Movies: What is "Award Bait"? Give examples.

[bienville]

In another Thread babygoat666 asked:

Originally Posted by babygoat666

What is the quintessential example of "award bait"?

Any list of examples would surely raise debate, so instead of derailing that Thread I thought it best to start a new Thread.

Should we have a working definition of "Award Bait"? I always think of Award Bait as one of those "I know it when I see it" kinds of things. So, I can attempt to offer a working definition here but my definition will surely be deficient. Certainly, the definition of Award Bait is every bit as valid a topic of debate for this Thread as will be any debate about listed examples.


Attempt at definition:

• Award Bait is usually, but not always, released in December.
• It is crafted to commercially appeal to a wide popular audience.
• It often deals with "heavy" and "important" social themes and/or revered cultural icons.
• It may address social issues that appear to be sensitive topics but never pushes boundaries, there's a line that- once crossed- will stir up controversy but the film tiptoes up to the edge of that line without ever crossing it (thus never risking "appeal to a wide popular audience").
• The main character's goodness/integrity is rarely called into question.
• Story and character elements are crafted specifically to tug at the heartstrings.
• The conclusion of the story is either A) Exactly what the audience it rooting for
  or B) A clear-cut case of injustice for the entire audience to uniformly condemn (and feel good about themselves for being on the right side of justice).
• Often serves as a vehicle for a "Great Actor/Actress" to showcase their talents in the same way that a low-brow comedy built around a popular comic is designed to showcase that comic's personal "schtick".

Examples off the top of my head are all fairly recent. "Award Bait" usually gets great acclaim when initially released then is forgotten when it doesn't stand the test of time, so it is more difficult to think of examples from long ago.
Crash
Brokeback Mountain
Philadelphia
Cinderella Man (pretty much anything by Ron Howard)
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

[Arkcon]

I think we can add:

Attractive person becomes unattractive due to spectacular job by makeup department. Tom Hanks in Philadelphia and Charlize Theron in Monster are canonical examples. Of course, the plot of those movies requires physical unattractiveness. But the actor started so high, and was taken so low, its got to tug at the heart-strings of a dyed in the wool fan.

[DMark]

Oops - should have waited for this thread to make the following comments I made in the other thread:

There are many "Oscar bait" films that will go on and win the big prizes, but there are many films that get lost in the shuffle - low box office, mixed reviews - that are thought to be Oscar bait, but get beaten by the competition in short order.

Sometimes film producers really think they have a big time winner on their hands, only to find it getting shut out for even getting a nomination, let alone winning anything.

Then there is that vague, hard-to-define "Oscar buzz". These are often films that have some special connection to Oscar voters - perhaps a good/great performance by a beloved actor/director who has a large body of work but has never won anything? Or perhaps a good/great film that fits into the politically correct concept of the year?

I think it is safe to bet the producers of every one the following films all think their films are Oscar worthy across the board:

Life of Pi
Lincoln
Anna Karenina
Argo
Silver Linings Playbook
Hitchcock
Seven Psychopaths
Odd Life Of Timothy Green
Hyde Park on the Hudson
Django Unchained
Les Miserable
The Hobbit
Cloud Atlas
Sessions
Hope Springs
The Master
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Rust and Bone

I am sure I am missing a few.

The point is, many of these films will be passed over completely despite the fact that they are probably better-than-average films, but simply are not as good/popular as a few of the others.

Now the quiet (and not so quiet) politics starts - ads in the trades screaming "For Your Consideration" and TV talk shows and PR campaigns and screenings for the voters, etc. If you ever lived in Los Angeles, you will know there is some very heavy politics in play now - making the Obama/Romney campaign friendly in comparison. Not always, but often a single Oscar win can help bump the box office for a film enough to warrrent whatever it costs to win that Oscar - and backs will be stabbed along the way.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

This makes me think of Eddie Murphy in Bowfinger,

White boys always get the Oscar. It's a known fact. Did I ever get a nomination? No! You know why? Cause I hadn't played any of them slave roles, and get my ass whipped. That's how you get the nomination. A black dude who plays a slave that gets his ass whipped gets the nomination, a white guy who plays an idiot gets the Oscar. That's what I need, I need to play a retarded slave, then I'll get the Oscar. . . . Go find me that script: Buck the Wonder Slave.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by bienville

It may address social issues that appear to be sensitive topics but never pushes boundaries, there's a line that- once crossed- will stir up controversy but the film tiptoes up to the edge of that line without ever crossing it (thus never risking "appeal to a wide popular audience").

A good point. It should be a subject that appears controversial but which most Academy voters will actually support one side of. Not a genuinely controversial subject that will divide voters.

Good examples:
Racism - A controversial subject? Who's in favor of racism?
Anti-semitism - This is the reason the Holocaust is always a subject for movies.
Homophobia - But only really blatant homophobia. Avoid specific issues that some voters might question. So make your movie about AIDS or gay bashing, not about gay marriage.
Drug abuse and disabilities - But make sure to show people rising above these things.
Feminism - Was a good topic back in the seventies and eighties but isn't anymore. Don't use it.

Another good rule to follow is the "one step removed" principle. Don't have the main story be about somebody directly experiencing any of these topics. Have your main story be about somebody who's indirectly experiencing the topic through a secondary character.

[bienville]

Originally Posted by DMark

I think it is safe to bet the producers of every one the following films all think their films are Oscar worthy across the board

But there's a difference between a creative team making a great film because they have a passion for the project and, with or without recognition, succeeding in their vision will be its own reward

vs.

A creative team that sets out to make a "Great Film" in a very calculated manner for the precise goal of being recognized as a "Great Film" thus bolstering the prestige of the team involved.

When I use the term "Award Bait" I'm thinking of the second scenario.

[BrotherCadfael]

A discussion of one form of Award Bait, from Tropic thunder:

Kirk Lazarus: Everybody knows you never go full retard.

Tugg Speedman: What do you mean?

Kirk Lazarus: Check it out. Dustin Hoffman, 'Rain Man,' look retarded, act retarded, not retarded. Counted toothpicks, cheated cards. Autistic, sho'. Not retarded. You know Tom Hanks, 'Forrest Gump.' Slow, yes. Retarded, maybe. Braces on his legs. But he charmed the pants off Nixon and won a ping-pong competition. That ain't retarded. Peter Sellers, "Being There." Infantile, yes. Retarded, no. You went full retard, man. Never go full retard. You don't buy that? Ask Sean Penn, 2001, "I Am Sam." Remember? Went full retard, went home empty handed...

[thelurkinghorror]

In a world...

A movie so sad, you may die watching it. A film about a Jewish, retarded alcoholic. His name? Oscar Gold.
(Terrible quality video that cuts out early and has a dude snorting in the background, but the only one I can find).

[RealityChuck]

Nowadays, sadly, the term refers to any movie that deals with a dramatic subject (as opposed to an action film). Doesn't have to be controversial; but it does have to deal with real people in real situations with real problems.

[mcgato]

I think that Barbra Streisand was more than a bit miffed when she was passed over by the academy for her role in Yentl. That was, in my opinion, classic Oscar bait.

Hmm, maybe "Oscarbaiting" could become a useful word.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by mcgato

Hmm, maybe "Oscarbaiting" could become a useful word.

No, oscarbating is what the winners do after they get home from the ceremony.

[It's Not Rocket Surgery!]

Here's a good article about a bunch of Oscar-bait movies. I found it by looking up articles about The Lovely Bones, which I remember being considered a shoo-in for awards - until it came out and was awful.

[Jragon]

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror

In a world...

A movie so sad, you may die watching it. A film about a Jewish, retarded alcoholic. His name? Oscar Gold.
(Terrible quality video that cuts out early and has a dude snorting in the background, but the only one I can find).

I prefer this parody of Oscar bait.

[Krokodil]

(Dimly-recalled SNL sketch wherein "Dakota Fanning" brags to "Abigail Breslin" that she'll be playing another rape victim. This was 6-7 years ago...)

[drewtwo99]

Originally Posted by Jragon

I prefer this parody of Oscar bait.

Yup, pretty much sums up the idea of this thread perfectly.

[Hal Briston]

Can we include specific scenes?

When I saw Erin Brockovich, and the scene was on where Erin was listening to the description of her kid's first word and she was doing the fluctuate-between-smiling-and-crying thing, I turn to my then-wife and said "Well, Roberts just overacted her way into a lock for Best Actress" (which she did indeed win).

[MyFootsZZZ]

Originally Posted by Jragon

I prefer this parody of Oscar bait.

Complete with "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story" soundtrack! I love this!

[Amateur Barbarian]

Much of this is edging into the phenomenon I long ago termed 'trailer trash' - moments of extreme action or exposition that have little to do with the story progression and often seem over-emphasized when viewed in context, but make GREAT trailer snippets.

My origin example, and still in the top five for egregious use of trailer trash, is The Rock. Watch the trailer, then watch the movie. About a third of Ed Harris's lines are in the trailer and contribute dramatic whips measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale... and in context of the film they are ridiculously overacted. He's not the only guilty party there.

Sometimes studios use different takes for trailers and put more sensible pieces in the film (and trailer-only scenes aren't uncommon). But about one movie in three will have a startling, overacted, overemphasized bit that clearly was meant to look good in the promos... trailer trash.

[Amateur Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Hal Briston

Can we include specific scenes?

When I saw Erin Brockovich, and the scene was on where Erin was listening to the description of her kid's first word and she was doing the fluctuate-between-smiling-and-crying thing, I turn to my then-wife and said "Well, Roberts just overacted her way into a lock for Best Actress" (which she did indeed win).

I saw Monster's Ball completely cold, knowing almost nothing about it except for Halle Berry's tearful acceptance speech.

I knew, in advance, that her character had at least one over-the-top, scenery-chewing emotional scene. Such things are the ONLY reason marginalized groups of actors ever get awards. Actresses of color or other Academy handicap can make film after film with the finest dramatic skill and talent and get overlooked; but let them do a heart-rendering that borders on Stepin Fetchit being terrorized by a spider, and wham.

[Johnny Q]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

No, oscarbating is what the winners do after they get home from the ceremony.

Am I the only one imagining a certain scene from The Exorcist here?

Hey, I never said it was a good connotation...

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Johnny Q

Am I the only one imagining a certain scene from The Exorcist here?

Hey, I never said it was a good connotation...

You want horrifying?

Katherine Hepburn.

Yeah, that image is in your brain now.

[lisiate]

There's a nice episode of Extras were Ricky Gervais' Andy is an extra in a Kate Winslet Oscar-bait movie. Kate's playing a nun who helps Jews escape the Holocaust in a blatent play for an Oscar nomination. Three years later Winslet got her Oscar after playing an illiterate ex-SS camp guard in The Reader...

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Someone posted hereabouts awhile back that THE KING'S SPEECH has to be the iconic one: a period drama where our hero needs to overcome his disability to win WWII thanks to his budding friendship with someone from a different social class who plays the Wise Outsider Teaching Valuable Life Lessons.

And . . . there it is.

[astorian]

THings have definitely changed, and for the past decade, the Oscars have been increasingly similar to the indie Spirit awards.

But for many, many years, I said that the perfect formula for winning an Oscar would be to combine

1) An earnest liberal script by Stanley Kramer, and
2) Cinematography by David Lean

For years, the average Oscar voter was someone like Gregory Peck- politically liberal but artistically conservative. For such voters, the perfect film was a period piece with beautiful costumes and sweeping lanscapes, in service to a safe, conventional liberal message.

[MovieMogul]

I think an essential component of Awards bait is pedigree, which can take several forms (not mutually exclusive):

* A cast and director that has a strong Academy history (wins/nods)
* Based on an already established (preferably "classic") literary work
* Inspired by a notable historical event or figure, preferably with large production values

Note that this entire discussion is independent of whether they're any good or not (critical approval is very important but not always essential)

This year, the obvious examples are Lincoln, Life of Pi, Anna Karenina, Les Miserables, The Hobbit, and The Sessions

Some are on the cusp (Argo, Silver Linings Playbook, Flight, Zero Dark Thirty, Django Unchained, and The Master) but there's still enough that doesn't quite dovetail with this pedigree factor to make them certain slamdunks for likely awards consideration.

That's why it's easy to look back at some films in retrospect and label them "awards bait" (Crash, Brokeback) when I'd argue they weren't much. "Issue" movies don't usually have the same impact with the Academy without the pedigree attached to it, and neither of those casts had any real award history going in. Certainly, Good Night and Good Luck, Capote, Memoirs of a Geisha, Cinderella Man and Munich were all more obvious Oscar bait candidates that year--though none ended up getting the industry love that those two did.

Awards bait is obviously a reductive term, and for some pejorative. When I use it, I don't assign intent (though clearly, it's probably in the back of the minds of some studio heads, filmmakers, and actors) as much as a more obvious combination of categories that make award-attention more likely.

I think sometimes, people assign importance based on this pedigree element, since the weight of history or cultural association comes with it. I admired the Spielberg film enormously this year, but I think Moonrise Kingdom and Beasts of the Southern Wild are both better films. But neither falls into clean Oscar categories nor do either have the "gravitas" that comes with history, politics, war, disability, or substance abuse that often help assemble an awards-friendly (though by no means foolproof) formula.

[astorian]

Sometimes, a respected, successful director gets shunned by the Academy for so long that he feels compelled to make a certain KIND of movie that he hopes/ believes will appeal to the voters.

As I've noted before, for many years, the Oscars tended to go to movies with:

1) Exotic or historic settings
2) Lush, sweeping landscapes
3) Period costumes
4) A dramatic story (preferably based on either real events or an acclaimed novel)
5) An earnest, conventional liberal message.

Comedies, science fiction, gritty urban movies with cuss words, action movies, kiddie movies... they were pretty much anathema to Oscar voters, no matter how good the movies may have been.

In the seventies, Eighties and early Nineties, guys like Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg and Spike Lee made some very good, highly acclaimed and very popular films that didn't win Oscars. Now, in theory, a successful and wealthy artist shouldn't CARE bout silly awards... but in reality, they usually DO care, tremendously. And sometimes, such artists respond by making the kinds of movies they THINK the Academy likes.

Note: I am NOT saying the following movies were bad- merely that they appear to me like blatant pandering to the Academy by directors who wanted to win Oscars.

1) Martin Scorsese saw the gritty crime drama Goodfellas lose out to Dances With Wolves, a movie that had almost all of the elements I mentioned above. I honestly believe that's why he made The Age of Innocence, a movie wholly unlike most of his other works. I think he was trying to give the Academy what he thought they wanted. It DIDN'T win any Oscars, but it sure looked like Oscar bait to me.

2) Steven Spielberg's E.T. lost out to Richard Attenborough's Gandhi, a movie with ALL of the elements listed above. The perception was that Speilberg made kiddie movies, and he concluded that he had to make a SERIOUS movie based on an Important Novel, if he wanted to win an Oscar. The Color Purple didn't win him any Oscars, but it was definitely intended as Oscar bait.

3) Spike Lee's intimate, gritty portraits of ghetto life didn't get him the Oscar (or even the nominations) he wanted. Hence, he amde the kind of epic he thought would garner more respect. Malcolm X was Spike Lee's idea of what the Academy wanted.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Originally Posted by astorian

Comedies, science fiction, gritty urban movies with cuss words, action movies, kiddie movies... they were pretty much anathema to Oscar voters, no matter how good the movies may have been.

This is why it's problematic to make such sweeping statements about the Academy. All of these types of movies have recently won or been nominated for Best Picture in the past decade:

Comedies: The Artist, Midnight in Paris, Juno, Little Miss Sunshine (and that's not including dramedies like The Descendants and The Kids Are All Right)

Science fiction: Inception, District 9, Avatar

Gritty urban movies with cuss words: The Fighter, The Departed, Crash, Gangs of New York

Action movies: The Hurt Locker

Kiddie movies: Hugo, Toy Story 3, Up

Spike Lee's intimate, gritty portraits of ghetto life didn't get him the Oscar (or even the nominations) he wanted. Hence, he amde the kind of epic he thought would garner more respect. Malcolm X was Spike Lee's idea of what the Academy wanted.

If you think that Malcolm X wasn't a deeply personal project for Spike Lee, you don't know very much about the man or his work.

[DrDeth]

Actually, I think a perfect way to define successful Oscar bait is to look at films that won, but then dropped off the radar.

A Beautiful Mind (which won over LotR which is still watched and discussed and loved). Dances With Wolves . Last Emperor. Amadeus. Gandhi. Annie Hall. And, I predict- The Artist.

[Rollo Tomasi]

But that's all completely subjective. I love Amadeus and still watch it frequently, and I know plenty of people who do the same. My one of my best friends considers that one of his top 10 favorite movies ever. Annie Hall shows up all the time on greatest comedies list (and I can't even see how that could be considered awards bait in the first place). The other movies all have plenty of fans out there. No movie ever truly "drops off the radar," especially after it's won Best Picture.

[Spoke]

An ideal Oscar bait movie should have at least a subplot about the performing arts.

[kenobi 65]

Originally Posted by Rollo Tomasi

This is why it's problematic to make such sweeping statements about the Academy. All of these types of movies have recently won or been nominated for Best Picture in the past decade:

Note that astorian specifically said, "for many years, the Oscars tended {note the past tense} to go to movies with..."

I agree with you (and I suspect that astorian might, as well) that, in the past 10-15 years, those rules-of-thumb have become less iron-clad.

[astorian]

Originally Posted by kenobi 65

Note that astorian specifically said, "for many years, the Oscars tended {note the past tense} to go to movies with..."

I agree with you (and I suspect that astorian might, as well) that, in the past 10-15 years, those rules-of-thumb have become less iron-clad.

Exactly so- as I noted, the Academy's standards have changed tremendously in the past 10-15 years. All kinds of movies that USED to win awards no longer do, and all kinds of movies that used to be shunned now get serious award consideration.

[MovieMogul]

Originally Posted by Rollo Tomasi

This is why it's problematic to make such sweeping statements about the Academy. All of these types of movies have recently won or been nominated for Best Picture in the past decade:

Comedies: The Artist, Midnight in Paris, Juno, Little Miss Sunshine (and that's not including dramedies like The Descendants and The Kids Are All Right)

Science fiction: Inception, District 9, Avatar

Gritty urban movies with cuss words: The Fighter, The Departed, Crash, Gangs of New York

Action movies: The Hurt Locker

Kiddie movies: Hugo, Toy Story 3, Up

Removing crime/gangster films from that list (since they've got a rich winning tradition) and calling HURT LOCKER what it is (a war movie), there is only one winner in this list: THE ARTIST (proving about once a decade, a comedy can win)

The truth is genre films (thrillers, westerns, sf/fantasy/horror, kid films) are often the bridesmaids but rarely the bride. Westerns had a 55+ year dry spell at winning before DANCES. LOTR was the first sf/fantasy film to ever win. SILENCE the first suspense and/or horror film. Of course they'll rake in craft/technical awards, but the formula still is weighted heavily to prestige films. Musicals, historically, have been the only significant genre exception.

Look at the Sight & Sound Top 10 list this year. What were the top sound American films? VERTIGO (thriller), THE SEARCHERS (western), 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (scifi), none of which got any real Academy love in their time, though the Kubrick came closest. Genre has credibility and respect in hindsight, but very rarely can outshine a prestige project (war, period, melodrama) in the here-and-now.

[MovieMogul]

Originally Posted by Rollo Tomasi

If you think that Malcolm X wasn't a deeply personal project for Spike Lee, you don't know very much about the man or his work.

It's unquestionably personal, but it's also one of his most conventional films, which does feed the speculation (nothing more) that it was an opportunity to immerse himself in a project that he cared about, while also trying to cater to the Academy's more middlebrow tastes. That doesn't mean it's bad (I like the film, and most of Spike's work, in fact), but it does follow formula more rigorously than most of his films. And interestingly, that was the last film of his to win any nominations at all.

I'm not going to ascribe strict causality to astorian's well-argued examples, but the fact remains that Spielberg only started winning Oscars when he took on more "serious" subjects. That despite overseeing numerous amazing performances, Cronenberg actors only started getting nominated when he abandoned horror for crime films. That it took two literary adaptations to put David Fincher on the Oscar map, even though the punch-drunk kineticism of his earlier films was what made him unique.

Oscar loves a formula, an assembly of elements that are still heavily weighted to the familiar over the innovative, the respectable over the irreverent, the comfortable over the new. While there still remain outliers to this pattern, these cycles still exist and recur.

[lisiate]

Originally Posted by astorian

Sometimes, a respected, successful director gets shunned by the Academy for so long that he feels compelled to make a certain KIND of movie that he hopes/ believes will appeal to the voters.

As I've noted before, for many years, the Oscars tended to go to movies with:

1) Exotic or historic settings
2) Lush, sweeping landscapes
3) Period costumes
4) A dramatic story (preferably based on either real events or an acclaimed novel)
5) An earnest, conventional liberal message.


...

2) Steven Spielberg's E.T. lost out to Richard Attenborough's Gandhi, a movie with ALL of the elements listed above. The perception was that Speilberg made kiddie movies, and he concluded that he had to make a SERIOUS movie based on an Important Novel, if he wanted to win an Oscar. The Color Purple didn't win him any Oscars, but it was definitely intended as Oscar bait.

....

Gandhi may have had all your 5 elements, (and I agree it's an Award Bait movie) but that doesn't change the fact that it was a far better movie than the sacchrine-laden E.T, in every way, bar special effects.

Other than The Wizard of Oz has an out-and-out children's film ever won Best Picture?

[Waenara]

Originally Posted by Spoke

An ideal Oscar bait movie should have at least a subplot about the performing arts.

I agree. I think there are movies that are quite good, but get more nominations and awards than they otherwise would have ("other things being equal").

When a movie has a subplot or "meta" level that relates to the performing arts (especially movies or plays) then it just appeals to the Academy voters in particular. Examples include Shakespeare in Love, Tropic Thunder, Hugo, and The Artist.