Official 2009 Oscar Discussion (1 Viewer)

[ThomasC]

This was written for a blog, not a news article, for the New York Post. Besides, credibility and The New York Post are two things you usually don't hear together in the same sentence.

 

[Edwin-S]

I`ll have to wait until it comes out on BD. I do know that BB made it to the local theatre, but it didn`t last long. Gran Torino is playing better up here.

 

[Will_B]

Maybe we need to pull back and have the Academy Awards every two years. The selection of films from last year, aside from The Dark Knight, was dreadful. An extra year would also give Academy voters a chance to catch the films on video -- since you KNOW that most haven't even seen the films they're voting on.

 

[Holadem]

Eh. Not to derail the thread but I kinda feel the same way, though far more conflicted. On one hand, I have a passion for anything WWII. On the other, one wonders when "the West" will move on, so to speak; The trauma of that war is felt very heavily still in films and probably other artforms with which I am less familiar, and it gets tiresome sometimes. Being very clumsy here, but that's the best I can do for now.

--
H

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Well, there were numerous atrocities during and leading up to WWII. They were not confined to Europe. But much as the battles of Europe get more attention, so do the atrocities of Europe. Hollywood sees a hunger, and so they examine that.

Perhaps the Rape of Nanking will get a movie. One day. Once they can fit a pretty causasian into it

 

[Michael Reuben]

I'm guessing that neither of you has seen The Reader. It is not a Holocaust film in the sense that Schindler's List or The Counterfeiters is. Almost all of the action takes place after the war. Indeed, there have been some strong criticisms of the film (and the novel) for trivializing the Holocaust by using it as essentially a backdrop for this very strange love story. I don't share that criticism, but this isn't just some cookie-cutter narrative (which is how you both seem to be treating it).

 

[TravisR]

So you're saying the only good movie in 2008 was The Dark Knight?

 

[Elizabeth S]

Exactly. "The Reader" was a very good film, and for me, the lingering impressions have absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust or any war crimes. What stays with me is Michael's reaction to the relationship and situation, even years later. The emotional context of his connection with Hanna absolutely broke my heart. At its core, it spoke to me as a film about unconditional love and the powerful grip of our past and memories -- you could almost place the story in another time and place with a different heinous crime.

 

[Holadem]

Ha. That's what I get for picking up on a comment out of context.

What I wrote was meant to be very general and compltely unrelated to that film. Edwin's comments touched on something I've been feeling for a long time so I jumped on it without thinking of the context. I very much want to see The Reader (which looks more like the flip side of Casablanca...)

--
H

 

[Michael Reuben]

Risky. Edwin often has provocative opinions, but not all of them are well-informed.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I'll certainly agree with you here because it's why CRASH won Best Picture and I'm sure it has something to do with MILK getting nominated for Best Picture. I'm seeing MILK tonight so perhaps I should hold my tongue but most of the year-end lists I've seen doesn't include the film.

It can also work the other way. I remember when the first LORD OF THE RINGS came out everyone knew Jackson wasn't going to win Best Director beacuse the Academy would wait and give it to him for the third one. Of course this ended up happening but to me this is why the Academy is a joke. They were holding off on giving Jackson his award until the end of the trilogy yet how did they know someone wouldn't have done a better directing job that year? Polanski, to me, was given his award because I figured members thought he wasn't going to get a better chance. 1. How did they know this? 2. What if one of the other nominated guys didn't get a better chance than that year?

Re: THE READER

So far it's #1 on my list and I hope Winslet wins. If there's any type of outcry it should be over this not getting a Best Actor or Best Supporting Actor. Plus, calling this a Holocaust movie would be like calling THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION nothing more than a guys-in-prison movie.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Ok, this is why I feel the Oscar's are a joke and I'm sure many people would agree with parts of this article. You can read the full thing at the Chicago Tribune but it seems many think Oscars should be handed out as a popularity contest. I'm sure ratings probably would be higher if Britney Spears was up for Best Actress instead of Kate Winslet but do we really want to go down that path?


Members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences may have shot themselves in the foot with their selection of top Oscar nominees on Thursday, the Chicago Tribune suggested today (Friday). The newspaper observed that by selecting so many relatively obscure movies, the Academy seems to have guaranteed another low-rated Oscars ceremony. Entertainment writer Marc Caro noted that The Dark Knight, which took in $531 million at the domestic box office last year also garnered 94 positive reviews on the Rotten Tomatoes website, compared with 60 percent for The Reader, which has grossed only $7.9 million. "Yet The Reader is a best picture (and director) nominee, and The Dark Knight is not," Caro observed. Mediaweek analyst Marc Berman added: "The problem with the films this year is none of them are huge, mass-appeal hits." Caro concluded that by denying recognition to films like Knight and Wall-e, the movie academy "risks confirming the suspicions of those who think it has grown out of touch with mainstream tastes."

 

[Edwin-S]

Ok. It looks like I shot my mouth off too quick again. The writer`s comments on The Reader led me to believe that it took place during the Holocaust. Still it sounds like it is thematically linked to and involves experiences that occured during the Holocaust and how those experiences affect the lead characters; therefore, it could technically still be considered a Holocaust film.

Maybe I should say I`m not so much tired of Holocaust themed or related films as I am the concept that the Jewish experience of genocide somehow finds its way into a wide range of films, books, etc., while other ethnic groups who have suffered similar experiences seem to be for the most part ignored.

The reason I`m qualifying my earlier remark is due to you mentioning The Counterfeiters. After you mentioned it, I remembered renting it on BD and I have to say that I found the film to be very good, so it is apparent that I`m not completely burned out on films that relate the experiences of Holocaust victims. I would just like to see Hollywood and independent filmmakers look at exploring the experiences of other ethnic groups who have suffered similar traumas.

 

[Edwin-S]

RE: Lord of the Rings. I think that was a really unique situation. Jackson was essentially directing all three films at the same time. Even though they were shown in installments, Jackson essentially was directing one massive film. I can understand why they waited until the very last one premiered before nominating and, ultimately, awarding an Oscar for BD.

 

[Ed Moroughan]

Nominating popular films to grab ratings is wrong. I don't mean this as an attack on "The Dark Knight." But, the Best Picture is supposed to be that, the best. It isn't meant as a popularity contest. If it doesn't get the votes it isn't I guess. I think a better system could be no nominees, they send out a blank ballot with each category and the voters fill in their picks. The winner wins on an up or down vote. Most votes = Best _____. Personally I rate "The Wrestler" higher than the other BP nominees I've seen (Frost/Nixon, Slumdog Millionare) but I'd bet it got shut out from the same bias as TDK and Wall-E.

 

[Elizabeth S]

The voting membership of the Academy shouldn't consider how the nominees translate into ratings -- who cares? For "mainstream" tastes, we have things like the Blockbuster Awards and the People's Choice awards. For movie "fans" who have a limited scope of films they're willing to experience -- tough ****! Expand their dang horizons and they won't be ignorant of the majority of the nominees. The awards should never feel like a concession to the masses who don't even know who directed what film.

 

[Edwin-S]

Yes, but was TDK ignored because it wasn`t one of the best or was it not nominated because Academy film voters will not nominate a Superhero fantasy no matter how good it is? That is the question a lot of fans will ask themselves. Personally, I think it is the latter.

Does anyone think that Watchmen will be nominated for Best Picture or director if Singer pulls off a coup with that story? I sure don't think so.

Edit:

Changed a word. I always eventually get in trouble when I use the term, but I never seem to learn.

 

[John Stell]

Actually I think that article proves that the Oscars are not a joke, that maybe the voters take their responsibility seriously. The voters did not care what the most popular film was but, hopefully, voted their hearts. We'll never really know if The Dark Knight was snubbed because members don't vote for superhero movies, or that voters truly felt these other films were better. But this article implies voters should focus on box office grosses and ratings. And that's, with all due respect, idiotic.

I really am puzzled by this love-hate thing some people have with the Oscars. People trash the awards themselves, the ceremony, etc. but are always conversing about them this time of year. Why waste the time if they're meaningless? The Oscar ceremony is akin to an awards presentation that may take place at any occupation. It's just that this profession has special public appeal (and brings in a lot of dough). Nobody would tune in to see Joe Smith get an award for Best Overall Employee at the steel mill. But Joe Smith probably feels pretty freakin' good about being recognized. The Oscars are peer awards. Outside forces shouldn't matter.

Then of course there'll be the Monday morning reviews of the ceremony. What purpose do these serve? It's been aired and is done with. There will be no repeats and no DVD release. And we already know what the review will say anyway: "Too long," "Too boring," "Too self-important," etc. So some of these people really love their work and think highly of it. The fact that the movie industry makes billions of dollars certainly suggests the public agrees with them on some level.

The nominations or lack thereof shouldn't impact one's personal feelings towards any film. But to totally discount the awards - which do mean something to those who receive them - because they didn't pick the "right" films is nonsensical.

I'll watch in hopes of seeing Heath Ledger win and get a standing ovation. I'll watch in hopes of seeing Kate Winslet finally win. I'll watch in hopes that Mickey Rourke pulls off a win over Sean Penn. But if none of this happens, so what? These performances and films will still be there to enjoy.

The debating/discussion of a film's merits - or lack thereof - in the context of whether or not the film should have been nominated makes for stimulating discourse. But to pooh-pooh the whole enterprise seems extreme. If the Oscars are a joke, it's those who are, in some way, involved in the ceremony who will have the last laugh because whatever happens on Sunday February 22nd will be the topic of nearly all movie fans' discussion come Monday the 23rd.

 

[Michael Elliott]

John, you're right about it not being a joke. I should have expressed my thoughts on that article a bit better and will do so when I return home tonight. I'm off to see MILK and I'm going to try and finish all the Oscar noms by this time next week. Something always goes wrong when my girlfriend and I go to watch MILK so I'm cautiously awaiting what evil will befall us tonight.

 

[John Stell]

Good luck seeing Milk. It's worth seeing for Sean Penn alone.