It is disconcerting that the 92nd Oscars were historic in the broadest sense of the term. It is disconcerting because it comes only a year after the rise of 'Green Book', and because critics and audiences had reached a consensus that 2019 was one of the best American cinematic harvests of the last decade. The Academy's gamble on an imported production produced a climax as unexpected as it was revealing, the sweet first act of 'Parasite' at Cannes provoked an outburst in Hollywood.
When the direction of change that the awards needed to take seemed to be leading to the streamingthe bid for internationalisation has made an unexpected appearance. Perhaps not so unexpected if we take into account the change in the name of the category from Best Foreign Film to Best International Film. However, it is worth looking for possible reasons in the configuration of the Academy itself. In the last five years, the number of Oscar voters has increased by 35%, with 8,469 academics voting this year compared to 6,261 in 2015.
The Academy that deprived Roma of the Oscar last year cannot be the same Academy that has over-emphasised the game changer Parasite'. It is irresistible to compare these new academics to parasites who, in the opinion of the more conservative members, will have perverted their personality and changed the trend from within. Anonymous voters claimed days before the gala the wounded patriotism of an awards that were giving too much prominence to foreign productions, "I want an American director to win. The Oscars is an American thing; English things win BAFTAs and the French vote for the French". The rest is history.
In America, as detailed in an article in Indiewire, they see the award as transcending the cinematic and reaching a social level, even conniving with a political tinge. "If we can go 'Green Book' to 'Parasite'." read one Tweet, "we can go Trump to Warren". The feverish words of someone who has witnessed a milestone that irremediably changes everything.
Time for change?
In the Brian De Palma production 'Carlito's Way', the character played by Al Pacino said that "you never change, you just lose strength over time". What if the Oscars haven't changed, what if they have simply lost strength?
The streamingwith apologies to Laura Dern (Best Supporting Actress) and American Factory (Best Documentary), continues to be ignored. It doesn't even matter that it's Scorsese who is leading it (historic second place for 'The Irishman' as the film with the most nominations that hasn't won an Oscar). It is inevitable that Netflix will take centre stage in the months leading up to the celebration due to the high number of nominations it achieves each year. However, it has yet to win the big prize, which, in a different way, would also contribute to highlighting the change.
The feeling that what we experienced last Sunday was an act of academic madness is unavoidable. The balance of scepticism versus optimism has been balanced, but the Academy has many challenges ahead.
A muted race
Compared to last year, it has been an excessively quiet race. Quiet in terms of the campaigning of the contenders and the decisions of the Academy itself. After a turbulent 2018, no previous milestone has shaken interest in the awards in 2019. Slightly recovering the audience of the previous edition prompted the organisers to maintain, for the second consecutive year, the format without a presenter. The audience results of this edition, at historic lows, show that it was a mere illusion.
Evolution of the Oscars' audience in recent years
