Not saying these films don’t have merit but we can’t act like critics are grand experts in film narrative anymore or the voting process doesn’t have certain people “nudging” voters to go a certain way more on who they know. Harvey Weinstein actually is infamous for this and he funded Russell’s comeback films (Note “Joy” was funded by Fox, not Weinstein Company and it was creamed critically. Surprised they gave Lawrence a nomination but then again she has friends established there now). I’m really trying not to be selective but those examples stick out for me. Because, really, back in say the 1970’s (Considered the big revolutionary decade of film), films were basically just being made by a bunch of new guys who were coming off the street and telling their stories (Most of Scorcese’s films are about New York, where he grew up). Mario Puzo I think knew people in the mafia hence why “Godfather” was so praised. Steven Spielberg was inspired by Alfred Hitchcock but he also was flat broke and used his life experiences (He tends to do a lot of stories that relate to him being abandoned by his father) to power his work. I see these new guys and there is amazing technique but not many of them have that grounded edge and, in turn, the Academy doesn’t anymore because, based on new age thinking, that’s the best you can possibly do. Not saying it’s completely gone but the Academy has more of an identity to what it sees itself as now and that affects what they pick. Hence the expression “Oscar-bait”. That’s just my thoughts anyway.

The real problem is having award shows for artistic endeavors in the first place. You may as well have an award show for the best color of the rainbow.