Print This Post Print This Post

Jun

30

Oscar change

By Ron Wynn | Filed Under Film, Television 

People unfamiliar with cultural politics think awards shows are truly about merit and were created to showcase and reward excellence. 

But there’s absolutely no one making that claim about last week’s decision by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to raise the number of nominees in the Best Picture category for the Oscar Awards to 10 from its customary five.

As The New York Times columnist David Carr expertly deduced in a Monday piece, this was neither about providing more exposure for great films or  trying to improve the process.

Instead, this is an attempt to generate more interest in the Oscar Awards telecast, which doesn’t pack the ratings punch it did even a decade ago, let alone the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s. During that time, the other networks usually scheduled  stale repeats against the awards show.

This move also doesn’t address the real problems plaguing films these days. Woody Allen’s blast last month about the industry’s  overemphasis on youth and demographics probably sounds like sour grapes coming from someone whose best films are behind him, but there’s plenty of truth in what he had to say.

The summer blockbuster syndrome, where robots, explosions and comic book characters dominate the landscape, puts little emphasis on clever writing, taut acting or subtle direction.

Sure, you’ll get the occasional Iron Man or Dark Knight, projects whose directors and casts enabled them to exceed both critical and commercial expectations.

But there are far more Transformers properties, predictable blather that racks up big dollars because they hook the video game crowd. That’s fine up to a point, but when that becomes your operating model, the sameness and lack of innovation and variety take their toll.

Between the proliferation of sequels and undue focus on big opening weekends, the array of safe, predictable films will keep coming. That means there  aren’t going to be many years when there are 10 worthy of Oscar consideration.

 The restictive tendencies among some Oscar voters is another problem.   For example, science fiction, comedies and animated movies seldom get a fair shake, regardless of their merits.The same holds true for actors who star in these productions and miss opportunities for awards despite the excellence of their work.

Both Iron Man and The Dark Knight were excellent films, irrespective of genre. The same was true of Wall-E. That none of them were nominated for Best Picture is a reflection of bias and ignorance among some in the voting bloc.

How increasing the number of Oscar slots addresses that problem remains to be shown. Likewise, there’s often a disconnect between popularity and quality when it comes to the marketplace. Sometimes they dovetail, but in many instances cutting-edge filmmakers aren’t concerned with bottom lines, but in telling stories in adventurous and edgy fashion.

Audiences may or may not embrace these films, but sales have never been considered important in terms of the Oscars. Indeed, it’s widely speculated that it can be a detriment, because there are also voters who feel anything that’s popular couldn’t also be artistically valid, yet another dubious notion.

In today’s 500-channel universe, there are only a handful of programs still able to command eyeballs the way they did in the old days. The Super Bowl is one, and the Oscars remain another.

 The telecast could benefit from picking a permanent host and trimming some categories from the live broadcast to keep it from dragging on nearly four hours.

But ultimately the Oscar telecast  will only improve when the films coming out of Hollywood get better. Even that may not be enough to send ratings skyrocketing again.

Still, until the studios that make movies put as much weight on content as marketing,  juggling and changing the Oscar rules is only window dressing.

Comments

Comments Policy: The City Paper does not moderate comments before they appear on Nashville City Blogs and bears no responsibility or liability for comments posted by our readers. We do use an automatic spam filter and a dirty-words scrubber to screen out foul language. Comments with more than three hyperlinks may be automatically rejected as spam. Please stay on topic and play nice. Foul language and personal attack are not welcome here and egregious violations may result in your comment being deleted.

Leave a Reply