Oscar Nominations 2012: Why Does The Academy Hate Moviegoers?

The 2012 Academy Award nominations were announced on Tuesday, and if you found the news was not exactly a hot topic of conversation around the office that morning, you're not alone. The average American, even the average movie lover doesn't care about the Oscars for the simple reason that the Academy has conditioned them not to care. Year after year, the Hollywood elite demonstrate the massiveness of the divide between the film industry and the moviegoing public by nominating not the most beloved, acclaimed, or even most deserving films, but rather, the films that mean the most to insiders and that benefited from the best award season PR campaigns.

That's not to say there aren't some wonderful films nominated this year, and every year. There certainly are. Moneyball, War Horse, and The Help were popular with critics and audiences alike, and it's refreshing to see the usually stagnant movie industry honor a fresh, innovative film like The Artist. But this year, perhaps more than any other, offered Academy members a chance to show that they share some tastes in common with the average theater patron, and they firmly passed it up.

There was talk of Best Picture nominations for audience favorites such as Bridesmaids, Drive, or even Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part II - films that connected with audiences as much as with critics. Naturally, all three were passed up, for reasons that remain baffling to the general public, but probably have to do with the funny, or violent, or thoroughly modern nature of those films. The Academy hopes to attract the interests of a younger audience, while at the same time honoring only films that you could safely enjoy with your Great Aunt Mildred.

Playing it safe has damaged the reputation of the Awards in the past (by honoring forgettable, family friendlier fare such as Ordinary People or Dances With Wolves instead of riskier modern classics such as Raging Bull or Goodfellas) but at this point, staying on the beaten path may mean sacrificing all the esteem and credibility that the Oscars have built up over generations. Of course, it could be argued that movies are a matter of taste and all taste is subjective (I don't believe that, but we'll go with it). Maybe the Academy members aren't consciously picking safe-bet, cookie-cutter prestige pictures that are traditionally ignored by audiences; maybe these are just the movies they like! If that's the case, explain Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close....

As a whole, the critical community lambasted this sentimental, manipulative piece of post-9/11 claptrap. It currently enjoys a 47% rating on the review collection site Rotten Tomatoes, making it the lowest-rated film to ever get nominated for Best Picture. Surely all 6,000 members of the Academy couldn't have disagreed so unanimously with the nation's critics, right? So, why did the universally reviled Extremely Loud make waves with ASCAP while leaving critics so cold? Simple - Academy members didn't enjoy the film anymore than critics, audiences (who ignored it), or anyone else. They just decided that the super serious subject matter made it Grade-A Oscar material. They don't care about honoring great movies, just Important Movies. That's why the public has stopped caring. Your average film lover doesn't think like the Academy - he doesn't care how future generations will feel about his taste in movies.

It's tempting to think that the Academy just doesn't care about your opinion or mine, but they do. They care deeply. Without us, there's no reason for them to exist. But we should send the message that instead of trying to lure us in with "hip young" hosts, and elaborate musical numbers the simplest way to get us to watch their annual ceremony would be to nominate films and actors that the public actually cares about. I'd like to say I'll mount a one-man boycott, but I know I'll be in front of my TV on February 26, along with millions of other Americans who don't care who wins.