Do the Oscars Mean Anything Anymore?

After wrapping up the 95th Academy Awards, I've been reading a lot of articles on the results and it got me thinking: do the Oscars mean anything anymore?

Which brings us to a different point: what did it mean for us? It used to be a signifier of great films which would direct audiences to the movie theaters. It would really show for the best quality and the best work of that year - or so we thought. Think of 2015 when we had Birdman, Theory of Everything, Grand Budapest Hotel, or 2018 with Three Billboards, Get Out, Lady Bird and Call Me By Your Name. These movies were inspirational for most people. I'm not saying that today's films are not inspirational but if Everything, Everywhere, All at Once wasn't there on the list, the movies would still be outstanding but maybe considered a little repetitive.

I think that the Academy is also aware of the fact that its conservative structure must change, or at least adjust to our day's requirements. The Oscars Ceremony was built to glorify the American Cinema and its makers. It was a way to celebrate themselves and show appreciation for their work when the rest of the world's business owners didn't. It was also a way of trendsetting. When there was the star system and studios locked certain starts for certain periods of time, an actress winning the award for the best lead actor was a bigger deal for studio profits. That star would drive the masses to movie theaters more. The same things goes for directors. However, over time the star system has grown out of its adolescent clothes and we now live in a Hollywood where talent has more power in some instances than studios. Talent launch their own companies and produce movies that contend for major awards. I believe the best thing that the Academy can do is to make sure they are creating a fair space for both the celebrity new comers, older players and those who want in. While it's abundantly clear that the Academy is a conservative institution, it's also obvious that they can't avoid the current discourse.

The Political Correctness Dilemma

One of the snubs of this year was She Said, a movie made by Brad Pitt's Plan B Entertainment, starring Carrie Mulligan. She Said covers the story of the journalists at the New York Times who published the first piece outing Harvey Weinstein, with many women's testimonials against him. It's not a great movie in my opinion but I think there is value in Hollywood making movies about its very own scandals. Although I must add that this is another thing. Everyone expected this movie to be a nominee but it wasn't. Just because it's about an important matter, should a movie be a nominee? Should a movie be a nominee because it's politically correct to do so? Should a movie be a nominee because it's going to get more ratings? Should you give awards to more women or men because it's the right thing to do? Ratings were up 12% from last year and experts believe this to be of the hype created around the many Asian-descent nominees.

This was the first year that an Asian-American actress won the Best Lead
Actress award in the history of the Oscars. Michelle Yeoh won with her per-
formance in "Everything, Everywhere, All at Once".        

I think that the members of the academy are also a little confused about how to vote and how to think. Women won 15% of the Oscars this year, compared to a slightly higher 23% from last year. One of the biggest discussions was about Mandy Walker, who is the cinematographer of Elvis. She's been nominated for this year's Oscars but it went to All Quiet on the Western Front. Mandy Walker has been nominated before as well. This should be about merit, not about gender politics. However, it also says something if we're still celebrating first female wins at the Oscars. I don't think it's fair to think that men are probably displaying better performances and products than men. I believe this is simply about institutional mindset and opportunities. This is what I'm talking about when I say that the Academy is a conservative institution. Playing for the bleachers will not preserve an entity for long.

So Much Hate on Everything, Everywhere, All at Once

A lot of people are very excited and happy about Everything, Everywhere, All at Once winning most of the awards. However, there are some people who think that the Oscars were dominated by Asian content. These people live on the conservative side of the spectrum even if they don't identify to be so. They are used to seeing "all American" content at the Oscars until a few years ago and wish to see the tradition continue. There is just one missing piece in this puzzle. The world is changing at a tremendously fast rate and what used to be meaningful isn't anymore. Everything, Everywhere, All at Once was a great movie because of all the techniques it used. The Daniels took the slightly abused concept of the multiverse and turned it into something amusing, a bit exhausting and original. The lead character Evelyn has lived her life taking a few risks but within the lines most of her life and through the multiverse, we see Evelyn re-discover her full potential. This could very much be an indie movie that people wouldn't be very interested in. But the Daniels took that concept, made it into something people of many age groups can watch, enjoy and understand and present it to us in a silver platter. The details of the movie are so great that I can't imagine the amount of work put in on this movie. The costumes, the production design on the different verses, the character developments... Everything was done in such pristine fashion that it's difficult not to admire it. Everything, Everywhere, All at Once represents our society today -- with the American context heavy. It shows the parent-child relations, how people confine themselves to certain lives that they never wanted, how the generation gap has increased and how this is all normal and easily solvable. The people who are upset with Everything are those can't follow the new trend in mainstream movies.

Everything else, to be honest they were all very good movies but they are following different formulas. Top Gun: Maverick was a technical wonder but there really was nothing more to it. The Fabelmans was a classic Spielberg masterpiece but it didn't provide anything new to the people of a world who just went through the pandemic and several existential crises with it. Tar was amazing but compared to Everything, it was too niche and many people haven't seen it yet. Banshees of Inisherin has gathered the likes of a lot of cinephiles but somehow it also didn't receive any awards despite amazing performances. Triangle of Sadness was spectacular and the topic was also interesting but I believe that movie stood out to be "too white" for the Academy to choose, especially with such competition. Elvis was a very successful biopic by the very talented Baz Luhrmann but the story didn't translate to a lot of international and young audiences. Women Talking was a very brave film, doing exactly what the Handmaid's Tale is doing but with a simpler touch. All Quiet on the Western Front was a heavily marketed contender but I think people are a little tired of war movies telling the same story - especially remakes. And finally, Avatar: The Way of Water was highly praised and it received a generous box office revenue worldwide, but the story is now a little outdated and had it won Best Picture, I think people wouldn't be very happy of the Oscars, just because of the very safe choice.

Overall, I think that the Oscars still mean a lot but the mishandling of the awards selection and the rating drama has decreased the ceremony's credibility and prestige over the years. The Academy should perhaps start new programs to engage more people in the process. Just like with everything else, the only way to save the Oscars in the long run is to reinvent it.