By Anmol Titoria
For most film audiences around the globe, the Oscars have been a reliable standard of cinematic quality and analyzing the winners and nominees from the past few ceremonies, it is evident they will remain that way for a long time to come.
The prestige and the inherent glamour of the Oscars, heightened by the parties and the red carpets and the ludicrously blatant propagation of celebrity culture that is the direct result of such proceedings, have made the access of the Oscars far higher in magnitude than other cinematic honors, including the prestigious Cannes Film Festival prize, the Palme d’Or.
But for far too long, and far too often the Oscars have been content with rewarding the popular and the universally well-liked, not only reducing the range of cinema that gets the opportunity of being listed by the Academy as the year’s best, but also ensuring that convention and alarmingly often, mediocrity gets to stand out more than experimental, groundbreaking cinema.
And when all the parading and the orchestrated exposition is done with, mainstream audiences forget the films honored and devout film enthusiasts are glad to see the hoopla around the lesser films and work honored by the Oscars die down, if they even cared for it all in the first place.
But how do the Oscars manage to maintain that long-standing reputation? How do they manage to stay in the conversation years after a particular ceremony, with people holding grudges and celebrating certain victories?
It is because once in a while the Oscars will switch gears and award something akin to “Moonlight”, a coming-of-age story centered on a gay man over something like “La La Land” a traditional musical that became one of the most nominated movies in Academy history, or giving a writing nod to something as dialogue-free as “2001:
From:: Taste Of Cinema