It’s almost too much of a cliché to say that looks can overshadow substance in Los Angeles.
Almost, but not quite – especially now that the rest of the U.S. appears to act more like L.A. in this regard.
Chalk it up to digital connections and an emphasis on immediate perceptions and quick-fire responses. The main goal in public communications, it seems, is to look good … or look right … or look strong – and don’t sweat the facts.
The community of business has cause for concern about this trend, which can roil markets big and small with tail-chasing rumors and bad ideas puffed up by digital megaphones.
Consider the recent public call for a boycott of In-N-Out Burgers because it donated money to a political party. That bad idea was quickly rejected by the marketplace. It helped that a lot of regular folks like the chain’s burgers – and we hope the quick dismissal of the boycott also indicated some sophistication about civil rights.
There’s no telling, however, whether the next unfair, digitally-distributed knock against a business will end so quickly or fairly. Our concern stems from the growing preoccupation with aggressive tweets and social media posts as tools to influence public perceptions regardless of facts.
There’s even a popular catch phrase that goes with the trend – “not a good look.”
The phrase is often used in jest, but nonetheless puts perceptions ahead of facts. It’s not a good look when a student gets caught cheating – and never mind the facts of the matter.
There’s reason to fear that this emphasis on perceptions over the facts of various matters is growing – which brings us back to L.A. and a recent decision by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences to back away from plans for an annual Oscar for Achievement in Popular Film.
The decision to institute the award sparked the age-old art-versus-commerce debate – fair game and worthy of intellectual engagement.
Some critics contended that an award for popular blockbusters would amount to pandering for ratings for the annual Oscars broadcast – a money-making asset of the Academy. Blockbusters get their award in the form of ticket sales, some said, and shouldn’t have a seat reserved at the table on a night dedicated to the aesthetics of the art form.
That’s a legitimate point of view, to be sure, but shouldn’t it also extend to the bigger picture? If giving an award to the blockbuster that captured the interest of the masses amounts to pandering on behalf of the annual broadcast, doesn’t the very act of making the blockbusters in the first place also amount to pandering?
It seems that critics of the would-be award worry solely over perceptions – that an Oscar for a film with enough mass appeal to bring boffo box office is not a good look.
It also seems there is a larger reality for Hollywood to consider when it comes to popular achievement in film – and what that means in our fast-changing world.
