Los Angeles Times

Is it important? It’s irrelevant

Sure, it’s still Hollywood’s glamorous showcase, but for the rest of the world? With all that’s going on, meh.

- By Jeffrey Fleishman jeffrey.fleishman@latimes.com Twitter: @JeffreyLAT

Do the Oscars matter anymore?

The question is sacrilege in this town, where image and myth have so subsumed reality that red carpet scrutiny over what Margot Robbie wears Sunday night will be as intense as coverage of how the Russians interfered with our elections. It will all get rather breathless as media, studios and stars play assigned roles in what in essence is a marketing event dressed up in glamour to celebrate the art of film and ponder who rates a ticket to Vanity Fair’s after-party.

That’s not to suggest that movies shouldn’t be recognized. The industry, after all, has been handing out prizes for months. Is anyone fatigued? But this year’s awards come amid rising oceans, sexual abuse scandals and slain schoolchil­dren. Our country is divided; our president is a Twitter fiend. Our immigrants feel unwelcome and our working poor can’t afford healthcare.

The Oscars seem insignific­ant amid the clamor. But they roll along in sequins and swag, offering rehearsed outrage but mostly escape for the collective soul. We have followed them for 89 years, through wars, race riots, recessions, assassinat­ions and other cruelties that have tested our national will. The Academy Awards remind us that films can inspire and at times shine wisdom on how we live. Yet despite our insatiable need to conflate, most films are not “monumental” or “landmark” or anything approachin­g “genius.”

The Oscars face a number of problems over their relevance. They are not hip or clever enough to draw in the young, and they don’t honor enough blockbuste­r titles to entice the popcorn set. The show’s political asides, less brave than long overdue, and moments of industry self-deprecatio­n, more calculated than pure, fail to capture, even though they will jab at them, the deeper currents of our visceral #hashtag times.

The American audience for the Oscars has steadily fallen, from 46.3 million in 2000 to about 32.9 million last year. More than 103 million watched the Super Bowl. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences estimates worldwide Oscar viewership at several hundred million. But consider that 3.2 billion watched the last monthlong World Cup soccer tournament.

The ceremony’s three-plus hours can feel as soul-depleting and exhausting as traffic on the 10. The show bobs along on an air of predictabi­lity, a shrug of insoucianc­e. If things don’t veer off-script — last year, Warren Beatty opened the wrong envelope in exciting live TV drama that made the Oscars fallible and human — the awards are forgettabl­e: Who won lead actor two years ago? Does anyone remember “The Artist”?

The decline in viewership is in part a symptom of an atomized entertainm­ent universe that has grown from a handful of channels to Netflix, Amazon, YouTube and endless other streaming possibilit­ies. Technology has allowed us to be varied and adventurou­s in our tastes, and there are fewer movies, “Black Panther” aside, that rise to a shared cultural moment.

To be sure, though, movie stars and those in the glow of the paparazzi still fascinate in their Teslas, Champagne and pearls. Shows like the once mocked Golden Globes have fed a seasonal hype driven by horse race odds, speculatio­n and a flood of ads and stories about who’s in the running. But by Oscar night, how much more can be said of Jordan Peele’s zeitgeist, Meryl Streep’s undeniable Streep-ness or Gary Oldman’s Winston Churchill makeup and fat suit?

There has been a shift too in the cult of celebrity. Selfies, Instagram and YouTube have made us our own celebritie­s; the real ones posing beside us at film premieres and restaurant­s have become extras in our videoed romans à clef. They don’t seem as otherworld­ly as they once did.

President Trump is another matter all together. He will inevitably be lampooned by Oscar host Jimmy Kimmel and others Sunday night, a safe target for Hollywood’s liberal persuasion­s. But Trump, a former reality show star, is — like many who will collect statuettes inside the Dolby Theatre — a celebrity. They may disdain the man and be repelled by his politics, but he, like them, was made by the entertainm­ent industry. And his base is as dismissive of Hollywood as Hollywood is of him.

Political and social causes will be voiced — Kimmel has been quite outspoken on his late night talk show — between song numbers and acceptance speeches. This is, after all, an era of reckoning: #MeToo, #TimesUp, #OscarsSoWh­ite and #NeverAgain, which arose after the recent school shooting in Florida that killed 17 students and staff. Some are reminders of Hollywood’s failings over the years at diversity and stopping alleged sexual predators.

ABC and the producers would prefer a night that doesn’t stray too far from glorifying the art of film and showcasing beautiful stars. But if the Oscars really want to be relevant, perhaps someone might address criticism of onscreen gun violence in wake of the recent mass shootings in Parkland, Fla., and other places.

Don’t count on it. The Oscars live in a tricky no-man’s land between the real and the imagined. They aspire to be topical but are careful — some would say timid — in what they choose as a cause and how they offend.

That leaves them a few steps — and a degree of courage — behind the times to which they are speaking.

 ?? Robert Carter For The Times ??
Robert Carter For The Times

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States