What's the Point of the Oscars?

We’re less than a week away from the Oscars, and people are getting…excited? Is “excited” the right word? They seem at least more passionate about who was nominated, who wasn’t nominated, who might win, who could upset, and so forth.

But the Oscars are silly. Let’s get that out of the way: the Oscars are very, very silly. But they do have a limited and specific upside.

For those that don’t know, the Oscars were established by the film industry to further cement their own legitimacy. Essentially, the Academy Awards were a way for the industry to reward itself and create a sense of prestige that it controlled. As Hollywood has grown, the Oscars themselves have become a cottage industry, going far beyond a night of glitz and glamour to something more akin to a political campaign where studios spend lavishly to boost the films they feel have the best chance of winning.

Let’s stop here. It is already bizarre to put art in competition with other art. Since art is inherently subjective, there’s no real metric by which anyone can measure art against other art. But we love competition, and so we try to force movies to be sports. There’s no way to prove that one film is better than another, but it’s fun to “root” for titles we like over ones we don’t. Assuming you don’t take it too seriously, the Oscars (and other awards programs) can be good-natured fun.

But some people seem unaware of how even the nomination process is so off-kilter that even getting “the right” films to compete with each other doesn’t work. Academy voters aren’t critics; it’s not their job to see most or even some movies. They have jobs! They literally are trying to work here. So it’s easy to sweep them up in machinery dictated by studios that says, “Hey, we’re pushing these movies ‘For Your Consideration.’” And what they decide to push is based on factors including box office, critical reception, and even what time of year the movie came out.1Already, we’re working from a deeply skewed list of titles deemed worthy of nomination. Once you get to the nominees, you have (hopefully) an eclectic mix with some palatable choices. But even here, other factors—ones completely extraneous to the simple question of “Did you like or not like the thing?”—creep in. Is it this star’s “turn” to win, even if the performance in question is not the best one of their long career? (Think Leonardo DiCaprio in The Revenant and Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman.) Have they made a good showing on the awards circuit by giving good speeches? Have they schmoozed enough Academy members to show how much they really want to win? Has the studio shaped a compelling narrative about why a certain movie deserves to take Best Picture?

Look at all these external factors, and it’s bizarre that anyone would get worked up about what’s chosen—because here’s the other truth: the Oscars are a snapshot. We like to think that naming a film “Best Picture” is to enshrine and canonize it as great cinema that will stand the test of time. But in truth, it’s what a particular group of people (a group that, until very recently, was overwhelmingly white, male, and elderly) think about a particular set of movies at a given time. They don’t know what’s going to endure or have a legacy. They know what they like and what’s been effectively marketed to them, and then they vote.

So if the Oscars don’t necessarily leave a footprint and the winners and nominees are based on happenstance as much as any discernment, then why care? What is the upside?

The Oscars, at their best, essentially serve two purposes. The first is making the case for a marketplace of movies other than blockbusters. Up until recently, blockbusters stayed in the summer and more serious movies stayed in the late fall to run the awards circuit. Now blockbusters are released all year long and studios have basically nixed the mid-budget drama, so the only smaller films that have a shot are those that are loaded up on prestige. Studios back these plays because they want to work with particular talent, and you can add a bit more gravitas to your blockbuster if the stars or director are at least Oscar-nominated. If it takes the Oscars for Hollywood to make things other than superhero movies, then let’s have the Oscars.The other purpose is that the Oscars are massively important for the nominees themselves if they’re relative unknowns. It’s difficult to argue that Spider-Man: No Way Home needs a Best Picture nomination when everyone has seen that movie (again, remember that actual quality, regardless of what you think of a given movie, doesn’t really factor into the nomination process). It’s far better when the Oscars can shine a spotlight on a film that flew under the radar like CODA or a rising star like Ariana DeBose. Regardless of what you think of the nominees, the Oscars will make a tangible difference in the careers of nominees. Sure, it’s nice to give Will Smith an Oscar for a good performance and because he’s been a movie star for over a quarter of a century. It’s great to give Troy Kotsur an Oscar because it could change the kinds of roles he’ll be offered in the future. To put it another way, we are in no danger of losing Will Smith movies if Will Smith doesn’t win an Oscar on Sunday. Kotsur’s career is more of a question mark based on the outcome.

There’s not much reason to cheer for anything the Oscars are doing outside of recognizing new talent and lesser-known titles. And I’ll admit, sometimes this is at cross-purposes with what I want. I’d prefer Kodi Smit-McPhee win for Best Supporting Actor because I like his performance more, but I’m certainly not going to be mad if Kotsur wins. From a practical standpoint, the Oscars are at their best when they broaden the horizons of their audience beyond their comfort zone. I don’t know how many people would go see movies like Parasite, Moonlight, or Nomadland otherwise.

But even if lesser-known nominees don’t win, I can’t get worked up about the Oscars. I know how they work, and I know their limited long-term impact. The best movies tend to find a following and lesser films fade away. The Academy can’t take back its Oscars for The Artist simply because everyone forgot about that film. It’s what the membership wanted at the time, and it should be viewed through the lens of the 2011 awards season rather than assuming the Academy can bestow continued relevance or importance. There will be wins on Sunday that you find infuriating because you feel like another nominee was far superior. Laugh it off and move on. There will be wins on Sunday you find exhilarating because you really loved a particular nominee. Cheer for the win and move on. But there’s no reason to get bent out of shape over the Oscars.2