The Academy Awards: A Measure of Artistry or Relevancy?

I always get excited about the Oscars. As far back as I can remember, I've stayed up late to watch the stars, the hosts, the drama. Maybe it helps that I've been stuck on movies since I before I started walking. In fact, I remember back on our old Packard Bell computer (the Windows 93 version) I once set up a catalog of all the movies I'd seen, categorized by genre, year, and rating (yes, I had opinions back then, too).

Anyways, every year I toil with predictions of who the Oscar-winners will be. Will it be the favorite? The underdog? The spoiler? Usually we can expect some surprises. Mostly these are good, like Juliette Binoche winning for "The English Patient" in 1997. Sometimes, though, like when "Crash" upset "Brokeback Mountain" for Best Picture a few years back, they leave a sour taste in my mouth. It is in these circumstances that I wonder: do the Academy Awards function as the measure of artistic greatness or relevancy?

I list these as mutually exclusive choices because often it seems like they do battle against one another, as if the audience-at-large tends to choose their films based on one major criteria. I watched "Titanic" because of the effects, the sheer scale. It definitely wasn't relevant to me, not even in terms of the overblown love story. On the other hand, I don't know much about the mafia, but it's hard to deny the impact of the "Godfather" parts 1 and 2, and others like "Goodfellas" and "Bonnie and Clyde." These movies had iconic visual styles, and refined narratives that communicated far more than the words on the page (er, screen).

Maybe the best example is "Star Wars," whose inspiring message coupled brilliantly with breakthrough technology to offer one of the most entertaining movie experiences of all time. "Avatar" is the latest Oscar front-runner following in that legacy. If it does win best picture, something most blockbusters have failed to achieve in the past 30 years, most would acknowledge has to do with it's mind-bending technological achievements rather than the depth of the story or acting.

That's not to say great movies can't also resonate with us, even if they are dated and no longer as socially relevant. Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane" - both visually stunning and perhaps the quintessential commentary on power, greed, and the American dream - still echoes as powerfully as it did in 1941. "The Hurt Locker" is another terribly relevant movie, and I dare say it may be great...but will that be enough to overcome the "Avatar" juggernaut. And, even if "Hurt Locker" upsets the race, is that even a fair measure of it's worth? After all, many of the so-called "greatest" directors never won Academy Awards for any of their films. Cases in point: Welles, Stanley Kubrick, and Robert Altman.

We'll have to wait and see what happens on March 7th, but until then I've devised a test of my questions. Here are my picks (of the 'major' categories), based not on viewing and comparing all the eligible films, rather on my compulsive obsession with cinema news, trends, and the current buzz. If I shoot more than 50%, maybe being in the forefront of the media is more important that message, vision, and artistry at the Oscars after all.

Best Picture: Avatar
Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
Best Actor: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
Best Actress: Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, Inglorious Basterds
Best Supporting Actress: Mo'Nique, Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
Best Screenplay (adapted): Geoffrey Fletcher, Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
Best Screenplay (original): Mark Boal, The Hurt Locker
Best Achievement in Cinematography: Mauro Fiore, Avatar