FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Discussions About Orson Scott Card » Oscar Priorities - Art or Entertainment?

   
Author Topic: Oscar Priorities - Art or Entertainment?
Clumpy
Member
Member # 8122

 - posted      Profile for Clumpy           Edit/Delete Post 
My first instinct is often to bash people like Orson Scott Card out of hand when they claim that the Oscars are out of touch with the sort of movies that should be lauded. It's the sort of thing I've heard quite often and never identified with:

quote:
Look at the list of Oscar nominees. How many of those movies look like anything you'd actually want to see?

Just looking at the lists -- and the screenplays and screeners that got sent to me because I'm in the Writers Guild -- made me depressed.

What have the Oscars become? Hollywood's answer to the Booker Prize -- given only to objets d'art that snobs pretend to like?

Going to most of these movies would be an unpleasant duty -- like having to clean up somebody else's vomit because they threw up on your carpet. Dark, ugly, pretentious, politically correct, and (above all) convinced that they're smarter than me: Why should an Oscar nomination be a reason for me to pay them for talking down to me?

Nevertheless, I recognize that there are two schools of thought on this issue. Card loves movies like Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, Tyler Perry flicks and Cheaper By the Dozen, and criticizes those who trash them as, well, trash, for being out-of-touch and too concerned with the acceptance of their fellow groupthinked critics to enjoy a loud, obvious family comedy (personal bias warning). He hates movies who concern themselves with "exploring the human condition" or focus more on a theme or atmosphere than being entertaining.

So should the Oscars honor artsy, pondersome movies, or movies who set out ostensibly to entertain? Mine and OSC's tastes don't overlap much, but we both enjoyed Wall-E, Iron Man, Serenity and the Bourne flicks. Do those movies deserve to be held up and honored as shining examples of their craft merely for pleasing an audience, or is it just as commendable for directors, writers and critics aspire to something different?

Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tara
Member
Member # 10030

 - posted      Profile for Tara   Email Tara         Edit/Delete Post 
Even though I love movies, I have never paid much attention to Oscar winners, especially in the 'Best Picture' category. I think it's pretty meaningless. For example, last year, I knew instantly when I saw it that 'Juno' was one of the best movies not only of the year, but of all time, but I also knew that it would not win the Oscar. The Oscars are prejudiced to a certain kind of movie, no doubt about it, so I always take them with a grain of salt.

Definitely a great show, though.

Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clumpy
Member
Member # 8122

 - posted      Profile for Clumpy           Edit/Delete Post 
Well, Juno was nominated in four categories, winning "Best Original Screenplay", and was one of the most critically acclaimed movies of the year. A nomination is still some pretty significant recognition, but I can't imagine the upset that would have ensued had it beaten "No Country For Old Men," which just seemed a little more significant (and those of us who liked it certainly weren't pretending).

[ March 01, 2009, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Clumpy ]

Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JustAskIndiana
Member
Member # 9268

 - posted      Profile for JustAskIndiana           Edit/Delete Post 
To answer Card's question of which Oscar movies I would actually want to see, my list contains Slumdog, Benjamin Button, and The Dark Knight.
Posts: 56 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So should the Oscars honor artsy, pondersome movies, or movies who set out ostensibly to entertain? Mine and OSC's tastes don't overlap much, but we both enjoyed Wall-E, Iron Man, Serenity and the Bourne flicks. Do those movies deserve to be held up and honored as shining examples of their craft merely for pleasing an audience, or is it just as commendable for directors, writers and critics aspire to something different?
It seems to me that the Oscars should naturally honor the favorite movies of the AMPAS. It is not a publicly voted or bestowed prize. OSC's wish for it to be awarded according to an alternate ideology (and yes I admit it is currently awarded according to a general ideology), is ludicrous. The AMPAS can do whatever they want to do with their awards- just because they have become a symbol of high achievement does not mean they should reflect anything different. After all, the fact that they do denote a high level of achievement is due to the body that is giving the award. If it were turned into a Micky Mouse, most family friendly and patriotic and conservatively valued film award, it would lose whatever credibility it now retains. Just think about all those movies OSC has raved about over the years getting Oscars.... yeah.

Complaining about the Oscars is pissing into the wind. Who cares? You only ever end up with urine on your shoes.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lanfear
Member
Member # 7776

 - posted      Profile for Lanfear   Email Lanfear         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm actually laughing that you consider Juno one of the best movies ever.

Don't kid yourself.

That is all.

Posts: 332 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clumpy
Member
Member # 8122

 - posted      Profile for Clumpy           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It seems to me that the Oscars should naturally honor the favorite movies of the AMPAS. It is not a publicly voted or bestowed prize. OSC's wish for it to be awarded according to an alternate ideology (and yes I admit it is currently awarded according to a general ideology), is ludicrous. The AMPAS can do whatever they want to do with their awards- just because they have become a symbol of high achievement does not mean they should reflect anything different.
I don't think OSC would think that the movies awarded Oscars are achievements. I think he finds them depressing, murky and meaningless. Obviously I disagree - though I don't watch many of the character studies and period pieces given Oscars I recognize that many of them are meaningful and worthwhile. My tastes, all things told, are fairly mainstream (though there are two types of "mainstream"; I'd never, for example, idolize Martin Lawrence as a "great comic").

Card has a similar philosophy for literature, preferring straightforward stories. That's why you don't see a ton of really reprehensible or radically variant OSC characters. In fact, his absolute best characters (in my opinion Step Fletcher from "Lost Boys," for example) are just Card with a thin veneer. He doesn't like books or stories that don't necessarily have any answers or which make a point of not wrapping things up tidily.

quote:
I'm actually laughing that you consider Juno one of the best movies ever.
Juno is a York Peppermint Patty - very pleasant and enjoyable but nothing significant.

[ March 01, 2009, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Clumpy ]

Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tara
Member
Member # 10030

 - posted      Profile for Tara   Email Tara         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lanfear:
I'm actually laughing that you consider Juno one of the best movies ever.

Don't kid yourself.

That is all.

Yes, I do consider Juno to be one of the best movies ever.
Obviously, we have vastly different definitions of "good movie" -- which demonstrates clearly my point about the Oscars being basically meaningless.

Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fremen
Member
Member # 11984

 - posted      Profile for Fremen           Edit/Delete Post 
I've always thought that since the people who decide which movies win the Oscars are all movie industry insiders, the movies that win are not always the "best" (since that is highly subjective), but the ones that seem to be the hardest to make and that went the farthest with the tools at their disposal.

Discussing the validity of movies like Juno is very difficult (in my opinion) since it's a controversial movie with a very creative and unorthodox style. For example, I watched it with my friends, and 3 of us thought it was brilliant, and the other 2 thought it was horrible and should be banished from the ranks of Oscar winners.

quote:
Card has a similar philosophy for literature, preferring straightforward stories.
I like that Clumpy brought this point up and anyone who has read the Introduction (or the Afterword, I can't remember which at this point) of The Author's Definitive Version of EG will remember that OSC tried to make EG straightforward, despite the fact that literary critics tend to dislike this sort of novel.

On subjects like these, people will never agree, so my policy is live and let live.

Posts: 28 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Yes, I do consider Juno to be one of the best movies ever.
Obviously, we have vastly different definitions of "good movie" -- which demonstrates clearly my point about the Oscars being basically meaningless.

"Not having the meaning one once thought it had," and "basically meaningless" are very different sentiments.

An Oscar is an achievement for a filmmaker because it represents the approval of the Academy, and the rise of a particular film in that social and political world known as Hollywood. The fact that you wish it was more than that is not really relevant. It has meaning, it just doesn't mean anything important *to you*. To the filmmaker, and to a lot of other people, it does. You could say that about any award, and degree, any honor that can be had.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Objectivity
Member
Member # 4553

 - posted      Profile for Objectivity           Edit/Delete Post 
The problem is that the Oscars used to reward great films that people actually enjoyed watching. You can debate whether people have changed or whether those choosing the nominees now think they're better than the general public, but you can't debate that those chosen as the best picture nominees are often movies that most people have no interest in seeing.

Now, part of this is because the people doing the selection see a lot more movies and plots that are familiar and entertaining to many of us are painfully repetitive to them. But part of it is also likely because they're ashamed of the movies that people like because they are so main stream.

Say what you will about Juno, but it told a story that hadn't been repeatedly told before and did it in a way that mainstream audiences found entertaining. For an industry facing numerous challenges, you would think they would focus more on that.

To me, a question that should be considered for Best Picture is whether people will have any desire to see it 10 years down the road.

Here are the nominees from 10-15 years ago (1993-1998). How many of these do you think people still care about seeing? I put x's by the ones I think are still being watched by a good number of people. I left x's off some of them, even though I own them and love them because I don't think they're catalog titles that people will flock to. Also, as you get closer to the modern day, the number of movies that people will return to in years to come has dramatically decreased.

1993
x Schindler's List
x The Fugitive
In the Name of the Father
The Piano
The Remains of the Day

1994
x Forrest Gump
x Four Weddings and a Funeral
x Pulp Fiction - Miramax - Brandon Lands
Quiz Show
x The Shawshank Redemption

1995
x Braveheart
x Apollo 13
x Babe
Il Postino
x Sense and Sensibility

1996
The English Patient
x Fargo
x Jerry Maguire
Secrets & Lies
Shine

1997
x Titanic
As Good as It Gets
x The Full Monty
x Good Will Hunting
x L.A. Confidential

1998
Shakespeare in Love
Elizabeth
Life Is Beautiful
x Saving Private Ryan
The Thin Red Line

Posts: 50 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lanfear
Member
Member # 7776

 - posted      Profile for Lanfear   Email Lanfear         Edit/Delete Post 
No x by Life is Beautiful?

The problem with Juno stems from the fact that people seem to think it's creative and original. Perhaps the plot of teenage pregnancy hasn't been discussed with such frankness before, but the "style" of the movie is nothing more than hollywoods attempt at being indie. Faux-Indie.

Posts: 332 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
Juno is a good movie, but I'm not sure if the adoption aspect is accurate. Still, it's a lot better than movies like Happiness and Magnolia. Now those are depressing movies. At least Magnolia was good the first time I saw it, but the next time. URG!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
you can't debate that those chosen as the best picture nominees are often movies that most people have no interest in seeing.
That is absurd. I would love to see the data that you believe supports that statement. Most of the best picture nominees are money making films. Money making films have audiences- that means a lot of people have an interest in seeing them. Else they wouldn't re-release the nominees so people could go and see them *again*.

You should not attempt to represent your opinion as a statement of fact. When you throw around qualifications like "often," "most people" or "ordinary people" it gives you a great deal of unwarranted license to be lazy with the assertions you are making. In this case, you have clearly caught your tail in the ringer. I would love for you to point out one best picture nominee that wasn't a financial success. In fact, I would love for you to establish that this is "often" the case. If "often" in this case is once every Oscar season, for one category of the awards, then you are clearly pointing towards an outlying statistic, and using it as an indication of a general trend, which is a fallacious argument.

Now, you could always fall back on this argument, and it's the only way your statement makes sense (even though in this context your statement is also meaningless): "most people" are not interested in any particular movie at all. You really would be hard pressed to find a single piece of cultural artifice that "most" people have an interest in experiencing. But most moviegoers? Most film lovers? Who makes up the "most?" These are the reasons what you said has little valuable meaning.


quote:
Also, as you get closer to the modern day, the number of movies that people will return to in years to come has dramatically decreased.

Nostalgia just isn't the same anymore, and there are more and more ornery old codgers every year. I wish they'd get off my lawn.


quote:
To me, a question that should be considered for Best Picture is whether people will have any desire to see it 10 years down the road.
Perhaps we should change the name of the award to "Best Achievement in Film That is Likely to Be Remembered in 10 years." That strikes me as an impossibly ungainly idea. First strike against it is that it's impossible, and second strike would be that the Oscars are not a posterity prize- they are awarded every year in a political process.

Please, please, people. Accept this. Move on.

[ March 02, 2009, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Objectivity
Member
Member # 4553

 - posted      Profile for Objectivity           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
you can't debate that those chosen as the best picture nominees are often movies that most people have no interest in seeing.
That is absurd. I would love to see the data that you believe supports that statement. Most of the best picture nominees are money making films. Money making films have audiences- that means a lot of people have an interest in seeing them. Else they wouldn't re-release the nominees so people could go and see them *again*.
You quoted what I said and then responded to something I didn't say.

I didn't say the movies didn't make money. I said they are movies most people have no interested in seeing. (I would also note, that just because people don't want to see a movie doesn't mean that it's not good or worth seeing).

Small, non-mainstream movies that are nominated for Academy Awards typically do make their money back, primarily because their budgets are so small. They have less to recoup.

My comment was in regard to shelf life. Admittedly, that shouldn't play a role in honoring the best picture, but there is a reverse reaction at work here. It appears in many years that the Academy Awards work on the assumption that big budget movies can't be good. Obviously there are numerous exceptions to this (including the highest grossing movie of all time) but, generally speaking, do you think studios are banking on any of this year's best picture nominees to be evergreen titles?

quote:
I would love for you to point out one best picture nominee that wasn't a financial success. In fact, I would love for you to establish that this is "often" the case. If "often" in this case is once every Oscar season, for one category of the awards, then you are clearly pointing towards an outlying statistic, and using it as an indication of a general trend, which is a fallacious argument.
Again, I never said best picture nominees weren't financial successes. I said most people didn't want to watch them. Looking at the box office numbers can support that point.

Whether they should be watched or not is a different story. I think Adrien Brody's performance in The Pianist is one of the top acting performances of all time. I think more people should see that movie and that it should have won best picture.(I would have flopped BP with Best Director that year).

quote:
You really would be hard pressed to find a single piece of cultural artifice that "most" people have an interest in experiencing. But most moviegoers? Most film lovers? Who makes up the "most?" These are the reasons what you said has little valuable meaning.
I'll grant you this. My point however was that mainstream audiences are disconnected with the Oscar voting audience. When you think about it, there's nothing wrong with that. The people who see five movies a year want to see something familiar and get their money's worth; those seeing 500 movies a year pray with each screening that they'll see something different.

As far as a quantitative evaluation, I would say that "most film goers" wanted to see Titanic and The Dark Knight, just like "most film goers" didn't want to see Town and Country (Budget $105 million. Gross $10 million) or The Reader (which by the way is still in the red and would have done better with more time in the editing room).

That doesn't mean gross or budget equals quality, but it also doesn't mean that a lack of budget equals quality either.

quote:
Nostalgia just isn't the same anymore, and there are more and more ornery old codgers every year. I wish they'd get off my lawn.
I had the same thought as I was writing.

quote:
[QB] To me, a question that should be considered for Best Picture is whether people will have any desire to see it 10 years down the road.
Perhaps we should change the name of the award to "Best Achievement in Film That is Likely to Be Remembered in 10 years." That strikes me as an impossibly ungainly idea. First strike against it is that it's impossible, and second strike would be that the Oscars are not a posterity prize- they are awarded every year in a political process.
Yes, it is a political process. But as the annual award ceremony for the movie industry shouldn't some value be placed on timelessness and art and what a movie meant to culture and society?

I think 1994 nailed this. Every movie nominated reflects something about society at the time and they are all movies I would watch again. 1996? not so much. Critics call The English Patient the worst best picture winner ever, but it told a complicated story well, and it is an epic movie that could have been made this year or 20 years ago just as easily.

Posts: 50 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
The English Patient was good. What I do not like is Million Dollar Baby, if As Good as it Gets won, don't like that movie, Also Shawshank Redemption was better than Forest Gump.

Why don't I own Shawshank? It's a great movie.

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Risuena
Member
Member # 2924

 - posted      Profile for Risuena   Email Risuena         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Again, I never said best picture nominees weren't financial successes. I said most people didn't want to watch them. Looking at the box office numbers can support that point.
If you limited this statement to the last three or four years' worth of nominees, I'd have no problem agreeing with you. But I think that the Oscars have traditionally honored some of the biggest budget and most popular movies out there. Maybe the last few years are an anomaly or maybe they are a trend. I don't know and neither does anyone else at this point.

So yeah, I don't think the Academy has a bias against big budget movies - they love epics and epics typically have some of the biggest budgets out there. But I do think they dislike action movies. And in a lot of cases, action movies are really nothing more than their special effects (as spiffy and entertaining as those might be).

Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm sorry Objectivity, but you're conflating different arguments here, I think. You first compare Oscar winners of the past with nominees in the present. That's not fair. The latest winners have all been hugely successful with audiences. Winners in the 2000's were: Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, Chicago, Return of the King, Million Dollar Baby, Crash, The Departed, No Country For Old Men, and now Slumdog Millionaire.


You first have no grounds to establish the "evergreen" status of any of these movies, the oldest being only 9 years past. There is just no way to tell their lasting status, much less their influences on other films, which may help to establish them as classics. Second, you can't claim that any of these were not popular films- they are all wildly successful films, from a financial as well as a pop culture standpoint. It may be true that some *nominees* have not fit that category... but they didn't win, did they? How can you criticize a process for favoring unpopular films, when it actually selects really popular films? Can you look at the nominees for Best picture from the 80's and 90's and tell me how many had staying power?


AS a random sampling, here are some winners and nominees from the 80's

* 1985 Out of Africa - Universal - Sydney Pollack
o The Color Purple - Warner Bros. - Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall and Quincy Jones
o Kiss of the Spider Woman - Island Alive - David Weisman
o Prizzi's Honor - ABC Motion Pictures, 20th Century Fox - John Foreman
o Witness - Paramount - Edward S. Feldman

* 1986 Platoon - Orion - Arnold Kopelson
o Children of a Lesser God - Paramount - Burt Sugarman, Patrick J. Palmer
o Hannah and Her Sisters - Orion - Robert Greenhut
o The Mission - Warner Bros. - Fernando Ghia, David Puttnam
o A Room with a View - Cinecom - Ismail Merchant


* 1987 The Last Emperor (末代皇帝) - Columbia - Jeremy Thomas
o Broadcast News - 20th Century-Fox - James L. Brooks
o Fatal Attraction - Paramount - Stanley R. Jaffe, Sherry Lansing
o Hope and Glory - Columbia - John Boorman
o Moonstruck - Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer - Patrick J. Palmer, Norman Jewison

* 1988 Rain Man - United Artists - Mark Johnson
o The Accidental Tourist - Warner Bros. - Lawrence Kasdan, Charles Okun, Michael Grillo
o Dangerous Liaisons - Warner Bros. - Norma Heyman, Hank Moonjean
o Mississippi Burning - Orion - Frederick Zollo, Robert F. Colesberry
o Working Girl - 20th Century Fox - Douglas Wick


I'm young, but I don't remember MOST of these films. I do know all the winners though. Sure, these weren't all the biggest blockbusters, but then not all the biggest blockbusters have staying power either. The Academy doesn't work the way you do. If it did, it would be an irrelevant award.


AS for the even the last three years, we have The Departed, No Country for Old Men, and Slumdog Millionaire. It's hard for me to say because I was living outside the US for most of this time, but I believe they have all been very successful movies. NCFOM was screened at fewer theaters than most winners, but it still had a long run, and a lot of success on DVD/Blu-Ray. Slumdog is harder to categorize because it wasn't backed strongly by Fox Searchlight on initial release, and it won because of its success at film festivals and in screeners.

That last point is, I think the crux of my problem with your argument. In recent years, the Academy has had increased access to the best films, regardless of public opinion. Slumdog toured among Academy members for a long time before it even got a *limited* release in the US. It was not backed initially by strong advertising, and so it was never a financial smash. Why should that be a mark against a great film? A lot of the motivation for people to ever see a film is its advertising- so if you judge a film by its presence in the popular imagination, you miss the many films that for one reason or another, don't get financial support. For instance the best comedy of 2008 in my opinion was Adam Carolla's "The Hammer," but you'll not see it on many other lists, because it had a release that was mostly concentrated in California and New York, and because it was privately produced, and not traditionally advertised. Nevertheless, it was a top pick of several influential critics.

The Academy exists precisely because its process, the one of festivals and screeners and glad-handing, is the one that picks movies that *those* people like. And in a world of so many great pieces of work, there can never really be a fair contest to determine the best of any given year. The best is subjective, and you're only suggesting that it be differently subjective- your solution carries all the inherent problems of the current system, and ignore the benefits of that system as well.

[ March 04, 2009, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
I guess I'm not young anymore, because I have seen and remember all of them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Do you have them on video or DVD, see them on TV, or talk about them with friends? My point was that having been born in 1985, these films have obviously not come down to me and my own cultural heritage, for better or worse.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
I talk about them with friends, and own a couple on video. Quite a few are cultural touchstones, in that they'll be referenced in order to make some point or another.

Frankly, I think it's surprising that you haven't seen these.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I talk about them with friends, and own a couple on video. Quite a few are cultural touchstones, in that they'll be referenced in order to make some point or another.

Frankly, I think it's surprising that you haven't seen these.

What can I say? I'm about ten years younger than you. Maybe you should look at the Oscar winners for the late 70's and see how many you have seen. Maybe you've seen more, but with the refinement in viewing choices in my lifetime, I wouldn't be surprised.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
Seriously, how has this changed?

In 1941 both The Maltese Falcon and Citizen Kane, both widely agreed to be classics of American filmmaking, were nominated for Best Picture. Which one won?

How Green Was My Valley, with 10 nominations and 5 wins.

They pick the ones they like best at the time, there's simply no way of knowing which ones which still be popular 10, 20, 50 years later.

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I talk about them with friends, and own a couple on video. Quite a few are cultural touchstones, in that they'll be referenced in order to make some point or another.

Frankly, I think it's surprising that you haven't seen these.

Yeah, but you're part of the liberal elite so that doesn't count...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tickletik
Member
Member # 11982

 - posted      Profile for tickletik   Email tickletik         Edit/Delete Post 
@Chris Bridges

I didn't like Citizen Kane. Just didn't do it for me.

Posts: 7 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Maybe you should look at the Oscar winners for the late 70's and see how many you have seen.
I've marked with an "X" the ones I've seen. *laugh* Of course, this goes to show that the disco era really was a wasteland. But I'd say that a fair number of these films are certifiably major in their impact and importance.

1970
X - PATTON
X - Airport
X - Five Easy Pieces
X - Love Story
X - M*A*S*H

1971
X - THE FRENCH CONNECTION
X - A Clockwork Orange
X - Fiddler on the Roof
X - The Last Picture Show
Nicholas and Alexandra

1972
X - THE GODFATHER
X - Cabaret
X - Deliverance
X - The Emigrants
X - Sounder

1973
X - THE STING
X - American Graffiti
X - Cries and Whispers
X - The Exorcist
X - A Touch of Class

1974
X - THE GODFATHER, PART II
X - Chinatown
X - The Conversation
X - Lenny
X - The Towering Inferno

1975
X - ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
X - Barry Lyndon
X - Dog Day Afternoon
X - Jaws
X - Nashville

1976
X - ROCKY
X - All the President's Men
Bound for Glory
X - Network
X - Taxi Driver

1977
X - ANNIE HALL
X - The Goodbye Girl
Julia
X - Star Wars
The Turning Point

1978
X - THE DEER HUNTER
Coming Home
X - Heaven Can Wait
X - Midnight Express
An Unmarried Woman

1979
X - KRAMER vs. KRAMER
X - All That Jazz
X - Apocalypse Now
X - Breaking Away
Norma Rae

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lobo
Member
Member # 1761

 - posted      Profile for lobo           Edit/Delete Post 
I took a look at Oscar winners from 1970 on. Here is the data:
YEAR – MOVIE (domestic revenue – $millions)(revenue of #1)(rank)
1970 – Patton (28)(49)(4th)
1971 – The French Connection (26)(38)(3rd)
1972 – The Godfather (87)(87)(1st)
1973 – The Sting (78)(89)(2nd)
1974 – The Godfather II (31)(49)(6th)
1975 – Cuckoo’s Nest (60)(130)(2nd)
1976 – Rocky (57)(57)(1st)
1977 – Annie Hall (19)(271)(13th)
1978 – Deer Hunter (27)(96)(11th)
1979 – Kramer vs. Kramer (60)(60)(1st
1970s average = 4.4
1980 – Ordinary people (54)(209)(11th)
1981 – Chariots of fire (59)(210)(7th)
1982 – Gandhi (53)(359)(12th)
1983 – Terms of endearment (108)(253)(2nd)
1984 – Amadeus (52)(235)(12th)
1985 – Out of Africa (87)(211)(5th)
1986 – Platoon (139)(177)(3rd)
1987 – The Last Emporer (44)(168)(25th)
1988 – Rain Man (173)(173)(1st)
1989 – Driving Miss Daisy (107)(251)(8th)
1980s average = 8.6
1990 – Dances with Wolves (184)(286)(3rd)
1991 – Silence of the Lambs (131)(205)(4th)
1992 – Unforgiven (101)(217)(11th)
1993 – Schindler’s List (96)(357)(9th)
1994 – Forrest Gump (330)(330)(1st)
1995 – Braveheart (76)(192)(18th)
1996 – The English Patient (79)(306)(19th)
1997 – Titanic (601)(601)(1st)
1998 – Shakespeare in Love (100)(217)(18th)
1999 – American Beauty (130)(431)(13th)
1990s average = 9.7
2000 – Gladiator (188)(260)(4th)
2001 – A Beautiful Mind (171)(318)(11th)
2002 – Chicago (171)(404)(10th)
2003 – LOTR (377)(377)(1st)
2004 – Million Dollar Baby (100)(441)(24th)
2005 – Crash (55)(380)(49th)
2006 – The Departed (132)(423)(15th)
2007 – No Country for Old Men (74)(337)(36th)
2008 – Slumdog Millionaire (117)(533)(21st)
2000s average = 19
Last 5 years average = 29
=====

It does appear that there is a steady seperation between the public (box office) and the academy. It is especially striking over the last 5 years...

Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lobo
Member
Member # 1761

 - posted      Profile for lobo           Edit/Delete Post 
I now understand better why Orincoro is so... brash.

from this post:
"OSC's wish for it to be awarded according to an alternate ideology is ludicrous"
"Complaining about the Oscars is pissing into the wind."
"That is absurd."
"Nostalgia just isn't the same anymore, and there are more and more ornery old codgers every year. I wish they'd get off my lawn."
"Please, please, people. Accept this. Move on."
"born in 1985"

Orincoro is just a kid!

Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lobo
Member
Member # 1761

 - posted      Profile for lobo           Edit/Delete Post 
"The latest winners have all been hugely successful with audiences."
"you can't claim that any of these were not popular films- they are all wildly successful films, from a financial as well as a pop culture standpoint."

I wouldn't characterize the latest winners as hugely or wildly successful...

Also, we need to take into account that most of the winners were released near the end of the year and thus got big bumps when they were nominated and then won. Their box office take would have been significantly less if they didn't have this advantage...

Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
Urg. FATAL ATTRACTION got a nomination?! That movie SUCKS! ARG! I hate that movie!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by lobo:

Orincoro is just a kid!

And you're a batty old coot. Last I checked I was a working, tax paying adult citizen. Better to patronize me than to contribute any new thoughts- your modus operandi.


ooooooooo... look how immature I am, calling you names! More reason to sit around this forum like a worthless lump of coagulated battery acid, alternately spewing nonsense, and making fun of people for the simple virtue of being younger than you are.

This, by the way, is my last post. Bye.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
Last post ever? Or post here?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lobo
Member
Member # 1761

 - posted      Profile for lobo           Edit/Delete Post 
kids these days...
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Synesthesia:
Last post ever? Or post here?

I was wondering this too, I think it's a bit too spontaneous for the former to be true.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lobo
Member
Member # 1761

 - posted      Profile for lobo           Edit/Delete Post 
Kinda Bilboesque eh?
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Traceria
Member
Member # 11820

 - posted      Profile for Traceria   Email Traceria         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by lobo:
Kinda Bilboesque eh?

Heh.

In looking over the lists you all so generously provided AND having been born in 1980, I definitely have seen more from the 80's and 90's than 70's. However, I have seen Love Story, FIddler, The Godfather, American Graffiti, Rocky, Star Wars and The Deer Hunter. That's fairly good for not having been born.

The Mission was really good, in my opinion, and I am a shameless fan of the movie Babe.

Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Objectivity
Member
Member # 4553

 - posted      Profile for Objectivity           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Slumdog is harder to categorize because it wasn't backed strongly by Fox Searchlight on initial release, and it won because of its success at film festivals and in screeners.

Slumdog is a bit of an odd story because it was almost released direct to DVD, meaning it would have been ineligible.

Something similar happened about 10 years ago with The Last Seduction. It was released on cable first. As a result, Linda Fiorentino was excluded from best actress balloting.

quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
That last point is, I think the crux of my problem with your argument. In recent years, the Academy has had increased access to the best films, regardless of public opinion. Slumdog toured among Academy members for a long time before it even got a *limited* release in the US. It was not backed initially by strong advertising, and so it was never a financial smash. Why should that be a mark against a great film? A lot of the motivation for people to ever see a film is its advertising- so if you judge a film by its presence in the popular imagination, you miss the many films that for one reason or another, don't get financial support.

The Academy exists precisely because its process, the one of festivals and screeners and glad-handing, is the one that picks movies that *those* people like. And in a world of so many great pieces of work, there can never really be a fair contest to determine the best of any given year. The best is subjective, and you're only suggesting that it be differently subjective- your solution carries all the inherent problems of the current system, and ignore the benefits of that system as well.

You're not responding to anything I was saying. I didn't say the most popular movie should win Best Picture. What I said was many people don't want to see these movies. Does that make them any less great? No. It just means there is a massive disconnect between the audience and those who make money responding to the audience.

Lobo's list best exemplified what I was talking about. Until the recent past, the movies that won Best Picture were accessible to mainstream audiences. That's changed in the last several years. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but as a whole, the nominees no longer reflect society, they look down on society at worst, or at best reflect a view of society that mainstream America doesn't see looking back.

Tom's list is another good one. Many of those films despite being "the best" of their given year are totally forgotten, but still he saw most of them. Why? Because they were mainstream films (again, there are exceptions to the rule).

The Academy Awards come and go in a cycle, and right now we're in the part of the cycle where the Academy says, "Our views of best picture are better than the views of you heathens in middle America."

Soon, it will switch back to the mainstream success story.

Posts: 50 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The Academy Awards come and go in a cycle, and right now we're in the part of the cycle where the Academy says, "Our views of best picture are better than the views of you heathens in middle America."
I don't buy this at all. What would the middle americans have picked as a best picture?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
Ehh, their choices make sense if you've seen the movies.

But look at movies like "The Fall", "Baraka", "The American President", "Wonder Boys", "My Life as a House". The REALLY good movies not only don't get nominated, but nobody watches them. Dang distributors.

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
Did Wonder Boys not do well in the theater? That surprises me. I wouldn't expect Baraka to appeal to a wide swath of people, but Wonder Boys had an accessible story and A-List actors; If you'd have asked me to guess how it had performed at the box office I'd have said "very well".
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post 
Just tying my comment in with earlier discussion...

quote:
Originally posted by Objectivity:
The problem is that the Oscars used to reward great films that people actually enjoyed watching.

OSC's anointment of 'Miss Pettigrew lives for a day' as best movie of the year does undercut his criticism of the Oscars as rewarding esoteric movies somewhat.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Objectivity
Member
Member # 4553

 - posted      Profile for Objectivity           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
The Academy Awards come and go in a cycle, and right now we're in the part of the cycle where the Academy says, "Our views of best picture are better than the views of you heathens in middle America."
I don't buy this at all. What would the middle americans have picked as a best picture?
This year, I think they would have picked The Dark Knight because not only was it extremely popular, it also had a specific, thoughtful point of view which could lead to discussion of greater issues after watching it.

In most other years, I don't know. I don't think it would be the biggest money maker because I think most people can differentiate between popular and good.

I would like to hope that the best pictures in they eyes of middle America would be those that allow viewers to make up their own minds and doesn't look down on them by presenting facts in a way that only allows one conclusion.

As an example, I would give you Dead Man Walking. I don't remember what else was out that year to say it was the best film or could have been. What I will say is that it was an incredible movie. Everyone involved with its production (Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Sister Prejean) were obviously and vocally anti-death penalty. Robbins was so sure about his beliefs and the power of his film that he didn't set it up for people to have to hate the death penalty when they were done watching it. Someone who was pro-death penalty could look at the same movie and see it supporting their views - why? - because it gave viewers room to make up their own minds.

Posts: 50 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Objectivity
Member
Member # 4553

 - posted      Profile for Objectivity           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Noemon:
Did Wonder Boys not do well in the theater? That surprises me. I wouldn't expect Baraka to appeal to a wide swath of people, but Wonder Boys had an accessible story and A-List actors; If you'd have asked me to guess how it had performed at the box office I'd have said "very well".

It did very poorly at theaters, which surprised a lot of people. They even did a second release and everything but people wouldn't see it. Too bad, it was great.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Objectivity:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
The Academy Awards come and go in a cycle, and right now we're in the part of the cycle where the Academy says, "Our views of best picture are better than the views of you heathens in middle America."
I don't buy this at all. What would the middle americans have picked as a best picture?
This year, I think they would have picked The Dark Knight because not only was it extremely popular, it also had a specific, thoughtful point of view which could lead to discussion of greater issues after watching it.

In most other years, I don't know. I don't think it would be the biggest money maker because I think most people can differentiate between popular and good.

I would like to hope that the best pictures in they eyes of middle America would be those that allow viewers to make up their own minds and doesn't look down on them by presenting facts in a way that only allows one conclusion.

As an example, I would give you Dead Man Walking. I don't remember what else was out that year to say it was the best film or could have been. What I will say is that it was an incredible movie. Everyone involved with its production (Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Sister Prejean) were obviously and vocally anti-death penalty. Robbins was so sure about his beliefs and the power of his film that he didn't set it up for people to have to hate the death penalty when they were done watching it. Someone who was pro-death penalty could look at the same movie and see it supporting their views - why? - because it gave viewers room to make up their own minds.

That was a great movie...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeorge
Member
Member # 11524

 - posted      Profile for Jeorge           Edit/Delete Post 
I remember when I saw DMW, when it was over I didn't want to even move or speak ... just sat there in silence while all the credits rolled.

And then, later when the opportunity arose, I went to listen to a lecture by Sister Prejean at Bates College.

Posts: 324 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Objectivity:
This year, I think they would have picked The Dark Knight because not only was it extremely popular, it also had a specific, thoughtful point of view which could lead to discussion of greater issues after watching it.

Thing is, though, Dark Knight was really not at all a realistic contender for winning stuff like Best Picture. If the Oscars was sold out to gladhanding fan faves or other popularity-contest based metrics, it would have.

But the movie had too many flaws and too dumb an ending sequence to be a good pick for picture/screenplay/writing/whatev.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Objectivity:
quote:
Originally posted by Noemon:
Did Wonder Boys not do well in the theater? That surprises me. I wouldn't expect Baraka to appeal to a wide swath of people, but Wonder Boys had an accessible story and A-List actors; If you'd have asked me to guess how it had performed at the box office I'd have said "very well".

It did very poorly at theaters, which surprised a lot of people. They even did a second release and everything but people wouldn't see it. Too bad, it was great.
Huh. That's bizarre. It was definitely one of the better movies I saw the year it came out, and I just assumed that it had done well.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Objectivity
Member
Member # 4553

 - posted      Profile for Objectivity           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Objectivity:
This year, I think they would have picked The Dark Knight because not only was it extremely popular, it also had a specific, thoughtful point of view which could lead to discussion of greater issues after watching it.

Thing is, though, Dark Knight was really not at all a realistic contender for winning stuff like Best Picture. If the Oscars was sold out to gladhanding fan faves or other popularity-contest based metrics, it would have.

But the movie had too many flaws and too dumb an ending sequence to be a good pick for picture/screenplay/writing/whatev.

I think its popularity had more to do with hype than quality, but let's be honest, there are a lot of Best Picture Oscar winners you can say the same thing about. They ride a wave of momentum and then people wonder why it won a few years later - look at many of the Miramax/Weinstein movies that have received awards. Good movies, but hyped over the top.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2