FSU Student Life Cinema

Last night’s Golden Globes reaffirmed my ever-growing stance involving awards season: complete apathy. I love the Oscars though, not to see Ryan Seacrest and any of his cronies ask famous people a bunch of BS questions about their outfits, or pretending to have seen their movie. I watch it, for the lack of the better word, for the prestige. The year-long film calendar is driven by Summer Blockbusters and Oscar Season, and we’re lucky to see movies that don’t get lost in that shuffle, but in terms of other film awards show, or hell, any other awards shows (The Emmys, Grammys, etc…), the Oscars are by far the most legitimate, some lame practices notwithstanding.

That being said, why should any of this matter to us? It shouldn’t. Movies aren’t like sports in that when someone we like gets to the main stage, we’re rooting for them over someone else who’s “less deserving.” Instinctively, it’s the easiest response, because “winning” something makes that person “better” than the other people in that particular category. Plus, every year, groupthink from members of the Academy, critics, and moviegoing public take about a handful of films and declare those as the Ones to Compete for Oscars, and they’re usually all released by October, at the earliest. A February release like The Silence of the Lambs has little to no chance at winning, or even being nominated right now, just ask 2007’s Zodiac. The 10 Best Picture slots has sort of invited more films into this narrow spotlight, like District 9 or ‘This Year’s Pixar Movie’ (which they should all be called), but it’s still only staying in the shallow-side of the pool because you’re afraid of being on the deep end.

Awards and nominations should only matter to those who are, you know, actually affected by it, like the people involved in the film, the nominee’s friends and family, and maybe the nominee. Meryl Streep is a fantastic actress, but her winning an Oscar for Julie & Julia will not make me want to see Julie & Julia any time soon, or probably ever. You can sub Sandra Bullock into that last sentence, too, and she’s about as bland as bland can be, but that’s another issue. Continuing with the Best Actress vein, people like Gabby Sibide or Carey Mulligan getting nominations at this stage in their respective careers is the best possible thing for them. Sure, a win would be nice, only the more high-profile awards aren’t given out to those who have done the best work, but also know how to work the awards circuit and “have paid their dues,” if you follow what I’m saying.

Citing a film’s/actor’s Oscar wins or nominations as a form of validation is nothing more than a pissing contest. Another example: Do the Right Thing is perceived as a modern classic and incredibly strong portrayal of race relations in America, so naturally, since it’s a bit challenging, it wasn’t even nominated for Best Picture. What movie won that year? Driving Miss Daisy. Yeah. Does this make Do the Right Thing“worse” than that movie? No, and it’s a tired argument.

As moviegoers, we should be dictated by our tastes, and hopefully a reasoned approach to back it. That’s too much to ask for some people, and I don’t mean to sound condescending there. The “I like it because I like it” explanation is as stupid as “I don’t go to movies to think” mantra, but that’s another issue entirely. If Avatar or The Hurt Locker wins Best Picture, good for them. It’s called The Oscar Race for a reason, in that it’s really a glamorized horse race. I’ll continue to watch The Oscar telecast every year because it’s consistently entertaining, but I’m not placing any bets, and I hope you all don’t as well.

— Jake