Why Oscars are Meaningless

Like many film fans I recall leaning my elbows on the floor and propping up my chin less than two feet away from the television, which, despite decent eyesight, I always wondered if it was perhaps too close. The event that laid me down in front of the box was the Academy Awards, or the Oscars as we all call them. They were filled with honor and celebration of the things I valued best, the films of the year. UP until 1997 I had agreed with the choices, chances are I hadn't seen most of them and so I could predict, based on who had advertised the most who would win the Oscars. This trend disappointed me when Titanic won over L.A. Confidential, the far superior film of the year. The Oscars then went downhill from there.
Perhaps I was too naive to ever realize this before but the Oscars are bought honors, not achieved. They are awarded to the person that gives the most money to his or her company's campaign so that their film can win the most awards and yield the most return. A sensible practice if not a bit disillusioning.
This past week I saw the best film of the year. As the previous paragraphs have alluded, it was not Slumdog Millionaire. No, it was a tiny little film that too was released by Fox's subsidary Fox Searchlight. It did not win awards however, because despite boasting a brilliant song by the Boss Bruce Springsteen and a brilliant performance by Mickey Rourke, who was nominated, it was released by the same company that released Danny Boyle's winner Slumdog Millionaire.
Slumdog Millionaire was a quality film that, despite a small budget, reeked of old Hollywood sensibilities. It was the Dickensian story of a poor underdog who defies the system and wins his true love. It was essentially a sweet film which proclaimed that the underdog could win.
Despite the fact that it was almost released straight to DVD and its modest budget of 15 million, at a budget of 6 million the Wrestler lands a more powerful punch.
Does that make it a better movie? By traditional Oscar standards, yes. But I am willing to consider that Slumdog is perhaps still a "better" movie because it showcased Boyle's flair for music and editing that otherwise have been shy to awards. The issue at hand, however, is that both films are strong. Both films are of considerable better quality than the Weinstein company's release the Reader which it seems earned its nominations through financial strengths. In ten years people will still watch the Wrestler and nobody will remember the Reader but the problem is that Fox Searchlight only had the money to promote one picture. I liked it better when the awards stood for something as opposed to the meaningless trophy of a film company's marketing department.