Do you think Academy Awards has hurt film?

Moonlight was good, but I never understood why so many consider it so great. I don’t think it would make my top ten of that year either. Guess it deserves a Re watch at some point.
I found. It much too hard to connect to the movie, and it felt like like kept my at too much of a emotional distance.

I have the similar thoughts towards Argo, 12 Years a Slave, The Shape of Water and The King’s Speech.

Loved Spotlight and Parasite though. No issue with those winning.

I enjoyed all of those films mentioned to various degrees, and found none boring really. I know I enjoyed both Gladiator and Braveheart quite a bit. Of those listed, the only 2 I can say with absolutely no doubt having deserved the BP win would be Spotlight and Parasite.
I feel I need to rewatch Moonlight at some point.

It is a valid point, especially if a point of contention is that the most recent slate of winners are "unpopular" to the point where Argo being a financial success makes it an outlier despite its status as a middlebrow thriller/biopic not so different from other winners. If a key thing we argue about here is what criteria we use to measure the merits of given award winners - be it financial success, cultural imprint, artistic craftsmanship - then it's worth examining any of them from every angle to get a full picture.

Why should we judge a film not on its own merits but on what its creator does afterwards? I think there's plenty to dislike about Crash regardless of what Haggis has done afterwards - besides, at the point that the award is given there's usually no way of knowing how the rest of the director's career will turn out unless they're already a well-proven commodity like Spielberg or Scorsese.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Because the value of the award deprechiates the more esoteric the winners become. Saying the response and career of filmmakers isn't a merit is a problem because if the winner doesn't have an historical impact (a classic) then really you are just awarding what is fashionable.

We consider the Grammy's a joke because they get it wrong so often...the Oscars are heading in that direction.

Esoteric doesn't enter into it, nor does fashionable (and I would think these concepts are at odds with one another anyway). A popular film winning doesn't automatically make it a deserving winner - Avatar is a decidedly less esoteric film than The Hurt Locker, but would it have made for a better Best Picture winner? Also, considering that you can't know for sure what a film's historical impact is until enough time has passed and it becomes literal history, it's hard to pick winners in the moment with an eye towards making history - even the picks that go against what's "fashionable" are just as likely to flop in this regard if The King's Speech or The Artist or Green Book are any indication.

If you are listing half the films from the last 20 years...that's a pretty good sign that the Awards are a problem.

Yeah, I find this very confusing as a concept.

I know that what someone uses as a metric to determine the film that is the "best" will really range from person to person, but the idea that the future potential of the filmmaker should weigh as part of the decision seems really dubious to me.



Moonlight was such a gorgeous, intimate, clear-eyed film in its portrayal of the double-edged sword of love (whether familial or romantic). I was thrilled when it won best picture. I know I'm a little biased because of having met the writer and having an actor friend who has collaborated on stage with the writer, but to me it's one of my favorite best picture winners. It's the kind of movie I always hope will get recognition, but often doesn't. (I was similarly pleased that The Florida Project at least got an acting nomination the following year).

I keep trying to find a point of agreement so that we can continue a discussion, but I think we may be at a fundamental impasse here. Some of us think that the Oscars are awarding a different kind of film than they were before, and some of you don't think this is happening. If we can't agree that it's happening, then we can't continue a discussion on why it might be happening. Even if we disagree on the reasons, that would be a place to start, because it's a more objective place to ground a discussion. Without that fundamental agreement that yes, the Oscars are awarding a different kind of film recently than they have historically, and that this trend has accelerated within the past 5 years or so, then the conversation instead devolves into our subjective interpretations about which films were deserving, and which were less deserving, of winning Best Picture in various years, which is interesting, but wasn't the topic of discussion, and really doesn't help us to evaluate this phenomenon, or its impact on film more broadly, or the perceived public legitimacy of the Awards themselves.

You are correct. I for one do not agree the Oscars are awarding substantially different kinds of movies than they did ten or twenty or fifty years ago. You have not proven that they are, you simply assert that they are. When you are given examples of why this doesn't add up you retreat behind your belief that it does. Thus the going around in circles.

You admit you haven't seen many films from older earas but also insist they were substantially different somehow. They aren't. The only difference between Kramer vs. Kramer and Marriage Story that you can point to is box office returns. I tried to explain in earlier posts that even pre-COVID the industry models for what the major studios even make and then how they distribute and market film have changed significantly in the past forty or so years. If Noah Baumbach could have gotten Marriage Story financed by Warner Brothers and released in 4,000 theaters surely he would have enjoyed that opportunity. That opportunity no longer exists, just as if Kramer vs. Kramer were being made today it would fall to a streaming service or an independent which almost always negates any chance of it being among the box office leaders.

Then to point to what you consider a serious, worthy film of Oscar attention you choose Clint Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima. A film which, by the freaking way, was actually nominated for Best Picture...and a box office bomb, by your standards. But that you can concede is a well-made, serious film while you simultaneously posit the films Minari and Drive My Car and Parasite are only Oscar nominees to appease Asian minorities. Letters from Iwo Jima is a film you like from a filmmaker you like so it gets a pass, clearly it is a quality effort. You didn't even bother to see Drive My Car, don't know the filmmaker or even really what it is about, but because you are unfamiliar with it and it wasn't made by Eastwood or Spielberg for a major American studio and it didn't make a hundred-million dollars it must be liberal pandering and not there because it is a good or interesting movie.

Which is why I say you cannot prove beyond a "feeling" or politically-tinged assumption that Oscar movies are somehow different now.

They are not.

__________________
"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

Okay. But Moonlight is still my favorite. And maybe it was also the favorite of those who voted in the Academy. Just like Gladiator was the favorite when it won. And Braveheart was the favorite when it won.



And the notion that Moonlight is a noteworthy example of bad taste at the Oscars, when it is at the very least a film that doesn't pander to its audience, and is considerably more contemplative a film than is usually recognized for the award, I think is unfortunate. For me it is giving movies that are smaller, and more personal, and are willing to take there time to just let us observe the characters, more visibility. And I like this. My preference is for the Academy to try and prop up the art of filmmakers and individual voices in the community, not to generate business. Not just pat the same ol' shit on the back for being the same ol' shit. Like Gladiator. Or Braveheart.



Now this is just my taste. And I don't begrudge fans of either Gladiator or Braveheart (I actually don't mind Braveheart that much). I just don't get why it is such an affront when every best picture winner doesn't end up conforming to the same metrics of worth. Moonlight is a different type of film, and in the field of similar type films, it is beautifully made and conceived.






I like all those movies you listed well enough. Love some of them, even. But what is your point? That you liked some movies more than Deer Hunter? Again, okay. But to what end am I supposed to be taking this information? What does Animal House have to do with Deer Hunter. Oh, it's generational? Well yeah and so is The Deer Hunter. That's not like some footnote of cinematic history. It's a legitimate classic film that is still highly regarded by both passive and obsessive movie fans.



About the other Cimino films, you think they were good. I think they are great. This alone is enough for me to think of him as more than just a director of 'a bunch of flops'. He may have never had another box office smash again, but he is rightfullly considered now as one of the best directors to come out of new Hollywood. Because of those four films, in particular.


Is Coming Home Better? I don't think so, but I think it's arguable. It's also another great film about Vietnam. I would have been happy if it had won as well.



But I wasn't arguing against your post. I wasn't actually responding to you as much as the comment a couple above me complaining about how they want movies they find entertaining to be winners, instead of the movies they don't find entertaining. And my point to that is, how are we determining what other people find entertaining. It's already hard enough to agree on what makes something good, now we are questioning what makes a film entertaining? People are entertained by all sorts of things. It shouldn't be mystifying when it turns out some of us find worth in things we personally might not.



As for your ultimate point, I don't really 100 percent know what your ultimate point is, so I can't argue with that. But I did see you put a list of top 10 directors who you insisted had to be included on a top 10 list, and I don't agree with that, even though I probably would have included many of the same names. What directors someone thinks are good or important are going to intrinsically depend on what that person is looking for in movies. And thankfully, we all have different ideas about this, otherwise I wouldn't be able to argue with everyone I believe to be terribly, terribly wrong in regard to their personal taste.

Holden, I think your post about how things have changed within Hollywood, and the way films have been made and financed over the past forty years is relevant and interesting, so I thank you for that. It doesn't, to my mind, explain the rapid change within the past five or so years (which you don't believe is happening), as it's indicative of a long-term rather than short term trend. I don't think I ever said that the films you cite, "Minari" or "Parasite," for example, are underserving winners. I said they are different types of films. I also don't think I said that the only reason they are being awarded is liberal pandering. I think many things can be true at the same time. They are good films, but they are more niche, more independent film like, they tend to either emphasize liberal themes, or be made by, or about, underrepresented or minority groups. So, yes, they are quality films, and yes, to me, they are also chosen in part for those other reasons. These aren't mutually exclusive conditions. You seem to be in part disagreeing with arguments that I'm not actually making.

The reason that I chose Eastwood movies as examples is because I consider myself an expert in his filmography, and so I can speak more authoritatively on those films than others, that I may either have not seen, or may have seen, but don't have as much knowledge about.

Here's a relevant question for you. Why do you think "Moonlight" beat "La La Land?" I think most people would probably agree that "La La Land" was more technically proficient as a film. It has much better cinematography, it has a much better musical score, it has much better visual effects, it has a much more engaging story, it was filmed in a much more artistic fashion, it was much better directed (which is why Chazelle won Best Director), and it was Hollywood themed, which is a theme that has typically been celebrated by the Academy Awards. It's a classic Oscar film, but it lost. Up and down the line, it was a much more impressive effort than "Moonlight," and if it were released 20 years ago, it would have won Best Picture, so why did it not win a few years ago? To me, it's fairly obvious that a large part of the reason was that because it was a film that centered around a black, gay character and featured a black, gay coming of age story, and was directed by a black director, it won over the better film. I'm not necessarily saying that that's a horrible thing. For a gay themed film, I much preferred "Carol" from several years prior, but again, that's just my preference. I also much prefer "La La Land," but these are inherently subjective decisions. But, to deny that "La La Land" was a far more traditional Oscar winner, and that it likely would have won twenty years ago, and to continue to insist that "Moonlight" winning doesn't represent an important shift, is, in my opinion, not accurate.

I concede to you that "Kramer v. Kramer" and "Marriage Story," both of which I have seen, and liked, are similarly themed films.

The difference is Ridley Scott and Mel Gibson are still releasing films in theaters while Barry Jenkins has to work in TV because his followup bombed. The point is to honor film-makers...if those film-makers can't make films it tarnishes the award.




Nominations are the point for visibility, the people that last are the ones who can make 5-10-15 great movies not the flash in the pan sort.




Because your examples are from a generation of film makers that started in the 70's/90's. And the issue is that we have a generation of great film makers who are seemingly disqualified year after year from the award. Basically The Oscars are either beneath or above awarding the best professionals Oscars.



Is the Deer Hunter a classic? I think it's a good film but I don't consider it a classic, Grease was the biggest film of the year and unlike The Deer Hunter it has stood the test of time. People like to bring up The Hurt Locker and Avatar...but now that it's been about 15 years the classic from that year was a critically acclaimed that made the top five...and that movie was Up.







You would put him on the top of the list? Middle of the list? How deep of a list would you have to for Cimino.




But I would say the Academy isn't picking what's "good" or "entertaining" but what makes the Academy look good in the short term and how that has long term consequences.



I think my list was fairly varied and shared the same metric (no BP winners) and those are the generational directors. The fact that you people can't come up with 10 different names...or 8 different names or 5 different names is the point. Everyone has different tastes but facts and time don't lie

This line of thinking makes zero sense to me. The best picture Oscar is not about honoring Barry Jenkins career. It's honoring that particular movie. If people are thinking the Oscar is tarnished because of movies made after or before the movie he won it for, then they seem to be missing the point of how awards work. If a figure skater in the Olympics wins the gold medal one year, and then falls on her ass the next, does it tarnish gold medals?



The public can barely remember the winners, let alone the nominations. Winning gives them considerably more visibility.



And why are you continually obsessed with the other movies they may or may not make? This is not how the award for best picture works.



What are you talking about? Disqualified? What? And I'm pretty sure some of those people on your list have won Oscars before? Are these your examples of people being disqualified?



This is an easy one: Yes.


My answer is still a yes.


I like Grease. But however good or not good it is has no bearing on whether or not The Deer Hunter has stood the test of time. It has. Is it as culturally ubiquitous as Grease? No. But that isn't the only way to consider whether or not a film still has relevance. If it is still part of a larger cultural discussion.


Not that deep. Definitely behind Altman or Cassavetes or Scorsese or De Palma. I'd at least put him on the level of Bogdanovich, who I also rate highly. Cimino is a great filmmaker.


When have these sort of things not always been factors in all award shows, at least to some degree? There are always external elements that bias people towards some films over others. You have biases on every film you like and I have biases in every film I like. Biases of taste, politics, the mood we were in when we saw the film, the things we've read about it that make us see it differently. A million elements can sway us outside of the quality of the actual film. Picking the movies you would have preferred to win only changes this unavoidable bias to just being exclusively your bias. It wouldn't be either good or bad for the reputation of the Oscars because there would still be people out there, like you, disagreeing that the film was picked for all the wrong reasons. Your particular tastes don't change this reality.



Of course I could come up with a list. So could everyone here. But what value would there be in that, as you've already stated these are the essential top 10 directors that have to be chosen, and you'd undoubtedly disagree with whatever alternatives I suggested, I imagine going so far to accuse me of having a bias towards my own opinion. And that would just be annoying in a way I'm not in the mood for at the moment.

If you want to use a sports analogy, The Oscars today are like if for 20 years every major golf winner was a randomly ranked player but the top ten ranked players never win the major. Why is Barry Jenkins basically a one hit wonder? Was Moonlight a great film, or was the subject matter the reason for the Award. If you can't make movies because nobody will pay to make movies...then did you really make the best picture?


The public also knows who the best film makers are and they see those movies...that's the point.



Because it has an effect on the livelihood of an entire industry. It has an effect on the theaters which means jobs. You also have streaming services buying awards and having more control over what you see.


Sure it has cultural discussion like how it's not nearly as good as Platoon, Apocalypse Now, and Full Metal Jacket.



[QUOTE
Not that deep. Definitely behind Altman or Cassavetes or Scorsese or De Palma. I'd at least put him on the level of Bogdanovich, who I also rate highly. Cimino is a great filmmaker.[/quote]
https://screenrant.com/new-hollywood...ven-spielberg/


Nichols, Spielberg, Coppola, Lucas, Friedkan, Nichols, etc etc etc



Normally it's an exception not the rule...Scorsese took 30 years...Fincher, Anderson, Russell, Tarantino and Nolan are now reaching Scorsese age. The issue is the generation as a whole not just biases opinions.


Because this is why your argument is a failure, you can make any excuse that you want. You can claim that my list is bad but the fact that you can't make your own...mean's you've lost this argument.

If you think this is how arguments work, I can't help you.


Exactly what do you think you are proving with your list nonsense? Do you think I'm incapable of writing a list of another ten great directors during these years? And if I was able to do such an extraordinarily impossible task such as this, would I then win this argument? Is that all I have to do? Or if I write one, do you just get to disagree and say I'm wrong and I still lose?

Orson didn't attend the Oscars that year, so even if pictures were available you wouldn't see him in them.

__________________

Thanks for posting that. Do you happen to know why he didn't attend? I'm just curious.

I think "The Deer Hunter" has stood the test of time, but I never really understood what that meant, especially since everyone has their own division of it.


8/10 -- could have cut some superfluous wedding stuff, though.

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

We will only really know if you are capable of writing such a list at such point that you actually produce that list. I am 99.99% positive that you can, and the .01% of doubt is something I am willing to live with. But you don't have to persuade me, this is Persuade-Siddon Adventure.



If you do produce the list, however, I shall rule that you have won the argument about whether you are capable of making a list.



As for the larger argument, it seems that the central claim is in dispute. What is the central claim? I don't think Siddon answered that one. If the claim is "You can't force Siddon to change his/her opinion," I think that Siddon wins that one, no?

Give or take .01 percent, I think this number is essentially correct.

lol

Yeah, this has been a particularly tough one to parse. It has something to do with that list of directors. Because it has been scientifically discerned that these are the best directors of the last twenty years, and since they haven't won any Oscars (even though Michael Cuaron has, twice, in a row) and all the others are disqualified (even though all or nearly all of them have have been nominated before), there is some sinister conspiracy afoot.

There is also a flat refusal to acknowledge any kind of possibility that anyone ever could ever consider Moonlight a great movie, unless its because of all the gay and the black. No awareness of the possibility that their own tastes are operating on any kind of bias. No attempt to actually explain why Moonlight is no good beyond 'nope, not good, I like these other movies better, PROOF'.

Then I've seen some appeals that 'the public knows' what is good, which seems to be appealing for the Academy to dole out awards related to box office returns. So I guess this person is upset that Twilight was never up for any best picture noms (the public knows what is good, after all, right?)

Then, we get back to this ****ing list. These are the directors that need to be rewarded for being the greatest of their generation. This is what will restore faith of the public in the Oscars. As if the general public has any remote awareness of the name David O Russel or Alfonso Cuaron, or concern they get awards. As if films by Wes Anderson and Adam McKay and Quentin Tarantino aren't deeply polarizing. As if the common film goer hasn't been completely alienated by every film PT Anderson has made since Boogie Nights.

And now I'm supposed to be supplying this bad-faith nightmare with a list of other directors that should replace his Holy Grail assemblage. Even though I've already stated I like all of these directors. And even though my argument against the list was about his massive solipsism in not being able to acknowledge anyone's opinion but his own (and the imagined opinion of the public he appeals to and then disregards at whim). And, yes, of ****ing course I could come up with a list. But because I refuse to be his pet, he's trying to troll things up by claiming victory on an imagined battlefield.

This is all super annoying because I actually wasn't even responding to the guy in the first place. And the reason for this is 1) I didn't understand what he was talking about and 2) felt he was already getting sufficient heat from another poster, so had hopes his train of thought had already been stomped out from existence. Because I didn't feel like going near them. Sometimes there are some arguments that are so horribly flimsy, it feels like abuse to blow them over with a single breath. I thought enough breaths had already been applied.

But I guess no. Here I am. Stuck in a completely fruitless conversation with someone who isn't listening and just keeps pestering people about a ridiculous list. I assume because he takes great umbrage that I called Moonlight my best film of that year. The absolute nerve of me! Wasn't I aware the Siddon had already declared it unworthy? Clearly I deserve this waste of time.