What's the point of the Oscars?

Last night in Los Angeles, the shimmering city of cinema, HollywoodÊ¼s brightest stars aligned for the 87th Academy Awards. Birdman was presented with the Best Picture accolade, whilst Eddie Reymayne and Julianne Moore were deemed Best Actor and Best Actress respectively. But Ê»bestÊ¼ according to who?

Winning an Oscar is widely considered the pinnacle of show business achievement. However, no-one questions the authority from which the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences bestows awards on the cinema industry.

In fact, the calendar year is punctuated by such awards ceremonies and prizes, which reverberate throughout the arts industry. Forget traditional holidays – if gossip columns are anything to go by, a more relevant approach would be to begin the year with the Golden Globes, see the months through via the Brit Awards and the Mercury Music Prize amongst others, and finish with the Turner Prize in December.

Despite their ubiquity, I canÊ¼t help but find these occasions a little bit silly. They attempt to make definitive conclusions about something as flexible as art, neatly boxing someone elseÊ¼s creativity into a particular mould. And just who exactly makes these decisions? When reading the reviews published in magazines and newspapers, itÊ¼s always clear that the opinions discussed come from a particular person, whose interpretation of the subject in question is equally particular. Awards, by contrast, are handed down to us from some mysterious authority, whose supposed infinite knowledge permits him or her the privilege to determine something as subjective as quality. Really, this power is false. In the context of the Oscars, has each voting member of the Academy seen every film to have come out in a particular year? Surely this is necessary for anyone whose job it is to determine the Ê»bestÊ¼.

An examination of the Academy AwardsÊ¼ Best Picture category demonstrates some of the politics and problems of any prize giving system. In 2010, The KingÊ¼s Speech won Best Picture, beating Black Swan and Toy Story 3. The Academy chose a stuttering future king over a psycho ballerina and a living toy cowboy. It seems bizarre to compare films made with totally disparate aims, intended for equally disparate audience demographics. Between 5 and 10 films are nominated for the prize each year, but itÊ¼s clear from the outset that there are some total no hopers. Notably, comedy and science fiction remain unpopular with the Academy, who instead prefer more historical or noble subject matter. This demonstrates how biased the process really is. Further, some films are simply too unconventional to even be acknowledged. Paul Thomas AndersonÊ¼s recent adaptation of the Thomas Pynchon novel Inherent Vice was praised by critics. But as Ian Nathan writing for Empire puts it, the film is Ê»way too eccentric to land awardsÊ¼.

Article continues below...
More stories you may like...
Female only screenings of Wonder Woman sparks outrage
The death of the auteur director in the #MeToo age
Why Feed is not just a portrayal of eating disorders

Some – perhaps the grumpier among us – accuse awards ceremonies of being sickeningly self-congratulatory. We, the audience whose loyal patronage of the arts renders them both commercially and critically successful, watch a select in crowd indulge in a communal back pat. Of course, the pressÊ¼ voyeurism of such events is a symptom of todayÊ¼s celebrity culture. In 2006, Keira Knightley compared her Oscars experience to a Ê»dog showÊ¼. In any case, such events arenÊ¼t simply a show business love-in, theyÊ¼re also a competition. ItÊ¼s nice for any peer group to gather together once in a while and celebrate each otherÊ¼s achievements. However, hyping some up to be better, or the Ê»bestÊ¼ defeats this point.

Proof that the Academy Awards ultimately bears little weight in the grand scheme of, well, life, is that many classic films have never received a gold statuette. For example, A Rebel Without a Cause and The Shawshank Redemption remain undecorated. Stanley Kubrick, now considered an iconic director, only won the Best Visual Effects award. This highlights a different test of artistic success – time. Longevity and memorability are important factors in determining whether something is very good or not. Perhaps the Academy recognises this and indirectly attempts to right its potential for error with the retrospective Honorary Award.

Yes, art has always been competitive. The Royal Academy of Arts is currently touring a collection of its masterpieces in Australia and Japan. The exhibition is entitled Ê»Genius and AmbitionÊ¼ as what primarily stands out from each painting, despite the wide variety of artists, is the endeavour of each individual to create something great. This aspiration is exemplified in the intense detail, scale and subject matter of the paintings, and reflects each artistÊ¼s attempt to establish a unique legacy. Also, there have always been standards expected of beauty and genius, well supported by those keen to indoctrinate them. Different schools of literary criticism interpret texts from particular viewpoints. This deliberate subjectivity naturally means that some works of literature are held in higher regard than others. The confusing, shifting concept of Ê»good tasteÊ¼ has always existed. But in a time before the web of prizes that signposts todayÊ¼s culture, artists were granted the privilege of being recognised for their individuality, rather than patronisingly made to compete for the title of Ê»bestÊ¼ within a particular year.

Awards do exist beyond the spheres of show business and the arts more generally. The Oscars are easily lambasted because the contenders are celebrities who otherwise reside on the covers of glossy magazines. What about the FieldÊ¼s Medal or the Nobel Peace Prize? More than anything, todayÊ¼s ubiquitous awards serve as markers for human aspiration. The ambition they incite in others to surpass existing human achievement is the real point, not so much the winning itself.

Also, these prizes remain an important means of generating publicity for different disciplines. This is especially important for the arts, whose projects as a whole now receive far less funding. Damien HirstÊ¼s prices rose by 27% immediately after winning the Turner Prize in 1995, and theyÊ¼re now infamously sky high. The Costa Book Awards can be interpreted as a positive means of encouraging more of us to rediscover reading. And of course, smaller, non blockbuster films rely on Oscars Ê»hypeÊ¼ to generate ticket sales.

For me, awards ceremonies are best taken with a pinch of salt and a cynically raised eyebrow. Talent easily predates – and outlasts – prizes. The contemporary tastes of a particular collection of people is a crazily restrictive means of measuring success. Finally, itÊ¼s worth remembering that Vincent van GoghÊ¼s paintings hang in The National Gallery today, despite him only selling a single artwork in his lifetime. After all, itÊ¼s not necessarily immediate popularity that measures genius, but rather the legacy left.

What's the point of the Oscars?

You might also like...

People who read this also read...