It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

pippin06 — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:20:13 GMT

Risselada:

Just because something is unlikely to change much, does that mean we shouldn't continue to descent and argue against it? Just look at the kinds of movies the Oscars usually award themselves! Many of the films they seem to like are movies where an individual dissents against a larger system, so I'm just holding the Academy to the kinds of stories they apparently find appealing so often, even if sometimes the way the stories are told are not quite true.

Sure, we can argue and dissent about it. Isn't that what we have been doing? Yes? I just don't like beating dead horses. It's one of those situations where we've presented our opinions and are at the risk of running the conversation into the ground by being too repetitive. At least, I feel that way about my position. Go ahead and challenge and dissent to your heart's content, but I think I've presented my thoughts with as many words as I have, and I would likely respond with things I've already said, because they universally cover my disagreement with your perceptions/opinions/observations/challenges/dissents, whatever we're calling this right now, which I've acknowledged and comprehended but otherwise don't agree with. That's all. But go ahead and wax further if you have more to say; for my part, I guess I'm capitulating to the cliche but ever-apropos "we can agree to disagree." I'm also hoping someone else takes an interest in this convo (hence my many encouragements to this effect). We're just two opinions in the vast sea of users that have to have some thought; we can't be the only two people who care about this topic. Unless people just like to read what you and I say only, but hey! I don't want that kind of responsibility :-D.

And I commented "it is what it is" both to acknowledge your observations and to say that you might not like these Oscar things, but I do. Even if they're everything you observe and more, I like them just the way they are (cue Billy Joel). I'm not trying to write your position -- or the concept of debating this surprisingly in-depth topic -- off or anything.

Risselada:

Well I mentioned the Sight and Sound poll, which I find a bit more useful than some other lists or awards. Apart from that, I use a lot of these rating websites which sometimes yeild decent results. But most of all I like sites like Spout where you can get recommendations from real people who you can get to know.

Great! What are some of the other websites you use, and why do you like them?

pippin06:

Also, we've touched on your feelings about Crash and Million Dollar Baby in other convos in other groups. I've never seen the latter (I might eventually), but I have seen Crash. It's been awhile, so I think I'd like to see it again before I go on too much farther, but I didn't have the same initial reaction to it as you did. But I come from a different perspective - as a civil rights investigator, I probably didn't need to be manipulated into agreeing with the story arc of the film and the strong emotions it evokes. But - I also don't necessarily have a problem with "manipulative" tendencies of a film so long as it services a well-told story. Again, that's personal preference, specifically as it relates to how I might appreciate a film, which may be different than your approach.

I don't think anyone "needs" to be manipulated, whether it's into have some belief or feeling they would have had for a certain subject anyways or not. And as to your statement that you don't have a problem with manipulation as long as it services a well-told story, my opinion is that a manipulation cannot serve a well-told story. If it is present, the story poorly told.

Um, ok...I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting that anyone "needed" to be manipulated, so apologies if you read it that way. I was merely talking about my personal reaction to that well-dissected, largely mixed in its reviews, Best Picture winner, Crash. As in, I didn't feel (or need) to be manipulated because I bought what the movie was trying to say; then again, it wasn't a hard sell given my day job. And that's exactly my point with the whole conversation (although, we've strayed somewhat from the original question): perception/opinion. To write off a film's story as poor because it's "manipulation" (which can be, in and of itself, a subjective perception) is your own approach; to me, it depends on the intent of the film, the message (if any) being conveyed, and whether the story, even if manipulative, makes sense. But that's my opinion/approach, or as the kids say in their text-speak, imho. Crash, to me, made sense and was a well-told story, even if it was trying to paint pictures of rampant racism and dealing with said racism. Was it the Best Picture? I don't know, imho. But: I'm glad I watched it, and I would have done so regardless because it at least got nominated, which is what makes the Oscars valid to me. But that's just me. I did start this crazy group after all.

This is way beyond the post-Oscars water cooler. We're in the cafeteria now. Or: maybe I'm just hungry.

:-D

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

Risselada — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:27:41 GMT

pippin06:

The bottom line is, though, that the problems you have with the Oscars - and by extension the media and the moviegoing public's circular effect on the Oscars - are never going to change, really. The Oscars are an institution, and you may be inclined to disagree with the institution, which is fair, but to call them utter "sh!t" based on these perceived flaws is what I have been trying to say is not quite fair.

Just because something is unlikely to change much, does that mean we shouldn't continue to descent and argue against it? Just look at the kinds of movies the Oscars usually award themselves! Many of the films they seem to like are movies where an individual dissents against a larger system, so I'm just holding the Academy to the kinds of stories they apparently find appealing so often, even if sometimes the way the stories are told are not quite true.

pippin06:

Still, I encourage discussion about other "more valid" measurements, to the extent that the Oscars are not meaningful to particular members of our group, because that might offer up some alternatives to those members of the group and the community at large who might share your frustrations. Are there such measures? Maybe we should start there.

Well I mentioned the Sight and Sound poll, which I find a bit more useful than some other lists or awards. Apart from that, I use a lot of these rating websites which sometimes yeild decent results. But most of all I like sites like Spout where you can get recommendations from real people who you can get to know.

pippin06:

Also, we've touched on your feelings about Crash and Million Dollar Baby in other convos in other groups. I've never seen the latter (I might eventually), but I have seen Crash. It's been awhile, so I think I'd like to see it again before I go on too much farther, but I didn't have the same initial reaction to it as you did. But I come from a different perspective - as a civil rights investigator, I probably didn't need to be manipulated into agreeing with the story arc of the film and the strong emotions it evokes. But - I also don't necessarily have a problem with "manipulative" tendencies of a film so long as it services a well-told story. Again, that's personal preference, specifically as it relates to how I might appreciate a film, which may be different than your approach.

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

pippin06 — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:50:44 GMT

Hmmm... I think we could go in circles about this topic forever. What I've tried to posit is that there's no definitive answer to Adam's original question because it's based on personal preference. The bottom line is, though, that the problems you have with the Oscars - and by extension the media and the moviegoing public's circular effect on the Oscars - are never going to change, really. The Oscars are an institution, and you may be inclined to disagree with the institution, which is fair, but to call them utter "sh!t" based on these perceived flaws is what I have been trying to say is not quite fair. At the risk of repeating myself too many more times, I would just refer you to my previous comments, but I recognize your problems and frustrations with the awards show. Still, I encourage discussion about other "more valid" measurements, to the extent that the Oscars are not meaningful to particular members of our group, because that might offer up some alternatives to those members of the group and the community at large who might share your frustrations. Are there such measures? Maybe we should start there.

But in response to your frustration that the Oscars excludes certain other films and deliberately dictates taste - well, it is what it is. I can't - and wouldn't want to - defend everything about them because I'm not a member of the Academy. I'm an average Jill who likes them enough to stick with them. They were my gateway to artsier flicks and to a love of film, and I think that's true for many people. Does that make them invalid? I say no, for all the reasons I stated.

Also, we've touched on your feelings about Crash and Million Dollar Baby in other convos in other groups. I've never seen the latter (I might eventually), but I have seen Crash. It's been awhile, so I think I'd like to see it again before I go on too much farther, but I didn't have the same initial reaction to it as you did. But I come from a different perspective - as a civil rights investigator, I probably didn't need to be manipulated into agreeing with the story arc of the film and the strong emotions it evokes. But - I also don't necessarily have a problem with "manipulative" tendencies of a film so long as it services a well-told story. Again, that's personal preference, specifically as it relates to how I might appreciate a film, which may be different than your approach.

This is, like, the other side of the "what is overrated" question we dissected in one of the other groups. It's all subjective. There's no black or white answer...makes for some lively discussion, though. :-)

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

Risselada — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:28:57 GMT

pippin06:

Risselada:

Well it's like any situation with the media. It goes back and forth. The media tries to sense what people want and they give it back to them plus a little bit more. Then people get what they want plus a little bit of media invention or embellishment. They start to accept the little bit extra that was presented of it and think they want more of it. The media sees what they want and gives them more and then adds a little more... etc. So no doubt as the show was televised people took more interest. And as people took more interest, they advertised it more. And probably as it got to be more well known, movie studios started advertising actors or other people who worked on their films as oscar winners. And people already have enough of a celebrity worship that to see all these celebrities in a room honoring each other, they take stock in that kind of thing. I guess I'm kind of just repeating what you already acknowledged. I'm not sure why.

I won't deny that obviously many people give Oscar cred. I mean that's what the debate is about here. SHOULD we be giving the Oscar cred though? I'm saying that I'm not often inclinded to because of all the reasons we've been talking about.

Right. It's simply important to acknowledge that the Academy and the Oscars and the people who find them important aren't really at fault for blowing them, perhaps, out of proportion. The media is a whole separate entity that can be tried, convicted, and sentenced for sensationalizing anything and everything all the time, and it's a whole separate convo that could last for years.

Well no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the Academy and the Media AND the public are all equally responsible. They they all keep fueling the sensationalization. They are not completely separate, but all tied together. Heck, the Academy is Hollywood and Hollywood is media. And often ownership of Hollywood entities own all other media outlets.

pippin06:

Should we be giving Oscar cred? I think the answer is taste again. I think it's valid for even an incestuous (inbred...family reunion...thingy) to issue awards to the members. I think what they nominate is a fair representation of deserving films. I think the Academy gets it right at least some of the time when they choose winners, but that's my opinion. When I'm watching Oscar nominees, frequently from years past because I can only watch so many films at a time, and I like to change it up, I tend to think about what else got nominated and compare. I tend to subscribe to at least some of the Best picks. Is it because they won the Oscar? Arguably yes (I like to compare), arguably no (I care less about the winners). I'm more inclined to nominees rather than winners, but that's just me again. I think the Academy has as much right as anyone to award themselves. It's just like the Grand Awards, which are awarded by a committee comprised of theater community members, some from the community theaters in GR and some from the college theaters. Who better to issue those awards than the people actually working in the areas? If you don't buy that, maybe someone (I leave that to the public to nominate just who) should start up an Oscars voted on by the people. Oh wait, that's the People's Choice Awards. There's the Indie awards for the Independent filmmakers and the Critics Choice for the critics and the Guild awards for all levels of production....that's why in this group, I've tried to present other filmmaking awards that tend to inform Oscar anyway. But it all comes down to taste. Enough people put stock in awards as validation (whether winning or watching the winning), but you might not.

It's perfectly fine with me if people want to award themselves, but when it's the biggest and most famous award show in the world and the results with knowingly dictate not only what kinds of movies most people will see and come to accept as good but also what kinds of movies will continue to receive future funding. When the movies that win are movies that I find present skewed or unchallenging worldviews, I find that frustrating. If they would at least change the awards from being the "best" in a category to the "favorite" in a category that would be nice too.

pippin06:

Risselada:

And then it gets more frustrating when people take a lot of stock in an award that I feel picks winners that I don't necessarily appreciate as much as some of the "competition". But then again, there are times when I like things that may be called subversive. And without having a mass of people liking and doing things that I don't agree with, there would be no enjoyment in being subversive. It's not that I WANT to be subversive just for it's own sake (I hope not) it just doesn't seem like the world is going to change.

I guess when we are rewarding art it's especially subjective. But I think if you look through history you will find that the best art usually is subversive and only truely recognized as the best after time. The best artists are not recognized often by their peers. This is a generalization of a complicated issue.

I do certainly like finding out what films receive acclaim from other filmmakers, especially onces I respect. But it doesn't need to have all of the dopey glitz and glamour for me, and there doesn't have to be just one winner. I guess that's why I like certain lists, like the Sight and Sound poll for instance.

You hit on an important point: Oscar hype tends more to the present than to timelessness. The deserving Best movies are still discussed decades later (i.e. Gone with the Wind or the Godfather) while other movies, whether nominated and lost (Star Wars; Citizen Kane) or not nominated (Psycho, snubbed for Best Picture/Director, though it won Original Screenplay and was nominated for others), don't need Oscar to validate their artistic excellence because people are championing them years later. Look at the AFI lists (which is why I am also compiling them in this group). Not everyone even subscribes to those, but many of the films on the Greatest lists never won Oscars, or won less than notorious Oscar prizes. That doesn't mean that Oscar's presence in the present doesn't count for something: it's a time capsule snapshot of what was discussed as "great" for the appropriate year, and it's a yardstick by which to measure and compare other good films. And the dopey glitz and glamor are appealing to some, ok :-D. I like the glitz and glamour. Sometimes, people just want fluff and entertainment...hence the silly awards show.

Art is subjective, but I maintain that it's up to you. Take them or leave them, the Oscars are relevant, even if they're not relevant to you. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

As to the Academy itself, actually there are dissenting opinions. The face of the Academy has changed quite substantially. First, the membership is larger. It's more diverse, not only in culture but in age. The fact that a film like Slumdog even got nominated is a testament to how much it's changed (it's from India, it's not cut according to a "classic" cloth). And there is much talk, usually every year, about snubbed contenders. But it's a voting membership. It is a club, and a somewhat exclusive one, but it's not the type of fraternity of homogenous thinkers you might be inclined to regard it as. The majority of votes wins. So, a film like The Wrestler (which would not have been nominated ten years ago) probably won't beat a feel-good like Slumdog Millionaire, because the membership is massive, and it's a mass, and masses tend toward certain types of films, and the mass is changing in its group dynamic. The Academy used to be comprised of older, non-ethnic type men because that's who started the tradition...but the tradition is breaking. Maybe not in step or in time with some people's pulses (ahem).

At this point, I encourage any member of the group, actually, to discuss barometers or rankings or polls or awards that mean something to you and explain why. Because I understand the antipathy toward the Oscars, but I'll remain a steadfast supporter because, chances are, it'll expose me to some films I might not have otherwise considered. But maybe something else means more to you, like Rizzo mentioned the Sight and Sound polls. I don't mean to duplicate the Movie Polls group (there was a similar poll not too long ago), but we're dissecting this in such an in-depth way, I think it's worthwhile to offer it up as an alternative. I might not be able to convince you that the Oscars are worthwhile, so maybe something else will be more valid to you...or maybe nothing will be. Say it here.

I just don't find the fact that a movie from India won is really a testament to much change at all, relative to the huge scope of what is really out there. Where a movie is from does not affect me as much as what it's saying or how it says it. I guess it's not fair for me to pass judgement Slumdog Millionaire it until I've actually seen it though, so I won't say much more about it. But in general the Academy seems to award movies that tackle important issues but give simple or cliche answers and are often manipulative towards an audiences emtion in a false way to bring them to that kind of emotional response. Sadly I've heard reviews of Slumdog Millionaire from people I respect who seem to say this fits in that category. Since I can't say for sure since I haven't seen it, I'll hold off judgement. But I have seen best picture winners Million Dollar Baby (what's with the million dollar motif here??) and Crash, and those are some examples.

Because I'm a geek about my movie ratings and stats and such, I decided to check on what my average overall movie rating is vs. the average rating I gave for Best Picture Oscar winners. Out of about 1,181 feature length movies proper that I have rated, my average rating is 7.5250. Out of 33 of the Best Picture Oscar winners I have seen my average rating is 7.7727. There is only about a 3% difference between those numbers. So basically left to my own method of what movies I end up seeing compared to the Oscar winners, my level of enjoyment is pretty negligable. Or in otherwords, the average Best Picture Oscar winner that I've seen is not any better to me than than any other average movie I see. I would be interested in seeing the stats on Best Picture Oscar nominees, but getting those stats will probably take a lot longer, and I doubt there will be much difference there either.

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

pippin06 — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:14:53 GMT

Oy, you guys. Oy. :-P

Risselada:

I'm sorry to hear that! How are you enjoying the show though? I didn't realize you were working on that one.

Thank you for saying that. I think audiences are responding well to the Producers. I'm the assistant stage manager, though, and the show is nutso-crazy-busy-big. Many huge sets, tons of costumes, and such. Normally, I have a good time backstage, even during frenetic shows like this (and I have lots of friends amongst the cast and crew) but maybe because of the fact that everyone's been sick (and some more than others, like, say, me), I haven't been able to get into it more. But we have three more weeks to rectify that (now through March 29!).

Risselada:

Well it's like any situation with the media. It goes back and forth. The media tries to sense what people want and they give it back to them plus a little bit more. Then people get what they want plus a little bit of media invention or embellishment. They start to accept the little bit extra that was presented of it and think they want more of it. The media sees what they want and gives them more and then adds a little more... etc. So no doubt as the show was televised people took more interest. And as people took more interest, they advertised it more. And probably as it got to be more well known, movie studios started advertising actors or other people who worked on their films as oscar winners. And people already have enough of a celebrity worship that to see all these celebrities in a room honoring each other, they take stock in that kind of thing. I guess I'm kind of just repeating what you already acknowledged. I'm not sure why.

I won't deny that obviously many people give Oscar cred. I mean that's what the debate is about here. SHOULD we be giving the Oscar cred though? I'm saying that I'm not often inclinded to because of all the reasons we've been talking about.

Right. It's simply important to acknowledge that the Academy and the Oscars and the people who find them important aren't really at fault for blowing them, perhaps, out of proportion. The media is a whole separate entity that can be tried, convicted, and sentenced for sensationalizing anything and everything all the time, and it's a whole separate convo that could last for years.

Should we be giving Oscar cred? I think the answer is taste again. I think it's valid for even an incestuous (inbred...family reunion...thingy) to issue awards to the members. I think what they nominate is a fair representation of deserving films. I think the Academy gets it right at least some of the time when they choose winners, but that's my opinion. When I'm watching Oscar nominees, frequently from years past because I can only watch so many films at a time, and I like to change it up, I tend to think about what else got nominated and compare. I tend to subscribe to at least some of the Best picks. Is it because they won the Oscar? Arguably yes (I like to compare), arguably no (I care less about the winners). I'm more inclined to nominees rather than winners, but that's just me again. I think the Academy has as much right as anyone to award themselves. It's just like the Grand Awards, which are awarded by a committee comprised of theater community members, some from the community theaters in GR and some from the college theaters. Who better to issue those awards than the people actually working in the areas? If you don't buy that, maybe someone (I leave that to the public to nominate just who) should start up an Oscars voted on by the people. Oh wait, that's the People's Choice Awards. There's the Indie awards for the Independent filmmakers and the Critics Choice for the critics and the Guild awards for all levels of production....that's why in this group, I've tried to present other filmmaking awards that tend to inform Oscar anyway. But it all comes down to taste. Enough people put stock in awards as validation (whether winning or watching the winning), but you might not.

Risselada:

And then it gets more frustrating when people take a lot of stock in an award that I feel picks winners that I don't necessarily appreciate as much as some of the "competition". But then again, there are times when I like things that may be called subversive. And without having a mass of people liking and doing things that I don't agree with, there would be no enjoyment in being subversive. It's not that I WANT to be subversive just for it's own sake (I hope not) it just doesn't seem like the world is going to change.

I guess when we are rewarding art it's especially subjective. But I think if you look through history you will find that the best art usually is subversive and only truely recognized as the best after time. The best artists are not recognized often by their peers. This is a generalization of a complicated issue.

I do certainly like finding out what films receive acclaim from other filmmakers, especially onces I respect. But it doesn't need to have all of the dopey glitz and glamour for me, and there doesn't have to be just one winner. I guess that's why I like certain lists, like the Sight and Sound poll for instance.

You hit on an important point: Oscar hype tends more to the present than to timelessness. The deserving Best movies are still discussed decades later (i.e. Gone with the Wind or the Godfather) while other movies, whether nominated and lost (Star Wars; Citizen Kane) or not nominated (Psycho, snubbed for Best Picture/Director, though it won Original Screenplay and was nominated for others), don't need Oscar to validate their artistic excellence because people are championing them years later. Look at the AFI lists (which is why I am also compiling them in this group). Not everyone even subscribes to those, but many of the films on the Greatest lists never won Oscars, or won less than notorious Oscar prizes. That doesn't mean that Oscar's presence in the present doesn't count for something: it's a time capsule snapshot of what was discussed as "great" for the appropriate year, and it's a yardstick by which to measure and compare other good films. And the dopey glitz and glamor are appealing to some, ok :-D. I like the glitz and glamour. Sometimes, people just want fluff and entertainment...hence the silly awards show.

Art is subjective, but I maintain that it's up to you. Take them or leave them, the Oscars are relevant, even if they're not relevant to you. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

As to the Academy itself, actually there are dissenting opinions. The face of the Academy has changed quite substantially. First, the membership is larger. It's more diverse, not only in culture but in age. The fact that a film like Slumdog even got nominated is a testament to how much it's changed (it's from India, it's not cut according to a "classic" cloth). And there is much talk, usually every year, about snubbed contenders. But it's a voting membership. It is a club, and a somewhat exclusive one, but it's not the type of fraternity of homogenous thinkers you might be inclined to regard it as. The majority of votes wins. So, a film like The Wrestler (which would not have been nominated ten years ago) probably won't beat a feel-good like Slumdog Millionaire, because the membership is massive, and it's a mass, and masses tend toward certain types of films, and the mass is changing in its group dynamic. The Academy used to be comprised of older, non-ethnic type men because that's who started the tradition...but the tradition is breaking. Maybe not in step or in time with some people's pulses (ahem).

At this point, I encourage any member of the group, actually, to discuss barometers or rankings or polls or awards that mean something to you and explain why. Because I understand the antipathy toward the Oscars, but I'll remain a steadfast supporter because, chances are, it'll expose me to some films I might not have otherwise considered. But maybe something else means more to you, like Rizzo mentioned the Sight and Sound polls. I don't mean to duplicate the Movie Polls group (there was a similar poll not too long ago), but we're dissecting this in such an in-depth way, I think it's worthwhile to offer it up as an alternative. I might not be able to convince you that the Oscars are worthwhile, so maybe something else will be more valid to you...or maybe nothing will be. Say it here.

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

Risselada — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:11:27 GMT

SkyPilot:

Risselada:

It seems like the Academy is kind of a club that you have to know someone in the club or impress someone in the club to get in. No wonder people find them so predictable. There aren't many dissenting opinions??

Yeah. I guess one could try to argue that the Oscars are therefore like a "trial by one's peers"...

But on a jury, one's "peers" are supposed to be disinterested. It's hard for me to imagine that a bunch of people in the movie business would be disinterested voters when they have something to gain from receiving nominations and awards for movies they produced, directed, starred in, etc.

So to put it very cynically, the Oscars resemble a beauty contest held at an in-bred family reunion.

HAHAHA, I'm not sure if I'd really agree with your analogy completely there, but it sure is one very amusing image!

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

SkyPilot — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:53:15 GMT

Risselada:

It seems like the Academy is kind of a club that you have to know someone in the club or impress someone in the club to get in. No wonder people find them so predictable. There aren't many dissenting opinions??

Yeah. I guess one could try to argue that the Oscars are therefore like a "trial by one's peers"...

But on a jury, one's "peers" are supposed to be disinterested. It's hard for me to imagine that a bunch of people in the movie business would be disinterested voters when they have something to gain from receiving nominations and awards for movies they produced, directed, starred in, etc.

So to put it very cynically, the Oscars resemble a beauty contest held at an in-bred family reunion.

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

Risselada — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:36:28 GMT

pippin06:

Sorry, I'm late with this post (and seeing yours). I got very sick. And the Producers is hard.

I'm sorry to hear that! How are you enjoying the show though? I didn't realize you were working on that one.

pippin06:

Risselada:

It may be that the official stance of the Academy is that this is just an award that is to mean something within the community itself, and maybe it was that way in the past. But you can't deny now that the Oscars are presented to the public as something of immense importance to the movie viewers. The event is televised and constantly advertised. The awards are plastered all over posters and DVDs as a selling point. And not to sound too cynical but my guess is that there are a lot of people in Hollywood who are more happy about who wins the Oscars not because they really appreciate the talent being rewarded as much as it may allow a movie that they are invested in to make more money. And maybe some people just like fame. Whether they want fame from the Hollywood circle or from the enitre public I don't know.

Ah...but who is doing the presenting? How does a media campaign even start? You're right - the Oscars might as well be the Super Bowl to some, but arguably, they arrived at this level of importance because there are enough people like me watching to generate the interest and media attention to drum up more viewers and give the awards credence, and the cycle continues. And yes, some are no doubt happy by the ultimate elevated receipts, and some are happy by the "fame," but that was not of the Academy's doing, historically. They've been going since well before TV was invented. And, don't you agree that having the tag "Oscar winner" in front of your name or film gets you cred in the community or even at large, unfairly or no?

Well it's like any situation with the media. It goes back and forth. The media tries to sense what people want and they give it back to them plus a little bit more. Then people get what they want plus a little bit of media invention or embellishment. They start to accept the little bit extra that was presented of it and think they want more of it. The media sees what they want and gives them more and then adds a little more... etc. So no doubt as the show was televised people took more interest. And as people took more interest, they advertised it more. And probably as it got to be more well known, movie studios started advertising actors or other people who worked on their films as oscar winners. And people already have enough of a celebrity worship that to see all these celebrities in a room honoring each other, they take stock in that kind of thing. I guess I'm kind of just repeating what you already acknowledged. I'm not sure why.

I won't deny that obviously many people give Oscar cred. I mean that's what the debate is about here. SHOULD we be giving the Oscar cred though? I'm saying that I'm not often inclinded to because of all the reasons we've been talking about.

pippin06:

Risselada:

Does the reception of an award really mean that much more than just the satisfaction of knowing that you are doing work that means something to you? I can understand the appeal. Heck I won a Grand Award (I know you know what those are Pippin) for best lead actor in a college production. I can't deny that I thought it would be cool to get one during my college career, although when I was in the play that I actually got it for I don't think I ever thought of it once. I guess it was extra cool to get it because I just wasn't expecting it at all. I don't think I know any of the people who run the show, and maybe in another cynical way I thought you had to be friends with someone to win. Also I didn't really think the play we did would be rewarded. I LOVE THE PLAY. It's one of my favorite plays, and I'm so glad I could have had that part in that play over anything else I've seen done at a college. But I guess since the play was so kind of uknown, and old, and different, and not too flashy that I didn't think anyone from an awards ceremony would be looking at it. I don't know if I conciously thought these things. Again I don't remember thinking about it at all. Maybe all of this is just revealing my predjudices against awards for the arts and award shows in general. I don't like there having to be someone who wins and someone who doesn't. I don't even like to play sports usually because of that. Maybe just because I'm bad at them and don't win. I just like playing them for fun, trying my best but not being disappointed if I don't win. Just try to learn something from it. But when you play against people who are all about winning and throwing it in your face, that's no fun. I think I've gone on a big stream of conciousness here....

Yes, you have ;-D. It's important to acknowledge the root of prejudice, though, even if it's against something as arguably trivial as the Oscars. To cover the points - I think to some, the reception of an award, especially one as prestigious as the Oscars, presents validation. And some people need outside validation, and Kate Winslet might be one of those people, among others. I mean, celebrities can be an insecure bunch en masse. Then again, it was her dream, and now her dream's come true. As to your Grand Award (yes, natch, I know what those are), it might not have done more for you, but that's you. So, we're back to the taste argument. For you, doing the play was rewarding enough, but some people want more. Basic human nature we're discussing now (oOoOo a discussion about the Oscars is broaching the philosophical. Slap me and call me Shirley!). And there's enough reinforcement for that need for validation amongst the community to keep putting on the showy Oscars, and there's enough interest from the public too. Now, unfortunately, contests need winners. Otherwise they wouldn't be contests, I think that's by definition. It's noble to hearken back to the Olympics of old, but this is America. Everything must be the best. Now, whether or not the Academy is right - well, we've already established that their decisions mean something to somebody, even if they come from a dodgy place.

Well I think we are getting to the root of it now. I can understand wanting validation from your peers, and particularly in the form of an award. It's a trap I can certainly fall into. And I call it a trap because for me I don't like it when I start to be consumed with those kinds of wants to require that kind of validation. Especially when it's a situation where it's a competition and only one person can win.

And then it gets more frustrating when people take a lot of stock in an award that I feel picks winners that I don't necessarily appreciate as much as some of the "competition". But then again, there are times when I like things that may be called subversive. And without having a mass of people liking and doing things that I don't agree with, there would be no enjoyment in being subversive. It's not that I WANT to be subversive just for it's own sake (I hope not) it just doesn't seem like the world is going to change.

I guess when we are rewarding art it's especially subjective. But I think if you look through history you will find that the best art usually is subversive and only truely recognized as the best after time. The best artists are not recognized often by their peers. This is a generalization of a complicated issue.

I do certainly like finding out what films receive acclaim from other filmmakers, especially onces I respect. But it doesn't need to have all of the dopey glitz and glamour for me, and there doesn't have to be just one winner. I guess that's why I like certain lists, like the Sight and Sound poll for instance.

pippin06:

Risselada:

I now have a question that I guess I could investigate on my own, but maybe you know already. Who exactly is "The Academy"? How do you get to be a member of The Acadamy and vote for these awards??

The Academy is comprised of actors, producers, directors, writers, technical folk - essentially peers of those nominated. Any member of the Academy has voting rights, but to become a member, it's an elite, by-the-book sponsorship system. Follow this link:

http://www.oscars.org/academy/members/invitations.html

The Oscars site also provides a history of the Academy and details about the organization's community efforts.

Thanks for sending me that link. It seems like the Academy is kind of a club that you have to know someone in the club or impress someone in the club to get in. No wonder people find them so predictable. There aren't many dissenting opinions??

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

pippin06 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:00:44 GMT

Sorry, I'm late with this post (and seeing yours). I got very sick. And the Producers is hard.

Risselada:

For some reason I feel kind of adverse to being called sophisticated since it drums up imagery of some kind of pompous personality, but I guess the actual definition just means more complex and experienced. I guess I can admit that I take interest in at least unearthing a basic knowledge of all types of films from all over the world and from every era. I don't want it to sound like I'm somehow a better filmwatcher or more important though. I'm not saying you are implying that, but I just want to make that clear.

'Twas all I was saying.

Risselada:

It may be that the official stance of the Academy is that this is just an award that is to mean something within the community itself, and maybe it was that way in the past. But you can't deny now that the Oscars are presented to the public as something of immense importance to the movie viewers. The event is televised and constantly advertised. The awards are plastered all over posters and DVDs as a selling point. And not to sound too cynical but my guess is that there are a lot of people in Hollywood who are more happy about who wins the Oscars not because they really appreciate the talent being rewarded as much as it may allow a movie that they are invested in to make more money. And maybe some people just like fame. Whether they want fame from the Hollywood circle or from the enitre public I don't know.

Ah...but who is doing the presenting? How does a media campaign even start? You're right - the Oscars might as well be the Super Bowl to some, but arguably, they arrived at this level of importance because there are enough people like me watching to generate the interest and media attention to drum up more viewers and give the awards credence, and the cycle continues. And yes, some are no doubt happy by the ultimate elevated receipts, and some are happy by the "fame," but that was not of the Academy's doing, historically. They've been going since well before TV was invented. And, don't you agree that having the tag "Oscar winner" in front of your name or film gets you cred in the community or even at large, unfairly or no?

Risselada:

Does the reception of an award really mean that much more than just the satisfaction of knowing that you are doing work that means something to you? I can understand the appeal. Heck I won a Grand Award (I know you know what those are Pippin) for best lead actor in a college production. I can't deny that I thought it would be cool to get one during my college career, although when I was in the play that I actually got it for I don't think I ever thought of it once. I guess it was extra cool to get it because I just wasn't expecting it at all. I don't think I know any of the people who run the show, and maybe in another cynical way I thought you had to be friends with someone to win. Also I didn't really think the play we did would be rewarded. I LOVE THE PLAY. It's one of my favorite plays, and I'm so glad I could have had that part in that play over anything else I've seen done at a college. But I guess since the play was so kind of uknown, and old, and different, and not too flashy that I didn't think anyone from an awards ceremony would be looking at it. I don't know if I conciously thought these things. Again I don't remember thinking about it at all. Maybe all of this is just revealing my predjudices against awards for the arts and award shows in general. I don't like there having to be someone who wins and someone who doesn't. I don't even like to play sports usually because of that. Maybe just because I'm bad at them and don't win. I just like playing them for fun, trying my best but not being disappointed if I don't win. Just try to learn something from it. But when you play against people who are all about winning and throwing it in your face, that's no fun. I think I've gone on a big stream of conciousness here....

Yes, you have ;-D. It's important to acknowledge the root of prejudice, though, even if it's against something as arguably trivial as the Oscars. To cover the points - I think to some, the reception of an award, especially one as prestigious as the Oscars, presents validation. And some people need outside validation, and Kate Winslet might be one of those people, among others. I mean, celebrities can be an insecure bunch en masse. Then again, it was her dream, and now her dream's come true. As to your Grand Award (yes, natch, I know what those are), it might not have done more for you, but that's you. So, we're back to the taste argument. For you, doing the play was rewarding enough, but some people want more. Basic human nature we're discussing now (oOoOo a discussion about the Oscars is broaching the philosophical. Slap me and call me Shirley!). And there's enough reinforcement for that need for validation amongst the community to keep putting on the showy Oscars, and there's enough interest from the public too. Now, unfortunately, contests need winners. Otherwise they wouldn't be contests, I think that's by definition. It's noble to hearken back to the Olympics of old, but this is America. Everything must be the best. Now, whether or not the Academy is right - well, we've already established that their decisions mean something to somebody, even if they come from a dodgy place.

Risselada:

I now have a question that I guess I could investigate on my own, but maybe you know already. Who exactly is "The Academy"? How do you get to be a member of The Acadamy and vote for these awards??

The Academy is comprised of actors, producers, directors, writers, technical folk - essentially peers of those nominated. Any member of the Academy has voting rights, but to become a member, it's an elite, by-the-book sponsorship system. Follow this link:

http://www.oscars.org/academy/members/invitations.html

The Oscars site also provides a history of the Academy and details about the organization's community efforts.

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

Risselada — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:47:36 GMT

pippin06:

Risselada:

As for many of the other points, I would like to start out by saying I do not recognize such a distiction between art and entertainment in movies as maybe you do Pippin.

Actually, I don't make the distinction, per se, but I think a lot of other people do. That was my point, kind of a generalization on my part of sorts, but a fair one. I think you have a sophisticated take on movie-watching. I don't think there are tons of people who have the same take, or at least the same level of sophistication. I know I don't, which is what I hoped I was trying to say but probably didn't say very well. I think I'm somewhere quite shy of your sophisticated take but more gray than the black-and-white, hot-and-cold way it's often discussed by movie critics, film fans, etc. That's why I said I was the "median." I think you're absolutely right, that entertainment can have artistic value and art can have entertainment value. Ultimately, that's what I believe too, and my point, albeit not quite so articulately stated, was that I think the Academy tries to see it the same way. I'm, of course, giving them the benefit of the massive doubt...

For some reason I feel kind of adverse to being called sophisticated since it drums up imagery of some kind of pompous personality, but I guess the actual definition just means more complex and experienced. I guess I can admit that I take interest in at least unearthing a basic knowledge of all types of films from all over the world and from every era. I don't want it to sound like I'm somehow a better filmwatcher or more important though. I'm not saying you are implying that, but I just want to make that clear.

Otherwise, yeah I can agree with you that there are a lot of people who like to separate art and entertainment when talking about films. If you are not one of them, that's good to know. ;)

pippin06:

Risselada:

I find that a lot of the movies that come out of Hollywood and that are recognized and mentioned at the Academy Awards are more often movies that present certain worldviews I find distasteful. Many of them are simplified worldviews, often just reinforcing a constructed set of values accepted by popular society. These sets of values were generally created by a back and forth between the media reinforcing certain values and people accepting them, and eventually the values are so accepted that in order to make money the media needs to keep recreating them. To question them is artistic, but not often profitable. Maybe not entertaining the the highest percentage of people, but probably still more entertaining and thought provoking to people who care about such things if given a chance to see them. This of course is a generalization. There are of course many, many great films that come from Hollywood and are mentioned at the Academy Awards, but this is a general trend I see.

And this is fair. Absolutely fair. But, again, you're approaching it from the movie-viewer perspective. Your disappointment and Adam's disappointment may be two shades of the same color; I was differentiating between the Oscars as a substantive measurement for the movie-maker, which some viewers (myself included) take to heart while others think are hooey because their values/tastes/etc. don't align. You don't, perhaps, agree with their methods, trends, evaluation criteria, process, media reinforcment, etc....that's why there are things like film festivals or your own general and personal research to drive you toward movies you might enjoy more that challenge you, entertain you, etc.

It may be that the official stance of the Academy is that this is just an award that is to mean something within the community itself, and maybe it was that way in the past. But you can't deny now that the Oscars are presented to the public as something of immense importance to the movie viewers. The event is televised and constantly advertised. The awards are plastered all over posters and DVDs as a selling point. And not to sound too cynical but my guess is that there are a lot of people in Hollywood who are more happy about who wins the Oscars not because they really appreciate the talent being rewarded as much as it may allow a movie that they are invested in to make more money. And maybe some people just like fame. Whether they want fame from the Hollywood circle or from the enitre public I don't know. Kate Winslett I saw in her acceptance speech said she had been dreaming of and reeneacting receiving an Oscar since she was a little girl. Does the reception of an award really mean that much more than just the satisfaction of knowing that you are doing work that means something to you? I can understand the appeal. Heck I won a Grand Award (I know you know what those are Pippin) for best lead actor in a college production. I can't deny that I thought it would be cool to get one during my college career, although when I was in the play that I actually got it for I don't think I ever thought of it once. I guess it was extra cool to get it because I just wasn't expecting it at all. I don't think I know any of the people who run the show, and maybe in another cynical way I thought you had to be friends with someone to win. Also I didn't really think the play we did would be rewarded. I LOVE THE PLAY. It's one of my favorite plays, and I'm so glad I could have had that part in that play over anything else I've seen done at a college. But I guess since the play was so kind of uknown, and old, and different, and not too flashy that I didn't think anyone from an awards ceremony would be looking at it. I don't know if I conciously thought these things. Again I don't remember thinking about it at all. Maybe all of this is just revealing my predjudices against awards for the arts and award shows in general. I don't like there having to be someone who wins and someone who doesn't. I don't even like to play sports usually because of that. Maybe just because I'm bad at them and don't win. I just like playing them for fun, trying my best but not being disappointed if I don't win. Just try to learn something from it. But when you play against people who are all about winning and throwing it in your face, that's no fun. I think I've gone on a big stream of conciousness here....

pippin06:

Risselada:

Also I think it is alway a matter of taste. As for the argument of how someone can claim authority to name a movie the "best picture", I think it is absurd for anyone to do so. It would be more appropriate to call the awards "favorite picture". In my talks about films I try to never claim that one film is better than another, although it's hard not to use words like that. In the end I'm just saying I have a preference over one.

For instance a lot of people LOVE musicals. I find the worldview that most of them bring to be mostly unchallenging and the fact the people are singing and dancing kind of makes any kind of statement they are making a bit absurd (of course there are many musicals I do enjoy, so I have to do some more self investigation as to whether these are the exact reasons for my distaste of some over others). Pippin you say the Academy Awards are largely about entertainment. With all of the glitz and glamour and singing and dancing musical numbers that are part of the ceremony, I can see that people consider it entertainment. I generally just don't find it entertaining. There's no arguing on that. It's just a matter of taste. But there are moments of the ceremony where they do try to take this pretentious role, and as far as my taste goes it generally doesn't mesh well for me.

Some people like musicals because they just like the songs and dances, ok? Sheesh, you're killing me here :-D. No, not really, but I do like musicals. I was essentially saying the same thing. It is a matter of taste. It's a value judgment. It's all of that. But the Oscars (the awards themselves) are really not for the viewers. The primary purpose served is for the moviemakers, but there will be sheep, like me, who use the Oscars as a stepping stone toward recommendable films. (I admit I'm a sheep. But! I'm also a sheep that likes to stray very far from the pasture.) You don't have to find the Oscars entertaining, and the Oscars certainly arrive at a level of pretention from time to time. That's been long cultivated (see my previous responses). The whole moral of my position can best be summed up this way: the Oscars are for the filmmakers. Oscars offer them prestige and money and a highly recognizable statuette. Some non-filmmakers (viewers) like the Oscars to find recommendable movies, some like the ceremony, some like the entertainment, some put stock in the "Best" titles, and then again, some don't like the Oscars at all, and no one has to like them. If you don't think they're meaningful for you, there are lots of other places to look. In the meantime, they still put on a show for the people who've been nominated. They make it an event, not only for them, but for ticket-buying people like myself who take stock in them.

See, there's really like three separate and distinct topics being discussed that've been all rolled up into one: whether the Oscars are substantive; whether the Oscars make valid judgments; and whether the Oscars are entertainment for entertainment's sake. I think the Oscars are substantive for the reasons I stated; whether their judgments are valid really depends on the individual viewer (as you stated, their "tastes") but to the moviemakers, Oscars are instant cred; and I think the awards show itself is actually meant to be entertaining (not the awards being awarded in general) for the people who attend and for the people who care to watch it on TV.

Again, regarding your statement that the Oscars are for the movie makers, I would just repeat what I said above.

I now have a question that I guess I could investigate on my own, but maybe you know already. Who exactly is "The Academy"? How do you get to be a member of The Acadamy and vote for these awards??

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

pippin06 — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:40:35 GMT

Spout's acting funny and wouldn't let me post the link in that last reply. Grr.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/best_of_the_best_pictures/?cmpid=rtnewsletter_02_27_09

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

pippin06 — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:37:58 GMT

Y'all may know that I enjoy Rotten Tomatoes...I like tomatoes, and I like the way the website presents "aggregate" reviews compiled from critics' takes and also users' comments. Plus, there's nothing so good as a fresh tomato. Almost as if the RT staff were keeping tabs on this conversation, RT actually created a list ranking all 82 Best Pictures from worst to best, and believe me, some of them got that little green splat symbol. I thought it was highly interesting, given this particular convo, some of the thoughts expressed, and mentions of pictures like Titantic and this year's Slumdog Millionaire. I post the article's Intro section to whet your appetite and then the link to quell it....

"Each February, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences presents a statuette to the film it feels embodies the finest in cinema from the previous year. But despite all the prestige surrounding Oscar, he isn't perfect; many of the Academy's selections through the years have sparked vigorous water cooler debates. And every year, we take a fond (and occasionally, not-so-fond) look back at Best Picture winners of Oscars past, as compiled by the typically strict and rigorous standards of Tomatometer science. From the undisputed classics (Casablanca, Lawrence of Arabia) to the dubious selections ( The Broadway Melody), we’ve ranked every Best Picture winner from Wings to Slumdog Millionaire. How many have you seen? Where do your favorites rank? Check out RT’s Best of the Best Pictures to find out!"

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

pippin06 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:08:54 GMT

Ok, Rizzo, your turn :-D. Jk, I actually don't have too much to add, just wanted to respond to a couple of your thoughts.

Risselada:

As for many of the other points, I would like to start out by saying I do not recognize such a distiction between art and entertainment in movies as maybe you do Pippin.

Actually, I don't make the distinction, per se, but I think a lot of other people do. That was my point, kind of a generalization on my part of sorts, but a fair one. I think you have a sophisticated take on movie-watching. I don't think there are tons of people who have the same take, or at least the same level of sophistication. I know I don't, which is what I hoped I was trying to say but probably didn't say very well. I think I'm somewhere quite shy of your sophisticated take but more gray than the black-and-white, hot-and-cold way it's often discussed by movie critics, film fans, etc. That's why I said I was the "median." I think you're absolutely right, that entertainment can have artistic value and art can have entertainment value. Ultimately, that's what I believe too, and my point, albeit not quite so articulately stated, was that I think the Academy tries to see it the same way. I'm, of course, giving them the benefit of the massive doubt...

Risselada:

I find that a lot of the movies that come out of Hollywood and that are recognized and mentioned at the Academy Awards are more often movies that present certain worldviews I find distasteful. Many of them are simplified worldviews, often just reinforcing a constructed set of values accepted by popular society. These sets of values were generally created by a back and forth between the media reinforcing certain values and people accepting them, and eventually the values are so accepted that in order to make money the media needs to keep recreating them. To question them is artistic, but not often profitable. Maybe not entertaining the the highest percentage of people, but probably still more entertaining and thought provoking to people who care about such things if given a chance to see them. This of course is a generalization. There are of course many, many great films that come from Hollywood and are mentioned at the Academy Awards, but this is a general trend I see.

And this is fair. Absolutely fair. But, again, you're approaching it from the movie-viewer perspective. Your disappointment and Adam's disappointment may be two shades of the same color; I was differentiating between the Oscars as a substantive measurement for the movie-maker, which some viewers (myself included) take to heart while others think are hooey because their values/tastes/etc. don't align. You don't, perhaps, agree with their methods, trends, evaluation criteria, process, media reinforcment, etc....that's why there are things like film festivals or your own general and personal research to drive you toward movies you might enjoy more that challenge you, entertain you, etc.

Risselada:

Also I think it is alway a matter of taste. As for the argument of how someone can claim authority to name a movie the "best picture", I think it is absurd for anyone to do so. It would be more appropriate to call the awards "favorite picture". In my talks about films I try to never claim that one film is better than another, although it's hard not to use words like that. In the end I'm just saying I have a preference over one.

For instance a lot of people LOVE musicals. I find the worldview that most of them bring to be mostly unchallenging and the fact the people are singing and dancing kind of makes any kind of statement they are making a bit absurd (of course there are many musicals I do enjoy, so I have to do some more self investigation as to whether these are the exact reasons for my distaste of some over others). Pippin you say the Academy Awards are largely about entertainment. With all of the glitz and glamour and singing and dancing musical numbers that are part of the ceremony, I can see that people consider it entertainment. I generally just don't find it entertaining. There's no arguing on that. It's just a matter of taste. But there are moments of the ceremony where they do try to take this pretentious role, and as far as my taste goes it generally doesn't mesh well for me.

Some people like musicals because they just like the songs and dances, ok? Sheesh, you're killing me here :-D. No, not really, but I do like musicals. I was essentially saying the same thing. It is a matter of taste. It's a value judgment. It's all of that. But the Oscars (the awards themselves) are really not for the viewers. The primary purpose served is for the moviemakers, but there will be sheep, like me, who use the Oscars as a stepping stone toward recommendable films. (I admit I'm a sheep. But! I'm also a sheep that likes to stray very far from the pasture.) You don't have to find the Oscars entertaining, and the Oscars certainly arrive at a level of pretention from time to time. That's been long cultivated (see my previous responses). The whole moral of my position can best be summed up this way: the Oscars are for the filmmakers. Oscars offer them prestige and money and a highly recognizable statuette. Some non-filmmakers (viewers) like the Oscars to find recommendable movies, some like the ceremony, some like the entertainment, some put stock in the "Best" titles, and then again, some don't like the Oscars at all, and no one has to like them. If you don't think they're meaningful for you, there are lots of other places to look. In the meantime, they still put on a show for the people who've been nominated. They make it an event, not only for them, but for ticket-buying people like myself who take stock in them.

See, there's really like three separate and distinct topics being discussed that've been all rolled up into one: whether the Oscars are substantive; whether the Oscars make valid judgments; and whether the Oscars are entertainment for entertainment's sake. I think the Oscars are substantive for the reasons I stated; whether their judgments are valid really depends on the individual viewer (as you stated, their "tastes") but to the moviemakers, Oscars are instant cred; and I think the awards show itself is actually meant to be entertaining (not the awards being awarded in general) for the people who attend and for the people who care to watch it on TV.

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

pippin06 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:34:25 GMT

SkyPilot:

PIPPIN: En guarde!

SKYPILOT: Touche!

But first I'll tie my arms behind my back: I haven't seen Slumdog, I've only read reviews and listened to my FilmCouch friends hash it out and re-hash it!

I'll carry on like the Black Knight (I like your metaphor) -- Films I'd like to have seen nominated over Frost/Nixon, which is the only contender I saw (there go my legs!): Gran Torino, The Wrestler.]

Come here pippin, I'll bite your ankles until you yield! No, but seriously, you've helped me see the Academy in a new way. I'm not less disappointed in them, but I'm less bitter about them. :D Next year I'll probably just play Boggle instead of tuning in.

LOL! Well, I understand your disappointment. You wouldn't be the first and won't be the last (see also: Rizzo's post below...reply to come) to express at least disappointment with the Oscar process. But, at least that bitterness thing has been diminished somewhat. I feel like I accomplished something. No one should live with bitterness. It causes indigestion. :-D.

Incidentally, I agree with you...Gran Torino not getting nominated for anything was quite a snub. I forgot to mention it in the Predictions and Commentary thread, but I don't always have days when I can write some of my treatise-like posts here on Spout. The Wrestler at least got nominated for Actor (but snubbed for Song...that one I did mention).

PS I like Boggle. I also like my ankles, so no biting! :-D.

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

Risselada — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:53:14 GMT

Ok, I've been watching this thread for the last couple days without time to respond and it's been interesting, but here are some of my thoughts.

SkyPilot:

P.S. -- I thought Stiller's impression was pretty funny. It wasn't 'realistic' but I thought it showed good comic timing. I'll agree to disagree, since you are, after all, a professional comedian. :)

Oh it was a very good impression! Like I said, I really thought it was Joaquin from the picture. And if they hadn't said "Ben Stiller" when he came out I think everyone would have wondered if it really was him. But by just looking like him and repeating his actions without really introducing any new context what are they saying? It just reveals that everyone thinks Joaquin is crazy or just a joke. Maybe he is crazy, but if so it's a great crazy! And if it is a joke, then the joke is on those people. So that's just what I was saying. I've become fascinated by the guy. Maybe because he seems to be showing a contempt for the Hollywood world, which is I guess the same thing that is a bit of the disagreement here in this thread. Of course it's more complicated than that.

And please, I'm not a professional commedian. I think professional implies that I'm somehow making money off of it, which has been quite rare.

As for many of the other points, I would like to start out by saying I do not recognize such a distiction between art and entertainment in movies as maybe you do Pippin. If I find a movie artistic I often also take some entertainment away from it. If I am entertained by a movie, it's usually because I can also say there is some art to it. Also, unless a movie is just an exploration of abstract sound and color, if it is a narrative of sorts that features actors and a story it is presenting a view of how the world works. Whether it's a movie that explicitly proposes that it should be taken seriously, or some kind of goofy comedy it is presenting you with a worldview. I find that a lot of the movies that come out of Hollywood and that are recognized and mentioned at the Academy Awards are more often movies that present certain worldviews I find distasteful. Many of them are simplified worldviews, often just reinforcing a constructed set of values accepted by popular society. These sets of values were generally created by a back and forth between the media reinforcing certain values and people accepting them, and eventually the values are so accepted that in order to make money the media needs to keep recreating them. To question them is artistic, but not often profitable. Maybe not entertaining the the highest percentage of people, but probably still more entertaining and thought provoking to people who care about such things if given a chance to see them. This of course is a generalization. There are of course many, many great films that come from Hollywood and are mentioned at the Academy Awards, but this is a general trend I see.

Also I think it is alway a matter of taste. As for the argument of how someone can claim authority to name a movie the "best picture", I think it is absurd for anyone to do so. It would be more appropriate to call the awards "favorite picture". In my talks about films I try to never claim that one film is better than another, although it's hard not to use words like that. In the end I'm just saying I have a preference over one.

For instance a lot of people LOVE musicals. I find the worldview that most of them bring to be mostly unchallenging and the fact the people are singing and dancing kind of makes any kind of statement they are making a bit absurd (of course there are many musicals I do enjoy, so I have to do some more self investigation as to whether these are the exact reasons for my distaste of some over others). Pippin you say the Academy Awards are largely about entertainment. With all of the glitz and glamour and singing and dancing musical numbers that are part of the ceremony, I can see that people consider it entertainment. I generally just don't find it entertaining. There's no arguing on that. It's just a matter of taste. But there are moments of the ceremony where they do try to take this pretentious role, and as far as my taste goes it generally doesn't mesh well for me.

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

SkyPilot — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:47:55 GMT

pippin06:

Yes--of course--they are making a value judgment. They're making a widely recognized, highly sought-after, decades-acknowledged value judgment. But that's my point: you're looking at it from a movie-viewer's perspective. The Oscars are still ultimately for the movie-makers (even if the broadcast is designed to rope in viewers and their ticket-buying dollars).

Great point.

pippin06:

Now, if you, as a viewer, are looking for solid recommendations for your own viewing purposes, and if you've disagreed with past choices (i.e. Titanic), then you are not going to agree with the Oscars...However, the Academy is comprised of people within the motion picture-making community, and the members voted for Slumdog Millionaire. Is it the best of the year? Maybe not in your opinion...but the Academy's opinion certainly matters to the people ultimately providing their membership and being eligible for their nominations...and to a few others too.

Also a good point.

pippin06:

Ah, but aren't you also making a value judgment? You are suggesting that Titanic is not worthy of excellence and suggesting that the Academy, by awarding Titanic or Slumdog Millionaire Best Picture, is contradicting its very purpose...but how do you know that?

I was suggesting that Titanic and Slumdog Millionaire were not the most excellent pictures. And yes, I'm making a value judgment, I think fostering judgment is a great thing for the arts and the people who enjoy them. Pursuit of value, understanding, truth, etc.

pippin06:

...I like to think that the Academy tries to keep it all--art and entertainment--in mind because its nominating and voting members are just like me - humans who love movies. So, some years, they might be inclined to make sentimental choices toward the "entertainment" flicks over the "artsy" ones, even if arguably the choices are not the artistically best. But, do you agree that at least they've nominated five really good flicks that might be some worthwhile movie recommendations;"

Great points again.

pippin06:

Of course, I always wonder, when someone is condemning a Best Picture choice, if the person doing the panning saw all the nominees (or even all of the eligible pictures of the year) and feels savvy enough to offer their best alternative?

PIPPIN: En guarde!

SKYPILOT: Touche!

But first I'll tie my arms behind my back: I haven't seen Slumdog, I've only read reviews and listened to my FilmCouch friends hash it out and re-hash it!

I'll carry on like the Black Knight (I like your metaphor) -- Films I'd like to have seen nominated over Frost/Nixon, which is the only contender I saw (there go my legs!): Gran Torino, The Wrestler.

Come here pippin, I'll bite your ankles until you yield! No, but seriously, you've helped me see the Academy in a new way. I'm not less disappointed in them, but I'm less bitter about them. :D Next year I'll probably just play Boggle instead of tuning in.

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

pippin06 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:12:40 GMT

SkyPilot:

Academy: authoritative? The Academy claims authority. Would you agree that calling an award "Best Picture" signifies that they're making a value judgment? That they believe some movies are actually better, more accomplished, more deserving of praise than other movies?

Yes--of course--they are making a value judgment. They're making a widely recognized, highly sought-after, decades-acknowledged value judgment. But that's my point: you're looking at it from a movie-viewer's perspective. The Oscars are still ultimately for the movie-makers (even if the broadcast is designed to rope in viewers and their ticket-buying dollars). Now, if you, as a viewer, are looking for solid recommendations for your own viewing purposes, and if you've disagreed with past choices (i.e. Titanic), then you are not going to agree with the Oscars and probably think they are crap and a lot of frivolous hooey, to get really technical here. There are other places to go to formulate your viewing pleasures. That's why I brought up places like Sundance. However, the Academy is comprised of people within the motion picture-making community, and the members voted for Slumdog Millionaire. Is it the best of the year? Maybe not in your opinion...but the Academy's opinion certainly matters to the people ultimately providing their membership and being eligible for their nominations...and to a few others too.

SkyPilot:

This being my assumption, many of the Academy's value judgments (for example, Titanic as Best Picture) make it hard for me to take the Academy seriously when they say they're "Dedicated to the advancement of the arts and sciences of motion pictures" (a quote taken from their official webpage, oscars.org). But...

Ah, but aren't you also making a value judgment? You are suggesting that Titanic is not worthy of excellence and suggesting that the Academy, by awarding Titanic or Slumdog Millionaire Best Picture, is contradicting its very purpose...but how do you know that? See below.

SkyPilot:

I don't mind that a lot of people liked Titanic, but popularity isn't equal to excellence.

And there blooms another point of contention..............excellence. In short, I believe in it.

:)

Cheeky. :-P

This is my favorite part of your post because it kind of goes to thoughts I've been having about things and how I approach evaluating a film when I'm, say, writing a review about it. I've decided, personally, that I'm the average of all Spout users. I'm the median between those who look at a film for its artistic excellence and those who look at a film strictly to be entertained. I think I take a more populist approach to films. I want both. If the movie has both, it's a damn fine film, indeed. I think a film can be excellent as a strict piece of popular entertainment, though, too (which is why I have problems with words like "overrated"). And I like to think that the Academy tries to keep it all--art and entertainment--in mind because its nominating and voting members are just like me - humans who love movies. So, some years, they might be inclined to make sentimental choices toward the "entertainment" flicks over the "artsy" ones, even if arguably the choices are not the artistically best. But, do you agree that at least they've nominated five really good flicks that might be some worthwhile movie recommendations; in other words, Slumdog may not be the best of the five nominated films, but at least the five nominated are considered the "top 5" of the year, and aren't they worthwhile to take a look at? Of course, I always wonder, when someone is condemning a Best Picture choice, if the person doing the panning saw all the nominees (or even all of the eligible pictures of the year) and feels savvy enough to offer their best alternative? Because it's one thing to say the Academy is questionable in its own value judgments, but what makes the detractor the expert? In other words, if the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences aren't the actual experts, who is, and what makes the detractor's value judgment more valid than the Academy's?

Of course, I am trying to avoid the "In defense of Titanic" argument. I've played that game before, and it feels to me like a recreation of the Black Knight scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where I'm playing the part of the Black Knight with my limbs cut off while I'm still calling it all a draw lol. We can always disagree with the Academy. That's half the fun of dissecting the Oscars; I have at least one major disagreement with at least one category's selected winners every year - this year, though I haven't seen Slumdog, I'm thinking it's going to be Cinematography. But! For every someone who disagrees, there's a someone who thinks the Academy presents some worthwhile options to explore. I think this thread is a case in point! :-D

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

SkyPilot — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:27:28 GMT

pippin06:

...I don't think Academy and Awards are a contradiction in terms...

I wasn't very clear here, was I? I don't think authority ("Academy") and entertainment ("Awards") are a contradiction in terms. I just didn't think the Academy was particularly authoritative or entertaining this year.

It's no mystery how I can say I wasn't entertained, but I must defend my claim that the Academy wasn't authoritative. I will do that below.

pippin06:

I guess I'm trying to understand who you are speaking about, who sees the Awards "as doing work -- or attempting to do work -- of real substance."

Academy: authoritative? The Academy claims authority. Would you agree that calling an award "Best Picture" signifies that they're making a value judgment? That they believe some movies are actually better, more accomplished, more deserving of praise than other movies?

This being my assumption, many of the Academy's value judgments (for example, Titanic as Best Picture) make it hard for me to take the Academy seriously when they say they're "Dedicated to the advancement of the arts and sciences of motion pictures" (a quote taken from their official webpage, oscars.org). But...

Academy: worthwhile? Now that I'm looking into some of the non-profit activities of the Academy, I am actually impressed with them. According to their webpage, selling the telecasting rights to the Academy Awards is their big cash cow, and this helps me cut them some slack for (what appears to be) their self-importance on Oscar night: they've been financing the arts all year long!

pippin06:

Sorry you were unimpressed.

No fault of yours, of course, but I was so unimpressed, I started to wonder just how valuable the Academy is. I'm finding out they do some pretty good stuff. (Incidentally, I'm finding that this is how my mind often works: When I feel myself having a strong emotional reaction, I try to investigate logically whether or not these strong impressions are warranted.)

pippin06:

PS, knock Titanic all you want, but it remains one of the top 10 grossers of all time; it must have connected to somebody.

I don't mind that a lot of people liked Titanic, but popularity isn't equal to excellence.

And there blooms another point of contention..............excellence. In short, I believe in it.

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

pippin06 — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:26:34 GMT

SkyPilot:

I disagree with you, pippin -- it seems the Academy has made continuous attempts to be seen as doing work of real substance, albeit in an entertaining format.

But you're right that the Oscars can never please everybody, especially when they're trying to be two things at once. Aren't the two words in the title, "Academy" and "Awards," like signposts toward the dual goals of the whole enterprise?

Academy?

If anyone views the Academy Awards in just the first way--as weighty words from an authoritative Academy--then such a person has much to be disappointed about. The Titanic of 2008 has just won Best Picture.

Awards?

If someone only sees the Academy Awards in the second way--as the mother of all showbiz extravaganzas--I can see why such a person would be more satisfied with the event. There was a lot that was fairly entertaining in this year's broadcast, but it's easy to forget that many of these actors are inarticulate and boring when they're given a statuette and a microphone.

I think my main point is that I'm getting older (26!) and crotchety, and I'm losing patience with the bloated Academy and any "entertainment" that doesn't entertain me.

whining like a mule,

adam

Oh Adam - if you're crotchety at 26, what does that make me when I have five years (or so) on you????

I guess I'm trying to understand who you are speaking about, who sees the Awards "as doing work -- or attempting to do work -- of real substance." To the moviemaker, of course they're substantive. The Oscar is the ultimate recognition for something the moviemaker has made, and whether deserving or not, Oscar has been and will always be the end-all, be-all in in moviemaking recognition. They are the Academy because they are acknowledged as such.

To the moviegoer, they may not seem so substantive, and you may be one of those moviegoers. I look at the broadcast as Awards of entertainment for entertainment, but then again, I place more stock in the Academy than say Sundance (or other film festivals) because I don't get to go to those festivals. I get to watch the Awards on TV. So, they're substantive to me.

And as covered as they are by news outlets of every type, someone must think they're substantive enough to pay attention to them.

But ultimately, the broadcast itself is supposed to be entertainment. Why, then, go through all the trouble of finding a host and staging elaborate musical numbers? But not everyone is going to be entertained. True, some actors need scripts (and can't read a teleprompter to save their lives). But, they are what they are. Sorry you were unimpressed. I wasn't particularly elated by them, but I felt that the producers really tried to put on a show this year, and, like I said, comparatively they were better than last year.

I don't think Academy and Awards are a contradiction in terms, by the by. Again, it depends on your perspective. Meryl Streep, one of the greatest actresses of all time (imho), has been nominated a record number of times, has won twice, and she still keeps showing up. That should mean something to somebody because it means something to her. :-D

PS, knock Titanic all you want, but it remains one of the top 10 grossers of all time; it must have connected to somebody. Plus, I still like that movie, and I don't care who knows it. He's king of the world, dammit. If Slumdog translates similarly, I'll probably like it after all! :-D

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

SkyPilot — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:25:22 GMT

pippin06:

...as far as I'm concerned, the Oscars will never win. To be fair, it will never be a show of substance, and why should it be? They're awards for entertainment, movie entertainment, and, let's face it, movies are still entertainment. Movies can be a valid, thought-provoking, and intelligent medium for entertainment, but that's what they are at their core.

I disagree with you, pippin -- it seems the Academy has made continuous attempts to be seen as doing work of real substance, albeit in an entertaining format.

But you're right that the Oscars can never please everybody, especially when they're trying to be two things at once. Aren't the two words in the title, "Academy" and "Awards," like signposts toward the dual goals of the whole enterprise?

Academy?

If anyone views the Academy Awards in just the first way--as weighty words from an authoritative Academy--then such a person has much to be disappointed about. The Titanic of 2008 has just won Best Picture.

Awards?

If someone only sees the Academy Awards in the second way--as the mother of all showbiz extravaganzas--I can see why such a person would be more satisfied with the event. There was a lot that was fairly entertaining in this year's broadcast, but it's easy to forget that many of these actors are inarticulate and boring when they're given a statuette and a microphone.

I think my main point is that I'm getting older (26!) and crotchety, and I'm losing patience with the bloated Academy and any "entertainment" that doesn't entertain me.

whining like a mule,

adam

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

pippin06 — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:35:36 GMT

Well, I liked it all, and as far as I'm concerned, the Oscars will never win. To be fair, it will never be a show of substance, and why should it be? They're awards for entertainment, movie entertainment, and, let's face it, movies are still entertainment. Movies can be a valid, thought-provoking, and intelligent medium for entertainment, but that's what they are at their core. Besides, whenever the Oscars get political or too topical, people get all hot and bothered about that, too. Jon Stewart not being asked back is a marker for that attitude.

Imho, It was infinitely more exciting than last year's ceremony. No Oscars ceremony has been perfect, at least not since the Billy Crystal days. There are the occasional moments that stand out. I liked Ben Stiller's mock of Joaquin (because he made that whole bunch of crap much more ridiculous) and Tina Fey and Steve Martin and a few of the other presenting teams (though not Jennifer Aniston and Jack Black, that was a little uncomfortable). I liked the actor-to-actor testimonials, the big musical numbers, and Hugh didn't try to be funny for too long, and that was ok by me too. None of the acceptance speeches ran on for miles and hours. To me, I would consider the ceremony a success. Plus, I'm marginally more excited about the films up for the awards this year than last year, at any rate. There are some I'm chomping at the bit to see, not the least of which includes Doubt, Frost/Nixon, The Reader, and Revolutionary Road (and I guess Slumdog too, but, sheesh...that better be some darn good movie with all the gold it got).

Though I agree with Rizzo, I had a problem with the In Memoriam section and its presentation. Queen Latifah's song was pretty, but she should have been in the background, and the photos should have been shown more straightforwardly. That part always makes me shed a tear, and I was frustrated because I like to reflect. I forgot that Roy Scheider passed this past year, and RIP Paul Newman (and all).

And I loved Kate Winslet's dress. What a dress to win an Oscar in. I want one. Best ensem I saw all evening.

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

spout — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:10:45 GMT

Risselada:

You bastard!...Now I finally watch it and realize it's just Ben Stiller doing some lame impression! Dang, I wish it really was Joaquin. How stupid.

The most exciting part was when I realized that Richard Jenkins was nominated for an Oscar!...

The most disappointing part was when they did the retrospective of who had died that past year...

Dude, honestly sorry to have misled you. I was trying to "go along" with Stiller's joke, but sometimes I forget that tone doesn't come off so well in the written word.

I agree that the retrospective was a little off-putting. I could tell they were trying to 'keep it fresh,' but didn't they film it in a swaying, drunken sailor rhythm?

You mention how excited you were to find out Jenkins was nominated--I can relate to that. There was some real drama in rooting for my favorite actors, whether they won or lost, but I considered most of the night to be less than interesting.

P.S. -- I thought Stiller's impression was pretty funny. It wasn't 'realistic' but I thought it showed good comic timing. I'll agree to disagree, since you are, after all, a professional comedian. :)

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

Risselada — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:58:02 GMT

SkyPilot:

I loved the appearances of Tina Fey and Steve Martin ("Don't fall in love with me"), of Natalie Portman and "Joaquin Phoenix," and the video with Seth Rogen and James Franco.

I couldn't find decent clips of all of these moments, but here's Natalie and Joaquin:

Moments like this made me realize how bored I was with everything else on the show!

Around 11:30, my mounting boredom gelled into a 'buzzkill revelation' -- All of the Kodak Theater's millions of dollars of production value, and this broadcast to upwards of 50 million viewers, is all centered on some (admittedly talented) people saying almost nothing of value!

I mean this in all seriousness: I think the Oscars ceremony would be far more intriguing if the ceremony were only photographed. Then when I'd see a picture of Hugh Jackman singing with Anne Hathaway, I'd wish I could've seen the whole event. As it is, I wish my friends and I had, instead of watching the Oscars, played Boggle.

You bastard! I opened this post at work where I can't hear any audio, and all I saw was the still image of Joaquin with Natalie Portman. And you call him Joaquin too! And I actually didn't see most of the Oscars and I couldn't believe I had missed this. Now I finally watch it and realize it's just Ben Stiller doing some lame impression! Dang, I wish it really was Joaquin. How stupid.

Yeah as I said I didn't see much of it. Maybe the last half or third while I was eating with my girlfriend.

The most exciting part was when I realized that Richard Jenkins was nominated for an Oscar! Of course he didn't win, but I didn't realize before hand that he was even nominated. Now I'm looking at the movie he was nominated for and realize it's one that people had been talking about way back at the beginning of 2008. Actually IMDB says the movie was released first in 2007. I guess I ought to see that one.

The most disappointing part was when they did the retrospective of who had died that past year because the screen was always in the background with Queen Latifa singing in the forground. You couldn't even see the text on the screen! Whose lame idea was that? It's more of a disrespect to the dead people than an honor.

81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

SkyPilot — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:41:46 GMT

I loved the appearances of Tina Fey and Steve Martin ("Don't fall in love with me"), of Natalie Portman and "Joaquin Phoenix," and the video with Seth Rogen and James Franco.

I couldn't find decent clips of all of these moments, but here's Natalie and Joaquin:

Moments like this made me realize how bored I was with everything else on the show!

Around 11:30, my mounting boredom gelled into a 'buzzkill revelation' -- All of the Kodak Theater's millions of dollars of production value, and this broadcast to upwards of 50 million viewers, is all centered on some (admittedly talented) people saying almost nothing of value!

I mean this in all seriousness: I think the Oscars ceremony would be far more intriguing if the ceremony were only photographed. Then when I'd see a picture of Hugh Jackman singing with Anne Hathaway, I'd wish I could've seen the whole event. As it is, I wish my friends and I had, instead of watching the Oscars, played Boggle.