Op-Ed How the Academy got it right

Author: Daniel Roberts

The Oscars happened two weekends ago. They were pretty sweet, right? Or, I guess not, according to America; it was the lowest-rated Oscars telecast in decades. I see your point cinema buffs, so let me say touchÈ - at a droning more than 4 hours, who cares enough to stay up until Best Picture is announced?

So, I feel you. I really do. Yet, the truth is that for those of us who watch the Oscars each year, last Sunday's ceremony was the best Academy Awards Night in a long time. Why, you ask? For once, the movies that were good simply because they were entertaining and well done, not because they advanced some political agenda or message of tolerance, took away the trophies. That is why it was a delightful four hours, even if the Academy did sneak in numerous excessive montages, creepy costume re-enactments and unfunny speeches galore.

Last year was a perfect example of my gripe about the Academy. Brokeback Mountain, Munich and even Capote were all great movies characterized by outstanding performances and gripping plots. Any of these would have satisfied me if they had earned Best Picture. But no, the prize went to Crash, a jumbled collage of race-inspired incidents strewn together with the simple goal of impressing voters because they dealt with a touchy topic. Crash did not deserve Best Picture, just as Alan Arkin should not have earned Best Supporting Actor this year, just as Scorsese should own five statues by now.

The problem with the way the Academy chooses its winners is that it allows external biases and influences to tarnish its decisions. The way I see it (and call me crazy), the winner in each category that begins with "BestÖ" should be the film or performance that was of the highest quality, regardless of any political or otherwise irrelevant fact.

The choice of Crash in 2005 for Best Picture illustrates the fact that in America we are becoming so increasingly guilty of our past sins (slavery, segregation, etc.) that these voters suddenly feel they have to make up for it by handing out an Academy Award to any film that "breaks boundaries," or "tackles a delicate issue" or any other clichÈ phrase of political correctness you can dream up. Crash was chosen because it was a movie that dealt bravely with race tensions in Los Angeles, despite the fact that the film itself did not actually say anything compelling about these issues, and was the least well-done of the five Best Picture nominees that year.

Finally, this year, the film which strove for no political statement of any kind, but worked solely to keep you on the edge of your seat - The Departed - took home the prize. Hooray. In addition, the other front runner for the big award, according to rumors, was Little Miss Sunshine, which was equally entertaining and devoid of any lofty aspirations toward advancing a pedantic political message. Good work, Academy.

Of course, Alan Arkin, with a grand total of maybe twenty minutes of screen time in this "little dramedy that could" stole the Supporting Actor statue from the far more deserving hands of both Mark Wahlberg and Djimon Hounsou. Let's be honest, sorry to offend, but this was because the guy is old. He is a veteran of Hollywood and probably won't be putting out too many more nomination-worthy performances. I know, I know, Peter O'Toole proves this wrong, but his nomination this year was really just a parting gift, since the guy looked like he was at death's door, and his role in Venus was really just a parody of his own life. Anyway, the Alan Arkin win is another example of the voters allowing outside forces to influence their decisions. They figured, well, Wahlberg is commanding and bold, and Djimon Hounsou is gripping and moves you to tears, but hey, they've got their entire careers in front of them. Let's give a little gift to good 'ole Alan.

I may stand alone, but in my insignificant, common moviegoer eyes, I see a film's worth as being judged only by the film itself. A movie should not be judged by the time period it came in or by the external forces it alludes to, no matter how bold or revolutionary its political statement is announced.

Honestly, watch out, because some day soon a film is going to come out in which two gay cowboys, one black and one asian, journey on horseback to the land of intolerance (let's say New Jersey) with pink Polo sweatshirts wrapped over their shoulders and courage in their hearts. By the film's end, Brett and Taylor will have turned the cold stares of their formidable new neighbors into loving embraces, and softened the frowns of intolerance across the globe. "Oscar buzz" will begin to circulate immediately, but, you know what? My vote will be cast for the movie that simply entertained me the most. In other words, I'll be rooting for Harold and Kumar Go To Amsterdam, seiously.

Daniel Roberts is a member of the Class of 2009 and hails from Newton, Mass. He is an English Major.