As I sit writing this column, volunteers are running everywhere, handing me flyers, pounding on my door, asking me to make the right choice, to make the choice America deserves. Although all the campaigning for the presidential election will be over by the time this column runs, another session of campaigning is just beginning: the yearly campaign studios wage to get their respective films Oscar nominations.
Just as Obama and McCain rallied to be America's choice and be the most mainstream candidate possible, studios are pushing films that America already knows, and already enjoy rather than the art-house fare which typically dominates award shows. Indeed, Wall-E,"" ""The Dark Knight"" and ""Iron Man"" have all been submitted for the various major awards, including best picture and best actor. There has also been a push to award a posthumous supporting actor Oscar to Heath Ledger.
The reason for the so-called ""pop"" Oscars is twofold. First of all, the Oscars have lost viewers consistently over the last few years, to the point where the awards have become just another night in February.
Voters may feel a tug between instinctively voting for lesser-known art films and voting for a commercial film just to retain some semblance of relevancy. The highest viewership in recent years was 1998, the year in which ""Titanic"" reigned supreme.
The second and more complex reason is the flagging economy. First of all, the downturn means that viewers are looking for lighter fare, as evidenced by the huge number of adults (unaccompanied by children) who went to see ""Beverly Hills Chihuahua."" Audiences are rooting for a hero, and ""The Dark Knight"" could be a perfect candidate.
Furthermore, the economy has forced big studios to close or downsize some of their small studio subsidiaries, including Warner Independent Films and Paramount Vantage. Closing down the studios means less small-budget independent films to choose from, and allows the big-budget behemoths to move in on their territory.
The Academy has also increased the awards' commercialization by allowing movie trailers of upcoming movies to be advertised for the first time in 50 years, meaning there will be increased ratings for people looking for ""exclusive sneak peeks"" of new films.
Film connosieurs everywhere are probably crying out in protest right now, imagining what will happen when their no-name indie films are buried by special effects and A-list celebrities. I have some concerns too, but think this move will be beneficial for the Academy in the long run.
After all, for 95 percent of all Americans, Oscar season usually leads to conversations filled with statements like ""Oh, that movie with that guy is nominated? I never saw it, but critics say it's good,"" or ""Wait, the movie is about what? Does it star anyone I know in it? Then I don't care."" While dumbing down the awards for the sake of the American public is offensive to some, the fact that many movies nominated for major motion picture awards aren't even released until a few weeks before the awards leads to a confused and indifferent public.
I wouldn't want the Academy to kowtow to the lowest common denominator, but right now, they are catering to the highest 1 percent of the moviegoing public. By incorporating big-budget movies along with smaller art-house films, Academy voters are simply allowing the public to become more involved, rather than leaving them in the dark. Just like the recent election of Barack Obama, this is change I can believe in.
If you think Kevin needs to get back on his high horse with the rest of the film snobs, email him at kslane@wisc.edu
