The Academy Awards always promise a lively celebration—unless you’re one of those entertainment industry naysayers who tunes in religiously each year only to bemoan the ceremony as “boring.” (Personally, I relish every moment!) Yet, the Oscars have never been known for their cool factor. They tend to be ostentatious, shamelessly star-struck, and, until recently, unapologetically mainstream.
Looking at the nominations for this year’s 87th Academy Awards, you can’t help but see a transformation. The categories are now largely filled with films that are cerebral, artistic, and unique—pieces that critics have praised but that, in many instances, have struggled at the box office, even by indie film standards. When I first started watching the Oscars back in the late ’70s and ’80s, they felt less serious because the criteria for an “Oscar-worthy” film was heavily influenced by its commercial success. Generally, Best Picture winners had to be crowd-pleasers, not just for monetary reasons, but because Hollywood’s essence lies in creating popular entertainment. If a movie didn’t attract audiences, it could never embody the dream of what Hollywood represented, and thus, it stood no chance of winning.
Fast forward to today. The mega-blockbusters and franchise films that usually capture the public’s attention aren’t even on the Academy’s radar anymore. The Best Picture winner from 2003, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, was meant to elevate fantasy films in Oscar consideration, but instead, it seems they’ve been completely excluded. This year’s nominees appear more suited for the Independent Spirit Awards than the Oscars themselves. Among them are The Grand Budapest Hotel, with its whimsical capers and distinct Wes Anderson flair; Birdman, a quirky narrative about a washed-up actor striving for redemption; Whiplash, a gripping tale of ambition and obsession; The Theory of Everything and The Imitation Game, two unique British biopics; and, of course, Boyhood, an experimental film shot over twelve years that, if it wins, would mark a significant departure for the Oscars.
There are a couple of nominees that stick to the traditional Oscar formula, yet they feel somewhat out of place. Selma, the powerful Martin Luther King Jr. biopic, faced criticism and minimal recognition, particularly with the omission of lead actor David Oyelowo. Meanwhile, Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper, a controversial drama, seems to have garnered its nomination due to Eastwood’s stature rather than the film’s broader appeal.
The Oscars still serve as Hollywood’s ultimate self-promotional event, but the composition of the Academy has shifted significantly. The old guard, primarily “older” voters who were linked to the studio system, has diminished, giving way to a new generation of Academy members, many of whom belong to Generation X. This demographic is less concerned with honoring “popular” films that also exhibit a touch of “quality.” Instead, they favor the audacious and unconventional—an evolution that also reveals a disconnect between the kind of films that are gaining recognition and those that Hollywood predominantly produces.
This gradual shift began during the Harvey Weinstein era, notably at the 1996 Oscars, which featured a surprising indie influence with nominations for films like Fargo and The English Patient. However, the real turning point was in 2008 when The Hurt Locker won Best Picture, despite its dismal box office performance. This set a precedent that a Best Picture winner didn’t have to be a commercial success. The path continued with the nomination of Beasts of the Southern Wild in 2012, showcasing the Academy’s changing tastes.
What would the Oscars look like today if they were judged by the standards of 20 years ago? We might have seen nominations for popular films like Unbroken, directed by Angelina Jolie, or Into the Woods, a musical that resonates with audiences. Gone Girl, a gripping thriller, would likely have made the cut too. Meanwhile, Foxcatcher, a dark drama that earned critical acclaim but failed to find a wide audience, might have been overlooked altogether.
As someone who has championed independent films for over two decades, I should be thrilled with the evolving Oscars. Yet, I can’t help but approach them with a hint of skepticism. Awarding great films shouldn’t follow a formula—whether it leans commercial or anti-commercial. Today, if you dared to suggest that a blockbuster like Guardians of the Galaxy deserved a nod, you might be laughed out of the discussion. Ironically, I found it to be among my top films of the year, surpassing many current Best Picture nominees! While the Oscars have embraced a cooler, indie vibe, there’s something to be said for recognizing the artistry in the popular films Hollywood releases year-round. Open-mindedness is essential when it comes to awarding cinematic excellence.
In summary, the Oscars have transformed into a celebration of art that often overlooks mainstream successes, leaving us to ponder what truly constitutes an “Oscar-worthy” film.