EDITORIAL: I'm Tired of Oscar Bait

Belmont Vision Multimedia. (Zach Watkins)

Twenty-four categories.

Fifty movies.

One night.

The 98th Oscars streamed on Hulu and ABC, with some major highlights.

“Sinners” won four out of the 16 categories it was nominated for.

“One Battle After Another” was the winningest movie of the night, taking home six awards.

And for the first time since 2013, there was a tie. “The Singers” and “Two People Exchanging Saliva” won in the Live Action Short category, which marked the seventh tie in Oscars history for any category.

A new category, Best Casting, made its debut as well, recognizing the hard work casting directors make in order for the movie to be what it is.

While this night full of glitz and glamour is something I always look forward to watching, I’m noticing a pattern with the nominated movies.

No one is watching them.

Before the Oscars aired, I had only watched one of the movies nominated for Best Picture.

Most of the people I talked to about the Oscars said they’d watched none of them or didn’t even watch the trailers.

I attribute the lack of viewership to Oscar-baiting–a term used to describe movies that were clearly made for Academy Award nominations.

I’m tired of watching films; I want to watch movies.

In my opinion, movies like “Bugonia” and “Hamnet” are Oscar-baiting movies.

Emma Stone is one of my favorite actresses and I haven’t seen a film of hers since “La La Land.”

Why? Because her most recent Oscar-nominated films have been Oscar-bait.

Her latest Oscar win, Best Actress for “Poor Things” had me baffled because I couldn’t find a single person who genuinely enjoyed the film about a woman who had the brain of an infant and was exploring her sexuality.

It was gross, it was disturbing and it was exactly what the Oscars love to see.

But, movies like “Sinners” and “Frankenstein” told a story that captivated many audiences, making people go to the theaters again and again.

“Sinners” grossed $48 million within its opening weekend and has now earned $163 million worldwide within almost a year of its release.

People went to see that movie in theaters again and again because of the incredible performances from Delroy Lindo, Hailee Steinfeld and, especially, Michael B. Jordan.

There was a clear reason why he won Best Actor: because he gave the performance of a lifetime.

The juxtaposition of the two brothers in “Sinners” created a depth to that movie that could never be replicated by another actor.

On the other hand, the Best Picture winner, “One Battle After Another” was a prime example of Oscar-baiting.

The first hour of the movie was hard to watch. I hated Sean Penn’s character, Leonardo DiCaprio wasn’t anything to write home about and Regina Hall’s character felt like a throwaway.

The Academy tends to favor actors who portray sexual and stoic characters, and Sean Penn’s performance of Colonel Lockjaw was exactly that. He did a good job for the character he was given, but Colonel Lockjaw is a character who was clearly written for the Academy voters; he is an overly sexual military man with a consistent grimace on his face.

He doesn’t have the variety that Jacob Elordi had in “Frankenstein,” or the power Stellan Skarsgard had in “Sentimental Value.”

He was not deserving of his Oscar win, and it’s a shame that more Oscar winning films are focused on creating a shocking film than a good movie.

If anyone from “One Battle After Another” deserved to win an Oscar, it was Chase Infiniti.

She undoubtedly carried that movie.

She was the only one that had a driving character and she was enchanting to watch. Her storyline was a beautiful arc that continued her parent’s legacy within the revolution.

But she wasn’t even nominated.

For me, the biggest tell of an Oscar-baited movie is the cinematography.

“Frankenstein” is a piece of art that was shot cinematically for a reason. It was based on the book and followed the plot almost word-for-word.

From the page to the production, the movie was groundbreaking in the pure artistry it developed over the span of 2 ½ hours.

Compare that to the 2 ½ hours of “One Battle After Another,” and it’s almost laughable.

“One Battle After Another” was a hodgepodge of cinematic and live shots that created a disorienting view for audiences that wasn’t easy to digest.

The movie is about a revolution–it’s about action. So, it should be shot as if you’re right with the characters in the action, and not with cinematic wide-shots that don’t pertain to the storyline.

I crave movies that make me feel something more than boredom.

I crave movies that are geared towards the average audience.

I crave movies.

I’m tired of films.

Written by Ava Burns