right well as promised, the (much) longer blog on what I think of award shows in general. I really enjoy award shows, but quiet honestly I think the method of choosing movies is seriously flawed, first up, the joint TV/Movie ones. I really enjoy these ones, because it means you don't have any of the boring catorgries like best stunt person and best makeup (I'm not meaning to try and discredit make up artists or anything, but you have no idea who is going to win, and there just not interesting) but the downside to these joint ones is the fact that while very similar, TV and Movies are hugely different things, with hugely different timelines, production schedules and just different ways of being produced, and yet the same people are excepted to be an expert in both areas, and not just areas of their expertise, all areas, which they quiet frankly don't know about.
Lets take the oscars, the academy is made up of a bit over 5,000 people, already a small sample space, all experts in some area of film production, but as it goes by being an expert, pretty clueless in others, which I get why they do. They are trying to compromise a very educated by very small group with a much wider, but a lot less knowledgable consensus to pick awards. But the downside of this, is that you really have critics and publcity driving the awards
Because lets face it, there are thousands of movies that are realesed each year, most of them suck, but even the good ones, even if you're currently not working, not to metion the crazy hours assoicated with the media industry, is anyone really going to have time to watch all of them? No, but when it comes down to vote you need to, so what movies do you pick, the ones the critics say are good, the ones with the biggest publicity. Thats why practialy all the movies nomiated were realesed around december, yes its because the studios plan it that way, but the reason they plan it, is to get it in the minds of the voters. Take the town from last year, personally I thought it was a very high class movie, and definitly as good if not better than a lot of the other movies nomiated, yet it was realised in march, so by the time voting rolled around no one remembered it.
Another important factor not to be looked over is momentum, and that again goes down to the people picking the votes not really knowing whats what. We saw it last year with the King's speach, how it got off to a slow start, but after making a virtual clean sweep at the BAFTA's made short work of the Oscars, and it looks to happen this year with the help as well. Now don't get me wrong, I think its a fantasitc movie, but a large part of why it's doing so well, was because of the huge media hype, coming from a successful book, and the fact that it was not excepted to do so well, being released in the US summer, a southern film which is not really considered typical oscar material. so it made it very easy to exceed expectations. While I'm mentioning expectations, lets also start to think about the precense of big-name starts in movies, many of the films in serious contention for an oscar (aka not extremly loud and incrediably close) have at least one big-name person with some serious creditials under thier belt, yes this does mean that they are talented, and thus are likely to produce quaility work, but this also means that they are picked more or less because they have a reputation, and the accedmey really does not know who to pick.
This is escpecially true with the more traditional award cermonies like the Oscars, and you only have to look at the Emmy nomiations year to year to see practically no difference. and sometimes this is deserves, but a lot of the time, quiet frankly its not, and they get picked because the art director knows nothing about who is the better supporting actor or vice versa. What I'm trying to say is that winning or getting nominated is rarely just based on quality, but how much a movie fits a formula. The academy is looking for serious films, films that aren't marketed at a mass audience, and films that have some sort of meaning, but aren't too deep, (another reason why the help is doing so well) not to mention good creditionals, so people who don't really know much about the catorgry, or even haven't seen the movie, will just assume its good, and vote for it.
It's scary how true this is
So what then. well that is the question I've been asking myself since I started writing this blogpost. Well the skewing of movies towards winning oscars (because an award like an oscar has a serious positive career, not to mention salary boost) definitely does I believe have a negative effect on the media industry as a whole, because you are getting lots of oscar fitting movies, usually with very good acting, but definitely limited creativity, and when you do ha mold ve a hugly creative movie or show, it gets overlooked, not to mention the fact that many deserving people never g reconginstion et. I'm sure I'll be talking about this again at Emmy nomination time if Mariska Hargitay or SVU get nominated for the zillionth time in lue of Anna Torv and Fringe, but it annoys me to no end when quiet frankly bad shows get nomiated, when there are so much better ones out there, but I do beleive the way award shows pick their winners is seriously flawed, although it is this way or the people's choice awards, and no one wants more of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment