Comments on: Oscar grouchiness

By: christopher

christopher — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:54:32 +0000

because he wasn’t a stripper?

By: Ryan P

Ryan P — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 05:41:15 +0000

"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.

By: Paula Puryear

Paula Puryear — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 04:13:44 +0000

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.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:04:50 +0000

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). =]

By: John Jackson

John Jackson — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:16:12 +0000

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?

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:29:40 +0000

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.

By: John

John — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 05:39:04 +0000

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.

By: lippyone

lippyone — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 04:19:47 +0000

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.

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:08:15 +0000

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?

By: christopher

christopher — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:28:56 +0000

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.

By: LadyUranus

LadyUranus — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:15:51 +0000

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.