Oscars could use some fixes

By Josh Chetwynd and Andy Seiler
USA Today

Stephen Downes • Advertiser photo 73rd Academy Awards 6:30 p.m. Sunday, ABC, KITV-4 (6 on Oceanic)

The attention paid to the nominees and winners is the envy of all others. Since 1929, when the first Oscar ceremony took place, the Academy Awards have been synonymous with celebrity glamour and prestige, even when critics have criticized the results.

While Oscar may be the leader, even those on top need to spruce up their style once in a while. Not the show itself, but the way nominees are chosen and the way winners are picked from those nominees.

Oscars have evolved through the years and responded to criticism and suggestion, says Robert Osborne, Oscar's official historian and host of Turner Classic Movies' ongoing "31 Days of Oscar" film festival.

The academy has "kept in step with the times, and they've been very good about listening to people," Osborne says.

The academy created a separate color cinematography category when color movies became popular, then over time merged the two. And a best-animated-film category will begin for this year's films.

We talked to experts about ways Oscar could get even better, and we selected the most promising improvements.

If the academy takes these suggestions, the awards could better ensure that the best man, woman or movie wins.

Ten ways to improve the Oscars:

#1 Make peers rule in the final votes

• How it is: Each branch nominates its own contenders, but everybody gets to choose the winners. For example, directors nominate only directors, but everyone votes for best director. As a result, many members are voting in areas they know little about, and the best might not win.
• How it should be: With the exception of best picture, winners should be chosen by peers. Editors should choose the editing winner, actors should choose the best actors and so on. A peer vote for the winners would create "more matter-of-fact judgment," says Emanuel Levy, author of "Oscar Fever: The History & Politics of the Academy Awards." "It would be based on expertise."
• Best argument for the status quo: The nominee who gets the most votes initially would win, eliminating the necessity for two votes. And, of course, that wouldn't be nearly as much fun.

#2 Make sure the voters watch the films

• How it is: Members can vote in almost every category, even if they haven't seen the movies. (A notable exception: Those voting for foreign film must attend academy screenings.)
• How it should be: Members could be asked to sign an affidavit saying they've seen all the movies. Voters must sign for the Emmys, and it has improved the diversity of winners, says Tom O'Neil, author of "Movie Awards: The Ultimate, Unofficial Guide to the Oscars, Golden Globes, Critics, Guild & Indie Honors."
• Best argument for the status quo: Can you really picture asking studio heads and superstars to swear on a dotted line that they've done the right thing?

#3 Standardize the rules for getting in

• How it is: Virtually every group Ü actors, writers, makeup artists – has its own rules on how to become a member, some more demanding than others.
• How it should be: "There should be one uniform standard that every show biz professional should meet," O'Neil says. "A good model is the one by the TV and music academies. They set a standard for a minimum of work." With the Grammys, for example, you need to get a credit on six albums.
• Best argument for the status quo: Davis says standardization would ignore the nature of filmmaking. "A cinematographer proves his or her worth in a different way than a marketing director."

#4 Don't let publicists and studio execs vote

• How it is: Publicists and studio executives who are academy members vote for winners in all categories. They also nominate best-picture candidates.
• How it should be: Only those who can win an Oscar should be able to vote.
• Best argument for the status quo: Davis says that most publicists and execs who vote are so powerful that they do play a part in what movies get made and how they get made.

#5 Make an effort to diversify the membership

• How it is: The academy doesn't keep records of how many minorities and women are members, nor does it ask people's ages. Many say there appear to be biases. Denzel Washington, for example, lost the actor Oscar for "The Hurricane" last year to Kevin Spacey of "American Beauty," though many thought he was a shoo-in.
• How it should be: Younger people, women and minorities should be recruited. Levy also suggests that older members who don't see many movies and are no longer actively involved in filmmaking be encouraged to leave the academy.
• Best argument for the status quo: Many say that there is no bias and that the best performers usually win. The fact that few minorities are rewarded is just a reflection of Hollywood, Davis says. "Except for in the actors' branch, there aren't a lot of opportunities for black and other minorities."

#6 Give separate statues for best drama, comedy

• How it is: The academy makes no distinction between dramas and comedies Ü and comedies are almost never rewarded with nominations.
• How it should be: The Golden Globes have many flaws, but one aspect they might have right is having separate awards for comedies and dramas in major categories. "It is funny to see great comedic actors like Tom Hanks and Robin Williams having to change the type of movies they did to get Oscars," says Chris Gore, a columnist for filmthreat.com
• Best argument for the status quo: It's not impossible for a funny film to earn Oscar glory (i.e. "Annie Hall," best picture in 1977). Also, if the Oscar became like the Globes, it would lose its "specialness," O'Neil says. "The more limited, the more the awards mean."

#7 Combine best picture and best director

• How it is: Though a director gets most of the credit for a movie, it's not unusual for the academy to give the best-picture prize to one film and the director's prize to another.
• How it should be: "It would be a much fairer process if what is the best picture automatically goes to the best director," says official Oscar historian Osborne. "I don't know how the best picture could be made without the best director." Perhaps an even better solution would be for the director to join in the best-picture prize, which now goes to the producers.
• Best argument for the status quo: Merging the two would effectively rob directors of recognition.

#8 Find a way to honor overlooked classics

• How it is: Lifetime achievement awards can honor filmmakers and actors who have been snubbed in the past, but nothing exists for movies that were passed over.
• How it should be: Create a special award for movies that have endured. "It would solve a lot of arguments," Hammond says. "Like how did (1952's best-picture winner) "The Greatest Show on Earth" ever beat "High Noon"?
• Best argument for the status quo: Oscar is a reflection of a specific time – it would be like rewriting history.

#9 Clarify the acting and screenplay categories

• How it is: There are no detailed criteria indicating whether a performance belongs in the lead or supporting categories. Ditto for original and adapted screenplays. So categories can be filled with inconsistent contenders, which leads to odd results. Anthony Hopkins, for instance, won best actor for "The "Silence of the Lambs," despite only appearing in about 20 minutes of the nearly two-hour film. Some think it's odd that "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" is in the adapted screenplay category. Though the Coen brothers say their film is based on Homer's "The Odyssey," it's a very loose link, and other groups have placed the script in "original screenplay." Hammond says the lack of rules means "any writer can say their screenplay was adapted" if they think they'll have a better shot at winning.
• How it should be: There should be standards. The Oscars should clearly define what qualifies as lead and supporting, original and adapted.
• Best argument for the status quo: Just because an actor has less screen time, that doesn't mean the character isn't the lead, Gore says. Loose rules in both the writing and acting branches allow academy members to make those distinctions.

#10 Set tougher limits for advertising

• How it is: Studios spend considerable amounts for ads in both consumer and trade newspapers. Companies with large award campaign budgets have an advantage, while smaller companies have a tough time competing.
• How it should be: No one really knows whether the advertising even has an impact, so the academy should try banning the "for your consideration" ads one year and see if the dynamic of the competition changes.
• Best argument for the status quo: "Hollywood is the world capital of ballyhoo," O'Neil says. "They'll never stop the advertising (blitzes) nor should they."

Adds Osborne: "I don't think people in the industry are as susceptible as people think they are."