Awards Shows: The Critics vs The People

The Teen Choice Awards aired on Monday night.  As its name suggests, the winners are chosen by the viewers rather than a mysterious “Academy” or other exclusive group of critics, executives, and showbiz insiders.  Not surprisingly, Twilight won a lot of awards.  As has been the case in every other viewer-voted awards show in the past several years, the franchise’s success at the awards shows driven by their internet-savvy and somewhat rabid fanbase.  Who cares if the movies were a bit dumb, the acting questionable, and the dialogue painful at times?  It’s Twilight.  They deserve every award out there.  Rather unfair to all of the legitimately good movies and talented actors that are probably better, but whose fan base isn’t as committed.

Contrast this to the common complaint about the Oscars:  they’re too detached from what the people like.  So often the Best Picture nominees are small-releases, available only in a select few cinemas in major cities.  Most of America, usually, has never heard of many of them.

It’s a balance that is hard to strike, that usually forgets the movies that are good and well-liked (even if they don’t attract an obsessive teenage demographic).  It’s something that annoys me probably more than it should.  Awards shows are either elitist or lavish unwarranted awards on average films with a lot of fans.  Not fair either way, is it?

Personally, I lean more toward the Oscar framework.  It may not be democratic, but at least I can trust that the movies nominated are legitimately well-made.  But which do you prefer– the democratic method of the Teen Choice Awards, or the unreachable Oscars?