a really high level.”
She singles out Before Night Falls, Quills and Gladiator.
One of the key players in the proceedings – but one who does not have a vote – is the publicist. She believes the academy is becoming less conservative, giving hope to smaller films such as Billy Elliot and Pollock. But who will win? She reckons Julia Roberts and Russell Crowe for best actress and actor, and “Ridley Scott is long overdue” for best director, with Kate Hudson (Almost Famous) and Joaquin Phoenix (Gladiator) as best supporting actors.
One thing is certain: the voting process will be more honest and honourable than was the political one in Florida. In the meantime, as our other writer puts it: “You have to remember that the Oscars are completely irrelevant and unimportant – until you get nominated for one. And then they are a very humbling recognition of your work by your peers.”