When More is Less
Lost in a flurry of uncanny celebrity deaths a couple months ago was news that effects anyone who loves movies.
The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences announced a major change in how the Oscars are done. Now rather than five Best Picture nominees there will be ten. This is a pretty transparent attempt to boost TV ratings of the Oscar telecast. It’s also a big mistake.
For one thing, the Academy had to scrape to find five decent films to nominate for Best Picture last year. How do they expect to find ten worthy films?
Now, granted, eight months into this year it already appears like the quality of films is much better. I can think of a few deserving candidates for Best Picture already. However, having said that, I believe this move will have unforeseen detrimental effects on not only the credibility of the Oscars, but possibly the ratings of the telecast, which is what prompted the move in the first place.
First of all, I think it’s fairly obvious that when twice as many films are nominated, being a Best Picture Nominee means a lot less.
Secondly, as this interesting article states the new voting process is rather complicated, and requires voters to rank all ten of the films that are nominated in order of preference from one to ten. Will these voters even get to see ten films? Probably not. Will they rely more on hearsay? Probably. Will they put a film they hate at ten, one they love at one and randomly fill in the other spots? Who knows? Theoretically, a film that gets a massive amount of second place votes could beat out one that gets a lot of first place votes, but is polarizing or controversial (as are most great films, I might add).
So you can see the likely scenario: “And the Oscar goes to…the film that most people thought was second best.” Wonderful.
(sigh)
The thinking behind all this was that films that are popular favorites like last year’s THE DARK KNIGHT get snubbed every year, and less people watch the broadcast every year because they don’t have a rooting interest in any of the films nominated.
That’s one way of looking at it. Another is that ratings have declined because the broadcast is long and boring. Now we have ten films we have to spotlight before they open the dang envelope? Whah? Hunh?
Or an additional thought is part of the purpose of the Oscars is to draw attention to movies that much of the movie-loving populace would never see if they didn’t receive awards. Last year’s winner SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE being a good example.
Besides, ratings were up last year with five of the least successful films in terms of box office receipts nominated in many years. This would suggest perhaps that one of many reasons people watch the Oscars is to learn about films they intend to see, not only to root for what they’ve seen. If this weren’t true million dollar campaigns for Oscar gold wouldn’t be waged every year, because they simply wouldn’t be worth it.
This change is a concession to commerce at a time in film history where the movie’s position as art form is more vulnerable than ever. Does the Academy make mistakes? Sure, they do, but their purpose isn’t to accurately call the Best Picture every year any more than it is to get a network one night of great ratings. Their purpose in my mind is to celebrate and protect a great art form. Blurring the distinction between great and good isn’t the best way to do that.
Posted on September 2, 2009, in Film & TV, Movies, Television and tagged Awards, By Brian G.. Bookmark the permalink. 17 Comments.
Don’t they generally send DVDs of the movies to voters?
Really? Maybe Up, Hurt Locker, Public Enemies (only based on critics’ reception) but I can’t really see any of those or others I’ve seen this year as Oscar material.
That’s ridiculous. Is it just to let studios trumpet their films as “Best Picture Nominees” and thereby get a little more screen revenue?
I think one more unfortunate result is that an already packed December will become even more crowded with films whose producers’ think they have a shot at a nomination, with the hope that they will still be in theaters at the time of announcement.
(500) Days of Summer is the only thing I’ve seen this year to which I could give a definite nod of approval, but then I haven’t actually seen that much.
I was disappointed in Hurt Locker, both as a film as well as a depiction of events. I don’t see it making the Oscar’s top ten.
Would you be in favor of adding the Golden Globes category of Best Comedy or Musical?
I read the studios were against it because they have to put money into getting votes for films, and now there’s more competition/it’ll cost more.
I think there’s a few reasons no one cares about the Oscars:
1. People are sick of seeing Hollywood pat itself on the back.
2. The Oscars takes itself too seriously.
3. It’s not about the most deserving film/actor winning.
I think adding a Best Comedy or Best Musical category would be a mistake. It basically guarantees that a great comedy or musical will never win Best Picture. The way academy voters are prone to think is that winning or being nominated in that category is recognition enough.
For example, I think it’s a mistake to have a Best Animated Feature award because it guarantees that animated features aren’t considered for the big award. Think of all the great Pixar films that rightfully should have been nominated for Best Picture, or possibly even won. As long as there is a separate category they’ll never be considered for the big award no matter how good they are.
Susan,
I think most die-hard movie fans will always care about the Oscars, but I think you bring up valid points.
The decline in ratings isn’t due to the number of Best Picture nominees. It’s due to the quality of the broadcast. It’s often way too politically charged for mainstream America, and you’re right it’s too self-congratulatory. In a way, any awards ceremony always will be due to its very nature, but who needs to hear more acceptance speeches that highlight the lack of self-awareness an actor has, or how out of touch Hollywood is with the political center of America.
So far I think UP, HURT LOCKER, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, (500) DAYS OF SUMMER, and DISTRICT 9 will all benefit from this change and have decent shots at getting in the top 10.
For a couple of years now I’ve wanted to do a KB post that gives awards to the award shows. Most conceited acceptance speech, lamest hosting moment, etc. But that means I’d actually have to watch all of the award shows.
While I tend to agree, how many comedies and musicals have won in the past 20 years? Or even nominated for that matter.
Well…Chicago won Best Picture not too long ago. And back in the 60s and 50s musicals won quite frequently. Comedies like Annie Hall and The Apartment have won Best Picture…not a frequent event, but those are two excellent films.
This will mean that Pixar gets a Best Picture nomination each year rather than simply dominating the animation category.
Other than that, it might mean more commercial fare gets a nomination, but it might also allow more room to highlight art films or foreign stuff. It could go either way.
On the topic of DVDs, I read recently that part of the oscar strategy for Inglorious Basterds is to release it now so that it is on DVD already when it comes time to flood Hollywood with screeners. Watermarked screeners cost $20 a pop to produce. If your movie is already on DVD there is no need for that, so you can send a $5 DVD and not worry about piracy.
Regarding screeners: you would think that if you get DVDs sent to your home for free that it would be relatively easy to see every film, but this just isn’t the case. People are busy, or they just don’t care.
In the last Oscar show Hugh Jackman made a joke about not getting around to watching THE READER and everyone laughed (except I guess for the people who worked on the film).
Indeed, which is why I said in the last 20 years which would make 100 nominations. In that time frame there have only been 6 true comedies (Juno, Little Miss SUnshine, Sideways, Full Monty, 4 Wedding…, and Working Girl) and 2 musicals (Moulin Rouge, Chicago) that have been nominated with Chicago being the only one to win.
I’m not really in favor of this new category, but if it did happen, I’d combine it with animated feature as well.
Juno was a comedy? I mean it had funny parts, but I’d have a hard time calling it a comedy. There’s no way Working Girl was a comedy.
why should it be limited to a certain number each year? Why not nominate the best films of the year for the Oscar? So if one year there happen to be seven, then seven it is. If another year, you get fifteen, then fifteen it is. If another year, you only get two, then two it is! There are years when more movies were superior enough to be nominated but because of the 5 limit, they didn’t get that chance. I think of 1997 and 1999 for example. Many great films those years.