I've never cared much for the Academy Awards, and I certainly never watch them. Well, that's not true. I did watch in 1969. I was disappointed because Butch Cassidy lost to Midnight Cowboy. My older brother assured me that the better film had won, but, being only nine years old, I was not allowed to see movies rated R, let alone ones rated X, as Midnight Cowboy was upon its release.
Recent outrages have soured me even further on the Oscars. The most recent atrocity had to be Million Dollar Baby, a film so trite and platitudinous that I stayed almost to the end just to see if it wasn't actually a parody. Alas, they were serious. Gladiator was another film that didn't seem to deserve that kind of praise, and years earlier, Dances with Wolves scored a bullseye for stupidity. So, let's recall that the whole things is just a popularity contest voted upon by those in the business.
"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "Frost/Nixon," Slumdog Millionaire","Milk," "The Reader," are this year's nominees for best picture. I saw the first three. Curious Case was very boring, and I walked out about half way through. The next two were very entertaining, and Plummer's (oops, make that Frank Langella... why did I confuse him with Christopher Plummer?) Nixon is really something to see. I heard Milk was worth seeing, but the Reader doesn't move me. I'm kind of holocausted out. Not that I deny it happened, mind you, (quite the contrary), I'll leave that to schismatic French Bishops, it just depresses me to think about it. More so to watch movies about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I get kind of annoyed at the Academy Awards sometimes too, because they just don't know what the mass majority of people like. I am yet to meet a person that has seen The Reader, or even is interested in seeing the Reader. I watch the ceremony anyway, even though it's ALWAYS an hour too long with unnecessary montages and stupid gimmicks. I guess it's just something I can't help. But I'm going to take a stand right now and say that if either Heath Ledger or Mickey Rourke don't win their respective categories, I may never watch the awards again.
ReplyDeleteAnd to add one more reason the Academy Awards are often ridiculous is because not only do they ignore what the audience wants, they sometimes ignore what professional critics want. On the website rottentomatoes.com, every time a critic reviews a film online it is recorded there, and all the reviews are piled together to create a consensus on a scale of 0% - 100%. The Wrestler had 190 reviews from professional critics and only 4 were negative, giving it a rating of 98%. The Reader had 169 reviews and 67 were negative, giving it a rating of 60%. Yet The Reader got a Best Picture nomination. The Dark Knight had a 94% and Iron Man had a 93%, so why aren't they considered? Because they are "action films"? "Comic book characters"? A good movie is a good movie, and that's what they should be judged on.
ReplyDeleteWell, this is certainly food for thought. One might argue that an action movie, while drawing rave reviews, lacks a certain gravitas that is required for an Oscar. How would one explain Gladiator, then?
ReplyDeleteThere is little doubt that movies that address particular social or historical themes that are popular among the "Hollywood elite" tend to be regarded very highly. I guess this is to be expected.
Let's consider it from another angle. HOw many truly great novels were written during the 19th Century? Not 100, certainly. Maybe 20. Let's say 33 and a third. Well, according to that formula, we should only have a ceremony every three years, not every year. With films, perhaps every ten years would be more accurate. SOme years, it's pretty slim pickin's.
I watch the Oscars every year, and every year I get angrier and angrier at them. It's true that they're very much out of touch with the opinion of the general public, but I don't particularly mind that since I don't agree with the majority of people anyway when it comes to movies (i.e. I could care less about talking dogs). But I agree with Nick that they ignore even critics, and that upsets me. The Reader (which I did see, and immediately forgot) got nominated over truly great movies like The Dark Knight and the Wrestler. And the reason is fairly obvious: the Wrestler was only marketed as a Mickey Rourke comeback, which it is, of course, but it's also a beautiful movie, and deserved to get nominated for much more than performances. And the Dark Knight, while being a superhero action movie, was one of the best reviewed movies of the year, and its a huge disappointment to see that the Academy wrote it off simply for its genre rather than encouraging a new trend of artistry in genre films with a nomination. Meanwhile, the Reader has Harvey Weinstein behind it. 'Nuff said. The Oscars should ideally be about rewarding the best in all movies, rather than just "heartfelt dramas" that come out between September and January.
ReplyDeleteAlso, don't get me started on the fact that Gary Oldman has never been nominated for an Oscar. What a disgrace.
Mr.Bennett, you shouldn't be knocking "Dances with Wolves" too quickly (shakes pointer finger indignantly)
ReplyDeleteAre you aware that in 2007, this wonderful film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".
Just giving you the head's up of course ;-)