Final Oscar Post: Academy Commentary
After much discussion and review of this year's Oscar nominees, the Oscars are over, so I've decided to give my opinion of the 84th Academy Awards. My reaction to this year’s Oscars is very lukewarm. To be frank, I think the Academy is getting a little out of touch (warning: rant imminent.). The one decision they made this year to appeal to a wider audience was to bring back Billy Chrystal as the host, who was hilarious as usual. Other than that, the Academy still seemed to ignore the larger public. Modern movie going demographics are all over the place in terms of age, gender, nationality and ethnicity. In contrast to that, a Los Angeles Times study found that that the Academy voters are 77% male, nearly 94% white/Caucasian, and 84% over 50 years old (\latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/academy/la-et-unmasking-oscar-academy-project-html,0,7473284.htmlstory ). This helps explain why the Academy continues to vote for movies that mostly appeal to just a small, select group of people (old-fashioned movie buffs). The age gap is what matters most to me. This year, The Artist, a silent , independent film , won 5 Oscars, including best Picture and best original score (someone please explain to me how a silent film wins for best music score) . Who saw The Artist before the Oscars? Apparently, just the critics and people who live in big cities, because before The Oscars, I hadn’t heard from anyone who’d seen it unless they specifically went to New York or Philly to see it. I’m sorry to anyone who had seen The Artist during its limited release and loved it ; but, it seems to me that the system is rigged so that limited release movies like that can be made specifically to win awards. Slumdog Millionaire did almost the exact same thing a few years ago.
I want to be clear that I am less upset about The Artist winning than I am about what other deserving movies it beat out. Believe me, I’m sure The Artist was great (I intend to see it during its wide release), but Hugo and Moneyball were also nominated for best picture. Both were deserving movies that I already reviewed. If Hugo had won, it would have been the first 3D film to win Best Picture. If Moneyball had won, it would have been the first baseball movie to win. I bring this up because Hugo and Moneyball were accessible, enjoyable films. They were also really good and dramatic. Why didn’t they win? Were they not traditional enough? Hugo did win in several other categories,(cinematography, sound nixing, sound editing, visual effects) but Moneyball didn’t win in any. I call foul. A similar thing happened last year when the excellent but very modern The Social Network lost to the also great but more traditional film, The King’s Speech.
Again, I want to stress that I am not against good films winning awards. What bugs me is the accessibility gap. In an earlier review, I voiced concerns that The Adventures of Tintin, an excellent and accessible film, wasn't even nominated for best animated feature. While the eventual winner of the category, Rango, was pretty good film, I have my own issues with it in terms of accessibility. Personally, I found that Tintin was easier to follow, had more likable characters, and relied less on old cinema in-jokes. For proof, I point you to both films' world-wide grosses: Tintin grossed $373,567,516 and Rango grossed $244, 57,58 1(boxofficie.com).
I have other issues with the Oscars, Like Harry Potter not winning a single award, even for makeup, but this article is long enough. Thanks for reading it.
