I was listening to the Golden Globes awards on the radio the other morning, and wondered to myself how much such accolades affect our choice of movie viewing.
To me the Golden Globes seem to be more populist, more plausible than some inaccessible Oscar-winning films.
I tend to avoid Oscar-nominated movies. If I didn’t see them when they first came out, if I wasn’t carried along on the tide of personal recommendations or swayed by the trailers, I snub them in rental stores.
And the reason for that is, I think, that they will be too neurosis-laden for my tastes. Or have Woody Allen lurking in them somewhere, waiting to spring up and annoy me senseless with his ramblings.
My friends won an Oscar for animation a few – well, 18 – years ago. After winning, and taking the statuette down to the pub to celebrate, they get to vote every year for the ‘best picture’ category winner.
But, aside from them as they have excellent taste, which Oscar winners would vote for something populist over and above something that is layered with meaning?
After all, to keep their status in the club, to make them seem more endowed with intelligence and emotional resonance, surely they’ll all choose the films stuffed with emotional depth and angst and therefore quite hard to watch?
I’ll read children’s books which have been nominated for – or won – awards, but tend to avoid adult books that are laden with accolades.
I know they’ll be dripping with metaphorical meaning that’ll be just too much hard work to decipher in the five minutes’ reading I manage before I fall into my nightly coma.
Restaurant awards are pretty cool though. It says to me that the owner has taken the trouble to enter the competition, and therefore probably takes the trouble to keep the kitchen and toilets clean.
I’m not talking about five-starred places. But if a restaurant has won something voted for locally, I’m likely to take that as a good measure of success.
People’s choice awards are a good thing, but the Oscars don’t have one.
Funny that, isn’t it?