H.G. Rodgers: Aspiring Author and Triple-Threat

Sure, the Oscars are decided upon by the Academy — some aethereal organisation of apparent film geniuses — and so have some authority, but I can’t help but feel that, as these Academy members are mostly American, their opinions could be a little too … wrong.

Now, don’t go assuming that I think I’m better than the Academy — because that’s a falsehood; I just feel that the award for “Best” something-or-other is an incorrect one. Instead, I propose it should be changed from “Best” to “Most Appropriate”. Really, who thought that The Hurt Locker was in any way “better” than Avatar? Secretly, it only won because it highlighted the unique situation in Iraq — a situation that just so happens to be very present in the American psyche at the moment because it’s all their fault –  so, the Academy decided that it was “Best” worthy; perhaps they have all fallen ill of the same unfortunate teaching in their childhoods that “best” is synonymous with “most-appropriate-given-America’s-circumstances”. It may have the best directing and the best acting, but does that make the best? In the end, isn’t it how many people watch and like the movie that makes it a success or a failure? The people are the real authority, not the Academy who give out awards for things that are technically correct.

Even in cases where the most appropriate choice was indeed the best, obviously it is still the most appropriate. Take Mo’nique for example: she is perfectly deserving of her plethora of “Best Supporting Actress” awards for her role in Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire, however, is she not the most appropriate winner because the film and role were related to racially sensitive content? I believe Mo’nique even said, “… thank you to the Academy for making this about the performance …” in her acceptance speech. Perhaps I’m not alone? Acting awards, I suppose, have a better track record because you actually have to act well and be most appropriate to get it.

I can’t help but feel this stems from the same problem innate of all reviews and film critiques: the serious underestimation of entertainment value. As someone who doesn’t care if the sound mixing was good and doesn’t actually know what a director can seriously do to change a film apart from using fancy camera angles, a movie’s success in my mind is determined mainly by how much I was entertained. Now, it is true that if I was entertained, there is a possibility it had something to do with the sound mixing; but then again, how many times have a seen a movie, really enjoyed it, and then been told it had received bad reviews (it has been many times)?

In the end, my biggest problem is when people never questions what these film authorities have to say — unless, of course, they don’t care. People parade these opinions about like fancy new suits, saying, “look at what I think.” But the truth is, they don’t think; they don’t actually watch the film and say, “wait, I enjoyed this because it was interesting.” They can’t wait to see what other people have decided about it and then agree with them. Those people annoy me.