Why Roger Corman Doesn't Deserve an Oscar
Filed under: Awards, Oscar Watch

[Note: Scott Weinberg has the pro side of this argument -- why Roger Corman does deserve an Oscar -- in an article that you can read right here.]
In a post yesterday about the honorary Academy Awards given out over the weekend, I said this about one of the recipients, Roger Corman: "Corman, who has directed more than 50 films and produced nearly 400 (!), has never been nominated for an Oscar, probably because all of his movies are terrible. But apparently the Academy is rewarding quantity now, too. So don't give up, Uwe Boll! Just make another 300 movies!" These remarks were met with much disapproval by many readers, and so I would like to elaborate -- assuming any of the people who swore they'd never read Cinematical again are in fact still reading Cinematical (which they are).
First, a correction. I shouldn't have said "all of his movies are terrible." I should have said something like "his movies are generally terrible." "All" suggests that I've seen all 400 of them, which of course I haven't. I ought to have used more general language. That was my bad, as the kids say.
I stand by the point I was making, though. If the Academy is giving out Oscars based on the production of quality work -- which, last time I checked, was the basic idea behind the Oscars -- then Roger Corman does not qualify. The vast majority of his output is mediocre at best. Some of it is downright awful. A few films are good enough on their own, but not to where any of them would deserve Oscars individually. Even as a body, those moderately good Corman movies don't outweigh the dozens -- literally dozens and DOZENS -- of cheap, forgettable clunkers.
Producing a huge quantity of work whose overall entertainment or artistic value averages out to be somewhere between "mediocre" and "mediocre-plus" isn't worthy of Academy Award consideration. That's neat and everything, producing 400 movies over the course of 50 years. Very ambitious of you! But the Academy should be rewarding quality, not quantity.
Corman -- who by most accounts is a nice fellow and a terrific boss to work for -- never tried to make great films. He wanted to make cheap, profitable films, and to crank them out in a couple weeks. He's been extraordinarily successful at it, and there's definitely a place for that kind of product in moviedom. But again, that doesn't mesh with the philosophy of the Academy Awards, which is to reward artistic excellence. How can you give an Oscar to someone who isn't even STRIVING for that, let alone achieving it?
So rewarding Corman for his actual body of work -- the actual quality of the movies he's directed or produced -- is ludicrous to me. He's not the worst filmmaker of all time (my Uwe Boll comparison might have been an exaggeration), but there are plenty of more talented filmmakers who haven't won Oscars. Your opinion on the quality of Corman's work might differ; that's mine.
But there is a more compelling argument in Corman's favor, so let's talk about that. Many people hold that Corman is worthy of recognition because so many huge Hollywood talents got their start acting, writing, or directing for him. Corman was something of a one-man film school, providing the first big break for Martin Scorsese, Peter Bogdanovich, Jonathan Demme, James Cameron, Jack Nicholson, Francis Ford Coppola, Ron Howard, Robert De Niro, Sylvester Stallone, Joe Dante, and dozens more. It's a huge list of people whose first significant Hollywood jobs were in Corman's quick-and-sloppy movie poop factory.
I can respect that, honestly. Entertainment Weekly ran a feature last week with anecdotes from a bunch of the people who owe their careers to Corman, and it was fun to read. There's some great Hollywood history in there. So give those people the Oscars for the good movies they eventually made. Giving Corman an Oscar for helping them learn the ropes is like giving a high school teacher an award because his students went on to graduate from the top of their college classes. Corman's award is indirect: He taught some people who made mediocre films under him but who subsequently made great ones. To me, that's a weak reason to give someone an Oscar.
The film programs at USC, Columbia, and other universities have churned out many great directors, actors, and screenwriters. Do those schools deserve Oscars? Saturday Night Live producer gave early career boosts to Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, John Belushi, Robert Downey Jr., Steve Martin, Will Ferrell, Tina Fey, Phil Hartman, Eddie Murphy, Mike Myers, Adam Sandler, and Martin Short. Their combined impact on movies has been tremendous. Does Lorne Michaels deserve an Oscar?
Finally, consider this. Roger Corman now has an Oscar. Here is a list of people who do not:
Steve McQueen
Judy Garland*
Stanley Kubrick**
Marilyn Monroe
Jeff Bridges
Sigourney Weaver
Ed Harris
Richard Burton
Gary Oldman
Christopher Plummer
Jeff Goldblum
Steve Martin
Kevin Bacon
Peter Lorre
Paul Schrader
Sergio Leone
Catherine Deneuve
Spike Lee
Francois Truffaut
Peter Sellers
Tony Curtis
Sam Peckinpah
John Cassavetes
David Lynch
... and, up until 2007, Martin Scorsese, one of Corman's own proteges.
[Correction: Grant and Astaire received honorary awards, like Corman.]
*Garland got a special "juvenile award" for The Wizard of Oz.
**OK, Kubrick won an Oscar for the special effects in 2001: A Space Odyssey, but that's it.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
11-18-2009 @ 9:25AM
James said...
While I do love this blog, i disagree with this specific post. I think Corman is as deserving of an oscar as anyone on that list (especially Kevin Bacon). I may not be as qualified to judge as the writer of this post but as an independent film producer, it's not as if I'm a nobody. If there is anyone else out there interested in making independent films, I found this great article that could help out a lot. Thought I'd share in case it helped anyone out. /www.life123.com/arts-culture/cinema/family-movies/how-to-write-a-0-budget-script.shtml
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 9:32AM
Noel Murray said...
Cary Grant received an honorary Oscar (much like Corman's) in 1970.
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 3:31PM
Frank Lucchese-Soto said...
Thats wrong Francois Truffaut won an Oscar for Best Foreign Film in 1973 for Day for Night
Reply
11-21-2009 @ 10:36AM
Danny said...
I thouht Jeff Bridges won an Oscar for Best Supporting actor for Thunderbolt And Lightfoot.
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 3:11PM
Davey said...
Here's that list whittled down to those who are living:
Steve McQueen (assuming you're talking about the director of "Hunger," which I don't think you are)
Jeff Bridges
Sigourney Weaver
Ed Harris
Richard Burton
Gary Oldman
Christopher Plummer
Jeff Goldblum
Steve Martin
Kevin Bacon
Paul Schrader
Catherine Deneuve
Spike Lee
Tony Curtis
David Lynch
Out of that list, who really deserves a lifetime achievement award? Plummer, Curtis, and Deneuve are probably the only ones who could qualify for "lifetime" status, and I'd say Corman deserves it as much as any of them. He made some genuinely great films, in my book, (his Poe films, X, etc.), he gave literally dozens of the greatest directors and actors ever their first jobs, and he radically revolutionized low-budget filmmaking--he was one of a few significant pioneers in film history, paving the way for independent film and lots of great work in addition to his own body of work.
I think the argument you make with film schools and SNL is interesting and valid to a point, but there are a couple considerations that may or may not invalidate it, depending on your point of view:
1. Actually giving someone money to make a film is different than paying tuition to learn how to make one.
2. Roger Corman discovered Scorsese, Coppola, De Niro, and Nicholson, among others. SNL discovered... Dan Aykroyd? John Belushi? Gilda Radner? OK, Bill Murray really is genuinely great.
3. Corman is an individual, rather than an institution.
Reply
11-26-2009 @ 5:00PM
proby said...
Correction: Richard Burton is not living.
11-18-2009 @ 10:52AM
LRS62 said...
After reading this post, I can only gather two thoughts: 1) You know very little about movies and how they are made and 2) know even less about what Roger Corman did for the industry as a whole.
Truly pathetic.
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 11:04AM
Austin said...
Everyone knows the honorary Oscars don't count as Oscars.
Reply
11-22-2009 @ 11:10AM
Aaron said...
But take a look at all the Oscar winners who didn't deserve to win. Probably trumps that list.
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 11:13AM
Pudge said...
He deserves an Oscar for the MST3K episodes he made possible. He is an amazing hack. And also considering that two other more deserving people got the award as well, it's no big deal that he got one too.
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 11:17AM
Matt said...
Looking over his films I can't see many I've even heard of, and any that are great films. That said, this is like taking away a baby's passiphire just to make yourself feel better. If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all, and let the man enjoy the award that he was given, which The Academy decided he deserved whether you agree or not.
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 12:56PM
Jonathan Kuhn said...
"Passiphire"
That has to be the greatest misspelling of a word I've ever seen. Congratulations.
11-18-2009 @ 11:20AM
David Cornelius said...
While I do have trouble with an Oscar going to anyone responsible for "Creature from the Haunted Sea," I'm sure Scott will school you on Corman's most awesome efforts, like "X: The Man with X-Ray Eyes," "The Intruder," "A Bucket of Blood," and pretty much his entire Poe series, especially "The Pit and the Pendulum." Each one is good enough to apologize for fifteen "Attack of the Crab Monster"s. Go see them! Now! Run!
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 11:23AM
bmchargue said...
Does Corman deserve an Oscar? Well, that's subjective. The man has had an impressive career and has influenced the careers of many other Oscar winners. Of course, his film haven't been Oscar caliber, and I applaud Snider for pointing this fact out.
I'm in the camp that feels an honorary Oscar for his achievements and contributions to film is well deserved. He's not winning anything for a specific film, but for an overall body of work and its impact on the film industry.
But kudos to Snider for speaking his mind and not being afraid to back down when foul-mouthed commenters start coming out of the woodwork decrying his obvious opinion.
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 11:28AM
pjowens75 said...
This is what the Academy website says: "Honorary Award to Roger Corman for his rich engendering of films and filmmakers."
His Oscar was, first of all, Honorary, the same as several people on your list who have never received Oscars. Secondly, it is not for the quality of his films, but for the influence he had on films and filmmakers. And based on interviews with almost everyone alive on your list, he was a MAJOR influence on them.
If you're going to write about movies, at least do your friggin homework.
Reply
11-24-2009 @ 10:38AM
mke_p said...
Wow. It's been awhile since I've read such an ill-informed opinion on...well...anything. Are you kidding? You wrote all that with a straight face?
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 12:02PM
Slappy said...
Oh I'll still read Cinematical. There are a number of intelligent writers on here. You just aren't one of them, clearly.
The honorary Oscar is for lifetime achievement, not necessarily for the quality of individual films (which he has a number of, but you did own up to not watching all 400 as you stated yesterday, so I must give you credit for that.) If the quality of individual films merited Oscars, they would have won them in their respective years. The honorary Oscar serves the purpose of awarding people that have contributed greatly in the course of their careers in our business, but weren't necessarily recognized for particular films in specific years, and also to acknowledge contributions that don't necessarily get acknowledged within the annual slate of awards. Not everyone makes films that are traditionally thought of as Oscar films, but that does not necessarily measure their worth in the greater picture. The honorary Oscar isn't even necessarily always for lifetime achievement. Sometimes they simply attribute it to one particular contribution an artist has made if they feel it is significant enough.
Corman is being rewarded for precisely that, his worth in the greater picture. Your lens which you're viewing this acknowledgment through is flawed, and comes from your ignorance of what the award actually is. As pjowen said above, do your homework before you open your mouth.
"Honorary Award to Roger Corman for his rich engendering of films and filmmakers." Nobody can argue with that. If you do, you're, well, maybe you enjoy only films from before 1950? Please correct me if that is in fact the case. If it is, then my argument is moot and I concede. You have every reason to disagree with his contributions to the industry if you only enjoy films from before 1950. If it's the case that you enjoy films post-Corman, I'm afraid you owe him an apology.
Speaking of homework, http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/about/awards/honorary.html
Go read what the actual award IS! As stated before! You wrote your opinion based upon a FALSE notion of what the award actually is. Therefore, you are simply WRONG, sir. So again, proclaiming your ignorance was not meant as a schoolyard insult as you seem to think it was...it's simply a statement of fact...that you approached this piece from a place of ignorance as to what an honorary Oscar is.
In the words of Willy Wonka, "you lose. Good day, sir."
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 12:04PM
Herb said...
Ah, but maybe the Oscar was for his influence (which is well-documented) not his movies. This is out of order how exactly?
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 3:12PM
Adam said...
The Oscars are simply a marketing tool for the machine. Sure, sometimes great movies win Oscars but the industry relies on Oscar wins to bring in more even more money. It's a big parade/circle jerk. The Oscars are like one giant pitch for all the studios in business.
Secondly, It worries me to read stories like this. Did these writers go to school? Do they understand what they're criticizing? Do they grasp the basics? If this is a sample of what it takes to write for Cinematical then allow me to submit some of my work.
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 4:40PM
G_Money said...
"Honorary Awards are given for lifetime achievements, exceptional contributions to motion picture arts and sciences, and outstanding service to the Academy."
They've given honorary Oscars to The Eastman Kodak company, the National Film Board of Canada, the NEA, to a guy who made a documentary about the Marines, film company executives and the like. It's HONORARY. Like giving an honorary doctorate to a guy who would have been kicked out of the school awarding it if he'd tried to earn the thing legitimately.
Roger Corman helped change cinema, both in the way cheap films could be shot and the way young talent could be nurtured outside the major studio system. He helped start a wave of independence in films that continues to bear fruit to this day. And before he croaks some people thought he should be acknowledged for it.
It seems like sour grapes to say "hey, congrats on your 400 films and your multiple academy-award-winning proteges, and on bucking the system long enough to inspire others to do the same and helping to give breath to the film experience we have today, but your films are kinda mediocre-to-awful and I don't think you deserve the honor of your award as an artist."
There are plenty of people who were not the best at their art but changed an art form with their efforts. It's not a mutually exclusive proposition. Whatever you think of Corman as an artist, he's not getting the award for his art. He's getting it because the ripples of his entry into film-making are still felt today. And to go back to your post, yes, Lorne Michaels may one day get an honorary Oscar, and at that time he'll probably deserve it too.
You can rail about the injustice of it by hologram while ignoring the movies on your shelf that are there because of him.
~G
Reply