Something that I couldn’t help but to notice as I researched each film we watched this semester was that many of them were nodded at and awarded by the Academy. On the other side, many of them didn’t receive any attention at all. Since most of the films are relatively similar and share the same inevitable result, my question is this: What makes an apocalyptic film successful?
Probably the most decorated film of our class lineup is Mad Max. It was awarded over 5 Academy Awards and nominated for 10 in total. Then you have Snowpiercer, which received no Oscar buzz or recognition. I’m torn because I do realize that technically the former was a better made film, but to me, the latter was as equally as compelling and effective. Both stories did an excellent job of isolating the worlds of their films and making them like no other, all the while still making these worlds interesting. I can’t help but to feel that had Snowpiercer been stacked with as many big name actors as Mad Max, the situation would be different.
When it comes down to sheer substance of the scripts, I believe both films to be perfect examples of great material also executed well. Perhaps the Academy prefers films with bigger budgets and more special effects like those used in Mad Max. Snowpiercer was done exceptionally well too, but didn’t get as much as a single tech-based nomination. I know that at the end of the day film critics have different opinions and that some films are better promoted, but I still feel as though sheer quality of a film should trump popularity when it comes to decorating these types of films.
I suppose I realize after typing this all out that nominations are more politically and biased-based. In the meantime, I’ll still be clutching my copy of Snowpiercer and sobbing silently into the night…
If you could award Snowpiercer an Oscar nomination, which category would you choose to recognize?