No matter how hard I try to shut it out, the Academy keeps coming back into my life. Last year’s Oscars were immortalized by a headline — “Oscars Blunder: Best Picture award given to ‘Moonlight’ after ‘La La Land’ mixup” — that seemed suspiciously similar to another award show gaffe from a year earlier. This headline, through a variety of phrasings, instantly appeared on my phone’s lock screen in a flurry of news app notifications minutes after the mistake. My phone vibrated so much that I worried a nuclear missile was heading for the United States. To my dismay, my attention was again held captive by the Academy. For days, social media was flooded with articles about the historic upset in which “Moonlight” bested “La La Land,” with some signaling that the Academy, or perhaps even the film industry altogether, may be taking steps in a more progressive direction.
Think of the various awards shows as an extension of the Forer effect, a psychological phenomenon wherein generic platitudes used to describe one’s personality are deemed accurate or insightful. When an Aries reads a horoscope that describes them as a sympathetic soul who loves the company of others, but also values private relaxation, they feel like the description is true. Such broad and vague positive statements elicit a universal response, because deep down, we all want to think we’re sympathetic and half-introverts, half-extroverts. Deep down, we all want to believe that the Academy or the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) represent altruistic appreciation of artistic ingenuity when they dole out awards each winter. When their picks align with ours, we feel as though the voters have been vindicated; when they don’t, it’s easy to believe those voters are somehow out of touch. Whether or not the awards shows have room to grow when it comes to minority representation and inclusion (which they do), both the outrage and the celebration associated with these award shows ultimately achieve the same ends: legitimizing the institutions as tentpoles of the movie industry.
Sure, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has been around for long enough to qualify for some sort of prestige within the industry, but for 89 years of the Academy’s 90-year reign, the makeup of the Academy’s membership has been overwhelmingly white and male. It’s not exactly surprising, given Hollywood’s overwhelmingly white and male history, that membership demographics tend to ignore the achievements of non-white and female filmmakers. Despite noble attempts to boost diversity among members, the Academy’s invitation policies still favor industry nepotism. Members join either through merit (i.e. receiving an Oscar nomination) or, usually, through networking (i.e. nominations from current Academy members). This is why the Academy’s membership includes such prestigious actors as Meat Loaf and Erik Estrada.
Imagine 8,000 strangers sitting in a ballroom at the Four Seasons in Los Angeles. It’s an overwhelmingly white, male crowd, with the average age hovering around 60 years old. They select only a handful of actors, actresses, directors and composers from movies released in 2017 as nominees for awards. Then this anonymous crowd, which isn’t even required to have watched all the nominated pictures, puts it to a final vote, selecting a winner on plurality, meaning for the low percentage of just 13% of the vote, a film could win best picture if the other eight nominees are split evenly. Would you consider these awards legitimate? Would you trust the opinions of this voting body? Most importantly, would you take offense to their winners? If you answered, “No, that’s stupid, and this weirdly homogenous group of strangers who don’t even have to know about the movies they vote on and don’t have to elect winners through a majority doesn’t have to validate what movies I consider good,” then congratulations! You understand why the Academy shouldn’t be taken seriously.
We already know the Oscars and the Golden Globes are overwhelmingly susceptible to bribery. We already know that the Academy and HFPA are vested in the awards ceremonies as spectacle, not “artistic milestones.” We already know that production companies use nominations and wins as marketing tactics, ever since producers of “The Deer Hunter” found out that the Academy’s blessing will help sell a depressing Vietnam War flick. While the natural reflex is to suggest the Academy needs to be restructured, to include more minority representation, or even to replace their voting system, there’s a much simpler way to show dissatisfaction with the awards organizations: Quit caring about them. The public’s fascination with the Oscars or the Globes only makes them more powerful in the movie industry — specifically on the consumer side.
“But how will I know what movies are good?” you may ask. It’s a valid concern, as an easy way to see what movies made a splash in past years is to Google “Oscar winners [year].” In fact, an Oscar win nearly guarantees a movie’s longevity. I probably never would have known about “On the Waterfront” were it not for the 1954 Oscars, where it swept up awards in multiple categories. However, I also remind myself that the “Best Picture of 1954” award isn’t all that it seems. More accurately, the award should be called, “The Movie a Plurality of Mostly Rich White Men in the Movie Industry During 1954 Liked.” It’s important to look directly at the seemingly objective titles with a more literal lens; when you see the awards organizations for what they are, suddenly their word no longer need be regarded as law. An award is only worth the identity of the organization bestowing it.
That isn’t to say the Oscars or the Golden Globes are completely useless. If you wish to know what the Academy favored this year, nominations will come out in a matter of days. There are other metrics, however, for the quality of movies released every year. Nearly all major publications release their own “best of” lists in early January (even the truly awful ones). If you trust film critics, then Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes provide aggregate scores; otherwise, IMDB and Letterboxd compile the reviews of typical filmgoers. To highlight the often forgotten minority candidates, check out the NAACP’s image awards or the GALECA’s Dorian awards. You could even pick out your favorite solo critic and use their opinions as a yardstick when going to watch movies. The most reliable measurement, however, is your own personal critique. Instead of deferring to some out-of-touch organization, take the plunge and judge the movies for yourself. Don’t let the award show results this year anger you if you disagree. Instead, remember that, at the end of the day, how a movie makes you feel will never be neatly summed up in a televised night of celebrities rubbing shoulders with one another.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.