Do People Still Care About Award Shows?

Jessica Beal, Beyoncé, and Jay-Z at the 2013 Grammy Awards. Photo by gem_106 via Flickr

A perfect example of this is Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie getting snubbed at the OscarsThe concept of award shows is pretty strange. A group of A-list celebrities gather to hand out prizes to each other for movies, music, or other art they have made over a year. As British writer Percy Bysshe Shelley once wrote, “The rich have become richer.”

Many agree that this sentiment reigns true. The fact that award shows are merely a way for celebrities to pat themselves on the backs and give themselves an almost egregious amount of validation, there is still a group of people who would disagree. These people argue that award shows are the way to decipher what art is recognized as significant or of upstanding quality and what will be remembered forever because of said awards.

However we look at awards shows, either with contempt or respect, there is one fact that cannot be disputed: award shows are on the decline.

Even the most significant award shows that honor all mediums, like the Emmys with TV, the Oscars with movies, and the Grammys with music, have been steadily losing viewership for years now. The question is, why?

“I’d say it’s because they don’t listen to the general public,” says Haley Hartman ‘25. “It’s not that we don’t know who’s nominated, per se; it’s because people who we don’t even care about get nominated and can often end up winning.”

Is this true? Often, it can be. The voting bodies for these award shows have been accused of being “out of touch” for years. Many award shows show signs of favoritism, which the general public disdains.

In my opinion, a big reason why people care less and less about award shows is due to accessibility. A lot of things that are typically nominated people don’t have immediate access to.

this year. The “Barbenheimer” craze saw both movies catapult to massive box-office numbers, with “Oppenheimer” being just shy of $1 billion and Barbie reaching almost $1.5 billion.

The point is that everyone saw both movies. So when the nominations came out on Jan. 23, not only did “Oppenheimer” leading 13 nominations stun people, but so did Gerwig and Robbie missing out. How could this happen if everyone wanted them to get nominated and they were deserving?

Who did they miss out on? It’s not definitive, but you could say Justine Triet for best director for “Anatomy of a Fall” and Annette Bening for best lead actress for “Nyad,” as they were both around 6th place for nominations.

I digress; the fact of the matter is, not nearly as many people saw “Anatomy of a Fall,” a French film, or “Nyad,” an under-the-radar biopic, as did “Barbie.” Scratch that; very few people I have talked to have seen all three movies. Should Gerwig and Robbie have been nominated? I’d say so, but that’s exactly the point. These voting bodies nominate things that the average viewer doesn’t care about or hasn't seen, which causes controversy.

Cinephiles would likely disagree, arguing that everything is subjective; it’s the viewers’ fault for arguing about movies they haven't seen. Still, there is a bit of an issue with trying to watch or listen to everything nominated at an award show simply because it’s harder to seek out and a huge commitment.

“That’s kind of the issue; most people aren’t consuming everything that is nominated. They just want to see their favorite things to win or even get nominated in the first place,” says Gabriella Hartman ‘25.

Avid consumers of a specific medium believe they’re the ones who have the best judgment on the art nominated due to the fact they have seen or heard every movie or album.

So when the average person who hasn’t watched or listened to everything and tries to decide what should win or lose, the annoyance comes in. The general public’s opinion is a decent indicator of what’s popular. However, most of the time, they don’t take in all of the nominated art, yet will still argue about it.

Take Taylor Swift winning Album of the Year at this past Grammy’s. She now has four Album of the Year wins, more than anyone in history. Yet, anyone who listened to all 10 albums knows that “Midnights” was not the best album there, not even close.

However, the Recording Academy has extreme favoritism toward certain artists, namely Taylor Swift. So when Swift went on to announce her new album “Tortured Poets Society” coming out this April, the look of irritation on many of the musicians' faces in the audience made sense, as they knew they probably didn’t have a chance at the Album of the Year for next year's Grammys.

And shows like the Emmys love sweeps. They love giving awards for both the comedy and drama categories to one show. It was almost textbook at the Emmys this year, with “Succession” sweeping drama and “The Bear” sweeping comedy. In many people's eyes, it makes for a boring, predictable show, so why watch it?

Should award shows listen to the viewers more? Yes, because awards shows are subjective, and listening to a mass group of people makes a lot of sense. This tends to be the problem; people are souring on the idea of award shows for many reasons, mainly because they don’t take into account what they think.

Ultimately, though, I think that it’s somewhat on the person themselves to view all of the media before giving an opinion. Award shows don’t always nominate what’s popular, but consuming everything means people have a better understanding of why things are nominated, and their opinions would hold more weight.