OFF THE CARPET: Back and forth…forever

The Circuit has run its course.  With the Visual Effects Society‘s awards gala last night and the press release announcement of the International Film Music Critics Association’s list of winners this morning, it’s on to the big show.  But the excitement is ever so slightly dampened, given the drama of the final stretch.

I recently delighted in reading David Poland and Steve Pond take the overall tone the season eventually developed to task. The former may have his head in the sand vis a vis dirty campaigning, and the latter might be (as he admits) naive to ask for a spirit of togetherness when, the fact is, jobs are on the line. But the overall gist, I’m with it.

The Oscar season is, by its nature, reductive and combative. But let’s say it together: It’s a pointless exercise with the original and still stated intent of drumming up awareness of an industry’s product. And it is, indeed, unfortunate that what appeared to be one of the cleanest seasons I’ve ever seen was sullied in the fourth turn by the inherently craven nature of those involved — on all sides, I might add.

But when the dust settles, what are we left with? The movies. And the movies are why we’re all here.

I began watching the Oscars in the mid-1990s. I had recently experienced that “Eureka!” moment we all know and love, when movies suddenly appeared to hold more potential than entertainment. And the annual showcase of the year’s best was a natural attraction. But with films like “The English Patient” and “Titanic” sweeping the terrain in that era, I thought perhaps everyone just settled on a singular entry as “the one” each season.

One year later, of course, that thought process was blown out of the water and I was made aware of the complex, sometimes wicked machinery behind all of this.

The point is this: We all come around to the Oscars for personal, innocent reasons. Films we are interested in find themselves in the race. That innocence will bring heartland fans of “The Blind Side” to the show this year. It will bring science-fiction fans of “Avatar” and “District 9,” too. It will bring art house owls and even children.

I’ve said since the moment the nominations were announced that, regardless of my feelings on a lack of prestige, for the above reasons, the 10 was a success this year. It represents a cross-section of everything the industry has to offer, varying degrees of quality, genre and process. And that’s the product the Academy wants to expose to the masses. I can respect that.

But the competition will never relent. The talking points against the field of players will always be, “It didn’t make any money,” or “it’s insensitive toward the Holocaust,” or “It’s animation,” or “It’s genre,” etc., etc.

The passion ever dies — nor should it. That’s what happens when money is at stake.

And speaking of money, in some twisted way, the popular film that you hate to see nominated will attract a handful of new viewers that never watch the show, feeding the ratings and adding money to the pot that eventually funds the various services the Academy provides, all of them commendable. In the same way studios have to produce brainless tent poles in order to establish the capital for riskier, artier endeavors, the Academy has to shake a pompous sense of prestige in order to keep its own noble ship afloat.

I’m reminded of something Jeff Bridges told me back in November. To paraphrase, his view is that, in art, different quality stripes feed each other. It’s Yin and Yang and without one there wouldn’t be the other, both due to financial reasons and creative ones.

“You complete me,” as it were.

So with one day of voting left and less than a week before the big show, that’s what I’m trying to stay focused on, because it really is the lesson I’ve taken away from this Oscar season (and one I’ve slowly learned since the mid-1990s). Competition is healthy, but so is variety. Spending too much time policing the collective opinion of an organization that has a number of duties that take priority over distinguishing “the year’s best” is for the birds. And it steals the spotlight from the things that deserve it: the movies.

With that in mind, I’d like to announce a new feature we’ll be launching next week: Life Without Oscar. Chad will be kicking it off for us in the off-season. It will be a weekly reflection of two given Oscar years with recommended viewing of films that received no Academy attention whatsoever. Because at the end of the day, the word of 6,000 people isn’t gospel (a fact that gets so incredibly lost in the fray each and every year). Hopefully you’ll enjoy it.

My final predictions continue to be charted in the daily Oscar Guide series, but I’ll run through the full list in Friday’s Oscar Talk with Anne and offer it up in print Saturday.

Can you believe we’re almost there?