Being the film lover that I am, I could not help but to create a post on this weekend's Oscar festivities. Every year I look forward to the pomp and circumstance that is the Oscars and revel in watching artists being awarded for their work. I don't always agree with the choices for the nominees or the winners, but I respect the fact that those who know far more about the industry are the ones making educated, informed decisions...that is until now.
For the first time since the 1940's, the best picture nominee group has been expanded from five nominees to ten. The Academy argued that the expansion allows the lesser known films to be included in the group and, conversely, the widely known films will not be pushed out by the (much loved by the academy) independent pieces. What the Academy did not say is that they have been losing ratings during past years, and they probably feel this loss of ratings is partly due to few viewers knowing the nominated films - many of which have been independent pieces. By opening up the group, more mainstream films (Avatar?) that would not have normally been nominated (because they are not worthy of best film status) now have the chance to compete against the, dare I say, more serious films. Higher ratings means more money. Also, now, ten films get to tout the much loved "Nominated for an Oscar" slogan on all DVDs.
Neal Gabler, from the LA Times, had it right when he wrote that this year's Oscar hoopla is all about pandering to the masses. He states, "Call it 'cultural inflation': a growing number of opportunities for the less deserving to get a taste of ultimate victory, as part of a growing aversion to disappointing anyone." His op-ed piece compares the Oscars to the now inflated sporting events that give all teams, regardless of skill, a chance to compete for the biggest honors. Gabler writes, "For children, this manifests itself in giving every member of the soccer team a trophy regardless of how well he or she or the team performs" or "Once upon a time, college basketball teams actually had to win their conference over the course of the season to qualify for the championship tournament." What Gabler calls "cultural inflation," I call "cultural numbing." When people are no longer asked to work to their fullest potential, or at least recognize the merits of someone who does, we are only providing just one more way to not think.
So, while I realize that the movie industry is out to primarily make money, I am disappointed that artistic integrity is being thrown to the wayside. Not everyone can be the best, and not everyone can reap the benefits of being "sorta good but not really good." In life, there is the best and there is the worst. It is high time we realize this and stop rewarding mediocrity.
22 comments:
I completely agree with this because people are getting credited for things that arent as well put together as other phenominal pieces. They should still be given some credit but not as much as peices that have taken a lot more time, effort, and money.
The Oscar awards is not anything like the MTV awards. It is taken a lot more seriously and respected even more, and for films that are nominated when they shouldn't even deserve a recognition is putting the out of the ordinary films into shame. Of course, it is to gain more money but it is dispicable.
I think that there is definitely a best and a worst for everything but it’s an opinion. This is going to be different for everyone. I do agree that when they pick nominees they do pick the wrong one to pick. I believe that there is a better choice but I do respect why they won and I deal with it, just like you stated in your blog. But I also think that that industry is extremely big and there must be a hard choice for the winner to be picked. There is always going to be someone that you will be competing with so always be the best and don’t give up. If they can do it then you can do it better. Movies are always competing for a viewer’s attention and to win a prize for being the best. Sometimes they don’t win and sometimes they do. But now what I want to know do they all win fairly or do people buy others to win?
Mrs. Stoklosa, I am a fan of films, as I constantly go to the movie theater to watch new releases. However, I am by no means knowledgeable of all of the characteristics that a motion picture is judged upon by film critics, and I do not, as the mainstream public rarely does, follow independent films. This being said, however, I must clarify that I am a fairly harsh film critic, at least in comparison to my generation, and I believe that I am able to recognize mediocre films from the ones that deserve oscar awards.
I must admit, however, that I have not, though I did eagerly in the past, watched the Oscar nominations for the past couple of years, not because I do not wish to see them, but because I have no idea that they are being broadcast. You mentioned in your post that the Oscars have been losing viewers, and you have postulated that this is because of the lack of mainstream films being presented in said nominations. Seeing as how I fail to be informed year after year, this year being no different, that the Oscars are taking place, perhaps the reason that there is a lack of viewers is because there is not enough advertisement of the event. This is just my opinion of course. I have no way of knowing if people are aware when the Oscars are occuring.
Returning to your point, though, I see nothing wrong with extending the 5 nomination slots to 10, for by doing so, the Oscars gain viewers. If there are films which deserve the Oscar contending against those which don't, there should be no trouble in eliminating the unworthy films and chosing the better ones. Thus, like in sports, the better team would win, but the lesser team is at least given a chance at competing. I don't think that this is going to affect who wins the Oscars, but it does appeal to the mainstream audience, which makes it a sound strategy to adopt. Perhaps if the Oscar Nominations continue to lose ratings, they will cease to exist, or at least cease to be broadcast in television, which makes the forementioned plan even more logical and sound.
Ms. Stoklosa! I am a film lover myself too and I agree 100% with your opinion that the movie industry only wants the big bucks and that creative integrity is being thrown away. Artistic ability should be the number one reason why that film should be nominated and not because they want to make more money. In addition, I believe we should have a tougher competition in life, weather you win or loose, not "I just participated and so I got a ribbon I'm so proud of myself," crap (sorry for the word.) I'm strongly siding the "I'm going to work harder this year so I can win the gold metal and become one of the finalist in the competition." That's the only way we'll become stronger for the next competition, by loosing hard.
Id say I have to agree. The Oscars are really cool in seeing all the talented and famous actors all thrown in one night. I am a film fanatic and like mostly action/war films such as the Band of Brother series. But I do agree completely that the amount of winners should still be limited to 5. Why reward the alright films and give them the same recognition and media as the true winners. What ever happened to "may the best movie win" not "your alright here is a trophy too" haha.
The Oscars this year were a little dissapointing, I disagree with the new ruitine of picking the top ten instead of five. The alright films should not be rewarded or even put in the same category as the top five. They don't deserve the same recognition. The top five film makers have put alot of thought and effort and to be placed in with the other okay movies shows disrespect to the movie and its creator. I hope necy year is better!
I completely agree with you. I do not think movies should be nominated for awards they do not deserve. This will most definitely "numbing" cultures like you said. Producers can put less work into a movie and be nominated and those who tried their best are no longer have had much of a chance as they did before? This is ridiculous. There is the best of the best and those mediocre movies should not be chosen to take the places of the top producers. I think breaking not on the tradition, but changing the circumstances to the Oscars is very disappointing. Even though producers jobs are to bring in the most money and TV channels need the publicity to increase rating, this was not the way to do it. There are always more then one solution to every problem and this was not the best one possible.
I love watching the Oscars every year and I don't believe it's a good decision for the nominees for best picture to expand from 5 to 10 movies. I think only the best of the best should be nominated and money should have no part of who and how many gets chosen. On the other hand, not that I agree with it, the Oscar committee is trying to gain more viewers by adding more well known films, which is just another business tactic. They want to see their ratings go up and they believe this is a way to do so.
I am not really a "moviephile" but I think that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and maybe the people who nominate the Oscar Awards are shifting to individuality and uniqueness instead of "good film work".
I do agree that people are getting credited for making films that do not deserve the credit they receive. Many directors put in no effort into their films and get accredited for them. I do not, however, think that the Oscars raising the amount of nominess they have will have a huge effect on these half-assed movies getting a higher possibility on getting nominated.
I definitely agree that the Academy is putting ten nominees instead of five because they want more ratings and more money. I think that they should have kept only five. It is not fair for movies that are actually Oscar worthy to be put in a category with mediocre films. It seems that the Oscars are no longer used to give great films recognition but instead, they are used as a way of getting more money by nominating popular movies, even though they were not that great.
I love watching movies too but unluckily have no time to watch them. The Oscar, every year, is a sensation and everyone goes crazy about the nominees and criticize a lot their picks. I think everyone has their own opinion and others should respect it without criticizing and making a big deal out of it.
People have favorite actors and dislike other actors but just because they nominated the "wrong" actors; people should not get as upset as they do, or at least some people get really upset about it and make such a big deal out of it.
I like watching the Oscars and watching how they recognize the good work and the hard effort the actors and directors make those films.
I definitely agree with this. If movies are nominated it should be for the artistic and creative aspects, and all the hard work put into it. its so unfair that they are doing things just for money. This makes me not want to even watch it anymore because I feel like the truth is being hidden. Everyone and everything on TV now a days is a lie, and truthfully I dont even care to watch these things anymore. I dont want things rigged or sugarcoated just to get more viewers and money. I want to watch a good TV show because it interest me. Especially if artist who put such time and effort are not being realized for their amazing works.
Over the years I believe the Oscars have been becoming less and less about rewarding the deserving actors, actresses, and movies. You're right it's all about how much money they make and they are just nominating certain films that the viewers have seen. So I thought the Oscars were about rewarding the best movies? I guess not. I feel like I need to watch the Oscars just because that is all everyone talks about the next day along with every morning talk show. Imagined if I missed the VMA's I would have missed Kayne rudely interrupt Ms.Swift. Honestly, I love movies but I could really careless about watching the upcoming Oscars.
To be quite honest my first thought after reading this is that I have nothing to say. I have the obligation to have something to say though so I am going to formulate an opinion the best I can and I do hope it makes sense.
I am not a film buff so my opinion can quite possibly come out sounding very uneducated but I believe that the quality of movies (and television) has gone down. In the end, all movies, television, and any other media comes down to is people pleasing. In our times we have so many people wanting the reward without the work and society is giving it to them. The Oscars is a great example of how it starts. First they add ten nominees instead of five for 'best film' and next thing you know the who shebang will be run by mainstream films. Money runs the world and in order to change quality of things such as the Oscars you have to change society. And that tends to be a tad hard unless you're like Hitler and you have an army of politicians as well as the real thing behind you.
This is why people and good things don't mix. The mass media is filled with big corporations trying to make money off of movies, music, art, and t.v.
Since most of the idiotic viewers now-a-days just look for hype and "mainstream" events to sink their teeth into most art and creativity is clouded by the "dumb" people's opinions. Everything creative is dumb down for the nice people with all the money to enjoy.
I think it is sad that the Oscars is lowering its standards just for viewer ratings. I personally don't watch the Oscars too often, but if the Oscars is about rewarding non-mainstream films then it is horrendous to see the degradation of standards.
I understand that we are in a tough economy and money is tight everywhere, but that doesn't mean I am going to go out and sell drugs as a supplemental income. Also if the Oscars thinks that having more mainstream movies nominated will bring in ratings I disagree. Unless these films start winning, which would be an even further degradation of standards, it will most likely have the same exact followers and it may even lose some of the die-hard fans.
-max
I think the oscars as well as any other award thing is completely ridiculous.There are always movies that deserve to be nominated that never are.To me the oscars have ecome as irrelevent as the rock and roll hall of fame.Who are the people that vote anyway.Why do these people even decide?
I think 10 nominees is way to much, 5 is plenty enough. By putting in 10 nominees you are giving movies that aren't even as close in quality to another nominated movie the same recognition. I understand that the ratings have been going down the last couple of years, but this is not a good way to gain a higher audience. I think the films that deserve the credit for it's great graphics and pictures and not have to share it with films that are not even close to their quality. So my opinion of this 10 nominees for the picture of the year is that it's absurd and unnecessary.
I believe that the work as an whole should be revered. I don't understand why people only worry about money. I believe the idea of passion and dedication is important, but it should be the talent that wins. Everyone puts a lot of work into a motion picture, but after you watch a movie, there are many aspects to judging a quality film. We are treating the people like first graders when we award everyone with a reward. That destroys the whole concept of an awards show. A good movie should have a balance of good qualities not just one main focus that is heavily emphasized. I love movies and I tend to look more into a movie than just the story line, so I can relate to the people who are judging these awards. I just wish that people weren't so kind, and that a winner is a winner and a loss is a loss.
Even though this doesn't have much to do with the overall idea of your post, I find it so satisfying that you have such a great hobby. Like you love film and it's cool to me that you can take your interest and always incorporate it into your everyday life. It's satisfying to me because I find it rather difficult to pick something to dwell upon and choose as a hobby and use is everyday. So I feel like you live your hobby for me. I don't think I'm making any sense...
It is true that nowadays the amount of money earned by a film is becoming more important than the artistic qualities that are put into a film. After watching the Oscars this year, I believe that the winner for Best Picture, The Hurt Locker, was recognized more for its artistic qualities instead of the money put into making the movie. Avatar was made with a budget of around 237 million dollars. Meanwhile, The Hurt Locker was only made with a budget of 15 million dollars. This shows that the Academy judges by the artistic qualities instead of the money inverted into making that movie. I believe that's how it should be! I love the Oscars!
Post a Comment