The Oscars

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I could listen to the Babel director talk for ever. He's completely won me over with articulation.

Articulation?

Which kind? Dental? Labiodental? Linguolabial? Pharyngeal? Palatal?

[Moonliner]

Now that we are here in the post Oscar shadow, what if any movies are you eager to see that you weren't yesterday?

I might have to see "Pan's Labyrinth" which I have to admit I had never heard of before yesterday.

[Not Afraid]

I spent the evening with Netflix open and added quite a few things to my queue. There was plenty I didn't see this year and my queue now reflects that.

[Alex]

Nothing was really changed by the show.

I still really want to see The Lives of Others (and all the other foreign language nominees). But otherwise, outside of the shorts I've seen almost everything that won and don't have much interest in Half Nelson, The Pursuit of Happyness, or Marie Antoinette.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Articulation?

Which kind? Dental? Labiodental? Linguolabial? Pharyngeal? Palatal?

Just the basic act of articulating.

[Morrigoon]

I disagree, NA. I want to see them thank the people in their lives, and who gave them the award, not to preach at me, they can do that on their own time. The Oscars is about film and filmmaking, and they should stick to the subject at hand while at the Oscars.

And as regards voting, if someone made a great documentary about how a house is built, I don't see why that filmmaker deserves any less recognition than one who made a good film about the environment or some culture that seems exotic by American standards. The award is supposed to be about the film,, and the excellence of their work on it. To favor certain subjects is to disrespect the art that went into the others.

[Alex]

Yes, but when the majority of the people voting haven't actually seen a majority of the nominees you're going to end up with less ideal methods of choosing.

And reading the complaints about acceptance speeches I am seeing today, the dominant theme is too much thanking of people we've never heard of.

Overall, I found the show politically tame. But that's to be expected when the only unscripted event seems to have been Will Smith's kid screwing up his line.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't mind the winners voicing their opinions. Their speech is their time, and if that's what they want to use it for, no worries on my end. I just get peeved when voting is done based on political motives.

Sure, political impact is one valid consideration, but sometimes it's given too much weight. I felt that the case for West Bank Story. It was good, but in terms of its quality as a film, I thought it was a class below the other nominees in the category. Far enough below that even having a good political message wasn't enough for me to consider it the best (and I did like the message of the film). If I were a voting member, I'd personally try to start with how well a film makes its point, and only turn to whether I think that point was particularly important or impactful as a means to create separation between entries that are too close quality-wise to decide between.

Of course, I say that now when I have no actual voting power. Hard to say how I'd feel actually given the authority to be involved in that decision.

Speaking of which, who was it that pointed out that the Oscars are still the awards show, the one that everyone is waiting for through the whole award season? Makes you realize what an amazing entity the Academy is. I mean, they just kinda gave themselves that power. Before the academy existed, I'm sure there were awards here and there, and small, disparate groups of people who would discuss and decide what their favorites were.

But somewhere along the way, some people decided, "You know what, screw this. We're going to create a group of people and just decide which movie's the best. And we're going to get the right people to give ourselves the clout to do that and everyone's gonna listen." At least, that's how I picture it. Maybe it happened more naturally, that the people with the clout gravitated towards each other and their combined clout grew. But either way, it really says something that, even though there's always disagreement with their choices, the Academy has managed to remain THE source to watch, even if you're watching so you can disagree with them. And in the end, it's all just because they have the attitude and resources to present themselves as such.

[Not Afraid]

Yes, but film (and art) is about subject matter and very often the subject matter is a reflection of contemporary viewpoints and provides social commentary. There is really no separation between films as social commentary and awarding

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Yes, but film (and art) is about subject matter and very often the subject matter is a reflection of contemporary viewpoints and provides social commentary. There is really no separation between films as social commentary and awarding

No disagreement here, but subject matter is definitely a secondary consideration. Otherwise, all nominees and winners would always be political statements. Lord knows there are no shortage of short films with political messages, but 3 out of the 5 nominees were quite apolitical (though one was religious commentary which I suppose is a sub/sister category of politics). So it bugs me when politics is given more weight than I feel it deserves. I prefer it when things are weighted more towards the artistic merit end of the spectrum. I'd never expect, or want, politics to be cut out of the process, just not as a defining force.

Heck, Ari Sandel said it best in his prepared speech. The short format Oscars are all about struggling film makers trying to get noticed...and I thought that the other nominations represented the work of better film makers than he.