Taste Debate

Pro (Allen)

People might look at the nine Best Picture nominees this year and say that the Academy's new nomination process for their highest category has failed. To start complaining, one need not look further than a certain film that was Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close to nomination day, having its wide release on Jan. 20 this year. Some see this puzzling inclusion as a sign that Academy voters rely too heavily on other awards shows and critical praise when picking Best Picture candidates, not knowing what to do when a film is released too late for either. While I won't argue this point, I will certainly take on anyone who blames it on the new nomination process.

After spending two years nominating 10 films in an attempt to draw in more viewers, the Academy has implemented a process where anywhere between five and 10 films can be nominated for Best Picture, as long as each nominee garners at least 5 percent of first-place votes. This new strategy makes more sense than selecting the traditional five nominees, as that process sometimes left moviegoers angry by ignoring classics such as The Dark Knight, Blade Runner, and Some Like it Hot. The 10-nominee experiment of 2009-2010, however, took some of the prestige away from a nomination via The Blind Side.

I believe the Academy simply picked an unfortunate year for this to be first used. In 2011, there was no The Social Network or The King's Speech to gather behind. Without a juggernaut success story for voters to rally around, they all ended up choosing different films as a first choice. If 2011 had been a better year for movies, the new process would have worked like a charm and silence wouldn't be so golden.

Con (Keeley)

Back in June, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences once again changed the rules for nominating movies for Best Picture: instead of the traditional five nominees or the more recent 10, the new system allows anywhere from five to 10, as long as each nominee receives more than 5 percent of the first-place votes. What does all this bureaucratic nonsense mean? In theory, the new rules ensure that each of the nominees actually has a chance of winning, while also allowing room for widely-liked popular hits.

In practice? Just look at the nominees and it's easy to see that despite apparent changes, it's all business as usual for the Academy. There are nine nominees, but critically acclaimed hits like Drive and Bridesmaids didn't make the cut, nor did worthwhile indies like Take Shelter or Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Instead, we have Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, the weepie reviled for turning the tragedy of 9/11 into simplistic kitsch. The Oscars are clearly not pleasing popular audiences or discerning critics, so who are they for? The answer is the same as it has always been: the Academy is pleasing itself, projecting an image of a Hollywood that deals with "serious issues" and grand themes rather than rewarding the movies with the most artistic merit or popular support.