Oscars are supposedly reward the best films of the year. And yet, they typically emphasize movies that underperform financially because the public does not care for them.
Admittedly, art is subjective. Just because the average viewer ignored Phantom Thread does not mean it was not the best film of the year it came out. Then again, some people defend the objectivity of the Oscars by highlighting the fact that it takes several thousand industry experts to select the best films from the hundreds that come out each year.
But that is not true. The individuals who nominate films for the Oscars focus their attention on the titles Hollywood studios submit for consideration. It would be erroneous to suggest that The Academy looks at every film from the last 12 months before making their decision.
This supports the argument that the Oscars are not particularly objective, especially when you consider the pattern in their selections. The term ‘Oscar Bait’ exists because The Academy is predictable. It tends to prioritize films that feature the same set of characteristics, namely: period pieces and contemporary dramas saturated with social commentary.
Why do you think Emilia Perez has generated so much controversy? The film has an abysmal Rotten Tomatoes score. Even reviewers who typically celebrate Oscar-nominated films hate it.
The record-breaking nominations it received are confounding. What did The Academy see in Emilia Perez that escaped other viewers? Well, we can’t ignore the subject matter. Emilia Perez follows a Mexican drug lord who undergoes a sex change. With the trans conversation in the USA having reached a fever pitch, it feels like The Academy is searching for an opportunity to reward any project that puts trans issues in the spotlight.
Opponents of The Academy often describe the Oscars as a ‘Wank Fest,’ as in, Hollywood uses the ceremony to stoke its ego. The industry’s most powerful voices want to pat themselves on the back by elevating a film with a trans protagonist.
Or maybe they actually liked Emilia Perez. Unless you have the power to read minds, we can’t hope to decipher the motives of people we have never met. That said, as I mentioned before, the Oscars have a pattern.
They tend to reward films that tackle social issues. Nomadland followed a homeless widow traversing the country in her van. Moonlight featured a gay drug dealer. Black Panther was the first comic book adaptation with a predominantlly African cast.
Now, are we saying the Oscars are wrong? Clearly, they harbour a bias of some sort. Even hardcore supporters of the ceremony routinely criticize the Oscars for favoruing dramas and completely rejecting comedy even though comedy is more challenging than drama.
Making people cry is so much easier than making them laugh. Most human beings are empathetic and you can trigger their tear ducts by exposing them to the same set of visuals.
On the other hand, humour is incredibly subjective. We don’t laugh at the same things. As such, filmmakers who masterfully craft humour that successfully tickles the majority of viewers should be commended. But the Oscars ignore comedy because they are looking for misery porn. Why else would they reward so many depressing films?
But at the same time, the fact that Oscar- nominated films underperform at the box office matters. Maybe, The Academy exists to support the underdog. They shine a spotlight on films the average viewer ignores. Think about all the actors who languished in obscurity for years, possibly even decades, only getting their big break after starring in an Oscar- nominated film.
The Oscars serve a purpose, although you can’t fault ‘Normal People’ for giving them a wide berth. Where tastes and preferences are concerned, there’s an enormous gulf separating The Academy from the public.
katmic200@gmail.com