New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

That gatekeeping function that the Oscars have unwittingly taken on since the advent of the modern blockbuster should not be taken for granted by film lovers. To be sure, I love mindless summer blockbusters and watch each and every one of them. But if that is all movies were, the medium may well have perished long before it needed to.

Counter-Point: The Oscars Tell Us About and Reflect Ourselves

At the end of the day, I cannot help but conclude that the Oscars are in a way a microcosm of our own tastes and that, to the extent we get annoyed with their choices, we are simply annoyed at ourselves.

Sure, we agree that in some sense the Oscars are (thankfully) out of touch with what the popular box office movies are and in others are (sadly) too snobby to recognize artistic value in technical films. But, on the other hand, to the extent the Oscars have decided they like easier, pleasing movies that do not make them feel too bad (The Artist, Argo), those choices reflect nothing more than what audiences want. Audiences, faced with more and more entertainment choices, demand quick, and easy fun, and do not want to be bothered or exposed to dark realities. Instant gratification and escapism rule our Internet-driven world, and films that do not further those goals or challenge our assumptions (Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty, The Social Network, The Wolf of Wall Street) do not do well with the general, broader public. And the Oscars are supposed to buck that trend? How?

Yeah, the Oscar race can be a dirty game - a political campaign of whispers, rumors, and favors, where the most money can sometimes result in the most awards. The all but impartial media can sink or make a movie and how it is perceived, and therefore how it will fare during awards season. Again, this is not very different than the “real” world and how politics are conducted in our country. So, again, the Oscars are somehow supposed to be different and above that?

Given all these competing currents, it is not surprising that the Oscars have devolved into a consensus crowd-pleasing endeavor. Lo and behold, I am finishing a column about defending the Oscars by criticizing them. The Academy goes the safe route - they pick what everyone else has picked before them because they do not want to open themselves up to criticism about their tastes and choices. What else explains a year in which the biggest surprise on Oscar night was “Mr. Hublot” winning Best Animated Short Film?

But my ultimate point is that this trend towards pacifying as many people as possible is as much a fault of the Academy as it is of the cacophony of voices launching unrealistic, misguided, and ill-informed criticisms about the Oscars and the entire selection process.

I propose we take a step back and let the Oscars be the only thing they have ever really claimed or purported to be - the collective opinions of 6,000 or so industry insiders that reflect a consensus as a snapshot in time, not really an insurance policy of future value or a personal indictment or referendum on any particular movie.

Perhaps if we move to understand the Academy Awards as simply that, they would have the potential to thrive and even impress us with their choices. In the meantime, the suspect criticism is clearly stifling them, and the entire medium with it.

I would like to thank all the readers who stuck with us throughout this Oscar season. Throughout the next few weeks and months we will have an occasional piece on past Oscar races, and we will endeavor to be back with previews of the next race as soon as the relevant movies start hitting the festival circuits in the spring and summer.

Continued:       1       2       3       4