The Academy will present four awards off-air to save time — but they need to honour art, not the ratings

The Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences, the body behind the Oscars Awards, has gone ahead and done something that could only be counted as the single-greatest insult to the very art form it celebrates.

In order to keep the event under three-hours, the academy has decided that the awards for best cinematography, film editing, live action short, and makeup and hairstyling will be presented during commercial breaks. The winning speeches would be edited by removing the winners’ walk from their seats to the stage and each speech will be aired separately later in the telecast.

Later, Guillermo Del Toro clarifying in a tweet that the Academy Awards are not removing these categories from their line-up permanently, but it will be a voluntary rotation that will change every year.

1/3 Important clarification re: the Academy Awards (quote): "No one is being removed from either the in-theater or the ABC live broadcast. This year, in a voluntary rotation that will change each year, four awards will be given live in an uninterrupted progression--- as always--"

— Guillermo del Toro (@RealGDT) February 12, 2019

That said, Seth Rogen’s tweet sums up what can only be called the sheer stupidity of the Academy:

What better way to celebrate achievements in film than to not publicly honor the people’s who’s job it is to literally film things.

— Seth Rogen (@Sethrogen) February 12, 2019

For a few years now, the Academy has been struggling to keep up with changing viewership and falling ratings.

Some years ago, it increased the number of Best Picture nominees to give a ‘fighting’ chance to more popular films in the hope that younger kids would suddenly feel good about the Oscars. The powers that be felt that the yearly show ought to evolve with changing times and keep current multi-media interests in mind, therefore the Oscars will be live-streamed o nline.

While one can understand the effort of making the function more watchable, the Academy has robbed the Oscars of relevance.

There has been some talk about the Academy taking drastic measures to reduce the air-time of the show. Initially, it was said that only three of the five original songs would be allowed a live performance but things changed when Lady Gaga reportedly refused to perform unless all her fellow nominees were extended the same courtesy . Finally, the Academy decided that four categories being felicitated during commercial breaks was the way ahead.

Apparently, many members of the Academy and filmmaking community are afraid to speak frankly on the subject, for fear that it might harm their chances of winning an award in the future. But many have still expressed their displeasure at Oscars being handed out during breaks. Alfonso Cuarón , an Academy winning filmmaker who is also nominated this year, said, “No one single film has ever existed without CINEMAtography and without editing.”

Wouldn’t it make more sense to cut short the red-carpet telecast in order to shorten the show’s duration or change the seating arrangement so that all nominees are at shortest possible distance from the podium? Was this the only way to shorten the ceremony? Were they expecting no backlash on the exclusion of the two very categories that make or break a film?

If the Academy believes that such shenanigans will help regain viewership it couldn’t be further away from the truth. What the Academy needs to do is keep things simple - go back to the classic mode with a good host (Billy Crystal, anyone?) and honour the art, not the ratings.