| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 02/26/2008 : 19:36:34
|
This may be of interest.
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 22:50:33
|
| Its interesting history, but I disagree with your conclusion: that the Oscars are immoral ("dirty fingernails" in your words) because they are based on the profit motive. The unstated major premise here is that anything based on the profit motive is immoral, which is highly debatable, and in my own opinion, is a false premise. The most damning thing I can say is that the Oscars are amoral (as opposed to immoral). |
 |
|
|
MguyXXVI 
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 23:18:44
|
Aptly noted, GHC. However, I also agree with BB's core observations: the Academy Awards serve a very well-recognized capital-generating end, notwithstanding that at least in theory they signal a nod of accomplishment to those who receive them.
On the one hand, the concept of ranking artistic achievement is somewhat arbitrary. However, if we do not take the task as being too definitive an undertaking -- that is, if we openly acknowledge that tastes vary, and that those who do not get statutettes are no less significant achievers -- it can be fairly innocuous fun with still an air of distinction.
On the other hand, the task so easily takes on the air of art nazism, given all of the pomp and significance bestowed upon it.
Which brings us to the third hand, the grothesque, misshapen third appendage that thrusts itself upon the task as an emergent, partially absorbed twin that demands identity. This is the inevitable result when the bankers and brokers realized that the exercise could be a predictor of financial success. It is at that point the exercise takes on an uglier pall than even that cast by the art nazis.
But there's no way around it. I cannot condemn the capitalists for exploiting an award system to make money: that's what they do. I cannot condemn the art nazis for trying to assign too much significance to the process: they don't have totalitarian control, so the unranked and under-ranked still have a chance. And I cannot condemn mankind in general for tending to rank things anyway: it's something to do for fun.
Probably, it's just up to us individually to wade past the bull and understand that, ultimately, it's art that is the "winner," and that statuettes are just little pieces of metal.
So I agree with both of you.  |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 00:15:14
|
Thanks for both your comments. But I think you're slightly missing the point.
Uhm ... I never used the word immoral ... I was trying to remind people - and it seemed ironic to me in light of the recent and threatened industry strikes - that the whole shebang was born out of a deception on the part of a power-elite. Being intensely political, they pretended they were anything but. And that was to one end only -so they wouldn't lose control. The con was breath-taking.
The money thing came way later, as I indicated.
Seems to me what gets lost in these bunfights is a bridge between why punters go to films and the noble desire on the part of any industry to recognize its talents.
Is an exquisite, albeit ephemeral Hopi sand painting better or worse than The Mona Lisa? Is A, Csharp, F a better or worse note sequence that G, Bflat, D?
As you know I've been in the assessment business for a long time, so I'm certainly not against judging films or websites or whatever on their own merits according to their own agendas.
What I'm wary about is the manufactured pissing contest that serves to equate the elements of arts & craft with monetary value, spawning an industry where people who've had nothing to do with the creative process whip up the kind of fervor that would make the Roman Colisseum Games Night Manager proud.
I think if practitioners of an industry as group-dependent as cinema - if they identify a shortlist of high achievement, that's where the focus should be. The whole concept of trying to apply the rules of quantification -- "Yes, sports fans, Blanky Blank has outjumped the rest by six-tenths of an inch!" A clear winner. "Blanky Blanky is 5'8 and Blanky Blanky Blanky is 6'2"." Clearly taller. -- as I said, to try to apply that kind of calculus to something as unquantifiable as the arts & crafts constituents of a film - there's only one reason to do that and it has nothing to do with assessment. It has to do with manipulation.
It really doesn't matter if - in the interim since Oscar's inception - that people have fun with it. The arts surely needn't be po-faced to matter. On the living room level it may even be innocuous fun.
But Oscar as an Industry of its own has become a monster breaking out of its fun-restraint. It left dignity behind many years ago. Personally I think it's symptomatic of the kind of issues the Coens were dealing with in the "winning" film.
You know I loved that film, that's not the point. And, okay I never won an Oscar, but I've won other awards, so I'm not speaking from a sour-grapes platform.
If the Oscar Industry were about "personal taste" it would be easier to forgive. But it's still about what started them off, and that's control. At least there's less pretense these days.
It's interesting comparing it with the BAFTAs - which, I'm sad to report, are creeping Oscar's way. The UK process makes it less likely to be able to form little voting cabals.
I suspect most moviegoers - and probably a lot of fwfrers - would rather not address the political nature of the film business.  And, who knows, I may even shut up about it someday.  
|
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 01:57:50
|
| Aside from the money to be made and the higher stakes in terms of peoples' careers, I see the Oscars not much differently than I see Four Word Film Review. Its fun and its subjective and we campaign for our own selves a lot while occasionally putting in the good word for others. |
|
|
|
aahaa, muahaha 
"Optimistic altruist, incurable romantic"
|
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 05:47:42
|
| Very interesting, Bafta. I have a couple of other issues as well to contend with - the first is that some years have a lot of good movies while some years, there are none; evidently, it depends on the socio-economic conditions prevalent then in the world, er, US. It would be great if you can explore this theme. The second is the best oscar for a foreign film - Given that the Oscars are US-centric, it is no surprise that most foreign oscars go to films from similar cultural contexts such as the European. Films like Gandhi win Oscars only because they are made by English people in English. I wanted to know if you have to say something about my assessment. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 09:03:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by aahaa, muahaha
Very interesting, Bafta. I have a couple of other issues as well to contend with - the first is that some years have a lot of good movies while some years, there are none; evidently, it depends on the socio-economic conditions prevalent then in the world, er, US. It would be great if you can explore this theme. The second is the best oscar for a foreign film - Given that the Oscars are US-centric, it is no surprise that most foreign oscars go to films from similar cultural contexts such as the European. Films like Gandhi win Oscars only because they are made by English people in English. I wanted to know if you have to say something about my assessment.
Thank you, aahaa
Well, I reckon the real relevant element in your first question is the co-incidence of timing of release. But even a conspiracy-maven like me doesn't believe global socio-economic conditions are the drivers for what eventually gets released in your nabe [as Variety calls your local moviehouse].
Don't forget it usually takes YEARS to get to that point.
DEVELOPMENT
BIGWIG STUDIO LEVEL
Usually a decision between accountants and planners about the bundle of films the studio wants to offer -- this is a general money-driven thing. If they know they've already got 3 thrillers, 1 sfx, 2 rom-coms and a sequal at various stages of production, that will probably influence their choice of the mix. 'Product' as they call it is never in short supply - I don't know the exact ratio of script-stage to production these days, but even smaller producers sit on script mountains. [at which point Whipper will point out they do it to make them seem taller!]
SO
> Script commissioned and/or written = a year-ish
> Script assigned to some/all above the line honchos who probably demand changes = a few more months [don't forget stars and star directors are rarely available at a moment's notice, unless something they were working on falls through]
Important to remember that more is always commissioned/bought than they know will be made in a year. Legally they protect themselves with various contract clauses, usually giving a year or so to get the thing into production with built-in options to renew, etc
TURNAROUND
It's at this stage that decisions are made either to greenlight the project or bin it. That's less likely to be a decision of the geo-political climate than of the mix in their production bag.
SO
> Pre-production, including contract negotiations and staffing, shooting scheduling, location finding, production and set design meetings, costume/wig fittings and/or making, any pre-recorded sound/music blah-blah-blah. = say, 2-4 months
PRODUCTION
Another few months or more depending on location conditions, etc
POST-PRODUCTION
A few months to a year or more if complicated fx and/or animation required.
Anyway - by the time of release the world and/or US political climate may be very different and the reasons for distribution will have more to do with projected seasonal factors than whether a film is good or bad. Kiddie films during holidays, etc
You can see, though, that the development of technology - from Hi-quality home vid cameras to sophisticated digi sfx capable of being produced on your desktop pc ... all that is gradually changing the industry and will continue to do so.
Good and bad don't really come into the equation. Of course no one sets out to make a bad film. But for too many people in the process it's often not even on the wishlist. They want to make films that will recoup development/production budgets in the first US w/e.
Which, of course, never means that if the film cleans up at the bo, that makes it a priori a good film.
As to your 2nd question: it's a matter of how many of the 7000 or so Academy voting members actually see the runners for best foreign film. And that depends on many factors, some of which can be extrapolated from the process described above. Many westerners - not just Americans - have long had resistence to 'foreign' films, reflected in a lack of exhibition venues. This has gotten worse over the decades.
When I was a young person in NYC, there were at least two highly successful cinemas that specialized in arthouse films, including sub-titled. I think at least one of those is now closed, and maybe both. Same story in London - though at least the British Film Institute has a stream of foreign films at the National Film Theatre. They have, though, given up their own national circuit of small film houses which used to bring arthouse films to audiences all around the UK. And determined audiences can seek out French films at the French Institute. And, of course, at various annual film festivals.
Actually, I think the situation is getting better. More people these days seem willing to watch, including Academy members - who can get screeners, etc.
But there's also that elusive factor - people don't want to be made to feel stupid, and there's still a perception that they won't be able to 'get' a foreign film. If it's dubbed at least they don't have to do that speed-read sub-title, look up at the screen thing - but there's an often false expectation they'll feel they've missed something.
In America I think it's changing -- slowly -- because of stuff like a growing familiarity with faces/cultures previously unknown, previously regarded with the prejudice of ignorance. Ugly Betty has probably done quite a bit in this regard. Penelope Cruz in Hello! has some effect on the box office of Volver.
Hope this helps
|
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 02/27/2008 11:11:10 |
|
|
|
aahaa, muahaha
"Optimistic altruist, incurable romantic"
|
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 11:35:19
|
 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Oscar Quarterback
