I have been thinking about this, and I think there is another factor to consider. Now that we are a century into Hollywood history, and have decades of Oscar winners to look back on, I wonder if people's idea of what sort of films will hold up has changed. Current voters have a history of movies to look back on, and an understanding that they might not have had 40 years ago that often the films that remain classics aren't necessarily the films of the zeitgeist or the well-made films. Voters can look at a year like 1956 where The Searchers - considered one of the great American films - doesn't get a nomination in favor of the stodgy Around the World in 80 Days, or 1952 and how a Singin' in the Rain feels so much more essential today than The Greatest Show on Earth, or even a year like 1976, where the winner (Rocky) may still be beloved but not in place of Taxi Driver or Network or All the President's Men, and see the sort of film that stands the test of time. Our definition of what makes a great film has morphed through the years, to a time where we can see that Frankenstein is equal to Grand Hotel, Bringing Up Baby is greater than The Life of Emile Zola, and The Third Man is seen today much more fondly than All the King's Men.Sabin wrote:I absolutely agree with your first sentence. Although I don't necessarily agree with all of your categorizations, I don't think that they're not seeking "The Movie That Will Hold Up in Posterity." I think it's one of two things: fewer The Movie That Will Hold Up in Posterity's are being made today OR they just don't look like they used to. I'll hazard this prediction: Moonlight is going to rate very high in peoples' minds as a Best Picture winner. I could see it listed in the top twenty five best winners consistently because it's obviously quite good, the shocking nature of its win, but also its win was so meaningful.Mister Tee wrote
On one thing I definitely agree: that I used to know what a best picture felt like, and now I don't... You might argue that we don't have Oscar-type movies anymore, but I don't know -- I'd say Zero Dark Thirty or Lincoln would qualify far more than Argo...and Boyhood more than Birdman. Even There Will Be Blood more than No Country for Old Men. I just think voters aren't working within that paradigm anymore. They're not necessarily seeking The Movie That Will Hold Up in Posterity; they're happy to vote for the one they like today.
When something like No Country for Old Men was released, with near unanimous acclaim from filmmakers who have proven themselves to be major artists (even if they don't make what used to be called an Oscar Film), it feels like an instant classic. Voters feel comfortable voting for it because it is a piece that will last.
This started in the 1990s when voters back-to-back rewarded genres that had long been overlooked by the Academy (horror and western) and even nominated a "goddamn cartoon" (as Damien would have added), and it has become more commonplace this decade. Something like Birdman couldn't have won 40 years ago, but today it perhaps looks to voters like something that the future will study and deem an important film. Giving The Imitation Game the award over it could be the equivalent in 2082 as the How Green Was My Valley over Citizen Kane award is to many today. Last year, doesn't Moonlight feel more like a game changer than La La Land (although I adore both films equally), and like the sort of film that will still be discussed decades from now. We have certainly moved on from a year where sex, lies, and videotape and Do the Right Thing are ignored in favor of Field of Dreams and Driving Miss Daisy. What were once edgy films, due to their content, style, or genre, and which had to grow into their acclaim, are now embraced on a broader scale much faster.
I don't know how much of this goes through a voters mind, but I think this shift in perspective is certainly a factor at play.