The Oscars are three weeks away and I'll be doing a number of posts about the event from now until then. This one is about a bit of controversy surrounding the awards this year. The Academy has made the decision to increase the number of Best Picture nominees from five to ten. Most Oscar fans I've talked to think this was an unnecessary and irritating move and frankly, I agree.
The Academy has tried to paint this as an homage to the past, when, during the first decade of the nods, anywhere from eight to twelve films were nominated for Best Picture. They even brought out a sign that had the ten 1939 nominees listed on it and asked who the audience would prefer be taken off to make it five. It's true, all ten were great films. It would have been extremely difficult to cut the list down to five.
But the Best Picture still would have been Gone with the Wind. Hands Down.
The first major problem I have with this change is it implies that the nomination is more important than the award itself. It doesn't matter if you have two, five, ten, or twenty nominees, there can still only be one Best Picture. The Golden Globes nominate ten pictures, but they also give out two awards. If a picture isn't considered good enough by Academy voters to be in the top five, why would it have any chance of being voted the winner by those same voters?
If I believed that the Academy was really doing this to pay tribute to Hollywood's Golden Age, I might be slightly less annoyed. Unfortunately, I don't. Not for a second. This is about The Dark Knight. Yes, The Dark Knight. The Oscars have always been accused of being out of touch with the commercial audience. This is nothing new. However, when Christopher Nolan's blockbuster failed to garner a nomination last year, despite being hailed by fans and critics alike as one of the best films of the year and producing the Best Supporting Actor (Heath Ledger), some claimed that the Oscars had finally fallen off the deep end. Frankly, I thought The Dark Knight was one of the best films of 2008 and would have been glad if it had been nominated, but this issue, for me, is not about the number of nominees, but the courage of the Academy voters. If they had wanted to nominate The Dark Knight, they should have, without worrying about the possible backlash of nominating a Batman movie.
The Academy hopes, I'm sure, that nominating a few more fan favorites might provide a boost in ratings (it should be noted that, even without the benefit of the World's Greatest Detective, last year's telecast was the highest rated in history). However, I don't buy that either. I think you either like award shows or you don't. You think the Oscars are relevant or you don't. The inclusion of UP in the Best Picture category won't change that. In fact, those who don't watch the Oscars have probably already forgotten that there are ten nominees.
It made sense in the early days of the Oscars for there to be more nominees. Under the Studio system of the time, studios would release two or three films per week. Actors would do a movie a month, rather than one per year. There were simply many more films released in those days. Now there's much less to choose from. The Academy claims that the wider net will allow something other than dramas, epic, and dark comedies to be nominated. Here's rub there, they nominated five dramas, two dark comedies, two epics, and UP. None of the films were a huge shock when the nominations were announced. There are no dark horses or sentimental favorites in the group. The only two that might have that kind of appeal is UP, which will no doubt win Best Animated Feature, and Precious, which would have been nominated under the old format, as well. None of them have the feel good credentials of say, Slumdog Millionaire, which won in 2009, or even Juno (the kind of film the Academy supposedly doesn't nominate) which got a nod in 2008.
What the Academy doesn't realize is that the emotional connection that most people have with award shows comes from the Actors, not the films. Look at any "Favorite Oscar Moment" montage, either on YouTube or the ones broadcast during the event, and it will be filled with acceptance speeches from the acting awards, not Best Picture. It's likely that more people will tune in for the possibility of American Sweetheart Sandra Bullock winning Best Actress then the possibility of her film winning Best Picture. Sure, everyone loves the little film that could, but when it comes right down to it, those films are pretty rare.
Finally, there's the telecast. Why would you want to add elements to an event that is notorious for its length? Last year's show was, in my humble opinion, pitch perfect. It was the best telecast the Academy Awards had had in years. They finally realized that putting the nominees and presenters closer to the stage would cut time and confusion. The acting awards took center stage as past winners were brought out to pay tribute to current nominees, which guaranteed that even the most dignified Hollywood royalty were genuinely and visibly moved. Even the musical numbers seemed just a little better. With an extra 15 minutes or so dedicated to Best Picture (remember that each film gets a short segment mixed into the show in addition to the presentation of the awards), one wonders what will be sacrificed to keep the network happy.
I'm sure the awards will still be fun to watch, but I'm really hoping that this convention is dropped in 2011 and they go back to the formula that's worked for the last six decades. Five films.
One Best Picture of the Year.
Posts
