Skip to main content

Oscars: My Response to the Newly Announced Academy Award Changes

See the source image
The Oscars are losing relevance or so says the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, which announced Wednesday a batch of changes to its annual telecast. The changes, designed to reverse a ratings dip in recent years, are the kind of desperate attempt to stay relevant that threatens the integrity of the whole affair. 

The first change, consistent with the Academy's desire to create a three-hour telecast, is that some awards will be presented during commercial breaks, with edited (meaning condensed) versions of the acceptance speeches airing later in the broadcast. It has not been determined which categories will be bumped, but I'll tell you right now it ain't gonna be Best Actress. The categories where celebrities are nominated will be shown live, and the tech categories won't be. This move is flat-out disrespectful to the men and women nominated in the below-the-line categories who deserve recognition for their vital contributions to movies. The Tony Awards follow the same strategy the Academy is suggesting, and while that too is inexcusable, it is more understandable because it is the norm for every nominated show to do a performance during the Tonys telecast. The Oscars have no equivalent set number of performances, so this move becomes blatantly about audiences being bored by the tech categories. While that may be true of a portion of the audience, if the Oscars want to continue distinguishing themselves from all the other award shows out there, they must commit to presenting all categories live. 

Moreso than any other factor, the ratings for the Oscars appear to depend on the movies nominated, meaning more people watch when a huge movie like Titanic or Avatar is up for a bunch of awards. The second change is an attempt to ensure popular movies get nominated every year, by instituting a new category called "Best Popular Film". The stupidity of this idea is almost too much to handle. It not only implies that movies that get nominated for the regular Best Picture category are unpopular but also that they are fundamentally different from the movies that have come to dominate the box office. In decades past, the top ten highest grossing movies of the year nearly always included at least a couple of Best Picture nominees. But since the Era of the Blockbuster has continued on, there has been a growing divide between the big-budget action spectacles that occupy the top ten slots, and the indie or arthouse fare that has been favored by the Academy. The Academy is right to assume this divide is a big part of their ratings woes. In 2009, the Academy came up with a solution to this problem when it doubled the number of Best Picture nominees from five to ten. In the two following years, blockbusters such as Avatar, District 9, Up, and Toy Story 3 earned nominations. But after the 2011 ceremony, the rules were changed once again, and the number of Best Picture nominees became variable, anywhere from five to ten, based on a needlessly complicated voting process. Since that change, extremely few blockbusters have been nominated for the top prize. If they want more blockbusters nominated, they should go back to having ten nominees and ditch the current voting system. They absolutely should not create a new category that ensures junk like Avengers: Infinity War would be nominated just to get more eyeballs watching the show. That is selling out. And talk about a strange year for this new category, since Black Panther is a blockbuster that's sure to be in the Best Picture race. 

Perhaps what bothers me the most is the implication that the Academy should take into consideration what the general public is interested in watching when filling out their ballots. Could it be that the actors, directors, writers, producers, and craftsmen that spend their lives making movies and thinking about movies could actually have informed, intelligent opinions about which movies should be held up as the best examples of the artform? No, that's crazy! As long as regular people flock to the multiplex on opening weekend, that's as sure a sign of quality as anything, right? *eye roll emoji*

The third change, and the only one that I actually like, is the decision to move the Oscars up from late February to early February, beginning with the 2020 show. This move will shorten awards season, reducing the strain it puts on people in the industry and giving less time for people watching from the outside to second guess their predictions

Aside from moving the ceremony date, the Academy's changes reflect a startling lack of foresight within the group and, if implemented, will begin the Oscars down a path that will make this award indistinguishable from the People's Choice Awards and the MTV Movie Awards. Good luck with that. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Drew Barrymore Gives Two Great Performances in Misguided Comedy "The Stand In": Review

Drew Barrymore fans haven't exactly been starved for content lately. Her cheery, fully unhinged new daytime talk show has provided a host of gif-able moments. But, it is significant that The Stand In , out now on VOD, is the first feature film she has appeared in 5 years (since the underrated  Miss You Already ). And I wish I could report that her return to the big screen (well, not big at the moment, but you know what I mean) is a triumph, but The Stand In is a deeply flawed movie, in spite of a game and spirited lead actress. Barrymore has a dual role in the film, a satire of celebrity culture. She plays Candy Black, an ex-movie star whose career was derailed by a volatile on-set tirade, and Paula, Candy's wacky stand in. The plot kicks in when Candy has Paula swap places with her ahead of her court-mandated rehab stay, and Paula takes a liking to the limelight and plots to steal Candy's life. Those are the basics, it's actually a lot more complicated than that, whic...

Aubrey Plaza and Elizabeth Olsen are Excellent in Timely Comedy "Ingrid Goes West": Review

Film Review: Ingrid Goes West I was worried based on the trailers and marketing for Ingrid Goes West that it was going to be a cautionary tale about the perils of social media. One of those condescending 'lessons' about how much better the world would be if we still used rotary phones and things like that. You know, stuff like this . Thankfully, Ingrid Goes West is not that, it's not even about social media despite being set in the Instagram Age. Written by Matt Spicer and David Branson Smith and directed by Spicer, the movie is about Ingrid (Aubrey Plaza), who has recently been released from a mental hospital and following the death of her mother decides to reinvent herself in Los Angeles, inspired by the Instagram feed of a seemingly perfect influencer named Taylor Sloane (Elizabeth Olsen). Using clues from her Instagram, Ingrid tracks Taylor down and befriends her. Yes, Instagram plays a large part in the story, but it's one that could be (and has been) told i...

New "Twin Peaks" is a Puzzling and Maddening Experience: Review

TV Review: "Twin Peaks: The Return" Disclaimer: This review contains major spoilers for the original Twin Peaks and minor spoilers for Twin Peaks: The Return. The original Twin Peaks , created by Mark Frost and David Lynch, is one of the most beloved and iconic television series of all time, despite only running for 30 episodes on ABC in 1990 and 1991.  Heavily influenced by daytime soap operas, it featured several hallmarks of that genre: a sleepy town, an ensemble of wacky characters, an ongoing mystery, and the illicit and adulterous underside of the facade of a wholesome American small town. Of course it was also more that, and as the series went on it became more of a supernatural exploration of good and evil, but the soapy trappings gave the series a shape and a structure. The highly anticipated revival miniseries, now airing on Showtime, eschews shape and structure altogether in favor a more puzzling, maddening creation.