Any actually value to film awards/lists? (1 Viewer)

[Seth_S]

Seth_S:
The fact that neither Swanson or Davis won Oscars for what were both two of the greatest performances on screen proves how little the Oscars mean.

Ken_McAlinden:
The fact that Judy Holliday did win an Oscar for her best performance ... and that we are still discussing Holliday, Swanson, and Davis' (and Anne Baxter's) performances today ... and that all of the above performances are available on DVD as of next week, suggests that the Oscars may serve a purpose after all.

Seth_S:
So the Oscars serve a purpose because of the people who get snubbed? I'm sure that many more people are aware of Sawnson and Davis' work in SB and AAE than Holliday's in BY (in fact, people often accidently credit Davis as winning the oscar that year).

If you want more conclusive proof about the oscars' worth, or lack there of, just look at Hithcocks' filmography. Not only did he never win, but his films were hardly nominated for anything.

Ken_McAlinden:
As long as it generates interest and discussion, yep. Same goes for the AFI, Sight & Sound, etc. lists.

Seth_S:
I'd argue that on the whole, these lists/awards don't generate discussion because most people hold them in such high regard. Furthermore, these lists/awards tend to only recognize films made in the Hollywood narrative mode, which helps perpetuate the myth that there is only one way to make a film, and that the Hollywood narrative is superior to all other modes of filmmaking.

Ken_McAlinden:
Seth, See discussion above which is proof of itself . PM with comments or start new thread in Movies if you want to further elaborate.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Basically, my point is that the whole process of pointing out who was snubbed, who won instead, who else was nominated, and who should have been nominated serves the purpose of promoting the film industry which is the only real reason they exist. Ad copy identifying filmmakers as Oscar winners and Oscarr nominees is still used on video boxes, and a such recognized for its promotional worth.

In the 80s, more was probably written about E.T. being snubbed at the Oscars than would have been written if it had won. Pointing out that Hitchcock never won an Oscar is the beginning of a discussion of the Hitchock films that should have won or been nominated...and the films that won or were nominated instead, etc. As a tool for objective film criticism, it is not so useful. As an example of Hollywood using its inherent glamor to promote itself as "news", you could not ask for better results.

Even by questioning the legitimacy of the Oscars, one starts listing snubbed films which ultimately engenders interest in them.

Regards,

 

[Seth_S]

Ken,


But because these awards only look at films made in the Hollywood narrative mode, even discussing snubs will not cause people to look at other modes of filmmaking.

 

[Gabe D]

I agree with Ken.

But because these awards only look at films made in the Hollywood narrative mode, even discussing snubs will not cause people to look at other modes of filmmaking.

That may be true, but it doesn't take away from the value that awards DO have. (Kind of like how gold is valuable, even though it doesn't really promote filmmaking at all.)

 

[Trevor_N]

Any actually value to film awards/lists?

Yes, there are actually many values to film awards/lists, especially if one looks at it from a discussion and exploration standpoint.

As Ken_McAlinden pointed out, it generates discussions and analysis of which films/directors/actors/etc. were and are worthy of the bestowed honors. Sometimes those honored still seem to deserve the honors. In this case, we get to analyze why these choices transcend times. Sometimes those honored don't seem like great choices anymore. In this case, e.g. How Green Was My Valley, we might learn why critical analysis was affected by current social and political climates. And sometimes the choices seem just plain wrong. In this case, we are reminded that the Oscars/etc. are not infallible, and that the awards/lists should not be construed as 100% objective.

As far as including mostly classical Hollywood narrative films, I do agree that it would be nice if avant-garde, documentary, etc. styles should be recognized. BUT, these awards/lists are popular by their nature and narrative films are certainly much more popular than other kinds.

I also think that these awards/lists are some of the greatest sources of for further exploration of films that one is not aware of.

Regards

 

[Rob Ray]

To specifically comment on Judy Holliday's Oscar win over over the two all-time classic perfomances of Bette Davis and Gloria Swanson, I think it's clear that the Academy voters split their vote between two extremely worthy actresses and, because of that, a dark horse came out ahead. It happens all the time and there's no one you can really blame.

 

[Tim Ke]

my feeling is that awards are most valuable in the sense of attracting attention to a movie and its cast/crew.
do i give a crap what 'best picture' at the academy awards? no, i like to judge what i think is the best movie of the year myself.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Oscars mean zilch.

The only good thing about the Oscars is that Alfred Hitchcock's acceptance speech for his Irving Thalberg "special" oscar: "Thank you."

Oh yeah...the fact that a movie like Cimarron won an Oscar for Best Picture while Frankenstein and City Lights weren't even nominated. A Beautiful Mind over Moulin Rouge and Fellowship of the Ring?

I think it's a rule that Oscar winners have to be picked out of a hat.

 

[Vickie_M]

my feeling is that awards are most valuable in the sense of attracting attention to a movie and its cast/crew.

Yep!
How many mainstream moviegoers (that is, people who don't normally keep up much with independent or more obscure films) have at least heard of Boys Don't Cry/Hilary Swank, Sling Blade/Billy Bob Thornton, Emily Watson, Brenda Blethen, Frances McDormand, The English Patient, American Beauty, Shine, Juliette Binoche, Judi Dench, L.A. Confidential, Roberto Benigni, Chloë Sevigny, Laura Linney or Monster's Ball? These movies and people became part of the national consciousness of the moviegoing public because of the Golden Globes and Academy Awards, not because all those people went to see these movies.
I see Chloë Sevigny all the time in magazines like People and US. Has she ever been in a blockbuster, or even a financially successful film? Never. Therefore, people know her from the Academy Awards. She's probably one of the best-known indie artists ever.
Whether being in People or US is a good or bad thing is the topic for another discussion. The main point is that the awards shows attract attention to movies and actors with miniscule publicity budgets. And that's never a bad thing, whether or not the awards themselves mean anything.

 

[Vickie_M]

Why is this in the Software section? I think it should be in Movies. Seth would probably have some great things to say about all this. He's a master at talking up the good points of Award shows.