The Academy Museum of Motion Pictures in Los Angeles
AMPAS
Pondering last weekend’s vibrant, three-day “Regeneration Summit” at the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures — it was a celebration keyed to the museum’s Regeneration: Black Cinema 1898-1971 exhibit — I was struck by a wild fantasy.
In the far future — I mean way down the line, even after my brand new driver’s license expires — maybe museum members, some of them at least, will be given an Oscar vote.
To be clear, nobody that I know of is talking about this. The current management of both the museum and the Academy could rightly dismiss the idea as hare-brained.
But time is a relentless beast. Let it gnaw for a while on the legs of those entwined institutions, and the enfranchisement of paying museum members might begin to look like an option. It would certainly be a slick way to support the museum while weaning the Oscars from their dependence on a diminishing broadcast audience—that is, the hoi polloi.
What we learned, I think, from the summit is that the film museum, more than just an exhibition hall, is a potential magnet for the many affinity groups that comprise a new film elite. The summit was supposed to gather filmmakers, scholars, fans and those hungry for fare from a “market featuring all Black women-owned pop-up food vendors” in a mini-festival of screenings, panels and events that were designed, by and large, for the like-minded.
There’s nothing wrong with that, particularly if the museum does it again, and again, and yet again, for the many cultural subsets that now crave their own expression in film. The gender diverse. Feminists. Climate activists. International freedom fighters. Who knows? Maybe even old-fashioned movie aficionados and the faith community could have a weekend.
The point is, the museum seems well-equipped to tap the film-centered intensity in each of these groups. Its culturally targeted exhibits can clearly evoke passion.
Now, the trick is to harness that energy, and, frankly, to monetize it.
And that’s where the dangled lure of an Oscar vote comes in.
Consider: At present, you can become a member of the museum for $100 a year. That gets you free admission to the exhibits, discounts and expedited check-in, among other things. Jump all the way up to the “Patron” level, at $1,000 yearly, and the perks include free admission to all screenings, an annual reception, and invitations to evenings and celebrations like, presumably, the Regeneration Summit.
But imagine the potential in, say, a $1,500-per-year “Super-Patron” membership, which could include the right to help nominate and name the Best Picture winner, plus access to the dozens of films displayed on the digital Academy Screening room.
Wow.
Just 10,000 such “Super-Patrons” — doubling the current number of Academy voters– would generate $15 million a year, probably enough to close a prospective gap between the museum’s operating expenses and combined earned revenue and projected donations.
Add another 20,000 — in all, less than a quarter of pre-Covid attendance at Sundance — and the Academy could stop this variety-show tap-dancing for ABC and its license fee every year. The awards could be more cheaply presented by the super-engaged — a mixed pool of film workers and elite stakeholders — before a streaming audience made up mostly of those similarly invested.
The expanded voting pool certainly wouldn’t create the dreaded Pop Oscar.
Rather, the museum voters would be an intense and varied group of self-selected cinephiles whose involvement with the various festivals, summits and celebrations — plus cash — entitles them to an informed vote. Instead of sitting on the sidelines, complaining about snubs, they would be invited to jump in.
Yes, this would be mostly a well-heeled lot. But so are the current Oscar voters, who pay $450 a year in Academy dues.
As for the rest of us, well, we didn’t much watch when we had the chance. Maybe we should step aside and let the insiders have it — for a price.
Post a Comment