In Defense of the Academy Awards

This year there was an interesting addition to the short film packages in theaters: winners from last year's Oscars spoke at length about their process, what it was like winning an Oscar, and what it meant.  The winner for Best Live Action Short last year made an interesting observation: when he was nominated, he was elated, and thought this was the best moment of his life.  But a month later, at the ceremony, all he could think was he better win the damn thing.

In the 24 hours since the ceremony has ended, I've been reading a lot of various ops about Seth MacFarlane's hosting job (which seems to be getting a lot of hate) and how racist the Academy has become awarding the two white people from Django (Tarantino and Waltz) and not even recognizing the African-American cast, or sexist for not nominating Bigelow for a direction (even though she WON three years ago).  Then there are those complaining about the apparent snubs of Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty, which were both frontrunners at one time or another.  To everyone complaining, I would just like to say: get over yourself.

The Oscars are of course highly flawed and mostly predictable (hell, I got 18 right, and some of my friends did better).  If the Oscars were the only awards show in town, I wonder what would have really won.  If we didn't have Golden Globes and Guild awards to fill the time in January and February leading up to the big show.  The Oscars are informed by the Guilds, but this year the Oscar nominations were announced two weeks earlier then usual, before most of the guilds had announced their nominations, and the Academy had to think for itself.

What happened?  Well, they only shared two directing nominations with the DGA (which is usually a helpful indicator, but this year was useless), and nominated Beasts of the Southern Wild for a whole slew of stuff which wasn't really seen anywhere else.  That was surprising and unexpected.  And then Affleck was snubbed and the pity party began.  I wonder if Argo would have won if the guilds hadn't handed Argo all their awards first.

Yes, the Oscars are flawed.  But so what.  Nothing's perfect.  What I really want to touch on is MacFarlane.  I thought he did a fine job as host: the Shatner opening went on way too long, but MacFarlane delivered his jokes, no matter how offensive they seemed, and smiled whether they landed or not.  But no one is ever satisfied.  MacFarlane was too offensive and rude, singing about boobs and making jokes about Daniel Day-Lewis being so into his role that he would try and free Don Cheadle.  Boo-fucking-hoo.  Last year, Billy Crystal was host, and I liked him too.  But gosh, apparently he was too boring and safe, not taking any risks and just rolling with the program.

Hosting is difficult, and I don't like every host.  Martin & Baldwin and Hathaway & Franco marked two of the worst years for the ceremony ever because they had no shared chemistry.  The pairing can work, but only if the hosts are someone like Amy Poehler and Tina Fey.  And while I'm not saying we shouldn't judge our Oscar hosts, I'm thinking maybe we are more critical of them then just about anything else.  

Though of course then there's the question of the winners.  A lot of people complain because the Oscars don't choose what me and my friends liked.  Apparently they're out of touch and don't like rewarding the big money makers anymore.  I'd say that problem is more of a Hollywood issue then an Oscar issue; if Hollywood would put out more great, popular material like they once did, then maybe the box office and Oscar divide would be less vast.  The top 5 grossing movies of 2012 were, in order, The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hunger Games, Skyfall, and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.  In 2011 they were Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, Transformers, Dark of the Moon, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part I, The Hangover Part II, and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides.  We all have our opinions (I love Skyfall), but each set of 5 are probably not all the best 5 of the year.  Especially 2011, holy crap was that a bad year.

What really matters is your opinion.  Hell, its great when your favorite is nominated and even better if it wins, but how often does Best Picture line up with your best of the year?  Last time I did was in 2007.  But I still enjoy the show and I enjoy the filmmakers getting the chance to stand in the spotlight and say a few words.  The Oscars are the only American broadcast show that honor many technical achievements, such as Editing, Cinematography, and Sound Design.  They also honor Short Films, shining a light on works that we would otherwise might not ever hear of.  I care who wins because I make predictions and enter into a contest with my friends, and when my picks aren't right, I'm disappointed.  But only fleetingly.  Once the show is over and I have my tally, I'm content.  I make it a game.

People, stop taking the Oscar picks so personally.  You know what you like.  You know what the best film of the year was for you.  Are you really so insecure that you're going to get upset if a bunch of old racist, sexist white guys don't pick yours to win (or even nominate it)?  I love movies, and I'm grateful that there is one show a year that takes the time to honor the masters of their craft, that pays tribute to cinema's rich history.  The Oscars can take themselves too seriously and thats why I appreciated MacFarlane.  He was relaxed and called attention to the spectacle.  The alternative is the MTV Movie Awards, which named Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 as movie of the year.