
If you are an Academy Award nominee this year, I would like to offer you first my congratulations, and second, some words of consolation. Chances are you are going to lose. The likelihood of losing is usually 75% or higher depending upon the number of other nominees in your category. Since it is more than likely that you will not win an Academy Award, you should take some time to understand what you’ll be missing out on. Because really, it’s less than you think.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was initially conceived by ruthless Hollywood tycoon Louis B. Mayer, a man who is remembered for, among other things, using blackmail to get a discount on Clark Gable’s salary. The intended purpose of the Academy was to declaw the growing labor movement of Hollywood talent and technicians. The approach was twofold: first, to create a pseudo-union that would arbitrate contracts between studios and talent (always in favor of the studios, of course), and second, to bestow awards.
“I found that the best way to handle [moviemakers] was to hang medals all over them … If I got them cups and awards they’d kill themselves to produce what I wanted. That’s why the Academy Award was created,” Louis Mayer once remarked.
Since then, getting an Oscar has become one of the chief goals for anyone working in film. Mayer’s scheme worked. But the fact remains that the awards are figuratively hollow, which is something you should really take to heart in case you are hoping to get one.
Awards for film don’t actually make any sense. If you made the best movie of the year and you don’t win Best Picture, then you still made the best movie. If, on the other hand, you didn’t make the best film this year, then getting an award won’t change that. The problem is that the concept of “winning” is actually out of place in the creative arts. Someone can win a game of chess, because it’s a defining feature of the game; without winning there is no chess. If you got rid of awards ceremonies though, you’d still have cinema. Here’s another example: You win a football game by scoring the most points before the time elapses. Not by having the two teams play the game and then having a jury of several thousand football professionals vote as to who they feel played the better game. Which is, of course, the system used by the Academy. You can’t win at a movie anymore than you can win at sneezing, or a game of catch. Trophies for film making are at best redundant and at worst wrong. And they’re often wrong.
There are some pretty conspicuous examples of undeserving films being selected for Best Picture. Famously, “Citizen Kane” lost to “How Green Was My Valley,” a film mostly remembered for being the wrong recipient of the award. In 1989, “Driving Miss Daisy” was the least critically acclaimed of all the nominees, which included “Born on the Fourth of July,” “Dead Poets Society,” “Field of Dreams,” and “My Left Foot.” Nonetheless, “Driving Miss Daisy” won the award for Best Picture. Then, in 2002, “Chicago” won over “The Pianist,” which in turn took Best Director, Best Actor and Best Screenplay. The question then, is how could a film which, by the Academy’s own measure, had inferior directing, acting and writing, still win the award for Best Picture? The answer is that they gave the award to the wrong movie, and there are plenty of other cases just like the ones above. Not to mention all the great films, actors, writers etc. that don’t even get nominated each year. So don’t take it too much to heart if you or your film loses, because you’re actually in some fairly good company.
Of course, even though the awards are nonsensical and frequently given to the wrong nominees, they are not going away within the foreseeable future. For one thing, we like to watch them. The Oscars’ real value lie in making an entertaining (and highly profitable) program out of show business as a whole. We, the public, get to watch the pantheon of celebrities glitz across the carpet and then try to get to know you better as you chit chat with the press. Once the ceremony has begun, camera closeups of the nominees provide us with a rare and intimate opportunity to share in the rush of triumph or the wrench of disappointment.
Ultimately, it’s just a compounding case of what talent in Hollywood already deals with each day. You put everything you have into trying to create the best product possible and then, after you’ve done that, we insist on arbitrarily placing you in competition with one another so that we can watch your reactions. It’s a poor reward for people who are already in a punishing line of work. So don’t care too much. If you win, your career will be boosted and you’ll enjoy some prestige. If you lose however, the creative product you put out there won’t be a bit different for it. So if you can, take it easy on yourself.
—
Miles K is a writer and comedian who wears galoshes in his flooded basement bedroom. He tweets at @NotMilesK and blogs at cleverthingstosay.com.



Figure skating, gymnastics, dance competitions, MVP in any sport, All-Stars in any sport…
Well put. IMHO the flood of “the Oscars don’t MEAN anything” articles have become a lot more annoying than any of the overly analytical articles about who will win what award. No one is going to slash the tires on your fixed gear if you admit that you don’t need to mainline 100 proof irony just to watch the show.
Exactly what I was thinking reading this post: is Miles advocating that anything with a judge or panel of judges is not meaningful? How about the Nobel Prize? Pulitzers? We know that the “losers’” work isn’t any less meaningful if they didn’t win their category, but good or bad, our society puts a lot of value on acknowledging people for their efforts, even when it cannot be done objectively, like a football game (which, if we’re really going there, isn’t always objective and based solely on a scoreboard either. Go ask the Seahawks and Packers).
The difference here tho is the people who vote on the oscars are the same people who produce the movies so its a direct conflict of interest…
The oscars are in no way a panel of ‘experts’ like the Nobel Prize or the Pulitzers. A better analog to that would perhaps be the Palm d’or. Although even that is subject to dolla dolla bills and political grandstanding bullshit (Fahrenheit 9/11).
The oscar voting committee is the industry itself. Which is dumb. Imagine if your plumber gave himself the best plumbing award. Thats basically the oscars.
Say for example I know I’m gonna produce a movie with Jennifer Lawrence next year. Obviously it’s in my best interest to just vote to hand her a statue now because it will make my next movie with her in it seem more legit.
She will win not because she’s the ‘best’(which is a dumb way to look at art to begin with obvs) but because The Town wants to put there money into her.
The whole thing is a business venture really. Which is fine I guess…
I don’t have a problem with saying “Hey this is a movie that has some great shit we all like lets give it an award!”.
I think what OP is trying to say is the oscars are and have always been a huge fucking racket for hollywood producers.
…and Sally Field sucks.
We already knew.
This is taking a very delicate approach toward a group of people that get paid millions of dollars to play make-believe and read words written by someone else for a living.
I stopped giving a shit about the Oscars when they gave best picture to The English Patient over Fargo. Then when Slumdog won everything a few years ago any fucks I had for the Academy went away. this may sound cliche and redundant but Oscar is just one massive circle jerk.
Like anything it’s worth as much value as people put on it. For an actor, having an Oscar doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll get better parts, but it can mean you get more money. (“But Cuba has an Oscar! Yes, he’ll do your film about sled dogs, but it’ll cost your more.”)
The oscars is an award for having the best case of dissociative identity disorder.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…..oh I’m sorry, the Oscars was on
although, if it weren’t for awards, not nearly as many people wouldve seen “silver linings playbook”
I dunno man. I think the Oscsrs are pretty important. They’re what inspired me to have my own family oscars where I drape medals on my kids + grandmother and get them to act the way I want.
(SHHHHHH! We know they dont matter, what, are you new? Just dont tell my gay friends because their Oscar parties are fucking fabulous!)
I feel kind of bad for Sally Field. If you watch that speech it’s only awkward because she was saying exactly what she was thinking at the moment rather than trying to hide it. If I’d won an Oscar I’d probably just graciously say “Thank you,” but I’d be thinking “YES! MY ENTIRE LIFE HAS NOW BEEN VALIDATED BY THIS AWARD! KNEEL AT MY FEET FUCKERS! YOU AREN’T FIT TO LICK MY ASSHOLE!”
Of course, if Field had said that it would have been even more awesome.
This is pretty insufficient as an article. Yes awards in artistic pursuits are like nailing jello to a wall. Its a subjective form that can hardly maintain a consistency especially when it comes to the attitudes of the judges in any given year changing evolving, being more or less progressive/conservative.
But you didn’t talk about that not in detail. Instead you made a beginners error in utilizing the ‘wrong movie won’ reasoning. A horrid and horrible way of assailing the Oscars. You were better off with following up on Mayer’s intent and how that has distilled down through the ages.
The Oscars are an industry stamp. Like JD power awards, and military medals. Both require an effort on the recipient but truth be told there are many many others who could qualify but don’t for various reasons. Yes even military medals with the exception of wounded in action medals like the Purple Hart in the US military. Not every person who did a great thing got a Bronze star or the Congressional even if they’re deeds were clearly worthy.
The Oscars (far far far down the rung of awards from distinguished service in combat) is an industry thumbs up of the highest prestige that is all.
Citizen Kane was not well received in its time (blame it on Hearst if you want) only in the late 50′s and Cinema Avant-Garde movement of the 60′s did Citizen Kane get respected and IMO the film’s narrative doesn’t hold up today despite its very keen technical innovations.
Which is a good excuse for an Oscar consideration. Think of ‘Greatest Show on Earth’, Forest Gump, and Return of the King. Even though Gump was a crowd pleaser its biggest strength was its technical attributes. The third LOTR movie was the slowest, longest and the weakest directorial crafting of the trilogy but it won as a sort of achievement award (which was roundly acknowledged in the run up to those Oscars).
Chicago was a rarity in a musical adaptation that perhaps succeeded in either carrying over the stage act to film (a hard thing to do) or that it was (some might say) even better than the stage version. It was also a crowd pleaser, with a refreshing take on the movie musical. The Pianist was a mediocre version of well explored territory.
I wont argue that artistic awards aren’t definitive, but they do mean something for business and the industry and its the industries job to maintain legitimacy by hype-hook- and crook.
I mean after all going back to your games analogy. The Super Bowl is the world championship of football, the MLB World Series, NBA world Championship…..
*Heart (Purple Heart)