In early February, when most of the general public
is gearing up for the Super Bowl, I’m eagerly awaiting
the end of football season so the focus will shift
to cinema awards season. Because, for some deluded
reason, I feel vindicated as a moviegoer when the
Academy chooses to give films I’ve seen and loved
an Oscar.
As the years have gone by, the Oscars have been
seen as out of touch with moviegoers, especially
when “The Dark Knight” was snubbed from the
Best Picture nominee list in 2009. In an attempt
to include more “popular” movies, like this year’s
“Inception” and “Toy Story 3,” the list of Best Picture
nominees was expanded to 10 slots, instead of five.
Although the category has been expanded, it hasn’t
increased the chances of blockbuster movies to win.
Anyone who cares enough to follow the guild awards
and read about the Oscars ahead of time knows movies
like “The Hurt Locker” and “The King’s Speech”
will beat those like “Avatar” and “Inception” without
any surprise. That isn’t to say “The Hurt Locker” and
“The King’s Speech” didn’t deserve to win — it’s just
obvious what types of films will be honored in the
most prestigious categories.
When the awards were handed out on Sunday,
the only real surprising win in the bigger categories
— Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress and Best
Director — was director Tom Hooper’s (“The King’s
Speech”) victory over David Fincher (“The Social
Network”). Weeks before the show, many enthusiasts
were sure “The King’s Speech” would win
Best Picture, Colin Firth would win Best Actor and
Natalie Portman would win Best Actress — and we
were right.
At the end of awards season, the Academy’s favorites
will rack up the awards and go home, whether or
not these select few movies truly deserved recognition
or not. The only real reason to watch anymore
is to affirm predictions and occasionally be surprised
by an upset. The show itself can range from semientertaining
(like when Hugh Jackman hosted in
2009) or incredibly tedious (like this year). At least
when I watch the Super Bowl I don’t know who
will win, and expect to be bored and not understand
what’s happening.
Although, as an audience, the general public may
have preferred “The Dark Knight” and “Inception”
to the smaller-budget dramas, the Academy —
which is made up of those who actually work in the
film industry — may see something differently and
choose certain films for a reason. The Oscars, though
in need of viewers to garner adequate ratings, is not
centered around casual audience members watching
from their television sets. Instead, the awards were
created to honor those involved in filmmaking by
their peers.
The Oscars don’t affect how I, or most moviegoers,
see films. Even though “The King’s Speech” won
Best Picture and is a great film that should be honored,
“Black Swan” and “Tangled” are my favorite
movies of 2010. Although it received horrendous
reviews, “The Twilight Saga: Eclipse” will probably
sell more DVDs than most of the nominees for any
category.
However, the recognition from the Academy can
expose lesser-known films and encourage viewers to
see movies they wouldn’t otherwise watch. The only
reason I insisted upon seeing “True Grit” — despite
my hatred of Westerns and all things related to John
Wayne — was so I wouldn’t miss a movie that was
sure to be recognized by the Oscars. And although
I don’t hold it in the same esteem as many fans
of the Coen brothers, I discovered I could enjoy a
Western.
Although the Oscars are a predictable, possibly
painful three hours, I still will continue to make my
own prophecies about who and what will win and
watch because, as frustrating as the Academy is, it
still manages to occasionally get something right.