What I'm trying to say is simply this: the choosiness of the Academy Awards helps further film as an art, while the Grammy's are a detriment to the music industry.
Let me explain a little bit. But first, I have a confession: I am a much bigger fan of film than I am of music. I tend to check IMDB at least 5 times a day, read at least 5 articles a day about what's going on in the film industry, as well as watch a couple of different youtube channel shows on film and even check daily on what my favorite film critics and professional cinephiles are writing/saying/talking about in the indie and Hollywood world. However, being into film helps me to see how things that take place in the film industry effect the greater Hollywood film-scape; specifically in understanding the choosiness of the Academy.
This "choosiness" is many times seen by the masses as "pretentious", "snooty", and "out of touch with reality". But, just like vegetables are not always the tastiest but necessary to good health, the celebration of these films actually can (and does) help take the film industry to a place that the money-hungry Grammy's can only dream of going. Films like "Birdman" (2015), "The Artist" (2012) or "The King's Speech" (2011) can seem very boring and tedious to watch, and names such as Alejandro Iñárritu (2015) and Alfonso Cuarón (2014) are ones that many people in the general public may not actually recognize, despite the fact that all three of the films won the Oscar for "Best Picture" and these two directors won "Best Director" in their respective years.
Did any of these films or directors top the charts in ticket sales or box office returns in those years? No. In fact, in the last 7 years, only 2 films that grossed in the top 20 domestically won best picture, and 2 directors won best picture with that feat. (King's Speech, 2011, #18 and Slumdog Millionaire, 2009, #16, along with their directors). What is even crazier is this fact: out of 35 best director nominations over the past 7 years, only 5 have been involved in movies that cracked the top 20. In fact, only 52% (39/75) of Best Picture nominees have been in the top 50 grossing films domestically in the past 10 years.
In short: the quality of the film and quality of directing is the bench-mark for winning the Oscar. Many of these films are not wide release or huge in their budgets, but these budgetary constraints force the filmmakers to focus more on story and characters than thrills from mindless explosions and effects ("Ex Machina", with a budget of $15 million, is nominated for a VFX Oscar this year. This is the smallest budget since the '80s to gain such a nomination, and it was a film that very well could have been nominated for best picture).
To contrast this a little bit, let's look at the Grammy Awards. In the last 7 years, only 2 winners of song of the year and only 2 winners of record of the year won with a song that was outside of the top 10 selling singles of the year. Even crazier than that high percentage is the fact that a staggering 78% (39/50) of albums that were nominated for Album of the Year finished in the top 50 in sales the years they were nominated.
In short: if you sell a lot of records, that's what matters. Quality may not mean as much as long as you make a lot of dough.
This sort of logic in the Grammy awards voting has led many in the industry to make a mockery of the awards. The lead singer from the metal band "Tool" once declined to show up to receive an award they won, stating "I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don't honor the arts or the artist for what he created. It's the music business celebrating itself. That's basically what it's all about."
Even Michael Bublé made a slight under the breath comment about the state of the Grammy's on Good Morning America, when, after watching the new music video for Psy's "Daddy", he commented that "If this is what we have to look forward to at the Grammys next year, I'm out!"
When the rewards go to whatever attracts the most attention, the effort and attention will go towards shock factor, even to the detriment of the art.
What is cool to view is how the Academy Awards approaches awards. Do they go to the things that get the most money? Like we stated earlier, no, no they do not. What this does, however, is push filmmakers and studios to a better product across the board. Smaller independent films get awards, shining light on new and fresh talent (both actors and directors, screenwriters and cinematographers). This fresh talent is then added to bigger budget products, boosting the quality of the blockbusters that are available.
It is a well known fact among my friends that I do not always fully enjoy every film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but even I can recognize the improvements they have made across the board with each film that is put out. It is beginning to attract Academy Award caliber talent (Benedict Cumberbatch, Robert Redford, Glenn Close, Samuel L. Jackson, etc). This phenomena is not limited to Disney's Marvel either. DC is getting Ben Affleck to star as Batman and to direct a solo Batman film (his film that he both starred in and directed, "Argo", won the Academy Award for Best Picture), and they already had Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner in "Man of Steel". X-Men has Michael Fassbender and did have Ian McKellon and Patrick Stewart.
Award winning talent in "main stream" films equals better products. These help further the industry and take film in a better quality direction, and a big reason for it is the continued prestige of it's biggest night: The Academy Awards.
So, what does all of this mean? Certainly, people will continue to pay good money for repetitive music because that's what the Grammy's lend them to. Also, people will continue to purchase tickets for the next explosion fest at the box office that has absolutely no story. There is no getting rid of low quality mindless entertainment. But the difference is this: with film, every October-January, the box office is inundated with "Oscar Bait", or the high quality, high story, high character films that will undoubtedly win a plethora of awards, giving the general viewing audience an avenue for a more "high brow" quality of entertainment.
The music industry will continue to inundate top-20 stations with music that is (quite frankly) bland, mindless, and sad. People will buy it because there are no other options, and although the music will digress, the money will continue. Much of the music that should be recognized for it's artistic integrity will be ignored because it's biggest stage (The Grammy's), will choose to ignore it as well.
As both awards ceremonies roll around this February, take a chance to look at the nominees. Have fun discussing what is and should be nominated, and always remember that entertainment is subjective, but high quality is always noticed and should be respected and honored. And the chances are good that if the high quality entertainment is being noticed and honored in the program you are watching, you are probably watching the Oscars.
Let me explain a little bit. But first, I have a confession: I am a much bigger fan of film than I am of music. I tend to check IMDB at least 5 times a day, read at least 5 articles a day about what's going on in the film industry, as well as watch a couple of different youtube channel shows on film and even check daily on what my favorite film critics and professional cinephiles are writing/saying/talking about in the indie and Hollywood world. However, being into film helps me to see how things that take place in the film industry effect the greater Hollywood film-scape; specifically in understanding the choosiness of the Academy.
This "choosiness" is many times seen by the masses as "pretentious", "snooty", and "out of touch with reality". But, just like vegetables are not always the tastiest but necessary to good health, the celebration of these films actually can (and does) help take the film industry to a place that the money-hungry Grammy's can only dream of going. Films like "Birdman" (2015), "The Artist" (2012) or "The King's Speech" (2011) can seem very boring and tedious to watch, and names such as Alejandro Iñárritu (2015) and Alfonso Cuarón (2014) are ones that many people in the general public may not actually recognize, despite the fact that all three of the films won the Oscar for "Best Picture" and these two directors won "Best Director" in their respective years.
Did any of these films or directors top the charts in ticket sales or box office returns in those years? No. In fact, in the last 7 years, only 2 films that grossed in the top 20 domestically won best picture, and 2 directors won best picture with that feat. (King's Speech, 2011, #18 and Slumdog Millionaire, 2009, #16, along with their directors). What is even crazier is this fact: out of 35 best director nominations over the past 7 years, only 5 have been involved in movies that cracked the top 20. In fact, only 52% (39/75) of Best Picture nominees have been in the top 50 grossing films domestically in the past 10 years.
In short: the quality of the film and quality of directing is the bench-mark for winning the Oscar. Many of these films are not wide release or huge in their budgets, but these budgetary constraints force the filmmakers to focus more on story and characters than thrills from mindless explosions and effects ("Ex Machina", with a budget of $15 million, is nominated for a VFX Oscar this year. This is the smallest budget since the '80s to gain such a nomination, and it was a film that very well could have been nominated for best picture).
To contrast this a little bit, let's look at the Grammy Awards. In the last 7 years, only 2 winners of song of the year and only 2 winners of record of the year won with a song that was outside of the top 10 selling singles of the year. Even crazier than that high percentage is the fact that a staggering 78% (39/50) of albums that were nominated for Album of the Year finished in the top 50 in sales the years they were nominated.
In short: if you sell a lot of records, that's what matters. Quality may not mean as much as long as you make a lot of dough.
This sort of logic in the Grammy awards voting has led many in the industry to make a mockery of the awards. The lead singer from the metal band "Tool" once declined to show up to receive an award they won, stating "I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don't honor the arts or the artist for what he created. It's the music business celebrating itself. That's basically what it's all about."
Even Michael Bublé made a slight under the breath comment about the state of the Grammy's on Good Morning America, when, after watching the new music video for Psy's "Daddy", he commented that "If this is what we have to look forward to at the Grammys next year, I'm out!"
When the rewards go to whatever attracts the most attention, the effort and attention will go towards shock factor, even to the detriment of the art.
What is cool to view is how the Academy Awards approaches awards. Do they go to the things that get the most money? Like we stated earlier, no, no they do not. What this does, however, is push filmmakers and studios to a better product across the board. Smaller independent films get awards, shining light on new and fresh talent (both actors and directors, screenwriters and cinematographers). This fresh talent is then added to bigger budget products, boosting the quality of the blockbusters that are available.
It is a well known fact among my friends that I do not always fully enjoy every film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but even I can recognize the improvements they have made across the board with each film that is put out. It is beginning to attract Academy Award caliber talent (Benedict Cumberbatch, Robert Redford, Glenn Close, Samuel L. Jackson, etc). This phenomena is not limited to Disney's Marvel either. DC is getting Ben Affleck to star as Batman and to direct a solo Batman film (his film that he both starred in and directed, "Argo", won the Academy Award for Best Picture), and they already had Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner in "Man of Steel". X-Men has Michael Fassbender and did have Ian McKellon and Patrick Stewart.
Award winning talent in "main stream" films equals better products. These help further the industry and take film in a better quality direction, and a big reason for it is the continued prestige of it's biggest night: The Academy Awards.
So, what does all of this mean? Certainly, people will continue to pay good money for repetitive music because that's what the Grammy's lend them to. Also, people will continue to purchase tickets for the next explosion fest at the box office that has absolutely no story. There is no getting rid of low quality mindless entertainment. But the difference is this: with film, every October-January, the box office is inundated with "Oscar Bait", or the high quality, high story, high character films that will undoubtedly win a plethora of awards, giving the general viewing audience an avenue for a more "high brow" quality of entertainment.
The music industry will continue to inundate top-20 stations with music that is (quite frankly) bland, mindless, and sad. People will buy it because there are no other options, and although the music will digress, the money will continue. Much of the music that should be recognized for it's artistic integrity will be ignored because it's biggest stage (The Grammy's), will choose to ignore it as well.
As both awards ceremonies roll around this February, take a chance to look at the nominees. Have fun discussing what is and should be nominated, and always remember that entertainment is subjective, but high quality is always noticed and should be respected and honored. And the chances are good that if the high quality entertainment is being noticed and honored in the program you are watching, you are probably watching the Oscars.
