Monday, February 02, 2004
Awards, Part II
Well, that twerp Kevin mentioned a lot of what I wanted to talk about in this section, so if I'm repeating him, well, I'm sorry. I'll try to be original, but he was pretty square on the mark of what I wanted to talk about.
Basically, in Part I, I discussed why the Grammys were so lame and off the mark. In this part, I'd like to expound upon why I think the Oscars are dramatically (ha! pun!) better. However, I don't think they're perfect. In fact, I think recently, they've begun to lose a bit of their luster.
So, there are about 200 Oscar-eligible movies released per year. As opposed to the thousands of Grammy-eligible albums, one could conceivably watch every Oscar-eligible move in a year. Furthermore, one could most likely exclude about fifty percent of those movies out of hand. You might think I'm being a bit hypocritical here, since earlier I complained that there's no way that the few popular artists that are nominated for Grammys are the best out of the multitude of albums released, but I think there's a significant difference. I think there's a generally accepted idea of what types of movies should be eligible for "Best Picture", or Oscars in general. While I think there may be some flaws in having preconceived ideas about what pictures should be considered for awards, the fact that there are widely agreed upon criteria, even if they're not formal or explicit, allows for a filtering of the field.
Contrast this to the Grammys. Can you tell me what the criteria for "Best Album" should be? Right now, it seems to be related mostly to airplay and sales. That's backwards, to me. The Oscars don't generally seem to look at popularity, and that's good. The Academy, AND the population, want a distinction between their award-worthy movies, and their fun, popular movies. You may think that makes the Oscars more elitist - I think it, for the most part, given them their stature. There are plenty of other awards (MTV movie awards, People's Choice, etc.) that rely on popularity, or other less "serious" criteria. People may enjoy these awards, but they're not generally held in high esteem. If the public really cared about the "Best Fight" or the "Best Breakout Action Hero", then these awards would be more important, but, honestly, they're just novelties because there's an unspoken, but pretty explicit distinction in the American public's psyche between Oscar-worth movies, and fun movies.
Sometimes, people want to go to the movies and have fun, and they certainly should be able to. There's certainly an amount of artistry that goes into make an movie enjoyable and fun - I enjoy movies like Die Hard, Austin Powers, Swingers (just to name a few off the top of my head), as much as anyone. I think Die Hard is one of the best action movies ever made. In fact, I think Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) is one of the best movie villains ever. But I don't think it should have won any Oscars. And I don't know of many people who would disagree with me. But, if Die Hard were a song, I think it would have won Best Song, because there's no artistic distinction made for the Grammys. Furthermore, because songs are more emotional experiences than movies, I don't know if there ever could be an objective "Best Song" set of criteria developed.
I do firmly believe that songs are deeply and inextricably related to the subconscious of an individual person, and this makes them experienced at a more visceral level, and thus the affinity a given person will have towards a given song is much tougher to predict. Furthermore, it means that it's very difficult to figure out what songs will (or should) gain widespread approval and acclaim. This almost implies that if you are to have musical awards, you might as well use popularity as a criterion, since at least your awards show will appeal to the most number of people. (Of course, my theory is that you really shouldn't have a musical awards show, or at the very least, don't try to pretend it's not simple pandering in order to generate more business.)
This is not to minimize the emotional experience of going to the movies. Personally, I have found myself deeply moved by movies an numerous occasions. However, I think, by and large, when I connect with a movie, I think it's more of a cerebral experience, at least initially. I understand the characters. The story seems plausible and true. The entire experience as a whole created a convincing world that draws me in. I almost think that songs that do that have just gotten "lucky" - maybe the singer appealed to my subconscious, maybe the lyrics happened to resonate with me or a particular event I remember. But I can really like a song and have no one else like it. Very rarely do I love a movie and not have at least a good number of my friends and acquaintances also hold it in high regard. Braveheart, Schindler's List, Casablanca, Shawshank Redemption - You'll find these movies on a lot of people's lists, and with good reason.
I think the language of cinema has become more universal. Maybe instead I should refer to it as the language of storytelling, because that's what it is. I think of moviemaking as a craft, whereas singing is much more of an art. Trying to label and categorize art is just asking for trouble. And while cinema can and should be artistic, I think it fundamentally needs to be about storytelling. We spend a lot of our lives engaging and perfecting storytelling, be it in casual conversation, in reading books, watching TV, recounting our days to our friends, and so we often become very skilled at it. I think the Oscars do an excellent job of identifying the stories that touch a lot of people - the ones that have universal appeal because they are told masterfully, not just because they were marketed well, or had a great release date, or were pushed by a big studio.
Once again, I've gone on for a while, but I hope I've made my point. I think I'll continue this discussion later, because I think the Oscars have created a little problem for themselves, and are in some danger of alienating a significant portion of the public.
Basically, in Part I, I discussed why the Grammys were so lame and off the mark. In this part, I'd like to expound upon why I think the Oscars are dramatically (ha! pun!) better. However, I don't think they're perfect. In fact, I think recently, they've begun to lose a bit of their luster.
So, there are about 200 Oscar-eligible movies released per year. As opposed to the thousands of Grammy-eligible albums, one could conceivably watch every Oscar-eligible move in a year. Furthermore, one could most likely exclude about fifty percent of those movies out of hand. You might think I'm being a bit hypocritical here, since earlier I complained that there's no way that the few popular artists that are nominated for Grammys are the best out of the multitude of albums released, but I think there's a significant difference. I think there's a generally accepted idea of what types of movies should be eligible for "Best Picture", or Oscars in general. While I think there may be some flaws in having preconceived ideas about what pictures should be considered for awards, the fact that there are widely agreed upon criteria, even if they're not formal or explicit, allows for a filtering of the field.
Contrast this to the Grammys. Can you tell me what the criteria for "Best Album" should be? Right now, it seems to be related mostly to airplay and sales. That's backwards, to me. The Oscars don't generally seem to look at popularity, and that's good. The Academy, AND the population, want a distinction between their award-worthy movies, and their fun, popular movies. You may think that makes the Oscars more elitist - I think it, for the most part, given them their stature. There are plenty of other awards (MTV movie awards, People's Choice, etc.) that rely on popularity, or other less "serious" criteria. People may enjoy these awards, but they're not generally held in high esteem. If the public really cared about the "Best Fight" or the "Best Breakout Action Hero", then these awards would be more important, but, honestly, they're just novelties because there's an unspoken, but pretty explicit distinction in the American public's psyche between Oscar-worth movies, and fun movies.
Sometimes, people want to go to the movies and have fun, and they certainly should be able to. There's certainly an amount of artistry that goes into make an movie enjoyable and fun - I enjoy movies like Die Hard, Austin Powers, Swingers (just to name a few off the top of my head), as much as anyone. I think Die Hard is one of the best action movies ever made. In fact, I think Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) is one of the best movie villains ever. But I don't think it should have won any Oscars. And I don't know of many people who would disagree with me. But, if Die Hard were a song, I think it would have won Best Song, because there's no artistic distinction made for the Grammys. Furthermore, because songs are more emotional experiences than movies, I don't know if there ever could be an objective "Best Song" set of criteria developed.
I do firmly believe that songs are deeply and inextricably related to the subconscious of an individual person, and this makes them experienced at a more visceral level, and thus the affinity a given person will have towards a given song is much tougher to predict. Furthermore, it means that it's very difficult to figure out what songs will (or should) gain widespread approval and acclaim. This almost implies that if you are to have musical awards, you might as well use popularity as a criterion, since at least your awards show will appeal to the most number of people. (Of course, my theory is that you really shouldn't have a musical awards show, or at the very least, don't try to pretend it's not simple pandering in order to generate more business.)
This is not to minimize the emotional experience of going to the movies. Personally, I have found myself deeply moved by movies an numerous occasions. However, I think, by and large, when I connect with a movie, I think it's more of a cerebral experience, at least initially. I understand the characters. The story seems plausible and true. The entire experience as a whole created a convincing world that draws me in. I almost think that songs that do that have just gotten "lucky" - maybe the singer appealed to my subconscious, maybe the lyrics happened to resonate with me or a particular event I remember. But I can really like a song and have no one else like it. Very rarely do I love a movie and not have at least a good number of my friends and acquaintances also hold it in high regard. Braveheart, Schindler's List, Casablanca, Shawshank Redemption - You'll find these movies on a lot of people's lists, and with good reason.
I think the language of cinema has become more universal. Maybe instead I should refer to it as the language of storytelling, because that's what it is. I think of moviemaking as a craft, whereas singing is much more of an art. Trying to label and categorize art is just asking for trouble. And while cinema can and should be artistic, I think it fundamentally needs to be about storytelling. We spend a lot of our lives engaging and perfecting storytelling, be it in casual conversation, in reading books, watching TV, recounting our days to our friends, and so we often become very skilled at it. I think the Oscars do an excellent job of identifying the stories that touch a lot of people - the ones that have universal appeal because they are told masterfully, not just because they were marketed well, or had a great release date, or were pushed by a big studio.
Once again, I've gone on for a while, but I hope I've made my point. I think I'll continue this discussion later, because I think the Oscars have created a little problem for themselves, and are in some danger of alienating a significant portion of the public.
Comments:
Post a Comment
