web
counter
 

Judd Apatow Wants A Best Comedy Oscar Category, Dreams Of Own "King Of The World" Speech

By Rob Payne | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (9)



pajibajuddapatowcomedyoscar.jpg

Recently, at a Bridesmaids Q&A sponsored by, apparently, the LA Times and Land Rover, comedy writer/director Judd Apatow revealed his secret desire to see a the annual Academy Awards ceremony feature a category for comedic films. Speaking as the voice of the current comedy generation, Apatow described how rarely it is for comedies to be recognized by the Academy with nominations, much less taking home real live Oscars. Maybe there’s still some residual shock from Shakespeare In Love’s victory over both Elizabeth and Saving Private Ryan, but nothing that could primarily be considered “a comedy” has won Best Picture, and even that movie fails to represent modern American comedies. Or, really, any American comedy since the late 1970s.

So, as with Best Animated Feature, Apatow thinks there ought to be a Best Comedic Feature (which would turn Best Picture into Best Dramatic Feature, I guess) to showcase and honor a given year’s… well, the year’s best comedies. You can watch the ubembeddable video here, but his basic argument is that a successful comedy is at least as hard to make, if not harder, than a successful drama. Actually, he flat out says his own movies would be exponentially easier to make if he didn’t have to worry about also making people laugh. Basically, that it’s an inherent misunderstanding of the art of comedy that they don’t get more routinely recognized.

And, really, Apatow is far from wrong. Comedy is hard, and most artists who have done both would probably attest to that. Being funny, much less consistently funny where enough people recommend you/your work because it made them laugh that you can make a respectable living off it is nearly impossible. It’s why there’s usually only a small stable of successful comedic actors, writers, and directors in any given 10-year period. Before the Internet, anyway. It’s why I wasn’t being too ironic by calling Apatow a the voice of a comedy generation, The 40-Year Old Virgin is absolutely award-worthy. One can argue that movies that contain comedic elements do frequently perform well at the Oscars, but movies that live or die on whether they make people laugh are practically never rewarded. If you care about movies at all, that should be of interest to you.

But Apatow is mistaken in believing there ought to be separate category. For one, there is no question about whether a movie is animated or live action to determine whether it should belong in the Best Animated or Best Picture categories — not counting Green Lantern, of course, but that would never be nominated, anyway — but what constitutes a “comedy” is less clear. Are upbeat movies like (as /Film points out) 500 Days Of Summer or Scott Pilgrim vs. The World comedies? According to Best Buy, yeah, probably, but they’re pretty far removed from Walk Hard or Wedding Crashers. And then there’s the Golden Globes’ Musical/Comedy/Misc. route that pits The Hangovers vs. the Alice In Wonderlands vs. the Burlesques, which is just fucking dumb. Finally, there’s the classic slippery slope argument of, Why stop at comedies? Why not a Best Horror Feature, or Best Fantasy, Best Children’s, Best Musical, Best Tyler Perry Movie, etc, etc.? The broadcast long enough as it is without honoring all the unique permutations that the Art of Film can take.

Really, it ought to come down to the Academy members themselves broadening their horizons. I’m not sure how that happens without broadening the ranks of the actual Academy, because right now the members the people who make movies that generally get nominated for Academy Awards. That tends to happen when you only allow those people to vote, and is probably why we even have an “awards season” between November and January for wide movie releases, where only the so-called “best” movies come out. So everyone with an Oscar-bait film has the same edge in terms of Academy member awareness, waiting until the last possible moment so as not to be forgotten.

The same isn’t true for any other artistic mediums. Sure, books, albums, and video games get released heavier around the same time of year when Oscar Contender lists are made, but that’s due to the surplus of shopping activity for the holidays. The awards ceremonies for those other industries are held throughout the year, whereas movie awards all happen at the same time. That isn’t to say if The Hangover 3 comes out in December instead of July that we would have a better chance to see a Zach Galifianakis acceptance speech, but if fellow comedians had a vote, he might.

Of course, opening up membership would dilute the Academy and make it less prestigious, which would make winning an Oscar that much less precious. And what’s the point of winning one if it’s not elitist? There was a small window of opportunity when they opened Best Picture up to ten nominees, to appease fans of The Dark Knight, basically, but that’s ending as of this year when it turned out that only five films were ever really in contention for either the 2009 or the 2010 campaigns. No, the only way for Judd Apatow to win an Oscar is for the Academy to take itself less seriously, which would mean taking comedy more seriously.

Actually, Apatow himself made this point much more subtly and (sort of) succinctly in the short he made for the 2009 ceremony. I’d much rather watch an awards show that featured the movies James Franco and Seth Rogen as their Pineapple Express characters watch than what usually gets nominated (okay, not The Love Guru):


Apatow-oscars-short-lowQ by ThePlaylist


Rob Payne also writes the indie comic The Unstoppable Force and tweets on the Twitter @RobOfWar. (He hopes you fight cancer here and fight poverty here.) He really does think Steve Carrell got robbed.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



"Boardwalk Empire" -- "Battle of the Century" | Funny Women Can't Be Hot? You Bet Sofia Vergara's Sweet *ss They Can.









Comments

Actually, he flat out says his own movies would be exponentially easier to make if he didn’t have to worry about also making people laugh.

He shouldn't worry so much, considering, you know ..

Posted by: duckandcover at November 22, 2011 11:34 AM

Comedies get nominated for Best Picture almost every year, especially with the 10-wide/5-10-wide field of modern Oscars. It's rare to see 5 dramas nominated. Now, whether or not Apatow considers a film like Juno or The Kids Are All Right comedies is a completely separate issue. Does he discriminate between animated comedies like Up and the kind of film he makes? What about cerebral/wordplay comedies like the kind of film a Woody Allen or an Alexandre Payne makes?

The problem isn't that the Academy Awards will not recognize comedies. The problem is that comedy films rarely get a big campaign push from studios because the self-perpetuating stereotype says the Academy Awards hate comedy. When a good comedy is given a strong campaign like the super-baity dramas, it normally scores a major nomination, like Screenplay or Actor/Actress or Picture. Bridesmaids will be a good test, as their Oscar campaign material pulls out all the stops to get nominations. We'll see how far that gets them.

Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2011 12:06 PM

Who's the smiling corpse with Apatow?

Posted by: , at November 22, 2011 1:17 PM

Slightly off topic. Other award have a Best Comedy/Musical category. I never did figure that one out. Why the hell do those genres have to be lumped together? It's not like musicals are exclusively comedies. It's like if there were a Best Drama/Science Fiction category. One does not need one to have the other. You want a Best Comedy and a Best Drama, fine. But from there a movie needs to decide which mask it needs to wear. None of this sub-genre nonsense.

As for Apatow, this is just another example of someone who feels he cannot win under the current conditions (although others have managed to do so under the same circumstances) so rather than trying to better his output, he's trying to tip the standards in his favor. What he doesn't seem to realize is that even if they went so far as to create a "Best Fart Humor" or "Best Stupid Movie" he'd still have a tsunami of competition. I think he'd be better off just stepping up his game.

Posted by: bleujayone at November 22, 2011 1:59 PM

Maybe Apatow should focus on making movies that do MORE than just make people laugh.

Posted by: Sara Tonin at November 22, 2011 2:09 PM

Tis article makes the assumption that Judd Apatow makes funny movies, but I believe this is debatable at best.

Posted by: TheOtherGreg at November 22, 2011 4:47 PM

I really wish I hadn't seen this as I really want one now!

Posted by: sklep z biżuterią at December 5, 2011 10:14 PM

I love your wordpress theme, where did you get a hold of it from?

Posted by: illinois lawyers at December 28, 2011 4:00 AM

Many thanks for the article, it was interesting and compelling. I discovered my way here through Google, I'll return one more time :)

Posted by: Vincent Carnero at January 6, 2012 12:50 PM