Why the Oscars shouldn't matter

It's the end of January, 2009, and after a big year of movies, people are giddy and frantic about the Oscars. And again, I'm figuratively rolling my eyes and wondering why people still give a damn.

This is the year Heath Ledger is expected to posthumously win an Oscar for his role as The Joker in The Dark Knight. It's also the year that people's jaws have dropped because a minor, comparatively inferior movie is being nominated called The Reader. For the record, I don't even think I've heard of it until it was mentioned as a nominee.

In fact, for various reasons, people's jaws drop. Is it any surprise that the best movies aren't nominated or don't win? Or performances by actors? And just who makes up the Academy anyway?

And how long have viewers been crying foul? Is it really any surprise?

Let's take a quick glance at the history, and I'll just work on what I know out of laziness (I'll do the research once I start getting paid for this). How many years was it until Martin Scorsese finally won an Oscar? What's more, can anyone remember off the top of their heads who won in the years that Scorsese made Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, and Casino? It's also interesting to note that Gandhi won over E.T. I hadn't seen Gandhi, but chances are, I can count on one hand the number of people who have.

Personally, I remember being appalled when Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon didn't win and Gladiator did. So was Ebert, but even he should've been numb to these kinds of upsets. One is a beautiful, visually poetic romance that's so rich in beautiful story and cinematography that I honestly forgot I was in a movie theater for over an hour or so. And this is with subtitles! Likewise, while Gladiator was fun, it shouldn't have been nominated for an Oscar. It's a generic underdog story fictionally set in a historic period just so we can watch a gladiator fight and overthrow a corrupt king. I thought it was just a cheap copy of Braveheart. Well, it probably wasn't cheap, but I've little reason to believe the movie wasn't just a cookie-cutter script with a few proper nouns changed.

Some of the criteria is weird, too. Like, if Wall-E was a good movie, then it should earn a spot in the nominations. It being animated is not enough reason to deny a movie a nomination at the Oscars. It's not like it's straight-to-video or was made for TV. It's a full length feature film, made with hard work, and featuring voice actors, cinematography, direction, musical score... everything, really. And The Dark Knight was a legitimate crime drama and had very little in the ways of novelty. It certainly shouldn't be denied nomination for being adapted from a comic franchise, especially if equally great things can be said of the "Batman" comics, and comics in general. To deny these movies is to call into question what winning an Oscar is really worth. You're basically asking, "Okay, what's the best movie released this year that wasn't a comedy, animated, adapted from a comic book, or a horror?" instead of "What's the best movie of the year?". These movies do get shown in theaters that also show independents, foreign films, period pieces, and biopics, so why not?

And I'm not even going to go into the Best Song category. It's like the Oscar awards equivalent to Olympic curling.

And you know what? Oftentimes, when people win Oscars, their ensuing films are usually worse and worse. One would think an Oscar would serve as a status of rank which would provide the winner with the clout to pick and choose his/her roles, or scripts, or what-have-you, and one would expect these Oscar winners would from that point continue to put out quality work. Likewise, people who have been denied the Oscar for many years have put out excellent work. It's as if the golden statuette has something in common with the ring of the dark lord Sauron.

Not to mention that lusting after an Oscar reeks of desperation. If you're desperate to win an Oscar, you probably can't think straight. I mean, do we love Jack Nicholson because he has Oscars, or because he's a great actor who performs in great movies? Isn't that why Tom Hanks is respected? Is the Oscar lust helping Lindsay Lohan to win, or even get work?

I mean, why do people want Oscars? I'm sure people who've been nominated multiple times can afford a golden statue the height of a mansion. I'm also pretty sure it doesn't do anything but stand. And I have a hard time believing that having an Oscar means never having to live in squalor, or guarantees opportunities for greater film projects, or anything.

It's just bragging rights, isn't it?

So, my question--and I know I asked a few in this blog posting--is this: If all this is so, then why is any value placed on the statuette and the decisions of those in the Academy? If Roger Ebert consistently gave good reviews to the Wayans' brothers' crap comedy movies, and bad reviews to actually decent movies, then would Roger Ebert be able to retain his status as an intelligent film critic with valuable opinions?

I'll just say this, then. If somehow, by some quirk of luck, I managed to eke out a career in film and I merely get nominated for my efforts, I'd be happy as anything. If I actually won, I'd be less happy. Heck, I'd be pissed and wondering what I did wrong. No, I think we're better off if we do something for the sheer love of doing it and just doing one's best. It's the appreciation from fans and critics that should inspire filmmakers, not a lump of gold better suited for printed circuit boards. We shouldn't have to strive to make a list or earn something as substantial as a scratch n' sniff sticker.