Sunday night my wife and daughter attended a ladies only Oscar Party at the Fischers. Dress was strictly red carpet. So Mister and Master Fischer came to our house and from there we were going to go see a movie. Only there weren’t any movies any of us wanted to see. So instead we stayed home and watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail and then played Scene It just for fun. And that’s what’s wrong with Hollywood — we wanted to go spend money on their product but they didn’t have anything we wanted to buy. And just to be clear here, Mr. Fischer liked Fahrenheit 9/11.

I think the biggest problem for Hollywood is that they’ve lost sight of the fact they are another business, just like every other business. When butts aren’t in movie theater seats, the response shouldn’t be that there is something wrong with the audience, but that the movies aren’t compelling enough. Yeah, movies have more competition than ever, but I can think of few more enjoyable ways to spend a couple of hours than at a good movie. Hollywood just doesn’t make enough good movies anymore, and I think that there is a real danger for them that once you don’t go to a movie in a while (depending on the person), you stop even thinking about going to movies. It takes something like Passion of the Christ to get people back who’ve lost interest.

The Oscars have become another sign of a disfunctional Hollywood. What is the point of the Oscars? Stroking the ego of people who have their ego’s stroked every day and who are paid fantastic sums to play make believe? An excuse to have a party afterwards? No, that’s what they’ve become, but their point from a business perspective is marketing. And the marketing is two fold – the individual product in the form of the movies, directors, actors, etc. who win, who are nominated, and who show up and are seen by the audience watching at home, and the brand of Hollywood movie. From the business perspective, there isn’t a lot of difference between the Oscars and an ad for a particular movie – they are both marketing, although in different forms. So Hollywood would ideally put on a show that people wanted to watch and showed its product (and I’m including “the talent” here as part of the product) in such a way that people want to pay to go see it.

And they are failing miserably on both counts. Viewership is down both in the theaters and of the Oscars. So does Hollywood make use the Oscars (as they used to do) to remind people of the good movies that were made? Nope, they remind people of the crappy ones they stayed away from in the first place. They could have brought Bob Hope and Johnny Carson back from the dead and in their prime, and it wouldn’t have changed that goof. The show reinforces the idea that Hollywood is smug, arrogant, out of touch, and basically not interesting in making a movie you want to see. Does George Clooney’s speech make anyone who’s on the fence, let alone not a fan, want to go see a movie that he’s associated with? In a word, no.

As somebody who really likes movies, should I be worried? Yes and no. In the short term, I’m worried because I don’t think Hollywood is going to pull its head out and make product I want to see. In the long term, I’m not worried because I think between movies made in the old Hollywood mold in other English speaking countries (think Bollywood) and a new breed using new technology in the US once again there will be movies I want to see.

Mark at Kaedrin liveblogged the show, as did Andrew Olmsted in a display of their ability to do what it takes to bring you their opinion, whatever the cost is to themselves.

Libertas, as you would expect, has an in depth look at the night. I think we’re saying the same thing when I say they’ve forgotten they are a business and Libertas says they think they are entitled to an audience.

Manhatten Transfer looks at the politics of Oscar voting this year.

Busy Mom has a non-analytic take on the event.

McQ looks at the numbers and discovers in all of 5 seconds what Hollywood can’t seem to get: People want to see movies the whole family can go to.

Patrick Runkle provides a brief synopsis of everything Oscar.

Crooked Timber notes an unintended irony from the broadcast.

Eamonn Fitzgerald looks at the Best Picture winner, Crash.

The Chicagoist is ambivalent about the oscars.

Tags: Oscars

I watched the beginning and the end of the Oscars last night mainly because the funWife likes to watch. I found Chris Rock lame, although in his defense I have to say that he wasn’t the right guy for the job. Oh, he got some mercy laughs, he got some political laughs, and he got some nervous shock laughs when he said a naughty word (it reminded me of watching Richard Pryor’s Live on the Sunset Strip and hearing people laugh whenever Richard said F**K, which he said a lot). But as my wife said, why can’t they keep Billy Crystal as host. I only enjoyed his bit about Russell Crowe and his short film interviewing movie goers (Albert Brooks was priceless). But the thought behind they should only make movies if a top star is in them — has he lost his mind? Yeah, no Jude Law and people will flock back to movies.

The real problem though isn’t the emcee, despite the best efforts of the producers to get people who shouldn’t be. It’s the whole concept and system. First off, there are only 6 awards people care about: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best supporting Actor, and Best Supporting Actress. Other than that, who cares? So why take 3+ hours to hand out six awards. 

We only care about them because of Hollywood’s star system though, which was on clear display last night. Four castes were segregated last night — the stars, who got to remain in their seats while the presenters read off the winner; the mere mortals, who had to stand on stage; the lesser mortals, who sat in their seats; and the untouchables, who were presented their awards at a completely different ceremony. I love how the technical people, the ones who are really responsible for the film going experience, are kept separate and how the academy always picks some young starlet to be the emcee for those awards.

The only point of the Oscars is marketing, yet they are wrapped in the mantle of Art. Who is a great actor? Well, guys like Harrison Ford and Mel Gibson have made very popular movies (and some unpopular and lousy ones) and can open a movie, yet how many times have you seen them at the Oscars? Hillary Swank now has two Oscars, and I have to honestly say I’ve never seen her in a movie. Sure, there are movies like Lord of the Rings which are both big money makers and Art in every sense of the word, but they don’t come around often enough.

And that leads me to my last point — Hollywood will make a glittering corpse, and soon. Here is an industry that has a hard time making a good product, and when they do, it often isn’t recognized as such by the industry itself. No, this isn’t an appeal for White Chicks to win an award. But it is an appeal for Hollywood to take itself less seriously and make better movies — more like Sideways, fewer like Oceans 12. I like movies, but I don’t see that many good ones anymore. The really disappointing thing is that the technology has really broadened the horizons of what’s possible, but Hollywood seems capable of only turning out at most one superior movie a year — mostly through sheer determination on the filmmakers part, which indicates it’s despite the system, not because of it.

Hollywood – you’re leaving a lot of money on the table.

Tags: Oscars