Oscars 2014 Analysis: Why 'Inside Llewyn Davis' Was Snubbed by the Academy Awards

When the Oscar nominations were announced early Thursday morning, one film was left completely out of the race to the confusion of nearly every pundit.

The Coen Brothers' "Inside Llewyn Davis" was one of the most beloved films of 2013 and garnered a terrific critical reception. As of Thursday evening, the film holds a 94 percent aggregate critical approval on Rotten Tomatoes with the overall consensus stating, "Smart, funny, and profoundly melancholy, Inside Llewyn Davis finds the Coen brothers in fine form." Moreover, the film won the Grand Prix and the film was even a contender for the top prize known as the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. And yet it only garnered a quiet two nominations. None for screenplay, director, actor or picture.

So why was it left out of the biggest categories?

It's a glaring omission, an anomaly of troubling proportions. The Coens are Academy favorites and have consistently landed Best Picture nominations film after film. Their 2007 hit "No Country for Old Men" was the winner for the best picture award. To call them Academy darlings prior to this massive snub would have been an understatement. "Llewyn Davis" is easily one of the crowing achievements in the Coens' expansive careers and undoubtedly one of the best—if not the best—films of 2013.

So why was it left out? Some would argue that the subject matter was simply too dark.

The film is about a failure seemingly trying to get his career back on track after the death of his partner. Closer inspection reveals that the film is about a failure who refuses to stop failing. Llewyn Davis is a complete screw-up who not only fails to right his wrongs, but consistently trespasses the trust of others. He's a parasite. He sleeps with his friend Jim's girlfriend Jean despite the fact that Jim is always looking out for him. When Jean reveals that she is pregnant, he does not consider raising the child. Instead, he immediately opts for an abortion. Jim offers him a gig playing one of Jim's compositions; Llewyn mocks the song and even opts out of the chance of winning royalties because he thinks the music will not catch on. It eventually becomes a massive hit. Llewyn curses in front of his nephew instead of setting an example. During a dinner scene with the Gorfeins (who allow him to sleep on their coach numerous times in the film), he shouts at Ms. Gorfein for singing along with him. He has a chance to try and find his long-lost son in Akron, but refuses to take the chance; that could have given him a chance at redemption, but Davis, as usual, opts for failure.

As the film comes to an end, Davis finds himself in the same exact moment that he found himself at the start of the film. The boulder has fallen back down the mountain and Sisyphus must walk down to the bottom and start rolling it back up. 

Obviously the film is dark, a quality the Academy has not always been particularly pleased with. The Academy is known for being conservative and generally looking for films with "silver linings." In fact, many of the last few winners, including "Argo," "The Artist" and "Slumdog Millionaire," have happy endings.

But this can't be right. Especially when other Coen Brothers films are put into the context.

"No Country for Old Men" is as dark a film as they come; it starts with a montage of an arid landscape and ends with a major character who would rather let evil continue plaguing the world than continuing to risk his own life in old age. In essence, the film emphasized the powerlessness of humanity in old age to alter evil and destruction in the world; this in itself is a damning portrayal of the legacy that one generation can leave to another. The film won the Best Picture.

The Coens' "A Serious Man," which could be seen as a companion piece to "Llewyn Davis" for its structure, is also a depiction of the absurdity of human existence. The film is almost toying with the viewer with its constant questions about meaning. Does the film mean anything? Is there any point to searching for meaning? The philosophical toying is complex and could be off-putting for those who enjoy a central message in their film viewing, as most of the Academy does. And yet this also garnered a best picture nomination.

So dark material does not seem to be the answer here either, especially considering the Coens. So why didn't the Coens get a better reception from the Academy?

Art is not the answer here. Business is. Everyone seems to forget that the Academy is a massive marketing machine. The winners are those who know to not only put out the material, but also make sure the voters see it. Just ask Harvey Weinstein, who has a knack for turning some mediocre films into Oscar gold (see: "The Reader").

"Inside Llewyn Davis" was distributed by CBS Films, which is rather new and has no experience in marketing for the awards. The company made a massive two-page ad for the film and even used part of a tweet from NY Times writer A.O Scott that wound up causing some controversy. A rookie mistake that alone could have hurt the film's publicity more than help. The other Coen brothers' films, such as "No Country for Old Men" and "A Serious Man," were distributed by people who knew the Oscar game very well. Miramax, which was owned by Weinsteins, was involved in "No Country's" victory while Focus Features, also seasoned in the awards race, was in charge of "A Serious Man."

So does this mean that marketing was the main reason behind the snub? There is nothing to truly prove this as the Academy does not make the voting process public and does not inform the public about who watched which films. However, the past evidence and current circumstance are both pretty damning of the organization. One would have to question whether artistic merit is the essence of the Oscar race or if strong political campaigning is really the key to striking it rich with the Academy.

Do you think artistic merit or politicking was the reason behind "Inside Llewyn Davis'" massive snub?