Oscar Beat #1

On February 22, 2009, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will come together to honor the finest cinematic efforts that 2008 had to offer. One would think that a list of nominees celebrating the likes ofAngelina Jolie, Sean Penn, and Meryl Streep would have people jumping outof their skin with anticipation, but further analysis reveals a much more sullen and subdued atmosphere than in years past. Strangely, the questionon everyone’s mind is not who will win what, but whether or not anyone at home will be watching. Perhaps it’s the shattered state of the economy or maybe it’s just the overall quality of films, but everything seems to have taken a considerable step down from what we’re used to.

According to preliminary Nielsen ratings, not even in 2007, a year thatmany film critics consider to be the most outstanding of the decade, couldthe academy muster more than a paltry 32 million viewers, so the consensus appears to be that this year’s admittedly watered-down crop won’t do much to resurrect the once heralded awards show. With box-office behemoth “The Dark Knight” and animated crowd-pleaser “Wall-E” notably absent from mostof the major categories, audiences are once again left with a docket of complex and gloomy pictures that, as usual, they’ve shown little desire to spend their hard-earned money on. Of the five nominees, only “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” has grossed over $100 million domestically and its total of $116,473,266* is barely surpassed by the other four contenders combined, so the gap between what the public wants and what Hollywood deems praiseworthy appears to be widening by the day.

What is responsible for this divergence in taste? Why do general audiences favor bombastic popcorn flicks such as “Hancock” and “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” over more serious fare like“Frost/Nixon” and “The Wrestler?” The most obvious reason has shown to be that people prefer not to leave the theatre with a sour taste in their mouth, because happy endings are almost always synonymous with financial success. If someone has the choice between a Will Smith superhero saga and a gritty, blood-soaked drama about a has-been professional wrestler, history has revealed that they’ll opt for the former with little hesitation. It can’t be totally based on star power, because Will Smith’s most recent tearjerker “Seven Pounds” bowed to less than $70 million*,which for him, is a significant under-achievement. No, the rift goes much deeper than that.

What we’re seeing is the emergence of two distinct factions of moviegoers that rarely see eye to eye. The first is out for nothing more than an enjoyable night at the movies with a film that doesn’t require much more than a passive concentration, while the second is looking for something that will challenge their mind and force them to actively dissect everything they’re witnessing on screen. As for which one will win out,that remains to be seen. What we do know is that as long as movies arebeing made, people will undoubtedly flock to see them regardless of the premise, because the cinema is often that one great escape.

*According to Box Office Mojo’s records as of 2/8/09