Are all awards ceremonies based more on popularity than on celebrating great art? I used to think that the Academy Awards had a lot of integrity, and there was a point in my life where I found out all the Best Picture winners for the last 60 years so I could watch them all. Then something happened. Bjork's performance in "Dancer in the Dark" lost to Julia Roberts in "Erin Brokovich" for best actress. This changed me in a profound way. Honestly.
I hadn't always agreed with the Oscar selections in the past, but there was something significant I realized after that moment: Award ceremonies are about making money. From start to finish. All the stars arrive to be scrutinized by the fashion police, making money for fashion designers every time one of their names gets dropped. Don't forget about ratings for the networks an hour before the ceremony has even started, it's a big plus. Then the long drawn out ceremony, putting in more special guest appearances, cameo's (don't forget commercials, we need our sponsors happy!), making you tune in for hours and hours to finally get to the culmination moment that they've been building up to for weeks, with talk on radio stations, newspaper articles speculating on the winners, etc. oh, and the ratings are still going strong.
What I needed to know was this... it's not about popularity necessarily, it's about money first and foremost. What's more popular just happens to help make them more money, b/c people are more interested in the lovely Julia Roberts winning an award than the kind of freakish Bjork stepping up there. People don't care what Bjork is wearing to the Oscars, b/c nobody knew that she would even be there, b/c nobody saw her movie. Therefore, change the channel. Right?
Basically, whatever is going to make them money will be recognized as such. A day may come when a film like Dancer in the Dark can make them money, and then they'll include it. Until then, there's the Sundance Channel and many other organizations that attempt to celebrate art for art, not just for money. But then there is us. The public. What is our role? Thoughts, anyone??
Bjork
.JPG)
16 comments:
I think when Bjork wore that goose suit, people cared.
It's interesting that you're posting on this, because I recently smiled and nodded as my father-in-law said just the opposite. He was complaining about the nominations for Brokeback Mountain and Capote because, "Nobody went to see them." He then mentioned that The Chronicles of Narnia grossed 277 million, as if on that merit alone it should have been nominated.
According to IMDb.com, the top-grossing films of 2005 were Star Wars Episode III, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, The Chronicles of Narnia, War of the Worlds, and King Kong. None of these is nominated for the big five Oscar categories (best picture, best actor/actress, and best supporting actor/actress). Two are nominated for art direction, two for makeup, two for sound editing, three for sound mixing, and three for visual effects.
I think a bigger driving force than money in this year's Oscar race is ideology. The movies nominated for the high-profile categories deal with poverty, race issues, sexual identity, and criticism of government. This is exciting to me.
In another interesting connection, Robert Redford recently said that he thinks Sundance is getting out of control.
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to say that simply b/c of the Bjork decision, that the Academy has no artistic merit in mind. It was just an example of how often other forces are at work besides just the films themselves (ideology certainly being one as well). I also believe that the Oscars aren't the same as the Grammy's, I was just trying to draw some parrallels. I see a lot more artistic integrity in the Academy selections than in the Grammy's, but that's just my personal opinion.
Your Robert Redford quote made me smile. What was he talking about, if you have more background info? I do agree though, they're out of control and they need to be stopped. for God's sake. I mean come on. Seriously guys. stop.
If it's true that the Best Picture of the year (if it's really the best) was one that nobody watched, what does that mean? Is it just that the majority of the population has no appreciation for this kind of art? eh?
I forgive you.
Check out IMDb.com's Movie/TV News for today. He seems to be saying that Paris Hilton's presence at the Sundance festival is a sign its getting too big/commercial.
Evan, very nice to see you! Now, if what you say is true, and what the masses enjoy watching is truly fecal matter... how come you see that and they don't? Are people incapable of appreciating a film like Mad Hot Ballroom (which I highly recommend to anybody)? If so, why do you think that? Does it just simply come down to taste, or is there something deeper?
I daresay we might have something called a conversation going on here, and I don't want to jinx it. But for anybody reading along, by all means hop on in and share.
This is not about bashing the general public and becoming elitists, we should all be aware of that very real possibility when we start thinking about this. I want to understand and learn from each other. Especially online (all the time, really) when people don't know each other, we need to be careful not to look down our noses at others who like different things. So if there is a Final Destination 3 fan in the house, don't be afraid to show your face!
Real quick sidenote... I was in Blockbuster Saturday night and the place was flooded with young folks running around the whole video store. One girl standing beside me asked her friend if she wanted to watch a certain video, saying "it's real good, it's a true story." Her friend walked away in a huff and said "I hate true stories." I thought this was a fascinating exchange.
I liked the first Final Destination. I've yet to see Mad Hot Ballroom.
I think that while someone's trash is someone else's treasure, some movies are indeed crap (the Star Wars prequels, for example). Crap movies don't require any thought. Good art is challenging, and many people don't like to be challenged.
So Buddy, can you explain why you enjoy being challenged, while an equally intellectual person might not? And is being challenging the main criteria for art being good?
Mad Hot Ballroom is one of many undiscovered movies b/c it is a documentary. People steer clear of those movies more than almost any other genre, in my experience.
The challenge art presents may not be intellectual, so being an intellectual or not may not affect whether you enjoy being challenged. I don't know enough about art criticism to say what is THE main criterion for art being good. I am willing to say that it is a quality of good art.
The last documentary I saw was March of the Penguins. It was so sad. I think Michael Moore has done more than anyone when it comes to undermining the credibility of the genre.
When you say that March of the Penguins was so sad, do you mean that in a good way, or in a bad way? I typically equate sadness with beauty, but others equate it with strife. I'm curious what you thought of the movie, and sadness, for that matter.
Also, do you believe that people steer away from documentaries b/c they doubt their credibility mainly?
But I wonder this about myself. Why do I enjoy being challenged when I watch movies, while others don't? Like you said, it's not a matter of brains necessarily.
I do appreciate art that challenges me. I also appreciate stories for the sake of "storyness"... we'll say that is a synonym for entertainment. I believe there are alot of people, myself included who are challenged constantly and choose the cinema as a release. Dare I say mindless escape? Maybe a stand in for when we have no one to call and don't want to talk with those around us. I love challenging movies... I just don't have the brain power lately.
Thanks for the Top 5- I asked around this week... noone where I socialize (law school) knew what was in the theatre.
I love documentaries. I never watched one by Michael Moore, the trailers alone convinced me that it was a lot of fabrication.
The last documentary I saw was After Innocence. It was sad and challenging and made me tired and i cried. (I don't want this from movies most days)
Mad Hot Ballroom didn't get very good reviews in NY papers, but it was in the theatres (yes multiple in my neighborhood... I'm too lucky) for a good long while.
Peace - Megan
March of the Penguins was beautiful, and I think it portrayed both types of sadness. I'd highly recommend it, but I won't let my wife watch it.
I think some people want to appreciate art, but others don't really care. I don't think art is ever a diversion or escape; it is always challenging. Tolkien was furious that people read his books to escape from the world. Good art drives us back out into the world with a new framework for understanding it. We understand the world through story, so I wouldn't equate storiness with entertainment/escapism (and despite what Megan may say, she has recommended many challenging movies to me). I do enjoy pure entertainment, though.
Most people probably avoid documentaries because they think they'll be boring. I avoid Michael Moore's documentaries because he's an ass (his portrayal of Charlton Heston as a racist is unforgivable. He marched alongside Martin Luther King Jr. for crying out loud!). After Innocence is now on my netflix queue.
Buddy, I certainly disagreed with Michael Moore's portrayal of Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine. But I disagree that he was portraying him as a racist. Did you watch the film, or is this coming from an outside source? I also agree with Evan that Moore's films (I think they're more like movies than documentaries) are worth a viewing, especially Columbine. I do agree with you Buddy in that most people avoid documentaries b/c they believe them to be dull.
Megan, thank you for joining us! I really want to watch After Innocence now, thanks for the recommendation. You touched on an interesting concept, the fact that you feel you can turn your mind off and be entertained. I want us to figure out if that is really true or not. And if it is true, is that good for us to do?
Maybe you could help me understand your point of view when it comes to that question a little further.
I've seen Bowling for Columbine several times and praised it highly before doing exactly what Effin suggested and looking deeper. The way Moore edits the film, he asks Heston why America is so violent, and CH replies that it's because we're so racially diverse. What Chuck was actually responding to was the question why America has so much racial tension. My defense of Heston goes only that far. I don't want to give the impression that I support the republican party or the NRA.
My biggest problem with Moore is that I agree with what he's saying, but I wish he would support his position with facts if he's going to claim to be a documentary filmmaker. Exaggeration, strategic editing, and outright fabrication undermine his position and that of those who agree with him.
I think Roger and Me is good, and I love what Marilyn Manson says in BfC (although I now suspect that it was scripted). And the History of America cartoon is brilliant. I would never tell anyone to avoid Moore, because he is certainly challenging. But I think we could save a lot of time by simply reading criticism of his "documentaries" and watching something of more value, which is why I avoided Fahrenheit 911 (also Ray Bradbury hated the appropriation of his brilliant novel's title).
Hey Ryan,
Nice to meet you. I'm a head case. I tell myself I can turn my head off, but I also supposedly disagree with people over movies because I overanalyze even when we are just watching for enjoyment. I think I appreciate, lets say when a movie is LESS challenging than my everyday life. I could be won over to Buddy's side that all art affects you. I guess there are situations when I can ignore its affects, when I choose to ignore its affects. I will also say that I can choose a genre because I want those affects.
Girls always try to explain this and guys (I'll present Buddy as an exception most likely) never seem to understand... girls want to cry about a certain thing... usually its I want to cry about love not about third world hunger or injustice or dying alone and lonely or suicide... I think you get the point.
I will say sometimes I want a certain affect... watching people happy and stable and laughing at lifes' ironies - ala Seinfeld is a stand in for shooting the breeze with a fried is my suggestion. It challenges my view of life's inane choices and consequences not large issues that might alter my view of something to the point of my having a catastrophic paradigm shift.
I don't have time/ don't desire a catastrophic paradigm shift many evenings since I'm busy having them all day. I don't mind thinking about the inane but humorous things of the daily mundane.
I will accept that all art can arguably challenge. I think its an even more interesting notion in consideration of the paper/canvas medium. I love traditional art and think that although many times less controversial or less interesting to discuss, considering its affect on people might give a springboard to considering the more complex visual arts.
- Megan
Well Buddy, I agree completely with your assessment of BFC and Moore. I always took Heston's answer to being an explanation of tension, not as a racist remark, which is why I didn't agree that he was portrayed that way.
I don't agree that reading the criticisms alone is worthwhile, but I see where you're coming from. I listened to all the critics before I saw Farhenheit 911, then watching it made me annoyed at the critics for how they twisted or misunderstood some things. both sides is best.
Megan, I understand completely what you mean, and I believe that all people choose the affect that they most desire, not just the ladies. I agree that there are times when you need to find the art form that suits your current needs (Seinfeld). I wonder if sometimes it would be better for us if we were pushed in directions we didn't dictate (or prefer) once in awhile. What do you think?
If you're an intense person (in real life, having catastrophic paradigm shifts daily) then perhaps the more intense art would help you get through your days without causing such disruption/exhaustion. but maybe you're right, maybe it wouldn't help.
I'm very interested in traditional art, although you probably know a lot more about it than i do. I know that sometimes the most simple thing can strike a chord that nothing else can even touch. People forget that when they need high flying effects and fast moving action just to keep them from changing the channel.
For me it reminds me of people drinking when I was in College. There were some who occasionally had some to enhance the fun they were naturally having. For others, the night was nothing without it. a party wasn't a party w/out drinking. that person was missing something.
That's the way I feel about movies that are for sheer entertainment. They're not wrong in and of themselves, but it's not what it's all about.
Hello Benjie! Good to see you (especially b/c the conversation originated from talking with you). (oh, and i have forgiven you about dancer in the dark). (forgive me for making you feel like i never would).
I love what you had to say, I can completely relate to it. We do all have to make those decisions, and it's important that we understand the forces we are up against. That's why I feel that to a point art (like exercise) requires discipline in order to achieve long term growth/change that you will ultimately enjoy.
Most people don't want to approach watching movies as a discipline. I think that some try to be so disciplined in "real life" that when they say they watch movies to escape, they also are escaping from being disciplined.
I also understand that there are times when it's best to give your mind a breather, so I would never argue that 2 hours of Seinfeld is always the wrong choice. I do believe that too much pampering of ourselves in the art arena, and we might lose sight of why it might be good not to.
We have to believe that challenging art is good for us, longterm. That's the vision. It's the same idea that forces you out of bed at 6 AM to work out when you're exhausted that will force you to seek out the more challenging film when you don't feel like it.
Entertainment movies are like processed food that is waiting for me at the vending machine. it's right there, it's so easy and it would be over in a minute. Challenging art is the food that nobody knows about, that I have to discover after looking through every vending machine in town. When I finally find it, and I'm not sure how appetizing it looks anymore. Then I eat it and love it more than anything, but can't convince a single soul to come try it with me.
i don't want to eat alone.
As we get deeper into thought about when and why we watch movies and does the world appreciate art or just in it for the money. I would have to say that people tend to have to be in the mood to sit and watch a film anymore. The type of film would have to be discussed because it has become a part of our everyday lives like food, a routine if I may. Try playing kamakaze movies just walk in pick a title take it home, watch it, then discuss the movie and what you got from it. And if you didn't like it then never watch it again, but give it a fair chance to embrace you for the art that has been created. That's why I agree with this social gathering that has been introduced to me. It is the challenge of movies that I seek not routine. I prefer to be surprised by a movie and not clouded by all the gossip that surrounds it. We must start to think for ourselves again. The point is we make movies to make money, but we also make movies because it gives us a chance to see a different side of humanity, even if it is fiction. The grammy's have become a popularity contest and when I watch it I feel like I'm back in high school. Now I'm not saying these people are not talented because they are, but there are other artist who's music should be shared in that kind of mass production so that every voice is heard and no stone is left unturned.
Post a Comment