Can popularity negate merit? Oscar says ‘yes’

‘ ‘ ‘ Here’s a little joke I’ve been working on: Two dead politicians and a Nazi walk into a… ‘ ‘ ‘ Here’s a little joke I’ve been working on: Two dead politicians and a Nazi walk into a Hollywood awards ceremony. Nobody gives a damn. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Get it? Because the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences doesn’t, and the joke is on them. Movie blog Slashfilm reports that this year’s Best Picture nominees are some of the least watched in the history of the Oscars, and even the popular ones ‘mdash; ‘Benjamin Button’ and ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ ‘mdash; only seem popular by comparison. Following snubs of more popular fare like ‘Wall-E’ and ‘The Dark Knight’ in favor of avant-garde sleepers like ‘The Reader,’ fans and the media are crying foul, accusing the academy of snobbery. The general response from the academy is predictable: ‘Hey, aren’t the Oscars supposed to be avant-garde?’ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ A just reaction, sure, but also indicative of elitist Hollywood isolating itself even further.. Of course, the Oscars are supposed to honor the year’s top achievements in cinema, that’s the point. But if no one is watching ‘mdash; and based on the box office returns, it’s likely ‘mdash; then the point is moot. Face it, as much as celebrities love winning Oscars, they love people seeing them win Oscars even more. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ The Oscars are just like everything else on TV, albeit with one glaring exception. The similarity is that more viewers means more advertisers, which means more money to spend whether you’re the Academy Awards or ‘According to Jim.’ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ The difference is that the Oscars cost a lot more money than the average crappy sitcom ‘mdash; in 2007, the ceremony cost a hefty $30 million. This means they need those viewers, or else the money disappears and Hollywood’s elite can forget about the Kodak Theatre and just rent a ballroom at the San Dimas Red Roof Inn for their next bout of self-congratulation. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Last year, ratings for the Oscars reached an all-time low, and many blamed the lack of popular movies on the ballot. One might expect the academy to lighten up a bit this year and throw some nods to movies just as deserving and significantly more popular than the ones it did nominate, but instead it has proven once again that artistic integrity ‘mdash; or at least the pretense of it ‘mdash; is stronger than a lust for ratings. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘We don’t think about the TV show,’ said long-time academy member (and nominated director) Ron Howard to Entertainment Weekly. ‘As much as the academy board or the network might like the membership to collectively decide how to put on the very best TV special they possibly can, it’s just not what we do.’ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Naturally Howard defends the voting academy ‘mdash; his ‘Frost/Nixon’ is the lowest grossing Best Picture nominee out of the bunch. But in a way, he’s right. I don’t think ‘Marley ‘amp; Me’ should be nominated for anything, anywhere, ever, and least of all just because it’s raked in over $150 million. As much as I wish people made more movies like the low-grossing nominee ‘Milk,’ I wish even more that people would go see the movies that already exist. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ To be fair, the awards ceremony is in no real danger of going bust, though its ratings and ad revenue are steadily slipping. And maybe the academy didn’t vote solely on artistic value after all ‘mdash; by nominating lesser-seen movies, it could have hoped to generate interest in them to bolster ticket sales. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ If that’s the case, they’ve failed miserably for the second year in a row. If we don’t see a ratings spike on Feb. 22, Ron Howard just might have to cast a ballot for ‘Hannah Montana: The Movie’ next winter.