"I had no fixed ideas derived from long-established practice to control and bias my mind, and did not suffer from the general belief that whatever is, is right."
-- Henry Bessemer
-- Henry Bessemer
On March 2 (a week later than normal so as not to interfere with the Winter Olympics; how noble of them), over 100 countries will be able to tune in to watch Hollywood pat itself on the back with the 86th Academy Awards. At its core, the practice of an awards ceremony is egotistical, but useful. For Hollywood specifically, there is a plethora of movies released every year; far too many for one to see them all. An awards ceremony provides a nice way to pare down the copious list of films you haven't seen from that year, to a list that's worthwhile to watch. Word-of-mouth leads to buzz leads to large-scale appeal, but awards are still the king of the hill when it comes to drawing attention to a movie that otherwise may have gone by the wayside. Movies like The Artist can do an underwhelming 5% of their total gross on opening weekend (that movie specifically debuting at #17 in wide release) before going on to great success after being lavished with awards. And amongst all these awards, there is an undisputed (sorry, Golden Globes) champion: The Academy Awards, otherwise known as The Oscars. The problem with The Oscars is also its potential solution, and it is a paradox: The Oscars matter the most because we all agree they matter the most. In much the same way our economy is based on currency that only has value as long as we collectively agree it does, The Oscars could be irrelevant tomorrow if everyone agreed they should be.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. How can we be sure The Oscars even have a problem? Well for starters, because of the importance the Oscars holds to their industry, transparency is crucial. It should be without a doubt that the votes cast are valid and not coerced or bribed, yet the Academy does not release its voting results. Its votes are verified by an auditing firm, but this does nothing to address how those votes were garnered. Considering studios spend millions on marketing during "Oscar Season", the idea that voters can be influenced by marketing rather than quality certainly has merit. When you remember that Avatar was nominated for Best Picture, it also lends credence to the criticism that glossy, big-budget productions have an inherent advantage, even if their artistic merit is disputable. While those sorts of movies do (and probably should) have an advantage in certain categories like Visual Effects, the idea that James Cameron's visually stunning, but creatively uninspired blockbuster could be the Best Picture of the year is either a depressing commentary on the industry, or completely misguided.
These are all reasons to question the validity of most Hollywood awards shows in general, but the biggest blemish, the elephant in the room, the #1 reason the Academy Awards should be cast aside or overhauled, is its constituency. As of 2012, 94% were Caucasian, 77% were male, and 54% were over the age of 60 (and more importantly, only 14% were under 50), 14% were former nominees, and 19% were winners (source). Hardly a diverse group representative of the movie-going public, or one interested in challenging, or even tweaking the status quo. Considering the results came from surveying 89% of the voters, the remaining 11% could swing the results slightly, but not in any meaningful way, and there's nothing to suggest they don't fall under the same demographics. Given the incredibly WASPy sounding membership, is it any wonder these guys loves more of the same year after year? Is it a mystery why The Social Network lost to The King's Speech, when that much of the voting membership is too old to relate to an internet story? You can almost bank on Her getting shafted this year! If the 2013 shortlists are released, and The Wolf of Wall Street, an admittedly explicit movie that borders on crass and profane but is an absolutely amazing film, it won't be a shock. The sort of energy and dark humor that it displays won't appeal to an Academy much more interested in movies like Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (2011), stories about father/son relationships.
There is no long-winded, subtle solution to the problem; it's simple. An awards ceremony with a demographic representative of the movie-going public (the Academy's arrogance and self-importance maintain that they know movies better than the great unwashed masses who actually pay the ticket prices) that is completely transparent in both its membership and votes cast. The Academy's system of having specific departments make the nominations (directors nominate directors, actors for actors, etc.) before the entire voting membership decides the winners is actually a brilliant system and should be carried over. Membership should not be lifetime (usually the case with Academy voters) and should instead be limited to people still involved in the industry. For example, all due respect to Sean Connery, but the man hasn't done anything but voice work in 10 years, and shouldn't still be voting on the Best Actor. Filmmaking changes and adapts to its era like any other entertainment medium, and the Academy's adherence to the past serves no one but the old-fashioned. While voting membership should be more diverse, it should be limited to a number far less than the Academy's nearly-6000 roster that actually needed rules put in place just to slow its growth. I daresay there aren't over 5000 people in Hollywood worthy of that sort of responsibility. Winners of the awards should automatically be extended an invitation in their field (It took Tim Burke, the Oscar-winning visual effects supervisor of Gladiator a decade to be extended an invite). The idea that the Academy can say definitively that one person is the best in their field for an entire year, yet possibly not worthy of membership to their bloated ranks is laughable.
Of course, rantings on a humble website aren't going to turn this tide. The stars themselves will dictate the change. People tune in (especially in foreign countries) as much for the star power present as the awards presented. If the stars themselves declare the event irrelevant, so will the television audience, followed swiftly by the advertisers paying exorbitant rates for commercials during the awards, and its death or overhaul will soon follow. When the closest the Academy's gotten to adapting is adding a Best Animated Feature category in 2001, it can't come soon enough.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. How can we be sure The Oscars even have a problem? Well for starters, because of the importance the Oscars holds to their industry, transparency is crucial. It should be without a doubt that the votes cast are valid and not coerced or bribed, yet the Academy does not release its voting results. Its votes are verified by an auditing firm, but this does nothing to address how those votes were garnered. Considering studios spend millions on marketing during "Oscar Season", the idea that voters can be influenced by marketing rather than quality certainly has merit. When you remember that Avatar was nominated for Best Picture, it also lends credence to the criticism that glossy, big-budget productions have an inherent advantage, even if their artistic merit is disputable. While those sorts of movies do (and probably should) have an advantage in certain categories like Visual Effects, the idea that James Cameron's visually stunning, but creatively uninspired blockbuster could be the Best Picture of the year is either a depressing commentary on the industry, or completely misguided.
These are all reasons to question the validity of most Hollywood awards shows in general, but the biggest blemish, the elephant in the room, the #1 reason the Academy Awards should be cast aside or overhauled, is its constituency. As of 2012, 94% were Caucasian, 77% were male, and 54% were over the age of 60 (and more importantly, only 14% were under 50), 14% were former nominees, and 19% were winners (source). Hardly a diverse group representative of the movie-going public, or one interested in challenging, or even tweaking the status quo. Considering the results came from surveying 89% of the voters, the remaining 11% could swing the results slightly, but not in any meaningful way, and there's nothing to suggest they don't fall under the same demographics. Given the incredibly WASPy sounding membership, is it any wonder these guys loves more of the same year after year? Is it a mystery why The Social Network lost to The King's Speech, when that much of the voting membership is too old to relate to an internet story? You can almost bank on Her getting shafted this year! If the 2013 shortlists are released, and The Wolf of Wall Street, an admittedly explicit movie that borders on crass and profane but is an absolutely amazing film, it won't be a shock. The sort of energy and dark humor that it displays won't appeal to an Academy much more interested in movies like Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (2011), stories about father/son relationships.
There is no long-winded, subtle solution to the problem; it's simple. An awards ceremony with a demographic representative of the movie-going public (the Academy's arrogance and self-importance maintain that they know movies better than the great unwashed masses who actually pay the ticket prices) that is completely transparent in both its membership and votes cast. The Academy's system of having specific departments make the nominations (directors nominate directors, actors for actors, etc.) before the entire voting membership decides the winners is actually a brilliant system and should be carried over. Membership should not be lifetime (usually the case with Academy voters) and should instead be limited to people still involved in the industry. For example, all due respect to Sean Connery, but the man hasn't done anything but voice work in 10 years, and shouldn't still be voting on the Best Actor. Filmmaking changes and adapts to its era like any other entertainment medium, and the Academy's adherence to the past serves no one but the old-fashioned. While voting membership should be more diverse, it should be limited to a number far less than the Academy's nearly-6000 roster that actually needed rules put in place just to slow its growth. I daresay there aren't over 5000 people in Hollywood worthy of that sort of responsibility. Winners of the awards should automatically be extended an invitation in their field (It took Tim Burke, the Oscar-winning visual effects supervisor of Gladiator a decade to be extended an invite). The idea that the Academy can say definitively that one person is the best in their field for an entire year, yet possibly not worthy of membership to their bloated ranks is laughable.
Of course, rantings on a humble website aren't going to turn this tide. The stars themselves will dictate the change. People tune in (especially in foreign countries) as much for the star power present as the awards presented. If the stars themselves declare the event irrelevant, so will the television audience, followed swiftly by the advertisers paying exorbitant rates for commercials during the awards, and its death or overhaul will soon follow. When the closest the Academy's gotten to adapting is adding a Best Animated Feature category in 2001, it can't come soon enough.
RSS Feed