Do you think Academy Awards has hurt film?

Because that kind of kill-baby-Hitler rationale doesn't account for the external circumstances that allow such individuals to thrive in the first place and would theoretically extend that same opportunity to a different individual if the original's existence were to cease prematurely. Jaws was just a low-rent mix of character drama and killer animal thriller that only became the first modern blockbuster because the distributors put it in as many theatres as possible in the hopes of getting the most money off what they thought would be a bust - how much of that can you honestly blame on Spielberg himself beyond him happening to make a good enough movie to warrant that treatment? Maybe in another universe Spielberg dies after making Sugarland Express and we regard it as a tragedy that this fledgling New Hollywood auteur never got to make the most of his potential while some other chump gets a shot at that kind of success and transforms the media landscape, possibly to a worse extent than Spielberg's success has. In any case, it's not really worth thinking about.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Yeah, the idea that Spielberg or even Lucas is responsible for the deterioration of the New American Cinema of the 70's, is such a tired old notion that has absolutely no traction with the reality of the business. As stated above, it is the mechanics of the industry surrounding Spielberg which corrupted things. Spielberg is just an artist making movies the way he wanted to see them made. Just because his vision was more family oriented, or had a softer view of humanity, didn't kill Hollywood. Did Frank Capra destroy the Golden Age with his rosy outlook? Did cynical, anti-everything Noirs shrivel up and die in his presence? These two strains can obviously co-exist. Blame the studios. Not the artist who is only guilty of making a movie people appreciate (and from all levels of the film loving community, not just the popcorn eaters)

What? Really?

You know what I hate about that statement? The fact that you wish people had died just so you could have your own favorite 1970s film style continue on to the present...You could have at least showed some humanity and said you wished Spielberg and Sandler had chosen different careers than movies. Wishing they had died is not cool.

It's a cheap shot to read a figurative comment as literal to score moral points. The most charitable reading of that comment unless and until the person who wrote claims otherwise (i.e., tells us, "Yes, I literally wish they were dead!") is non-literality (i.e., hyperbole). If matt72582 pops back in and doubles down on wishing death (literally), then have at him (or her or whatever pronoun set applies). I literally find "literalizing the figurative" to be annoying and figuratively want to light myself on fire when I see people do it.





Narrator: Lucille did NOT want to light herself on fire.

I'm glad there was no Officer Rules around my neighborhood when someone would yell how they were going to "kill" their little brother. He might have shot them in the back 22 times to score moral points, to show he meant business!

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

Yeah well I'm glad there's no Officer 72582 who will shoot me for watching Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Grr, what have you people got against 'Moonlight'? It's a beautiful film.

If there were no Oscars, something else would take its place. Maybe something more accurate? A day when everyone calls (or texts some digit for their choices) some Academy line and give them their answers which could compute easily with the technology. It's more populist, but the more accessible movies will win out. But you can have different categories. It doesn't only have to be "Best Picture", it could be based on criteria we use here all the time. And maybe find a balance, or trying to satisfy their business.


"Best Movie w/ Female Lead Character"
"Best Independent Picture"
"Best Low-Budget Movie" (something under 5 million, for example)
"Best Character Movie"
"Best Movie With Small Cast"

"Best Co-Production"

and others... And then you might see copy-cats, just like the Oscars gave birth to more (usually indie-er) European annual prize shows for film.

Quite frankly, that would've been a better idea since they would've let movie fans pick out which is the best movie for each category. Especially when some critically acclaimed films got ignored from winning an Oscar. Some weren't being nominated to begin with.

So your proposal is first instead of having the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences be a closed group of industry professionals that there be an "American Idol" style voting system where anyone and everyone can vote? You already can't force the Academy members to see all of the nominees, but now somebody who has perhaps seen only one movie the entire year can call or text their support for that movie as the best of something even though that voter doesn't know or care about any other films?

Next, you want to make more categories, more specialization?

Happily nobody is considering anything like this. But speculate away! How about a randomizer where every hundred thousandth text vote wins a refrigerator or Buick, to encourage even more participation? Surely everyone can receive an I Voted for the Oscars T-shirt! In the matter of ties how about both potential winners get into dunking booths on stage and are allowed to choose which Major League relief pitcher they want to aim for the target? Best of three throws wins. For Best Actress in a production over $10-million but less than $75-million utilizing an omniscient narrator Meryl Streep has chosen Milwaukee's Josh Hader while Amy Ryan has chosen The Los Angeles Angels' Raisel Iglesias. Annnnddddd.....PITCH! The Oscar goes to....

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

The Oscars function completely fine as they are designed. They are voted on by members of the Academy. As much as some people seem to get thrown by the "Best Movie" designation, and seem to take it literally, they are for the most part completely transparent as being a ceremony that celebrates the industry those attending, and those being rewarded, are active participants in. It is their way to pat themselves on the back for a job well done. It serves the function of generating more business for popular films nominated, and exposure to smaller films nominated. That's it. That's all. And if people enjoy watching the procession of backpatting, great! This is not, nor ever has been, an unflinching, inarguable metric of greatness. Because, first of all, there is no such thing. And second of all, if we are looking for that, there are all sorts of critics awards which fulfill that function (as closely as it can be fulfilled)


And I say all of this as someone whose tastes run almost completely divergent from those of the Academy. I find most of their nominations at best passable, and frequently horrendous. But I understand they aren't out there to please me and my idiosyncratic interests. I sleep well at night when absolute trash like Green Book gets the designation of "Best Movie" by a bunch of people whose opinions don't need to matter to me.



As for the political angle, which seems mostly to be centring around grief for movies like Moonlight and Parasite (two of the rare exceptions I actually find to be legitimately special in regards to their quality, but also two movies people are seemingly suspicious of due to "Politics"), why was it never considered a matter of politics when nearly every movie that came out big on Oscar night in the past, was stacked to the gills with white faces in stories about white experiences. Why are the wins of Moonlight and Parasite somehow dubious, when we've seen decades of winners decidedly not look like them. Why is politics now suddenly to blame. Was everything that came before simply the natural order of things?

Huh?

I'm glad comrade 72582 isn't in charge of the Oscar politburo

I agree with Holden here.

Which is true. But 99% of the public don't understand that. Most members of my family don't understand that. They genuinely will go out and watch oscar nominated and winning films because they think they must be the best films of the year because...................... well because oscars.

The Oscars hold waaaaaay too much gravitas (and this is why I can understand those who suggest the oscars have hurt film). And I say that having really loved some of the winners of the best picture in the last decade or so.

-"I really loved this film called XXXXXXXX" I will say

-"Oh yeah? Is it Oscar worthy?" They say.

What am I supposed to say next?

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say 99% of people don't understand this. But I know the Oscars, and the appearance of winning an Oscar, certainly has a cache with a lot of people. But whether this is to any significant extent, as in they view the entire movie industry through the lens of which movie wins the Oscar, I would have my doubts.

Do the Academy Awards put a magnifying glass over certain movies. Considering I'd never given Coda a second thought before it won, and now it at least registers as something I guess I maybe, possibly should see one of these days, I suppose this means something. Especially considering I've already defined myself as someone who thinks the Oscars are a pretty irrelevant thing. So clearly it is going to matter even more for these others who do take it seriously. And in this way, I concede it can't be completely ignored.

But did Ordinary People beating Raging Bull, or Rocky beating Taxi Driver, or Dances With Wolves beating Goodfellas actually have a real effect on how anyone viewed the movie industry during this period? People have obviously continued to debate whether the best movies actually won during these particularly contentious years (no, yes, no would be my personal verdict), but did it damage the image of 'capital M' Movies? I really don't think so. I think people can still retain the autonomy to disagree with these verdicts, deeply and passionately, and still believe in Hollywood. Even continue to watch the actual Oscars in good faith after these dubious choices, even if they keep rewarding movies most people don't give much of a shit about.

So I think for even for those who outwardly take the winners as some kind of vague gospel...they do...but they really don't. Not really.

I think if there is anything that is hurting Hollywood, it is mostly coming from outside of it, and it is this pervasive notion that Hollywood is out of touch and doesn't represent the common man and that there is some kind of ideological duty to reject what the rich and fancy celebrity elites are supposedly selling to us. And while the Oscars may have become one of the most notable focal points of this purely political ire, I don't think it has been ginned up by the industry (even if we argue some of the blame can be put there, which we probably can). Mostly though, I think its just become an easy target for superficial political talking points, like anger that black voices have been demanding visibility at awards ceremonies like this. But in a case like this, the Academy would be damned if they do, damned if the don't, no matter what course of action they did or did not take. Both action and inaction are destined to be seen as politically motivated. The issue, and the thing pushing people away from movies (if that is indeed what is happening) is more the result of this inflexible tribalism that has taken over how people think about anything and everything these days.

As for what to say if a movie you like is Oscar worthy, for me the answer to that is pretty clear: "Who cares?" Then do my best to explain the virtues of the film I'm telling them I like from a personal stand point, and hope this means a little more to them than what movie a bunch of people they will never meet voted as being the best. Now maybe they'll listen, or maybe they won't. But I probably wouldn't bother talking to those people about movies much in the future if this is where they wanted to steer conversations about the arts. They might already be a lost case.

You heard him. I don't know how much you were keeping up with this year's Oscars, but they introduced not one but two "fan favourite" awards that were voted on by the general public via Twitter hashtags - long story short, they both went to Zack Snyder films (one a four-hour superhero movie, the other about doing a heist in a casino full of zombies) because he's a director with, shall we say, dedicated fans. What you're suggesting is to make that the default means of determining winners, which arguably democratises the process much more than having a few thousand Academy members vote on them but in doing so turns it into even more of a vapid popularity contest. For someone who's consistently made such a big deal of how movies have been in decline since the Carter administration, your suggestion only seems like it would accelerate said decline even with the addition of new categories (which, as noted, would not be a good idea since they've shown they're already willing to cut down on categories in recent years).

That Sir, is a fine post.

As a side question, especially for the art-house lovers... Are there Annual Award organizations you do like? I've seen some as a result of watching movies I like when the awards for the obscure movie are mentioned and there ones I can't even remember.

I think what I've learned from this discussion is that how you interpret whether the Oscars are good for film, or whether their reception by the public has been impacted by their choices in recent years, really depends on what your own personal criteria is for what is worthy of Oscar recognition. One of our posters seems to think that box office is very important, and that the Best Picture should be awarded to films that have made a lot of money. I generally think that its important to award movies that have been widely seen and appreciated, or that have reached a certain amount of cultural relevance or resonance is something to strive for, while others don't think that's important. Some think that the Oscars have changed the kinds of films that are being awarded in recent years, while others, like Holden, who are very knowledgeable about film and Oscars history, don't see that and don't agree with that. Another poster said they thought that Oscars should be given to filmmakers who have repeatedly made good films, rather than who may have only made one stand out film that is awarded an Oscar, while others think one film is enough and that really doesn't matter and isn't how the Oscars are or should be awarded. I think when the Oscars have awarded films, especially for Best Picture, that don't fit our own personal criteria of what the Oscars should be or represent, we look for reasons why we think that might be happening, but our explanations may be rationalizations because we don't understand, or don't agree with the choices, instead of reflecting the objective truth of what is actually happening and why. Likewise, those who agree with the choices find ways to rationalize why they were in fact the best, or at least are worthy candidates. There is too much diversity, everyone has different taste and different criteria, and I think that's why we haven't been able to come to a consensus about whether the Oscars choosing to award smaller films in recent years, or films that were made by, or about, underrepresented groups, represents an important change, no change, or a change, but not a problematic one, because the Oscars have always taken into account factors beyond the quality of the film, and that that hasn't changed. It's how the Oscars have always been.

Some of us think that smaller, more intimate movies are actually more enjoyable, or more impressive, than large scale productions that might be technically more impressive, or more difficult to achieve, in the view of some. I think that's one of the main reasons that I prefer "La La Land" to "Moonlight." It's technically more complex, more difficult to assemble and have every element working as well as it does, and for it to all cohere beautifully into a satisfying film, while for some, the scope or scale of the achievement, or of the film, really doesn't matter, and what's more important is how it makes them feel. Even what is entertaining, or not, is not always a criteria, since that is in the eye of the beholder, and can't objectively be ascertained. That's why what the Oscars choose, and who they choose to award, will always be something that provokes both strong agreement and strong disagreement, because it all depends on our personal taste, and on the factors we use to evaluate what we feel is "the best," and worthy of being awarded an Oscar.