The 94th Academy Awards Winners - Oscars 2022

[Mike Blakesley]

People are going to be Monday-morning-quarterbacking this thing until the next presidential debates. So many unanswered questions.

Why didn't Jada wear a wig? She has supposedly been "vocal" about her condition. Maybe going "bare" was a way of proclaiming to the world, "I GOT THIS!" Which if she's going with that style, it invites comments. Maybe this is what went thru Rock's head. I don't know, I'm just spit-balling here.

My big question about the whole thing is Will Smith's "mental process," for lack of a better word. He had to stand up, knowing he was on live television in front of a global audience, walk 15 or so steps to the stage, smack Rock, then walk the same steps back to his seat and THEN he started yelling his rant, TWICE. Did he go temporarily insane? It's not like he was some 20-year-old who just had his first hit movie and didn't know how to behave in that kind of a moment. This is a guy who has been around the block. How did he not KNOW that he was about to start a gigantic dumpster fire before even getting to the stage? Why didn't he come to his senses, turn around and sit back down? And assuming he couldn't stop himself from the slap, you would think he'd've had a bit of an epiphany on the way back to his seat, and just continued walking out the back of the building... or at least just sat there quietly and not thrown gas into the dumpster TWICE. I wonder if anyone knows how many cocktails he had before the ceremony?

It reminded me of a situation we had near here a few years ago, where two guys got into an argument in a bar. One of the guys left the bar, walked several blocks to his house, picked up a gun, walked back to the bar and shot the other guy. Didn't he think, somewhere in the minutes he was walking, that he was about to ruin his own life along with the other guy's?

It would be tough to be a comedian these days. Even Jerry Seinfeld, who is about the cleanest, least-offensive comedian working today, said he won't do college shows anymore because he doesn't want to take the chance of offending somebody and getting "canceled" for it.

[Leo Enticknap]

I would frankly be surprised if there is either an Academy or an Oscars left in ten years for him to return to. I can't think of a single organization that has so utterly and so completely lost sight of its foundational mission.

Disney springs to mind. An urban legend goes that during a bitter labor dispute in the late 1930s, striking animators made some hard core cartoon porn involving a threesome of Mickey, Minnie, and Donald, and sent the resulting reel to Uncle Walt. Needless to say, this footage is not known to survive, but should it ever be rediscovered, it'll likely be uploaded to Disney+ and promoted as educational viewing for K through 3rd grade.

The one suspect in the Sacramento shooting that was released posted a bail of $500,000, he was arrested on a weapons charge. The gun he had was not believed to have been used in the shooting.

Without wanting to raise the temperature of this discussion too much, if someone is arrested in illegal possession of a gun at the time and in the vicinity of a shootout that killed half a dozen people and injured a dozen more, letting him out on bail is not something that I'm OK with.

The sarcasm is plainly visible in the phrase "members of an oppressed racial group."

I was quoting Randy in using that phrase, but agreed. The sarcasm, though, is directed at politicians and the media, not any racial group collectively; and this point relates directly to AMPAS and Will Smith In the immediate aftermath of the shootings, senior political figures and media commentators reacted by calling for more legal restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Then, when facts entered the public domain to the effect that enforcement of existing legislation would likely have prevented the shootings, they went silent. Discussing the reasons why that law enforcement didn't happen would mean well and truly crossing the "no politics" line, so I won't go there. The relevance of this to the Will Smith incident is that if this shooter had been a 40-something Caucasian incel who was inspired to shoot up the nightclub by the video games he played in his mother's basement, I feel sure that his actions would have been front page news for a week. As soon as it emerged that this was not the case, it's like the incident never happened. Likewise, if this had been Mel Gibson (for example) throwing punches on stage at the Oscars, the LAPD would likely have started an investigation proactively, all his Oscars would have been rescinded, and he would have been banned from the show for life. There would also have been a lot less media commentary highlighting and arguing for mitigating circumstances.

The only thing that surprises me now is that the Will Smith incident is still being so widely discussed: I suspected that the fix would have been in to bury it by now. AMPAS's PR people appear to be taking the view that no publicity is bad publicity, and that this will likely boost the ratings for next year.

[Mike Blakesley]

Right now it's the most interesting story out there. As soon as something horrific happens it will be pushed aside. All the usual current horrific topics (Ukraine, school shootings, gas prices, Covid, etc.) were getting kind of old so the media is loving this breath of fresh air.

[Bobby Henderson]

My big question about the whole thing is Will Smith's "mental process," for lack of a better word. He had to stand up, knowing he was on live television in front of a global audience, walk 15 or so steps to the stage, smack Rock, then walk the same steps back to his seat and THEN he started yelling his rant, TWICE. Did he go temporarily insane?

I can't make any sense of what Will Smith did. It's one of the biggest moments of career self-sabotage from a celebrity I've ever seen -if not the biggest ever. Hindsight is 20/20 vision, but if he was going to confront Chris Rock over the joke he should have done so in private and only with words.

Maybe Smith thought he could get away with the slap, since he's Will Smith.

The incident was surely ill-timed. Will Smith is starting to get a bit old to play leading man/action hero parts. Most popular male actors well into their 50's often are already into the transition to play more serious roles and/or character-type roles -parts often given to older actors. They usually do their best to stay on the radar. It's hard to say what this 10 year ban from the Academy will do to Will Smith's ability over the long term to get coveted parts in big movies. If he ends up getting commercially exiled for a decade the movie industry may not have any interest in him after that 10 year ban ends.

It would be tough to be a comedian these days. Even Jerry Seinfeld, who is about the cleanest, least-offensive comedian working today, said he won't do college shows anymore because he doesn't want to take the chance of offending somebody and getting "canceled" for it.

College environments have gone off the deep end with only the most politically correct of speech being allowed on many campuses. Over 30 years ago I remember a lecture at School of Visual Arts in NYC. The school's President, David Rhodes warned us new students about this growing orthodoxy and how it could stifle both free speech and creativity.

Without wanting to raise the temperature of this discussion too much, if someone is arrested in illegal possession of a gun at the time and in the vicinity of a shootout that killed half a dozen people and injured a dozen more, letting him out on bail is not something that I'm OK with.

Given the guy in question had previous felony offenses, I'm not OK with it either. I'm surprised anyone would post $500,000 to get him out of jail. The police didn't have any evidence to link the guy with the actual shooting; he was just a convicted felon in possession of a handgun. Investigations done right take time. He could be back in jail facing a string of new charges soon.

The relevance of this to the Will Smith incident is that if this shooter had been a 40-something Caucasian incel who was inspired to shoot up the nightclub by the video games he played in his mother's basement, I feel sure that his actions would have been front page news for a week. As soon as it emerged that this was not the case, it's like the incident never happened.

There is another factor to consider in this: the identities of the shooting victims. Only one was white, a 53 year old homeless woman. I think if more or all of the victims had been white the media would be pressing on this story much harder. Black on black violence doesn't interest the general public very much. They just accept that as "normal." The news media really loves a story about a beautiful white woman going missing or turning up dead. They can stretch coverage on such a story out for years. If the victim is Black, Latino, etc they don't care as much. Just look how little coverage they give to Native American women when they get victimized.

Likewise, if this had been Mel Gibson (for example) throwing punches on stage at the Oscars, the LAPD would likely have started an investigation proactively, all his Oscars would have been rescinded, and he would have been banned from the show for life. There would also have been a lot less media commentary highlighting and arguing for mitigating circumstances.

I'm pretty sure if Will Smith had thrown multiple punches at Chris Rock the police would have tossed him in jail immediately regardless if Chris Rock wanted to press charges or not. A slap is still technically assault, but no one ends up missing teeth or getting knocked out by a slap. Here's an interesting one: spitting on someone can result in an aggravated assault charge.

Right now it's the most interesting story out there. As soon as something horrific happens it will be pushed aside. All the usual current horrific topics (Ukraine, school shootings, gas prices, Covid, etc.) were getting kind of old so the media is loving this breath of fresh air.

The Will Smith incident is a news story that can reach a fast conclusion, which I assume it has with the Academy banning him for 10 years.

The war in Ukraine is infinitely more important. But the outcome is out of our control. The atrocities waged against Ukrainian civilians are horribly evil. Sanctions and sending weapons into Ukraine are the only realistic tools we have to do anything about it. Sanctions take a lot of time to take full effect. The only thing we have to feel good about with that war is just how hard the Ukrainians have been fighting. I hope Russia goes flat broke exhausting its military resources on that "special operation."

Hopefully the Will Smith news cycle will clear itself out shortly. I'm hoping it doesn't take a terrible new incident to pull attention off that story. For instance, we're getting into tornado season in my part of the country. It has already been a pretty active Spring. Almost a decade has passed since a full-blown tornado disaster has happened in Oklahoma. We're about due for another.

[Leo Enticknap]

It's hard to say what this 10 year ban from the Academy will do to Will Smith's ability over the long term to get coveted parts in big movies. If he ends up getting commercially exiled for a decade the movie industry may not have any interest in him after that 10 year ban ends.

Jussie Smollett's rehabilitation attempt now appears to be well underway, which I suspect provides a clue as to what Smith's game plan will be. Meghan Markle was proven to have flat out lied in at least eleven of the major claims she made in the Winfrey interview, but continues to be taken seriously by a significant section of the entertainment, political, and news media industries. Those same establishments are constructing a narrative to the effect that it is ideologically unacceptable to criticize certain public figures who are found to have done wrong (either criminally or not). I suspect that the same will happen with Smith. Any producer who refuses to cast him will find themselves on the receiving end of significant heat.

There is another factor to consider in this: the identities of the shooting victims. Only one was white, a 53 year old homeless woman. I think if more or all of the victims had been white the media would be pressing on this story much harder. Black on black violence doesn't interest the general public very much. They just accept that as "normal." The news media really loves a story about a beautiful white woman going missing or turning up dead. They can stretch coverage on such a story out for years. If the victim is Black, Latino, etc they don't care as much.

I'm not sure if the issue here is purely one of race, or one driven just as much if not more by socio-economic factors. Violent crime within the LA metro began a sustained upward trajectory around the time of the George Floyd protests, which was exacerbated when Jackie Lacey (an utterly corrupt individual who accepted payoffs from the police union not to prosecute criminally bad cops, and then finally put the cherry on the cake by seeing to it that her husband faced no consequences for a firearms offense that she'd enthusiastically been indicting the little people for throughout her time in office) was replaced by George Gascon as the DA in what was largely a protest vote. While it was confined to gang violence in South LA, it didn't make the headlines. Then the gangs started to hit the upscale stores and restaurants in Beverly Hills, and doing "follow home burglaries" (whereby criminals stake out high end stores and restaurants, and then tail people emerging from them in expensive cars to their homes and burglarize them in a heavily armed raid), whereupon the LA Times and the local TV stations were suddenly all over it. One of the high profile victims was a retired Hollywood record producer who was shot dead in one of these burglaries. He was black. The local media talked about little else for a good few days afterwards. When it's one of their own that gets hit, it's news, regardless of anybody's skin color.

I'm not sure that the Sacramento story disappeared from the news so quickly because most of the victims were black. I suspect that it's more because the area and nightclub involved were not in an upscale area, and the people involved were all of relatively low socio-economic status. That, and the fact that being honest about who the perpetrators were, and more importantly why they were able to do what they did, would necessitate going against approved establishment narratives.

[Bobby Henderson]

Jussie Smollett's rehabilitation attempt now appears to be well underway, which I suspect provides a clue as to what Smith's game plan will be.

I had all but forgotten about Jussie Smollett. At least Will Smith is far more well known. I don't expect to see Jussie's career ever recovering.

Violent crime within the LA metro began a sustained upward trajectory around the time of the George Floyd protests, which was exacerbated when Jackie Lacey (an utterly corrupt individual who accepted payoffs from the police union not to prosecute criminally bad cops, and then finally put the cherry on the cake by seeing to it that her husband faced no consequences for a firearms offense that she'd enthusiastically been indicting the little people for throughout her time in office) was replaced by George Gascon as the DA in what was largely a protest vote.

Homicide rates nation-wide have risen significantly over the past few years. On a national level the per capital homicide rate in the US is still far from the historic peak set in 1980 (10.2 murders per 100,000 people). The early 1990's were bad too, back when the US was dealing with the crack cocaine epidemic. I lived in New York City back when it was hitting new murder records. Local corruption may be affecting things in the LA area, but the situation is bad all over. Oklahoma is a very politically conservative state. Yet we've seen our murder rates rise quite a bit. Here in Lawton our old homicide record was 18 murders in 1973. The rate had been in single digits most of the time since then. Only 2 homicides in 2004 and only 3 in 2010. There were 7 murders here in 2018. Then we hit a new record of 19 in 2019. And that was before the pandemic. Go figure. It's not like we're soft on crime here either. The state has resumed executing people on death row.

My own theory is too many people have chosen to disregard society norms and act on impulse. Maybe this is part of our social media influenced culture. Or maybe it's something more complicated. Economics are bound to play a part. The United States has long championed the individual rather than the team, or family or even the "greater good" as a central focus of its culture. A bunch of us Americans are selfish, narcissistic assholes. I think that plays into some of the bat-shit crazy choices some people, even celebrities, choose to make. They're in the moment and just decide to do something pathologically stupid or destructive.

When it's one of their own that gets hit, it's news, regardless of anybody's skin color.

I think skin color still matters to some degree. But money and class status pretty much translate to the same thing. I don't think any of the six people murdered in Sacramento mattered enough to the news cycle for them to maintain focus. Most were neither rich nor white.

I think the media's focus on missing or murdered pretty white ladies while ignoring the other victimized women is a smoking gun on that point.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I can't make any sense of what Will Smith did. It's one of the biggest moments of career self-sabotage from a celebrity I've ever seen -if not the biggest ever. Hindsight is 20/20 vision, but if he was going to confront Chris Rock over the joke he should have done so in private and only with words.

Maybe Smith thought he could get away with the slap, since he's Will Smith.

Maybe it's because we have something a bit more serious happening right next door over here, but the whole Will Smith incident left the news-cycle as fast as it got there and nobody really cared. I know that every celebrity must have an opinion about it, but here, really, nobody cared about their opinions either.

If this is going to impact Will Smith's career in a negative way, it's because he may not get the roles he wants to get, because Hollywood execs are blocking the road due to his "history", but I doubt it's because people aren't going to see "his" movies anymore.

We all know that far worse things involving stars and starlets are happening behind closed doors, so I'd say the fuzz about this seems to be a bit overblown, after all, it was just a slap and not a full blown knock-out punch. Not that I consider that an excuse, but the media is pretty good in blowing things out of proportions by creating a lot of fake drama.

[Bobby Henderson]

If this is going to impact Will Smith's career in a negative way, it's because he may not get the roles he wants to get, because Hollywood execs are blocking the road due to his "history", but I doubt it's because people aren't going to see "his" movies anymore.

The general public is actually far more fickle and prone to abandon a trend in music, movies, etc when given the choice. Multinational media companies try very hard to control and limit what kinds of content gets made. At some point they still need the public to buy whatever it is they're selling. It's certainly possible the executives at big movie studios could pull strings to prevent Will Smith from getting hired in new big budget projects. Some of this is already happening with certain projects being delayed or shelved. Even if they go back to normal with hiring Will Smith for A-list roles in big budget projects there is no guarantee the public will continue to support the actor.

I like using the music industry as an example of showing how the public's tastes can change without warning. The 1960's, 70's and 80's are often looked back on fondly for having really interesting seismic shifts in styles of music. These big changes happened across multiple genres and especially with pop and rock music. When I was a little kid disco was very popular until all of a sudden it wasn't. Back in those times far more record labels were independent. A new style of music bursting onto the scene could make a fortune for a record label, or cause them to lose a fortune if what they were selling suddenly went out of style. There was a lot of mergers and consolidation in the 1980's and 90's of record labels and radio stations. The music industry put together a machine to tightly control what was played on the radio and what got stocked on music store shelves. The 1989-1992 period was the last time the music industry saw a major shift. Hair band metal suddenly gave way to grunge, industrial and alt-rock styles. Other genres had major shifts during that time as well. Since the early 1990's the music industry has seen only a very slow, gradual and controlled change in music styles. The industry haven't been caught flat-footed by a new style suddenly taking over the zeitgeist. But they haven't been selling nearly as many records either.

The movie industry has put the same kinds of tight controls in place on what kinds of movies get booked into theaters. Big, bland content that can play globally is the rule. The situation is bad enough that it has made a lot of TV shows on premium cable and streaming services more interesting and entertaining. How is Will Smith, age 53, going to continue fitting into this situation? He has only so much shelf life remaining as an action movie hero. He'll probably have to start taking some chances with different kinds of roles in movies and TV shows on premium cable and streaming services.

[Marcel Birgelen]

The movie industry has put the same kinds of tight controls in place on what kinds of movies get booked into theaters. Big, bland content that can play globally is the rule. The situation is bad enough that it has made a lot of TV shows on premium cable and streaming services more interesting and entertaining. How is Will Smith, age 53, going to continue fitting into this situation? He has only so much shelf life remaining as an action movie hero. He'll probably have to start taking some chances with different kinds of roles in movies and TV shows on premium cable and streaming services.

I don't know much about Smith's personal life, what his ambitions are. Maybe, after a career like the one he's had, he can afford to start thinking about early retirement, especially if he made some wiser decisions than some of his fellow co-stars, who burned through all the money they earned.

But I also think he's been pretty capable of re-inventing himself, looking back at his career. From a comedic character in a popular sitcom, to a comedic Hollywood star, pretty successful pop star career in the late 90s and early 2000s, evolving into a somewhat more serious action hero and now also taking on more serious roles like the one he won the Oscar for. Maybe he'll always somewhat be type-casted as "the funny black guy", but he's no Arnold Schwarzenegger, Daniel Radcliffe or Patrick Steward, at least not to me. I don't see the Fresh Prince playing all the time, but I do see (and hear) the Terminator every time Schwarzenegger makes an appearance.

It also looks like he has quite some movies still pending:

• Bright 2 (announced)
• Bad Boys 4 (pre-production)
• Fast and Loose (pre-production)
• The Council (pre-production)
• Emancipation (post-production)

By the time those have been released, this whole face-slap episode has probably long been forgotten. As long as he keeps himself out of the "me-too" danger zone, I guess his career is still mostly on-track. It will be interesting when he wins another Oscar the next 10 years. Maybe he can ask Chris Rock to collect it for him.

[Bobby Henderson]

But I also think he's been pretty capable of re-inventing himself, looking back at his career. From a comedic character in a popular sitcom, to a comedic Hollywood star, pretty successful pop star career in the late 90s and early 2000s, evolving into a somewhat more serious action hero and now also taking on more serious roles like the one he won the Oscar for. Maybe he'll always somewhat be type-casted as "the funny black guy", but he's no Arnold Schwarzenegger, Daniel Radcliffe or Patrick Steward, at least not to me.

Oscar win or not, Will Smith is far more of a movie star than a serious actor. He often plays the same kinds of characters, which seem like a glorified version of his own persona. The same is true for many other movie stars. None of Smith's upcoming projects suggest he is doing anything to change that formula. Once in awhile a movie star will do something different, like Tom Cruise playing a ruthless assassin in Collateral, but even with being a villain the movie still fed into Cruise's image as a tough guy.

The movie industry is kind of funny how it hands out awards to actors. When a popular movie star who has made the industry a lot of money over one or more decades makes a movie where it's possible to nominate him/her for an acting award the industry will usually jump on the chance to do so. The nomination or award win ends up being more of a career achievement award rather than just for the performance in that one movie alone. Unless Will Smith really reinvents himself as a serious actor rather than movie star I don't expect to see him accepting another acting Oscar statue any time soon.

[Leo Enticknap]

Daily Wail:

Ex-Oscars exec says ceremony is in danger of becoming the 'National Book Awards with way more glamorous presenters' because prizes are increasingly being given to films no one wants to watch

A former Oscars executive said that the ceremony is in danger of becoming the National Book Awards with more glamorous presenters because the prizes are increasing being given to films no one is watching.

Bruce Davis, who served as executive director of the Academy for over 20 years, said that the Oscars' prioritization of artsy films which often 'baffle' viewers means that people are becoming more and more disinterested in watching the ceremony itself.

He called 2014 the 'last of the lush years' before the number of viewers started to plummet. In 2018, numbers dropped to under 30 million for the first time, before taking even more of a tumble during the pandemic.

Davis admitted that there was a widening gap between the lists of the years' top grossers and the Best Picture nominees - meaning movies that people are actually watching aren't receiving accolades by the Academy.

No Best Picture has ever led a year's box office totals since the third installment of the Lord of the Rings in 2003.

Davis said this is perhaps because the big, thrilling blockbusters which rake in worldwide success at the box office usually lack in 'overall artistry.'

And because of this, the nominees are often 'well-made films that are serious, issue-oriented, and sometimes a little grim' - which viewers have seemingly become disinterested in.

Despite the current binge-watching phenomenon, viewers are 'resisting signing on for any three-and-a-half-hour experience that doesn't involve linebackers,' Davis said.

Moonlight, which won the award for Best Picture in 2016, grossed $65 million and 2020's winner Nomadland raked in just $39 million.

In comparison, The Godfather earned $291 million in the box office in 1972 before its sequel also won the award in 1974.

The third highest grossing film of all time is Titanic - which ranked in a staggering $2.2 billion - and won the Academy Award in 1997.

There have been some filming feats in the last decade of the Academy Awards, including the sensational 2019 Parasite, which grossed over $253 million worldwide on a $15.5 million budget.

Comparatively CODA - 2021's winner - flopped. Its estimated gross was around $100,000 in its domestic opening weekend, according to IndieWire. The film is estimated to have grossed $2.2 million worldwide.

Penning an extract from his new book The Academy and the Award: The Coming of Age of Oscar and the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, in the Daily Beast, he said: 'I'm not sure I see a way to reestablish the Academy Awards as an experience for a wide swath of the country's, or the world's, population.

'It isn't hard to see the Oscars on a track to becoming something like the National Book Awards with way more glamorous presenters. Their appeal could become limited to a far smaller audience with a serious interest in the arts.

'The large segment of the potential audience that prefers its movies noisy, flashy, and undemanding—or heartwarming and reassuring—sees little reason to try watching a Parasite or a Nomadland, and perhaps sees decreasing reasons to tune into an awards show that celebrates movies they either haven't seen or that they saw and were baffled by.'

Oscar winners are decided by the members of the exclusive Hollywood institution - made up of around 8,000 people working in the film industry.

Ballots are tallied and then revealed during the ceremony, which take place in Los Angeles, California, each Spring.

The 2022 Oscars made headlines for reasons unrelated to the class of acting and stellar movies - after actor Will Smith slapped Chris Rock onstage when he insulted Smith's wife's alopecia.

It's hard to disagree. The article also posts a list of all the Best Picture winners since 2000. I've only seen three of them (Parasite, The King's Speech, and No Country For Old Men) and have no interest in any of the others; and I actually like arthouse movies, as a general rule.

[Harold Hallikainen]

So, as award winners and box office winners drift apart, which is responsible for most of the drift? Have audiences become less interested in serious movies, or has the Academy become more so?

[Martin McCaffery]

I think the biggest problem for Hollywood is that the Awards have pretty much lost all advertising value. Before the advent of the Wide Release (say around the time of Jaws) a large part of the movie going public did not have the opportunity to see the Award winners until after the Awards, thus giving the studios, and the theatres a big post awards payday. Now, by the time the nominations are announced, the public can just watch the film on TV (or the electronic screen of their choice). The studios can do a brief Oscar push, but it is not going to get a significant number of butts in the seats.
Whereas the Awards helped the audience develop an opinion of "good" now it just validates their decision.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Am glad Hans Zimmer won... He certainly today's most prolific composer. Some of his music is simple, but some is complicated. They had Mozart.... We have Mozart and Zimmer!

[Leo Enticknap]

So, as award winners and box office winners drift apart, which is responsible for most of the drift? Have audiences become less interested in serious movies, or has the Academy become more so?

I think we have to recognize that by "serious," what we actually mean in this context is movies, the primary objective of which is to promote a political and/or ideological agenda. Forum rules prevent me from unpacking this point further. With that in mind and IMHO, the Academy has gone off the rails by believing, collectively, that by giving the major Oscars to these movies, they can wave a magic wand to transform them from films that would play in a handful of campus arthouses and then sell a few hundred copies on a Criterion or Milestone BD, to ones that pack the 'plexes. While the bulk of this article is perhaps a hair on the polemical side, its final words - "nothing is entertaining about being lectured to by privileged Hollywood millionaires" - hit the nail on the head. A lot of these recent Oscar winners aren't even trying to entertain, and that severely limits the number of potential customers who are willing to pay to see them.

Back in the day when the Oscars were a major national and international event (i.e. when pretty much everyone watched at least part of the show), Academy members chose the winners carefully, to ensure that the movies that got the big gongs both had technical and/or artistic merit, and mass popular appeal. That didn't necessitate ignoring "serious" topics totally (Schindler's List, Platoon, and Gandhi would never have won Best Picture if it did), but did require them to be treated in a way that recognized that audiences chose to spend their time and money being exposed to them. Sadly, we're now in a place where the Academy's voting members appear to have lost sight of that.