The Burning Issue #1 - The Acadully Awards?

I don€™t know if I€™m alone in this thought but I€™ve always felt that the Academy Awards have come across as a little too detached and formulaic. Whenever I try and imagine the voting process my mind is simply drawn to an image of what I like to call the €˜ACADEMY MACHINE€™ €“ a special device which comes up with sums such as EXCELLENT MARKETING + LIFE AFFIRMING ENDING + SELF-IMPORTANT FEEL + LEAD CHARACTER IN WHEELCHAIR = SUCCESS. And out pops the winner from a slot at the bottom. Of course I am generalising but there is a real sense of Oscar type films which annoys me. If a film is good, why can€™t it just be appreciated for being a good film. Why does it have to contain a special Academy vibe? A classic case in point is David Fincher; he is nominated for the beautifully made nonesense that was The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, whilst arguably his two greatest achievements in Seven and Fight Clubare omitted from the Best Picture nominees simply because they do not suit the Academy format. It€™s hardly the most open minded approach from a ceremony that all too often might as well be handing out statuettes that read €œBEST MARKETED FILM WHICH TICKED ALL THE RIGHT BOXES AND PLAYED IT NICE AND SAFE.€ It seems that there has been an attempt made by the Academy to rid itself of its stuffy reputation this year by announcing ten nominees for the Best Picture Award. At least on the surface it appears this way. I mean, how many of those ten nominees actually have a chance in hell of taking home the prize. Six? Five? Probably not even that. This is simply a way of giving some of the major studios a pat on the back with no intention of ever considering them for the win. Also how important does an award feel with ten nominations to its name? As Willem Dafoe claimed this method simply "dilutes the exclusivity" of the Academy€™s top honour. Anyway rather than just rant and complain throughout this entire article I thought I€™d offer my own suggestions as to how the ceremony could be made more interesting. What I would personally prefer is if the nominees themselves were in charge of who ended up winning the Award. Now bear with me a second because I€™m sure that you are already reading flaws within this suggested process. Let me break it down a little. The nominees are selected as normal so that we are not left with hundreds of disgruntled and dejected Academy members who no longer have any involvement (God forbid). However with the nominees announced, it is then their responsibility say two weeks before the big night to send in two votes for their favourite and second favourite performances amongst their selected rivals. On the night itself the nominees would take to the stage one by one and give a short speech about their two chosen performances as a scoreboard in the background keeps track of whose in the lead. The scoring system would be kept simple with 2 points for the favourite performance and a solitary point for the second favourite. This would give the ceremony a more cutting edge feel and would certainly present a more entertaining format than simply opening up an envelope to announce the winner. And with the nominees deciding themselves rather than anonymous academy voters it would no doubt feel more special for the winner to have been especially honoured by their peers as well as the Academy who put them up for nomination. Obviously every award being announced in this manner would be complete overkill but for a few major awards it might make for a refreshing and less predictable change. I personally love hearing about the favourite films and inspirations from top directors, screenwriters and actors. It would be quite something for me to see say Martin Scorsese giving his thoughts on stage as to why Clint Eastwood should win Best Director and vice versa. It would give the stars a more interactive role and increased stage time and all in all I think would make for a more interesting ceremony. The commercial potential of this idea would also be valuable to the Oscars. Imagine in the weeks building up to the ceremony the likes of Letterman, Degeneres et al all teasing the glamorous acting nominees about who they€™ve selected and thus giving the big night itself some very intriguing promotion. There are of course some drawbacks. For one thing, the format that I€™ve suggested sounds a little too reminiscent of concepts such as the Eurovision Song Contest. Would the Academy Awards want to risk their critical standing in order to become more commercial? At the same time though, consider this, is the ceremony really any different from other award extravaganzas. It€™s still all about the glitz and the glam and the red carpet and making sure that big names are heard about. How often does the little film really win? Are the Academy really rewarding the best the business has to offer or is it really looking for what will most benefit its own cause.

The second flaw though concerns my suggested scoring system. Picture a scenario where say the first three actresses on stage have all decided that Meryl Streep is their first choice to win Best Actress. Meryl has thus won the Oscar already with two more nominees still to take the stage. This would feel highly anti-climatic and would pretty much kill the award dead. I needn€™t worry anyway. It€™s not as if this format is ever going to be used, all I€™m saying is that I might be more enthused about staying up until the early hours in the morning if I knew that I was going to witness a unique awards scenario that helped to present the Oscars with a more standout format.