I cannot help thinking that the decision to expand the number of nominees for the best film Oscar is an ominous error. It smacks of being one of those decisions made in the producer interests that is dressed up as being for the benefit of consumers.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences firmly denies that the move, unveiled to surprise in Hollywood on Wednesday, was a result of pressure from studios unhappy at the way big box office films have been shut out of nominations in recent years.
However, as Variety noted, there was a hint of it from Sid Ganis, the president of the Academy, in his comment that an expanded nomination list would be “less cloistered”:
Ganis’ “less cloistered” observation was a deftly phrased acknowledgment that the org has been charged in recent years with being elitist in some of its choices. After the 2008 noms came out, many media pundits, industry workers and film fans bemoaned the omission of such crowd-pleasing films as The Dark Knight and Wall-E.
Studios and producers support the idea of expanding the list because there is more chance of a film getting an Oscar nomination, which is a prize in itself. But it will downgrade the Oscar nomination, confuse the public and perhaps lengthen still further the rambling awards ceremony.
I wonder whether there is an opportunity here for the Golden Globes awards, which are organised by the much-mocked Hollywood Foreign Press Association. The Globes have been rising in status after years during which they were regarded by studios as a bit of a joke.
While the Academy dilute one of the basic principles of the Oscars – the nomination list of five – for its own purposes, the Golden Globes could gain kudos by sticking with it. I trust that the HFPA will resist the temptation to fall in line with the Academy.
