Feature - And the Academy Award Goes To... Ehhhh...

Well we've all had a good chuckle by now I'm sure at the screw-up during last Sunday's 69th Academy Awards. For those of you who avoided the coverage, here's the moment when everyone realised that La La Land had not in fact won in the Best Picture category, and that the award should instead have been given to Moonlight:

It was choice, wasn't it? An image of total head-scratching bewilderment to round off the evening. Come on - yes I know accountants at Price Waterhouse Cooper have received internet death threats as a result of the gaffe (true and very silly), but aside from that, the whole disaster tickles your shadenfreude bone, right? The Oscars is a ceremony of such prestige and - let's be honest - pomposity, that it almost begs undermining. 

However that is not the reason I bring up the incident. 

The Best Picture debacle illustrates something that I've sensed for years - the fundamental meaninglessness of labeling one film as better than all others released in the same calendar year. La La Land is a great big kiss blown to old-time Hollywood musicals, seasoned with a bit of 21st century dramatic grit. Moonlight, from what I gather (haven't seen it yet, bad reviewer!!!), is an intense coming-of-age story, dealing with issues of race, sexuality and addiction. Now how can you make a call between two films so far removed from each other in style and content?  

The history of the Academy Awards is littered with perceived injustices in the top category - from Cavalcade beating King Kong in 1932, to Raging Bull being passed over in favour of Ordinary People in 1980. Hindsight is twenty-twenty, as they say, so we can now see Kong's place in cinema history and argue Scorsese's visceral boxing movie to be his masterpiece, furrowing our brows at how in hell they were passed over for films to which time hasn't been so generous.

Sometimes the Academy's choice reflects ideology - Schindler's List and 12 Years a Slave are both fine films and worthy winners, but can you also imagine the furore if, in their respective years, these films dealing with anti-Semitism and racism hadn't won? And what about this year's winner - Moonlight is very likely a fine piece of film-making (I will see it and duly accept the slap to my wrist), but is its victory partly a corrective to last year's embarrassingly 'white' Academy Awards? If so - will it be a case of 'job done', and will next year demonstrate a swing back to less diversity? Oh the questions, the questions...

Now I'm not suggesting there's no point in the Oscars, or in awards ceremonies in general. Clearly the Academy Awards provide a boost to the American film industry (and to a lesser extent English-language cinema as a whole). It ensures that major studios make more than sequels, remakes and bland genre movies. Every studio executive wants the kudos of having green-lighted (greenlit?) a quality project that receives a nomination or two. And the competition element is a necessary peg on which to hang the whole evening. (Also it benefits the fashion industry hugely; I mean did you see those frocks???) 

Since the Oscars, along with death and taxes, will always be with us, I have two suggestions (which obviously will be noted by those working in the US film industry, such is the octopus-like reach of this blog).

One - as often as possible, reward films that push boundaries, broadening the possibilities of what can be achieved in cinema. Example - in 2014 Birdman beat Boyhood to the punch, but either choice would have been a satisfying one. They both created something that in addition to being well-crafted, was unique. So use the event to promote this kind of experimentation.

Two - don't be so narrow in the range of films nominated. Look beyond the 'Oscar bait' movies pushed by the big studios to little independents struggling for the oxygen of publicity. Here's a personal gripe on that front - the lack of attention given to The Babadook, the first film I reviewed on this blog. It's a low-budget Australian movie marketed firmly within the horror genre. But it also boasts a superb screenplay/superior direction by first-time writer/director Jennifer Kent, glorious production and sound design, ingenious editing and a magnificent central performance by Essie Davis. Did it receive a single Oscar nomination? Well did it? That would be a big clanging NO, folks. Just an example. One of many I could choose.

Okay - so while there's a kind of folly built into stamping one film 'the best of the year', I'm not going to complain about it too much. But people, use the process to boost creativity. To reward the little guy with a big vision. To shake the industry up a bit. Come on, Hollywood, stop patting yourself on the back and sort this stuff out. Then maybe the rest of us won't laugh so much when you mix up the envelopes.