The Oscars: My Opinion On A Possible Solution To Their Popularity Problem

Well, the Oscars are a changin'.  The problem is that viewer numbers for the awards show have dropped to their lowest ever.  Because of this, there is now a push to make more eyeballs want to tune in.  They are looking to shorten the show to three hours, meaning that some of the technical awards will be given out during commercial breaks, with highlights from this coming later in the show.  In 2020, the date is shifting up to closer to the beginning of February.  The idea is to get the Oscars done before audiences are burnt out from watching all of the other awards shows.  I don't know about you, but I sure get tired of just how many people talk about the SAG and Independent Spirit Awards.  Lastly, they are going to introduce an award celebrating a 'popular' film.

All of this reminds me of the ill-fated movie about the birth and development of FIFA, United Passions.  While football governing body FIFA seemed to think the movie was about the passion and growth of global football, they were ultimately communicating to the audience that success meant more money.  This was wildly funny considering all of the corruption that was coming out at the time.  When I look at the decisions of The Academy, I can't help but feel their true desires are being heard.  It isn't about legitimizing the awards, but getting more viewers.  More viewers equals more advertising, which equals more money, which isn't a course of motivation that a legitimate awards body should be following.

I'm not going to make this a long piece.  I had started going that way, and wanting to rant about so much, but I think I would rather make this about something that I have been talking about for years now.

MAKE NOMINATED MOVIES EASY TO ACCESS FOR THE PUBLIC!!!!

Now, this won't solve all problems, but people I talk to haven't seen (or necessarily even heard of) over ninety percent of films up for Best Picture or the other major awards.  I know that exhibitors want guarantees that movies they screen will be off of video for around ninety days.  Because of this, it would be very difficult to propose this to them, bet we need to be honest.  The industry is changing quickly, and there are ramifications of not changing with it.  Mainly, illegal copies of movies getting viewed online.

People do pirate material, but high percentages will pay for a reasonably priced legal option.  A quick example of that is the current state of the music industry.  Yes, it did get its ass kicked by the digital realm, but people have moved away from the peer to peer model.  There are so many streaming options for good prices that it has brought many customers back into the fold.  With platforms that allow people to purchase either individual songs or entire albums, the consumer has control over how they get the product.  I have also read multiple articles that highlight how consumers will generally use a convenient, reasonably priced option over piracy.  Sadly, I can't remember them, and (since I need to write this quickly) I won't be hunting them down right now.

With an opportunity to have a digital screening window prior to the Oscars, platforms could charge perhaps a little bit more than a premium rental.  They would benefit from the sudden interest that the public may have in these films after they get nominated.  I could see how this would be opposed, because some of these nominated movies get increased theatre screens after the nominations, and theatre chains would claim such an option would hurt numbers.  That's been the argument that's always been made about day and date releases (movies that come out on video at the same time as hitting theatres), and I believe its eventually going to be challenged by consumer habits.

The Academy would benefit from a digital streaming window by their films being more relevant to audiences.  This isn't a few decades ago when the mature movies got nationwide release.  Typically, Oscar fare is in limited release, and sometimes the movies perform well enough to expand to wide release.  This would be the ideal way for Oscar fare to get out to the public, but it doesn't happen to enough films.  More possible eyeballs on the films could mean more interest in the show itself.

Regardless, this idea of a digital screening window isn't going to happen because cinema hasn't completely caught up to the digital age.  Major chains would oppose such ideas because, just as they have for attempts of change in the past.  I do believe that there would be a financial benefit for allowing access to these films, but what do I know?  I know that seemingly every year in February there seems to be an article highlighting how much people are pirating the Oscar nominated movies.  Why not give them a legitimate option?

And lastly, to The Academy...

People are cutting the cord.  Simply put, lower ratings are a part of that.  You don't need to go and add The Tourist to the program.

The Academy Awards - A Celebration of Caucasian Excellence

The Oscar nominations came out last week, and, what is surprising but should no longer be surprising, is that it is a celebration of whites in Hollywood.  Among the acting categories, not a single person of colour was nominated.  As well, all of the best picture noms were dominated by white casts.

What the hell happened to diversity, I scream to myself.

In 2009 the number of best picture nominees was changed from five to a maximum of ten.  This was done to try and add some diversity to the types of films that would get the noms, allowing genre fare to get recognition when it normally wouldn't.  What is surprising is when you have this total white dominance in a year that there was only eight of a possible of a possible ten best picture nominations.  I have seen six of the eight, and I will say that they are most worthy of the honour.  But what about the two empty slots that could have been filled?

This is where I start to wonder.  Why is it that there were only eight chosen when there were so many other great films this year?  Why couldn't there be some recognition given to non-whites in those slots?

I am not talking about 'pity recognition,' I am talking about movies that truly are worthy of being in the running that didn't make it.  Three such movies come to mind without even having to think too hard.  I don't like thinking too hard, because then I need to take a break.

Straight Outta Compton was released in the late summer, and instantly entered the talk of being a possibility for film of the year.  I don't think there were many pundits who believed that it would win, but there was a great number who saw this as a serious contender for getting a nomination.  What could be the possible problem here?  It was about a music group called Niggaz With Attitudes.  This causal relation between the content and the lack of nomination is pure speculation on my part, but the Academy is almost 95% caucasian.

Now, I don't want to do anything other than speculate.  I saw the film, and it was a great biopic.  It did what it needed to do, and it hit the emotions it was trying to.  Was it the best movie of the year?  Hell no.  Was it better than some of the soapy water biopics that made the list last year?  It sure was.  If The Theory of Everything or The Imitation Game were good enough to to be considered a best picture contender, then there is no way that Straight Outta Compton, which was a lot riskier than those other two overly safe and by the numbers films were, shouldn't be worthy of the same consideration.  I'm sorry about the long sentence.  I am just in that kind of mood right now.

Another possible choice could have been Beasts of No Nation, a movie about child soldiers in Africa. It was a very difficult movie to watch, and there could be a few factors other than just race that kept it from the list.  First of all, the subject material (elevated by the skilled directing and excellent acting) is extremely hard to watch while you smile and eat popcorn.  It is a challenging film that robs the audience of innocence.  That kind of film may not be the top of the list for people to nominate, as they tend to be a little safer in the their picks at times.  Secondly, this was a feature film that was released day and date on Netflix.  It is a true sign of the future, but with 86% of the academy being over fifty, it may be a little too much a little too soon.  Non-traditional release platforms may need to be around for a while before they are recognized, at least in the feature film category.

And hey, in the acting categories as well.  Beasts of No Nation had two standout performances in it, neither of which not nominated.  Young Abraham Attah gave a breakthrough performance, carrying the weight of the film on his shoulders and competently delivering all of the various emotions that the audience was to feel.  No best actor nomination for him.  Idris Elba was a standout as The Commandant, being brutally nurturing and manipulative with the soldiers around him.  No best supporting actor for him.

And then there is Creed, easily one of the best motion pictures of the year.  Sylvester Stallone was nominated in the supporting actor category, but missing out was the lead performance of Micheal B. Jordan.  Heck, even with the amazing cinematography and the epic score, the nomination for Stallone was all this movie has for nominations.  I find it very difficult to understand how this movie isn't worth a best picture nomination.  It's not as though it would need to replace or bump another movie out of the list, because there are two open spots begging to be filled with something.

It is just sad that there is so little representation of minorities in Hollywood recognition.  The problem is amplified by the fact that the representation of talent in movies is mostly white.  There is some notable progress, but it is not enough.  The president of the academy, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, is an African American, but it doesn't seem to move the needle when it comes to what people want to hold up as worthy of recognition.

Boone Isaacs stated that, "in the coming days and weeks we will conduct a review of our membership recruitment in order to bring about much-needed diversity in our 2016 class and beyond."  I think that is a great step forward, but it brings up a reality that really irks me: Why cannot the current academy see past the lines of colour?

Having more diversity in the voters will have a beneficial outcome, but what is it in the human nature that means a bunch of older white men (over 75% of the academy is male) do not recognize diversity?

I don't think I will ever know for sure the answer to this.  It could be a number of things, but ruling out sub-conscious or conscious racism is not one of them.  Forty acting talents were nominated over the past two years, and all of them were white.  Eight movies were nominated, and all of them were with a predominantly white cast.  Was it really a stretch to keep the highest domestically grossing movie of all time, The Force Awakens, from filling one of those spots?  They put Avatar on the list back at the 82nd Academy Awards, and it had a lower Rotten Tomatoes rating than The Force Awakens.  Oh wait.  The lead actor in The Force Awakens is black.  I guess that answers my question.