Oscar meat parade

ON April 17, 1971, The Hindu very briefly reported that George C. Scott had won an Oscar for his performance in "Patton." The more interesting news was that Scott had refused to attend the awards function which he called "a two-hour meat parade." Thirty years on the meat parade runs for four hours, floods the TV and makes the front pages of even the Indian newspapers.

The Oscars are supposed to go to the best films released in the United States. But Oscar night and the awards are more about trapping a global audience in a Hollywood orgy that also has secrecy and ritual thrown in to whet the appetite of cinema goers and TV watchers. The potent mixture is then milked for profit by movie studios and advertisers while the stars use it to acquire fame and fatter contracts.

A billion people are said to have watched the show earlier this week for at least a few minutes, making the Oscars a global event that has a market power approaching that of the Olympics. With the advertisers rubbing their hands in glee, each 30-second ad spot in the U.S. this year went for $1.4 million (Rs. 6 crores) as the biggest advertisers rolled out their newest campaigns on Oscar night. The awards mean money for the studios as well. Each Oscar increases box office collections by 15 per cent. Best picture awards mean more. Last year, "American Beauty" had made $75 million before the nominations. After it won a string of Oscars including for Best Picture, the collections rose by $50 million. Naturally the studios spend $5 million during their Oscar campaigns on promoting ("selling") each film that is likely to win.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, whose members vote for the awards, says that there is no corruption. But the Oscars are decided by the 5,700 members of the Academy, who count for only 10 per cent of those who work in the U.S. movie industry. If that is not bad enough, the members are not elected by their peers - membership is by invitation.

A 1994 analysis concluded that the Academy included a good number of octogenarians and that the average age was well above that in the industry. Many of the voters have not been to a theatre in years which is why the studios flood them with videos of their films. At the end of it all only a little over half the members are believed to exercise their vote. In the past some of the legends like Henry Fonda have said that their spouses filled up the nomination forms! This is how the "best" films of the year are selected.

No wonder then that some eminently forgettable films have won a bagfuls of Oscars. "Braveheart" (five in 1995) is one example. And "Shakespeare in Love" (seven in 1999 including the Best Picture) was little more than a minor charmer when set beside the classic "Life is Beautiful" which the same year was palmed off with just three Oscars. This year has not been different. "Gladiator" is noteworthy only for squirting blood in eyes of audiences and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" for showing the landscape of China as a rambling story unfolds itself.

In the history of Oscars, many of the better artistes have been ignored. Stanley Kubrick of "Dr. Strangelove and "2001: A Space Odyessy" fame was one. But the most (in)famous example was Charlie Chaplin. The genius never won an Oscar. None for masterpieces like "City Lights," "Modern Times" and the "Great Dictator," all made after the Oscars began in 1928. Chaplin was instead given a special award in 1928, "de-nominated" in 1952 (because of his socialist sympathies) and, after his career had ended, given an honorary award in 1971.

So in deciding which film to see it is best to ignore the Oscars and the critics and instead go by what our gut feelings and friends say.

C.RAMMANOHAR REDDY

(Thanks to Deconstructing the Academy Awards by Derek Boles for some of the information used here.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Entertainment
Next     : No Oscar for talent