The Oscars: My Opinion On A Possible Solution To Their Popularity Problem

Well, the Oscars are a changin'.  The problem is that viewer numbers for the awards show have dropped to their lowest ever.  Because of this, there is now a push to make more eyeballs want to tune in.  They are looking to shorten the show to three hours, meaning that some of the technical awards will be given out during commercial breaks, with highlights from this coming later in the show.  In 2020, the date is shifting up to closer to the beginning of February.  The idea is to get the Oscars done before audiences are burnt out from watching all of the other awards shows.  I don't know about you, but I sure get tired of just how many people talk about the SAG and Independent Spirit Awards.  Lastly, they are going to introduce an award celebrating a 'popular' film.

All of this reminds me of the ill-fated movie about the birth and development of FIFA, United Passions.  While football governing body FIFA seemed to think the movie was about the passion and growth of global football, they were ultimately communicating to the audience that success meant more money.  This was wildly funny considering all of the corruption that was coming out at the time.  When I look at the decisions of The Academy, I can't help but feel their true desires are being heard.  It isn't about legitimizing the awards, but getting more viewers.  More viewers equals more advertising, which equals more money, which isn't a course of motivation that a legitimate awards body should be following.

I'm not going to make this a long piece.  I had started going that way, and wanting to rant about so much, but I think I would rather make this about something that I have been talking about for years now.

MAKE NOMINATED MOVIES EASY TO ACCESS FOR THE PUBLIC!!!!

Now, this won't solve all problems, but people I talk to haven't seen (or necessarily even heard of) over ninety percent of films up for Best Picture or the other major awards.  I know that exhibitors want guarantees that movies they screen will be off of video for around ninety days.  Because of this, it would be very difficult to propose this to them, bet we need to be honest.  The industry is changing quickly, and there are ramifications of not changing with it.  Mainly, illegal copies of movies getting viewed online.

People do pirate material, but high percentages will pay for a reasonably priced legal option.  A quick example of that is the current state of the music industry.  Yes, it did get its ass kicked by the digital realm, but people have moved away from the peer to peer model.  There are so many streaming options for good prices that it has brought many customers back into the fold.  With platforms that allow people to purchase either individual songs or entire albums, the consumer has control over how they get the product.  I have also read multiple articles that highlight how consumers will generally use a convenient, reasonably priced option over piracy.  Sadly, I can't remember them, and (since I need to write this quickly) I won't be hunting them down right now.

With an opportunity to have a digital screening window prior to the Oscars, platforms could charge perhaps a little bit more than a premium rental.  They would benefit from the sudden interest that the public may have in these films after they get nominated.  I could see how this would be opposed, because some of these nominated movies get increased theatre screens after the nominations, and theatre chains would claim such an option would hurt numbers.  That's been the argument that's always been made about day and date releases (movies that come out on video at the same time as hitting theatres), and I believe its eventually going to be challenged by consumer habits.

The Academy would benefit from a digital streaming window by their films being more relevant to audiences.  This isn't a few decades ago when the mature movies got nationwide release.  Typically, Oscar fare is in limited release, and sometimes the movies perform well enough to expand to wide release.  This would be the ideal way for Oscar fare to get out to the public, but it doesn't happen to enough films.  More possible eyeballs on the films could mean more interest in the show itself.

Regardless, this idea of a digital screening window isn't going to happen because cinema hasn't completely caught up to the digital age.  Major chains would oppose such ideas because, just as they have for attempts of change in the past.  I do believe that there would be a financial benefit for allowing access to these films, but what do I know?  I know that seemingly every year in February there seems to be an article highlighting how much people are pirating the Oscar nominated movies.  Why not give them a legitimate option?

And lastly, to The Academy...

People are cutting the cord.  Simply put, lower ratings are a part of that.  You don't need to go and add The Tourist to the program.

Mother's Day, Birthday, And Influences From My Mother

This comes two days after Mother's Day, but it also happens to be my mother's birthday today.  A very special happy birthday shoutout to her from her favourite son.  Many times on the podcast that I co-host, The Movie Breakdown, I have made reference to the movie influences my dad is responsible for.  To be honest, I did watch a lot of movies with him.  He would set the VCR to record movies on Saturday nights, usually being Abbot and Costello, Vincent Price, or the swashbuckling effort of Sinbad the pirate.  As a teenager, we would have movie festivals, and it was during one such event that I saw my first Monty Python movies.

Much more subtle, yet still ever present, is the role that my mother played in influencing my tastes.  Alastair Sim may be most well known as Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol, bringing a brash and uncaring presence to the screen, doing justice to one of story telling's most famous character arcs.  I never would have pictured him in a comedy.  That changed when my mother introduced me to The Belles of St. Trinians, a 1954 comedy where Sims plays both a school headmistress and her brother.

I don't remember as much of the film as i would like, but I know that I enjoyed it a lot, getting a lot of laughs out of Sims' dual performance.  This wasn't the only comedy of classic age that my mother brought into my life.  I got exposed to Some Like it Hot, which was my first look at Jack Lemmon.  I would meet up with Lemmon again in Grumpy Old Men, this time finding out about Walter Matthau.  The two showed incredible comedic presence, and I could easily understand why my mother enjoyed these talents so much.

There are wonderful memories of hearing my mother laugh uncontrollably while watching movies.  She will laugh when something's funny, but a certain type of hilarity is needed to really bring the giggles.  I don't think I will ever forget watching Home Alone and What About Bob with her.  The laughter that we shared in those moments was transformative, memories that force a wonderful grin on my face.

There is also something that my mother said around the time of Home Alone that has stuck with me.  When critics gave the movie poor ratings, my mother's response was 'what do the critics know?'  You may think that because I critique movies on blog and podcast form that I would take offence to a statement that took value away from trying to seriously analyze what makes a movie good.  But, ultimately, she made a point that is one of the most straightforward and true statements that could be made.

Honestly, who cares about what the critics are saying?  It doesn't matter.  I learned from my mother that you can enjoy something for what it is, and that it is okay to do that.  Critiquing a film is fine and all, but it is the personal experience of the viewer that matters most.  That's what really counts.  A critic just tries to act as a guide, and sometimes they can't grab the very things that will make viewers respond positively.  I try to set out reasons for why I like or dislike a film, but what matters is how you see it.  Honestly, that is seriously all that matters in the larger scheme of things.

From teaching me lessons about just enjoying movies, my mother also set me up for enjoying female centric material.  If there are simple things you need to know about my mother, its that she is bravely independent, proud to be a woman, proud of her accomplishments in male driven fields, and determination that woman are equal to men.  It is sad, but even in this 'enlightened' period, women still aren't on par with men in many aspects.  Look at top corporate structures.  Look at the tech industry.  Look at movies.

Now, these aren't movies, but they played a huge part in what I would call my feminist nature.  Every single week, we, as a family, would watch Murder, She Wrote.  Angela Lansbury walking around with a death curse that affects people around her, spending more time solving crimes than she does writing about them, which is odd because she is supposed to be a prolific author.  Anywho, I really enjoyed the Jessica Fletcher character.  Most of the times she had to deal with male sherifs, a lot of them brushing her aside for most of the episode until she had her easy to predict 'ah hah!' moment.  She, I suppose like my mother, was a woman in a man's world, just doing her thing.  And I loved it.

Also, there was The Golden Girls.  My mother showed me through this show that woman could be just as funny as men (we also watched Designing Women which did the same thing).  Really, this was a show with a top notch cast.  Rue McClanahan was the vivacious one.  Bea Arthur was down to earth, and, if I recall properly, a tad sarcastic.  Estelle Getty was the 'shoot from the hip' mother of Arthur.  And then we have Betty White, the criminally funny Rose, who always had a story about her time in St Olaf.  I didn't know this, but according to Wikipedia, this show is only one of three sitcoms  ever to have four talents earning an Emmy award.  It was deserved.  These woman throw away convention as to what a single woman in their later years would be like.  They were funny, they still had active sex lives (something that truly seemed groundbreaking for a show depicting older women), and they shared life together.

Yes, these are only two shows, but the groundwork that they laid has lasted through my entire life.  Sex didn't matter in making a story work.  That was what was proven.  I believe it with all of my heart, and I am continually dismayed every year when statistics of female participation in cinema come out.  It is wrong.  It is grossly wrong.  There is a chance that the #MeToo and Time's Up movements will begin to change things, but honestly I shed a tear over how unlikely it is that it will happen soon enough.

Of the top 100 grossing movies of 2017, only 8% were directed by women.  Ten percent of films had female writers.  A measly two fucking percent are cinematographers (I will be honest, this issue does make me unapologetically swear).  Twenty four percent of producers were females.  Women represented 14% of editors.  These numbers are not good.  While there have been better years, the numbers aren't much different since the turn of the century.  Movies with female protagonists was 24%, down four percent from 2016.

Something happened last year, though.  Something that could actually cause some change if the studio executives are paying close enough attention.  The top three grossing domestic movies all had a female lead.  This is definitive proof that the larger audience will accept not having male leads, and that it can be profitable for studios.

Even though I spent more time watching movies with my father, the influences of my mother are huge.  Three of my favourite protagonists of all time are female.  Ellen Ripley in Alien, Sarah Connor in Terminator, and Nancy Thompson in A Nightmare on Elm Street.  You could easily throw onto that list more recent entries like Rey from the recent Star Wars movies and Emily Blunt's Rita, from Edge of Tomorrow.

I love my mother a lot.  The support that she has shown me over the years is something that would take a full book to detail.  Growing up she taught me that equality matters.  Not just with gender, but with race and religion.  So, to celebrate my mother's birthday and Mother's Day, I say a huge 'thank you' to her.  You didn't just raise me, you shaped me.  And I am eternally thankful for that.

Dark Universe: A Board Room Idea That Should Have Stayed There

Opening this upcoming weekend in theatres is The Mummy, hitting four thousand theatres across the United States and Canada.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Why not have a movie about a mummy?  It has been a number of years since Brendan Fraser fought the ancient creature in what was a camp-filled action adventure.  Studios are continuously re-trying cinematic outings, so why not try it again?

It is easy to see that 1999's outing was a success.  It was the eighth highest domestic movie of the year, and scored the third highest opening weekend of 1999 with $43 million, coming in behind Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me and Star Wars: Episode One - The Phantom Menace.  It spawned a series of movies, one of which (The Scorpion King) is regarded by some to be the launching of Dwayne Johnson's career.  When other properties have been re-created over a shorter period of time, it is not hard to believe that Universal would be looking to do with with The Mummy.

The problem here though is that this is not just the launch of a re-visited movie.  It is the launch of what my podcast co-host, Christopher Spicer, calls a marketing pitch.  Just imagine a corporate board room.  The challenge laid ahead of the suits is to come up with an idea for making money.  One person brings up the idea of bringing back movies from seventy years ago, and they swoon over the idea.  They give the concept an idea and go to the boss with the pitch.  The boss then says for them to take the pitch right to the public.  Not the product, but the pitch.

This is what seems to have happened with Universal's Dark Universe.  It is all about taking the likes of the Bride of Frankenstein, Phantom of the Opera, the Invisible Man, and others into movies and combining them to make a shared universe.  Hey, a shared universe worked for one studio, so why not grab onto properties and make another one?

There are some who may have seen the trailer for the Dark Universe and got excited about it.  However, this is something that should be approached with great skepticism.  That board room pitch just got sold to us when it should have stayed within the company.  People don't care about marketing ideas, they care about movies.  First and foremost should be the idea of selling films to the public, not selling people a marketing ploy.

The timing for this is questionable.  They launched the Dark Universe, along with its own website, ahead of the release of The Mummy.  I honestly think this was a poor decision.  What happens if, and it is quite possible, the film is a bomb?  At the time of writing this, not a single critic on Rotten Tomatoes has seen the movie.  Holding off on critical screenings is sometimes the sign that a movie is not that good.  If they don't have faith in this movie standing up to the critics, why go ahead with marketing the Dark Universe right away.  That being said, it still is Tuesday, so there are a few more nights to go that they could get advanced screenings in.

This is a realm that they have tried to enter already.  Dracula Untold was seen to be the first movie in the recreation of the old Universal Monsters.  That movie, however, was a bit of a dud.  It didn't do well with the critics (getting only 23% on Rotten Tomatoes), and it wasn't gobbled up by movie goers.  It made $23 million its opening weekend, and topped out domestically at $56 million.  Universal had to rely heavily on the international box office to recoup money for this movie.  All of a sudden the talk was that this wasn't meant to kick off the shared universe between Universal monsters.  Instead, the studio would put that hope into the 2017 re-envisioning of The Mummy.

On the bright side, The Mummy does have Tom Cruise in it.  That will help its chances, but as we saw with the $23 million opening of the Dwayne Johnson starring Baywatch and the similar opening of Cruise's latest, Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, big stars aren't the drawing power that they once were. Having a mega-star in a film does not mean that it is going to do well, and against a budget of $125 million, The Mummy will have to do a lot better than Jack Reacher did to make it worth while.  It most likely will, but right now it is tracking for an opening below $40 million, which would mean that, once again, Universal will have to hope on the overseas markets to make the movie profitable.

What Universal should be looking at, instead of any and all reasons to create a shared universe, is the properties that they can bring to the table.  Just because you have something that can be intertwined doesn't mean that it is going to succeed.  Forcing an entrance into a shared universe is not an easy task, as Warner Bros is figuring out with their DC properties.

Universal recently tried to bring back The Wolfman.  Did they do this because they had a unique idea that pushed the concept forward or because it was a recognizable character?  I don't know the answer to that.  I do know the end result.  It opened to $31 million, made a domestic total of near $62 million, and saw a global take of $139 million.  It was a massive disappointment, as the production budget alone was $150 million.  It was a resounding loss for Universal, and perhaps this is what they should be paying attention to right now.

It could be that the creatures that fascinated audiences in the past just aren't compatible for modern movie watchers.  We have seen it before, we have been there and done that.  There are lots of risks to bringing back old properties.  It had better start off with a good story idea, because people won't go and see a movie just because it is recognizable.  The same goes for a marketing strategy.  Basing something solely off of the fact that people can recognize properties means nothing.  There needs to be something to compel people to go to the theatre to see them.

It will be interesting to see how The Mummy does.  I am a firm believer in believing that a story should be told because there is a creative idea behind it, not a marketing pitch.  What works in the board room should stay in the board room.  Don't sell pitches to the audience, sell inspired movies.  This obsession with having a shared universe is not a solid starting point for making movies.  This is a prime example of the business side of the industry, the side that doesn't think about stories but rather thinks about profits.  If that's where they are coming from, that's alright and more power to them.  The signs just aren't there that profits are what they will be seeing with this endeavour.

The Bourne Conundrum

The critics were split on the release of the latest Jason Bourne movie, called, well, it was called Jason Bourne.  It was the return to the franchise by both Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass, and opened to an encouraging $60 million.  That makes it the second highest opening weekend for a Bourne movie, putting it only nine million behind the opening take of 2007's The Bourne Ultimatum.

While my podcast co-host Christopher enjoyed the movie enough to recommend it, the key fault that kept me from going that far was the camera style.  It was incredibly shaky throughout, and I felt that it led to the film being overwhelmed by the one technique.  Shaky works at times, but when it is used for all shots, be them action or subtle scenes of dialogue, it looses its power.

On top of that, it made some of the brilliant chase scenes feel as though they were not allowed to shine.  There was a great deal of attention paid to coordinating and executing these sequences, with a lot happening in the background.  Because of the shaking camera and super fast edits, it was difficult to take any of it in and really experience what the characters were going through.

Thank goodness it wasn't in 3D...

At least, that was the case in North America.  The movie has begun its Asian rollout, and some people are not extremely happy with the fact that it is playing primarily in the third dimension.  That's right.  A movie with insanely fast edits and a shaky style (which, as mentioned, can work at times) has been converted to 3D, something that audience members in China say are ruining the experience.

There has even been a protest over it.  Movie goers got together to demand a refund on their ticket purchases, claiming that the film was difficult to sit through in 3D.  I could only imagine the pain of the experience.  Not everything is equal when it comes to adaption for 3D.

While it was only a small group of people protesting, it shows the side of Hollywood that is all about the money instead of the art form.  The Asian markets were selected for the conversion because of their previous acceptance and love for the format in other action films.  The difference is that those action films were shot with 3D in mind.  This one was not.  It is a move to exploit higher ticket prices from the public by cramming Jason Bourne into something that it is not meant to be.

In North America, at least in Canada, where I am located, bumping up to paying the admission price of a 3D movie is usually the difference of three dollars or so.  That is not the case in China.  The ticket prices for 3D movies are roughly twice what it costs to see it in two dimensions.  That is quite the price hike, especially for something that the rest of the world gets to see in its intended format.

Having 3D as an option is not a bad idea, but that is not really the case in the Asian markets.  In Beijing, eight out of one hundred and forty nine theatres ran the 2D option.  It's worse in Shanghai where only 9 out of 174 theatres screened the film in 2D.  Those screenings are said to have been in remote areas or during non-prime movie going hours.  Universal has responded by saying that it will release more screenings in 2D.

So, what's the point?  Well, it has felt like this summer, more than before, that theatres were making seeing a two dimensional offering of a 3D film more difficult.  In Brantford, where I live, the only screenings that were in 2D were between the hours of 4 and 5pm.  Not early enough in the day to be home for supper, and not late enough in the day to have a complete afternoon.  It was obvious that the exhibitors were making all of the efforts possible to keep people paying the money to see the films in 3D.

Even though I thought we had it bad, it is not close to the same situation over seas.  This episode with Jason Bourne shows that the main driving force in the end product is about money, and not about the quality of the film.  Anyone who has seen Jason Bourne, whether they liked it or hated it, will most likely tell you that they were thankful it was not a 3D movie.  It just was not built that way, and we are seeing that the drive to get double the ticket prices in an expanding market outweighs the measure of the product that is being sold.

Weekend Box Office Predictions: 'Don't Breathe', and 'Mechanic: Resurrection'

Could this finally be the weekend that Suicide Squad gets knocked out of first place in the box office?  I am voting yes.  The run of Suicide Squad, spending three weeks at number one, had less to do with its holding power than it did with the weaker offerings that come about at this time of year.  Going into week four of its release, it will come as an absolute shock to me if it is able to hold off an upstart horror film that should be able to take first place from it.


Don't Breathe

This is the second team up from producer Sam Raimi and director Fede Alvarez.  The two paired up originally with the 2013 remake, Evil Dead.  Alvarez was a first time feature film director, having worked on a number of shorts before hand.  While I was a bit of a fence sitter on the final product, Alvarez showed that he was extremely capable of using environment to set to the tone and the feel of a film, something that will play well into Don't Breathe, as it appears to spend almost all of its time without one house.

It was that attention to atmosphere, as well as cinematography, that helped win over the fans of horror as he used practical effects and led Evil Dead to an opening weekend of $25 million.  The movie topped out at $54 million domestically, so it didn't have the greatest legs.  But, long term projection is not what I am all about in these articles, so let's not worry about that.

Evil Dead had something going for it that Don't Breathe doesn't have, and that is a name brand with rabid followers.  I am not going to equate too much of Evil Dead's success to having a niche fan base, because we have seen in other films, like Edgar Wright's Cornetto trilogy, have hardcore fans that don't make a large impact on the box office.  We could also look at Warcraft from earlier this summer to see that fans don't mean financial success.

All of that is to say that I don't see a huge dip in box office openings between Evil Dead and Don't Breathe.  I think there will be a bit of a drop, and that Don't Breathe won't open to the same numbers, but it will come close.  It has had a solid marketing campaign, and it is holding up well on Twitter.  The critics are loving it, so it may just end up having better legs than the front loaded Evil Dead.

Prediction: $22 million


Mechanic: Resurrection

This movie is a difficult one to think about.  Firstly, it is because the first movie was not a hit.  It brought in a world wide tally of $62 million on a budget of $40 million.  Those are hardly numbers that make a property declarable as a winner.  Secondly, it's star, Jason Statham, is not a big numbers driver.  He does well in ensemble casts, but films where he is the principle cast member don't run very well.  This is his first starring role since 2013's Homefront, which opened to just under $7 million.  The opening weekend numbers are similar for other efforts such as Parker ($7 million opening weekend), and Safe ($7.8 million opening).

It is hard to believe that things have changed drastically for Statham and his ability to draw audiences.  This is a franchise that nobody was really asking for.  Movies about action and adventure have a difficult time drawing at this time of year.  Last year saw Hitman: Agent 47 open to $8 million, as well as No Escape opening to the same numbers a week later.

While the title of the film is 'resurrection,' I don't believe that it is apt for this film.  This one could easily be considered dead before it hits theatres.  The best chance it has at making any of its reported $40 million budget back will be in the international scene.

Prediction: $6 million

The Crash of Ben-Hur

Sword and sandal movies are not necessarily hits at the box office, but for some reason there was an attempt to bring a remake of Ben-Hur into theatres on a budget of $100 million.  While that does not seem like a lot of money for a blockbuster during the summer time, it is a number that far outweighed the interest of the movie, and was perhaps a mis-calculation of MGM and Paramount.  It is less of a hit by Paramount, who only put up twenty percent of the funding for the movie.

The budget is very similar to what Paramount put up in 2014 for Hercules, a movie starring Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, that brought in close to $250 million world wide.  If they had hopes that Ben-Hur would do similar numbers, they were vastly mistaken.  It lacked the sort of drawing star power that Hercules had, as well as aiming at a vastly different demographic, one that doesn't necessarily flood to theatres.

That demographic is the much sought after Christian market.  They were ripe for the plucking with Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, which made over $600 million on a budget of $30 million.  Ever since then, there have been attempts to harness the same sort of success, as studios have been trying to dole out biblical and faith based stories in hopes of seeing the green.

In 2014, there were a glut of films trying to break into that demographic.  We had big budget movies like Darren Aronofsky's Noah (which made $362 million world wide on a budget of $125), and fellow acclaimed director Ridley Scott's Exodus: Gods and Kings ($268 million on a $140 million budget).  The former was a success, although there was an intense battle between the film maker and the studios over the version that should be shown, as the executives were afraid that it would not penetrate the Christian market as hoped.  The director won, and the result was a film that fared well.

There were also a smattering of lower budget attempts that year.  The most profitable was God's Not Dead, which had a production budget of $2 million and made $62 million across the globe (the majority of that was from North America).  There was also Heaven is for Real.  It starred Greg Kennear and was directed by Randall Wallace.  It was able to barely break $100 million world wide on a budget of $12 million.  And, if I haven't mentioned enough already, there was the adaption of The Bible mini-series from the History Channel, which got repackaged into a horrible looking film called Son of God.  It made close to $60 million domestically on an unreported budget.

So, have any of these films that I mentioned seemed as though there was proof that a large budget film seeking the Christian audience would work?  Only one comes to mind, and that was Noah, the film made by a man considered by many to be an atheist, and a film that left a lot of the Christian audiences upset at liberties taken with the story, as imagery and symbolism were used to tell the spiritual aspects of the narrative.  Oddly enough, there wasn't the same kind of backlash from Exodus: Gods and Kings, which did everything it could to actually leave God out of the film.

Looking at the evidence from the box office, it is easy to understand that there is no such thing as the Golden Christian Egg, the movie that will get everyone out of their homes and into the theatres.  What happened with The Passion of the Christ was lightening in a bottle.  It tapped into culture, and those sorts of things, when re-attempted, can easily come off as forced.

The team behind Ben-Hur, most notably Mark Burnett and Roma Downey (the couple behind many faith based projects), were looking to bring a faith based element to the film in the hopes that it would get the audiences out.  They could have looked at the two previously mentioned blockbuster attempts to see that even with established and acclaimed directors and star studded casts it is hit or miss.  Ben-Hur had neither of those things, unless you consider the director of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter a recognizable and acclaimed name.

There was little happening for this movie that was going to make it stand out.  It had to rely on the merits of the original in its marketing.  The target demographic never even saw the faith based elements in the trailers.  Perhaps that was a big miss.  In the end, the movie ended up servicing a much older audience than was possibly intended (95% of the movie goers were over the age of 25), and disappointed on critical and financial levels.  It may come as a surprise to MGM and Paramount, but, from the lessons of history, it was actually very easy to predict.

PODCAST: The Breakdown of The Boy and David Bowie

With the recent passing of David Bowie, we felt that it would be a good idea to spend some time on the podcast and look at movies he was involved in.  Good idea.  We also decided to review the recently released 'horror,' The Doll.  Bad idea.

We are used to taking the good with the bad, and we sure do that this week.  Instead of taking the time to go to theatres and check out a movie about a stupid protagonist who falls in love with a haunted doll, we offer up three David Bowie movies that may be a better use of your time.

You can find the podcast here, or it can also be found on iTunes where you can subscribe to it.

The Academy Awards - A Celebration of Caucasian Excellence

The Oscar nominations came out last week, and, what is surprising but should no longer be surprising, is that it is a celebration of whites in Hollywood.  Among the acting categories, not a single person of colour was nominated.  As well, all of the best picture noms were dominated by white casts.

What the hell happened to diversity, I scream to myself.

In 2009 the number of best picture nominees was changed from five to a maximum of ten.  This was done to try and add some diversity to the types of films that would get the noms, allowing genre fare to get recognition when it normally wouldn't.  What is surprising is when you have this total white dominance in a year that there was only eight of a possible of a possible ten best picture nominations.  I have seen six of the eight, and I will say that they are most worthy of the honour.  But what about the two empty slots that could have been filled?

This is where I start to wonder.  Why is it that there were only eight chosen when there were so many other great films this year?  Why couldn't there be some recognition given to non-whites in those slots?

I am not talking about 'pity recognition,' I am talking about movies that truly are worthy of being in the running that didn't make it.  Three such movies come to mind without even having to think too hard.  I don't like thinking too hard, because then I need to take a break.

Straight Outta Compton was released in the late summer, and instantly entered the talk of being a possibility for film of the year.  I don't think there were many pundits who believed that it would win, but there was a great number who saw this as a serious contender for getting a nomination.  What could be the possible problem here?  It was about a music group called Niggaz With Attitudes.  This causal relation between the content and the lack of nomination is pure speculation on my part, but the Academy is almost 95% caucasian.

Now, I don't want to do anything other than speculate.  I saw the film, and it was a great biopic.  It did what it needed to do, and it hit the emotions it was trying to.  Was it the best movie of the year?  Hell no.  Was it better than some of the soapy water biopics that made the list last year?  It sure was.  If The Theory of Everything or The Imitation Game were good enough to to be considered a best picture contender, then there is no way that Straight Outta Compton, which was a lot riskier than those other two overly safe and by the numbers films were, shouldn't be worthy of the same consideration.  I'm sorry about the long sentence.  I am just in that kind of mood right now.

Another possible choice could have been Beasts of No Nation, a movie about child soldiers in Africa. It was a very difficult movie to watch, and there could be a few factors other than just race that kept it from the list.  First of all, the subject material (elevated by the skilled directing and excellent acting) is extremely hard to watch while you smile and eat popcorn.  It is a challenging film that robs the audience of innocence.  That kind of film may not be the top of the list for people to nominate, as they tend to be a little safer in the their picks at times.  Secondly, this was a feature film that was released day and date on Netflix.  It is a true sign of the future, but with 86% of the academy being over fifty, it may be a little too much a little too soon.  Non-traditional release platforms may need to be around for a while before they are recognized, at least in the feature film category.

And hey, in the acting categories as well.  Beasts of No Nation had two standout performances in it, neither of which not nominated.  Young Abraham Attah gave a breakthrough performance, carrying the weight of the film on his shoulders and competently delivering all of the various emotions that the audience was to feel.  No best actor nomination for him.  Idris Elba was a standout as The Commandant, being brutally nurturing and manipulative with the soldiers around him.  No best supporting actor for him.

And then there is Creed, easily one of the best motion pictures of the year.  Sylvester Stallone was nominated in the supporting actor category, but missing out was the lead performance of Micheal B. Jordan.  Heck, even with the amazing cinematography and the epic score, the nomination for Stallone was all this movie has for nominations.  I find it very difficult to understand how this movie isn't worth a best picture nomination.  It's not as though it would need to replace or bump another movie out of the list, because there are two open spots begging to be filled with something.

It is just sad that there is so little representation of minorities in Hollywood recognition.  The problem is amplified by the fact that the representation of talent in movies is mostly white.  There is some notable progress, but it is not enough.  The president of the academy, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, is an African American, but it doesn't seem to move the needle when it comes to what people want to hold up as worthy of recognition.

Boone Isaacs stated that, "in the coming days and weeks we will conduct a review of our membership recruitment in order to bring about much-needed diversity in our 2016 class and beyond."  I think that is a great step forward, but it brings up a reality that really irks me: Why cannot the current academy see past the lines of colour?

Having more diversity in the voters will have a beneficial outcome, but what is it in the human nature that means a bunch of older white men (over 75% of the academy is male) do not recognize diversity?

I don't think I will ever know for sure the answer to this.  It could be a number of things, but ruling out sub-conscious or conscious racism is not one of them.  Forty acting talents were nominated over the past two years, and all of them were white.  Eight movies were nominated, and all of them were with a predominantly white cast.  Was it really a stretch to keep the highest domestically grossing movie of all time, The Force Awakens, from filling one of those spots?  They put Avatar on the list back at the 82nd Academy Awards, and it had a lower Rotten Tomatoes rating than The Force Awakens.  Oh wait.  The lead actor in The Force Awakens is black.  I guess that answers my question.

PODCAST: The Breakdown of the Best of 2015

This should have been posted on Monday.  I wish there was a terrific excuse for my tardiness on this one, but it comes down to my current addiction with NBA 2K15.  I just couldn't stop playing.  And thus, a lot of stuff didn't get done.  I was still productive and I don't want to sound like an incredible louse, but it is just the sad reality of my life when my wife heads off for a few days.  There is no accountability for my time, and I make good use of that.

Anyways, back to the important topic.  The year of 2015 is all wrapped up and all of the year's films have come out to theatres.  Because I don't live in a big city there is a limit to the variety of films that can be screened, so some Oscar contenders like Room and Brooklyn haven't been seen.  However, I was lucky enough to catch some of the year's best.

This week on The Movie Breakdown, Chris and I each reveal our top ten favourite films of the year as well as some incredibly amazing honourable mentions that only slightly missed out on making the list.  You can find the podcast posted here, or it can also be found on iTunes.

PODCAST: The Breakdown of the Stinkers of 2015

The 'REJECT' sticker on Chappie's head says it all

Every year comes and goes, leaving many movies in the wake of memories.  Some are great moments that we will relive when the films are released for home consumption, and others are the movies that we dream of erasing from memory.  With The Movie Breakdown Podcast, we strive to see a wide variety of films that end up being loved and cherished.  However, on that path to discovery we also inevitably encounter what are known as the stinkers.

The stinkers are when choices go wrong, and a film ends up destroying us internally and robbing a little piece of our soul.  They are the movies that remind us of everything that can go wrong in films and end up being case studies for what movies need to not blow it.  They are also a colossal waste of time.  Time that we can never get back.  Time that we could have spent with loved ones.

What better way to celebrate a new year than to take some more time and reflect on those little beasties?  This week on The Movie Breakdown, Chris and I sit back with our coffees and talk about both of our top ten worst movies of the year.  Even when the coffee grows cold, it is still a better experience than some of the films we discuss.  To end on a positive note, we both mention our top ten most anticipated films for 2016.

You can find the podcast here.  As well, it is available on iTunes where you can download or subscribe to our weekly movie reviews.

PODCAST: The Breakdown of the Legacy of Star Wars

Well, well, well.  We are less than a week away from one of the most anticipated movies in the history of cinema.  It is more than just a re-visit to a franchise, but a cultural event that has dominated social media and found its way into the news cycle.  What am I talking about?  The Force Awakens, the latest in the Star Wars Saga.

After the lingering dismay of the prequels, it is difficult to think that there could be such a rebound for Star Wars as we are seeing right now.  People lining up for tickets to the premiere have to be in line for a minimum of twenty four hours for a single ticket, and another twenty four hours if they wish to purchase a second one.  Around the home of the Oscars, there is four blocks of streets inaccessible to traffic, with tents already set up for the big event.

On this episode of The Movie Breakdown, Christopher Spicer and I talk about the legacy of this franchise, from what it meant to us as children, to the evolution of film that it sparked, to creating the idea of movie merchandise.  Sure, we have seen some films in theatres lately, but reviewing them seemed a little secondary to taking the time to discuss just how much George Lucas' films have affected the cinematic landscape.

You can find the podcast here, or you can also get it on iTunes.  If you like the iTunes route, which I certainly do, make sure you subscribe to catch all of the latest episodes of The Movie Breakdown.  You can find it on iTunes here.

We hope you enjoy the conversation about Star Wars as much as we did.

P.S.  Han always shot first.