Oscar grouchiness
Patrick Goldstein’s article about Hollywood’s Oscar obsession is worth a read:
The Oscars have become a circular firing squad, touted and debated by a small coterie of Oscar publicists, bloggers, marketers, agents, producers and antsy studio executives–all talking to themselves. The public has grown bored with the whole charade. They’d rather be watching “American Idol,” which has far more verve and sense of immediacy. We no longer live in a quality culture, or more accurately, a culture that aspires to quality.
Goldstein wonders what would happen if a major force like Clint Eastwood decided to stop feeding the Oscar delirium. My hunch is that enough critics would applaud the move that he could still get the same awards.
UPDATE: I didn’t mean to Afghan-air-raid Goldstein’s quote, but by lopping of his paragraph where I did, the post implied something he didn’t really mean. My apologies.
Goldstein’s quote, continued:
So when the Oscars are dominated by small movies that rarely had any mass audience impact, they feel marginalized. Over-50 moviegoers still pay attention to awards, but they go see good movies anyway. All they need to hear is some good buzz from their friends and critics and they’re already in line–the costly Oscar marketing hoopla is largely wasted on them.
16 Responses to “Oscar grouchiness”
Leave a Reply
RSS feed for comments on this article.
Get a Gravatar. They're free and work on lots of different sites.
October 7th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I think Goldstein’s conclusion that we no longer live in a quality culture is silly.
The problem is not that audiences no longer want to see movies of quality. The problem is that Hollywood isn’t making movies of substance that audiences want to see.
This is the fault of the filmmakers and studios, not the audience. Rather than blaming all their problems on American Idol, maybe they should take a look at the movies they’re putting out to determine what’s going wrong.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
As I read Goldstein’s article, he isn’t blaming anything on American Idol. On the contrary he seem to be comparing American Idol favorably to the Oscar ceremony. (I don’t watch either, so I wouldn’t know).
Living in a quality culture, it would perhaps be more accurate to say that we live in an aggressively pluralistic culture where the idea that something could be objectively “the best” is suspicious from the outset. This is hardly a new development — it’s older than I am — but with each passing year more and more of the general public has grown up with it. In this climate, the Oscars may border on counter-publicity.
Best picture of 200x? Ain’t no such thing, man. Who do those guys think they are? Anything that could possibly score high in a competition that purports to be about an universal notion quality must necessarily be lowest-common-determinator cwop. (This may or may not actually be true, but it’s how the modern mindset likes to think).
As for PRODUCING quality, I point to Sturgeon’s law.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I agree with Boffo. Why can’t there be a popular movie that also can have the cinematography and message that the marginalized Oscar movies have. Hyper modern art is not my thing. People really into it will tell me how great it is, but I’m still not going to buy into it. That doesn’t mean I don’t like quality, I just don’t like their definition of quality.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
the Oscars is a masturbatory session. YES it would be nice to win an Oscar someday, but it is mostly a toast for old famous celebrities.
Although when Diablo Cody won last year, that was pretty sweet and a real victory for newcomers to the film biz.
anyway, what do Americans know about art and quality? This is the same country that admires Paris Hilton, for cryin out loud. Most of my friends hated No Country for Old Men, they would rather watch a stupid Judd Apatow movie.
October 7th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
The notion that Oscar hype can impact box office is flawed. The Oscars are broadcast in March; films that are eligible must be in theaters before the previous December (September for documentaries, I believe). Chances are, most films up for nomination are no longer being exhibited, except possibly on video and/or cable.
October 7th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
First of all, I see what you did there with the Afgan air-raid quote. I am impressed.
I agree that the Oscars are a waste of time, but I wouldn’t say that independent movies being nominated are the issue. If the Academy was able to recognize quality in movies other than political stories/over the top dramas/costume dramas, the audience might be more interested.
Iron Man probably doesn’t deserve to win an Oscar. But knowing that even the best acting in a comedy or action flick will never get acknowledged is disheartening.
The Academy also suffers from the same issue as the Emmys (who are so far behind the times they think “Grey’s Anatomy” is the new hit show). Yes, Copola once made good movies, but that hasn’t happened recently.
October 7th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
i agree with daveednyc, i can’t i follow goldstein’s logic. not only are the oscars after the theater dates of most of the contenders, he first says the oscars hurt box-office by citing the example of ‘children of men,’ then says the modern public doesn’t care about the oscars. if they don’t, how do the oscars hurt b.o.?
and this doesn’t make any sense: “Imagine the hand-wringing if “Changeling” got just as many award nominations as it would have if it had spent all those millions? That would definitely let all the hot air out of the Oscar balloon. It might also give more quality films an opportunity to compete on a level playing field and actually make some money.”
if the ads don’t make any difference, then not being able to afford them isn’t an excuse either.
October 7th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
The Oscars are a joke.
Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan!
Martin Landau over Sam Jackson!
Gladiator!
GLADIATOR!
I mean, c’mon, it was decent. But the Best Picture of the Year?
I hope there’s a real artist out there, that upon winning the statue, will pull their tanned pecker through the zipper hole and just spank it against the Oscar’s little gold head.
Seriously. Gladiator?
October 7th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Point is missed by many…I don’t put a ton of stock in the Oscar winners but I do think that the nominees represent a good view into the quality of those movies…is it fair? no…but no award system ever could be.
October 7th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
What I think some readers are missing is that the focus of the rant isn’t necessarily which movies get Oscars, but all the damage and inflationary bullshit that Oscar campaign inflicts. Some of this is, honestly, confined to Los Angeles as the hub of all things movie-related. But it turns any discussion of quality into a discussion of Oscar buzziness. De-linking these qualities is a worthy but improbable goal.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I kind of get annoyed when movie reviewers start acting more like sports analysts or weather forecasters than critics.
I do like that photo of Clint Eastwood, though. I like to imagine he’s making “brrm! brrm!” noises.
October 8th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Isn’t most of the “inflationary bullshit” marketing? I mean, the papers and billboards are covered in ‘For Your Consideration’ ads, leaving a lot of good movies to the side, because studios can only afford to push one movie or a couple performances a year. It’s funny how advertising funds nearly every single one of our artforms (and sport) nowadays. It’s odd, and more than slightly confusing. How are marketing budgets so gargantuan? What purpose does it serve? Hell, most of our studies of social groups wind up benefiting advertisers more than anyone else. Mad Men is the first thing in recent history to give people a reason to appreciate advertising. Is it an artform in itself? What’s the best way to proceed from this point? It’s not going away, what should we do about it?
October 8th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Geez, all the angry people. The degradation of classical art is hardly any particular person’s fault. In fact, it’s everyone’s fault; making it by default no one’s fault. This is part of the mob mentality.
At least this isn’t the nineties anymore where whole slate of oscars went to gargantuan trifles like the winners of ‘95-98 (won’t name names). =]
October 8th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Not sure what I think. The Oscar buzz undoubtedly generates a larger audience for many films that might otherwise be overlooked, particularly by a mass audience. And yet, a film like The Illusionist (which I don’t think had an Oscar campaign) did good business without it. Although I didn’t follow it closely, it seems Bob Yari (who produced and distributed the film) did it the old fashioned way — by releasing the movie when there wasn’t a lot of competition (it was released in the summer without any real competition from other adult movies) and letting it build over time. All that’s to say that I’m not convinced that the Oscar buzz alone is what shuts out other deserving films. Rather, the emphasis on Oscar campaigns seems to reflect a greater problem, which is that we seem to have lost touch with how to market all but the most tent-poley of movies, and it’s a rare movie that’ gets the opportunity to build over time. Some of this has to do with the dollars and cents on the exhibition side of the business, but some of it can almost certainly be attributed to a failure of imagination on the part of distributors. That several companies have gone under in their efforts to generate Oscar buzz shows not only a lack of imagination, but a lack of judgment and courage as well.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
“Although when Diablo Cody won last year, that was pretty sweet and a real victory for newcomers to the film biz.”
Michael Arndt wants to know why his Best Original Screenplay Oscar win wasn’t sweet or a real victory for newcomers in the film biz.
October 10th, 2008 at 9:54 am
because he wasn’t a stripper?