This report acts as a companion piece to an online exhibition, game and dataset investigating the Academy Awards as a reflection of contemporary audiences.
The paper begins by outlining the goals and background of my project, discussing the purpose of the artefacts I’ve created, the digital humanities framework they are built upon, and the wider research space the project is situated in. It then discusses the development of these artefacts – the design process undertaken and the affordances of the digital tools and methods used. The paper concludes with a discussion of the project’s findings, alongside a critical analysis of the final artefacts and development of the project as a whole.
Introduction
The Academy Awards (also known as The Oscars) hold a prestigious place in the modern film industry. Established in 1929, the Oscars aim to honour artistic and technical merit in filmmaking. Their Best Picture category, in particular, is regarded as the pinnacle of cinematic achievement. However, despite their significance, the tastes of the Academy Awards (and insular 1900-person voting panel) are not always in line with that of general audiences. As such, ‘oscarbait‘ films – films produced with the intent to garner awards recognition – have become a social media buzzword over recent years, with many questioning the validity of Oscar nominees and whether they accurately represent the diverse views of wider audiences.
My project explores this topic, employing a digital humanities framework to analyse, answer and exhibit the question :
To what extent have the last decades’ Academy Awards’ Best Picture nominees reflected the evolving tastes of contemporary audiences – as evidenced by online review platforms?
Research Objectives & Justification
As outlined, the primary objective of this project is to uncover trends between oscarbait films and general audiences. The project seeks to quantify oscarbait, making use of online review platforms to analyse its place within the wider cultural zeitgeist.
But, why?
While film as an artform has been largely explored by scholars, oscarbait itself is a relatively new concept (only gaining widespread attention over the last ~5 years). Not only this but within today’s modern media landscape, review platforms are becoming increasingly popular. By combining these areas of research with a digital humanistic approach (per David Berry’s definition), I believe my project can provide a nuanced perspective on contemporary audience preferences, revealing insights into the cultural and social dynamics of film appreciation and the ever-evolving relationship between media, technology and society.
Project Methodology and Critical Analysis of Development Techniques / Tools
The development of this project was by no means linear. Rather, it opts to utilise the AGILE framework – placing value on iterative, rapid prototyping to develop functional prototypes within a limited timeframe. While my final artefacts are not fully complete, several intentional decisions have played a fundamental role in shaping their current state.
The Dataset
Data collection and analysis are fundamental to this project. The data points selected play an integral role in establishing the results of the study and, while I’m happy with the preliminary trends they’ve uncovered, were the project to be continued in the future – the dataset should be further refined.
My project aggregates scores of Best Picture nominees from various online review platforms, including Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, Metacritic, and Letterboxd. These were fetched manually and added to a spreadsheet (alongside each film’s metadata), before being analysed with the help of my oscarbait algorithm. In doing so, my project leverages the concept of distant reading – a term coined by Franco Moretti – to discuss how one can ‘quantitise, qualitised data’. In my case, this is achieved using numerical review scores to represent subjective opinions on various films. In doing so, the project was able to efficiently establish and aggregate a large array of relevant data points within a short time frame.
In the context of this project, the accessibility and popularity of these platforms made them the obvious choice – however, these platforms are not without their flaws. Review websites are inherently biased. They are not representative of actual ‘general audiences’ (which my project chooses to view them as) but rather only those who care enough about a film to log in and write a review. Similarly, these platforms are only typically accessible to English speaking users, meaning they are not truly representative of ‘global contemporary audiences’. The concept of distant reading too, has limitations. Can we ever truly quantify someone’s thoughts and opinions? And are users of these sites swayed by existing reviews on the platform? These are some flaws that, if the project were to continue, would need to be addressed in further detail.
The Algorithm
The ‘oscarbait algorithm’ is another integral component of my project, being designed to quantify the characteristics that make a film ‘oscarbait’. The algorithm draws on existing studies, analysis, and my own learnings to identify key factors associated with oscarbait films.
These include :
Carlton’s statistical analysis of past Oscar winners, which suggests films are most likely to win an Oscar if they see international release within 3 months of the ceremony. This paper also suggests, based on historical data, that non-English speaking films are less likely to receive a nomination – though notes this may be subject to change as the Oscars become more diverse.
Boucaut’s study into oscarbait suggests Drama, Biopics and other introspective ‘slow burns’ are more likely to receive Oscar nominations than other film genres.
Finally, both Correa’s sentiment analysis and Kaplan’s regression model suggest films praised by critics, and featured at festivals, tend to be nominated over those with standard box office releases.
Based on these, the following algorithm was devised – with each film having its respective score calculated :
Critics vs Audiences
- +/- 1 point for every 5-point difference between Rotten Tomatoes (RT) critic and audience scores.
- +/- 1 point for every 5-point difference between Metacritic (MC) critic and audience scores.
- +/- 1 point for every 5-point difference between IMDB and Letterboxd scores.
Genre and Type
- +2 points if the film is a drama.
- +2 points if the film is a period piece.
- +2 points if the film is a biopic.
Other Biases
- -2 points if the film is not in English.
- +2 points if the film saw international release within 3 months of the Oscar ceremony.
However, this algorithm is not perfect by any means. This criterion does not account for all variables that influence Oscar nominations – rather, only those that are quantifiable. A film’s award season campaign, its director and cast and the broader social context it was created in are all also key aspects of an ‘oscarbait’ film – but ones much harder to measure.
Moreover, by utilising review platforms within my algorithm, inaccuracies appear when comparing them with critical/audience aggregate scores. While the algorithm makes use of the difference between audience and critical scores (rather than raw scores themselves), this does still impact the validity of my findings. In an ideal world, this algorithm would be based on entirely external factors and measured against qualitative audience opinions; however, given the project’s scope and time constraints, this approach served as a reasonable alternative.
The Exhibition and Game
The final component of this project was the development of two online platforms – an exhibition and an interactive game. These were developed using a wide variety of digital tools and technologies, being created to present the findings of the project in an engaging and accessible manner.
Following the analysis of the dataset, a script was written for the exhibition. From here, high-fidelity wireframes of both platforms were mocked up in Adobe XD, before being translated to the web. The online exhibition was created using WordPress and Elementor – with some additional PHP functionality. Though I had planned to create the game also using this stack, due to development limitations, I instead opted to create the game from scratch using HTML/CSS/JS. I also chose to incorporate the TMDB API within the prototype to fetch relevant film posters and metadata on the fly. Finally, a Python script was written to convert my CSV dataset to a formatted JavaScript array.
Upon reflection, these components do a fantastic job of presenting the study to general audiences. Both sites allow users to explore at their own pace, offering interactive and easily digestible experiences to provide an effective, hands-on way to engage with the research.
However, it is also important to acknowledge the affordances of the technologies chosen and their influence on the prototypes. Proposed by James Gibson, Affordance theory suggests ‘an object’s design implies its use’. In the context of digital platforms, this relates to how the design and functionality of a platform can influence a user’s understanding of the message being presented. In my case, the affordances of these technologies – such as their ability to incorporate charts, imagery and cohesive layouts – allow my exhibition to present information in a way that’s easily digestible for users. Similarly, interactive and animated elements again help facilitate an engaging user experience, making the project’s complex data more accessible to broader audiences.
However, this is a double-edged sword. The affordances of these tools also limit their ability to communicate my message. As I have chosen to use a web framework, these platforms are restricted to only those with internet access (typically Western audiences). Similarly, because of the specific development technologies chosen, compromises have been made on certain features that would have made for a more immersive experience. These affordances even extend to the data points themselves, with online review platforms offering a significantly more rigid set of data compared to qualitative surveying or interviews.
These limitations highlight the challenges of using digital tools to convey complex information. While the methods chosen do offer significant benefits in terms of interactivity,
accessibility and audience engagement – there’s no denying they also potentially restrict audience reach, and the richness and depth of the content when compared to other humanistic approaches.
Research Findings & Discussion
Analysing the dataset revealed several significant trends regarding oscarbait characteristics and contemporary audiences. Within this discussion, I will briefly touch on some key findings, focusing primarily on their implications within the broader research space. For a more detailed insight into these trends, please visit the exhibition.
The most notable trend was that general audiences tend to score films with high oscarbait scores lower than others. This substantiates the claims of Correa and Boucaut, suggesting that audiences tend to enjoy ‘oscarbait’ films, less.
On the other hand, critics tended to rate oscarbait films slightly higher than general audiences. This trend is less cut-and-dry, as critics, while appreciating the technical and artistic merits of these films, also tend to be more discerning and critical of films, generally.
Surprisingly enough, however, the data also shows that critics tend to score Oscar nominees higher than general audiences. On average, a film’s critic score was ~3.56% higher than its counterpart.
Implications of these Findings
This divergence between critical and general scores suggests the Academy Awards do not fully represent contemporary audience preferences – instead nominating styles of films that resonate with critical audiences. This highlights a key disconnect between the Oscars insular voting body and wider society – with Linder arguing this discrepancy raises questions about the inclusivity and representativeness of the Academy Awards.
From another perspective, however, it can also be argued that the Academy Awards are not intended to reflect the common views of the public. Rather, as a body of artists, their preference for oscarbait films underscores a broader cultural trend of valuing artistic and technical merit over mass appeal. Stuart Hall’s reception theory, suggests audiences interpret media texts through their cultural contexts and experiences. In knowing this, it can be suggested that the Oscars’ recurring emphasis on ‘traditional cinematic excellence’ may not – and need not – resonate with the diverse tastes and preferences of the general public. Rather, the awards bestowed by the Oscars are intended to signify a particular cultural and ideological milieu, rather than representing a universal standard of quality. This aligns with broader studies on media consumption and public opinion with Wallentin’s research on modern film audiences suggesting general audiences tend to prefer films that are more accessible and entertaining, whereas critics tend to value films that push artistic boundaries and challenge conventional narratives. Perhaps then, this project is focusing on the wrong question. Rather one needs to consider: To what audience are the Oscars seeking to cater to? And what is their role within contemporary society?
If anything is clear, it’s that the role of film critics and awards shows is evolving. With the rise of online review platforms and social media, the power dynamics in film reception are shifting. As proposed by Pimentel, awards shows are no longer as valued by general audiences as they were 40 years ago. Individuals now have more and more platforms to voice their opinions, influencing public perception and dictating what is considered ‘excellent’. This raises important questions about the role and purpose of the Academy Awards in contemporary culture – and whether they should evolve to better reflect the diverse cinematic preferences of today’s global audience, or stay true to the traditional hallmarks of movie excellence (oscarbait). And, while the Academy Awards will likely choose the latter, if they’d like to stay relevant – they may need to consider changing their approach.
Critical Evaluation of the Project
The Role of the Project Pitch & Plan
Overall, I’m extremely happy with the development of my project. The original vision for the project, as outlined in my project plan, was largely realized. Per Kings Lab’s MoSCoW framework, all tasks labelled “musts” were completed, and even the “shoulds” (UX Design, Interactive Game) were able to be completed within the given timeframe. Likewise, both the initial research and literature reviews proved extremely useful in guiding the project’s
trajectory – helping re-scope where necessary. The development tools pitched were also useful. While these did have their limitations as outlined earlier, they were generally robust and well-suited to the creation of my prototypes.
Risks and Issues Encountered Throughout the Project
Outside of those already outlined, most risks and issues encountered were mitigated. While some technical challenges did occur, these were quickly resolved – with regular backups and documentation ensuring the development process was mostly seamless. LLMs also proved useful, playing a large role in helping troubleshoot, bugfix and foresee various coding issues.
The largest issue I faced, lay in the creation of the oscarbait algorithm. While my project plan had predicted this to be difficult, the sheer lack of existing quantitative studies made its development much harder than expected. Were the project to be undertaken again, I would dedicate further time to ideating and researching this component from the get-go.
Project Ambition and Innovation
This proved to be a very ambitious project. Though the scope was continually reduced over its development, the final research question still proved difficult to answer. While I don’t believe my findings offer a definite answer to the study, they do lay the groundwork for further research and exploration on the topic. Similarly, the project offers significant value outside the oscarbait niche. My final artefacts effectively encourage filmmakers, critics and industry stakeholders to further consider the wider role of awards shows and media platforms within the current day. Furthermore, by employing a digital humanities approach, my project showcases the potential of digital tools within the Arts and GLAM sectors – highlighting their ability to provide more nuanced perspectives on particular subjects.
Though I cannot propose my project was a success based on its findings alone, I do believe its interdisciplinary integration of digital methodologies and perspectives allows it to provide individuals with a unique understanding of contemporary cultural dynamics – ultimately grounding it as a valuable piece of research.
Future Improvements
If given more time, many improvements could be made to my project. While I cannot list them all here, most relate to improving the project’s accessibility, dataset and usability. Some logical next steps include :
- Incorporating a Mobile-Friendly Design
- Incorporating Multilingual Support
- Incorporating Multimedia Elements
- Expanding the Scope of the Dataset
- Refining the Oscarbait Algorithm
- Incorporating Social Media Sentiment Analysis.
Conclusion
This project represents a significant step towards understanding the relationship between the Academy Awards and contemporary audience preferences. Through the creation of an online exhibition and an interactive game, my project effectively leverages a digital humanities framework to explore the concept of ‘oscarbait’ and its impact on film reception. Despite challenges in fully answering its research question, the project lays a strong foundation for those seeking to further understand the dynamics of film awards and cultural trends – and the idiosyncratic role these play within contemporary society.
