Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

FAQ / News / Events

Films/DVD Asylum

Re: The Academy ... note - It's a tirade

24.8.223.101

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ] [ FAQ ]

In Reply to: The Academy ... note - It's a tirade posted by RGA on March 26, 2001 at 22:14:27:

Agreed, on nearly all such points. I very much enjoyed **Gladiator** in the theatres as well, purchased the DVD, but have subsequently had my experience of it effectively ruined by virtue of its Best Picture award. It's a fun movie, to be sure, but it's by no means a superior or groundbreaking film; to confer such a mantle upon it is, I suspect, to risk outright embarrassment. In this regard, **Gladiator** now joins the likes of **Braveheart** and **Titanic**.
Bad air! Bad air!
I liked Russell Crowe in **The Insider** and felt that he probably should actually have won the award for Best Actor *last* year. In this respect, I was shocked that he won, actually (he seemed to be in a daze as well) -- although I don't know that he faced quite so formidable a collection of opposition this time around. Good for him, I say.
Look, I've nothing against Julia Roberts, but how is it that Ellen Burstyn didn't win the award for Best Actress in recognition of her performance in **Requiem for a Dream**? I mean, c'mon, we've witnessed a deluge of Erin Brockovich-type characters in cinema over the past two decades (usually strutting their well-trod stuff in equally "well-made" formula films [to borrow (a now desparaging term) from 19th century French dramatist (sic) Alexandre Dumas Fils] with graftable plots, instantly transplantable characters and poignantly encouraging finales). Burstyn twisted, contorted and effectively broke herself to deliver the *second* performance of a lifetime in **Requiem**, and she's rewarded with...what? A joke at Russell Crowe's expense?
Bad air! Bad air!
Among major studio releases, I thought **O Brother Where Art Thou** the finest film of the year. Critics tend to view Coen Brothers' efforts with a single set of lenses, however ("Keen, still *another* suitably offbeat Coen Brothers' film; let's pigeonhole it right *here*, shall we?"), so I suspect that it'll take some time before their latest effort is proper digested.

Follow Ups:

Re: The Academy ... note - It's a tirade Victor Khomenko 16:38:58 03/27/01 (7)
***Agreed, on nearly all such points. I very much enjoyed **Gladiator** in the theatres as well, purchased the DVD, but have subsequently had my experience of it effectively ruined by virtue of its Best Picture award. It's a fun movie, to be sure, but it's by no means a superior or groundbreaking film; to confer such a mantle upon it is, I suspect, to risk outright embarrassment.
He-he-he... embarrasment, you say? I would agree with you, if the issuing agency was not the Academy, the same "academy" that gave Oscar to that real dog of films - "Marthy". Plus few other over the years. And yes, one of my all-time favotire puke-inducers - the mighty Titanic piece of shit.
I suspect you are completely right on those formulaic "Made for Lifetime TV" movies and Ellen - although I have not seen the film, but now want to do so. She has taste and talent, something Julia believes you simply buy and keep in your freezer until needed.
- Please relax! the Academy is a trade/professional association Celluloid 09:28:22 03/28/01 (6)
  I hate to see you get your nose(s) out of joint on this topic. Everyone is a film critic today! As a professional (look out! :-} )
  in this field for over 30 years I have to stress that nobody but folks in Peoria think anything about these...certainly not people who MAKE movies. Some movie beancounters care, professionally, but always dissociate themselves from their commercial tasks when talking about films personally. No other art form has such a strong (read: opinionated!) and enthusiastic fan base... The films that win are voted on by other professionals who may or may not have seen the films. I worked for the Academy for both nominations and then to make sure people had access to films voted on and I can assure you many voters don't even bother seeing the films. And no one I've ever met in the industry treats them seriously as indicators of aethethic quality--its a beauty contest that the biz uses to focus attention worldwide on its products and thereby increase the profits. Period.
  For those who bemoan the fact that very interesting, even artistically challenging films like "Sunshine" don't get Academy Awards. Please. If there is any serious studio money to be made, then "Sunshine" gets a nomination. As H'wood sees it, there are plenty of festivals for artistic films. The Academy Awards are for commercial features in which their own community has a financial stake. If their marketing and advertising people can convince people that there is any artistic merit in the film (and if that's the only way to put fannies in the seats...to make self-proclaimed serious filmgoers feel good about themselves for supporting a film ) then so much the better.
  From reading on this site, I think a lot of people would be surprised at the esoteri/artistic film tastes of the typical H'wood celebrity or tech person seen at the ceremony--they are much more likely to see an art film than the junk awarded prizes Monday night. Which often makes the actors inordinately defensive/guilty that they don't support the ART of film--and opt instead for the best paying gig.
  - Thanks for that! clarkjohnsen 12:01:11 03/29/01 (3)
    Although I disagree that "no other art form has such an opinionated and enthusiastic fan base." Rock music, anyone?
    Anyway, I can amplify celluloid's views by noting that even when Academy members *do* see the pictures, they generally do so at home from tapes furnished by the studios. (There's a word for these but it slips my mind.) And by the way, so do film critics, increasingly. To my mind film is a *theatrical* experience that requires a large screen, a dark house and an audience. If I think a movie is worth seeing, I never wait for the video -- I pay my $5.50 and go. It's the only way to experience the art-form, the way its creators intended.
    In addition I worry about the quality factor. From what I gather, when they say tape, they mean tape, not the far superior DVD. And what kind of TVs and sound systems do Academy members employ? Mostly crap, I bet. PLus, the pause button can utterly destroy the continuity of a theatrical film.
    clark
    - Ah, Clark! Victor Khomenko 21:49:56 03/29/01 (2)
      We all know that most actors are indeed "quiet intellectuals". Ever watched "Inside the Actor's Studio"?
      And where do you still find those $5.50 places? The cheapest shithole around here, with sticky vynil seats, is at least $7. Last I checked you didn't live in Poland...
      And as far as the DVD quality - many are recorded below what the VHS CAN deliver... so go figure...
      - Matinees in Boston are $5.50 n/t clarkjohnsen 12:19:15 03/30/01 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Ah, Clark! posted by Victor Khomenko on March 29, 2001 at 21:49:56:
        
        v
        
        Got me there, I forgot about matinees... love them too... (nt) Victor Khomenko 12:32:57 03/30/01 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Matinees in Boston are $5.50 n/t posted by clarkjohnsen on March 30, 2001 at 12:19:15:
        
        .
  - Re: Please relax! the Academy is a trade/professional association RGA 00:00:54 03/29/01 (1)
    Your last paragraph reminds me why I like Ralph Fiennes as an actor...has only chosen films that he likes and the only film that could really be "Mainstream" was the dismal Avengers. However, he grew up watching it and had the chance. He's past up the big money roles or big fame roles like the Saint and being the next James Bond. Also passing up on Oceans'11...a sure money grab.
    Of course you are correct...and not to get upset at hollywood...4 of the films nominated made my top ten list...although there are about 4 films that got high critical praise that I have not seen.(I'm an amateur critic myself...and although Roger Ebert likens film criticism to being a Medical Doctor "you would want a professional operating on you so you should have a professional critic"(not exact quote...but c'mon.)
    The awards usually get a few of the years best films right so I should not complain too much.
    This has always bothered me about the credibility of the awards...but they did choose the English Patient(arguably an art-house film). That was to bring profits up because it was still in theaters...Gladiator was already on video...they should have chosen Chocolat!LOL
    I would like to see a board of North American(U.S. and Canada) film critics have a conglomorated award show...at least critics see the films...and I doubt they would pander solely to the art house crowd. Looking at Ebert's 10 list Almost Famous #1 Traffic and Crouching Tiger was there.
    Gladiator wouldn't have made it, but then it should'nt.
    - RGA: Nice post, but please, Ebert & ilk are reviewers/consumer guides NOT critics!! (you are easily as qualified as he!) Celluloid 20:35:24 03/29/01 (0)
      nt

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

You can not post to an archived thread.