New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

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.

Continued:       1       2