Oscars: Do You Care?
So the Oscars are coming up. ‘Everyone’ is overjoyed that the strike ended in time. But let’s be honest. Do you honestly care?
Here’s my issue. With small kids, illness and the problems of scheduling sitters, we just don’t go out to movies that often. It’s all about Netflix. Because of that typically only see movies on DVD. (Once HD-DVD, but I won’t belabor that conversation)
Anyway the end result is that I haven’t seen most of the movies up for Oscars. It doesn’t help that most of them have very limited releases – often only a week locally. So if I want to see them I have to drive up to Salt Lake City. (Where many of them are playing at the Broadway)
But beyond that I find most of the Academy Awards tedious. The comedy usually isn’t. I don’t care about the fashion. The dance numbers do nothing for me. So why should I care?
Thoughts?
And since this might as well be the Oscar discussion thread. Why should we care about an award show that gets things wrong so often? I mean Hitchcock never got a best director award. Vertigo wasn’t even nominated neither was Rear Window (although at least Hitchock was nominated that year for best director) Then there is Scorsesee who never won until recently when he was nominated for two highly flawed movies. (The Aviator and The Departed, for which he won) And I still have a burr under my seat for the success at the Oscars by Titanic.
So given all that and many of the other egregious choices, why care?
And if you do care, why is it that so many now recognized ‘great’ films never got rewarded by the Oscars?
I dunno. But I’ll watch for the pageantry and fluff, because the strike left me wanting some good old fashioned glitz. Call me a girl. But I’ll be watching.
Comment by tracy m — February 21, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
I haven’t seen many of the movies for the same reasons you list–just not enough time. But I’m interested in seeing how Jon Stewart performs. I also hope Daniel Day-Lewis wins as he’s been one of my favorite actors for a while now.
Comment by Tim J — February 21, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
If I watch it (big if), it’ll only be for Jon Stewart. Other than two years ago, when he last hosted, and once with my sisters, I don’t know if I’ve ever sat through the Oscars.
Comment by Sam B. — February 21, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
As far as the wrong people/movies winning, I think the Oscars gets it right more often than say the Grammy’s and certainly more than the Emmy’s where shows/actors that should have a great chance at winning aren’t even nominated (Friday Night Lights).
Comment by Tim J — February 21, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Tim, that’s damning with faint praise. Does anyone respect the Grammy nominations? It seems always to be evidence of generational gap at best.
Comment by Clark — February 21, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
Why don’t you just illegally download the Oscar films and enjoy them in the comfort of your own home?
Comment by John K. — February 21, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
I haven’t watched for years and I really don’t care, other than to complain about who got robbed at various times in the past:
1. Andy Serkis as Gollum.
2. Ratatouille should have gotten a best picture nod this year.
Comment by a random John — February 21, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
Griping about who got robbed (or unjustly rewarded) is about the only good thing about the Oscars.
I agree Serkis deserved a win. More than the film itself.
Comment by Clark — February 21, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
Serkis didn’t deserve to win. Ratatouille will win the Best Animated award hands down.
Plus, everyone should care. This is the top movie award in the world. It’s the Superbowl of feature film-making. Who wins and who doesn’t is secondary to the Oscars being a celebration of an amazing art form–the art form of the 20th century. The Oscars generate discussion of film and performances, and that’s one of the things I love about them. Much like the Olympics it’s a chance to see people who’ve dedicated themselves to something for years, get one shining moment of fulfillment where they’re rewarded for their efforts and make it into the record books.
That’s why I’ll watch and I’ll be rooting for the Coens to take home some gold.
That, and I enjoy the montages about film history and all the actors who passed away last year.
Comment by Brian G — February 21, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
The Oscars are all about Hollywood doing what Hollywood does best—taking itself to seriously, and patting itself on the back.
If I watch it’s usually in the hopes that someone will make an ass out of themselves by pulling a Susan-Sarandon.
But if Jon Stewart’s hosting, I’ll watch for sure.
Comment by Susan M — February 21, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
The Oscars ….
I think I’ve heard of those somewhere….
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — February 21, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
Brian’s right. As pompous and silly and wrong as it can be (how can “4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days” not be nominated for best foreign language film?) it’s a worthy way to take stock of and recognize the best artistry in film over the past year. And there’s been a lot of it. I’ll be looking forward to Jon Stewart, seeing Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova do “Falling Slowly” live, and, hopefully, a Coen Brothers acceptance speech.
Comment by Greg — February 21, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
I’m not sure Serkis should have won but I think a nomination nod was well deserved.
Comment by Clark — February 21, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
I haven’t watched the Academy Awards since the mid-nineties when “Titanic” won eleven Oscars. That did it for me.
Comment by Jack — February 21, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
I think the Oscars do a fairly decent job at recognizing the “best” movies in a particular year. But because “best” is highly subjective, they’re not going to be perfect. Additionally, Hollywood politics has to be considered as well. That’s why Citizen Kane didn’t win when it clearly should have.
Most movies that endure the test of time and become the “best” aren’t necessarily viewed as the best in that particular year. IMDB has had Shawshank Redemption as the number two movie of all time for quite some time, but the best the movie got was a nomination for Best Picture.
Frankly, the Truman Show should be considered among the best films ever, but it isn’t. Not yet. Maybe when we finally look retrospectively at our generation’s adoration of voyeuristic television we might realize just how ahead of its time was The Truman Show. Did it get any consideration at the Oscars that year (1997)? Nope. Too much publicity for some boat accident in the Atlantic.
I personally have lost interest in watching the Oscar shows themselves, mostly because I’m not in that culture anymore. Maybe being on the east coast instead of in California, where I grew up, has affected that. In any case, I also don’t watch many movies at all these days.
Comment by Dan — February 21, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
The issue with Serkis’s Gollum is that it’s really in a category unto itself. It’s not exactly animation because his body movements are used as a basis for the movements of the character, but it’s not really in the category of other performances where a person’s face is visible, their actual eyes, arms, legs, etc. are all caught on film. So it wouldn’t be fair to put Serkis in a category with other actors, or vice versa, in my opinion.
Comment by Brian G — February 21, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
No way is Shawshank Redemption the number two film of all time. IMDB rankings are slightly less reliable than the Oscars at measuring excellence.
As far as Titanic winning 11 Oscars, I think it deserved many of those awards, not Best Picture and probably not Best Director, but it’s an impressive and ground-breaking technical achievement. It probably still ranks as the most profitable film of all time.
Another reason the Oscars are important is because they draw attention to little-recognized aspects of film-making that are essential, editing, costume design, cinematography and so on.
Comment by Brian G — February 21, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
Brian,
I’m with you. I think Titanic deserved most of those Oscars, but for 1997, I would have liked to see either the Truman Show or LA Confidential get the nod for Best Picture.
Comment by Dan — February 21, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
Yeah, but _profitable_ does not mean it was good! It really won 11 Oscars?? Egad.
Comment by tracy m — February 21, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
Shawshank isn’t remotely the best. But it is very good. It was at least nominated which is more than you can say for some movies. Plus it was in a year that saw Pulp Fiction and Forrest Gump. Gump, which won, has since been heavily disparaged. But to be honest I think unfairly so. That year also saw Four Weddings and a Funeral which didn’t deserve to remotely be nominated. Also Quiz Show, which was good, but not good enough to deserve a nomination.
Ed Wood, which got some acting nominations, deserved to be nominated for Best Picture over either Quiz Show or Four Weddings and a Funeral. For that matter Red, of the three colors trilogy did as well. Although it did get a cinematography nod but not even a nomination for Best Foreign Film. It’s my least favorite of the trilogy, but still…
Lion King, which was arguably the last of the ‘big’ Disney movies didn’t get a nomination that year either except in the more ‘trivial’ categories.
Moving along to Titanic. Even if you liked the film, can you honestly say it was better than L.A. Confidential or Good Will Hunting? Even As Good as it Gets which was good, but not award good, and vastly overrated, was better than Titanic. Yeah give it a slew of technical achievements. Most of those were deserved. But even from a direction point of view it was arguably one of Cameron’s more poorly directed films. (This independent of the story) Plus we got stuck with that “I’m King of the World” speech after which Cameron reportedly went home and beat up his wife (the star of T2).
Ugh. What a bad year.
There were plenty of films that didn’t even get nods. While I’m not a fan (and honestly haven’t seen it) Boogie Nights is still highly regarded by critics and didn’t get director or picture nods. There was The Apostle – admittedly not the kind of film likely to get a subjective nod, but still excellent. There was Tarantino’s great (and highly underrated) Jackie Brown.
Admittedly not a super strong year but plenty of better choices.
Comment by Clark — February 21, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
Brian G,
I’m not claiming Serkis should have won, I’m saying it is insane that he didn’t get nominated.
Also, it is not the Superbowl. Perhaps it is a BCS bowl (we can even call it the title game) surrounded by other bowls that are equally (un)important. It isn’t clear to me that Oscar winners are the best films/performances of the year. While I think it is great to recognize accomplishments in the film world, I don’t think that it is necessary. Does say, the painting world also have a series of televised award shows? Best historical mural?
Comment by a random John — February 21, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
Clark,
I’ve come to the conclusion that Forest Gump is (was?) mostly popular due to providing an overview of a few decades of recent history by putting the character in the middle of historical events and pop culture moments and then supplying popular songs from those eras in the soundtrack. When compared to the book it is clearly a failure. I also put the inexplicably popular Mr. Holland’s Opus in the same category of history + soundtrack = movie.
Comment by a random John — February 21, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
ehhh, this year I might watch just to see the duo from “Once” perform for Best Original Song…
Comment by Hayes — February 21, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
I’ll definitely watch for the Once performance and wish they would accidentally bestow Best Picture on that great film…
Comment by gabby — February 21, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
random,
Don’t be silly. Serkis doesn’t even appear in the film. It’d be insane to nominate him.
Plus, while the Oscars may not be necessary, either is the Superbowl, fashion, the iphone, or any number of things people care about. What kind of way is that to go through life–only thinking we should care about things that are absolutely necessary.
Comment by Brian G — February 22, 2008 @ 12:09 am
Tracy M,
Profitable actually means quite a bit in Hollywood. But one thing that is neat about the Oscars is that they bring acclaim and a wider audience to films that are not huge commercial successes.
Of all the best picture noms, Juno has by far made the most money. The other four films may not have even made a profit. A lot of people who haven’t even heard of Once yet will be familiar with it after Sunday night.
As far as Titanic goes, when a film makes nearly 2 billion dollars worldwide—700 million more than second place, that’s pretty impressive. We can all look down our noses at it and feel snooty, but something made people all over the world see it again and again and again.
Comment by Brian G — February 22, 2008 @ 12:17 am
The Truman Show??
I prefer EdTV.
Comment by MCQ — February 22, 2008 @ 12:59 am
I don’t care about the Oscars. But this year, for once, there are quite a few movies I do care about.
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
Michael Clayton
Eastern Promises
Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street
and even
Enchanted, for a warm-hearted musical
Comment by D. Fletcher — February 22, 2008 @ 8:05 am
Brain G,
What does “appear in the film” mean? Does his voice appear in the film? Do his expressions? His body language? I’d say he appears in the film as much as actors in heavy makeup or under a mask do. It was an acting achievement as much as a technological one and should have been given consideration.
If the scene from the third film in which he does appear were inserted in the second film would that make a difference? I think he appears in the first film as well as a hobbit.
Whether it was acting or not it appears to have raised his profile as an actor.
I don’t care much about the Superbowl (haven’t watched in years) but I admit that I attended the World Series this year and enjoyed it. Also, I would love to have an iPhone but my wife and her entire family are on Verizon which complicates things. Though comparing the iPhone with the Oscars is making me laugh a bit. I can see a comparison of the iPhone with a movie, but with an awards show? In fact comparing the Oscars to the Superbowl (I still insist it is a BCS bowl due to the presence of overlapping awards shows) is odd in that the Superbowl isn’t conducted by getting past a present NFL players and coaches to vote on which team wins. I don’t think of film as a competitive sport.
I’m not saying that others can’t enjoy the Oscars or even think that they are vitally important. I’m not saying that they should not exist. I’m saying that I don’t care for them. I think we each have legitimate points of view that come down to personal preference.
Comment by a random John — February 22, 2008 @ 11:41 am
random,
I’m not saying Serkis didn’t do great work. I’m just saying it’s an apples vs. oranges situation.
Comment by Brian G — February 22, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
I think the Serkis situation is much like how Hollywood looks at animation, actions films and so forth. They don’t seem ‘proper’ and so a non-standard acting job, no matter how fantastic, is treated as an ‘apples and oranges’ situation. But to me this just demonstrates how silly the academy’s categories are as well as its prejudice against certain kinds of films. (Comedies especially)
Brian, regarding Titanic, certainly folks liked the film. That doesn’t make it a great film. I have lots of films I find enjoyable but would never argue is great. Let’s put it this way. The Star Wars prequels made Billions with a capital B even before DVD sales. Do they deserve a best picture nomination?
I’d also suggest that the film was so popular because it connected with millions of young women between the ages of 13 and 22 who saw the movie dozens of times.
John, I disagree with Forrest Gump’s charm being about music and popular history. It was much more than that I thought. I think Gump as “everyman” was key. But more importantly I thought Hanks gave an outstanding performance. I think if you imagine anyone else in that role it wouldn’t work. The timing was perfect. Everyone attacks the film partially because the main character is an idiot who is so innocent. But that’s why it works. It really is outstandingly made.
I think it’s vastly superior to the book which I tried to read but found rather…bad.
Comment by Clark — February 22, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
Clark,
I think Star Wars deserved the nomination. When talking about the “best” film of a year, surely its groundbreaking should be considered. What Star Wars did to America cannot be taken for granted. It brought out such a freshness, such a positive light on a dreary world. And while dialogue and acting are not up to par with say Annie Hall, surely all other aspects of the film give it consideration for the Oscar, at least a nomination.
Comment by Dan — February 22, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
I thought Star Wars (the first released film from back in 77) definitely deserved the nomination. My point was more that the recent trilogy did everything Titanic did popularity wise and more.
Comment by Clark — February 22, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
But they didn’t earn any nomination outside the technical ones.
Comment by Dan — February 22, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
on serkis, it really isn’t an “apple vs oranges…” it is more of “apples vs a drawing of an apple”
Funny thing is, tho, and perhaps this says more about me than the Oscars…most of the time, my favorite movies are rarely, if ever, up for a Best Picture. Sooo, I don’t have much invested in the nominated movies to care.
But, I do “care” about Once, and I would love to see it get all the acclaim and recognition that it can…
Comment by Hayes — February 22, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
Dan, that’s my point. They didn’t deserve to. If Titanic deserved other nods then so too did the atrocious Star Wars prequels which no one in their right mind would believe deserved them.
One other complaint: the way foreign films are handled is atrocious.
Comment by Clark — February 22, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
also, Central Station got robbed. Paltrow getting a statue for Shakespeare in Love? Bah!
Comment by a random John — February 22, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
Clark,
I think Titanic is on a much higher level of quality than the Star Wars prequels. I think cinematography was vastly superior. Costume design. Heck, screenplay. Acting. In all ways, except special effects, Titanic was far superior to the Star Wars prequels. I don’t think Titanic deserved to be nominated because of its financial success. I think it merited the nominations on its own. Do I think it was the best picture of 1997? Not at all. Both LA Confidential and Truman Show were superior. But that’s just my opinion.
Comment by Dan — February 22, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
I have to confess that even though I’m a huge Tom Stoppard fan I’ve never seen Shakespeare in Love. I really need to. I did hear that the Paltrow award was undeserved. Perhaps not Marisa Tomei underserved, but undeserved still.
Comment by Clark — February 22, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
Clark,
Shakespeare in Love was very, very well written. It definitely deserved the Best Screenplay award. It certainly didn’t deserve the Best Picture award.
Comment by Dan — February 22, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
As incredibly lame as the Star Wars prequels are, they don’t hold a candle to “Titanic” with respect to a wholly depraved understanding of the human condition on the part of the creators.
Comment by Jack — February 23, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
So they start in a few minutes. I’m not watching. I’m putting Flags of Our Fathers on in one of the last HD-DVDs to come from Netflix. I’m sure someone else will write up the festivities.
I should note we went and saw Juno last night. I loved it and hope it does very well.
Comment by Clark — February 24, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
wow, i’m impressed. They finished before midnight eastern time!
Comment by Dan — February 24, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
“Falling Slowly” won…
that is all.
Comment by Hayes — February 25, 2008 @ 9:23 am
I’m still not sure about No Country for Old Men. After seeing it, I read the book, then went back and saw it again. I liked the film both more and less after reading the book.
I think the film was a little plot-heavy and didn’t focus enough on Sheriff Bell, who is essentially the protagonist but didn’t really come into the film in a meaningful sense until the end.
Comment by Eric Russell — February 26, 2008 @ 10:45 am
One part of the book that was left out of the film was the Sheriff’s confession of a cowardly act when he was a soldier in the war. I think leaving that out was an interesting choice.
Comment by Brian G — February 26, 2008 @ 12:22 pm