Why the Oscars aren’t all that

I’ve tried writing this post half a dozen times. Every time I watch an underrated piece of brilliance, or every time I’m disappointed by an Oscar-winning performance and specifically when I hear people wank off about Natalie Portman‘s performance in Black Swan. Don’t get me wrong, the film is extraordinarily beautiful. I bow to the genius behind the costuming and design. The subtle metamorphosis of the character of Nina, shown quietly through the costuming, was a truly praise worthy endeavor within this film. Let’s not forget the visual effects. THAT scene; that phenomenal transformation in the final scenes of the movie where the black swan literally grows her wings. That was incredible! But my beef is with Portman’s performance. Was she good? Yeah. Was she extraordinary? I beg to differ. I admire the dedication, the hours of training that went into her nailing the choreography; I admire her for taking on a role so dark and out of character for her. But that is the crux of why she got the Oscar. Audiences were pleasantly surprised by seeing Portman’s transform into this darker role. The Academy loves when actors delve into the darker aspects despite the actors own squeaky clean image ala Charlize Theron in Monster.

There’s four aspects that I can pin down that undoubtedly attract the Academy’s attention: Physical transformation is a definite draw card. Charlize Theron isn’t the only one: Hilary Swank in Boys Don’t Cry, Helen Mirren in The Queen, Ben Kingsley in Gandhi, Nicole Kidman in The Hours, even the infallible Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady. I also have very little doubt that Daniel Day Lewis stands a bloody good chance of nabbing the Oscar  this year for his transformation into Abraham Lincoln in Lincoln. There’s another draw card that these all have in common – they’re all biopics. The Academy loves a biopic! There’s something about an actor playing a role of a non-fiction real life person that truly gets the Academy whet. Think: Sean Penn as Harvey Milk; Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles, Julia Roberts as Erin Brockovich, Marion Cottilard as Edith Piaf.  It’s almost as if, because you are playing a real person, it makes it easier to rate your performance against an actual rubric. The third trick to bagging oneself an Oscar is by going gaga. Several Oscar winners did so by playing some sort of deranged, mentally ill, or impaired character which is in my opinion fair; it’s easy to play drunk but it’s not easy to skillfully play crazy. Think: Sir Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, Kathy Bates’ extraordinary performance in Misery, Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump, Angelina Jolie in Girl, Interrupted, I mean hell, Jack Nicholson scored two Oscars for his portrayal of crazy in both One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest and As Good as it Gets. And lastly, and maybe even less so, attention is given to the classics: Chicago, A Streetcar named Desire,  Gone With The Wind, To Kill a Mockingbird, My Fair Lady, a Shakespeare, that sort of thing.

So as easy as it is to chart the ‘what it takes’ of grabbing the Academy’s attention, it’s difficult to figure out how by these standards, Leonardo DiCaprio is still left wanting. Now I understand that certain amazing performances get overlooked because of their genre. Anne Hathaway was phenomenal in Love and Other Drugs, as was Johnny Depp in Alice in Wonderland and Robert Downey Jr in Iron Man but the Academy doesn’t hand out Best Actor awards for rom-coms, fantasy and superhero  flicks quite as freely as with a good old-fashioned drama. But Leo DiCaprio isn’t making rom-coms now is he? DiCaprio has over his  film career (which spans over twenty years) fulfilled the above criteria. He has portrayed many a troubled mind from his 1993 What’s Eating Gilbert Grape to 2010’s Shutter Island (not counting the little bit of loopy that occurred in The Beach in 2000). Leo has added his face to a number of biopic leads. He played J Edgar Hoover in 2011, Howard Hughes in The Aviator in 2004, con man Frank Abagnale Jr in Catch Me If You Can  in 2002. He’s transformed his looks, making him suitable to play both the naive heart-throb in Titanic and the evil slave owner in Taratino’s Django Unchained (which he hasn’t gotten an Oscar nod for) and took a fair whack at the South African accent (which is notoriously the hardest accent to fake) in Blood Diamond . He’s dabbled in the classics playing Shakespeare’s Romeo in Baz Lurhmann‘s 1996 extravaganza and King Louis the Great in a Man With The Iron Mask. Frankly there are very few of DiCaprio’s roles that haven’t deserved a little gold statuette. And if you disagree with me, maybe offer a glance to the extensive list of nominations (and awards) that Leo’s roles have gotten.

If the old adage that you can judge a man by the company he keeps, is true, then Leo is even more overdue for his Oscar. He’s worked with many Academy Award winning actors and directors. The likes of Meryl Streep, Robert de Niro, James Cameron, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, and Jack Nicholson are among his colleagues. And Martin Scorsese of all people loves him. And yet in all his years on the silver screen DiCaprio has only managed to get three Academy Award nominations, all of which he didn’t win. Enough of the “it’s an honor just to be nominated” bullshit, can the Academy please just give Leonardo DiCaprio an Oscar already?

Sadly Leo’s snub isn’t the only one, but at least for him there’s the hope which lies in the upcoming release of Lurhmann’s The Great Gatsby (now that’s a classic role if ever there was one). Which brings me to my point: How can we believe that the Academy Awards are the be all and end all of cinematic glory when the likes of Natalie Portman can scoop one up with a once-off performance but Leonardo DiCaprio can be overlooked time and time again.

Related articles

• Even You Can Be Nominated for an Academy Award! (lilyincanada.wordpress.com)
• ‘Lincoln’ leads Oscar nominations (bizjournals.com)
• OSCARS: Who Got Snubbed By Academy? (deadline.com)