I don't even know where to start with that. The notion that Avatar was anywhere near a best picture category is, for me, laughable. That movie is visually impressive, but it's an impressive garbage fire. You seem to imply that it's a problem that Chicago beat Two Towers when neither should have been anywhere in the running at all (The Pianist was the obvious Oscar-bait that year). I agree with you that in addition to some of the BP winners, some of the fields were weak.
But mostly you've sort of reinforced my point that ten or fifteen years ago, there was some real junk being nominated. Now, these are all actual well made films with some real artistic depth to them. I don't think they ignore entertainment value so much as they focus on meaningful content, which doesn't usually take the form of a popcorn flick. Gladiator is a fun movie, but it doesn't make you think, and the fact that it would never get in the conversation over something like Memento these days speaks well of the current iteration of these awards as actually honouring movies as an art medium.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|