I have been shunning the Academy Awards telecast for years. Here in part is why:
I’m on record stating how much I dislike the annual Academy Awards show (the Oscars). Because I have little regard for preening, pampered poseurs showing off their borrowed frocks and bling-bling as a prelude to a [nearly four-hour] show — only six minutes of which anyone really cares about (i.e., the time it takes to present Oscars for actor and actress in a leading role, actor and actress in a supporting role, best director, and best picture). …
And, remarkably enough, the host comedians do little to relieve the boredom of the interludes between these carefully spread-out moments.
(“My Review of the 2008 Oscars,” The iPINIONS Journal, February 25, 2008)
This is why I was somewhat heartened last week when the Academy announced plans to speed up the Oscars. Never mind that those plans will do nothing to make it more entertaining.
To address the concerns of those who find the show to be too long and boring (thanks largely to the current existence of 24 competitive awards, of which the general public only cares about a few) … the board has ‘committed to producing an entertaining show in three hours.’ … This will be achieved partly by ‘present[ing] select categories live, in the Dolby Theatre, during commercial breaks (categories to be determined).’
(The Hollywood Reporter, August 8, 2018)
Except that this is woefully belated and still inadequate. After all, even a commitment to cut the telecast to three hours will still leave it twice as long as it should be.
Frankly, the Academy should know better than to think its telecast can hold viewers’ attention longer than Hollywood blockbusters like The Expendables, Avengers: Infinity War, and Black Panther, which average 2.5 hours.
Apropos of which, it also announced a new category for “Outstanding Popular Film,” purportedly to end its institutional prejudice against blockbusters. This would be in addition to the traditional, and presumably more meritorious, category for Best Picture.
Hit movies rarely go on to become Oscar best picture winners, reflecting a difference in taste between moviegoers and film industry professionals. In the past 30 years, only four movies were named best picture while topping box office charts [namely The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003), Titanic (1997), Forrest Gump (1994), and Rain Man (1988)].
(The New York Times, March 4, 2018)
But the Academy is clearly banking on this new category luring people who love blockbusters to watch the Oscars. Which, I suppose, is rather like Major League Baseball finally admitting blacks – even as it continued to treat them like second-class citizens.
Unsurprisingly, Academy traditionalists are panning this change as pandering to mob interests, while blockbuster producers are panning it as awarding a consolation prize. I couldn’t care less either way. I still won’t be watching.
On the other hand, one can hardly blame action-movie stars like Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Mark Wahlberg, and Chris Hemsworth for celebrating. Because, without this “special” category, their movies would not have a snowball’s chance in Hell of ever winning an Oscar. This, despite the notable exception of movies like Rocky and Gladiator. Now if only the Academy would create a new category for “Outstanding Popular Actor/Actress” … too.
In any event, just as admitting blacks got more sports fans to watch Baseball, these changes should get more movie buffs to watch the Oscars; and that’s the ticket!
Related commentaries:
The Oscars…