Every year, the whole world is made privy to a series of glamorous rituals in American culture. Elite celebrities get dolled up and stride down red carpets to various glitzy awards ceremonies, hoping to return home with some shiny token commemorating their accomplishments. Awards have been a major component of the American film industry for decades now, generating millions of dollars for nominated movies and creating reputations that can last for entire careers. Even though this award season is limited to film, the ceremonies have far-reaching implications in popular culture at large, shaping celebrities' images and determining the climate in Hollywood for the fiscal year to come.
Shaping celebrity images
The glamour of the event is doubtlessly one of the great appeals for audiences. America's tradition of celebrity fetishism is indulged in full on these nights, with plenty of sound bites and red carpet clips to serve as leftovers for the days to follow. Controversies from events like the Academy Awards can linger for a remarkably long time. Images of Björk's swan dress will probably follow her to her grave, while Michael Moore's anti-war tirade will always typify his politically charged eccentricity.
These ceremonies' capacity to shape public images has made them exceedingly important for most major film celebrities. Perhaps this is why the most recent Golden Globes ceremony, hosted by a vitriolic Ricky Gervais, was so cringe-inducingly satisfying. Throughout the show, Gervais shamelessly mocked countless members of his audience, taking stabs at almost every presenter he introduced. Nothing was sacred for Gervais as he derided the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which produces the event. He even joked about the age of the Association's president, saying that he had to "help him off the toilet and pop his teeth back in" before the show.
As uncomfortable as the silence after many of Gervais' jokes was, many viewers couldn't help but enjoy seeing celebrities placed in such an unusually awkward situation. How often does Johnny Depp ever have to laugh off an internationally broadcast insult? For once, the pampered elite of Hollywood got roasted at one of their own events. The fact that these events usually present celebrities with a cushy ride and a raucous afterparty made their experience even more humorous. A few celebrities were more accepting of Gervais' insults. Numerous cuts to a hysterically laughing Robert DeNiro showed that even the highest members of Hollywood culture could laugh at their own expense.
Behind-the-scenes maneuvering
Despite our society's obsession with these awards, very few people look at the mechanics of the ceremonies and what goes into making an award-worthy film. The months that precede the Academy Awards are accompanied by a flurry of frantic marketing campaigns, back-room lobbying and ritzy parties. The country's biggest film producers and studios gear themselves toward bringing home any and as many awards as they can muster.
Although reputations aren't always on the line, many studios feel tons of pressure to produce Oscar-winning films on a regular basis. Studios like Columbia, however, have not taken home a best picture award for over 20 years. Their best shot, "The Social Network" (2010), has doubtlessly been flaunted and promoted by a slew of elite publicists.
With all of this extreme competition, things get hairy. Oscar lobbying has driven some publicists to commit heinous acts. The most famous of these offenders is Harvey Weinstein, co-founder of Miramax Films and The Weinstein Company and one of the Hollywood's biggest producers. He won a best picture Oscar for his role as a producer of "Shakespeare in Love" (1998), but he is also one of the most dogged lobbyists and promoters in the industry.
Over his time in Hollywood, Weinstein has been accused of everything from harassment to blatantly lying in his efforts to secure awards. Some of his more notable offenses include spreading rumors accusing John Nash of anti-Semitism in an effort to knock "A Beautiful Mind" (2001) out of the Oscar race, remorselessly pestering Sydney Pollack about the release date of "The Reader" (2008) even as he was dying of stomach cancer and fighting the extradition from Switzerland of convicted sex offender Roman Polanski.
How much does quality actually matter?
The mini-industry that has formed around film promotion during awards season has led many to view the Oscars, the Golden Globes and the other guild awards with a more critical eye. After all, when so much money and work has been funneled into the promotion of these movies, how much room is left for judging merit? Several notable members of the film industry like Marlon Brando and George C. Scott have, over the years, renounced the Academy Awards and refused to accept Oscars that they've won. Many film critics in the past several decades have derided the Oscars and similar ceremonies for valuing slick marketing and formulaic plots over genuine innovation.
However, the past two winners of the Best Picture category have defied these conventions: Both "The Hurt Locker" (2008) and "Slumdog Millionaire" (2008) were originally produced by independent film companies. Even though the later film became an international sensation that grossed hundreds of millions of dollars, "The Hurt Locker" was a box office failure in the U.S. Whether these recent wins reflect a new acceptance of smaller films or merely illustrate a contrived effort to improve the Academy's image is unknown, but many critics and viewers are happy to see smaller films being given recognition.
Though the Academy appears to be broadening its horizons, many people have qualms about the Oscars' track record with films. Many critics have been quick to point out the films now considered classics that were snubbed by the Academy in favor of movies that have not aged nearly as well. "Citizen Kane" (1941) lost out to "How Green Was My Valley" (1941), just as "Taxi Driver" (1976) was beaten by "Rocky" (1976) and "Apocalypse Now" (1979) lost to "Kramer vs. Kramer" (1979). While these are only a handful of films, enough critics have noticed this pattern to make the Academy's selections a source of persistent critical scrutiny and controversy. Of course people will always voice their rejection of perceived snubs, but the Academy failed to identify a good number of classic movies when they were first released.
Something for everyone
One of the greatest appeals of award ceremonies is, after all, how divisive they can be. Both critics and viewers love to bicker about everything, starting before the ceremonies as they try to guess likely winners and holding grudges for years afterward based on whom they perceive to have been snubbed. Awards give anyone who's been to any recent movies an opportunity to discuss the year's selections.
Critics, too, must love the Oscars and the Golden Globes for giving them such a formidable arena for debate and voicing their opinions. Almost every major publication features several hefty articles analyzing the Oscar race and weighing in on the most important factors of the year. Even opponents of the Oscars love having a system to rail against.
Whether you love or hate America's film awards, you can't debate their massive impact on Hollywood and the global movie industry. Whole subcultures have cropped up around promoting and lobbying films for Oscars, involving thousands of people, from publicists and critics to directors and editors. Many film studios have organized their output around Oscar-contending films. Arguments can be made on the positive and negative sides regarding the impact of these awards, but few people can legitimately doubt their significance. With tens of millions of viewers every year, the Oscars and their counterparts are certainly here to stay.
