The beauty of being someone relatively insignificant in the greater world of pop culture commentary is the distinctly low level of expectation for my critiques. Realistically, writing a cultural commentary column at Tufts does not earn the opportunity to go and report live at the 2011 Academy Awards. Instead, while watching from the safety of my room, I opted to wear my saggy high school sweatpants and an unsightly men's waffle shirt. In short, I donned apparel slightly less professional and glamorous than that designed by Christian Dior or Versace.
There are other aspects of the Oscars that are less flashy than what we see on the red carpet. The Atlantic on Feb. 25 published an article entitled "Oscars 2011: Everything You Need to Know About the Tech Awards You Usually Ignore," which reviewed the finer details of three often−overlooked Oscar categories. The article discussed the nominations for Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing and implored readers to appreciate just how much time goes into the technical side of movies. The title alone does an effective job of summarizing the typical treatment of these categories: usually ignored, and for quite some time.
Initially, I was heartened by the article. I believe recognition for behind−the−scenes efforts always takes the form of "too little, too unenthusiastic." There's something distinctly less sexy about faceless sound mixers slaving away in a booth in comparison to Best Actor nominee Javier Bardem (but I should be fair; nothing is sexier than Javier Bardem.) The lack of appeal should not lessen their importance, though; the technological side of filmmaking is just as important as the performance side. Taking an objective look at the general American public makes me doubtful that most Oscar viewers will get excited for the techies.
From a cultural perspective, the major problem with the Oscars is the elitism associated with the award show. The vast majority of movies nominated have a distinct "Oscar" aura, which really translates to "highbrow." It's a bit of a stretch to ask common TV−watchers to accept the interruption of their regularly scheduled programming in order to broadcast a lengthy award show with such an elitist attitude. Further asking these same viewers to care about an aspect of filmmaking largely obscure to them seems a little cruel.
The people prominently featured at the Oscars are also of an elite stratum of stardom. Take the two hosts of this year's ceremony, James Franco and Anne Hathaway. Both are well−known and mostly well−liked actors with lowbrow starts to their careers, but both have taken steps toward the elitist mentality with their roles. Franco has graduated from his earlier films (among them "critically acclaimed" "Never Been Kissed" (1999)) to more mature roles in films like last year's "127 Hours" and "Howl;" and upon seeing Hathaway in "Rachel Getting Married" (2008) it's hard to remember she was ever in "The Princess Diaries" (2001) — though you should try, TRY to remember her outrageous hair. Even the Academy's attempts at choosing accessible hosts to normalize the show fall short. If they really were looking to please the masses, Justin Bieber would host every year, right?
I think I ignore an important aspect of the elitism of the Oscars. For one night, the lowbrow American masses get an inside look at the glamour of Hollywood and maybe that's incentive enough to watch and forget the taste stratification. Of course, I can't kid myself; my Sunday sweats rudely remind me I do not shine the same way as Natalie Portman, but I don't mind in the end. At least I'm not some crazy ballerina.
--
Madeline Hall is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major. She can be reached at Madeline.Hall@tufts.edu.
