Is the gerrymander the path the Oscars will take? Will the voting for Oscar nominations be based upon anything other then the arbitrary nuance of Academy members' votes? Like it or not this seems to be the route the Academy is taking regarding the future of the Oscars - however long and arduous that journey may be. Like many Awards it's not the best or most deserved that prevail but the one that keep the 'face' of the donor organization in proper form.
The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences is a very tight, closed group composed of Hollywood insiders who vote every year on each other's performance; however, Hollywood and the Academy are both losing power and relevance. For example, when (and not if) China becomes the largest cinema market the whole industry will shift. It won't be the Academy that welds power over the 'best' but a whole new group of folks making films outside the Hollywood realm.
The Oscars are losing their 'value' and have been for some time. Ask any recent Oscar recipient and they will tell you they got nothing of value (other than spiritual and, perhaps, individual satisfaction) from receiving the 'big' Award. Viewership, of the Awards show, has been waning for years and gets more tedious and boring with each broadcast. So, if gerrymandering is the inevitable 'way' of Academy voting who really cares - the whole concept is on the down-slide anyway.
As the old saying goes, "Awards are like hemorrhoids, eventually very ass gets one".
Just saying,
No comments:
Post a Comment