There are few things more unappealing than the orgy of self-adulation one witnesses during a celebrity awards show.
Yes, the Oscar nominations are here, and America simply can’t afford to stand idly by anymore. Not after the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had the audacity to misleadingly claim that Brad Pitt had not only engaged in acting this past year, but that he was among the finest to practice the craft.
Absurdity of such scope is one of the reasons the Oscars continue to lose viewers and hemorrhage influence. Sometimes it seems the academy has a desire to disconnect from the average moviegoer. Last year’s Oscar telecast, accordingly, logged the show’s tiniest audience on record.
There are a number of problems at play. The most talented actors often star in movies that Americans don’t care very much about, while the movies we do care about all too often feature Leonardo DiCaprio. This toxic formula has set our expectations to tragic lows.
In the ’70s, audiences were treated to Oscar-worthy performances by DeNiro, Pacino, Nicholson and Hoffman — stars who were regularly involved in artistically meaningful films that could also draw crowds. These days, conversely, there is a movement afoot to convince us that the unsettling dullness of a Jake Gyllenhaal or a Mark Wahlberg is deserving of an Oscar rather than public scorn.
Moreover, for the past decade, we’ve allowed half-baked, predictable traumadies like “American Beauty” and “Crash” to masquerade as thoughtful pieces of societal commentary and win Oscars. (I mean, permitting Roberto Benigni to escape the country with an Oscar for “Life is Beautiful” in 1998 was a crime not only against history, but against art as well.)
During these dark days, the gap between what we watch and what we’re told to watch has continued to widen. This year, in fact, even with the rise in ticket prices, the cumulative average box office gross of the Best Picture nominees is at its lowest level in more than two decades.
In 2008, the top 10 box office movies included five films that would classify as (mostly brooding) superhero flicks: “The Dark Knight,” “Iron Man,” “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” “Hancock” and “Quantum of Solace.” (It needs to be stressed that this “Indiana Jones” was so tragically unentertaining that I feel like a piece of my childhood was ripped from my soul.)
Four other movies in the top 10 were animated features, and one was a vampire movie. I have not seen all these films, but I am relatively certain most Americans would rather watch any of them — even if shown in a continuous loop overdubbed in Mandarin Chinese — than sit through a single viewing of the Oscar-nominated, English-accented picture “The Reader.”
As a movie buff, my hope for Hollywood was renewed temporarily last year when two great American films, “No Country for Old Men” and “There Will Be Blood,” vied for Best Picture. Surely, Hollywood can make artistically relevant movies that the average moviegoer can also enjoy.
My hopes were quickly dashed when, this year, I realized the words “Sean” and “Penn” would once again mingle with the words “Academy” and “Award.”
It’s often pointed out that box office numbers and quality are not tied to each other. That’s for sure. But one glaring example of the disconnect between the academy and moviegoer is “The Dark Knight,” the top grossing movie of the year. Critically acclaimed, “The Dark Knight” surely held the artistic merits of, say, “Frost/Nixon”?
These days, every dollar counts. The Oscars should start to recognize worthy performances that American moviegoers have actually enjoyed. Some must exist.
Another constructive step would be to stop gratuitously praising Brad Pitt. It just encourages him.
Reach columnist David Harsanyi at 303-954-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
