Now For Something A Little Different

I discovered this article through a Digg It link, and while I disagree with it on some points, it does make some arguments on why the heat for the lack of Best Picture nomination for "The Dark Knight" should subside:

Besides, what does it matter to any of you whether or not the films YOU like get nominated? It doesn’t depreciate the film and shouldn’t de-value your enjoyment of it. Look back to the year 2000. Gladiator won Best Picture, while Traffic, Erin Brockovich, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and Chocolat were nominated alongside it. Do you know which movie is most memorable and has stuck with me since? Almost Famous. Dances with Wolves won Best Picture for 1990, yet Goodfellas is regarded by many as one of the greatest films of all time.

Does this mean that the Academy got it wrong? No. It just means the voters went a different way than the public. The Academy Awards are not a democracy of the people; it’s an organization of professionals patting each other on the back and peers recognizing peers for their achievements. Helen Hunt received an Oscar for being annoying in an above-average romantic comedy. Nicole Kidman got one for putting on a fake nose. Likewise, Charlize Theron was mesmerizing in Monster and Daniel Day Lewis gave a bravura, towering performance worth every accolade in There Will Be Blood. Sometimes their awards are pretty dubious; sometimes they f*cking nail it. But what it really boils down to is: The Oscars are essentially meaningless.

I think mentioning "Wall-E" would have been nice, but then, that might have undermined the whole argument. Whether I think "The Reader" should be nominated or not, I have to admit some great points were made here. A definite must-read.