"The Oscars have become the golden fig leaves that the industry wears to pretend it’s as committed to being in the quality business as it was in the past." - Manohla Dargis, New York Times
"On the surface, at least, the new Academy Awards appears to be far more tasteful and pure. The movies, by and large, are smaller, the judgments more refined, and the popcorn movies — remember them? — that the vast majority of the audience prefers are nowhere to be seen. (In effect, they’re shunned.) But since the folks in Hollywood spend most of their time making those movies, you have to wonder if leaving the audience behind on Oscar night is a sign that the Academy Awards have evolved to a new artistic seriousness, or if they’ve turned art into another high concept, and if the voters are just pandering in a new way: not to the masses but to themselves." - Owen Gleiberman, EW.com
"The sea change that seems to have taken place is generational. Younger people working in the business are more likely to be college-educated than their earlier counterparts, and their aesthetic predilections have grown more sophisticated. (Look, for instance, at the impressive list of names of those invited to join the Academy last June.) At the same time, the effect of criticism has, I think, grown more potent in recent years. Even at a moment when there isn’t a single dominant critical voice, criticism as a whole is amplified by various venues (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) and by the increased speed and quantity of quasi-public discussion, whether via e-mail or on blogs, Twitter, or other social-networking sites. It’s impossible for people in any aspect of the business to be unaware of this chatter, and that’s why the critical consensus that forms around such films as “Hugo,” “The Tree of Life,” “The Artist,” and “The Hurt Locker” carries greater weight with the Academy than it did thirty or forty (or more) years ago." - Richard Brody, The New Yorker
Every year, people who love movies generate considerable typographical heat criticizing the Oscars. It's the usual song of who's nominated and who wins. The losers are artists and their work versus the winners of studio executives and their entertainment. But going through this year's complaint box, I'm surprised to read some not happy the back row is ignored. Owen Gleiberman posits things changed in 2009 when The Hurt Locker beat Avatar. Since, the Academy has turned into a small club of elitists handing out self congratulation while snubbing their audience. Biting the hands that feed it. I suggest he gets a cat.
But Manohla Dargis used a word in her frustrated summation of the awards last weekend that really banged my kettle: quality. She argues the Oscars are a decoy to misguide us from a lack of it; the bad ingredients served in fast food that makes us fat and lazy. Our agrarian past was so much better before industrialization. Those fields of green she and many allude to were the seventies. A fleeting moment when the auteur farmed under clear skies to sell its crops at the weekend market before the grocery store sold us dinner in the frozen aisle.
I couldn't more disagree. People who still care about movies in 2031 will look back in admiration to this fecund time of bountiful variety. I would say this new wave started in 1999. I think many factors have contributed to it (some later, longer post), but Richard Brody is the first I've read to bring up one of these contributions: online critics. The explosion of so many voices has created an instant feedback and subsequent pressure on Hollywood to keep digging like never before. You're full of shit, you might say. This is just an argument in self promotion for your bad writing. Just look at Transformers 3. But it's only dark on one side of the moon. This year would be a miracle if just The Tree of Life and Melancholia were released, but I'm still going through my Netflix queue astounded by the quantity of great movies arriving in the mail (I'm still waiting for Martha Marcy May Marlene and Young Adult). Bob Abernathy is right, the Oscars have missed the boat again, but part of it is that 2011 is another peak from a decade of new classics. One can't catch all the fish in the sea.
I've only seen 4 of the 9 noms because I'm still busy chasing the great movies that passed through my local theater this year. Sorry for all the distractions. Below are my predictions and opinions. See you at the Oscars.
Will Win
- Best Picture Hugo
- Best Director Martin Scorsese
- Best Actor Gary Oldman
- Best Actress Viola Davis
- Best Supp. Actor Christopher Plummer
- Best Supp. Actress Berenice Bejo
- Best Animation Film Rango
Should Win
- Best Picture The Tree of Life
- Best Director Terrence Malick
- Best Actor Gary Oldman
- Best Actress Rooney Mara
- Best Supp. Actor Christopher Plummer
- Best Supp. Actress Berenice Bejo
- Best Animation Film Rango
Should Win & Will Win!
Best Picture: The Tree of Life
Best Director: Terence Malick
Best Actor: Brad Pitt
Best Actress: Rooney Mara
Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer
Best Supporting Actress: Octavia Spencer
Posted by: Bobabernathy | February 20, 2012 at 07:32 PM