The Big Picture

Patrick Goldstein and James Rainey
on entertainment and media

« Previous Post | The Big Picture Home | Next Post »

Disney's Rich Ross is really crazy: He thinks Pixar should win a best picture Oscar

Rich_rossIf there were ever something that Hollywood should be embarrassed about, it’s that Pixar has never won an Oscar for best picture — despite making 11 consecutive commercially successful and critically acclaimed movies. In fact, until last year, when the motion picture academy enlarged its best picture nominee list from five to 10 films, the animation house had never even landed a nomination in the category. It finally broke through with “Up,” but the movie was never a serious contender for best picture, which went to “The Hurt Locker.”

This year, Pixar has spawned another cinematic delight, “Toy Story 3,” which has made more than $1 billion around the world and garnered what are arguably the best reviews of the year, earning a 99% positive review score at Rotten Tomatoes. Disney, which bought Pixar in 2006, is so frustrated that the studio’s boss, Rich Ross, has publicly announced that, instead of settling for a best animated film Oscar, he’s going for the big enchilada.

Ross has boldly laid his cards on the table. “We’re going for the best picture win,” he said in a recent interview with insider showbiz news blog Deadline Hollywood. “For some reason an animated film has never gotten best picture and I always wondered was there not an appetite? We decided this year we have the biggest and best-reviewed film of the year. If not this year, and not this movie, when?”

Ross is putting his money where his mouth is. In the past, Disney has often skimped on its Oscar campaigns. But the studio has launched an ad blitzkrieg in the trades and in The Envelope (published by the L.A. Times) attempting to woo Oscar voters by linking “Toy Story 3” characters to familiar images from past best picture winners.

I hate to break the news to Ross, but he’s wasting his studio’s money. Even worse, if Ross keeps boasting about how he won’t rest until he’s scored a best picture statuette for Pixar, he’s going to end up like Harvey Weinstein, who staged a similarly noisy campaign for “Gangs of New York” trying to win a best director trophy for Martin Scorsese, who’d never won an Oscar. That backfired. When Scorsese finally won for directing “The Departed,” Scorsese didn't campaign at all.

Although “Toy Story 3” represents another great chapter in the Pixar history book, the film doesn’t have a prayer of winning best picture. Because Ross is a relative newcomer to Hollywood, I guess I should explain to him how this whole circus-like Oscar process works. (No one at Disney, from Ross down to Tony Angellotti, who handles the studio’s animated film Oscar campaigns, would talk about the studio’s award season efforts.) Still, Ross raises a fair question: Why shouldn’t his film win?


Ross has every reason to complain about Pixar getting the short end of the stick. “Wall-E” didn’t get a best picture nomination in 2009, even though it was just as good as “The Reader.” Ditto in 2008 for “Ratatouille,” which was just as good as “Atonement,” or “The Incredibles” in 2005, which was just as good as “Finding Neverland.”

But here’s the sad truth. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences doesn’t appreciate, much less understand, animated film. Everyone also points the finger at the actor’s branch of the academy, which represents by far the largest chunk of members — presumably members who, being actors, would never vote for a film that has no actors on screen. But the problem goes much deeper.

The real issue is that Oscar voters over the last few decades have completely lost touch with their original mandate, which was to reward the films that best represented the craft of filmmaking.

If you look at Oscar winners from the 1930s through the 1960s, they were often crowd-pleasing films that were rewarded for their entertainment value, not necessarily for any weighty drama or social themes. The winners list includes such popcorn pictures as 1934’s “It Happened One Night,” 1942’s “Casablanca,” 1956’s “Around the World in 80 Days,” 1963’s “Tom Jones!” or 1968’s “Oliver!” Even as late as 1976, “Rocky” beat “Taxi Driver” and “All the President’s Men.”

But since the “Easy Riders, Raging Bulls” generation came of age inside the academy, virtually every victory has been for seriousness of purpose. It’s been more than 30 years since a comedy won best picture. Sci-fi and superhero movies are roundly ignored.

Pixar films are triumphs of storytelling craft, heart-tugging sentiment and technical polish, but Pixar’s warm, suburban vision of America isn’t held in especially high esteem by the academy. If I had a dollar for every mom I know who cried when Andy and his mother took one last look at his room, its shelves emptied of all his belongings as he headed off to college, I could afford to bankroll my own Oscar campaign. But heart doesn’t cut it with best-picture voters, not unless you’re actually cutting out someone’s heart, as you could easily imagine some of the central characters doing in such bloody best picture winners as “The Hurt Locker,” “No Country for Old Men,” “The Departed,” “Gladiator” or “Braveheart.”

Pixar faces another insurmountable problem. In an era when the best-picture Oscar winner is synonymous with audacious filmmaking, no one in town has heard of most of the great Pixar directors. The other day, when a top studio executive was saying how much he admired “Toy Story 3,” I asked if he’d ever met with the film’s director. “Ughm, what’s his name again?” he replied. (It’s Lee Unkrich, not that most academy voters would know.) In an industry that has firmly embraced the auteur theory, few people take Pixar directors seriously because, until recently, there were usually two or even three directors listed on each picture.

Auteurs can be many things but not co-directors. If Ross wants to throw money at his Oscar best-picture problem, he should start taking out ads promoting Pixar’s roster of stellar filmmakers. “Driving Miss Daisy” is the only film since the early 1930s to win best picture without earning a best director nomination for its filmmaker. But no director of an animated film has ever won a nomination, and it’s hard to imagine things being different this year.

When it comes to best-picture glory, Pixar has gotten the shaft over and over again. But spending millions of dollars buying clever Oscar ads isn’t going to make a difference, although it will surely inspire wonderers to wonder about the whole pay-to-play aspect of the Oscar game. The only way an animated film will win a best picture Oscar is if the academy changes its mind-set about what represents a great film. For now, if you’re Pixar, you’ve earned our eternal cinematic gratitude for making movies that appeal to our childlike sense of wonder, sorrow and delight. But you still haven’t earned the right to be taken seriously by the motion picture academy.

Photo: Rich Ross arriving at the 2009 premiere of "The Princess and the Frog" in Burbank.   

Credit: Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times

 

 
Comments () | Archives (51)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Disney and Pixar can complain all the way to the bank.

This campaign isn't really about Toy Story 3 winning Best Picture.

As Goldstein says, Scorsese didn't win the year of the big campaign. But he did win later.

The Oscars are rarely a one-year, one film phenomenon. Actors and actresses and directors often win after a series of near-misses causes the Academy to look for the first chance to award them the prize. Could the same come true for a studio?

If Pixar makes a lot of noise about Toy Story 3, and more noise about its next, best picture, it can build momentum until "When will Pixar get a Best Picture?" is a commonly discussed question, and, if they make something strong enough in three to five years, they might have a chance.

Assuming their incredible run of success doesn't falter...

They shouldn't need to try to get Toy Story 3 to win. It should have just a good a chance as any other movie.

A movie is a movie is a movie is a movie. Whether it's got live action actors or computer generated ones, it's a movie regardless. It takes talent to achieve either way.

"If you look at Oscar winners from the 1930s through the 1960s, they were often crowd-pleasing films that were rewarded for their entertainment value, not necessarily for any weighty drama or social themes. The winners list includes such popcorn pictures as 1934’s “It Happened One Night,” 1942’s “Casablanca,” 1956’s “Around the World in 80 Days,” 1963’s “Tom Jones!” or 1968’s “Oliver!” Even as late as 1976, “Rocky” beat “Taxi Driver” and “All the President’s Men.”"

I do prefer that popcorn thrill ride "Gentleman's Agreement" over that pompous art film "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King."

Shouldn't even win best animated file. How to Train Your Dragon was a much better film across the board.

"Still, Ross raises a fair question: Why shouldn’t his film win?"

Because "How To Train Your Dragon" was a better film.

While I agree that the Academy is close-minded about this type of thing, Toy Story 3 might get nominated. When Disney invests, it does it's due diligence. They wouldn't come out and say so, unless they actually thought they had a chance. This year, the Academy is trying to capture a younger audience and it started by choosing 2 young, alternative, but respected hosts, James Franco and Anne Hathaway. If they really want to bring in a younger audience, a Toy Story 3 vs. Inception vs. Black Swan vs. Winter's Bone would make a more intriguing race. I honestly believe Toy Story is the best film this year. It has everything: an interesting plot line, intriguing character development, worthy themes, and great movie-making. I think the Academy will really lose an audience if Toy Story 3 is not a major contender.

This doesn't change the fact that Toy Story 3 is not only not the best film (best picture) of 2010, it is hardly Pixar's best. If they win at all I hope they win for their best film. I would have had no objection to Wall-E winning, for instance, or Ratatouille.

If animated films were popular with actors (bread and butter), Avatar would have won last year. Why in the world would they award a film that selects them out of the process?

In theory, I don't mind animated films being named the best film of any year - provided that film IS good enough to beat the other great films offered up. This year, there are easily five better ones: The Social Network, Black Swan, 127 Hours, Shutter Island, True Grit -- and that's not even including Winter's Bone, The Kids Are All Right, Inception, The King's Speech -- all of these films are better than Toy Story 3. All three Toy Stories movies together make for a great, maybe the greatest, trilogy. But as a separate film? Doesn't cut it.

It is extremely unlikely that Toy Story 3 could win picture, it is true that there are many, many things going against it.
However, the one thing that constantly shocks me is how every year people will point to rules which mean that a film cannot win the best picture oscar, despite the fact that the oscars are constantly breaking these 'rules'.
Take 2003 for example, come oscar night The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, which was (arguably) the best reviewed and the most popular film of the year was the overwhelming favourite for the win, which was sensible as it walked away with a cleansweap of 11 awards tying the record, however, on the outset of the awards season (which is exactly where we are now) there were many, many people mocking the films chances on the basis that A: It was a sequel to two films, neither of which had won the oscar and no film had ever before won the best picture oscar if it was a sequel to a loser and B: It was straight up a pure fanstasy film, no fantasy film had ever won.
Take last year for example, once again come oscar night The Hurt Locker was the over whelming favourite, but once again on the outset there were many, many naysayers, why? Because the film had only grossed $10million. No film that small could possibly win the oscar.
The list goes on and it goes back, like Driving Miss Daisy and it's lack of a director nomination, a lot of people knocked it out of contention because of that. Some people even went as far as to suggest that the main reason Crash couldn't win is because it had a one syllable title.
The point is I agree, that it seems ridiculous the idea that Toy Story 3 could win, but the Oscars are a lot more suprising then people give them credit for (I blame all the insane amount of precursor awards, which slowly sap out all the suprise of the eventual oscar wins) so Toy Story 3 for the win really could be something that seems even obvious in just two months time.
Unless of course it isn't nominated for editing, because it is impossible for a film to win Best Picture without an editing nomination...

Social Network for the win: YES
Inception: HELL, YES!
Toy Story 3: Um....NO!

 
« | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | »

Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Stay Connected:



About the Bloggers


Categories


Archives
 


Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: