The glory of not winning at the Oscars

The previous post touched on sports and how the imperfection of human officiating allows for quibbling the result despite the score. With the "big game" for the motion picture industry coming up, let's apply that sort of thinking to the Oscars.

Unlike sports, where there's at least some rules to provide structure to the competition (flawed though the enforcement of those rules may be) and where the participants actively acknowledge the competition as their reason for participating, the awards show pits disparate works of art against each other without there being any prearranged set of rules (or even rough guidelines) to which all participants have agreed. Those creating the films merely make whatever they do, and those voting for the awards merely use whatever personal criteria appeals to them for determining which one they perceive as "best."

It's a popularity contest, but only amongst those who have the privilege of voting (which is a much smaller group than those who see movies, or even who watch the awards ceremony telecast). The group giving out the award for the "best" picture purports to represent motion picture arts and sciences. So, the winner should be, uh, artistic and scientific?

Well, by whatever means this group of people who are involved in the industry determine that which will be given the title of "best," it gets done. On Oscar night some producers stand on that stage with a statue in the hands of one of them who gives a speech (that is largely ignored because everyone at home is just glad the award they were staying up to see has been announced and the damned show is over).

Then the fun begins for everyone who actually chooses to give a crap about this moment of the industry patting itself on the back. (I'm not suggesting those involved in filmmaking don't deserve to pat themselves on the back once a year in this way, but let's not pretend it's more than it is.)

For those who are merely fans (i.e., have nothing to gain financially from the boost that a film presumably gets by having won an Oscar—not counting people who win their office pool) either the film they wanted to win did win, or, as is somewhat more likely (given that there's more movies that don't win), the film they wanted to win was not the recipient of that award.

Which is actually the better of the two options.

While there is some immediate value to having one's tastes in film be reflected back by the judgment of those whose opinions ostensibly count for more (if one's preference is what gets the award), it's far less interesting to simply have that modest satisfaction than it is to get the unending delight from the indignation of having one's tastes not be in line with the so-called elite (or, depending on whether the winning film was more populist than esoteric, having one's tastes be superior to the rabble who voted). It's fine to hear the announcement of the winner and be temporarily elated by hearing the desired name be spoken, but that's nothing compared to having the justification to scream at the TV screen "Did these morons see the same movie I did? Were they voting by doing eenie-meenie-minie-moe? I wonder how many people the producers paid off to get this!" (or something along those lines).

Arguing how the film that won was far less deserving than the one that you thought should have gotten the Oscar is an activity that never has to stop; you can keep debating the topic for years, fueled by the aforementioned indignation. The elation wears off, and doesn't provide sufficient motivation to keep defending it forever. At best it allows for ambivalence, where you dismiss the debate with, "Well, it's the one I liked, but hey, that's just my opinion."

It's not the same as the fury from being denied.

~

Does anyone get invited to the White House for getting an Oscar? I hear that happens in sports.