‘Populist’ Oscar Rants

Steve Granitz / WireImage/Getty Images
The last few days have seen a flood of editorials bemoaning the precipitous decline in ratings for the Oscars telecast, usually blaming it on the Academy being ‘out of touch’ with the populace in its nominating of ‘obscure’ films like the $60+ million grosser that won the Best Picture trophy.
This is the same crap spewed out to fill space every year. I pose this question to the journalists ‘fighting for the people’ by criticizing the Academy for rewarding ‘little-seen’ films: what would be the ideal nominees? Transformers? Spider-Man 3? Shrek 3? Pirates of the Carribbean 3? Rush Hour 3? Everyone has made fun of the Academy for nominating Norbit in the Best Makeup category (it deserved the nod), but by this logic Norbit should be nominated for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress (Eddie Murphy), and Best Director.
Sure, recognizing mostly off-beat, artsy-fartsy, studio specialty division films is part of the reason why Oscar ratings have suffered. Nearly 60 million people tuned in in 1998 because even my house pets saw Titanic 11 times. And while the Oscars rarely give props to the movies that cinephiles would count among the year’s best, it is still, ostensibly, a ceremony that recognizes quality cinema, not popular cinema. I think this all roots from whining about American Gangster not getting much notice – after all, it was a popular, star-studded, awards-baiting epic. But seriously folks, it didn’t make that much more dough than Juno, and it wasn’t exactly a critical success.
This argument reeks of arrogance. It operates under the assumption that because over 50 million people have seen Spider-Man 3 the public thinks Spider-Man 3 is the ‘best film of the year.’ Not true. Most people thought it sucked. Even the IMDB nerds didn’t like it – it only has a 6.6/10 vote. Spider-Man 3 was a huge event film. My Grandma probably saw it. She probably thought it sucked too.
Spider-Man 2 though? That movie rocks.
Tags: Awards Show, Movie News, Oscars

