Any actually value to film awards/lists?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Seth_S, Nov 20, 2002.

  1. Seth_S

    Seth_S Second Unit

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2001
    Messages:
    335
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  2. Ken_McAlinden

    Ken_McAlinden Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2001
    Messages:
    6,191
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Livonia, MI USA
    Real Name:
    Kenneth 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,
     
  3. Seth_S

    Seth_S Second Unit

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2001
    Messages:
    335
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  4. Gabe D

    Gabe D Cinematographer

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with Ken.

     
  5. Trevor_N

    Trevor_N Auditioning

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2000
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  6. Rob Ray

    Rob Ray Agent

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  7. Tim Ke

    Tim Ke Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  8. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,596
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    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.
     
  9. Vickie_M

    Vickie_M Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Messages:
    3,208
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  10. Vickie_M

    Vickie_M Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Messages:
    3,208
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page