(no subject)
Feb. 27th, 2005 09:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatSitting down at my computer this morning after a breakfast of organic oatmeal, maple sugar, mangos, pineapple, and orange juice, I glance out the window. The sky is a luminous pale blue, no clouds blocking or marring the pristine surface, soft white snow lurking in patches on rooftoops and on the piles of dirt at the construction company three blocks away, and a flag unfurling with the breeze on the top of the elevated train. Church bells chime their greeting to the 10 AM Mass in the distance, ringing in the day, their song familar yet the lyrics impossible to access.
Before sitting down, with the intent to finally work on a story I've been tossing about in my head, I watched the tail-end of A&E's Breakfast with the Arts. Today it concentrated on that perannanum Celebrity event, the Oscars.
As a child - I remember looking forward to the Oscars, begging my parents to let me stay up and watch it all - often sneaking down to see who won the best picture or sometimes, my mother coming up to tell me. Now, my family looks on the event as a bit of a joke - too many similar awards shows have popped up in recent years, as a child the Oscars was one of the few that was televised or taken seriously. Also it has become astonishingly easy to predict the winners, all you really need is some concept of the mentality of the people who vote for them - the Movie Industry, to get it right. Not which movie you personally thought was the best or the critical favorite, but the one that the politics of the industry is likely to think is. Because the Oscars is Movie Industry Politics at its best. It's also subjective. But then appreciation of art is.
For the record:
I figure the best picture Oscar will probably go to The Aviator (even though Million Dollar Baby and Sideways may be remembered in latter years as better movies and challenged the art form more - from everything I've seen or read - Aviator looks like a by the numbers bio-pic/epic similar to the type of bio-pics done in other years. It reminds me a little of Gandhi, which also won. Or Titantic, which won. Neither great films or overly memorable, both too long. Same with Around the World in 80 Days (the first version with David Niven, which oddly enough won. I used to glance through my Mother's Oscar book - that listed all the nominees and winners in every year up through 1990, and ponder why certain films that have been watched more, are more accessible, and have been examined in film schools - are overlooked while films that we have forgotten or rarely seen, won tons of awards? It's weird that actors such as Peter O'Tool and Richard Burton never won. Or that Sydney Lumet who did films like Dog Day Afternoon, Prince of the City, and Serpico never won.) At any rate, like them or not, both Million Dollar Baby and Sideways are controversial films that show another less than sunny view of life, flip it on it's side, and experiment a little with the form or what tales should be told - they are not the most innovative interesting films shown this year, but they are the most innovative, edgy and interesting ones to have been nominated - which is probably why they won't win. Neither are safe dramas - unlike Finding Neverland, Avaitor and Ray - which are. Hollywood seldom nominates or awards films that challenge the status quo. Which begs the question - when did Martin Scorsese become part of the status quo? Something he's fought most of his career? I think around the time people began to accept him. Makes me miss the edgier, far more innovative Scorsese films - films he did not win best director for and should have: Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Mean Streets. I think Raging Bull was nominated - but I don't think it won. Million Dollar Baby is too politically incorrect and edgy to get the award. Sideways - too depressing and unnerving. Finding Neverland? Too artsy. Ray? It would win if Avaitor wasn't there - since it would have the sympathy vote and is the type of film people love best, heartwarming story about an entertainer beating the odds. )
Best actor will go to Jamie Fox (and that will be Ray's main and possibly only win outside of musical arrangement). Fox deserves it. And by giving it to Fox, Hollywood can indirectly award Ray Charles.
Best actress? I'm guessing Swank - as a nod to Million Dollar Baby, although
Annette Being could get it. Harder area to guess. Kate Winslet doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. The actresses up for Vera Drake and Maria Full of Grace? Doubtful.
Director? Scorsese. Even though from what I've seen? He doesn't deserve it for this one. But that's not important, they'll give it to him because Eastwood already has one for a film they liked more than Million Dollar Baby. Alexander Payne too young and we can reward him for best adapted screenplay (if he wasn't up for that, it might be a closer contest, but doubtful.)
Supporting Actor? Freeman for Million Dollar Baby, although from what I hear Alda and Hayden Church have an outside chance. Still - if I was a betting woman? My money is on Freeman. Clive Owen? Might as well stay home.
Supporting Actress? Can't really remember all the nominees, but it will probably be Virgina Madsen as a nod to Sideways, although Kate Winslet could get it for Finding Neverwhere as a nod to that film. People in the industry have this odd desire to reward all the films nominated for best picture in some way, if at all reasonably possible.
Adapted Screenplay? Sideways.
Original? Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (which in a different world would have won best picture and garnered Jim Carry a nomination).
Those are my guesses at any rate. Don't know if I'm right or not, don't really care. Nor am I sure if I will be watching the Oscars tonight or not. Didn't watch them the last two or three years. I find the whole enterprise somewhat dull and incredibly depressing. Here are these people, dressed in million dollar outfits, draped with jewels, pulling in salaries that are equivalent to an average person winning the lottery on a daily basis - and jumping on stage when their name has been announced as the winner as if this is the most important thing ever? If you are being paid 1 million - 20 million for each film you do, and you are getting roles - while most actors are doing odd jobs and struggling to get them, why do you need a frigging award? It's not like you haven't been acknowledged. It's not like people haven't seen your film or work. Oh I can understand the documentarians, the animated and dramatic short films, the makeup artists, etc - that makes sense. Those guys are unseen and aren't making all that much. Although set designers, make-up artists, costumers make a heck of a lot in the industry - more than you'd think. But why actors? Directors? Producers? And what is it in our nature that we feel this compulsion to choose the best and worst of things and rank them? Why is it so important to us to hold these highly subjective contests for just about everything? And why when the winners are selected, do we feel the compulsion to read, view, see them? My mother used to make it a point to read all the National Book Award winners, until she began to hit a few unreadable ones and gave up, realizing that just because some panel of judges chose it as the National Book Award did not mean it was good or she'd enjoy it. Heck who are these judges anyway? Same with the New York Times Best Seller list or the list of best-sellers at my local book store - just because the majority liked these, does not mean I will. (Actually it's more than likely I won't.)So why do we do it? Is it biological? Psychological? Evolutionary?
Don't know, but have been pondering it.
I've also been pondering what I like lately and why I like it. After reading![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
fresne post on the ATPO board about this topic - I found myself pondering the question again last night. I wish I could provide a simple answer - such as I find this depressing or this was boring. But some things, I would consider depressing - I like a great deal and one's that on the surface, should bore me, don't while others that shouldn't, do. For instance, Lost in Translation put me to sleep. No clue why. I also found it depressing. While Eternal Sunshine made me oddly happy in retrospect and I keep replaying sections of it. My pal, Wales, had the opposite experience. Sometimes you can't explain why you like something or dislike something, it just is. I think.
Before sitting down, with the intent to finally work on a story I've been tossing about in my head, I watched the tail-end of A&E's Breakfast with the Arts. Today it concentrated on that perannanum Celebrity event, the Oscars.
As a child - I remember looking forward to the Oscars, begging my parents to let me stay up and watch it all - often sneaking down to see who won the best picture or sometimes, my mother coming up to tell me. Now, my family looks on the event as a bit of a joke - too many similar awards shows have popped up in recent years, as a child the Oscars was one of the few that was televised or taken seriously. Also it has become astonishingly easy to predict the winners, all you really need is some concept of the mentality of the people who vote for them - the Movie Industry, to get it right. Not which movie you personally thought was the best or the critical favorite, but the one that the politics of the industry is likely to think is. Because the Oscars is Movie Industry Politics at its best. It's also subjective. But then appreciation of art is.
For the record:
I figure the best picture Oscar will probably go to The Aviator (even though Million Dollar Baby and Sideways may be remembered in latter years as better movies and challenged the art form more - from everything I've seen or read - Aviator looks like a by the numbers bio-pic/epic similar to the type of bio-pics done in other years. It reminds me a little of Gandhi, which also won. Or Titantic, which won. Neither great films or overly memorable, both too long. Same with Around the World in 80 Days (the first version with David Niven, which oddly enough won. I used to glance through my Mother's Oscar book - that listed all the nominees and winners in every year up through 1990, and ponder why certain films that have been watched more, are more accessible, and have been examined in film schools - are overlooked while films that we have forgotten or rarely seen, won tons of awards? It's weird that actors such as Peter O'Tool and Richard Burton never won. Or that Sydney Lumet who did films like Dog Day Afternoon, Prince of the City, and Serpico never won.) At any rate, like them or not, both Million Dollar Baby and Sideways are controversial films that show another less than sunny view of life, flip it on it's side, and experiment a little with the form or what tales should be told - they are not the most innovative interesting films shown this year, but they are the most innovative, edgy and interesting ones to have been nominated - which is probably why they won't win. Neither are safe dramas - unlike Finding Neverland, Avaitor and Ray - which are. Hollywood seldom nominates or awards films that challenge the status quo. Which begs the question - when did Martin Scorsese become part of the status quo? Something he's fought most of his career? I think around the time people began to accept him. Makes me miss the edgier, far more innovative Scorsese films - films he did not win best director for and should have: Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Mean Streets. I think Raging Bull was nominated - but I don't think it won. Million Dollar Baby is too politically incorrect and edgy to get the award. Sideways - too depressing and unnerving. Finding Neverland? Too artsy. Ray? It would win if Avaitor wasn't there - since it would have the sympathy vote and is the type of film people love best, heartwarming story about an entertainer beating the odds. )
Best actor will go to Jamie Fox (and that will be Ray's main and possibly only win outside of musical arrangement). Fox deserves it. And by giving it to Fox, Hollywood can indirectly award Ray Charles.
Best actress? I'm guessing Swank - as a nod to Million Dollar Baby, although
Annette Being could get it. Harder area to guess. Kate Winslet doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. The actresses up for Vera Drake and Maria Full of Grace? Doubtful.
Director? Scorsese. Even though from what I've seen? He doesn't deserve it for this one. But that's not important, they'll give it to him because Eastwood already has one for a film they liked more than Million Dollar Baby. Alexander Payne too young and we can reward him for best adapted screenplay (if he wasn't up for that, it might be a closer contest, but doubtful.)
Supporting Actor? Freeman for Million Dollar Baby, although from what I hear Alda and Hayden Church have an outside chance. Still - if I was a betting woman? My money is on Freeman. Clive Owen? Might as well stay home.
Supporting Actress? Can't really remember all the nominees, but it will probably be Virgina Madsen as a nod to Sideways, although Kate Winslet could get it for Finding Neverwhere as a nod to that film. People in the industry have this odd desire to reward all the films nominated for best picture in some way, if at all reasonably possible.
Adapted Screenplay? Sideways.
Original? Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (which in a different world would have won best picture and garnered Jim Carry a nomination).
Those are my guesses at any rate. Don't know if I'm right or not, don't really care. Nor am I sure if I will be watching the Oscars tonight or not. Didn't watch them the last two or three years. I find the whole enterprise somewhat dull and incredibly depressing. Here are these people, dressed in million dollar outfits, draped with jewels, pulling in salaries that are equivalent to an average person winning the lottery on a daily basis - and jumping on stage when their name has been announced as the winner as if this is the most important thing ever? If you are being paid 1 million - 20 million for each film you do, and you are getting roles - while most actors are doing odd jobs and struggling to get them, why do you need a frigging award? It's not like you haven't been acknowledged. It's not like people haven't seen your film or work. Oh I can understand the documentarians, the animated and dramatic short films, the makeup artists, etc - that makes sense. Those guys are unseen and aren't making all that much. Although set designers, make-up artists, costumers make a heck of a lot in the industry - more than you'd think. But why actors? Directors? Producers? And what is it in our nature that we feel this compulsion to choose the best and worst of things and rank them? Why is it so important to us to hold these highly subjective contests for just about everything? And why when the winners are selected, do we feel the compulsion to read, view, see them? My mother used to make it a point to read all the National Book Award winners, until she began to hit a few unreadable ones and gave up, realizing that just because some panel of judges chose it as the National Book Award did not mean it was good or she'd enjoy it. Heck who are these judges anyway? Same with the New York Times Best Seller list or the list of best-sellers at my local book store - just because the majority liked these, does not mean I will. (Actually it's more than likely I won't.)So why do we do it? Is it biological? Psychological? Evolutionary?
Don't know, but have been pondering it.
I've also been pondering what I like lately and why I like it. After reading
fresne post on the ATPO board about this topic - I found myself pondering the question again last night. I wish I could provide a simple answer - such as I find this depressing or this was boring. But some things, I would consider depressing - I like a great deal and one's that on the surface, should bore me, don't while others that shouldn't, do. For instance, Lost in Translation put me to sleep. No clue why. I also found it depressing. While Eternal Sunshine made me oddly happy in retrospect and I keep replaying sections of it. My pal, Wales, had the opposite experience. Sometimes you can't explain why you like something or dislike something, it just is. I think.