It’s that time of year again for the critics who are lucky enough to still have jobs writing about movies to complain about the Oscars and the Oscar coverage. I get it. I get that no one wants to see their beloved films dumped into the chute and set loose to run a race to win. I get it that they wish all coverage about the Oscars, the contest, the winners, the losers would just “die in a fire.” I get it that they long for the days when “it was about the movies, man.” What I don’t get is why they don’t see the bigger picture.
Manohla Dargis said, quoted by Jeff Wells at Hollywood-Elsewhere.com (who gets a lot of heat from his readers whenever he brings up the O word because movies are pure, damnit. They don’t need awards to make them great — they don’t need awards so that deals can be made so that money can be made so that MOVIES CAN BE MADE -they are made on the collective love by the film critics who still have jobs and can still reach a wider audience and don’t they know that awards make a mockery of the proceedings because all anyone who watches the Oscar race cares about is who wins or loses!):
“It’s a drag how late-summer, early-fall festivals like Telluride and especially Toronto are now too often seen as warm-ups for the Oscars. Both events solicited that attention, and grew more influential as a result. Yet is that what we want from film festivals? This isn’t as true of Cannes…because it takes place in May and remains a showcase for world cinema and French cultural patrimony. It’s where Brad Pitt can work the red carpet, but also where filmmakers as dissimilar asTerrence Malick and Apichatpong Weerasethakul can be talked about without that chucklehead, Oscar, sucking up all the air in the room.”
It’s a drag, man.
True, her point about Cannes being far removed from the game of Oscar is well noted. But she shouldn’t kid herself that the same rules about selling movies and hoping they win awards is any different there than it is here. They still have to sell those movies that hit at Cannes. Maybe they’re selling them to international markets but they’re sure as hell hoping they will win some — wait for it — film awards.
The main difference is that Dargis, and others, respect the judges at Cannes and Venice and San Sebastien and Berlin a lot more than they do the professional Hollywood industry: the end result is the same – people voting on what they liked best. Choosing what is better over there is more about choosing the best film regardless of how much money it made, how hot the star in it is, whose friend produced it. Though it’s perhaps a more honorable way to vote for the best, we’re still talking about a prize, a race, a winner and many losers.
Sucking the air out of the room, as Dargis says, means this annoyance at the subject of whether a film will “do well at the Oscars” or not shouldn’t be the thing people are talking about. You shouldn’t watch a movie and then decide its worth by deciding whether or not it will be an Oscar player. You should just talk about whether it was good or not. If you talk about it in terms of its context with Oscar, you are essentially talking about the tastes of 6,000 upper middle class to 1%ers, mostly white, mostly male industry professionals and retirees. They, it turns out, have a lot more in common with regular folk than critics do.
Jeff Wells got irritated on our most recent podcast for this very same thing. He was mad that I was again talking about a film in the context of the Oscar race – in the context of “will it, won’t it.” I had to remind him that we were doing “Oscar Poker.” We’re not doing “Film Criticism Poker.”
What I see when I read the comments on this site and talk to people at film festivals is that most people don’t want to talk about the Oscar race. I saw no sucking the air out of the room in Telluride. What I saw were people first saying whether they loved a movie or not. The first thing they do is talk about its effect on them. The next thing they might do is say whether they think it will be an Oscar player or not. That is the part that Dargis and her ilk hate so much.
What I get from readers on this site every day is not a manic need to strip films of their artistic dimensions and reduce them to a commodity — I see passionate film advocates. I read heated discussions of what makes one film better and why that should translate to an Oscar win. I see the whole dog and pony show dissected and analyzed a hell of a lot better than the top film critic at the New York Times would ever deign to do. I see, in short, the kinds of debates about movies we used to have in coffee shops but now have online – something I never see at the Times. There is a way to talk about films in the context of the Oscar race without “sucking the air out of the room.”
Tero and Antoinette: bravo
Tero and Antoinette: bravo
Shame on those SVA students! REALLY! Great post and p.o.v. Sasha! And I’ve got an insider Newsflash.
The NYTimes doesn’t like Oscar. Doesn’t get Oscar. Doesn’t want to write about the Oscars. They don’t want to talk about it. Or even try to understand what all the excitement in the blogosphere is about OSCAR.
Well, as Sasha has said above^ it’s simply a way for people to passionately discuss movies. It’s really that simple. And Sasha’s continued ascendance and influence and ascendance is a validation of this. If I say at a conversation say at the NYFF, that I’m now in the middle of…that Sasha said this or not. I don’t have to even fill in her last name any more. No. Really. They all know it. And they take her very, very seriously, as do we all.
And it’s her passion, AND her great writing, that keeps us all coming back and being entertained as well as informed.
The Times is an Oscar wasteland. David Carr was great at it. But he’s a genius. Now, as shown per Manohla’s article, they just wish it would go away. Oscar, I mean, oh, yes. And the Interent, too.
And they’re neither of them going any where any time soon.Which is wonderful.
Shame on those SVA students! REALLY! Great post and p.o.v. Sasha! And I’ve got an insider Newsflash.
The NYTimes doesn’t like Oscar. Doesn’t get Oscar. Doesn’t want to write about the Oscars. They don’t want to talk about it. Or even try to understand what all the excitement in the blogosphere is about OSCAR.
Well, as Sasha has said above^ it’s simply a way for people to passionately discuss movies. It’s really that simple. And Sasha’s continued ascendance and influence and ascendance is a validation of this. If I say at a conversation say at the NYFF, that I’m now in the middle of…that Sasha said this or not. I don’t have to even fill in her last name any more. No. Really. They all know it. And they take her very, very seriously, as do we all.
And it’s her passion, AND her great writing, that keeps us all coming back and being entertained as well as informed.
The Times is an Oscar wasteland. David Carr was great at it. But he’s a genius. Now, as shown per Manohla’s article, they just wish it would go away. Oscar, I mean, oh, yes. And the Interent, too.
And they’re neither of them going any where any time soon.Which is wonderful.
Great post, Antoinette.
Great post, Antoinette.
Antoinette:
I love your post. I go to the School of Visual Arts in Manhattan and I’m a photography major. I honestly have to say I view more films than I do photographs, but more often than not when I tell this to film majors they look like they’ve been shot. Some do tend to be snootish (in all fairness not all of them are like this), thinking that learning polished technique and feeding off of the knowledge of prestigious teachers will lead them to success without it ever occurring to them that they’re attending an “art” school. What’s even worse is that some go as far to disregard my opinion on films based solely on the virtue that I’m not a film major and I don’t I’m talking about, even though all majors at out school have practically the same required courses on art criticism, not to mention we all basically learn the same approach to critiquing art.
When I saw “Carnage” last friday night, a group of what I presumed to be film majors sat behind me and as soon as the credits rolled they launched a discussion on it’s use of strobe lighting and whether the final shot of the film was a digital composite. While things such as these are certainly important to know, especially to those currently studying film and photography, I was appalled that these were the first things they discussed instead of the film’s artistic merit and success. I mean, why pay $24.00 to see a film if you’re going to treat it as a lighting demo?
I also had a brief discussion with some film majors regarding “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”, and they were surprised that I thought the film was by and large a failure. They bought up separate components (screenplay, acting, motion capture) of the film they believed to be great instead of evaluating the film as a whole (since I might be asked about this, my gripes included the wooden acting, tacky stabs at racial relations, overbearing golden gate bridge symbolism, characters painted is shades of black and white, boring cinematography, etc.). I’m not claiming to be some artistic auteur of any sort, by I always get disconcerted when my fellow students (photography majors included) jump right into discerning the technical processes of an image or film instead of actually critiquing what’s in front of them.
Antoinette:
I love your post. I go to the School of Visual Arts in Manhattan and I’m a photography major. I honestly have to say I view more films than I do photographs, but more often than not when I tell this to film majors they look like they’ve been shot. Some do tend to be snootish (in all fairness not all of them are like this), thinking that learning polished technique and feeding off of the knowledge of prestigious teachers will lead them to success without it ever occurring to them that they’re attending an “art” school. What’s even worse is that some go as far to disregard my opinion on films based solely on the virtue that I’m not a film major and I don’t I’m talking about, even though all majors at out school have practically the same required courses on art criticism, not to mention we all basically learn the same approach to critiquing art.
When I saw “Carnage” last friday night, a group of what I presumed to be film majors sat behind me and as soon as the credits rolled they launched a discussion on it’s use of strobe lighting and whether the final shot of the film was a digital composite. While things such as these are certainly important to know, especially to those currently studying film and photography, I was appalled that these were the first things they discussed instead of the film’s artistic merit and success. I mean, why pay $24.00 to see a film if you’re going to treat it as a lighting demo?
I also had a brief discussion with some film majors regarding “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”, and they were surprised that I thought the film was by and large a failure. They bought up separate components (screenplay, acting, motion capture) of the film they believed to be great instead of evaluating the film as a whole (since I might be asked about this, my gripes included the wooden acting, tacky stabs at racial relations, overbearing golden gate bridge symbolism, characters painted is shades of black and white, boring cinematography, etc.). I’m not claiming to be some artistic auteur of any sort, by I always get disconcerted when my fellow students (photography majors included) jump right into discerning the technical processes of an image or film instead of actually critiquing what’s in front of them.
Thanks for the link, Harry. I read about 3 sentences and started to hear Charlie Brown’s teacher in my head.
“It’s different kind of connection compared to the talkbackers on Ain’t It Cool News.”
I’m one of those people. XD
Here’s my thing. I love movies. I went to NYU but was not in the film school. I was surrounded by people who were. When I read some critics they remind me of the film snots I went to school with who wouldn’t know anything about movies if their professors hadn’t already told it to them. I know what I’m supposed to think from being around them and I learned the difference between conventional wisdom and what is actually good, because I didn’t drink the water. I also know that I’m allowed to like what ever I want. I learned this from our patron saint Quentin Tarantino. He allowed us to be able to love all the movies that we want no matter what we’re supposed to think. No one’s going to tell him he doesn’t know what he’s talking about are they? And think of all the movies people have watched BECAUSE he told them too.
The reason I get into the Oscar race is because I want my movies and my movie peeps to be nominated and maybe even win. You can watch a sport to see the individual game and enjoy it out of context of the playoff race, the final four, etc., but most people don’t. They want the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. I don’t think the Oscar race is any different.
I grew up in Massachusetts. I don’t think there’s a whole lot of difference between Crash winning and the ball rolling between Bill Buckner’s legs. That feeling’s pretty much the same. The Wizard of Oz is one of the most beloved films of all time but it took 64 years for a fantasy film to win the Oscar. Watching The Return of the King sweep in 2004 was just as exciting, for me anyway, as watching the Red Sox sweep to finally break the curse. Long standing evil was defeated twice in the same year.
We suffer, we bleed, with our movies. We cry when they win. We cry when they lose. The whole movie going experience is about emotion. Why should that stop when the movie does? I carry it all the way until that golden envelope is opened. It’s not for wimps. Look what happened to Sasha last year. That doesn’t happen to us because we like being right about predictions. I’m sure there are those gambler types that get into the race just to be right. But those prognosticators are few and far between.
The Academy are the keepers of the flame. Sometimes they trip and drop it. But as long as they don’t let it go out. Just in case, we need to keep an eye on them. It’s important.
Thanks for the link, Harry. I read about 3 sentences and started to hear Charlie Brown’s teacher in my head.
“It’s different kind of connection compared to the talkbackers on Ain’t It Cool News.”
I’m one of those people. XD
Here’s my thing. I love movies. I went to NYU but was not in the film school. I was surrounded by people who were. When I read some critics they remind me of the film snots I went to school with who wouldn’t know anything about movies if their professors hadn’t already told it to them. I know what I’m supposed to think from being around them and I learned the difference between conventional wisdom and what is actually good, because I didn’t drink the water. I also know that I’m allowed to like what ever I want. I learned this from our patron saint Quentin Tarantino. He allowed us to be able to love all the movies that we want no matter what we’re supposed to think. No one’s going to tell him he doesn’t know what he’s talking about are they? And think of all the movies people have watched BECAUSE he told them too.
The reason I get into the Oscar race is because I want my movies and my movie peeps to be nominated and maybe even win. You can watch a sport to see the individual game and enjoy it out of context of the playoff race, the final four, etc., but most people don’t. They want the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. I don’t think the Oscar race is any different.
I grew up in Massachusetts. I don’t think there’s a whole lot of difference between Crash winning and the ball rolling between Bill Buckner’s legs. That feeling’s pretty much the same. The Wizard of Oz is one of the most beloved films of all time but it took 64 years for a fantasy film to win the Oscar. Watching The Return of the King sweep in 2004 was just as exciting, for me anyway, as watching the Red Sox sweep to finally break the curse. Long standing evil was defeated twice in the same year.
We suffer, we bleed, with our movies. We cry when they win. We cry when they lose. The whole movie going experience is about emotion. Why should that stop when the movie does? I carry it all the way until that golden envelope is opened. It’s not for wimps. Look what happened to Sasha last year. That doesn’t happen to us because we like being right about predictions. I’m sure there are those gambler types that get into the race just to be right. But those prognosticators are few and far between.
The Academy are the keepers of the flame. Sometimes they trip and drop it. But as long as they don’t let it go out. Just in case, we need to keep an eye on them. It’s important.
I’m doing the New York Film Festival for the first time this year, and when I talked to people after screenings this weekend I was thrilled that no one even mentioned the word “oscar” even out of AMPAS context. “Carnage” was fantastic, as were “A Separation” and “Le Havre”. “Miss Bala” was a wild mess, though, which left me disappointed since I was actually anticipating it.
I’m doing the New York Film Festival for the first time this year, and when I talked to people after screenings this weekend I was thrilled that no one even mentioned the word “oscar” even out of AMPAS context. “Carnage” was fantastic, as were “A Separation” and “Le Havre”. “Miss Bala” was a wild mess, though, which left me disappointed since I was actually anticipating it.
Here, you can copy my homework:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/movies/a-o-scott-and-manohla-dargis-on-film-festivals.html?pagewanted=all
Here, you can copy my homework:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/movies/a-o-scott-and-manohla-dargis-on-film-festivals.html?pagewanted=all
“Surely Manohla Dargis has something better to do with her time than whine continually about this.” She does. She reviews movies every week for The New York Times. You can read them for free online. True story.
“Write more interesting content over there at the Times.” She does. Some of her articles have been reposted on this website.
“So to those like Dargis all I have to say is, instead of using the power of writing to whine about a stupid race, use that time to write about a film people might have missed out that weekend that might be worth a second look.” She does. I read the NYT reviews, and they have led me onto smaller movies I’d have otherwise never seen. This year’s Cold Weather, for example.
“Surely Manohla Dargis has something better to do with her time than whine continually about this.” She does. She reviews movies every week for The New York Times. You can read them for free online. True story.
“Write more interesting content over there at the Times.” She does. Some of her articles have been reposted on this website.
“So to those like Dargis all I have to say is, instead of using the power of writing to whine about a stupid race, use that time to write about a film people might have missed out that weekend that might be worth a second look.” She does. I read the NYT reviews, and they have led me onto smaller movies I’d have otherwise never seen. This year’s Cold Weather, for example.
Great piece, Sasha. I also agree with steve50’s comment, “I’m afraid there wouldn’t even be a room without Oscar.”
Having the Oscars in the background is a great excuse to discuss movies with people. In the pure sense, the Oscars are about picking movies that worked and left a mark. It also allows people who don’t follow the festival circuit or the minutiae of the film industry to be able to read and discover new movies.
I also think some critics are so hot-headed that maybe they are to blame for some of the air leaving the room.
Great piece, Sasha. I also agree with steve50’s comment, “I’m afraid there wouldn’t even be a room without Oscar.”
Having the Oscars in the background is a great excuse to discuss movies with people. In the pure sense, the Oscars are about picking movies that worked and left a mark. It also allows people who don’t follow the festival circuit or the minutiae of the film industry to be able to read and discover new movies.
I also think some critics are so hot-headed that maybe they are to blame for some of the air leaving the room.
Darghis writes about Oscar for the page views. She’s an interesting critic, but when she writes about Oscar she’s an entertainment writer. We know how disappointing the Times is at entertainment writing – and editing.
Our role is to advocate what should win, not as innocents but in total engagement with the possible. Awards are not a joke, even if Darghis has made a judgment that her readers want superior shtick. My guess is she has her readers figured out.
Darghis writes about Oscar for the page views. She’s an interesting critic, but when she writes about Oscar she’s an entertainment writer. We know how disappointing the Times is at entertainment writing – and editing.
Our role is to advocate what should win, not as innocents but in total engagement with the possible. Awards are not a joke, even if Darghis has made a judgment that her readers want superior shtick. My guess is she has her readers figured out.
it’s normal to talk about film in context of it’s oscar chances because most of the films that are coming in the last three months of the year have oscar-y ambitions, especially if those films are dramas about illness or something that people don’t really enjoy watching, biopics (oscar is their only purpose), literary adaptations… other films are made to earn money.
it’s normal to talk about film in context of it’s oscar chances because most of the films that are coming in the last three months of the year have oscar-y ambitions, especially if those films are dramas about illness or something that people don’t really enjoy watching, biopics (oscar is their only purpose), literary adaptations… other films are made to earn money.
i love the oscars as long as they drive and start discussion of good films and filmmakers… once they start becoming “the” conversation i stop reading what i’m reading or stop listening to what i’m listening to
i love the oscars as long as they drive and start discussion of good films and filmmakers… once they start becoming “the” conversation i stop reading what i’m reading or stop listening to what i’m listening to
Interesting article. But I see both sides to it. Yes, to me it is infuriating how “petty” it can get. How films like “A Dangerous Method” and “Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy” are being pushed aside because “their Oscar buzz is dying”. How films such as “Drive” and “Warrior” are being called failures when so much expectation was put into it in hopes that it would become an Oscar player, and now are nothing but an after thought of this year. But yet, this is the business. I agree that in the other hand we have films like “Juno”, “Winter’s Bone”, “An Education”, little gems here and there who would’ve never made an impact in the Cinema industry had it not been “The Oscar Race” pushing for it. The Oscars can be easily compared to the Cannes film festival, to Venice, Berlin. They are all judged by people, like you and me, who have some respectable knowledge about the business. Of course like humans, they sometimes make mistakes or choose something that you and I might not agree on, but in the end if you and me were in the same position we too would be criticized and challenged like they are, because we too are humans with our on opinions, tastes, and likings. So to those like Dargis all I have to say is, instead of using the power of writing to whine about a stupid race, use that time to write about a film people might have missed out that weekend that might be worth a second look. That would help not only the film, the people, the culture, but also the race you so much complain about!
Interesting article. But I see both sides to it. Yes, to me it is infuriating how “petty” it can get. How films like “A Dangerous Method” and “Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy” are being pushed aside because “their Oscar buzz is dying”. How films such as “Drive” and “Warrior” are being called failures when so much expectation was put into it in hopes that it would become an Oscar player, and now are nothing but an after thought of this year. But yet, this is the business. I agree that in the other hand we have films like “Juno”, “Winter’s Bone”, “An Education”, little gems here and there who would’ve never made an impact in the Cinema industry had it not been “The Oscar Race” pushing for it. The Oscars can be easily compared to the Cannes film festival, to Venice, Berlin. They are all judged by people, like you and me, who have some respectable knowledge about the business. Of course like humans, they sometimes make mistakes or choose something that you and I might not agree on, but in the end if you and me were in the same position we too would be criticized and challenged like they are, because we too are humans with our on opinions, tastes, and likings. So to those like Dargis all I have to say is, instead of using the power of writing to whine about a stupid race, use that time to write about a film people might have missed out that weekend that might be worth a second look. That would help not only the film, the people, the culture, but also the race you so much complain about!
Tero – I really like the idea of an open thread, good suggestion! I’ll keep my eyes peeled.
Tero – I really like the idea of an open thread, good suggestion! I’ll keep my eyes peeled.
I think you are right, Tero. Crazy Heart had a huge boost on behalf of the Oscar recognition, so did The Hurt Locker (the dvd sale exceeding expectations by far, surely). And what if Plummer gets talked about in relation to the Oscars for Barrymore. Surely that will make a small, but very worthwhile, project, come out into the light and get the attention projects like that need, but often do not get.
Yes, The Oscars are, first and foremost, a star-studded machinery and a vehicle for Hollywood’s persistent onslaught to secure cultural hegemony on behalf of its own products, BUT if that same machinery opens the door for movies like The Artist etc. etc., then surely something great comes out of the folly.
Oh, plus: it’s fun, you know!
I think you are right, Tero. Crazy Heart had a huge boost on behalf of the Oscar recognition, so did The Hurt Locker (the dvd sale exceeding expectations by far, surely). And what if Plummer gets talked about in relation to the Oscars for Barrymore. Surely that will make a small, but very worthwhile, project, come out into the light and get the attention projects like that need, but often do not get.
Yes, The Oscars are, first and foremost, a star-studded machinery and a vehicle for Hollywood’s persistent onslaught to secure cultural hegemony on behalf of its own products, BUT if that same machinery opens the door for movies like The Artist etc. etc., then surely something great comes out of the folly.
Oh, plus: it’s fun, you know!
On predicting the Oscars… I suffer from the same weird disease that many Oscar fans do. I predict with my own heart and mind, and not with my brain. Sometimes even selfishly, so I can say “I called it”. For every Tilda Swinton, I predict a bunch of There Will Be Bloods and The Social Networks – making my final prediction tally lower than for those who pick bookies’ favorites for all categories. Last year was my worst ever, I got something like 14/24. I will still keep my betting money in my own wallet.
I used to be better there, I wonder if the “over-thinking” (aka hanging around on Awards Daily) ruins it.
MOST IMPORTANTLY: I like the fact that – although based in USA – this site is quite global (and even more so in 2011 than in 2007). How did all those readers found their way here? Same way I did, for sure. Maybe you should post an open thread where people can introduce themselves more properly? I’d like to know some backstories (even when most don’t use their actual names).
On predicting the Oscars… I suffer from the same weird disease that many Oscar fans do. I predict with my own heart and mind, and not with my brain. Sometimes even selfishly, so I can say “I called it”. For every Tilda Swinton, I predict a bunch of There Will Be Bloods and The Social Networks – making my final prediction tally lower than for those who pick bookies’ favorites for all categories. Last year was my worst ever, I got something like 14/24. I will still keep my betting money in my own wallet.
I used to be better there, I wonder if the “over-thinking” (aka hanging around on Awards Daily) ruins it.
MOST IMPORTANTLY: I like the fact that – although based in USA – this site is quite global (and even more so in 2011 than in 2007). How did all those readers found their way here? Same way I did, for sure. Maybe you should post an open thread where people can introduce themselves more properly? I’d like to know some backstories (even when most don’t use their actual names).
Oscars are the most mainstream platform for “smaller” pictures. Who would’ve heard about… let’s say… Crazy Heart if Jeff Bridges didn’t win BA for it? Sure, we – readers on sites like this – would know, but we are in such a small minority. We follow film business cause we passionately want to. We love Cinema.
Oscars and other film awards – even on Awards Daily – are just bonus. At least that’s how I see it. Something that connects us. It’s different kind of connection compared to the talkbackers on Ain’t It Cool News. They watch mostly movies that AD skips entirely, and Human Centipede 2 doesn’t have to make headlines on this site.
Over the years, I believe I have found tens and tens of movies through this website alone. Even when I watch more than most people do, and would’ve followed film festivals anyway (I have lived before internet was invented). Though, I don’t think I commented here until the name was forced to change to AD. So, a few years only.
Sure, AD is quite mainstream in general. It’s an Oscar site, and we all know that it is mostly for bigger movies. AD gives coverage on Spirit Awards and such, too. People on the street (not hookers) don’t know which movie won Palme d’Or, but they probably know which movie won BP at Oscars. Even that info is very momentary. Ask them which movie won BP in 2010, and they don’t remember it anymore.
Oscars are the most mainstream platform for “smaller” pictures. Who would’ve heard about… let’s say… Crazy Heart if Jeff Bridges didn’t win BA for it? Sure, we – readers on sites like this – would know, but we are in such a small minority. We follow film business cause we passionately want to. We love Cinema.
Oscars and other film awards – even on Awards Daily – are just bonus. At least that’s how I see it. Something that connects us. It’s different kind of connection compared to the talkbackers on Ain’t It Cool News. They watch mostly movies that AD skips entirely, and Human Centipede 2 doesn’t have to make headlines on this site.
Over the years, I believe I have found tens and tens of movies through this website alone. Even when I watch more than most people do, and would’ve followed film festivals anyway (I have lived before internet was invented). Though, I don’t think I commented here until the name was forced to change to AD. So, a few years only.
Sure, AD is quite mainstream in general. It’s an Oscar site, and we all know that it is mostly for bigger movies. AD gives coverage on Spirit Awards and such, too. People on the street (not hookers) don’t know which movie won Palme d’Or, but they probably know which movie won BP at Oscars. Even that info is very momentary. Ask them which movie won BP in 2010, and they don’t remember it anymore.
I think it’s fine to have issues with Oscar Prognastication, which is what this appears to be. But by the same token, aren’t we prognasticators doing it because we love movies and because we can’t wait until the nominations are made to have some fun with a race that to many is largely obsolete and not a “clear honor,” so to speak?
I’ve been prognasticating for about 5 or 6 years and while I’m relatively new to the game, I get a tremendous amount of enjoyment out of it and I know why I do it. I think we all know why we do it and at the end of the day, yes, some of us make money, but some of us are just doing what we love, regardless of the benefits. Isn’t that really what a hobby is all about?
I think it’s fine to have issues with Oscar Prognastication, which is what this appears to be. But by the same token, aren’t we prognasticators doing it because we love movies and because we can’t wait until the nominations are made to have some fun with a race that to many is largely obsolete and not a “clear honor,” so to speak?
I’ve been prognasticating for about 5 or 6 years and while I’m relatively new to the game, I get a tremendous amount of enjoyment out of it and I know why I do it. I think we all know why we do it and at the end of the day, yes, some of us make money, but some of us are just doing what we love, regardless of the benefits. Isn’t that really what a hobby is all about?
Sorry for the extra “n” in Cannes. I need more coffee.
Sorry for the extra “n” in Cannes. I need more coffee.
And I also want to say that for those of us not fortunate enough to live in NY or LA or Cannnes, who work our 9 to 5’s in flyover country, talking about the oscars is a way to indirectly participate in an industry/art form we love, but that remains mysterious and, in reality, the realm of a very small number of people. We don’t get to attend festivals or write blogs or write reviews. We live our non-movie lives and see movies on the weekend, if they’re even out where we live. So oscar talk is a way for me to connect with others who share a similar passion. In other words, oscars are universal in a way festivals are not. Anyone can watch the oscars. But really only a select group of people can attend the festivals and actually have careers in movies and/or writing about movies.
And I also want to say that for those of us not fortunate enough to live in NY or LA or Cannnes, who work our 9 to 5’s in flyover country, talking about the oscars is a way to indirectly participate in an industry/art form we love, but that remains mysterious and, in reality, the realm of a very small number of people. We don’t get to attend festivals or write blogs or write reviews. We live our non-movie lives and see movies on the weekend, if they’re even out where we live. So oscar talk is a way for me to connect with others who share a similar passion. In other words, oscars are universal in a way festivals are not. Anyone can watch the oscars. But really only a select group of people can attend the festivals and actually have careers in movies and/or writing about movies.
While Oscar has never defined the best, IMO, I understand its purpose and the service it provides the industry. Every business needs promotion and the oscar race is by far the most colourful form of advertising being in practice today. The one thing the contest does is provide a platform for discussion about who gave the “best” performance or made the “best” movie. It’s not so much winning the race that counts, thank god, but the excitement that a real gem just might slip into the spotlight.
In the olden days used to rely on critics (like Kael or Simon or Morgenstern) to determine what I might or might not enjoy (as well as for some very entertaining quips), but in the past few years, I’ve found that blogs like this are a truer source – a gathering of like-minded viewers provides a much more stimulating conversation than we seem to get from critics, alone.
“Sucking the air out of the room” – hardly! I’m afraid there wouldn’t even be a room without Oscar.
While Oscar has never defined the best, IMO, I understand its purpose and the service it provides the industry. Every business needs promotion and the oscar race is by far the most colourful form of advertising being in practice today. The one thing the contest does is provide a platform for discussion about who gave the “best” performance or made the “best” movie. It’s not so much winning the race that counts, thank god, but the excitement that a real gem just might slip into the spotlight.
In the olden days used to rely on critics (like Kael or Simon or Morgenstern) to determine what I might or might not enjoy (as well as for some very entertaining quips), but in the past few years, I’ve found that blogs like this are a truer source – a gathering of like-minded viewers provides a much more stimulating conversation than we seem to get from critics, alone.
“Sucking the air out of the room” – hardly! I’m afraid there wouldn’t even be a room without Oscar.
For me, it’s as simple as loving movies. Yes, I spend time talking and obsessing about the oscars, but that’s only because I want the artists I love and respect to be honored. And I’m realistic to know, that, yes, for better or worst, winning an oscar can open up new roles and opportunities for those artists. And that means I get to see my favorites in MORE movies. So as you say here, Sahsa, for me, it’s about the movies. If anything, I think it means I love movies more than the average person, because I acknowledge the real world industry in which film makers and the machines that represent them operate.
For me, it’s as simple as loving movies. Yes, I spend time talking and obsessing about the oscars, but that’s only because I want the artists I love and respect to be honored. And I’m realistic to know, that, yes, for better or worst, winning an oscar can open up new roles and opportunities for those artists. And that means I get to see my favorites in MORE movies. So as you say here, Sahsa, for me, it’s about the movies. If anything, I think it means I love movies more than the average person, because I acknowledge the real world industry in which film makers and the machines that represent them operate.
I would say that someone should moneyball movies, but I think that might equate to TWC.
I would say that someone should moneyball movies, but I think that might equate to TWC.
Plus when a film or performance that you really love gets shafted by Oscar, it can become even more meaningful to you that you’re able to see something those idiots couldn’t see. Awards should be catalysts for fun debate. They encourage people out of the loop to see some really good movies they wouldn’t otherwise and provide a joke with an occasional great recognition to lovers of film. Why does everybody have to act so serious about it?
Plus when a film or performance that you really love gets shafted by Oscar, it can become even more meaningful to you that you’re able to see something those idiots couldn’t see. Awards should be catalysts for fun debate. They encourage people out of the loop to see some really good movies they wouldn’t otherwise and provide a joke with an occasional great recognition to lovers of film. Why does everybody have to act so serious about it?
I see the whole dog and pony show dissected and analyzed a hell of a lot better than the top film critic at the New York Times would ever deign to do. I see, in short, the kinds of debates about movies we used to have in coffee shops but now have online – something I never see at the Times.
^
This.
Surely Manohla Dargis has something better to do with her time than whine continually about this. It’s like, “you want to do mankind a favor? Tell funnier jokes.” Write more interesting content over there at the Times.
Holding my breath for the next pure movie-lover essay from Dargis involving California court cases of the 1970s.
Meanwhile, every January for as long as I can recall, Dargis and all the Times critics fabricate the most nonsensical Bizarro Oscar Predictions found anywhere.
I see the whole dog and pony show dissected and analyzed a hell of a lot better than the top film critic at the New York Times would ever deign to do. I see, in short, the kinds of debates about movies we used to have in coffee shops but now have online – something I never see at the Times.
^
This.
Surely Manohla Dargis has something better to do with her time than whine continually about this. It’s like, “you want to do mankind a favor? Tell funnier jokes.” Write more interesting content over there at the Times.
Holding my breath for the next pure movie-lover essay from Dargis involving California court cases of the 1970s.
Meanwhile, every January for as long as I can recall, Dargis and all the Times critics fabricate the most nonsensical Bizarro Oscar Predictions found anywhere.