And guess what, that ‘everything’ is pretty much the same that was said about the Oscars in 2011, 2010, 2009, etc. Most vocal were the usual cries that the nominations don’t reflect what the masses see, or that they’re too generic and ‘safe’, not reflecting what niche crowds see. Each raises interesting points, though an award ceremony that reflects what the masses see is needless as that’s what box office charts are for. And while the Oscars provide great publicity for films that don’t have blockbuster marketing budgets, its always important to outline how edgier films like Shame (2011) don’t enjoy any of this, despite Shame’s phenomenal cinematography and Michael Fassbender’s relentlessly intense performance (expect him to win an Oscar for a lesser, but academy-friendly, performance in the next ten years, probably as a historical icon or something).
Now that the winners have finally been revealed (in most cases exactly as expected) all that remains are the familiar considerations of whether anybody will care about them in a few years time and the metamorphosis of the whole shebang into a fashion show. Of course this year’s key victors, The Artist (2011) and Hugo (2011), do inspire more intriguing commentary about cinematic history, particularly relevant at a time when cinemas are replacing their celluloid projectors with hard drives (not that anybody really cares when you’ve got Angelina Jolie’s leg to discuss). In a few weeks this should have run its course though, the old debates can be stashed away, to be dusted off again in time for next year’s ceremony, and the internet can resume its countdown to The Dark Knight Rises (2012).