It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!

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

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?

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?

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. 

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.

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

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