The 88th Academy Awards are set to begin in just over an hour and I am finding myself contemplating the idea of bestowing awards for artistic achievement in a very familiar way. As a choreographer, designer and instructor for color guard programs (“flag twirlers” as many people refer to us), I am well acquainted with the struggled to balance the creation of a meaningful, artistic product that is appropriate for a certain group but that can also succeed in a very competitive activity. In the worlds of marching band, color guard, and drum corps, there are panels of judges that evaluate performances based on specific criteria. The judge’s sheets are broken down into categories and each judge has a particular responsibility. There is no way to completely prevent personal opinion from influencing the scores and placements and the process of analyzing and appreciating art of any kind will always be subjective, but there are quantitative explanations for the choices that adjudicators make and their decisions can generally be justified.
There are continual discussions and arguments over the adjudication process in the “marching arts” and countless hours are spent refining the judge’s sheets that still leave many directors and performing members frustrated at the end of the competitive season, but by comparison we are quite fortunate. The Academy Awards, like most awards given in the film and television industry, have no such criteria by which the nominees are evaluated. There are clear rules for how each nominee is added to the list, but the winner may walk away with the little-gold-man for any number of reasons and there will never be, in many cases, a way to easily justify what separated that person or film from the rest of the nominees.
What does “the best” mean? What is the Academy looking for, exactly? Some people were outraged in 2010 when The Social Network lost Best Picture to The King’s Speech. The films could hardly be more different and comparing them seems impossible without knowing how to evaluate their content. The King’s Speech was “Oscar Bait” and generic, many people say. The Social Network captured the essence of the moment and was more original, some say. I happened to only moderately enjoy The Social Network as a film, though I appreciated each of the separate entities that it was constructed from, and the relevance it had in that precise period of time. I don’t view films as “bait” for awards. I experience them as an emotional and artistic event. I was deeply moved by The King’s Speech. I thought it was a beautiful film to look at, superbly acted, and based on an important (and not very well known) story from the past. Did it push new boundaries and move the medium of film forward in a unique way? Not really. Should that be the most important quality of a film that is up for an award? Possibly. The point is that using the word “best” as the descriptor for this type of industry recognition is misleading, meaningless and unkind to each and every piece of art or creator who leaves the ceremony a “loser.”
This becomes more evident every time the phrase “it’s their time” is uttered. Leonardo DiCaprio is FINALLY going to win his Oscar. Ennio Morricone will, at last, be rewarded for his outstanding body of work. It’s hard to argue that either of those men haven’t been deserving of these honors in the past but this awards show is purporting to be choosing
the “best” for a given year and by giving out awards that take into account the personality or resume of the performer or creator, these accolades are devalued and stripped of any legitimacy that they may have had. I want Ennio Morricone to have an Oscar just as much as anyone else. His score for “The Mission” is, in my opinion, one of the most wonderful musical compositions ever. However, he shouldn’t receive an award simply to make up for past “mistakes.” If he wins tonight, which he most likely will, it should be because The Hateful Eight score is “the best” out of the 5 nominees. I think the score is pretty darn good, but what makes it a greater achievement than the innovative use of modern electronic sounds mixed with classical instrumentation found in the score for The Martian, which isn’t even nominated in the category? Sicario’s score is simply atmospheric tension made of low grumbles and muffled drums, so is that a better representation of what a score should do or be? Who knows.
The general American public couldn’t care any less about the things I’ve just been blabbing about and they’re largely not influenced in any impactful way by who “wins” and who was snubbed (although that is changing a bit, due to the diversity issue recently) so why does this matter? I think it matters because art is undervalued and underappreciated by the vast majority of the general public and it feels as though the way these “winners” are chosen perpetuates that lack of awareness. The Oscars are meant to “celebrate” the film industry but they are often celebrating the current kings and queens of the metaphorical movie prom and ignoring the rest of the well deserving student body.
Maybe I shouldn’t be wasting my time thinking and writing about all of these things and we shouldn’t take awards shows so seriously but, as a creator, I know how much recognition means. You don’t put your heart and soul into a project to hear someone tell you how amazing it is, you do it because you love the process and you have to create, but knowing that what you do is important and that it matters can provide an endless supply of motivation and inspiration to continue. Getting an award isn’t the end goal in a meaningful artistic experience but when those awards are handed out they should be meaningful. Awards shouldn’t just validate, they should encourage, and everyone should have an equal and fair opportunity to find themselves on the receiving end of that positive affirmation.
Purely Frivolous 
Leave a comment