It’s OSCAR time! Hollywood and Academia – Two peas in a pod?

Kelly VanKoughnet, PhD, CEC, ACC
Feb 24, 2017
3 min read

Well, the 89th annual Academy Awards are just around the corner. In honour of the Oscars, I thought it might be fun to offer up some popcorn analysis of the many intriguing parallels I see between these two seemingly disparate worlds.

Ten reasons why the “REAL” Academy and Hollywood are like two peas in a pod.

(Insert the crescendoing drum roll here…)

Both worlds have a “star” system. And in both, there are too many players who would define the only true success as being part of it. (Really, how many Ryan Goslings or Emma Stones does the world need?)
Both worlds are full of “character actors”, those amazing and versatile unknowns who are far too often discovered and revered only at their deaths when the cumulative legacy of their work is finally recognized. (Did you know Jon Polito? Barry Jenner? Neither did I.)
Both worlds produce an endless supply of new ideas. There will never be enough resources to allow them all to flourish. Funding decisions are often controversial and tend to bias toward the conservative and safe. (Another comic book movie anyone?)
Both worlds benefit from remarkable pools of talent, pools full of passionate individuals willing to make serious personal sacrifices to follow their dreams. And both worlds are structured in ways that take full advantage of that willingness. It’s not necessarily intentional, but financially and otherwise, the systems have become dependent upon it. (Cheap talent anyone?)
Both worlds are in the early days of adaptation to radical transformation of their entrenched product distribution channels as technology offers alternatives and consumers demand greater and more “open” access. (What’s the academic library equivalent of Netflix? I want to subscribe. I’m thinking $9.99 a month sounds pretty good in the face of Nature’s $32(USD) single article purchase price.)
Both worlds owe a great deal to the advancement of technology and its transformation of what’s possible. And in both worlds adaptation takes time, experimentation and the patience to live through the inevitable failures. (Have you seen the CGI effects in Hulk (2003)?)
Both worlds pay a lot of attention to the portioning out of credit and have professionally established methods of documenting contributions. (Though here I’m thinking that Hollywood is almost certainly further evolved. The final product wouldn’t exist without the Key Grip and the Gaffer. They know it and they show it. Not sure that the role of the Animal Care Committee Coordinator is seen in quite the same way…)
Both worlds have the capacity to transform healthy competition and respect for difference into narrow-minded, jealous, and hopelessly conflicted debates on what is “better”, “worthy” or “most prestigious”. (What is there to gain in comparing drama, sci-fi, action, comedy and animation? “Real” movies and “TV” ones? Math and statistics? History and Sociology? Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry? I’m just a bit jealous of the ease with which some Hollywood players - and scholars - can move across the spectrum. We could all use more of that.)
Both worlds give out lots and lots of prizes but only ONE in each world has the real prestige of being known and celebrated around the world. (Though it must be acknowledged that the Nobel ceremonies don’t have quite the same bling factor as the Oscars. And is there even such a thing as a “Nobel After-Party”? Who do you imagine would go?)
Both worlds are known to take themselves too seriously. Let’s try not to today.