2010 Oscar nominees stale and predictable
This month is a competitive one — between Super Bowl Sunday and the Winter Olympics, there’s a fair share of smack talking, victory lapping and underdog rooting. But one that’s not heating up is underway in Hollywood: the Oscars. With a history of high esteem and ultimate authority on art in film, the Academy Awards are an annual beacon of excellence in movies. And with a renowned reputation, it’s got to make for some tasty competition, right?
Wrong. The Oscar nominees in 2010 were as predictable as they come. There were some surprises, I suppose, if you consider the nomination of “The Blind Side” for Best Picture a wild card. Their misguided attempts to keep things fresh (nominating 10 films for Best Picture as opposed to the usual five) backfired, and they instead crowded that category with the exact kind of blah choices that made people demand the change in the first place. “Invictus” over “Star Trek?” You’re really going out on a limb with that one, Oscar.
Of course, some of this panic might be premature. But with so many chirping the sureness of Sandra Bullock’s Acting win and the victory of "Avatar" for Best Picture, it’s easy to fear impending monotony that has plagued other awards shows this season.
Perhaps it is my fault for still having any hope at all in an award show. They do award the moneymakers; they don’t carry much weight as far as casual movie watching goes. But I can’t shake the wonder that Oscar carries — the winner list is the de facto annual preservation of excellence in filmmaking, and its immediate impact on what we consider artful cinema is undeniable. So what will it say about film if Sandra Bullock walks away with the statue this year?
Maybe the big match-up this year isn’t Kathryn Bigelow (director of “The Hurt Locker”) versus her larger-than-life ex-husband James Cameron. Maybe it’s intelligence versus industry. Let’s hope the former wins out — maybe then the Oscars really will feel fresh.
