We are deep into the season that honors movies from the past year, yet the prevalent themes in such winning pictures sound more like a Halloween party than an awards show - country singers, gay cowboys and musical producers, to name a few.
Formerly credible awards shows such as the Golden Globe Awards and the Screen Actors Guild Awards have now opened their nominations to novelty films, including "Walk the Line" and "Brokeback Mountain." An awards show often allows moviegoers to decide which movies are worth seeing at the theaters, but unfortunately the current nominees are enough to make anyone stay home.
The let's-make-this-movie-about-a-celebrity-so-we-all-win-Oscars-and-the-movie-is-a-guaranteed-hit film genre has grown tiresome.
Sissy Spacek won an Oscar in 1981 for portraying country singer Loretta Lynn. Charlize Theron won an Oscar in 2004 for playing serial killer Aileen Wuornos. And this year, Reese Witherspoon and Joaquin Phoenix have already won Golden Globe Awards for "Walk the Line," in which they play June Carter and Johnny Cash. Do you see a pattern?
The reason so many of these films are made is simple: Studios know people will come in droves to watch movies based on the lives of famous or infamous people. Never mind that neither Witherspoon nor Phoenix look or sing like the celebrities they are attempting to portray.
Worse yet are the movies that turn real events and people into silly characters. "Brokeback Mountain" has inspired more homosexual jokes than Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche did when they were dating. What was initially advertised as a touching love story has become nothing more than a laughable flick about two men spooning. A clueless reporter at the Golden Globes asked Debra Messing and Eric McCormack, of "Will and Grace" fame, if they thought their show paved the way for a movie such as "Brokeback Mountain." Their show probably had nothing to do with the movie's success, but if "Brokeback Mountain" wins an Academy Award, the producers should thank the likes of Elton John and George Michael instead. Without them, where would the movie makers get their inspiration?
Then there is "Transamerica," the story about a man who undergoes surgery to become what he feels he truly is - a woman. We're way beyond "Tootsie" and "Some Like It Hot" - merely dressing like a woman doesn't garner you an award anymore. Even more puzzling is why such a gruff role requires the talents of a feminine actress like Felicity Huffman. Known for her sex appeal as one of the "Desperate Housewives," it seems Huffman should win two awards: one for having to play a man, then another for playing that man playing a woman. Almost sounds like another sequel to "The Exorcist," doesn't it?
The other main contenders consist of movies such as "Pride and Prejudice" and "The Producers," which are not bad films per se, but they are annoying because they have been done time and time again. Hollywood has had more than its share of period films lately, not to mention that the novel "Pride and Prejudice" has already made its appearance up on the silver screen. And though Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick are a comic duo I find refreshingly charming, musicals have stolen too many spots at theaters where actual movies should be. I'll trade a hundred musicals like "Chicago," "Rent" and "The Producers" for just one good drama or scary flick, please.
Obviously, everyone has personal tastes when it comes to movies, which is exactly why there should be a wider variety of motion pictures out there for the viewing public.
More importantly, awards shows should start taking themselves seriously again by nominating films because they have meaning - not because they are the most controversial, the most talked about or the biggest moneymakers of the year.