The elusive and wildly desirable statuette
That iconic golden statue. This February 25th, 5,830 members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) choose from 306 films in the most publicised, glitziest, best-known (and in some ways most controversial) awards ceremony in the world.
Should you ignore it? Stay up all night and watch it (it's on Sky Movies 1 from 12.30am in the UK) as it is beamed from the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles? Check the results in the morning news or use it to help pick your movie viewing? How well-chosen are the winners - or is it all a money-making machine?
Certainly money comes into it. A win at the Oscars can add $40 million to the value of a film. A nomination alone is worth maybe $11 million and means there's a higher probability that you will have the chance to see it at your local cinema. Vast sums are poured into promoting films 'for consideration' in spite of stringent rules on pre-award publicity. Yet voters still seem to have minds of their own and increasingly return controversial films that challenge the way we think about the world and ourselves.
When the first Academy Awards were handed out on May 16, 1929, movies had just begun to talk. That first ceremony took place during a banquet in the Blossom Room of the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel. Only 270 people attended and guest tickets cost $5. Speeches dominated the evening and presentation of the statuettes was handled expeditiously by Academy President Douglas Fairbanks.
The suspense that now touches most of the world at Oscar time was not always present. That first year, winners were announced three months ahead of the ceremony. For the next decade, results were given in advance to newspapers for publication on the night of the Awards. But in 1940, much to the Academy's dismay, the Los Angeles Times broke the embargo and announced the winning achievements in its evening edition, which was readily available to guests arriving for the affair. As a result, the Academy adopted the famous (and much copied) sealed envelope system, which remains in use today.
With the focus of the world on the podium, it soon became a place for tirades, protests and histrionics, either political or in the name of 'art'. Famous 'no-show' nominees include Dustin Hoffman, who branded it as "obscene, dirty and grotesque, no better than a beauty contest" - only to have second thoughts when he won several years later and took the opportunity to thank his "mother and father for not practicing birth control".
In 2003, Michael Moore accepted the Documentary Award saying "We like non-fiction, yet we live in fictitious times. We live in a time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr Bush. Shame on you, Mr Bush, shame on you."
Such pyrotechnics are easily dismissed, but serious movies taking a responsible approach to divisive issues help to inform or simply allow us to explore for ourselves our thoughts about such things as homosexuality (Brokeback Mountain), racism (Crash), freedom of speech (Good Night, and Good Luck), women's rights (North Country), drug cartels (The Constant Gardener), the Middle East (Paradise Now) and oil (Syriana). And that's just some of the films nominated in last year's ceremony. Three dimensional characters involve our emotions and supplement intellectual analysis in a way that can better allow us to explore our responses.
The power of a single well-crafted film is perhaps nowhere more evident than when it is used to persuade world leaders to take a pressing issue more seriously. Al Gore's ceaseless campaigning on global warming with his disturbing movie An Inconvenient Truth has been a major factor in putting the issue higher on politicians' agenda.
The other non-fiction films in contest this year are similarly controversial and made with an eye on truth rather than entertainment. Jesus Camp looks at children's summer camps where they are being groomed to become soldiers in 'God's Army' to take over American politics, and Deliver Us from Evil exposes sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, while Iraq in Fragments and My Country, My Country show Iraq from the point of view of people living there, presenting realities in sharp contrast to those projected in newsreels.
Much goodwill also ensues. The Academy's grassroots program enables charities to host glamorous fundraising parties. In the UK, such parties often feature premieres and raffles of memorabilia before a satellite link-up to the main event. I was once offered a T-Shirt that had belonged to Sharon Stone (it was the only item remotely within my budget!). Worldwide, the program has generated nearly $17.5 million in funding for a wide spectrum of charitable organisations - every cent staying within the community where it was raised.
Love 'em or loathe 'em, the Oscars are likely to influence what we watch and even how we think about the world in 2007.
Have a bash at our Oscars Quiz
Read about all the films and stars in the running.
