Why is it when we see a book or any text from someone anonymous, it's usually far more entertaining than anything with a real name attached? It's not that anonymous diatribes stay covert forever if you go by past undercover authors and comments being leaked in the age of the Internet. And with a recent anonymous and controversial Oscar voter being interviewed in the press about his biased choices for the little golden guy, it's possible this undercover director may be outed as much as everybody else hiding behind a curtain.
If you perused everything this director said to The Hollywood Reporter's Scott Feinberg, you know it comes close to playing like a comedy sketch on "Saturday Night Live." The problem is that it's far too brutally honest and personally skewed to be a hoax. It appears to be the true face of the Oscar voter from either the current mindset or perhaps one that's always been there.
Assuming it's from the 21st century perspective, it may represent how every voter thinks today in terms of deciding what influences the world or pop culture. In that regard, it may be more of a fault in all voting systems than with the voter. Such a statement can only be made more accurate by noticing how this anonymous director still votes for quality and not garbage.
The only issue that may stick some people in the craw is in how the director picks those films over those equally deserving. When one chooses a film because they personally hate the creator or didn't quite understand the narrative or structure, then it becomes a more frustrating picture of universal understanding. For those who can see the obviousness of quality in a movie, reading an influential person with a deliberately contrarian view can induce panic on what others really think.
But if Oscar voting needs a makeover in order to prevent voters from making odd decisions, what can be said if Oscar voting has always been this way? Does this director represent a coterie of similar veteran voters who've long made up the bulk of academy members? Does it mean most of the best picture winners of the last couple of decades have won more by unreasonable bias than rational thought?
It could be happening in the younger voters as well. You may remember Samuel L. Jackson once saying in jest during a 2006 David Letterman interview that he didn't watch any of the nominated films before voting. This was obviously facetious, though made one wonder if kernels of truth didn't exist in certain voting academy members having no time to watch everything.
Even the above anonymous director didn't see all of the nominated films, hence canceling out most of them except two. Nevertheless, he still votes for films in other categories based on limited perception of those movies rather than full assimilation.
Should influential voters be on the road to merely giving cursory looks at everything in pop culture, a streamlining of every nomination process may be needed. It wouldn't hurt the Oscars to go back to more limited Best Picture nominees for tighter focus on what true quality really is.
That's only if more biased personal opinions of voting academy members are revealed in future years. So far, other evidence shows most academy members are taking things seriously and not willing to publicly share their personal decisions.
- Arts & Entertainment