Movies as Art and Mass Consumption

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-12 06:03pm

As I reviewed the current brew haha between ROTK's New Line and Big Fish's Columbia over who is indeed #1 this past weekend my thoughts turned to the Oscars and all the other awards shows.

Cold Mountain over 4 weeks has made about 50 million dollars. Its considered one of the leading contenders for best picture.

Film is an art, I agree with this presumption, but I feel that it is an art of mass consumption and appeal. If the Oscars are going to award a film should it not be from a field of contenders that appeal to a mass audience? Why must such successful blockbusters always be undermined by these small art house films that no one except film freaks and elitists from NY and LA enjoy and those that attract a much larger and broader audience and actually do what films do best - entertain and not depress as art house films tend to do.

Why are we awarding these prizes to films that a small percentage have seen? For instance in one of the most galling instances of this phenomnenon in recent memory, Saving Priavte Ryan was beaten out by Shakespeare in Love, a truly craptacular film if you have seen it and one that many have admitted afterwards was undeserving, but you see it was about Shakespeare, it was a period piece and it makes Hollywood look artsy.

BLECH.

Hollywood has this love hate relationship with its own medium. They desperately want the Oscars to actually mean something by nominating and trying to get small artsy films to win. Why do they thumb their noses at the very blockbusters and mass consumption movies that keep them in business?

Mass Consumption does not mean bad, see the LOTR Trilogy, OT Star Wars, etc.

Sorry for the rambling rant but these were my thoughts.

Post by **Dalton** » 2004-01-12 06:15pm

And I agree with you. I get majorly pissed when crap artsy-fartsy flicks nobody's ever heard of take the awards. It's like they stock the vote pool with film snobs instead of actual people.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-01-12 06:16pm

Its all a question of who can give the most money to the so called "Academycians",and who really wants to get an Oscar for his movie even if its a commercial failure,and most of the people at the academy who chose the winners never saw a movie in their entire life,going from one social elite gathering to another.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-01-12 06:46pm

I think we can all agree that while "Gladiator" was a triumph, "A Beautiful Mind" had no place in Best Picture.

That said, according to IMDB, Big Fish is beating out RotK by a measely 400,000. Given how long its has been out, that's a huge accomplishment for RotK.

zombie84 · Post by **zombie84** » 2004-01-12 07:02pm

Movies are at once both an art and a business. Most people dont care about art house and independent film, they care about big-budget, celebrity driven studio films--it makes absolute sense that these are the award shows that are broadcast on television and made a big fuss over; its what the masses want to see, and so they get it. However, the acedemy is also run by film critics and by people within the field itself--it makes also makes sense that there should be a focus on performance-oriented films that dont necessarily have a huge, mulit-million dollar budget. Its a tug of war game between the masses who prefer celebrity-drive, big-budget studio films, and critics, buffs and industry professionals who dont necessarily care for those things. The fact is that the Acedemy Awards are not run by or for Joe-blow; if joe blow wants to watch them on tv thats fine though. Theres been a lot of politics that have gotten involved in recent years, but the problem remains that the mass-consumption of films, especially in recent years, is what is the industries biggest help and biggest burden at the same time.

There are awards for independent films, but because the mass public does not care for the films, they dont recieve much attention from the media. The Academy Awards honor studio films, which is why stuff like Saving Private Ryan and Lord of the Rings get attention over low-budget indy flicks. However, having said that, there is a place for smaller films within them--stuff like Lost in Translation for example. I think the only reason this film got attention is because of Bill Murrey, but regardless of his status as a celebrity, his performance and the film is deserving of its praise. Why shouldnt a film like this get snubbed for huge, studio films? Theres always Peoples Choice and MTV awards if you want "by the people, for the people", but as these have all shown, the people are all a bunch of fucking morons. "Art films"--i dont really care for that term, as anything that doesnt consist of explosion and special effects is now deemed an "Art" film, which make about as much sense as describing Picasso's work as "Art" art--are the heart of cinema, where mass-consumption becomes art. Its like the difference between pop-radio and underground music. By no means should smaller films be considered inherantly better than big-budget films, but to prefer either to the other is a travesty to the artisans who work in the industry.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-01-13 09:11am

Stravo wrote:Film is an art, I agree with this presumption, but I feel that it is an art of mass consumption and appeal. If the Oscars are going to award a film should it not be from a field of contenders that appeal to a mass audience? Why must such successful blockbusters always be undermined by these small art house films that no one except film freaks and elitists from NY and LA enjoy and those that attract a much larger and broader audience and actually do what films do best - entertain and not depress as art house films tend to do.

Because it's very possible that a big studio releases a big-budget film which nonetheless isn't a good movie and yet still a large audience sees it. For examples, look at the I Know What You Did Last Summer films which didn't have many other redeeming qualities than Jennifer Love Hewitt's breasts.

And it's very possible for an otherwise good movie not to be seen by many when it's first released. For example - when Highlander first was released in theaters in 1986, it was largely ignored. Today it's considered a modern classic, while many of the movies which were box-office successes when Highlander debuted are barely remembered.

Mass Consumption does not mean bad, see the LOTR Trilogy, OT Star Wars, etc.

Yep, but as I mentioned:

Number of people who see a movie != actual quality of movie.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2004-01-13 10:45am

You can give awards for different reasons. The Oscars aren't the people's choice awards, rather the "Academy's Choice Awards". Likewise you could have the critics choice, etc, etc.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-13 10:54am

In the final tally, RotK narrowly edged Big Fish in weekend box-office sales. Big Fish made more per screen, but RotK was on more screens.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-01-13 10:55am

Peregrin Toker wrote:
Stravo wrote:Film is an art, I agree with this presumption, but I feel that it is an art of mass consumption and appeal. If the Oscars are going to award a film should it not be from a field of contenders that appeal to a mass audience? Why must such successful blockbusters always be undermined by these small art house films that no one except film freaks and elitists from NY and LA enjoy and those that attract a much larger and broader audience and actually do what films do best - entertain and not depress as art house films tend to do.
Because it's very possible that a big studio releases a big-budget film which nonetheless isn't a good movie and yet still a large audience sees it. For examples, look at the I Know What You Did Last Summer films which didn't have many other redeeming qualities than Jennifer Love Hewitt's breasts.

And it's very possible for an otherwise good movie not to be seen by many when it's first released. For example - when Highlander first was released in theaters in 1986, it was largely ignored. Today it's considered a modern classic, while many of the movies which were box-office successes when Highlander debuted are barely remembered.

It became a cult classic, like Army of Darkness and host of other films.

Peregrin Toker wrote:
Stravo wrote:Mass Consumption does not mean bad, see the LOTR Trilogy, OT Star Wars, etc.
Yep, but as I mentioned:

Number of people who see a movie != actual quality of movie.

True, but having something that only will appeal to a smal sect of the population winning big at an award to raise standards either says that anyone who didn't enjoy this film is either ignorant or an idiot.

Also if a film does dismal at the box office that should be an indicator of it's viability. Do you buy stuff that wins awards for some reason but no one purchases?

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2004-01-13 11:16am

Ghost Rider wrote: winning big at an award to raise standards

I don't think that's the case. It's just a bunch of Academy members voting for what they think is the best. Its a small 'select' voting population and is easily biased towards a particular movie type. Imagine if it was just SD.net voting, we might have favouritism towards scifi, war, anal probing, and epic fantasy movies.

either says that anyone who didn't enjoy this film is either ignorant or an idiot.

Maybe that's the opinion of the Academy members; if they are a bunch of stereotypical 'artsy fartsy' people then maybe that's the case. All I know for sure is that it says they have a different taste in movies compared to myself and the majority of the population.

However, we're sort of doing the reverse to them by saying they simply like these 'artsy' films for art sake only. We'd essentially be saying they're snobbish simpletons.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2004-01-13 02:56pm

I agree with zombie84 that movies are both an art and a business, just like music. I'm just surprised people still think they can judge all movies on the same stage, giving a 'best picture' etc, when they stopped doing that years ago with music. Music awards ceremonies nowadays fix on one particular genre, which the film industry should maybe start thinking about doing.

Not that anyone cares, or should care. We don't see rants in this calibre every time the Booker prize comes round, and how many of you have actually read Life of Pi?

I'm quite frankly shocked that you rated the by-the-numbers jingoistic crapfest that was Saving Private Ryan over Shakespeare in Love, which remains one of my favourite films today, not least because of the excellent screenplay by Stoppard. However, I don't particularly want to get into an argument about the relative merits of these very different movies, because clearly there is something I should have 'got' about Ryan, which I missed.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-13 03:11pm

The problem, IMNSHO, is the death grip the Academy Awards have on awarding movie making. You'd have thought that after some of the 'meh' movies that have won Best Picture that a majority of people who are interested in such things would have left or ignore the Oscars.

While Shakesphere in Love was a decent enough film it was not the best of that year. Same could be said of alot of movies and hell the same could be said of alot of the nominee's. Chockolat? WTF? HiddenTiger?

There is something to be said about giving credit for artsy movie. Film makers may make a film that gives credit to the artsy gods. But art is subjective mostly and one of the objective indicators that is obvious is how well the movie performed for an audience.

The Oscars in themselves have become a self gratifying organization. Movie comapanies actively court these fucknuts months in advance to get on their good side. The movie companies damn near put forth a political campaigne for their movie directed at the Academy.

Its almost a self fullfilling prophecy. The Oscars are the best because they're the biggest. They're the biggest because they're the best. When a majority of people finally see the Academy as irrelevant because of some of their craptacular choises, then and only then might things change. After all, how much money does the Oscars rake in every year and what happens if this is challenged and the Golden Globes or the Peoples Choice start making more?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-13 03:20pm

What really bothers me is that many of the films lauded as being "artsy" are in fact so conventional in methodology and approach. While there have been some truly spectacular "artsy" films (Apocalypse Now comes to mind), I think that critics in the film industry have lost touch with films themselves. They like innovative camera angles and over-the-top costuming, but they no longer appreciate good story-telling.

Also, many of the methods that they use to evaluate films remain totally obscure to me. For example, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon won numerous awards and nominations, and was wildly applauded by critics. I spoke with several of those critics shortly after the Academy Awards to ask them what they liked about the film. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the five critics I talked to commented about how it had "cultural significance to the Chinese," and said that that was good to see in a film. Excuse me, but what about all the movies that have cultural significance to Western Europeans and Americans? Moreover, I spoke with several of my friends around the office who are from China, and all of them told me that CTHD was considered an average or slightly-above-average Chinese action film, and that a dozen almost identical films come out every year. In China, CTHD won no awards. It was critically praised for its cinematography, but criticized for several other aspects of the film (most notably the plot, or lack thereof). It is shocking and galling that the Academy would be so ignorant of international films as to laud a movie that was poorly received in the country it was made for.

zombie84 · Post by **zombie84** » 2004-01-13 05:02pm

I think that comes to different standards, Ossus. In Asia, the film may not have seemed as remarkable, but to a western audience, the film was all the more beautiful. To a frequenter of asian martial arts films, it may have seemed average in story but above-average in execution, but to the western world, it rose to above-average in both categories because it was not every day that a film such as that is imported. I thought it was deserving of its praise--a good, epic story, phenomenal performaces,a great atmosphere and stunning photography.

And i do not think that the Academy Awards need to focus on more mainstream films. That is just rediculous. Ask anyone in the industry and they will tell you the exact opposite. Big studio films dominate and monopolize the awards with such tyranny that the literally thousands of smaller films that are just as good, some better, are completely ignored. The Acedemy Awards are supposed to honor cinema, regardless of how it was made, where it was made, who it was made by, and for how much money. Good film is good film, and often the best ones are those that are completely ignored by your average moviegoer (oftentimes, simply due to the limited release of it). Complaining that awards should only honor movies that make the most money (which is the natural conclusion of "honoring movies that most people see") is a disgrace to the many hardworking artists of the business. Not that i am harping on big studio films per se--indeed, there should be no biases at all. There can be truely great blockbuster films--Star Wars, LOTR, for example--but they are usually the exception to the rule. In fact i would say that the Acedemy should focus more on smaller films, so that they get the attention they deserve, rather than throw gasoline to the already-burning fires of success that the hundred-million dollar grossing studio films already wallow in.

And many people would also disagree with saying that SPR is a better film than SIL--the general consesus is that it is an important film, but one with a good opening and closing thirty minutes and rather dull and cliched meat. SIL was a good film, but one of a different nature, and i thought it was about as good as SPR. I wouldnt have awarded either of them with best picture, but i can see how the literary-types which sit in the judges panel of the academy will be more attracted to clever and well-written works of shakespear than cliched and violent war epics (and in facts war film generally have the upper hand because of their moving subject matter--Platoon, Apocalypse Now, Schindlers List, etc. all dominated their awards and won best picture).

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-13 05:13pm

What was MOST annoying about the Shakespeare in Love beating out Saving Private Ryan was the absolute smear campiagn carried out by that fat pig Weinstein of Miramax who smeared the movie and Spielberg and fanatically pushed his piece of shit all the way. There were cases of him trying to buy voting blocks and the like and some voters who voted for Shakespeare in Love suddenly recanted and said they never even saw the movie but there was this "buzz" when people complained that it won best picture over SPR. Yeah a "buzz" completely concoted by that fucker. In other words the picture won on pure political machinations than actual artictic content.

EDIT: By "buy" I mean he packaged his film beautifully and in total spent something like $5000 per academy voter in doodads and promotional items. What does that have to do with the actual film itself??

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-13 05:46pm

The trouble is, though, that the Academy is completely ignoring the quality of big-studio films. All three of the LotR movies should have won Best Picture over their competition. The biggest flub by the Academy, though, was Blade Runner. That film is now on many critics' top ten lists, but it garnered practically no attention and was attacked by these very same critics when it came out, solely because they didn't expect it to be a quality movie. That goes beyond a fault in judgement. If a literary critic didn't see anything in a book like Lord of the Flies or To Kill a Mockingbird or Catcher in the Rye, then they could be fired because of that mistake. The critics waited until AFTER the Oscars to "rediscover" Blade Runner and declare it to be a great film. They didn't pay any attention to it until it was too late for the film to win awards or make any money, and then they admitted that it had been a great film all along. THAT is a pathetic lack of judgement and a TRULY pathetic statement about the AFI. It's an ADMISSION that they can't recognize great films until it's too late to recognize them, and it therefore makes no sense that they should declare themselves as being better able to judge films than the American public, many of whom DID recognize Blade Runner for what it was when it came out, and I would say a majority of which recognized that LotR is better than its competition.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-13 05:48pm

Stravo wrote:What was MOST annoying about the Shakespeare in Love beating out Saving Private Ryan was the absolute smear campiagn carried out by that fat pig Weinstein of Miramax who smeared the movie and Spielberg and fanatically pushed his piece of shit all the way. There were cases of him trying to buy voting blocks and the like and some voters who voted for Shakespeare in Love suddenly recanted and said they never even saw the movie but there was this "buzz" when people complained that it won best picture over SPR. Yeah a "buzz" completely concoted by that fucker. In other words the picture won on pure political machinations than actual artictic content.

EDIT: By "buy" I mean he packaged his film beautifully and in total spent something like $5000 per academy voter in doodads and promotional items. What does that have to do with the actual film itself??

Spielberg has been legitimately fucked by the Academy SEVERAL times, now. He didn't win Best Picture or Best Director until The Color Purple, despite making numerous films that members of the Academy recognized as being phenomenal films before then.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2004-01-13 06:39pm

Master of Ossus wrote: Spielberg has been legitimately fucked by the Academy SEVERAL times, now. He didn't win Best Picture or Best Director until The Color Purple, despite making numerous films that members of the Academy recognized as being phenomenal films before then.

I thought The Colour purple didn't get any Oscars?

zombie84 · Post by **zombie84** » 2004-01-13 08:09pm

No, Blade Runner took years before it garnered attention. Its a cult film, and it takes many years of a loyal but slow-building fanbase--unlike most cult films, Blade Runner also has managed to sway critics into its loyal band of followers as well.

The reason it was criticised upon its release was simply because it was too different and bizzare than anything people were expecting or had seen before. Harrison Ford, fresh off of Star Wars and Indiana Jones, starring as a gunslinging detective in a futuristic sci fi setting--what the audience received was a dreary, slowpaced, confusing and idea-heavy movie. It wasnt just critics that were left confounded--the public hated it even more! It was only through the slow process of repeat viewings that the film began to be appreciated--the film was beautiful to look at and offered some intriguing notions, which is why people felt compelled to come back and take a second look at it. By 1992, there had been a strong cult audience built (of critics and the public alike) and Ridley Scott finally released his "Directors Cut", which lead to an explosion of interest and respect for the film that has since soldified it as a classic. But make no mistake--critics generally felt negativly towards it, but the public hated it even more.

And also, when dealing with sci fi, horror and fantasy, these are also very particular genres--they appeal to a very specific audience, though once in a while a series like SW or LOTR can find mass appeal. Should LOTR have won best picture? If you love fantasy films, i guess, but i wouldnt condemn the Acedemy entirely because they have different tastes--it would not suprise me if LOTR came close to actually winning, especially seeing as it nabbed a bunch of other awards (albeit technical ones); sci fi and fantasy films have been notoriously ignored anyway, so none of this comes as any surprise (hell, LOTR achieving a nomination itself for the BIG categories is such an achievement on its own). But consider for example, the 2001 Oscars for best picture: of the nominations, you have Moulin Rouge, a terrific and spectacular musical, A Beautiful Mind, a great feel-good drama of triumph and success, Gosford Park, a charming and clever period-piece whodunnit, and LOTR, an epic fantasy film. They're all great, and it really comes down to a matter of taste--personally i feel that LOTR is the best of all of those, but i know many who feel the series overrated, and i know many that would rather watch the other nominated films.

Also, as was pointed out, there has been a lot of politics involved in the voting--from the notorious gift baskets companies send out which is akin to bribery (i think they have since been banned), to the recent "Screeners" fiasko that is but the latest instance of big studio films monopolizing smaller independent films--a lot of the Academy's voting has been laregly regarded as something that should not be given as much validity as the academy would have them believe (though deep down, everyone in and outside the film business still considers a win to be a large honor, and with good reason).

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-14 02:06am

Cold Mountain over 4 weeks has made about 50 million dollars. Its considered one of the leading contenders for best picture.

You mean it's the latest in a long line of self-fellatiated films to walk off with a pile of Oscars instead of more deserving film. It's all but assured the win thanks to the Hollywood machine which frankly fucking sucks. I expect no less (though I'm totally pissed off over how they dissed Cowboy Bebop: The Movie for the animation awars!).

Hollywood has this love hate relationship with its own medium. They desperately want the Oscars to actually mean something by nominating and trying to get small artsy films to win. Why do they thumb their noses at the very blockbusters and mass consumption movies that keep them in business?

For the same reason that Hollywood actors and actresses treat their fans like shit. Most of Hollywood is composed of elitist jackasses that have to look down on the "common folk" in order to feel superior. Except for the rare occassions that public threatens to intrude; see the Halle Berry walking off with the Oscar.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-01-14 05:46am

Stormbringer wrote: For the same reason that Hollywood actors and actresses treat their fans like shit. Most of Hollywood is composed of elitist jackasses that have to look down on the "common folk" in order to feel superior. Except for the rare occassions that public threatens to intrude; see the Halle Berry walking off with the Oscar.

Which she got for letting Billy Bob do her doggy style on film not because her performance was any better than other's she's delivered. The performance just happened to be "edgy" in the right kind of film for voters to go for. I'm sure the subject mater of the film and the "PC" element of giving it to Berry didn't hurt either.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-01-14 05:54pm

Ok, #1: there's nothing wrong about preferring substance over style in awards, even if the "people" would rather watch style and mostly doesn't care about substance (unless the plot is so mindbogglingly stupid that will make Joe Redneck hate it). So being "popular" can perfectly not be grounds for winning awards. Things like acting, plot, story, maybe originality can be more important than actor names, flashiness, etc to some people.

#2: the Oscar is UTTER SHIT. They always give awards for the wrong reasons. In the end, it's a big game of FAVOR, where you want to earn the favor of some film elite so you give the awards to a certain person. Or maybe you want to earn the favor of the public by awarding it to Dance with Wolves (an apology-to-indians movie), or just because it exploits all these quirks in the judges like The English Patient - I've heard from intelligent people that this movie sucks, and that it was obviously genetically engineered to be the perfect movie to win an Oscar ever.

Think about it if your favorite movie wins an Oscar, it might be just because the judges/Academy wanted to be best buddies with Clint Eastwood, not because of the amazing performances.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-14 08:27pm

zombie84 wrote:No, Blade Runner took years before it garnered attention. Its a cult film, and it takes many years of a loyal but slow-building fanbase--unlike most cult films, Blade Runner also has managed to sway critics into its loyal band of followers as well.

The reason it was criticised upon its release was simply because it was too different and bizzare than anything people were expecting or had seen before. Harrison Ford, fresh off of Star Wars and Indiana Jones, starring as a gunslinging detective in a futuristic sci fi setting--what the audience received was a dreary, slowpaced, confusing and idea-heavy movie. It wasnt just critics that were left confounded--the public hated it even more! It was only through the slow process of repeat viewings that the film began to be appreciated--the film was beautiful to look at and offered some intriguing notions, which is why people felt compelled to come back and take a second look at it. By 1992, there had been a strong cult audience built (of critics and the public alike) and Ridley Scott finally released his "Directors Cut", which lead to an explosion of interest and respect for the film that has since soldified it as a classic. But make no mistake--critics generally felt negativly towards it, but the public hated it even more.

Right. That's the point. "Blade Runner" was a film where the critics NEEDED to step in and say it was a great film from the get-go. They didn't do it, because they didn't recognize the film's greatness, so they ignored it until it was too late for them to say anything important about it, and until any hope for similar films was lost.

And also, when dealing with sci fi, horror and fantasy, these are also very particular genres--they appeal to a very specific audience, though once in a while a series like SW or LOTR can find mass appeal. Should LOTR have won best picture? If you love fantasy films, i guess, but i wouldnt condemn the Acedemy entirely because they have different tastes--it would not suprise me if LOTR came close to actually winning, especially seeing as it nabbed a bunch of other awards (albeit technical ones); sci fi and fantasy films have been notoriously ignored anyway, so none of this comes as any surprise (hell, LOTR achieving a nomination itself for the BIG categories is such an achievement on its own). But consider for example, the 2001 Oscars for best picture: of the nominations, you have Moulin Rouge, a terrific and spectacular musical, A Beautiful Mind, a great feel-good drama of triumph and success, Gosford Park, a charming and clever period-piece whodunnit, and LOTR, an epic fantasy film. They're all great, and it really comes down to a matter of taste--personally i feel that LOTR is the best of all of those, but i know many who feel the series overrated, and i know many that would rather watch the other nominated films.

That's all well and good, but we're talking about MOULIN ROUGE having a chance at winning the award? You have to be kidding me. Moulin Rouge's music was comparatively ho-hum, while visually interesting there was no depth to the film WHATSOEVER. Gosford Park is a terrific screen play hampered by poor execution (and it wasn't really a mystery film), and a Beautiful Mind had relatively poor acting and was poorly executed by comparison. When one film has better acting, directing, and production value than any of the others, there's no question as to which is the best film. This is not merely a matter of taste: Fellowship... was better than A Beautiful Mind.

Also, as was pointed out, there has been a lot of politics involved in the voting--from the notorious gift baskets companies send out which is akin to bribery (i think they have since been banned), to the recent "Screeners" fiasko that is but the latest instance of big studio films monopolizing smaller independent films--a lot of the Academy's voting has been laregly regarded as something that should not be given as much validity as the academy would have them believe (though deep down, everyone in and outside the film business still considers a win to be a large honor, and with good reason).

And that's exactly the problem. The Academy isn't judging great films. Their history is ridiculously checkered; their critics invariably select weaker films because of their "artsy" value, while ignoring other "artsy" films outright. If the Academy were truly interested in finding artsy films, they would have picked up on Blade Runner, but critics aren't interested in that OR they've completely lost touch with the film industry and have no method of evaluating films in a reasonable manner.

Look at last year--CHICAGO won, for crying out loud. CHICAGO. I'm sorry, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out whether that film was better than the Two Towers. It wasn't. Period. End of story. The critics deliberately selected a lower-quality film to win the award for political reasons, and because the Academy doesn't like fantasy films, but if you attribute the lack of acclaim for films like LotR to their dislike of fantasy, and you attribute their disdain for "Blade Runner" with their ignoring of the genre, then you are in fact ADMITTING that the Academy does not serve to properly judge the quality of films, and in practice robs deserving movies and the people that make them of awards that are rightfully theirs. That is a pathetic admission for the Academy, and it therefore seems ridiculous for us to trust the Academy as a reasonable judge of films. They are TOTALLY inconsistent with their voting patterns, except that scandal follows their every decision as they toss out higher-quality movies for comparative pieces of crap.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-14 08:40pm

While I agree that the establishment basically performs self-fellatio with deciding which films are quality, and basically caters to in-house shit, I wouldn't go as far as to say "popular support" is the key point.

The masses love to eat shit like Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, and Titanic.

Should these movies hold power based solely on the fact more tickets were sold?

Bah. Gone are the days when good ol' Tarantino swept into Cannes and walked out with the Palm d'Or to Pulp Fiction over the pretentious "deep" shit.

EDIT:

I don't care what you think of Forrest Gump and Tom Hanks. Pulp Fiction should've won it, dammit.

Flak Magazine: Review of the 1995 Oscars

zombie84 · Post by **zombie84** » 2004-01-14 08:42pm

I was more comparing the response to Blade Runner with the original post, which stated basically that Oscars should go to films that are more approved by the mass public--which obviously wasnt so with BR. Obviously, the critics should have stepped in and praised a film that the public didnt think much of, but that is in opposition to the original post. I agree with you regardless.

And there are many that disagree about LOTR--some find them pretentious, boring and sloppily made. But regardless you are right--as i said, the Acedemy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has such a checkered past that many do not acknowledge them with much respect these days. In fact, theres just been another big scandal--the screeners that were sent out this year were individually coded so that if a pirated copy of them showed up on the internet, they would be able to trace it back to the very individual responsible. Earlier this week, a pirated copy showed up on the net--the critic whom it belonged to has not responded as far as i know. Likely this will result in a ban on screeners for next year and another huge controversy.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Movies as Art and Mass Consumption

Movies as Art and Mass Consumption

Re: Movies as Art and Mass Consumption

Re: Movies as Art and Mass Consumption

Re: Movies as Art and Mass Consumption