Question: have the Oscars lost their relevance? Does it even mean anything to win an Oscar anymore?
That’s my big question. What’s yours?
Question: have the Oscars lost their relevance? Does it even mean anything to win an Oscar anymore?
That’s my big question. What’s yours?
Better late than never! Barbie was placed in Adapted at the Oscars but is in the Original Screenplay category here,...
Read moreThe Academy should take a bow this morning for bringing back the Oscars, restoring them to their former glory in...
Read moreThe Golden Globes went off well enough this past year that CBS has signed a five-year deal with the Globes...
Read more
your a gay bitch
Sasha, even asking if the Oscar is relevant anymore has certainly depressed this longtime academy observer. Growing up, the Oscar was larger than life.
Is the Oscar still relevant?
It must be. It has to be. Or excellence in film will be left to the voters of the People’s Choice Awards.
Just as a follow up, Peter Gabriel’s track from “Wall-E” may not be eligible as it was originally created for his project, “Big Blue Ball.” The fact that the song was removed from that project and used for “Wall-E” without previously being released may allow it to be eligible, but keep in mind they may disqualify it.
I liked the story where Humphrey Bogart was arguing with another actor about the craft of acting. In the middle of the argument, Bogart got up, went to another room, came back with his Oscar, set it on the table, and in Bogart’s mind, not another word needed to be said.
I think that Oscar winners still feel this way. There are lots of awards in other industries that mean nothing to outsiders, but everything to the people in them. In an industry where you have a series of jobs, and inside reputation is key to getting work, industry awards will always be important.
Whether Oscar watching and Oscar discourse by outside observers has palled, is another question. On a site like this where the level of discourse is high and varied, hey, give me more. When it descends (elsewhere) to a stupid level, yes, I’m bored.
Thanks for the kind words, Sam.
I do not think the Oscars have lost their relevance.
I think modern media has damaged their relevance by turning them into a “Who are you wearing?” and “What do you think of Britney?” red carpet event with some trophies thrown around on the side. That is why viewing is so low, people think they can just catch the highlights on ET and in Us. Sad.
Pierre, I honestly don’t think the Oscars were ever the be-all-and-end-all of anything. They were simply a device used by an industry to honor what it felt was the best. The press has blown its ‘relevance’ out of proportion to its intentions. But I think we live in a much more cynical world in this post 9/11 New Millenium, so it’s no wonder that, to many, Oscar’s shiny bald head has lost a bit of its lustre, and I suppose, relevance. I refuse to be suckered into it. It’s what it is.
Wow, Pierre, this is truly a magisterial posting. The entire historial perspective, the “pie” analogy, the decline of the Oscars and other “items of iconography,” are wonderfully deduced. And couldn’t be stated more succinctly that “while they are no loner the be-all-and-end-all, they are maybe worth mentioning.”
What a submission!
Well, yes, the Academy Awards have lost a significant share of relevance — more on that in a bit — but they obviously haven’t lost it all as evidenced by the amount of money still being spent on Oscar campaigns.
Sam, I wouldn’t look back with too much nostalgia at Oscar’s days of yore. Popularity, politics and behind-the-scenes b.s. have always been a part of these awards. One merely look at the Bette Davis/Of Human Bondage controversy to get an inkling, or how the rules were changed in the late 1930s or thereabouts so that movie extras wouldn’t be able to be the driving force in allowing Walter Brennan to win 3 Oscars, or Jimmy Stewart’s win for Philadelphia Story.
There’s only so much relevance to go around — it’s like a piece of pie — and the Oscars now must share the spotlight with not only a myriad of awards ceremonies but also sources of entertainment that have diffused the media sources into smithereens of market segments.
The decline of the Oscars — and other objects of iconography — can be traced, I suppose, to the rise of the counterculture movement of the 1960s, where the status quo started to become “not cool.” Alternative values began to proliferate, some people openly derided such emblems of the establishment such as the Oscars, Miss America, and even the U.S. presidency.
Then Watergate happened, and the next thing you know — thanks to the rise of the new journalism — we started seeing the unpleasant underbelly of our icons. Although we’ve recovered somewhat from this (thanks to the rise of the cult of personality), the Oscars now must compete for attention (and revenue) with a wide range of cultural phenomena.
The Academy Awards may still be the Big Daddy of awards shows, but I think the reason AMPAS so aggressively protects its trademark rights is because they feel that must do so to remain competitive and maintain its edge. To many many people, Oscars are no longer the be-all-and-end-all but, rather, a detail that’s maybe worth mentioning.
W.J: I don’t deny the box-office clout and potential of the Oscars, nor to I mean to imply that in recent years there hasn’t been some kind of an attempt to evince some recognition for independent and foreign-language cinema. Similarly, I am well-aware that the nominees take these awards quite seriously, moreso than the Globes or any others.
But my argument is more that the ‘artistic’ relevence of teh awards have fallen by the wayside. I realize that the BROKEBACK vs. CRASH debacle has been beaten to death here and outside (“Bette” for one is sitting back seething, vowing never to watch again!) these threads, but that still is a glaring example of how these awards don’t designate anything other than the need to ‘play it safe.” BROKEBACK won the Globe drama prize, and was annointed Best Pix by both the New York Film Critics Circle and the LA Film Critics Circle. Case closed on that artistic abomination.
Yet Sasha said earlier today in a post that the Oscars have really called them right in recent years, and apart from that one instance, we can’t really complain too much.
Yet, W.J., the way the awards are chosen, the politics, timing and mitigating factors that sacrifice the very reason the awards are givem, make the entire process a three-ring-circus. I feel that to issue validation to them is to willingly embrace all the ills of modern-day society. There execution is a blight on all we hold dear and sacred, regardless of what the awards mean to the recipients who know they bolster their careers. This is the same kind of mentality that allows one to accept spiraling salaries for athletes and performers.
It’s a fact………….but it ain’t right.
The Oscars definitely have relevance. Sure Sam, we can always be disdainful of the choices and the relevance of those choices, but look through the years. The Oscars are essentially no different today than they were 30 or 40 years ago, except for the fact that they are far more willing to recognize independent film making. A very good thing! And I’ve noticed that as the years have progressed, attendance of the major nominees has increased significantly. It’s a rare sight to see any of the acting nominees NOT show up (even Sean Penn showed up to deliver a heartfelt acceptance), something that was quite common for the first 50 years of the ceremony. Even actors who know they have little chance of winning are there, enjoying their moment of glory. The Oscars are hugely relevant, to the nominees, to the studios, and to fans like us who visit sites like Awards Daily as often as possible.
Sasha:
Yeah, I do admit it’s a stretch for me to pose that possibility, and there isn’t much precedence. (only that one instance I cited, which of course was the result of an impassioned campaign that was aimed at ‘breaking the long-standing taboo’) And yes indeed, I agree that it is the actors for that top prize. But as this particular animated film may be the most critically-lauded of them all, there is still that slim chance. Of course, will people still feel that way in October and November as they do now in early summer? Well that’s yet to be seen. LOL. Thanks for responding to me.
The Oscars haven’t necessarily lost their relevance, only their cachet. The prestige an Academy Award once carried has been dampened by all the other film awards that precede Oscar night. Also, the wider media coverage of all critics’ awards and other film award shows seem to lessen the intrigue of who will win an award by the time we get to the actual ceremony.
However, the Oscar trademark has remained very much a part of the public’s consciousness. Obituaries, TV show introductions, and biographies prominently use “Oscar-nominated” or “Oscar-winning” in defining a celebrity. In addition, the Oscars continue to provide an important history of significant films and their creators in their yearly lists of nominees.
As for its meaningfulness, it still opens doors for some winners and is used to sell videos afterwards. For those people who are casual-but-interested observers of the film industry, the Oscar becomes more of a marketing tool in helping them choose what films to see.
If there’s a sense of being less meaningful or relevant, I would attribute that to the red carpet emphasis that precedes the show — even though that part of the show is what the public craves, the vacuous discussions about dress designers and other small talk don’t appear to be very Academy-like. After all, the Academy Awards were originally established to offset negative publicity about the film industry. Also, the Academy is now often under attack for having outdated or arbitrary rules which are used to select nominees in certain categories.
Nevertheless, the Oscars remain both relevant and meaningful, but not in the way we remember when we were younger. Oscar’s getting older, too, and its patina is fading along with the rest of us.
Sam, I don’t think it will make the Best Pic cut but I guess it will depend on the other films. It’s the actors.
AJ, yes, will add it – but it’s Peter Gabriel and someone else, though, isn’t it? I think Peter Gabriel trumps Jennifer Hudson…
Thanks for the comments and yes, Dorothy, the Oscars are absolutely star makers; that’s what they’re best for, really. I just wonder, though, even on that level can they be? The PR team behind Cotillard worked so hard getting her in the public eye so that the Oscar folks would do the right thing and give her the win – I half wonder if she’d been as big a star anyway. Do the younger generations even care about the Oscars? That is the future, of course. Do they care more about American Idol and the MTV awards? Sure they do, which is why the ratings are taking such a hit. Also, this sounds mean but I can say it because I am one, but old people run the show, not young people. They are older voters, older producers, older directors, etc. They are in a groove that they can’t break out of and even when they try to break out of it they fail miserably.
That said, their choices lately have been pretty great overall. They may be becoming irrelevant at a time when they’re track record is at an all-time high.
Interesting queries there A.J. Speaking for myself, I am not certain how the Academy’s bizarre eligibility rules will apply here.
But I am still recovering from my own viewing of WALL-E yesterday afternoon. The film was an aout and out masterpiece, the best film ever released by Pixar, a film of astonishing emotional depth and animation craftsmanship, that taken in the conmtext of this thread whether we support or deride the Oscars, should rightfully be the first animated film since BEAUTY AND THE BEAST in 1991 to receive a nomination in the Best Film category. And yes, before some questions may be raised, it IS eligible to get a Best Film nod, regardless of the Best Animated film category. It can get both.
This is what I meant when I said earlier, that despite the Oscars complete fall from artistic grace, most of us still engage in th ediscourse.
Off Topic! Shouldn’t Peter Gabriel’s Down To Earth from Wall-E be added to the best song contenders? And there was another song from somewhere else that I can’t remember…Now i do! If the music branch loves Jennifer Hudson, “all dressed in love” could get a Best Song nomination
John, the whole point is that most people can’t remember who won three or four years ago, let alone 20 years.
The Oscars have lost all of their relevence. Serious film scholars, movie-lovers and those with any kind of interest in awards do not and cannot take them seriously anymore. The threads of this very site (year in and year out) display the comments of so many who mock and evince utter didain for the issue that have roundly ended the real and true significance of the Oscars.
When matters like timing, box-office (too much or too little), whether or not someone has ever won, academy politics, personal popularity or lack thereof, and stringent rules of qualifications that fly in the face of artistry, play pivotal roles in who wins or gets nominated, then said process is irrelovent.
The onset in recent years of “other” awards like those annually handed out by the Globes, the BAFTAS, the various critics’ groups and the Broadcast News, (all of which are handed out BEFORE the Oscars) have also lessned the interest, as people by that time have tired of the awards overkill.
To take this awards seriously is to do nothing more than engage in competition and contest handicapping. I am guilty of this myself, and I engage in the discourse of these very threads, as I will in the upcoming Oscar campaign, but it is with full knowledge that the entire process is a laughable sham, which decades ago ceased being artistically relevent.
Any serious lover of film or the arts knows full well what an embarrassment these awards are, as they regularly snub the independent films that so many of us revere, and virtually have no real grip on foreign language cinema, for which they regularly screw up that category by omissions, arcane rules of qualification and plain ignorance.
As a huge movie fan and fan of the history of the movies, they sure mean a lot to me. Thanks to blockbuster online/netflix, I have made a point over the last year or so of renting films that have been muliti-nominated from 2007 down to (I’m at 1984 right now). I have learned so much. I have seen siginificance. I have seen changes in winning patterns, changes in certain males/females being voted, etc. It’s been fascinating, and I am eagerly waiting 1983, 82 and down to the 30’s hopefully. Youtube has also provided me great nostalgia in seeing clips of these old telecasts; watching various stars and their movies make an impact. People remember the ‘older’ movies, and I’d like to think that in 20 yrs. from now, they’ll remember movies and winner from 2007, etc. Sasha, this is a great site, and the Oscars DO still have relevance. I hope it only expands. … Hope this post made sense, haha. I’m just so passionate about the topic I’m typing like a maniac.
Oscars will always be relevant. Its gives a monumental mark on how people view life in general every year.
It is not a “starmaker”. It actually put the winner in a very difficult position. It may make or break his/her entire career. Take for example, Hale Berry or Mira Sorvino. It took them alot of years to build their career and just one movie to break it. One big factor is because they are Oscar winners. People abhor respected actors who make trashy films.
I think if people make movies like “There Will Be Blood” just for the Oscars, then I don’t think they were that into it to begin with.
Do people write great stories just for the Quill Awards or make great music just for the Grammy’s? I would like to think that the answer to this is no.
Were the Oscars ever really that relevant? Maybe to some people
(people in the field), but it is just an awards show based on opinions.
“I hate to reduce the Oscars to the role of “starmakers,” but it strikes me as such, at least during the past decade or so. I feel like they’ve somewhat moved on from recognizing old timers (Alan Arkin aside), but I suppose these patterns emerge and evolve through time. ”
Eh, I tend to disagree. A great role and more importantly, solid box office, makes a star. Junebug may have gotten Amy Adams notice, but Enchanted made her a star. Shia Labeouf is one of the most sought after young actors in the biz, and it’s because his movies make money. Ellen Page was nommed for best actress, but Juno was also a box office smash. Etc, etc.
The Oscars have definitely lost their relevance, atleast to the general public. Viewership shows that. And they absolutely lost any of my respect after Crash beat Brokeback Mountain.
A better question is……
Do kids dream about winning the Emmy when they grow up? The Golden Globe? The goddman Tonys?
No, they dream OSCAR…..
Yes its still relevant.
I think they absolutely still do, but for certain people more than others. Case in point, Marion Cotillard. Here’s a person who made 30+ films in her native France, all quality, powerful work, and yet not many people outside of Europe knew who she was. Even two high profile Hollywood entries did little to enhance her reputation. Flashforward to the release of “La Mome” and the ensuing buzz (I confess, it was through AD that I first heard of Marion last summer, so big up to Sasha and Ryan for that). After winning many awards and finally the big one, she is now able to star with other A-list actors and work with top of the line directors, and we, the public, benefit from this.
I hate to reduce the Oscars to the role of “starmakers,” but it strikes me as such, at least during the past decade or so. I feel like they’ve somewhat moved on from recognizing old timers (Alan Arkin aside), but I suppose these patterns emerge and evolve through time.
I’m also very conscious that, from the very beginning, the Oscars are as much about marketing a Hollywood product as they are about rewarding outstanding work. It’s a fine balance, but they do it well (for the most part).
Wow, now I’m babbling, so I’ll stop there.
I totally agree with Ken. The critics who say that the Oscars are irrelevant now are forgetting that without them, a film like “There Will Be Blood” probably wouldn’t have got any kind of decent release.
Sure, the public may not be watching them anymore, and some of the winners may soon fade into obscurity, but that doesn’t mean anything. Some of the best acting winners are ones that the public have barely heard of, and just because the audience ratings weren’t high when “No Country For Old Men” won best picture doesn’t mean that the film won’t be remembered 50 years from now.
The old “Oscars aren’t relevant anymore” argument has been going on for years, it isn’t just a recent thing. Some people have criticized the Academy for ignoring a film like “The Shawshank Redemption” over “Forrest Gump”, but at least the Oscars recognized it at the time at all, which is more than can be said about us, the audience. “Shawshank” died on its arse at the box office back in 1994, and that was our fault, yet the Oscars still took notice of it. That’s the kind of decision that goes unnoticed when discussing the pros-and-cons of the Oscars, and there are many more like it.
Television ratings don’t equal relevance. At a time when cinema attendances are extremely low (I don’t know if it’s an “all-time low” but it must be close) and the only films that seem to have a decent life at the theatres are big budget action films, anything that encourages great film-makers to create more in-depth, challenging films and also encourages studios to distribute them is fine by me. I daresay that without the Oscars, that probably wouldn’t be able to happen.
I think that Oscars still have relevance. In an era where blockbusters or meaningless movies filled with CGI rule cinema these days, the Oscar seems to be the main reason why Hollywood even bothers to make high quality films. Does it always work out? No, but the effort is always there. Without that, I’d think independent films would be stuck in the film festival circuit. Why would a studio want to help distribute an independent film if it doesn’t offer them any type of prestige? You can call me a cynic, and while I don’t always like the choices the Academy makes when it comes to Oscar season, I appreciate the fact that they try to recognize great film. I mean, you can clearly see a difference between them and the MTV movie awards. At least somebody still wants to recognize great films.
Of course, maybe to the regular public, the Oscar doesn’t mean anything anymore. I don’t know what kind of effect that would have on the Academy twenty years down the line. I just hope the effect doesn’t occur within my lifetime.
Hi Sasha
First of all, love your work. For Oscarphiles like me this site is a must. Secondly, as far as the relevance of winning an Oscar goes, I dont think it means a hell of alot anymore. Did it ever? Of course to those who are lucky enough to win one, and i do mean lucky because lady luck plays a huge part in it, it guarantees great publicity in the short and long term as they are the toast of Hollywood for one big night and they will be forever referred to as “Oscar winner”. But we all know that it often doesnt translate into better roles or better films. If a win means smaller films get a wider audience, im all for the Oscars. Despite the Academys poor track record in awarding the un-deserving.