The long-awaited Oscar nominations came out Tuesday morning, kicking awards season drama into full gear. The Academy Awards, televised in more than 100 countries, is the oldest and arguably most prestigious entertainment awards ceremony in the world – but is it worth the hype?
If one thing’s for sure, it’s that we should pay less attention to who wins. The idea behind the Best Picture category is fundamentally flawed. This year, nine films are competing for the universally regarded honor, but evaluating the sum of each film’s components is like comparing apples and oranges.
Can a comedic homage to a silent film like “The Artist” really be pitted against a family drama like “The Descendants” or a dark indie like “Tree of Life”? If the Oscars intends to treat each film as a visual art form, shouldn’t each nominee be judged as a unique subjective experience as we do with fine art?
Moreover, in terms of the technical categories, the Oscar tends to go to the film with the “most” sound editing, art direction, etc., rather than the film with the best use of technique.
A great deal of critique has also been levied against the way the Academy chooses nominees and winners. The 6,000 people who make up the Academy voting bloc are predominantly the older, white, male, liberal Hollywood pundits, which is hardly a representative sample. Films that appeal to youth and racial minorities are more likely to get the shaft. Cross-cultural subjectivity also appears to play a role. “Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy” and “Drive” received a great deal of attention and “Best Picture” nominations from the British version of the Academy Awards, the BAFTAs, but were largely snubbed by the Oscars.
The American obsession with the Academy Awards is not necessarily beneficial to the film industry. Most of the Oscar-worthy films get released late fall or early winter to generate just the right amount of buzz. This not only leaves a dearth of quality films in theaters during other times of the year, but also causes these better films to compete more for moviegoers in this limited time period.
Finally, the Oscars itself also needs to be retooled to be more entertaining. The formality and commitment to tradition is admirable, but decorum doesn’t make for great entertainment. Acceptance speeches are usually a tedious anticlimax after a winner is announced. Besides, is thanking as many people as you can squeeze in before the music cuts you off really the best use of your 45 seconds in the spotlight?
I’d rather watch someone with something to say than watch actors prove how humble and grateful they are. The Grammy’s are at least enlivened with live performances, but the Oscars have even nixed performances of the “Best Song” nominees this year.
Despite its shortcomings, the Oscars is too valuable to do away with entirely. The glamour and dignity that the Oscars bestow on deserving films is vital in an industry all too dominated by pandering sequels and high-budget titles.
The Academy usually favors substance and originality over hype. Watching stars interact at award shows can be fun – one of the highlights of the Golden Globes was George Clooney making fun of Brad Pitt, and it was impossible not to be touched by watching Morgan Freeman salute Sidney Poitier onstage.
Progressively declining viewership of the Oscars, especially among young people, is further evidence of the need for Academy reform. I’m not advocating that the Academy Awards should become the Kids’ Choice Awards, although it would probably be funny to see Kenneth Branaugh get slimed.
The Academy can remain relevant if they diversify the way they evaluate films and make the Oscars a little more fun.
Natalie Friedman is a Weinberg senior. She can be reached at [email protected].
All opinions expressed in this column are solely the opinions of the columnist and do not reflect the views of The Daily Northwestern. If you would like to respond to the column, you may comment below, email the columnist or submit a 300-word letter to the editor to [email protected].
