Are We Watching the Same Movie?

Last Sunday was the Oscars, and again I really had no interest in watching. Not because Steve Martin was hosting, mind you, but because I just don't like the way these things are done. Now I'm a big fan of movies, I try to see as many as I can. However, it's long been a contention of mine (and I'm not alone here) that the awards and most of the nominations go to movies that NOBODY goes to see. If you see a trailer that includes the words, "the first Oscar-worthy movie of the year", you tune out and wait for the next one. It's a simple fact that people go to movies mostly for the escape from reality, hence the popularity of comedy and big-budget special effects-laden action flicks. Then of course, there's the obligatory "chick flicks" that draw big audiences as well. You'll notice, though, that NONE of these ever even get a sniff from the Academy come nomination time. No wonder all these character actors wind up wanting to become "serious actors", because it's the only way they'll ever win awards, and it's unfortunate that in some circles, that's the only true measure of cinematic brilliance.

Take Tom Hanks, for example. He's the best example of someone who started as a comic actor, was in several cult classics ("Splash", "The Burbs", "The Money Pit", just to name a few), but he has totally shied away from anything like that in recent years. It is now obvious to anyone that ever since he got the Oscars for "Philadelphia" and "Forrest Gump", he will now only appear in a movie if it will give him a chance at another statue. Hence, "Saving Private Ryan", "Apollo 13", and this year, "Cast Away". I have no interest in seeing a movie of that type for that very reason, although I did see "Apollo 13" one time on a bus trip; I could take it or leave it. In fact, some hint that the reason Hanks didn't win Best Actor for "Cast Away" was because they feared people were getting sick of him winning it. Naw, really? Just wish someone would give HIM that memo.

As it is, this year's winner of course was Russell Crowe for "Gladiator", a movie I have no interest in seeing, ever. Actually, didn't we already see that movie before? I believe it was called "Ben Hur". Anyway, this guy is the model of pissiness. Didn't laugh at all when Steve Martin zinged him (more on him later), and his acceptance speech was rather lacking of well, being happy. You just won a friggin' OSCAR, SMILE!!! I'm sorry, but I see stuff like that and it makes me almost wish that guy who tried to kidnap him was a little more successful.

Then you look at the nominees themselves. Take Best Picture for example: "Chocolat" (which nobody saw), "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" (OK, so big special effects are all right if the whole movie's in Chinese?), "Erin Brockovich" (people saw that, so it's immediately not going to win), "Gladiator" (see comments above), and "Traffic" (which my housemate saw and STILL doesn't understand). Among the other films nominated for big awards were "Billy Elliot", "Before Night Falls", "Pollock", "Quills", and "Malena". Now I know nobody saw "The English Patient" or "Shine" either, but I guarantee you that unlike those two, NONE of these are going to be household names a few years down the line. The two that I liked that got big nominations were "Wonder Boys" and "Almost Famous", but my attraction to those two were Katie Holmes and Cameron Crowe's fantastic story, respectively. It wasn't exactly because critics were salivating over both films (as for salivating over Katie Holmes, well, that's another column...)

As for the ceremony itself, I know people are writing rave reviews about the performance Steve Martin turned in as host, but I still do not equate Steve Martin to Oscars, period. Not nominations, not hosting, nothing like that. Billy Crystal's the best Oscar host of my generation, but what are you going to do when he takes a year off? It's been tried before, Whoopi Goldberg, and regrettably David "Oprah...Uma" Letterman. They've gotta keep looking, though; I still can't see the same guy who sang "King Tut" warming up for the usual Best Picture medley. I would have suggested Jon Stewart, but after he bombed at the Grammys, I would go with Bill Maher. Failing that, how about Jay Leno? After all, Carson did it for so many years, and just because Letterman ranks as one of the biggest TV disasters since Al Capone's vault, I wouldn't discount all of the late night hosts (except Conan O'Brien, of course, and probably Craig Kilborn...)

Now there are alternative award shows to the Oscars, most notably the MTV Movie Awards. I don't include the Golden Globes, because those usually go to films that are just as obscure if not more so than the Oscars. These people have got it right, they actually give awards to movies that people go to watch. And awards like Best Kiss and Best Fight are a nice touch for the younger audience, but something like Best On-Screen Duo may be something the Academy Awards might want to consider. Then again, probably not, as the Academy is about as likely to change as the Grammy folks are. A side note, however: I was rather amused at Steely Dan's "Two Against Nature" getting album of the year as that was the only one of the nominees that I actually own.

The simple fact of the matter is that lame nominees plus not-so-good host plus stiff acceptance speeches is what got ABC these lowest-ever ratings for the Oscars this year. Perhaps some changes are in order, and they might want to start with a good host and nominating movies that bring people together. I mean movies that cut across all sorts of lines and have huge sweeping mass appeal. Although, considering this is coming from someone who saw "Godzilla" a few years back and LIKED it, that may not be saying much...