Quote:
Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick
Monique was referring to the politics of campaigning. There's a great deal of it and it very much affects how people vote, typically. In the past, those who didn't go out and "beg" for their Oscar consideration simply didn't win. She made a point of not campaigning, personally, and saying that she appreciated the nomination but she wanted the performance to speak for itself, not to speak for it beyond what she did in the film. A lot of the prognostication groupies believed that this would mean the Academy would snub her.
|
I respect that more than what the screenwriter for
Hurt Locker said. He talked about not having done any screenings for test audiences so that their film was "uncompromising" and "the film we wanted to make" and how happy he was that the Academy recognized such an "uncompromising" film.
You know, you made the film you wanted to make. Awesome. The members of the Academy happened to like it. Awesome. But implication there would be that the Academy would have been doing something wrong had they not recognized your film. If you're going to make a film with the attitude of, "We're not going to bother to consult with anyone to see if other people are going to like it. We're going to make it our way and public opinion be damned!" Then you'd better be prepared for people not to like it and be happy with that. Which is cool.
If he had worded it more like, "It's gratifying to know that the vision we had was something that connected with other people, because we were just making the movie we wanted to make, without focus groups or screenings," that would have been great. But it came off to me more like, "Damn right you'd better like our film!" Seemed arrogant.