Nothing to see here
Just a new entry, without a lot of drive behind it. But I might as well get some words on the ethernet, to prove I am still alive. I stayed up for the entire Oscar ceremony (again), but didn't have a lot to show for it. Jon Stewart's monologue was so-so, but I imagine that is where most of his assistance from the "Hollywood" writers cam ein (vice his own TDS writers). After that, he was fine. Better than fine, but you wouldn't know it from the audience. Most actors and actresses seem to have a hard time laughing at themselves. Tools.
Long ago, I learned not to really care what won. If a few films you like get nominated, awesome. Snubs happen at nomination time. I air grievances at nomination time. Once it leaves that point, it's a crapshoot. A few thousand voters (with actors making up the largest percentage) get to decide what wins the big prize. But we the audience gets to decide what lives beyond that. Seriously, who has Chicago (a fine musical, I might add) as a favorite film? A Beautiful Mind? How many of these films stand the test of time?
But what matters is that if you got nominated, you "deserve" to win as much as any other film. As the immortal Clint said in Unforgiven, "deserve has got nothing to do with it". But it's hard to get invested in a film and then have a major group tell you another film is better. But it's also healthy. Most of my favorite films have gone through a sort of crucible, where I had to defend them (or my appreciation of them) from others, sometimes intensely. It did not diminish my love for the films, it increased it. Yes, flaws were pointed out, but even perfect films (like perfect people) have flaws.
Brokeback was an emotional favorite for a lot. It stood for something bigger than the film. But voters didn't vote on that...they just voted on the film. And a film about sheepherders in Wyoming (starring all up and comers) doesn't resonate as well as a film set in the Bowl, starring a dozen established actors (let's be frank, some voters vote for their friends) that is about the Holy Land of Los Angeles? Brokeback will be remembered LONG after Crash has become a trivia answer. That's the truth. And Brokeback wasn't even the best film of the year :) It was close, though.
Long ago, I learned not to really care what won. If a few films you like get nominated, awesome. Snubs happen at nomination time. I air grievances at nomination time. Once it leaves that point, it's a crapshoot. A few thousand voters (with actors making up the largest percentage) get to decide what wins the big prize. But we the audience gets to decide what lives beyond that. Seriously, who has Chicago (a fine musical, I might add) as a favorite film? A Beautiful Mind? How many of these films stand the test of time?
But what matters is that if you got nominated, you "deserve" to win as much as any other film. As the immortal Clint said in Unforgiven, "deserve has got nothing to do with it". But it's hard to get invested in a film and then have a major group tell you another film is better. But it's also healthy. Most of my favorite films have gone through a sort of crucible, where I had to defend them (or my appreciation of them) from others, sometimes intensely. It did not diminish my love for the films, it increased it. Yes, flaws were pointed out, but even perfect films (like perfect people) have flaws.
Brokeback was an emotional favorite for a lot. It stood for something bigger than the film. But voters didn't vote on that...they just voted on the film. And a film about sheepherders in Wyoming (starring all up and comers) doesn't resonate as well as a film set in the Bowl, starring a dozen established actors (let's be frank, some voters vote for their friends) that is about the Holy Land of Los Angeles? Brokeback will be remembered LONG after Crash has become a trivia answer. That's the truth. And Brokeback wasn't even the best film of the year :) It was close, though.
posted by Chuck | 7:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home