The Academy Awards limit quality film production

I love the Academy Awards as much as anyone — the fame, the films, the fashion — but with the lull in good movies that come out during the months surrounding the awards ceremony, maybe Oscar is becoming a little big for his britches.

Take a stroll through what's playing now at theatres across the country. While there might still be a few remnants of the movies that were nominated this past Sunday, most of the prospects for a night at the movies are pretty despicable. "Big Momma's: Like Father, Like Son?" I'm not sure why someone thought there needed to be a trilogy of "Big Momma's House," but it's real. "Drive Angry," "The Mechanic" and "The Eagle" all look fairly torturous to sit through for anyone who enjoys a shred of intellectual merit in a film.

What seems to be the rule with the Academy Awards is this: Release a movie too early, and it'll be forgotten in the handout of golden men. So there was a wonderful profusion of remarkable films that came out from later September through early January. The problem is we're left with a bucket full of nothing at the movie theatres by the end of February.

The reason for this seems to be that the road to the Kodak Theatre has become such a long one for filmmakers and actors alike. There is no longer one award show for them to look forward to, but rather an entire awards season, which begins nominating films in November and stops nominating at the end of January.

What this means for the film industry is that anyone who made one good movie now enters into what appears to be a never-ending chain of galas, ceremonies and interviews. These include the Los Angeles Film Critics Awards, New York Film Critics Awards, Broadcast Film Critics Awards, Golden Globe Awards, the three separate Guild Awards for screen actors, producers and directors, the Palm Springs International Film Festival, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts Awards, the American Cinema Editors Awards and the Academy Awards, among others.

Therefore, we have no decent films. And how could we, considering the ridiculous hold on time the awards season puts on the people who produce them?

For instance, according to a Feb. 26 article from the LA Times, "The King's Speech" screenwriter David Seidler has been so busy with awards season, he hasn't written anything for months. Additionally, "The Social Network" star, Jesse Eisenberg, was restricted from acting in an off-Broadway play for fear it would take away from his ability to campaign for the film and Melissa Leo, nominated for her supporting role in "The Fighter," had to be cut out temporarily from the HBO series, "Treme," in which she plays a prominent role.

I simply don't see how the nearly six-month hiatus many filmmakers are taking after making one great film is profitable for anyone. I understand that an Oscar nod can mean a big boost in a career for an actor, producer or director, but what kind of career is that when only half of a person's time actually is spent doing what they claim to do? Being a producer shouldn't mean moonlighting as an interview specialist or awards ceremony attendee for months upon months. Ultimately, this is cutting down on the productivity of the film industry as a whole.

Apparently I'm not the only one who is frustrated about this, as the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences is considering moving the Oscars up by as much as a month in order to alleviate some of the pressure the awards season creates, as they've been noticing "industry fatigue," according to the aforementioned LA Times article.The industry is not the only one that's tired of this situation. I'm not sure how we got here, but at some point people have to realize that without a fairly steady flow of high-quality movies, there are going to be fewer to pick from overall, diminishing the excitement the awards ceremonies bring in the first place. It seems we would be better served to lay off our addiction to awards and allow the real work to begin again.