Pandering to the Masses

Oscar nominations were announced yesterday morning and there were quite a few expected nominations and a few surprises for first time nominees as well. This year marks the first time that ten films will be nominated for Best Picture and while I understand a part of the logic behind it, I still don't get why it's being done. Be that as it may, I'm curious to see whether or not it really will make any difference to the number of people watching the Oscars in the first place. It may show as such simply because a little movie by the name of "Avatar" is in the running for Best Picture (among many other nominations) but I'm curious that in the years to come whether doubling the number of Best Picture nominees will really make the show better or worse.

The original idea behind the decision was due to the fact that a few years ago there were movies being nominated that no one had really seen (until after the Oscars) and so people were tuning out simply because they didn't care who won. There were discussions held as late as last year over whether it made sense to include a film like what a travesty it was that a film like "The Dark Knight" (which was both a critical and box-office hit) was not even nominated for Best Picture. Many felt that had it been nominated, many more people would have tuned in to watch. Critics argued that the inclusion of films that were not only critical successes but also box-office successes would lead to greater viewership. And while I understand that (to some extent) I feel it does nothing but prolong the ceremony and truly make the competition an exercise in subjectivity.

There is no doubting that films like "The Dark Knight" have mass appeal just as a film like "Avatar" has mass appeal as well. But in looking at the story of "Avatar" I'm not wholly convinced that it is worthy of a Best Picture nomination. Certainly it has altered the way in which we all see movies (literally) but I don't think it did anything different in terms of the story. It was territory that had been explored in some way before so then was it truly worthier than some other films that could have been on the ballot? Don't get me wrong; "Avatar" is a great film and I think it has a decent story to tell, I wonder whether it would win for that fact or because it was a box-office smash.

Speaking for myself, I have seen only four of the ten nominated Best Picture films for this year's ceremony and while I know I may be in the minority, I have a feeling that the movie that ultimately wins the prize still won't have been one of the ones I saw. So then my question is that if the hope for having this expanded field of nominees was meant to garner interest in watching the awards show then it may work but I thought that the purpose was also to raise awareness of the films that have been ranked as a top film among so many others. I don't know if it will continue to accomplish that goal or not. Of course I'll still watch and I'll still be curious to see the films that are nominated (and that ultimately win) but it just seems like this decision to expand the field is being driven more by corporate thinking heads that want to be able to get larger viewership numbers so that they can make ad time that much more expensive for companies.