Michael LownWhat's Wrong with the Oscars and How Can They Fix It?
June 15th 2011 11:50
The Oscars have been in trouble from dwindling viewership and increasing lack of interest for the past few years, and they have been taking the steps to change it, to try to appeal to wider audiences, even if some of the ideas are massive flops (James Franco, anyone?). One of their biggest changes is when they announced that the list of Best Picture nominees has been stretched from the previous five to a full ten.
Clearly this decision was not brought on by mutual agreement, but was rather a product of the few feeling the backlash from those who found their favorite films being neglected in this category. The biggest example of this was in 2008 (the year before the change-up) in which the critically acclaimed and massively popular Dark Knight was ignored by the Academy, and instead gave the Best Picture slot to Oscar bait like The Reader.
While the increase at first seemed like a smart move, it soon showed cracks when it was realized that with ten nominees and still only one winner, there would be some filler. With such filler, the weight behind the award had been severely diminished. It didn't help that most were quickly able to see through the facade and found it to be a cheap attempt to boost interest/ratings in their telecast, which were seeing their losest numbers at that time. In the end, the infamously excessive Awards ceremony became even more excessive.
This morning sees yet another change in their lineup. In their statement, which outlined their alterations to their voting process (with some changeups to the best animated feature and best visual effects category) with the big one being a another change in the Best Picture category. This time around the number of nomiees could be anyway between five or ten. This is could probably the most innovative decision they have made, with the Academy now having the ablilty to recognize the movies they feel worthy of the nomination and not trample over them with filler.
I'm surprised at this change not because it was a bad idea, but because it comes so quickly after their move to ten pictures. With only two years between the changes, it seems like a very transparent recognition of their failure and subsequent apology. The ten picture lineup was such a messup that it was only a matter of time before it got replace, but I'm pleasantly surprised it was so soon. At the same time, I wondered whether any one this would have any effect on the award's popularity; would it change anything?
I don't think it's much of a secret that the Oscars have lost much in the way of credibility and respect in the past few years. Some people have grown tired are their self-serving, indulgent antics, seeing as a three-hour session of people patting themselves on the back. Of course, this was never meant to the intention of the awards or the ceremony, but rather it be an evening celebrating and appreciating the art of film. Unfortunately, this intention has fogged up by excessive lengths and unnecessary montages.
It also doesn't help that the nominations themselves don't pack much of a surprise now. Over the years, it's became obvious that the winner isn't decided by quality (even though that helps sometimes), but rather through nonstop campaigning from the studios. This campaigning has resulted in some films winning the award and being quickly forgotten after that (A Beautiful Mind, Crash, The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love). Not these are bad movies, but they hardly deserve to carry a label that belongs to other films like The Godfather or Casablanca.
It's certainly become time for the Oscars to think outside of the box in order to maintain their relevance or popularity. With "Oscar season" still a few months away, it becomes interesting to see if they have the ability to rise up beyond expectations, or disappoint yet again?
| 17 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
