The Oscar Backlash

So, it's been a few days and everyone has had the opportunity to dissect the rights and wrongs of the 80th Annual Academy Awards to an itty-bitty pulp that vaguely resembles the Oscars as they actually occurred five days ago. Some of these people were forced to analyze the telecast because it was their job as entertainment correspondents; others chose to do so because they too have a movie blog and everyone who's anyone was blogging about the Academy Awards this week. After a little brew-hah-hah about what won, and who deserved it, blah blah blah, fishcakes, the real point of Oscar discussion reared it's ugly head: how do we rank the show?

As many of you probably already heard, this was the lowest rated Oscar telecast in history. Apparently, only 32 million people tuned in this year as opposed to the 55 million that watched in 1998 when the mega-blockbuster Titanic stampeded the night. (For an excellent analysis on whether the ratings for the Oscars should actually matter to the film industry, check out this article at The Cooler.) Along with the worry over these low ratings and what they mean for this year's telecast comes the onslaught of criticism over every detail of the show: how did Jon Stewart do? Were there a lot of classic one-liners? OMG, it was so long! OMG, no American actors won awards! OMG, what was up with all the montages? WTF, the Oscars are pointless and they shouldn't exist!!!

I will concede that the Oscars are intended to be an entertainment program, and as far as that is concerned, some discussion on it's failures and successes is warranted. However, I see the same redundant criticism leveled at the Oscar broadcast every year and I'm more than sick of people quibbling over elements of the Oscars that, imperfect as they may be, are and always will be part of the show. If you don't like it, don't watch it! This has really stuck a craw in my ghord and I feel the need to address these issues in a rant....

Issue One: Jon Stewart sucks as an Oscar host.

Was he the best host ever this week? No. There were a lack of stunning one-liners, his opening monologue contained more political fodder than necessary and he generally acted like Jon Stewart. Suits me just fine. No Oscar host is ever universally liked. Chris Rock was too offensive, Steve Martin was too low-key, Whoopi Goldberg made lame jokes, and there are even those who object to Billy Crystal's Best Picture-themed songs. Nobody wins here. It's a thankless job. (Seriously, read about it here.) Jon Stewart was Jon Stewart, and that's all we can really ask of him. He seemed comfortable on stage, moved the show along at a decent pace, and made the incredibly classy move of bringing Marketa Irglova back out after the commercial to finish her acceptance speech. Fine by me. Maybe he wasn't as daring as other hosts have been, but at least there weren't any hilarious, but cruelly uncomfortable jokes made at anyone else's expense. (I still haven't forgotten when a certain host's joke about Russell Crowe made me worried Crowe was going to kill him, and set an intensely bad vibe upon the room. No need for that.)

Issue Two: The awards were too long, there were too many montages, stupid dances numbers, etc.

Again, this may be true. I will agree that the musical numbers for the songs from Enchanted were a bit hammy and got boring fast, but they didn't offend me. People are now talking about wanting to bring Debbie Allen back for more of her interpretive dance numbers. I remember, at the time, people hated and complained about them! Just can't win! As for the length of the show, the montages....have you ever WATCHED the Academy Awards before!?!?!?!?!?!?! The show is ALWAYS too long! The montages are ALWAYS stupid and redundant! It's part of the tradition. Actually, at 3 hours and 21 minutes, this is one of the shorter broadcasts in recent history. (In 2000 the show ran 4 hours and 2 minutes.) I never expect the show to come in under 3 1/2 hours, so when it does, I'm pleasantly surprised. And I spent the entire 3 hours and 21 minutes sitting comfortably on my couch, having happy movie debate with my family. Lovely day! As for those montages, sometimes they're good, sometimes they're bad, but they are always unnecessary and there are always too many. At least this year none of them contained the ubiquitous clip of Gene Kelly clinging to the lamp-post in Singin' in the Rain! If you don't like it, DVR the damned thing and cut all the unnecessary bullshit out! It's always middling fare and you either go with it, or shut the hell up! As for those who are hankering for better montages, I know some lovely people over at YouTube that can help you edit your own, more creative Oscar clip montage. Show me better!

Issue Three: The Oscars are an irrelevant and overhyped glamorization of Hollywood, actors and film in general.

This one I have a big problem with. To be fair, this wasn't the major word out there on the blogs, although I did find one post that likened the Academy Awards telecast to "the worst kind of trash on television." This criticism I generally find thrown my way by those (sisters and friends alike) who do not share my affinity for film culture and view the Oscars as the pinnacle example of an unnecessary and demoralized industry. And to this I say PHOOEY!!! So let's break this down. First up, are the Academy Awards necessary? Well, no, they are not. Getting a bunch of movie stars together to celebrate their general fabulousness and generating a list of awards that will all be disagreed with next year, and are a retread of the previous 12 awards shows and the ever-popular critic's top ten list couldn't exactly be called necessary. True, not seeing these films will not hurt your life, the awards have essentially become an excuse for a fashion show, and stars are paid too much.

But the Academy Awards started as a celebration of excellence in film. Schools have teacher of the year, firms have salesman of the year, and there's the Pulitzer and numerous book awards for writers. Shouldn't filmmakers get to honor their own? Remember that for every beautiful, vapid star that arrives to up the star-power, there is an ordinary short-film maker, sound mixer, set dresser, costume designer and computer specialist who don't get paid the big bucks, and are responsible for keeping movies from looking and sounding like shit. They deserve some recognition as well. Having stars present just increases the chances that schmucks like us will actually tune in to watch these unknowns bask in their moment of glory. There is honor and pride in these awards, however glamorized they may be.

Second, lots of things are unnecessary, but that doesn't mean we don't need them. I wonder how many of these Oscar-naysayers tune in to see the Superbowl or the World Series? Sports aren't necessary either, athletes are also generally overpaid, and the world of sports can be a dirty industry too. But just watch how many people would break down and cry if they canceled these unnecessary events! They are a celebration of a pastime, of a form of entertainment that enriches our lives, even if it isn't a necessity like water and shelter. (To be fair, the Superbowl and World Series are contests that require a final match-up to determine a winner, and are not retread fashion shows. But you can't have films "play" each other; it just won't work. There needs to be an awards show. Sorry.) So until sports contests can also be deemed irrelevant, I see no reason the Academy Awards should suffer such biased judgment.

Finally, I am really tired of people telling me that movies are just "escapist" trivialities that distract and help people hide from real life. Yes, there are plenty of films that function purely as entertainment. They make us laugh, marvel at a chase scene, squeal when the couple finally gets together, and then we go home and never think of that film again. But movies are so much more than that. They tantalize the imagination, offer glimpses into our values, challenge preconceived notions, and question the choices of history. Most importantly, for me, they teach tolerance. If I had never seen If These Walls Could Talk 2, I don't think I would necessarily have grown into the woman who so passionately loved Brokeback Mountain. Crash made me think about how many racist preconceptions I have that I am not even aware of. Something to Talk About taught me that infidelity is not always the result of a lying scumbag of a husband; marriage has two sides and they are both hard work. Braveheart made me want to search for a belief that I would die for; Before Sunrise made me want to be smarter; Almost Famous made me want to start a vinyl collection; Blood Diamond convinced me I will never want a diamond engagement ring; Gone Baby Gone made me realize that sometimes, there are no right decisions - only those you can or can't live with; High Fidelity taught me that the task of becoming a grownup never ends; Monsoon Wedding opened my eyes to the different, and yet recognizable, joys found in other cultures, in foreign traditions; and It's a Wonderful Life reminds me time and time again that the only success that will ever truly matter in my life is how well I love, and am loved by others in return.

Movies are not the be-all and end-all of this education; newspapers, relationships, books, life experience - all are vital to understanding and continuing to grow in this world; I don't place film on a higher level than all of these other worthy pursuits. I only know that it speaks to me more deeply and helps me comprehend more fully than any other medium or experience I have ever had. It IS necessary to my survival. And once a year I like to acknowledge the films that have made me think, feel, and tolerate the most, and maybe discover some new ones. If it comes with a fashion show and a few too many montages, that's all right with me.