Stop letting out-of-touch elites tell us what's 'best'

Viewers only watch for the entertainment value anyway, which has been declining. So up the "wow" factor and let the self-congratulations go.

_{By Maura Johnston}

Awards shows have become their own cultural slog over the last 10 years. I often view them with a mix of dread and eye-rolling: Here come the artists being self-important; here come the "ironic" in-jokes about the entertainment business' foibles; here come the forehead slaps that accompany usual suspects winning again and again.

But now in 2021, we need to ask: Does the world really need more reminders that the same people are still in charge, even if they're festooned in pretty dresses and celebrity glitz? Maybe it's even time to ditch the trophies for a straightforward fashion show so viewers can get the collective brain massage they're in it for, at least.

Still, while I'm not a fan of them in general, I'm not saying that all awards shows should go away. Even the most self-obsessed artists sometimes need the encouragement of their peers; entertainment editors need the (weeks and weeks of) content offered by winners-and-losers lists; social media users need the occasional opportunity to break from sniping at one another to ooh and aah over dresses and suits. And, perhaps most importantly, TV executives need the guaranteed eyeballs. 

As it happens, I actually enjoyed the Grammys this year — and I don't think it was only because of my pandemic brain. "Music's biggest night," as it proclaims itself, had become as bad as any other show, seeming self-important, dated and bloated in a way that represented all of the music business' worst indulgences. But the 2021 show — while not perfect, particularly when it came to who won — was a breeze to watch in large part because the producers had to work with the limitations that forced them to strip down the pomp of previous years.

It made me realize that part of the problem is they all — especially the most iconic award shows — need a bit of a refresh and could even take some cues from the restrictions wrought by the pandemic. 

First, it's time to make the award presentations more casual. One reason that the Grammys this year worked so well was the setup: Trophies were handed out in a tented area resembling a charity gala just outside Los Angeles' Staples Center and nominees rotated in and out of that area during the course of the night, allowing for actual surprises (Beyoncé) for those watching at home, while the concert went on inside. (The situation likely alleviated any anxiety viewers might have over watching large maskless gatherings.) The stripped-down vibe of the portion of the night that is the least fun to actually watch ended up making it more enjoyable.

Also, it's long past time for the movie and television shows to give viewers more context about the nominees. In the age of HBO Max handling major movie premieres, CBC-turned-Netflix's "Schitt's Creek" sweeping the Emmys and services like Peacock, Paramount+ and Hulu releasing original content on a weekly basis, it's impossible for even professionals to keep up with every release. That makes the good stuff not only harder to find but more difficult to get around to watching. 

The Grammys helped circumvent this problem by getting rid of the self-conscious "moments" it had previously tried to curate through strange collaborations and talent contests. Instead, it just let musicians focus on performing their songs — which let viewers hear the songs for themselves and learn a little about the nominees. Obviously, that's harder to do for movies and television shows, but a 45-second clip of one over-acted scene, or a montage from a series or movie, doesn't let anyone understand why something was nominated, let alone why it won.

The Oscars should also take a cue from its red carpet and engage in a little picture-in-picture action. Since many of the awards are currently relegated to off-camera ceremonies, bring them back to the broadcast fold — and give the shows' very lucrative commercials a few more guaranteed eyeballs — by handing them out during the ad breaks via picture-in-picture presentation. Televisions (and streaming platforms) these days can certainly handle it — and producers could even throw in a few Easter eggs for people to freak out over on social media.

Finally, Hollywood really needs to just rethink what makes something the "best." The recent news about the former president of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association — who sent out an email insulting Black Lives Matter to members of the Golden-Globes-presenting organization earlier this week — shines a harsh light on the shortcomings of that awards-presenting body. But really, every awards' nomination announcement has head-scratch-worthy moments when a slate of honorees proves that the people who devised it are rather small-minded. That ill-advised email only gives explanation for some of the puzzlement.

But then again, maybe the folly comes in a group of elites trying to anoint certain cultural artifacts the "best" at all, when the reality is that such a designation is based in old ideas of hierarchies and quality. Determining what is truly the best in a really big, diverse world is pretty much an impossibility. Maybe the only reason the Grammys were so enjoyable this year was because it focused on entertaining viewers rather than awarding artists — and if the Oscars could do the same, people might find a reason to watch again.

Maura Johnston is a writer and editor who teaches at Boston College. She has written for The New York Times, The Boston Globe, Time, Billboard and Rolling Stone. Follow her on Twitter at @maura.