Do you think Academy Awards has hurt film?

Tools    





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.
I don't want to sound too patronizing here, but I think there's something you don't quite understand: bias is only bad when it works against the movies you like. Get it now?



I don't want to sound too patronizing here, but I think there's something you don't quite understand: bias is only bad when it works against the movies you like. Get it now?

I get people defending the movies they like with fire and passion. Sometimes (in my case) against any kind of common sense or good taste. What I will never get is people who can't accept others liking movies they don't. Now do I rag on fans of James Wan or Babydriver? Sure. But it's mostly in jest. And it's not like I can't accept they like these films. I don't have to devise conspiracy theories as to why they are deluding themselves. I don't worry the movies I like are suddenly being disqualified from consideration. Because that is complete madness. I'm actually happy guys like MKS and Wooley like something like Malignant. I'm just very open that I don't and I'm fascinated with these differences, even though we all essentially like so much of the same stuff..



I simply like to talk about films that exist on a kind of fault line, where I understand what I'm supposed to like about a film, and it looks like a movie I should like, but I just don't, and I'm forced to scramble in trying to discover exactly where this line is. What it is composed of. Why am I on one side and not the other?


It's a thought experiment for myself, to try and understand my own relationship with cinema. And it's also because I think in me determining these lines, I am contributing to the endless and amorphous discussion about what makes some art good and some art maybe bad. Which will always be an important discussion, not matter how pointless it is. Maybe my dismissals about something like Malignant, will illuminate what I find special about Fulci. Or maybe not. Who knows. At least it riles MKS up, which is always a bit of fun



But this absolutism about the things we must like, and the things we must be dubious of, is exactly the horseshit I want nothing to do with. It's why I've turned to art in the first place, where we can thankfully immediately discount anyone who starts talking in these dogmas. They have no place here, except for those who maybe need a little something extra to assure themselves their opinions 'aren't wrong'. And for me the inability to absolutely prove we are correct in our taste, is very much the thing that is appealing to me about art. And because of this, those who try and spoil these inherent ambiguities, are annoying spoil sports.



And for me the inability to absolutely prove we are correct in our taste, is very much the thing that is appealing to me about art. And because of this, those who try and spoil these inherent ambiguities, are annoying spoil sports.
There will always be a human element to art (and even if you try to hew to something "objective" like technical proficiency, well, it's really about how well techniques are deployed, which gets you firmly back into subjective territory).

I also understand the desire to defend art you like. Because it is personal. The way that I feel about certain movies feels like I'm actually talking about an extension of my own experiences or emotions. So to hear someone dismiss them as unworthy or pandering hurts.

I think it is especially not worthwhile to be wrapped up in how this all plays out in terms of an awards show, where there are so many elements at play. I mean, the nature of awards shows is that there will be unfairness. Two actors could give AMAZING performances in 2015. Actor A wins, Actor B doesn't. And then in 2016, all of the nominated performances could be inferior to the one Actor B gave in 2015. That means someone has won an award for a performance while Actor B is left in the cold, despite having done a better job at acting.




I also understand the desire to defend art you like. Because it is personal. The way that I feel about certain movies feels like I'm actually talking about an extension of my own experiences or emotions. So to hear someone dismiss them as unworthy or pandering hurts.

This is all leads to one of the only 'truth's I can really conceive of in art, is that you are never wrong in liking anything. If you respond to something, and that response is positive, there is never anything to apologize for. Own it. It's yours. Because a film is (obviously) so more than simply what is on screen. It is who you are, and what you brought with you as you sat down in front of that screen. Our biases are much of the point of art as whatever bias the artist created their art from.



And while it is always fair in a discussion to explain our own side if we don't like a film, its politics, its technical acuity, the acting, the storyline, if it's too main stream, whatever sin we think the film committed, what exactly are we gaining if we try and strip that person from enjoying something with OUR reason and OUR bias. Can we at least let people inject a little of THEM into what they are watching, FFS.


Also, everything you say about the fallacy of how awards are awarded and what this all ultimately means, is spot on. I disagree with 90 percent of what wins at the Oscar's, but I don't have to worry about it much as I don't think this is literally what determines what is the best. And them voting against my interests hardly comes to stripping me of validation of my own interests. The Oscars are irrelevant fluff. They are by design, no matter how many tuxedo's people wear to them. NO matter how many people lose sleep at night over Moonlight winning a statuette



The trick is not minding
This is all leads to one of the only 'truth's I can really conceive of in art, is that you are never wrong in liking anything. If you respond to something, and that response is positive, there is never anything to apologize for. Own it. It's yours. Because a film is (obviously) so more than simply what is on screen. It is who you are, and what you brought with you as you sat down in front of that screen. Our biases are much of the point of art as whatever bias the artist created their art from.



And while it is always fair in a discussion to explain our own side if we don't like a film, its politics, its technical acuity, the acting, the storyline, if it's too main stream, whatever sin we think the film committed, what exactly are we gaining if we try and strip that person from enjoying something with OUR reason and OUR bias. Can we at least let people inject a little of THEM into what they are watching, FFS.


Also, everything you say about the fallacy of how awards are awarded and what this all ultimately means, is spot on. I disagree with 90 percent of what wins at the Oscar's, but I don't have to worry about it much as I don't think this is literally what determines what is the best. And them voting against my interests hardly comes to stripping me of validation of my own interests. The Oscars are irrelevant fluff. They are by design, no matter how many tuxedo's people wear to them. NO matter how many people lose sleep at night over Moonlight winning a statuette
Meanwhile I’m disappointed because I was waiting for said list for reasons unrelated to the argument. 👀



Meanwhile I’m disappointed because I was waiting for said list for reasons unrelated to the argument. 👀

If I feel compelled to put down a list (frankly, I'm not nearly as obsessively interested in making lists from this millennium as I am from the last, as I know I have a lot of blind spots from the past 20 years), I'll put it in my thread, well quarantined away from this clusterf*ck of a discussion.



And while it is always fair in a discussion to explain our own side if we don't like a film, its politics, its technical acuity, the acting, the storyline, if it's too main stream, whatever sin we think the film committed, what exactly are we gaining if we try and strip that person from enjoying something with OUR reason and OUR bias. Can we at least let people inject a little of THEM into what they are watching, FFS.
Right. I mean, I'd say that the one caveat I have here is that it's frustrating to me when people won't just name some of their own biases/preferences.

I do partly like Moonlight because it unapologetically centers queer and Black characters. I got to attend a Q&A after a performance of Wig Out!, and one of the people told Tarell McCraney, "I love your work because you write for queer people of color, not just about queer people of color to show to a white audience." The energy and emotion in that room was electric. Watching Moonlight, I felt like I was seeing a story I had not seen before, told in a way that I had not seen such a character portrayed before. And the look of the film itself--those otherworldly blue tones!--also made a huge impression.

If someone likes movies about unspeakably attractive people singing and dancing in huge production numbers as they wrestle with their attraction and love for each other, just own that! There is nothing wrong with loving that kind of film. But at least acknowledge that as a preference instead of labeling it as "clearly better". That scene where Chiron learns to swim is emblazoned on my heart, while a hundred people dancing on cars in La La Land made me think, "Wow! That must have taken a lot of coordination."[/b]. I understand someone being awed by the latter, but to me the former is a much more powerful movie moment. It's the same reason someone taking a loud bite of toast in Phantom Thread sent a jolt of electricity through my brain that will never be equaled by any bombastic fight sequence in a Marvel movie. Bigger =/= better. Shinier =/= better. "Perfection" =/= better.

Also, everything you say about the fallacy of how awards are awarded and what this all ultimately means, is spot on. I disagree with 90 percent of what wins at the Oscar's, but I don't have to worry about it much as I don't think this is literally what determines what is the best.
I am most fond toward the Oscars when they do highlight films that are less well-known, like The Florida Project. I think that it's neat to want to celebrate the year in film, and I think that can include big blockbusters and more independent efforts. The actual awards themselves mean significantly less to me than the reviews that you or any of my other movie friends write.



Right. I mean, I'd say that the one caveat I have here is that it's frustrating to me when people won't just name some of their own biases/preferences.

Oh, for sure. I have biases towards films that portray any group of people who've fallen between the cracks. Stories that get over looked. Whether it be films that have to do with queer culture, or those who live in the projects, or people saddled with mental health or addictions, the homeless, the imprisoned, the ignored. This is what I identify with.


MKS is also (somewhat) right in that I respond more to shaggier, less produced aesthetics. I also have biases against films that adhere too rigidly to convention. I find beauty in mistakes and power in trusting instinct. These are all biases. I don't don't hide them, I'm not ashamed of them, and they absolutely have a place in what movies (or any other art) I am drawn closest to.


But I also try and overcome these biases in the films I disregard. I return to things continuously if they elude me. If I realize I'm not engaging with them in completely good faith. This doesn't mean I have to fall in line with liking them, but I become fascinated in how my own biases work against me at times.



I understand someone being awed by the latter, but to me the former is a much more powerful movie moment.

This would be another bias I would have when it comes to what films I want to discuss. I'm not interested in talking about something when we start getting into absolutes. We can absolutely talk about the difficulty there would be in staging and executing a scene from LaLa Land (I haven't seen it FTR). But (and this is where me and someone of MKS' frame of reference will differ) I don't care about proficiency. It's not like it doesn't matter, but I find talk about this boring. I like going into the areas where I have no idea how to defend my feelings. Because usually my fascination with things I find beautiful or profound is a complete mystery to me. And to reduce it to 'skill' or 'difficulty' has absolutely no value to me, even if I respect these things off to the side.


How exactly do we quantify the quality of that swimming scene in Moonlight? It's extraordinarily difficult to properly articulate, let alone convince someone else of why it matters. It's why I've skirted around addressing the 'what is so good about Moonlight' questions because it is something that is very ephemeral. It's hard to locate and describe. And considering how unbelievably close minded the thinking has been (by some) in this thread, I've got no interest in engaging with people who are going to be dubious about my reasoning from the get go. They've already made their mind up that there is nothing to see here, and I couldn't give a **** about convincing them where I'm coming from. They can overdose on their Ridley Scott boner pills for all I care.



Welcome to the human race...
If you are listing half the films from the last 20 years...that's a pretty good sign that the Awards are a problem.
Only because you started this whole thing off by referencing the last 20 years. Would In the Heat of the Night or Midnight Cowboy or West Side Story count as "fashionable" choices by your standards?
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Would In the Heat of the Night or Midnight Cowboy or West Side Story count as "fashionable" choices by your standards?
I was about to post this same thing. ItHotN won BP in 1967, in the middle of the Civil Rights movement.
Mrs Miniver is about the effects of WW2 on the British citizens who were left at home to face the bombings. Is it any wonder that it resonated in a special way to Academy voters in 1942?
The Best Years of Our Lives is about soldiers readjusting to post-war life, and that won BP the year after the war ended, as everyone was....readjusting to post-war life.

When it comes to the arts, there is no such thing as "best". So what we're really saying is "what did we like most?" The fact that the current mindset of the time is going to influence awards of this nature seems to be a given to me.
__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection



This conversation has been thought-provoking for me because so much of it seems to revolve around different people expressing different points of view, and then seeking to substantiate those points of view with different levels and kinds of evidence, and then, on both sides, being told that those are just interpretations that are being filtered through our own biases, and that opinions are not facts. I know that art is inherently subjective, and different people appreciate different things, and the criteria used to evaluate those things may also differ, but this makes me think about facts and opinions in the context of art in a new way. What makes something just an opinion, and what makes something closer to an evidence-based fact? How much evidence is needed in order to achieve a consensus (I agree that trying to get everyone to agree is likely not feasible), that something is a fact and not an opinion? If I said something like, "Schindler's List" is a superior film to one of Adam Sandler's films, like "Happy Gilmore," is the fact that "Schindler's List" is an Oscar winner for Best Picture, that it was directed by one of our best directors, Steven Spielberg, and that it was superior on a technical level in terms of its production values, and accurately conveyed the events of World War II, enough to make that a fact? Or, is that still just an opinion, because some people may like Adam Sandler's film better? Is it ever possible to come to a consensus on an objective source of truth when evaluating art, or is that a fool's errand because it's art? If it is possible, what makes that possible? When is there enough evidence to make that determination, and how is that determination made?

This relates to this particular conversation because we can't seem to agree on the basic premises of whether the Oscars are or are not choosing different kinds of films to award Best Picture recently, or on criteria to evaluate whether that is or is not happening, which has me questioning whether it is possible to form any kind of consensus when evaluating art. I welcome your thoughts!



If I said something like, "Schindler's List" is a superior film to one of Adam Sandler's films, like "Happy Gilmore," is the fact that "Schindler's List" is an Oscar winner for Best Picture, that it was directed by one of our best directors, Steven Spielberg, and that it was superior on a technical level in terms of its production values, and accurately conveyed the events of World War II, enough to make that a fact? Or, is that still just an opinion, because some people may like Adam Sandler's film better?
I don't think that you can ever objectively say things about art that aren't observations of aspects of that film. But there's always this subjective element where the viewer is (or isn't) impacted by the elements of a film and how they are used. So one person might be more moved by a film that, for example, has what would be considered "bad" lighting or acting, because for some reason that element actually had an impact on them.

However, it's not all mush.

You could get 100 people in a room and ask them to watch 20 or so films. You could then ask each person to write down their favorite film. One movie is going to have the most votes. Could you comfortably give that film an award as being the best of that batch? Sure, why not? Is it likely that the film would have strong performances, strong direction, a distinct look, or all of the above? Yes . . . right?

Now, if you liked a film that didn't get the majority vote, there were probably a few (and maybe quite a bit more than a few!) other people who also voted for it.

I like Moonlight a lot more than I liked La La Land. But it would neither surprise me nor send me into despair if La La Land had won Best Picture. At the same time, it makes me really happy that a film I loved got that recognition. I consider it a pleasant surprise, just like I consider it a pleasant surprise that Midnight Cowboy won when Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid was sitting right there.



Only because you started this whole thing off by referencing the last 20 years. Would In the Heat of the Night or Midnight Cowboy or West Side Story count as "fashionable" choices by your standards?

No because all of them were from auteurs that had bodies of work in two of those cases nominations for earlier work and the other for later work.



If I said something like, "Schindler's List" is a superior film to one of Adam Sandler's films, like "Happy Gilmore," is the fact that "Schindler's List" is an Oscar winner for Best Picture, that it was directed by one of our best directors, Steven Spielberg, and that it was superior on a technical level in terms of its production values, and accurately conveyed the events of World War II, enough to make that a fact? Or, is that still just an opinion, because some people may like Adam Sandler's film better?
I'm a bit of a fundamentalist when it comes to this, so I would say that yes, that is only an opinion. I mean, I won't have arguments about it or anything, and if you said this thing at a party I would no doubt agree with you just so I don't come off as an insufferable bore, but the concept of "better" means nothing to me when it comes to art.

I've seen Duel many times and own the Blu Ray and will watch it many more times before I'm dead. I've seen Schindler's List probably twice and thought it was great but might very well never watch it again. So which is the "better" Spielberg film? Who cares, is my answer.



You don't watch movies for them to be better than other movies. They are to be watched, and felt and talked about. Nothing else.



And if it's really that important for someone to figure out what the best ones are, then just think over the feelings you feel when you're watching them, and listen to the things people say about them after they're over, and then come to your own conclusion what's better.



Winning "best picture" is just a bunch of nonsense. It's winning a game. The best team doesn't always win. It can never mean what it says it means. It's just a dumb thing to talk about the next day. Taking it seriously and expecting it to always choose the 'right' movie just seems to me a complete waste of energy. Just like trying to figure out what movies are better than other movies.



Welcome to the human race...
I was about to post this same thing. ItHotN won BP in 1967, in the middle of the Civil Rights movement.
Mrs Miniver is about the effects of WW2 on the British citizens who were left at home to face the bombings. Is it any wonder that it resonated in a special way to Academy voters in 1942?
The Best Years of Our Lives is about soldiers readjusting to post-war life, and that won BP the year after the war ended, as everyone was....readjusting to post-war life.

When it comes to the arts, there is no such thing as "best". So what we're really saying is "what did we like most?" The fact that the current mindset of the time is going to influence awards of this nature seems to be a given to me.
I thought about including The Best Years of our Lives but I knew that William Wyler was already such an established director before and after making it that he would not qualify by Siddon's particular rationale that an individual film doesn't matter so much as the sum total of its director's career (which, as noted, I consider an irrational means of judging any individual film's worth)..

No because all of them were from auteurs that had bodies of work in two of those cases nominations for earlier work and the other for later work.
Duly noted. Still don't think it makes sense to judge a single film by the director's work outside of that - I can think that most of Clint Eastwood's films are middling while also considering Unforgiven good enough to add to my personal top 100.



This conversation has been thought-provoking for me because so much of it seems to revolve around different people expressing different points of view, and then seeking to substantiate those points of view with different levels and kinds of evidence, and then, on both sides, being told that those are just interpretations that are being filtered through our own biases, and that opinions are not facts. I know that art is inherently subjective, and different people appreciate different things, and the criteria used to evaluate those things may also differ, but this makes me think about facts and opinions in the context of art in a new way. What makes something just an opinion, and what makes something closer to an evidence-based fact? How much evidence is needed in order to achieve a consensus (I agree that trying to get everyone to agree is likely not feasible), that something is a fact and not an opinion? If I said something like, "Schindler's List" is a superior film to one of Adam Sandler's films, like "Happy Gilmore," is the fact that "Schindler's List" is an Oscar winner for Best Picture, that it was directed by one of our best directors, Steven Spielberg, and that it was superior on a technical level in terms of its production values, and accurately conveyed the events of World War II, enough to make that a fact? Or, is that still just an opinion, because some people may like Adam Sandler's film better? Is it ever possible to come to a consensus on an objective source of truth when evaluating art, or is that a fool's errand because it's art? If it is possible, what makes that possible? When is there enough evidence to make that determination, and how is that determination made?

This relates to this particular conversation because we can't seem to agree on the basic premises of whether the Oscars are or are not choosing different kinds of films to award Best Picture recently, or on criteria to evaluate whether that is or is not happening, which has me questioning whether it is possible to form any kind of consensus when evaluating art. I welcome your thoughts!
A few thoughts here

1. One proposition at a time. If we hopscotch from claim to claim, then things will get out of control very quickly.

2. Identify the central claim being discussed carefully at the outset. If we are discussing two related but distinct ideas, we will get much heat and very little light.

3. Make sure the proposition is of a sort that is worth discussing (e.g., it should be capable of stasis). A purely objective proposition is of the sort that can be settled by a Google search (e.g., how much did E.T. make at the box office during initial release?). A purely subjective proposition cannot be resolved (e.g., You should not enjoy that film you just enjoyed). Purely appetitive questions do not admit of answers. Aesthetic questions worth exploring have to deal with intersubjectivities (zones/areas of epistemic objectivity that may be brought to bear to establish that one claim is better warranted than another).

4. Define terms in the proposition. The more specific the better.

5. Agree upon what counts as "proof." What counts as evidence? What sort of reasons will be accepted? Without common standards, the discussion is likely spin its wheels.

6. Agree to argumentative burdens. Who has the burden of proof?

7. Use a disinterested third party to adjudicate heated disputes. NOTE: If things are this heated, it's probably best to leave the controversy aside.

8. Both parties should go to lengths to identify as much as they can about which they agree before getting into that about which they disagree.

9. Structure and manage the dispute so that the other party may admit errors or change their minds without suffering reputational damage.

10. Stay on topic.



I think that it's neat to want to celebrate the year in film
Years ago I had the idea that the Academy could put on an annual "Year in Film" show, which would basically be the Oscars but without awards.

Instead of ten Best Picture nominees, it would be more like "Here's 10 films that we think deserve some praise". Show some clips, interview the cast/crew, have some critics or peers give their thoughts, etc. Just don't give anyone a prize.

"Here's 5 films with great sound design, and here's a demonstration of why the sound design is great. "
And so on. You'll still get to see celebs in fancy clothes, but you might learn something too.

It was pre-internet when I came up with this, so part of the idea was to give the casual movie fan a convenient place to discover what was out there. It might be a bit less relevant in the internet age, but I'd still be more inclined to watch this than an awards show.



Years ago I had the idea that the Academy could put on an annual "Year in Film" show, which would basically be the Oscars but without awards.

Instead of ten Best Picture nominees, it would be more like "Here's 10 films that we think deserve some praise". Show some clips, interview the cast/crew, have some critics or peers give their thoughts, etc. Just don't give anyone a prize.

"Here's 5 films with great sound design, and here's a demonstration of why the sound design is great. "
And so on. You'll still get to see celebs in fancy clothes, but you might learn something too.

It was pre-internet when I came up with this, so part of the idea was to give the casual movie fan a convenient place to discover what was out there. It might be a bit less relevant in the internet age, but I'd still be more inclined to watch this than an awards show.
Agreed. Several essays written about "fixing" the Oscars have basically suggested that they stop pandering to a "general audience" and just go full film-nerd. I would also watch such an event, having not watched the Oscars for well over a decade.