Why the Oscars Suck (2011)

I’m not one to write meaningless blogs about trivial things like TV shows and especially award shows, but after last night’s Oscars I felt inspired. Not by the creativity of the show or the dazzle and glitz of it all. This inspiration comes from something a little more negative. First off, I understand the concept: Your producer pulled out late in the game and with his exit followed the exit of your then-host Eddie Murphy. That’s a hard place to be stuck in between. I commend the producers for scrambling to make the show happen. That I can’t deny. But it’s not like it would have been canceled. However, I still can’t excuse the total lack of originality, quality and vision that has been lacking in this show for quite sometime. Now, don’t worry. I don’t have any preconceived notions that these types of shows are supposed to be great because they almost never are. They are bloated, Gaudi, self-important, self-congratulatory bullshit that shines no actual light on what were actually the best films of the year.

Why the Oscars Suck. Case in point, the best film of last year, in my opinion was Drive. Yes, Drive may not be the most original selection since it has received rave reviews from everyone, but one thing is for certain: Drive is cinema at its best; visually arresting, great lead character, methodical pacing, stylized cinematography, abstract imagery and a story that is always challenging our expectations. To keep from turning this into a review of Drive, I will simply Drive straight to my point. Why was Drive NOT nominated as the Tenth best picture? You have a slot open- why did this film not fill this slot? Was it too violent? Maybe people were disappointed in the kind of film they were expecting to see versus the film that was in front of them? Perhaps the director, Nicolas Winding Refn is too much of an Auteur for the Academy? His films aren’t safe and don’t stick to a formula. They challenge their audience, so maybe this turned people off? Last I checked, filmmakers striving for these latter goals, used to be praised and awarded for pushing the limits. Now, films of this nature are simply labeled ‘Cult’. Not to say there weren’t good films up for awards this year. Many of the nominated films are actually quite good. The Artist certainly challenges the norms of the art form but in a gimmicky, nostaligic way. Woody Allen’s film is excellent but it’s a bit of a shame to give awards to a person who doesn’t care about them and who doesn’t even show up. I commend Scorsese for breaking out of his own mold and doing something completely different for himself, but is Hugo anything really that original? Isn’t Marty revisiting the past yet again? Yet, Jonah Hill gets a nomination for a role that he essentially plays himself, but Michael Fassbender gets nothing for his work in Shame. Something seems very wrong about that.

Then there is the Award Show itself. Crystal’s opening monologue and song and dance routine was so catastrophic I actually had to look away in horror. I’m glad they peppered the show with a lot of pre-taped segments because that cut down on the Crystal(something I generally don’t do). Cirque Du Soleil was bewildering and didn’t translate to the small screen. And Meryl Streep won. In general, nothing really happened. I guess my point is, the state of cinema is in bad shape. And therefore the show that’s supposed to celebrate the art form will not be very good because what are you celebrating? Mediocre films? Can we even call them films anymore? None of them are shot on actual film anymore. Sadly, I'm not alone in my disillusion. Look at the faces in the audience-They don’t even care. Not just because of the tremendous jealousy that exists in Hollywood, but these celebs do so many awards shows around this time, by the time Oscars come, all spontaneity and excitement was left behind at the Golden Globes. Industry people know what bad shape the state of the art form is in and they don’t even mask their jaded attitudes. Moneyball? Is that the best Hollywood has to offer? Listen to ESPN. The Help? Really? Isn’t that a Lifetime channel movie? Even Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life is rather terrible. A filmmaker trying so hard to do something artistic that you can just hear the pitch: “It’s a visual poem to my father and god”. Sold! Sold? I’m glad executives took a chance on something like Tree of Life but the actual film is a total failure. (Trying to be Ozu but closer to film class failure).

Yet, there Drive sits, with the engine running- Waiting to go for the award but never will because it wasn’t even nominated. You would think at this point in time, people would get the idea of nominating movies that people will actually consider to be good twenty years from now. Yes, that’s a hard call because who’s a psychic? But I think you can gather if a movie seems like it will have staying power. Or better yet, not choosing films that you think will NOT have staying power- Like the Help, or Moneyball. Look at the travesties of Ordinary People beating out Raging Bull. Or Crash winning best picture. If it looks brilliant and innovative that’s because it probably is. So please, Academy people, next year, pick some films that you know are game changers and that people will watch in the future and NOT pick the boring, contrived drivel that people can tell were made solely for the purpose of winning an award. I’ll still watch either way, but only because it’s fun to comment on it with my facebook friends.