It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!

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

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?

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?

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....

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

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:

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.