All About Oscar: The Case for TV Movies
Game Change Proves That It's The Oscars That Need to Change
By Tom Houseman
March 21, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
This year another famous actress, one who might be compared to Meryl Streep in terms of talent, versatility, and prestige, starred in a film based on a true story. She played one of the most famous and polemic political figures in the history of the United States. Her performance is being similarly praised by critics both for how accurate it is and how much emotion she brought to the part. And unlike The Iron Lady, this film is receiving rave reviews from everyone except the people it is about. But for some reason this actress is not in the conversation for any Academy Awards because the Academy refuses to allow the film she is starring in to be nominated for any Oscars.
Last night I got around to watching Game Change, based on the book of the same title about the 2008 presidential election. While the book focuses mostly on the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, the film shifts the focus away from the Democrats to the Republicans. It explores John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, a choice that his campaign advisor Steve Schmidt helped him make, and the ways in which Palin both helped and hindered McCain's prospects. I suspect the decision to make the film mostly about Palin was partially because she is such a fascinating and contentious figure, and partially to invoke schadenfreude in HBO's liberal viewers. Palin, McCain, and Schmidt are played by Julianne Moore, Ed Harris, and Woody Harrelson, all of whom have been nominated for multiple Oscars, but none of whom have won.
The film was extremely well received upon its airing on HBO, with much of the praise being directed towards Moore. Roger Ebert wrote that Moore “conveys the essence” of Palin, and Allessandra Stanley wrote in the New York Times that Moore “plays the candidate with surprising finesse. This is a sharp-edged but not unsympathetic portrait of a flawed heroine, colored more in pity than in admiration.” I could cut and paste more than a dozen other superlatives heaped on Moore (the film has a 74 on Metacritic) but you get the point, and if you've seen the film, I'm sure you agree. Moore gives quite possibly the performance of her career, at least on par with her Oscar nominated roles in Far from Heaven and Boogie Nights. I told a friend that I knew she was great because for the first time ever I actually felt bad for Sarah Palin.
The Oscars debuted almost 20 years before network television existed, which meant that for almost two decades the only movies made were the ones shown in theaters. Once TV established itself as a medium it was viewed as a competitor of the film studios. It's not surprising that the Academy did not choose to allow their awards to go to television movies that were stealing their business. Today the rule for eligibility clearly states that “films that, in any version, receive their first public exhibition or distribution in any manner other than as a theatrical motion picture release will not be eligible for Academy Awards in any category.”
But I think it is safe to say that film and television have made peace with each other and the film industry has learned to deal with no longer being the dominant form of entertainment in America. In addition, with the rise of premium cable channels the budgets and qualities of made-for-TV movies has increased dramatically. HBO in particular has premiered several great films, winning the Emmy for Outstanding Made for Television Movie nine times since 2001. But why does it matter that these movies are made for television? They are still movies, and if you are giving out an award for the best movie of the year there is no reason to ignore a movie just because it plays on television rather than in a movie theater.
So why do movies have to be released in theaters in order to qualify for the Oscars? Is there any valid argument that anyone can come up with? Other than “that's the way it's always been,” I mean. HBO Films, the same company that produced Game Change, also distributed American Splendor. But that film was released in theaters, rather than only being shown on television, so it was eligible for the Oscars, and was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay. Last year, Cinema Verite, directed by the same duo and produced by the same company, was not allowed to compete for the Oscars. Does that make sense?
I understand why films have to be shown in the United States to be eligible for the Oscars. There are so many films released internationally that Academy voters would have no access to that it does not make any sense that have those films in the competition. But that rule is in place to ensure that voters are able to see any movie that could be eligible. Is it safe to assume that most members of the Academy have HBO, or at least have a friend who has HBO? I also do not think that TV series or miniseries should be eligible for Best Picture. Those are very different formats that require very different storytelling structures than movies, and should be judged with different standards.
I am sure that next year Julianne Moore and Game Change will clean up at the Emmys and the Golden Globes. And she will never get to compete with Keira Knightley in Anna Karenina or Carey Mulligan in The Great Gatsby or Viola Davis in Won't Back Down or whoever ends up being nominated for Best Actress. And that is a shame, because I can't imagine any conversation about the best performances of the year that does not include Moore. And when I fill out my ballot for the Calvin's next year it is extremely likely that Game Change, Julianne Moore, and Ed Harris will show up. Hopefully my fellow BOP writers will join me and not make the mistake that the Academy does every year. While I think that the world would be better if everybody ignored Sarah Palin, the opposite is true of Game Change.