I would like to thank the Academy. You know, for highlighting the growing irrelevance of award shows. I'm not saying my eyes won't be glued to the screen Sunday night; but I am saying that it's more likely that I, and many others, will be watching with a keen eye for snark.
In Hollywood's golden age, a glimpse of Marilyn Monroe in fuzzy black and white inspired universal "oohs" and "aahs." But in this era of paparazzi and high-definition flatscreens, scrutiny is the new flattery. Award shows are no longer the site of taste-making fashion statements and celebrations of subtly powerful performances - now the red carpet is more about shock than awe.
The biggest worry for many stars is not who wins; it's who comes out on top, who makes the biggest statement. With a slew of crowd-mentality nominations - I'm not saying Heath Ledger didn't deserve a nod - it's evident that grassroots everything is in vogue.
It's tough, as a journalist - a self-appointed expert on telling you what happened and why that's important - to admit that perhaps the know-how of those in the know is bunk. If the Internet makes information available to a growing group of those willing to wade through it, who says Ryan Seacrest is more qualified to mispronounce an up-and-coming designer's name than an avid fashion blogger?
It's ironic that competitions have become less significant just as reporting on them has become more competitive. The real spectacle of the Oscars will no doubt come in the days after, when the media picks apart the red carpet. Web sites like "Go Fug Yourself" make commentators like Joan Rivers seem tame. And when the sass-bar is raised, everyone's got to jump. Competition leads to creativity, but it also leads to sensationalism. Who can out-spunk who is a fight that it's hard to name a winner in, and the collateral damage can be equally injurious. The constant quest to remain on top means the best - and often the meanest - speculators are rewarded with the most cultural clout.
But perhaps the blog community and other new media staples are the direct democracy answer to the representative democracy of the People's Choice awards and their ilk. Maybe this cacophony of uneducated voices would make Alexander Hamilton cringe, but this isn't a new nation we're building. It's possible that the unwashed masses know what they're talking about, or at the very least, maybe each of their opinions do matter. Who can better articulate a culture than those consuming it?
Hollywood has a tendency to perpetuate the bad habits of its inhabitants. After awhile, another rehashing of World War II is just band-wagoning, and who really dresses like Rachel Zoe? An outside look at such an insular community is a way out of this cycle. If the audience tells the executives what they want, then executives will have to stop telling the audience what they want. Perhaps the people do know what is best.
I may have just tore the power of my current profession to shreds. Or maybe I've chosen to advocate the power of the people. Or I could just be an anti-federalist. In any case, the rising profile of citizen-cultural-commentary has rendered the bastions of an older age of celebrity ineffective. The people do have a choice, and it certainly isn't a glass flame handed out once a year. And The Scene has a lot to say about the Oscar race. So even if we are the dinosaurs of culture coverage, we can pretend to be in touch. Check out scene@theEAGLE for Oscar predictions now and live blogging during the event. See if our expertise is still in vogue.
Kristen Powell is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences and Managing Editor for The Scene. You can reach her at kpowell@theeagleonline.com.
