Remember "By a nose, Nicole Kidman"?

[deckardcanine]

This Time article is about how critics do themselves no favor by picking little-known films for award nominations over extremely popular films. Not a groundbreaking subject, but this paragraph stood out to me:

You might think the highest-rated Oscar telecasts are in years when there's a close contest in the major categories, as with Crash and Brokeback Mountain two years. Nuh-uh. It's the runaway years, when billion-dollar blockbusters like Titanic and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King get what are essentially People's Choice awards, and its makers wear a path in the rug from their seats to the stage. Moviegoers who are TV viewers don't want horse races; they want coronations -- validations that somebody in Hollywood is ready to honor the movies they love.

I believe it, but I don't relate. I’m in the minority that prefers "horse races," even when I haven't seen the films yet. Since 1995, the only Academy Awards show I missed was in 2004, the one in which TRotK won, and I don't particularly regret it.

So now I want to know if any of my readers are with me on this. And if you never watch the Oscars, you don't have to say anything.

Comments

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

I haven't watched the Oscars in a long time, they keep giving awards to the most politically correct performances instead of the best ones.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

What do you mean?

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

"Cider House Rules", "Fahrenheit 911", "An Inconvenient Truth", etc. Sometimes a movie wins an Oscar because it sends a message to Washington, not because it's the best movie.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

I don't see that as a matter of "political correctness," tho. If anything, those are less so by virtue of being partisan.

Many times, the Academy has been accused of going for cheerier and less offensive movies. That also is not consistent, as Million Dollar Baby demonstrates on both counts. It's not as predictable as people like to pretend.