Oscars 2010: Why Less Isn't Always More

So, it's Oscars night and in a matter of hours there will have been several bouts of tears, a load of undeserving awards (don't worry, I'm saving my Avatar rant until after it wins) and lots of expensive dresses waltzing up the red carpet.

This year sees a change of voting with the Best Picture award, with an increase in nominees up from 5 to 10. This means that there is room for films like A Serious Man and District 9 in the short-list and comes on the back of a number of issues from previous ceremonies.

Ultimately, this decision was based upon the performance of two movies last year: The Dark Knight and Wall-E. Both were good enough to be nominated for Best Picture but neither did; although they both picked up awards (Animated Feature for Wall-E and a posthumous acting gong for Heath Ledger). These were big, popular films that made the Academy seem out of touch with the general public who were increasingly switching off from the ceremony. What was billed as the Greatest Show on Earth was being serious questioned by the American public.

So this year, to accommodate such films the list was increased to ten. It was hailed as a good idea at the time, the chance to reward a foreign film perhaps or a film like Star Trek which was both successful and also an excellent production. Unfortunately these ideas haven't been followed through.

The biggest miss of the Academy was by ignoring any foreign films. Both A Prophet and The White Ribbon are better than any film of the Best Picture longlist but are left shunted out in their own Foreign Language category. When you take into account that Let The Right One In didn't even get nominated, it raises big question marks over the selection criteria.

So instead, we get District 9 and Up being nominated - two films that deserve such rewards and probably wouldn't have infiltrated the 5 film shortlist. You can probably add the Coen Brothers' excellent A Serious Man into that category too and I have no real complaints. My issues relate to two key points:

1) Most of the extra films nominated have absolutely zero chance of winning. It is ironic that in the year of widening the margins that there is the normal two horse race going on (with Avatar and the Hurt Locker)

2) By looking at the Best Director category, you can pretty much work out who would've been nominated if there was only 5 pictures in the category (i.e. those five films: Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Precious, Inglourious Basterds and Up In The Air). I can't help but feel that this devalues the whole process.

Finally - and this perhaps isn't the most important point for Hollywood - it allows a lot of substandard films into the list. An Education is a good film and I really enjoyed it but I struggle to feel that it is at the standard of an Oscar nomination. You can literally triple that sentiment for The Blind Side. Even films like Up and District 9 - despite my comments above - fall into that category.

For Hollywood, this is a side point. If it increases revenue to the film industry and gets a few more ticket sales for a few more films, then all the better. If it adds a little spice to an ailing ceremony and adds a few more million onto the TV figures then that's perhaps more important. Even if it actually adds no extra excitement at all.