The Validity of the Academy Awards
Listen to the Sex Pistols, and nevermind them.
All the academy awards are is bollocks.
theyshootpictures.com
I am going to be normative and unhelpful too. I think the Academy Awards is bullshit and the process is completely unreliable and the ideal system would be no award system at all. Maybe the occassional Fipresci prize.
theyshootpictures.com-that’s if you’re looking for a source to learn about worthy films, as far as providing great films with awards is concerned, I would say that rewarding films in such a setting is superfluous, since film viewers themselves should helm the responsibility of judging films by themselves
theyshootpictures.com is just more canon. Sometimes helpful but not all that great.
There not that bad compared to Grammies or most other award ceremonies. At least the winners are usually good movies. Besides most people are ready to denounce anything or anybody that doesn’t correlate exactly with their personal taste, the amount of people who discount Ebert because he didn’t like Blue Velvet are staggering.
The “They Shoot Pictures” canon exclusively consists of critically acclaimed films, New Yorker. At times critics are right with their acclaim, but in many cases they simply overlook the majority of significant world cinema. The list is especially unreliable when it comes to Latin American, African and South Asian Cinema, but even great US-American independent films tends to be overlooked. One can use that list as one of many reference points, but it’s definitely not enough to base one’s opinion on, and those who like to discover the true masterpieces that have been produced throughout the world over the last decades need to search elsewhere.
Law, I think its very helpful, especially for new cinephiles. Its just important for people to still look at the site as it is: an opinion, not the opinion.
Drew, I would find it more helpful for a new cinephile to come on to a site like here and speak to one of our talented custodians for career advice, rather than be caught up in the idea of what constitutes good cinema (studio-made modernist parables made in North American or Europe).
Anyone have any specifics as to why the Academy Award process is not valid?
Also, for those of you who don’t feel like awards are meaningful, let me throw something out there. The casual moviegoer is not going to put much effort into finding good movies. The really mostly on advertisement (the trailers and commercials) and word of mouth. Some of them read the occasional review. I think many of these people equate the Academy Awards with quality—i.e. if a film or filmmaker won an award it must be good. And so they use the Academy Awards (and others like the Golden Globes) to help guide their movie viewing.
Awards are a quick and easy way to get information about which films to see. The “quick and easy” part is important because many people (unlike people at this site) won’t put in that much time to find out if a film is really good or not. What I’m saying is that awards serve a useful purpose—and they serve it relatively well if the picks come from a legitimate process.
DP
Jazzaloha, I find it invalid because it claims to be giving award to the best films in the world on a specific year when it is mostly American studio representatives voting for studio-made American films. Indeed the Goya awards etc. do the same thing but their lack of profile make it more tolerable while the Academy Awards leave me rather sad that now many think that Slumdog Millionaire was 1) a good film, 2) the best film of 2008, 3) amongst a group of American films that were the only good films made in 2008 and that independent cinema is merely “quirky” and for Sundance.
I agree that the casual moviegoer is not going to do much but I think the Academy Awards is a misleading and pretty unfortunate guide, but I guess it was a natural progression – whoever thought up the Academy Awards is an advertising genius.
People who get all riled up about the Oscars really need to take a deep breath and relax. Just ignore them if they annoy you – you’ll be okay in a few minutes. I know it’s hard when you’re bombarded from all sides as March looms ever larger, but try not to think about them. They’re a mainstream populist entertainment in the same way the Superbowl is, and should only be considered as such. I’m a bit conflicted here defending them as by and large I agree that they ultimately suck but I’m trying to be philosophical about it.
The Academy Awards as they are now are a joke as far as rewarding true excellence goes, and the methods they use to come up with the nominees and eventual winners are severely lacking, but if they could tweak it a little I think the Oscars could fulfill a purpose; they’re a good barometer of the times. Whether 2009 is a ‘good’ year or a bad one (relatively speaking) will be reflected in the films that were rewarded at the Oscars. Of course I’m only talking about big name studio films made in the USA which is all they are concerned with – all they can be concerned with as this is their lifeblood (in the end it’s about money, obviously). As far as the members of the public are concerned though it’s first and foremost a bit of fun, and personally I find it interesting to look back and see what was happening in the US film industry and how opinions may or may not have changed over the years.
In an ideal world I’d like there to be a universal awards show which rewards the best films produced that year from all around the world. It could be held in different countries each year much like the Olympics, or the World Cup. Not only do I think it’s nice to reward filmmaker’s efforts, but it would introduce lots of people who are interested to films that may have passed them by. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with awards ceremonies per se, it’s just that Hollywood being what it is, has kind of tainted the whole thing by its rampant avarice.
P.S. Please don’t shoot me.
In the long run, it is critics, historians, and fanbases that are ultimately in charge of what gets remembered, not awards shows. I’ve been watching these shows for 25 years, and the only thing I’ve learned is that these shows come and go, and matter not a whit. My view? Enjoy the Oscars for what they are—crowdpleasing entertainment—and don’t bother giving them a moment’s thought or analysis. Griping about the Oscars seems irredeemably silly; serious film analysis exists in a universe far, far away from the Oscars.
Sure, it would be nice if the main function of the Oscars were to measure artistic merit, or at least showcase lesser-known, deserving works. But that clearly isn’t their main function, and it never was. It’s like complaining about the apple because it isn’t an orange. I might prefer an orange, but rather than scold the apple I should instead look elsewhere for an orange. That’s far more fruitful.
I don’t find the faux-drama (or faux-outrage) very entertaining—it just seems cranky, petty, and rather toxic. When watching, I’d rather just enjoy the jokes, the happy faces, and the grateful speeches. For example, I watched the Globes this year, and no, I wouldn’t have voted for Sandra Bullock, and yes, her win is a crock. But I was entertained by her acceptance speech, and I was happy to see her have her moment, because it was real and human. When I watch awards shows—the apple—that’s all I expect.
When I want a serious film experience—the orange—I’ll turn to, say, the pages of FILM COMMENT and SIGHT & SOUND, because those outlets will offer something actually worth thinking about.
Does that sound cynical? I’d like to think it’s the reverse of cynicism
Sup, Mo’nique?
You best be trollin’
The Academy Awards much like other awards are only going to please a certain group of people. We must remember that art is subjective some people think that the Academy Awards are the pinnacle of artistic achievement.
We must also remember that it’s very centered on American films. That being said its oversight of foreign films isn’t because of stupidity it’s because they simply focus on major films produced here.
As sad as it is, it’s really the same the world over. There are many culture centric awards as well, Japanese,Danish,Spanish,British.
It isn’t ignorance they just tend to focus on the country of origin, a sad, yet worldwide ideal. They don’t really mean anything it’s just an opinion of a culture centric group of people.
Law, you act as though all of North American and European cinema is inferior. I understand your argument, which is valid, about cinema from say Africa, Latin America, and South East Asia being ignored, but that should not necessarily mean that all of cinema, despite the prevalence of much trash, from Europe and North America should be discredited
No, I am saying that I don’t care for The Godfather, 2001: A Space Odyssey etc. I would much rather watch Shadows and Stranger Than Paradise all day.
Law said, “I find it invalid because it claims to be giving award to the best films in the world on a specific year when it is mostly American studio representatives voting for studio-made American films.”
To be fair, doesn’t the best picture go to an American film? I know there is a foreign language category, too, but that just seems like a token award (not that that is a good thing). My point is that I don’t know if those behind the awards claim that it’s the best film in the world.
Btw, I wasn’t really clear in my initial post about specific ways the process is invalid. Here’s an example of what I had in mind. I saw a show on the Academy Awards (on Bravo, I think), and they talked about the way Miramax (Weinstein) would do all these things to get voters to pay attention (and vote favorably) for their films. I think the example had to do with the film about Pablo Neruda. Miramax got a bunch of different actors reading Neruda’s poetry to promote the film. Basically, after seeing this program I felt that promotion and marketing had more to do with the selection of nominees and winners. To me, this is the kind of thing that invalidates the process.
Law said, “I agree that the casual moviegoer is not going to do much but I think the Academy Awards is a misleading and pretty unfortunate guide, but I guess it was a natural progression.”
This is why I think a valid process is important. People will continue to use these awards as a guide—whether the process for choosing it is legitimate or not.
The Academy Awards are a product. They want ratings, and want to choose a winner that will make the biggest possible audience happy. If they were strictly concerned with selecting the best films you’d see more foreign films nominated in non-foreign categories.
I’m not a fan of the Oscars, but I wouldn’t expect them to give the Best Picture to a foreign film. (They have in the past, hell they did just last year, but that rarely happens.) I’m perfectly okay with them giving the Best Picture award to an American film, because they’re American awards.
I see it as a celebration. I enjoy the evening show, when I was younger and I had seen almost every picture that was nominated I would root for my favorites but lately I don’t see the pictures until after the awards, when they come out in video, sadly I just don’t go to theaters much anymore. I usually don’t have a problem with them except I still think that the Color Purple should have won best picture. But I really like the celebrating of Hollywood. My favorite part is when they hilight individuals and show clips of their work, and the in memorian piece,.
slumdog was british and other british films have won best picture in the past (Gandhi, Lawrence of Arabia, Chariots of Fire), the issue is that it would never go to a film that was filmed primarily in a language other than english.
Glemaud, But don’t you wish they clarified that? I have no problem with it just being for American films either, but I wish they admitted that they were picking the best English language film, instead of the best film.
on that note, what did crouching tiger, hidden dragon, life is beautiful, and cries and whispers have on their side that films, such as Amelie, City of God, 8 1/2, seven samurai and others lacked when it came to garnering a best picture nomination, timing perhaps?
Populist appeal.
Amelie – look at those quirky frenchmen
City of God – oh wow, stylised violence
Seven Samurai – stylised violence
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon – stylised violence
You misunderstood me, I was wondering why some foreign films, such as CTHD and Life is Beautiful were nominated for best picture when other much better ones, such as city of god and 8 1/2 were not. Btw, I hope you’re not implying that Amelie City of God and Seven Samurai although its obviously just your opinion.
Academy Awards are a marketing gimmick your a fool if you think it’s anything more than that
New Yorker, I think that’s indeed based on timing and marketing. Yeah I’m not a fan of Amelie, City of God and Seven Samurai, but those are just my opinions.
Jazzaloha
Not surprisingly a lot of people here complain about the Academy Awards. I realize people aren’t happy with the nominees and the ultimate winners, but I wanted to know if people think the Academy Awards are valid—specifically in terms of the process of selecting the awards. I’ve seen some TV programs exploring this, and I came away feeling like the being nominated and winning have less to do with actual quality and more to do with marketing and other factors. In short, I felt like the process is rigged and not valid. This is part of the reason I don’t watch the awards show and why I don’t pay much attention to the awards.
On the other hand, I do feel like a valid awards process is important. The public (whether they know it or not) have an interest in seeing good, if not, great movies. Rightly or wrongly, many of them rely on the awards to help them find these films. Now, if the process for giving the awards is somehow tainted—i.e. other factors beside quality are more influential—then it does not serve the public—but more importantly it doesn’t serve the good-to-great films and filmmakers. The idea is to point people to great movies.
So I have two questions/issues to explore:
1. Do people feel like the Academy Awards utilize a reliable process for nominating and selecting winners?
2. What would be an ideal process/system to give out awards for outstanding films and filmmaking?