Oscars for stuntmen

February 16, 2005 9:49 PM

Do Hollywood stuntmen deserve their own Oscar category? Judge for yourself [qt]. Major stunt organizations have now joined forces to lobby the Academy to finally create an award for Best Stunt Coordinator. Does athleticism, courage and sheer gung-ho physicality deserve the same kind of recognition given to other Oscar categories? Only once has the Academy officially recognized a stuntman, with an Honorary Oscar for pioneering stunt coordinator Yakima Canutt in 1967.
posted by mediareport (23 comments total)

If the sound guys can get their own little gold man, stuntmen--who even appear on the screen! as well as risk their necks--most certainly do as well.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:57 PM on February 16, 2005

Of course, I can see a slippery slope argument coming along about Oscars for Best Gaffer and Best Best Boy.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:58 PM on February 16, 2005

I don't see why they wouldn't be deserving of some sort of recognition.

Especially considering the number of modern movies that simply could not be created without stuntmen.
posted by Ynoxas at 10:04 PM on February 16, 2005

Anything to get Manny Perry to shut up!
posted by Robot Johnny at 10:17 PM on February 16, 2005

Actually with all the technical and "lesser" awards we don't see on the big telecast, I'm surprised there isn't an Oscar for stunts...
posted by Robot Johnny at 10:18 PM on February 16, 2005

Considering all of the money that stuntmen make the film industry and the fact that several film genres wouldn't get made without them, Oscars are needed for best stuntman and best stunt coordination. Civil_Disobedient, the difference between stuntmen and best boys is that Robert Rodriguez, among others, proves you don't need a best boy to make an action film.
posted by Leege at 10:47 PM on February 16, 2005

Yeah, seems like an odd oversight, how did these folks get left out in the first place?

Wild unfounded speculation: originally stunt people labored in anonymity because the studios wanted to maintain the illusion their stars were doing it all themselves. Remember Buster Keaton? Did all his own stuff. Later actors didn't and didn't want their shadows to upstage them?
posted by scheptech at 10:47 PM on February 16, 2005

Are stuntmen members of the Actor's Guild? Or are they shut out because they generally don't get speaking roles?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:53 PM on February 16, 2005

I don't see why stuntmen shouldn't get some recognition as well. The only counter argument is that they aren't really acting but neither is the orchestra leader.

Besides, the clips would make the show a helluva lot more interesting.
posted by fenriq at 11:08 PM on February 16, 2005

Well, let's first differentiate between Stuntmen and Stunt Coordinators. Hell, do I need to elaborate on that point? The title alone implies the difference.

So, the idea that Stunt Coordinators wouldn't get an oscar, to my mind, is boggling. It's practically an art. I, at least, have a good deal more respect for it than Coreography.

I suspect that the reason for Stunt MEN not getting oscars thus far is something along the lines of them not being performers, as such, or creators (compared to Stunt Coordinators, at least) so much as they just take the bullet safely, or get thrown off the building safely.

Now, I don't agree with that point of view, but I'd guess that that's how the academy saw things for the most part. I could be wrong, though.
posted by shmegegge at 11:30 PM on February 16, 2005

Stuntmen do have various awards of their own, but I definitely see why they deserve to be included in the Oscars since the movies couldn't be made without them. If they can give awards for sound, the stunt performances are equally as deserving.

What stuntmen REALLY need though, is the most kick ass health & retirement plan on the earth. Nothing sadder than listening in to a group of aging former stuntmen stumble out of a Toluca Lake bar bitching about their knee & back injuries... they really go through physical Hell for their career.
posted by miss lynnster at 11:34 PM on February 16, 2005

There already is an awards show for stunt men : The Taurus World Stunt Awards (although it seems to be more a marketing event for Red Bull).
posted by PenDevil at 12:05 AM on February 17, 2005

I don't know about you guys, but the best stuntman performance I've seen in a long time was in that MPAA commercial. We're stealing his livelyhood guys! It makes me tear up, every time.
posted by graventy at 3:08 AM on February 17, 2005

If stuntmen had their own branch of the academy, then they would be able to vote for all the Oscar nominees (and make nominations for Best Picture) like everyone else; perhaps the rest of the Academy is worried that the result would be a resulting tilt toward action films and movie stars in action films. It's true enough that some branches of the Academy can have an influence on voting: The fact the actor's branch is the largest, for example, probably explains why actors-turned-directors have an unusually easy time winning a "Best Director" Oscar (unless some of you truly believe that, say, Kevin Costner actually deserved the Oscar for direction over Marty Scorsese when the latter was nominated for "Goodfellas" and the former for "Dancing With Wolves").

Be that as it may, I'd support an Oscar for Best Stunt Coordination.
posted by jscalzi at 4:32 AM on February 17, 2005

I'm for them being recognized, I suppose. Although it seems like it might be too late -- I would imagine more and more of the real dangerous stunts are being/will be done by computer generated characters (Legolas' mumakil riding in ROTK, for example).
posted by papercake at 5:53 AM on February 17, 2005

My Ben Jensen autographed football would be worth a lot more, so yeah, I'd go for it.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 6:47 AM on February 17, 2005

perhaps the rest of the Academy is worried that the result would be a resulting tilt toward action films and movie stars in action films

Interesting point, but the nominees for best director are chosen by directors, best actor by actors, best art director by art directors, etc. Hard to see how a pro-action bias from an influx of stunt workers could have much of an effect on nominees. And it's not like the Academy would invite a ton of them into its ranks at once; last year, only 127 folks in various branches were invited to join:

The invitees were chosen from an initial 348 submissions. Although the membership procedures instituted this year allow AMPAS to grow by a maximum of 30 new members annually, the Academy's voting membership actually will remain at about 5,880 members (depending on whether all of the invitees accept their invitations), the same size as last year.

[graventy, that performance was by Manny Perry.]
posted by mediareport at 7:15 AM on February 17, 2005

I got nothing against giving stuntpeople recognition and all, but there is a quantum difference between what they do and what everybody else I can think of (opening for someone else to school me) who gets an Oscar: What's awarded is something that can be experienced by the viewer as part of the film. While sound engineers may be better at judging Best Sound than, say, graphics people, they can still sit there and watch - and listen to - the movie and guage how well it enhances the experience. Stunt work is something that is meant not to be noticed by the viewer - indeed, if it's done well, it creates the impression that it wasn't done at all. If a stunt stands out and makes you say, hey, what a stunt, it's bad stuntwork (or bad stunt coordination), no?
posted by soyjoy at 7:20 AM on February 17, 2005

I only support it if they give their acceptance speech while on fire - completely eliminating the need for an orchestral cue.

I also agree with soyjoy. Maybe I'm just unclear on the criteria for judging, but it seems that a successful stunt is a combination of good directing, makeup, editing, stunt coordinating, and performance. I don't know how you could single out the latter two for special recognition, especially with the use of computer effects to enhance stunts.
posted by bibliowench at 7:37 AM on February 17, 2005

bibliowench: Check out the article I linked previously.
posted by PenDevil at 7:55 AM on February 17, 2005

To get anywhere near the problem (and the post is excellent), there's a number of layers of discussion involved.

First of all, the Oscars are pretty darned flawed, like a lot of awards shows. Getting recognized means that you move in the right circles, or get the right eyes, and so on. So that's a layer of foolishness right there. I would be inclined to say that recognition within the stunt industry is more important than an Oscar award, but on the other hand, few awards shows are broadcast worldwide to such a large audience. It's a tempting and interesting treat to stand in front of the world recognized for your work.

Second, the issue cited by shmeggege, of stunt coordinators/designers vs. specific stuntmen, but this actually belies a lot of the problems with finding praise in moviemaking; so much of it is intensely collaborative. When a car chases another car down a city street and smashes into something, it's just such a massive piece of work to pull it all off, it's hard to define one person as the one praiseworthy. The guy in the car? The guys who built the car to be safe for the guy in him? The people who ensured nobody would be hit by this car? The guy who wrote the story that mentioned (or didn't mention) the flipping car? The director who said we should flip a car?

The car? :)

Finally, the issue of computers comes into play. Very simply, the job is being subverted to the point that the computers can give a significant percentage of the experience with none of the human costs or costly setup. This number is going to rise, too. I especially question, in that Matrix sequence that goes through the cited film in the posting, how many of those cars exist, and how much of it is computer generated. It is, basically, very hard to tell and it will only get harder. While I have heard an occasional mewing regarding keeping it "real" (there was a citation a little while back than an Indiana Jones IV would only use 'real' stuntment), I don't see how anyone is going to look back, once we move to where you purchase your stuntmen out of a catalog.

I will definitely say that the experience of "knowing" there's a guy involved, is a very important thing. It's more exciting for me to see that than anything else.

I used to see student films at Emerson College when I attended (back in 1988-1992) and I remember seeing one, a dumb story, where a guy is chased by an evil mechanic or something. But we're watching this movie, and I mean, a relatively crappily-shot Super 8 film, when the main character takes off in a pickup truck, and the mechanic clings on. And you realize, this is an actual guy clinging on a moving pickup truck. They do the classic shot of the guy's hands coming over the windshield from above, and the main character hits the mechanic, who bounces off the bed of the pickup truck, and onto the ground. I still remember, 15 years later, the reaction of the audience, watching a guy put himself completely, insanely, horribly at risk for a student horror film.

It can go either way. The art will vanish forever, or it will be turned into a specialty and the luxury of the biggest budgets.
posted by jscott at 11:05 AM on February 17, 2005

I only support it if they give their acceptance speech while on fire

and the award is given out by Lee Majors.
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 2:59 PM on February 17, 2005

Why the hell not?

And stuntmen may not be actors the way Shaquille O'Neill is an actor, but it seems like they're not just "taking a bullet safely"--they've gotta take it safely and look like they're the character that's taking it. So when they're diving out of a plane they can't crouch up into a little ball and piss their pants--points for ballsiness, if not acting skills as well.
posted by Anonymous at 6:50 PM on February 17, 2005