— The Motion Picture Academy made a bold move this year, expanding its
best picture nominees from five to 10, which has clearly accomplished
its obvious intent — making room for more commercial pictures such as
“The Blind Side.”
But it’s a little too early for the academy to
declare victory. If you take “Avatar” out of the mix, the best picture
nominees are still heavily weighted toward the kind of serious,
high-minded movies the academy, along with the nation’s film critic
establishment, likes to reward for their artistic ambitions.
It is a wonder to see “The Blind Side” get a best
picture nomination, since it is exactly the kind of well-crafted,
heartfelt film that is usually ignored at Oscar time. Ditto for “
which had an intensity and restless energy that is rarely seen in the
Oscar precincts. But the academy still couldn’t entirely shed its
elitist sentiments. Every year,
makes a home-run comedy — this year it was “The Hangover” — and every
year the academy ignores it, foolishly persuaded that comedy is somehow
easier to do than drama.
The academy also has a tin ear for more
adult-oriented comic entertainment (represented this year by “Julie
& Julia” or “It’s Complicated”) that were once regularly nominated
by academy voters in the era of
And the academy wouldn’t dream of nominating well-made films that
actually lured millions of young moviegoers to the theaters, whether it
was “The Hangover,” “Twilight” or “Star Trek.”
What fascinated me the most about Tuesday’s best
picture nominations is how different they were from most of the top
nominations given out by the Grammys, which had their big show Sunday
night, earning an astounding 35 percent boost in ratings, putting the
broadcast into “American Idol” territory. Both organizations are made
up of respected industry professionals, presumably eager to reward the
best work in their respective fields. Yet the motion picture academy
almost always opts for seriousness over comedy, artistic heft over
youthful innovation.
On the other hand, the Recording Academy, officially
known as NARAS, has increasingly given itself over to mainstream
commercial taste. As my Los Angeles Times colleague
year, the industry’s top award, sold more than 13 million albums.
The most striking thing about those awards was the
gap between pure talent and Grammy glory. Even though Swift was the big
winner Sunday night, she has largely been derided by critics and is
viewed as a youthful enthusiasm, not a serious artist. (If you watched
the show, you may have noticed that while she has lovely hair, she can
barely sing.) Yet the much-vaunted Recording Academy showered her with
honors. It would be the equivalent of the Oscars giving
How is it possible that the two most prestigious
academies can have such radically different attitudes toward awards? My
theory is that the Recording Academy, whose industry has already been
devastated by a disastrous, decade-long economic tailspin, has been
forced to shed any lofty ambitions and reach out for its core fan base.
In a sense, the music business has finally embraced the future.
If you watched the Grammys on Sunday night, you saw
a show making a naked grab for TV ratings, even borrowing from
“American Idol” by having viewers vote on a song that would be
performed by Bon Jovi toward the end of the broadcast. It worked beyond
the recording academy’s wildest dreams and puts the pressure on the
Oscars to deliver a similar kind of ratings bounce.
It was instructive to notice what didn’t get
airtime. The Oscars, maddeningly, still insist on giving out every
minor award on air. The Grammys only gave out nine awards in a 3
1/2-hour broadcast — everything else was pure entertainment. The
industry’s legends got short shrift too.
commercially viable stars. When it came to honorary tributes, if you
blinked, you missed ’em.
So what can the motion picture academy learn from
this? I’m not saying the Oscars have to stoop to conquer, although it
would be pretty funny to have viewers vote — Bon Jovi-style — on having
like “Taken” or “The Hangover.” (OK, OK, just kidding). But the Grammy
telecast was a glimpse of the future, not just for the Oscars, but for
all awards shows.
—
(c) 2010, Los Angeles Times.
Visit the Los Angeles Times on the Internet at http://www.latimes.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
