Let’s talk the reality of the Oscars

Not too long ago, I saw a commercial for the Screen Actors Guild Awards (SAG). Here’s the selling point: “It’s the Screen Actors’ Guild, so only actors take the stage!” 

I can’t speak for SAG, but I can tell you what I inferred that to mean: “We know everyone only cares about who wins Oscars, but our show has all the celebrities without the boring parts!”

Again, I won’t sit here and accuse the SAG Awards of actually meaning it that way, nor would I shame them for that. The commercial doesn’t actually say that. It’s just how I read the ad. In any case, even if my assumption was right, it still wouldn’t mean SAG or the SAG Awards were responsible for the real issue here, which is the public perception of the Oscars. Like it or not, a lot of people think an Oscar is a legitimate accolade. In case you’re wondering if I like it, the answer is no. I do not. In fact, I have two issues with the way the public perceives the Oscars.

The first, which I won’t be getting into, is that the non-Actor/Director/Best Picture awards should not be considered “the boring part.” You probably figured that one was coming, but like I said, I won’t be getting into it, because I recognize, for one thing, what a losing battle that would be, and, for another, that the general public has every right not to care about movies that way.

The other, and greater, issue? People, generally, trust that the stuff that gets recognized by the Academy is the best. People put stock into what movies win Best Picture. People believe that winning Best Picture means a movie is great, when in reality, it doesn’t always even mean a movie is any good. Above all else, though, my real issue is that people believe in the prestige of the Oscars.

A lot of people believe that competition is inherent to every side of human existence; that competition is part of human nature. Click on a Colin Cowherd video and he’ll make some analogy about the movie business to describe something he believes about sports. Turn on an episode of HBO’s “The Shop” and the athletes, musicians and business people will all talk about their respective crafts like they’re one and the same.

While I’ll grant that drive, work ethic and resilience translate across all fields, I will not concede that creative success is comparable to competitive success. Steven Spielberg is comparable to LeBron James because Spielberg has excelled in the competition of the movie business to the same extent LeBron has excelled in the competition of the NBA, not because Spielberg is as successful at making great movies as LeBron is at playing great basketball.

The only things that are competitive are the things that are inherently competitive. Winning an Oscar isn’t like winning an NBA title, it’s like winning regular season MVP. If Adam Silver wanted the MVP award to mean something, he’d let the contenders play one-on-one for it, because that’s a competition. A group of voters making a subjective selection about who is best based on their personal criteria isn’t a competition, it’s nonsense.

There’s no way to filmmake “against” an opposing filmmaker, because the level of quality of a movie isn’t something that’s competitive. The only way to compete as a movie is on the business side. Furthermore, when it comes to the failure of the Academy to reward the right movies and filmmakers, the inherent flaw of picking the “best” creative work is just the tip of the iceberg.

An Academy Award is really more about rewarding the best Oscars campaigns than it is about rewarding the best work in a given craft. The ceremony itself exists more to reinforce the myth of the greatness of Hollywood than to celebrate the best filmmaking, and on top of that, to promote DVD sales, iTunes/Amazon rentals and other secondary income streams for movies that otherwise might not be big earners.

A lot of the best movies and filmmakers have not won or even been nominated, even in those years when they produced some of the greatest work of all time. Oftentimes, years later, it’s obvious how badly someone got snubbed. The Academy will “rectify” this situation by rewarding whatever lesser work they make later on, thereby continuing the cycle of snubbing the work that’s actually worthy in a given year.

Furthermore, the Academy cares far more about making up for a prior snub against filmmakers who fit their John Cassavetes ideal (probably white, definitely straight male English-language “auteur” director) than they do about making up for snubbing non-male, non-white or non-English language filmmakers. Ousmane Sembene, Agnes Varda Claire Denis and so many others deserve better.

It doesn’t stop there. The categorizations don’t make much sense. Gendered acting awards? None of the other awards are gendered. Best Director, separate from Best Picture? Just give the director one of the statues for Best Picture. Separate awards for Hollywood and international pictures? This implies that the movies that come from abroad are lesser to those we make in America. If anything, I find the opposite to be true.

Like I said, what I’ve brought up in this piece is just the tip of the iceberg. My ultimate point is that, if you like the Oscars because you like watching the red carpet and seeing your favorite celebrities, then that’s fine. I just think you might prefer the SAG Awards. It’s no less prestigious, and you won’t have to watch the boring parts.