An Update on The Academy Awards Ceremony's Many Strange Decisions

Scene from The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

In every sense of the word, the three weeks leading up to the Academy Awards ceremony should be a time of excitement and anticipation. After all, the nominations have been revealed and everything should be in place for the broadcast. However, this year has been a bit of an uphill battle for most, as the past year has embodied a series of bad decisions lead by Academy President John Bailey that culminated in a Best Popular Film category that was rightfully laughed out of the conversation. However, it also brought with it a need for serious change that is unfortunately a bit baffling. Less than a week after it was announced that only two of the Oscar-nominated songs would perform, the ruling has been reversed. However, it does come with a bit of a price, especially if what has been said is to be believed. There's a lot wrong with the broadcast's proposed plan and part of that is cutting the music down to 90 seconds.

I am far from the first to acknowledge that The Academy has been suffering the worst identity crisis in its lengthy history. While many could argue that campaigns like Oscars So White were socially worse, the fact that The Academy is having issues operating as a single body is a bit disheartening. It can all be summarized by one fatal flaw: it wants to be "popular." While there's the false notion that the broadcast is poorly rated, there's actual evidence to suggest that the broadcast is among the most watched of any awards show. So, why mess with a winning formula? In what is likely to be one of the most notorious and radical years in Oscar history, they have decided to go through with some of their controversial plans. While it was bad enough that they don't have a host (which is both baffling and understandable given Kevin Hart's poor handling of the situation), the choice to narrow the show down to three hours comes at a price.

The most controversial so far has been the Best Original Song nominees. With limited exceptions, the music has been performed on the show and remains a highlight of the ceremony. While there have been years where they have ignored performers (such as the transphobic decision to not have Anhoni play the Oscar-nominated song), there has never been an outright ignoring of songs that weren't from popular film. It was always suggested that A Star is Born's "The Shallow" and Black Panther's "All the Lights" were to be performed, but it wasn't until the former's singer Lady Gaga complained that things changed. She got everyone the chance to perform their songs on the broadcast. As of right now however, there's suggestion that it will only be 90 seconds of the song. 

It's a baffling decision that compliments a series of other baffling decisions. While the lack of host should mean that they're able to forgo the lengthy opening monologue and get to the awards, there's also the idea that cutting down on the show means moving "not important" categories to commercial breaks. The big name in conversation has been Best Cinematography, which has lead to a small backlash. It's true that this idea was pitched last summer along with the Best Popular Film fiasco, but it always felt like an afterthought that they wouldn't get around to. Now that it's looking official, it causes one to ask the question: what will actually make the broadcast? The music is only going to be a quarter of its original run, there's no opening monologue to worry about, and most of the categories are pushed to commercials. That may get you to three hours, but one has to wonder why that is. 

This dovetails nicely with the strange ongoing belief as well that the people presenting the awards are not "popular." In some cases, it doesn't make sense. The Best Actor/Best Actress winners of the previous year have traditionally presented the following year's opposite category (with exception to Casey Affleck in 2018 due to sexual harassment allegations). However, the idea that Frances McDormand, Sam Rockwell, Allison Janney, and Gary Oldman aren't "popular" is a tad offensive with over 20 years (in most cases over 30) of experience each in being popular entertainers. By shaking up this part of the formula, one has to wonder what is even left to show. It makes no sense to randomly have "popular" actors present awards that they have no immediate ties to. It has yet to be seen and this could all be hokum. Still, the fact that none of them have been reportedly asked to present is a telling sign.

There's so much to this year's ceremony that seems a bit dissatisfying and watching the broadcast seems to have become less and less exciting. It's a shame given that Oscar season, even in years where mediocre films are nominated, is always a fun time to talk about film. Instead, Bailey and company are stuck talking about ways to reinvent the ceremony as a way to draw in an audience in under three hours. While the easy argument (of which I agree) is to just let things go for as long as possible, the choice to truncate everything reflects the opposite of what makes film so beloved. You could take out the silly tributes to film, but not recognizing the people who make movies more special is an offensive act. It's ironic that cinematography is the category that's been suggested to be ignored given Bailey's involvement with the craft. These people matter and their speeches are often the most memorable part of the night.

In a year where you have several big named movies up for Best Picture (notably: A Star is Born, Black Panther, and Bohemian Rhapsody), it feels like their quest to get a bigger audience is failing spectacularly. They could've tweaked it to reflect more popular cinema, but by making it bare bones and even abbreviated forms of that, it makes one wonder how it celebrates anything that make people love going to the movies. Those wanting to see something for Black Panther will probably be disappointed. Why? Because the show needs to be three hours. There's no rhyme or reason other than the broadcast needs to fit convoluted laws and in so losing much of what made the show a great part of any cinephiles' year. It wasn't that Bohemian Rhapsody has a controversial reputation (fun fact: the band Queen has also been asked to open the ceremony that needs to run under three hours). It's more that there's no room for fun. It's all popular awards and spectacle unfortunate, and that's an issue.

In a time where everyone should be excited for The Academy Awards, it seems like things couldn't be more negative. Following two landmark Best Picture winners in Moonlight and The Shape of Water, it seems strange to note that this season doesn't hold the same anticipation or excitement of the past two years. It could be that other groups have given trophies to unpopular picks, but it's also just that the broadcast no longer is a place of wonder and awe. All it has going for it right now is a sense of obligation and animosity. While there's plenty to still love about The Oscars, the idea that half of its most enthusiastic supporters just want it over with says a lot about where things are for the group. Hopefully this is just a terrible learning curve. Maybe it will give John Bailey one of the worst Academy president reputations in modern history (I sure do miss Cheryl Boone Isaacs). It's hard to say, but I wish that the last three weeks could be a little more upbeat than this. The fact that I doubt that is a little disappointing.