Yesterday the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced that the Academy Awards for Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Live-Action Short, and Best Make-up and Hair Styling will be presented during commercial breaks during the Oscars telecast. The winners' speeches will be edited, removing their walks from their seats to the stage, and then aired later in the broadcast. This is being done in an effort to shorten the length of the Academy Awards ceremony telecast. To say that people both inside and outside the industry are angry would be an understatement.
Indeed, Guillermo del Toro, whose film The Shape of Water won Best Picture last year, tweeted his displeasure over the Oscars for Cinematography and Editing being handed out during commercial breaks. He was followed by Alfonso Cuaron, whose film Gravity (2013) won Best Director and whose film Roma (2018) is nominated for several Oscars this year,who also weighed in on the issue. Today the American Society of Cinematographers, the cinematographers' union itself, posted a response to the Academy referring to it as "a most unfortunate decision." Several others in the industry have also expressed their displeasure at the Academy's decision not to air the winners of the Oscars for Cinematography, Editing, Live-Action Short, and Make-up and Hari Styling live.
Of course, here I have to point out that it is not only individuals in the film industry who are unhappy with the Academy's decision, but film buffs as well. I know I am not pleased with the Academy's decision, nor are any of the film buffs I know. We would rather see every single Oscar presented live than have a shorter telecast. Talking about it with one of my friends, I compared the Academy's choice not to broadcast the winners for these four categories in order to shorten the Oscars broadcast to the NFL seeking to shorten the Super Bowl by cutting out the game itself.
Ultimately, I can only see this decision on the part of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as nothing more than folly. In not broadcasting the winners of certain awards live, they run the risk of alienating their core audience--film buffs who watch the Academy Awards not for the celebrities or the fashions, but the awards themselves. These are the people who still support cinemas and prefer to watch movies in a theatre to watching movies on Netflix. These are the people who watch every single Academy Awards ceremony and have done so since childhood. Lose that core audience and they have lost everything.
Worse yet, there is no evidence to suggest that a shorter broadcast will receive higher Nielsen ratings. Indeed, one need look no further than the aforementioned Super Bowl for evidence of that. The Super Bowl usually lasts between three and four hours. The longest Super Bowl ever, Super Bowl XLII, lasted four hours and 14 minutes. Despite its length the Super Bowl remains one of the most watched events of the year. Even taking into account many people watch it for the commercials, that is still impressive. Given this, I have to suspect that most viewers will tune into the Oscars ceremony whether it is 2 hours or four hours.
Indeed, in a fine article entitled "Sorry Academy, Oscars Ratings and Running Time Don’t Correlate" in today's Variety, journalist Brent Lang used the numbers to prove that a shorter Oscars ceremony running time does not always equal Nielsen ratings. He points out that the most watched Academy Awards ceremony of all time, the 70th Annual Academy Awards in 1997, ran three hours 47 minutes, only six minutes shorter than last year's broadcast. He goes on to examine more recent Oscars broadcasts and uncovers the fact that a shorter ceremony does not mean higher ratings. It would then seem that the Academy, in thinking a shorter ceremony will bring in more viewers, may well be deluding themselves.
Of course, above and beyond any of this is the fact that airing every single category live is simply the right thing to do. Film is a collaborative medium. It takes directors, writers, editors, actors, and many more to even make a short film. While directors and actors receive a good deal of attention from the public throughout the year, many of the craftsmen in film only receive attention at the various awards ceremonies. And there is no bigger awards ceremony than the Oscars. In relegating the Oscars for certain categories to commercial breaks, the Academy is in effect denying recognition to those fine craftsmen without whom movies could not be made. Indeed, it must be pointed out that the very medium of film would be impossible without cinematography and editing.
In the end I have to think that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences must already be regretting their decision. Many in the film industry have expressed their displeasure at the Academy's decision, some of them Oscars winners. Many film buffs have expressed their displeasure as well, a situation that might be more of a threat to the Academy than having individuals in the film industry angry at them. After all, if they do not air every single category live, the film buffs who are the most loyal viewers of the Oscars, might well tune out. And I seriously doubt that there will be any new viewers to replace them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well they lost me. That is so disrespectful.
The Academy Awards will soon go the way of the Miss America pageant, a victim of the internet and the explosion of viewing options that revealed a fact no one wanted to admit: they were bad to begin with and only watched out of habit because there was nothing else to see and for fear that you might not be included in Monday morning office chit chat.
Post a Comment