thePeanutBloggery

Let’s face it, the Oscars have an unintentional tendency to induce yawning, followed by a short-lived, yet undiagnosable case of narcolepsy. But every year, on that magical night in February (remember when it aired in March?), we gather around the television and watch star after star pose awkwardly for the photographers of People magazine, which later revels in praising and/or obliterating the style choices of Hollywood’s A-listers. And we, in turn, delight in it. But when the preshow ends and the ceremony begins, our attention spans are put to the test.

This year will prove no different.

But this year more than ever, what’s to keep us glued to the tube once the cavalcade of nominees and presenters enter the glittering Kodak Theatre? After all, we’ve seen this show before–very recently even. It was called The Golden Globes.

Sure, more than one journalist has acknowledged the degree to which we can predict the nominees and winners for each year’s Oscars; it’s as if the Academy pulls a Watergate on the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and makes creative, surreptitious use of the copy machine. What makes this year unique is the degree to which the Academy’s roster of nominees resembles that of the HFPA.

Case in point: the acting categories. Let’s look at the Academy’s choices for Best Actress (mutual nominees in bold text): Penélope Cruz, Judi Dench, Meryl Streep, Helen Mirren, Kate Winslet–four out of five, and recall that Streep was given a Globe for Best Actress in a Motion Picture, Comedy, a category the Academy refuses to adopt due to some deep, inexplicable existential concern. And for Best Actor: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ryan Gosling, Peter O’Toole, Will Smith, Forest Whitaker. How Gosling got in there is anyone’s guess. It’s quite possible members of the Academy mistook him for an overly committed-to-character Leonardo DiCaprio.

What’s my point? Don’t watch the Oscars for the awards. Like other accolades doled out to their open-armed recipients, the Academy Awards are borne from political, possibly financial reasoning and a herd mentality. There are over 6,000 eligible voters. Are we meant to believe that each one sees every single film, has an uncanny ability to recognize special achievements in sound mixing, and knows superb art direction when they see it? In a word: No. Like the rest of the population, the majority of their nominations and final selections are the result of what they perceive to be the opinion of their peers. Of course, there are exceptions–but their numbers are small, too small to inject even a modicum of originality–well, there’s always Ryan Gosling.

So go ahead and watch the Oscars. Tear up at the overwrought acceptance speeches, smile and laugh with the infectious Ellen Degeneres, and offer your opinion on the night’s best-dressed. Just don’t go changing your own opinion of a filmmaker, actor, or sound mixer just because the Academy gave him or her a little bald man with a sword.