DO WE REALLY NEED THE OSCARS?

This week, the nominees for the 84th Academy Awards were announced in Los Angeles. The reaction to the nominations have been varied; some are surprised, some are shocked. But the general attitude most have to this year's nods seems to be that of total and complete apathy. So while some people ponder as to why Nic Refn's Drive received but one nomination, I'm going to tackle a far more important question...do we really need the Academy Awards anymore?

The Oscars has always been the center of attention to those in Hollywood. Ever since it's pilot ceremony in the Roosevelt Hotel on May 16th, 1929, the show has been a time for producers, directors, actors, writers, crew and cast to get together and nominate each other for various awards. The original ceremony ran for 15 minutes and AMPAS (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) handed out 12 awards as well as an Honorary award for Charlie Chaplin and his work in The Circus. Shortly after the award show, Louis B. Mayer spoke out about his creation of the awards. He said, "I found that the best way to handle filmmakers was to hang medals all over them...If I got them cups and awards they'd kill them to produce what I wanted. That's why the Academy Award was created". A lot can be taken from Mayer's statement, but could it confirm that the Oscars has always been a thinly-veiled show of vanity, not the celebration of cinema many take it to be?

Not a lot is known about the Academy's board of voters. As of this article, I've not found any information about the 5,783 cast, crew & producers that make up the group. A lot has been said in the past too about the committees political leanings and it's habitual isolation of filmmakers who disagree with their favourite policies, presidents or financiers (something I won't get into, purely because I'm not learned on the controversy), but it raises interesting questions. Was there another reason behind not giving Martin Scorsese a Best Director award until 2006's The Departed? Was the Paddy Chayefsky/Vanessa Redgrave incident at the 1977 Oscar ceremony a telling look at the show's inner workings (he scorned her for her politically-driven speech about "Zionist hoodlums" rather than merely thanking the Academy)? Perhaps there is a 'right way' to play the game as a filmmaker in Hollywood. A way that leads you to the back door, or to Oscar 'glory'.

During the awards season, there is always the same point that needs reinforcing and reiteration. Great cinema is great cinema, regardless of whether it's cast & crew receive little gold men for their work. A film like Drive, which I mentioned earlier, does not need a plethora of awards to affirm it's quality. It's a work of art, created by a storyteller and performed by a wonderful group of actors. Sure, it's nice to see your hard work recognized by your peers, there's no denying that, but the idea that a film's reputation lives and dies during the Oscar race is ridiculous. And that's not a bold statement, there really are people that believe if a film has been nominated for an Oscar, it is better than a film that has not. So it's this reason the awards are totally redundant. Drive, Shame, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, etc, are all fantastic films. And while they were largely ignored by AMPAS, we, as an audience, know that these are truly great films and we don't need a committee of right-wing suits to solidify that.

So maybe this year we'll all try something a little bit different. Instead of staying up all night to catch the 84th Academy Awards, we'll rent, buy or go to a good movie and get swept away in it's story and forget who gets what in which category.