This year the Oscars have changed the Best Picture category from 5 back to 10 nominees. There has been a small amount of debate about whether this is good, bad, or meaningless for the award, so I figured I’d throw in my two cents. About a month ago I heard a story on NPR while driving home from work that came to the defense of the additional nominees. You can find the online version of that story here. Essentially the argument was that it opens up the category to include movies that most Americans have had an opportunity to see and not just the small indie films that have dominated the category in recent years. Thus expanding interest in the awards in general and giving a nod to some of the big blockbuster successes of the year. Besides, there is no harm in recognizing a few more titles that aren’t going to win anyways.
10 Best Picture Nominees
As you might of guessed, I don’t agree. A huge number of films come out each year, both big and small budget. The majority of Americans are only exposed to a small number of them and actually see an even smaller slice. Of those, it is always disproportionately swung in favor of the blockbusters with advertising budgets larger than most films entire budgets. These films are heavy on special effects and stars and usually light on story, character development, and dialog quality.
The Best Picture category is for the films that really excel to have a chance to be singled out from the year’s huge junk pile. By expanding the category back to 10 films with the express purpose of including big budget crap heaps like The Blind Side, you are destroying that distinction. A Best Picture nomination, rather than confirming the average American cinema goer’s opinion, should provide a quality list of movies to expand a movie watcher’s horizons. Now you are going to see The Blind Side sitting on a shelf advertised with the same claim to quality as A Serious Man. This further reduces movie watchers chances of seeing the best movies of the year. When a small film is nominated for Best Picture it usually receives a wider, extended theater release as well as expanded DVD distribution and therefore increased exposure to the American masses. Expanding the field to 10 will be pushing lower quality movies up at the expense of the very best.
When I was a kid and played sports at the YMCA my dad would always be angry that they gave trophies to every kid and not just the champions because it made that trophy meaningless. While it is absolutely absurd to make this distinction in a league of 8 year olds who spend more time picking flowers than paying attention to the soccer ball, this is a serious consequence worth noting for an award toted as the ultimate accomplishment in film. What would you think if the IOC added a 4th, 5th, and 6th place medal to the Olympics so smaller countries would be more interested in watching them?
While there are countless examples of great movies that have been left out over the last 65 years, this year is a perfect example of how this change won’t fix that problem. In my opinion the change is a shameless attempt to boost ratings and in turn advertising revenue for the awards show at the expense of the awards themselves. While it is easy to say doubling the field at worst doesn’t hurt the award and at best creates a stronger list of great films everyone in America will enjoy, I think this is short sighted and just one more way the American film industry is conditioning viewers to accept worse and worse films at higher and higher ticket prices.
Andrew H