I knew that no matter how quick or
entertaining the Oscars were this year, it was inevitably going to be attacked as being too long,
self-important and unentertaining. And sure enough the Washington Post ran a
column that had nothing to do with the winners or what the author thought of
them but could have just as easily been a column written by any one who
criticizes any awards show.
I'm now beginning to think Hollywood's
biggest mistake is televising its awards shows. I understand why they did it,
it was an attempt to bring in millions of viewers on live TV. But even before
streaming and cable started cutting into the ratings this was always going to
be a battle it could never win with the critics because at a basic level they
always have this wall that goes up every time they see anything that is on TV
involving Hollywood. In their minds if something appears on a screen, it is subject
to criticism and must be graded as a work of entertainment.
An awards show is a live event which
means it can't run on schedule. It's about the people the nominees and winners
and about recognizing them and the industry first and foremost. That means it
has to be self-congratulatory. And this
is where the real elitism of critics come in: they don't real care enough about
who edits or shoots or costumes a film, not really. They might individual
appreciate details in a film or TV show or a play but they don't want to hear
them speak and they don't care about recognizing them. To be sure they are vital to contributing to
a work of art but they're not special, not like writers, actors or
directors. (They don't really care much about them either but one thing at a
time.) And they certainly don't give a damn about them realizing their lives
dream or what it might mean to be on the same stage as all these people.
No all they care about is that they
are distractions from what these critics seemingly care about: the writers,
directors and actors. Except they don't really care about them either except as
abstractions. Sure they love their work (some of it) and they like their
performances and some of them might even agree with their politics. But the
critics don't really care how much this might mean to them to be recognized by
their peers, how this realization of their dreams is a big deal. No, what they
care about is that they can't deliver a short, rehearsed, charming and warm
speech when they don't have a script in front of them. Yes this is a glorious
moment for you and we understand how much it means but do we have to listen to
you drone on and one about how important the craft and your work means to
you? Our opinion of your work is
all that matters; we don't care what you think of it.
And who cares what people in the film
industry think about movies or what people in TV think about film or people in
theatre think about plays? Sure your industries might be struggling for
recognition right now and this is a night that theoretically is supposed to
celebrate it. But why should that be our problem. Can't you celebrate
yourself as quickly and efficiently as possible? As well as being completely
spontaneous and entertaining as every other play and live event we watch, of
course?
And sure the host may have a tough job
entertaining both the audience watching at home and keeping the mood light in
the theater. But is that any real excuse for not having every single joke be a
genuine laugher every time? Sure that's not a standard we apply for any comedy
movie or TV show or for that matter if they host a late night show but that's
not the point. You're not doing this for the audience in the theater or at
home, you're doing for us, the critics, the ones who can only pass judgment on
anything.
If by this point you've realized that
I'm genuinely exasperated by the continued and ludicrous process that so many
seemingly intelligent people seem to throw away when it comes to reviewing an
awards show as if it were say, Sinners and One Battle After Another, gold
star. I honestly think at some point some genius is going to say: "You
what would make these Oscars better? No awards!" And that person will be
taken seriously because that's the world we live in today.
The columnist in the Post who wrote the
most recent column who is a Gen-X
who has written non-fiction bestsellers and has done a tour in Hollywood in the
early stages of her career. Yet she maintains the brain rot that I expect more
from millennials and Gen Z when it comes to most subjects they don't understand
yet for some reason is ever present when it comes to treating an awards show. I'm not even going to dignify this person by
giving their name; for all intents and purposes it might as well be any of the
dozens of critics who keep making it harder for individuals to take my
profession seriously. (She's not actually a critic by the way. Doesn't help.)
At this juncture in my career I'm
beginning to think the people who review the Oscars for any publication are
only hate-watching it. Not in the way those people who claim that they only are
doing so for Emily in Paris or …And Just Like That, the ones I
think secretly love these shows but are ashamed to say so. And not like the far
right political people who will argue that the Oscars are just another night of
left-wing politics gone mad. No I think these people watch every Oscars with a stopwatch
in their hands, are yelling at every awards recipient "shut up
already!" long before they start getting played off, have a detailed list
of every joke that makes them cringe and hate the In Memoriam segments
not because of the music involved but because they can't understand why
Hollywood is paying tribute to people who were important to the industry.
"All they did was die," I imagine they say out loud at home.
I don't think my judgment of
these individuals – I won't dignify them
with the term 'critics' – is too harsh. Its one thing to take the awards
themselves too seriously; I passed that point in my life by the time I got into
college. But in the case of the author of this column not only am I not
convinced she cared who won, I'm not sold she even saw any of the films. Which
brings me back to the question I ask every time: if you don't have a vested
interest in the nominees or winners, why in God's name would you choose to
spend three hours of your life watching an awards show honoring them?
My long-time readers know this isn't a
rhetorical question. Whenever I cover any major awards show, Emmys, Golden
Globes, any number of the Critics Awards, what I spent the majority of my time
talking about are the winners of the awards and their acceptance speeches. This
is what I think my job is about and because I actually have an emotional
investment in the nominees and some of the winners that's why I watch these
awards shows. And for the record, I do care about the technical winners such as
editors, cinematographers and makeup artists. I've been watching and covering
the technical Emmy as long as the actual Emmys. I think they play an unsung
role in creating so much of my favorite TV so at the very least they deserve to
be paid attention to.
I've never felt the same connection to
the Oscars but I have always watched it, perhaps more out of muscle memory then
anything else. But every time I watch it, I know going in what I'm going to
get. It's going to be three and a half hours long on a good night. If
we're lucky half the jokes any of the host tells will land and the rest will be
awkward. Some of the banter between presenters will work; some won't. The
acceptance speeches will be heartfelt and going on extensively and I probably
won't recognize most of the technical winners by obligation. There will be more
than a few political comments done solely to enrage the other side with
no other purpose. That's where the bar
has been set for me since 2000. Some times it gets a little over that,
sometimes it really sucks, but most of the time that's what its like. I've come to accept that. It astonishes me
that there are still people out there who seem to be expecting more.
No one is even pretending Hollywood
has anything but an uncertain future these days; certainly not the columnist
for the Post. And I'm not going to pretend that they haven't done much to bring
it on their heads and that they don't deserve criticism where its due. But
listening to this columnist you almost seem to think they're looking forward to
it with in the same 'we're doomed to oblivion' approach that makes up so many
of these columns about anything these days. That's the definition of kicking someone when
they're down. And to do so on a night
that is about celebrating their industry strikes me as the equivalent of not
only writing a eulogy before the body is dead, but saying in it that the
deceased was boring, self-indulgent and long-winded when they were alive. This
would be in bad taste no matter who did it, but for one who does so under the
guise of criticism, it's the kind of thing that makes all of us look bad.
So on the oft-chance that the writer
of the Washington Post reads this column, I will channel Pauline Kael and Rex
Reed at their meanest in response to them:
"I really hope your piece was
generated by AI because if you are a human being, you only did a slightly
better job then a third grader suffering from dyslexia and did so disgracing
all actual third graders and those who struggle with dyslexia. You
demonstrate the kind of elite snobbery in your writing that I've come to expect
from those who think opera and ballet are thriving industries and that movies
will go extinct first.
The Academy Awards is an awards show
in Hollywood. It is not a production of the Royal Shakespeare company, the
Bolshoi Ballet, a Taylor Swift concert or The Brutalist. To review it my
that metric demonstrates that not only could you not appreciate any production
of them if you were to attend them but that you probably would leave before the
first intermission of any because they didn't speak to you. And by that I mean none
of the performers mentioned your name personally while they were performing and
therefore they were of no meaning to you.
It is not enough to say that people
like you make critics look bad. You make journalists look bad, writers look
bad, TV viewers look bad and anyone whose completed the process of evolution
look bad. If I were you, I would go back to writing your books and making a
living that way. I will not be purchasing any of them and indeed if I see any
at my local bookstore I'm going to place them with the pages facing forward in
the shelfs so that customers overlook them. You might consider that petty and
vindictive, but that perfectly matches the context of your review.
No one ever puts a gun to anyone's
head and forces them to watch an awards show. And no one ever asked for anyone
to review an awards show based purely on artistic merits. Everyone in Hollywood
knows what the Oscars is and how tough it is to put together. They have to deal
with critics every day of their lives. They really don't need it on one of the
days that is solely and totally about them and no one else.
And as to the fact that any other
profession is like this – I see that one of your pieces was short-listed for a
Pulitzer. How would you feel if that awards show was televised to the whole
world and someone criticized you on your acceptance speech? If you were too
long and self-indulgent? If everyone said the ceremony was bunch of elitists
congratulated themselves and said: "Does anyone honor fry cooks?"
We all want some kind of recognition
for what we do. Hollywood just does it publicly and in the most extravagant
fashion. They at least try to make it fun. They don't need pedants like you
shaming them for not being entertaining in their tension and agony.
So do us all a favor. Next Oscar night
or any awards show, don't watch it. Read a book. Binge-watch your favorite
series. Hell, watch one of the movies that was nominated that night. You'll
have a better time and so will the rest of the world because we won't have to
read another one of your self-indulgent pieces of detritus the following
day."
I won't lie. That was kind of fun. I
won't make it a habit.
No comments:
Post a Comment