With this year’s season of the Oscars upon us, hype is starting to build. But are the awards biased?
While the Oscars’ job is to select the best of film throughout the year, is this actually happening? Well I smell some dank fuckery concerning the Oscars.
In 2016 the Oscars hit an eight year low. Organisers began pondering new ways to get people to tune in to the Awards.
After all, the right people need to get paid. But a big issue is the seeming difference between viewers’ favourite movies of the year versus the movies that the Academy wants you to see. Would you agree?
Popular movies such as Deadpool were notably absent from the Oscar noms, despite receiving several other awards. Yet smaller, less recognisable dramas seemed to make the cut. According to Oscar winning director James Cameron (Titanic), there is a definite bias of big studio blockbusters, especially those that rely on strong visual effects rather than storytelling.
James Cameron’s Opinion
“There have been a few times throughout the history of the Oscars where a wildly popular film was well-received,” Cameron stated. “But your typical year the Academy takes the position of: ‘It is our patrician duty to tell the great unwashed what they should be watching,’ and they don’t reward the films that people really want to see—that they’re paying money to go see—and they’re telling them, ‘Yeah, you think you like that, but what you should be liking is this.'”
“There’s definitely a bias. The Academy still has a majority of its members that are actors. Look, I love actors, but that’s how they think—they’re generally skeptical of technology. So when they see a film that’s too dependent on visual effects, they say, oh, that’s not an acting movie.”
“Well, Titanic was a visual effects movie in sheep’s clothing, you know? Yes, it had visual effects, but it was about the people and about the story. The visual effects were eclipsed by that. But if you do a movie like Avatar, the effects are right out front, and even though I felt the acting was just as good, and the story we were telling was just as good, they’re not going to reward it the same way.”
“That’s just a fact of life. I had made a decision way before Titanic that I wasn’t going to serve two masters: I was going to put my visual cinema first. Even though I’ve spent an awful lot of time on scripts and on performance, I still love doing big, visual cinema. I doubt I’ll even get nominated again, but if I did, I’m probably going to lose to a Woody Allen movie. That’s the nature of it. So you don’t try to serve two masters.”
The Politics of the Oscars
Another important thing to mention is that actors spend a lot of money campaigning for their films to win the Oscars. It’s a game of politics much like a presidential election. The fuckery is getting too real right now!
A great example of this was back in 2005 when Jamie Foxx won his Oscar after Oprah told him to get his head in the game because “you’re blowin’ it.” Jamie Foxx’s portrayal of Ray Charles was fucking amazing to be fair, but his ratings started off pretty low before his heavy handed campaigning.
This begs the question: Are the Oscars representing films that the viewers are actually paying to see, or films that famous actors want you to see? What do you think about the Oscars’ bias? On that note, click on this delicious hyperlink to view our very own predictions for the Oscars.