RSS | 
Twitter
| 
Be a fan!
Oscar's expansion unnecessary
The reasoning seems to be that broadening the pool would give the Oscars a more populist flavor and, by extension, boost ratings for the annual awards extravaganza, which have been a bit sluggish in recent years.
I hate to sound like one of those fuddy-duddies who wants the old days to come roaring back on a white horse, but I really hope this misbegotten expansion dubbed an "experiment" by one anonymous Academy governor in The New York Times is a bust.
Sure, I think some of this is just discomfort with a hallowed institution being tinkered with - heck, if we're going to increase the number of Best Picture nominees in the Academy Awards, why not go ahead and celebrate Christmas on Dec. 28? Or uproot Pope Benedict XVI from the Vatican and have him take up residence in Monte Carlo. Or move the Steelers to Birmingham, Ala. It's a city with a steel heritage, after all.
Rate This Story:
1 the lowest - 5 the highest
Current rating:
I know the Oscars had 10 or more Best Picture nominees from 1937-43, but those were the days when Hollywood studios were veritable factories, pumping out scores of movies. The pool of candidates is much smaller now, and filled with franchise flicks and comedies designed for teenage boys. The past year was a fairly weak one for movies, so it's ironic that now's the time they're doubling up on contenders.
The switch likely was prompted because "Wall-E" and "The Dark Knight," two big popular hits, weren't among last year's finalists for the big prize. I could've handled "Wall-E" being nominated over the well-intentioned but lightweight "Curious Case of Benjamin Button," but, hey, life goes on.
I would argue, in fact, that the academy has gotten much better about honoring quality, enduring films in recent years. A movie like "Pulp Fiction," a Best Picture nominee in 1994, probably would have been overlooked just 10 years before. And there's no chance a dark but well-regarded movie like "No Country For Old Men" could have won in, say, 1977. But it did in 2007.
As far as the academy's ratings go, I think they're looking at the wrong fix. This year, the awards will be telecast on March 7, the caboose of the awards season. They're preceded by the Golden Globes, Screen Actors Guild Awards, British Academy Awards and Independent Spirit Awards, among others, all of which are readily available on broadcast or cable networks. And if you tune in to the Oscars solely to glimpse the stars, you can do that 24/7 on the Internet or a cable network like E!
All "event" programming, whether it's the World Series or, yes, the Oscars, isn't the audience-grabber it was in the days when we just had three networks, an independent channel and public television to choose from.
I think Mark Harris, a columnist for Entertainment Weekly, said it well in July: "...Why are the people who run the show suddenly acting like they'll face the guillotine unless they agree to trash both common sense and their own history?"
