Buck on Film

Buck in the Stacks #7:

What are the OSCARS® to you?
by Sarah Buck

Buck surveyed bloggers from the world over asking these questions:

   •    What are the Oscars to you?

   •    Do the Oscars truly reflect the finest in film?

Below are responses from a variety of sources

Tampa film fan

Lisa Ciurro reviews and writes about books and movies on her blogs TampaFilmFan.com and TampaBookBuzz.com. She also guest blogs at SticksOfFire.com and writes the FANGRRL column at CrazedFanBoy.com. Lisa has served as a judge for several film festivals in the Tampa Bay area, most recently the Sunscreen Film Festival, and writes "Reel People" movie reviews for the Tampa Tribune.

To me, the Oscars are a link to the past and a celebration of a century of film history, trivia, and nostalgia. Each Oscar season, the media coverage includes detailed lists of who has (or hasn't) been nominated or won before, which actors or directors are "overdue" for a win, and what types of roles the Academy traditionally rewards. These factors, in addition to the results of various other annual awards, help determine the media's Oscar predictions as much as the actual films and performances themselves.

The Oscar ceremony itself pays tribute to the past with the various film clip montages, the "In Memoriam" segments and the Honorary Oscars that are given for lifetime achievement. The Oscars are only partially about honoring actors, artists and filmmakers for a particular film. They're also about celebrating film history and indulging moviegoers' obsession with all things Hollywood.

Do the Oscars truly reflect the finest in film?

Sometimes. The Oscars have rewarded some films that have been acknowledged by critics and accepted by viewers (Casablanca, The Sound of Music, Dances with Wolves). Critics and viewers have been baffled and angered, however, at some of the other Oscar-winning film selections (The Greatest Show on Earth, Chariots of Fire, Gladiator).

Barbara Stanwyck, Cary Grant, Deborah Kerr, Kirk Douglas, Alfred Hitchcock and King Vidor never won a competitive Oscar. Foreign films aren't given the attention they deserve, and the Oscars' submission guidelines for foreign films are routinely criticized.

Then there's Oscar lobbying. Awards that are influenced by lobbying efforts cannot possibly truly reflect the finest in film. They reflect who has the most money to spend on lobbying and whose marketing was the most persuasive.

The Oscars are still important and special, but overall they've changed drastically from the original purpose of honoring special film achievements.

Film babble

Daniel Johnson is a Chapel Hill, North Carolina based critic, screenwriter, and comedian. His work has appeared in the Lenoir Herald, The Rhinocheros Times, Independent Weekly and Loser Monthly. He is currently working on a book about conspiracy films entitled "Crime And Popcorn: An A-Z Guide To Conspiracy Cinema". See his blog at http://filmbabble.blogspot.com/

What are the Oscars to you?

I've watched the Oscars my whole life and enjoy bitchin' about them with fellow film buffs and family. The telecast can be a trial to sit through, but there have been many memorable moments through the years. The Oscars are more of a cultural reference point to me than they are something I find personally meaningful.

Do the Oscars truly reflect the finest in film?

The Oscars were originally ideally an attempt to reflect the finest in film, but long ago politics, resistance to change, and box office performance have biased the Academy, and many oversights and glaring omissions have made them into an institution to be highly skeptical of. The towering list of worthy films and deserving personnel that haven't been rewarded tells more of an accurate story of the last 80 years of cinema than if you go by who has won. So I guess the answer is no-the Oscars are a heavily compromised honorary system and essentially just a curious sideline to film history.

Melbourne Film Blog

Paul Martin is a committee member of Melbourne Cinematheque and maintains a film blog, Melbourne Film Blog, at http://melbfilmblog.blogspot.com

Paul writes:

The Oscars mean very little to me. I find they are mostly irrelevant to the world of cinema, being concerned mostly with English-language films, particularly American ones. In my opinion, they often reward mediocrity. A film that can boast an award from Cannes, Berlin, Venice, or Toronto is much more likely to pique my interest than a film that has won an Oscar. And if a film has won multiple Oscars (like "The English Patient"), almost certainly I won't like it.

The Oscars reflect films that can best follow a formula.

Yahoo! Movies Oscar Blog

J. Keith van Straaten's writing for Yahoo! Movies include an Oscar Blog covering the 79th and 80th Academy Awards, as well as the popular Summer and Holiday Movie Guides. He hosted Comedy Central's game show "Beat The Geeks," and since 2004 has been producing and hosting "What's My Line? - Live On Stage" in Los Angeles (coming to New York City in 2008). He's written lyrics for ABC News, sketches for Clear Channel Radio, singles columns for The Jewish Journal, and jokes for a cable TV dominatrix with heart of gold. More at www.jkeith.net

The Oscars are one of the dwindling opportunities we have as a culture to do something together at the same time. Yes, that opportunity has mostly become a chance to point at and mock others, but I think it's still a chance to celebrate excellence and discuss culture. Plus, it's a writing gig for me, which is always appreciated.

Do the Oscars truly reflect the finest in film?

Absolutely not. Never has and never will. It's very America-centric, Hollywood studio-centric, and susceptible to all sorts of marketing, politicking, and worst of all, sentimentality. 2007 was a particularly strong year for films and most critics (and bloggers) could make very reasonable arguments for films that did not receive any consideration whatsoever.

Meinte's blog

Meinte van Egmond is a 24 year old university student from Groningen, the Netherlands. At the moment Meinte is completing a research-master in Archaeology (art history, architecture and archaeology). Watching films has always been a passion to Meinte, who in the last couple of years became more interested in the Asian film market. Meinte mostly like films where not everything will be explained. It's nice to solve the puzzles in your own mind and will leave you thinking about the film for a longer period of time. Furthermore Meinte likes to write poems and short stories. Meinte blogs at http://meinte-film.blogspot.com

In my opinion, the Oscars reflect the best films for a select group of people. Most of this group consists of people who just want to be entertained by watching a movie, nothing more and nothing less. It reflects the best movies which are offered to a large quantity of people through the big cinemas. This set of the movie-going population is very large and, for most of this group, the Oscar is indeed the most important and prestigious prize in the world of film. This is completely different from believing that the Oscars represent the finest in all of film, which is a belief I do not agree with.

There are so many film festivals which are more important in my view. The films may be smaller in scale, but they deal with heavier or more difficult things/problems in life. The movies shown at film festivals are often related to society's problems and are difficult to be hypnotized by. In contrast, many of the big Hollywood productions are really linear and chronological (or are extremely clear, as in via flashback) and almost everything that has happened or will happen will be explained. Also, in Hollywood productions you won't often have silences for an extended period. They will be immediately filled with music. This is often rather irritating because the explosion of sound during the complete length of a movie will create an uncomfortable feeling. When we take a look at Asian cinema, we see that it's almost the complete opposite. These movies often don't have a quickly evolving storyline or an obvious chronology, and most of the time when the movie has ended, you are left with many unsolved puzzles. You have to recreate the movie in your own mind and look for solutions that would fit. There are also music-less periods in Asian films, which to me is calmer. The more aesthetic films are more interesting, while the films that win Oscars are more action-related. It's completely personal the kind of films you like. Do you want to be entertained by an action movie, or do you want to lose yourself in clothing, colours, and music, and a peaceful or slower story?

Another problem that I have with the Oscars is that many films are not particularly original, and almost nobody seems to realize it. For example: "The Departed" won Best Picture, but how many people know that it has a Chinese original/predecessor, the trilogy "Infernal Affairs"? When you compare these two movies with each other, you will experience differences like night and day. Where the USA version has a fast story and is easy to follow, the Chinese production relies on many flashbacks and is more difficult to understand. It should be understood that "Infernal Affairs", from an Asian perspective, is a very American kind of movie. Still, it differs completely from "The Departed". Sometimes it seems like Hollywood productions are simplified copies of other films. I don't mean that as a bad thing, but this kind of film is easier for most people to understand.

A few Oscars, in my opinion, are really important. The Oscar for best foreign film is usually an interesting one indeed. But this also shows that the Oscars are completely related to American movies. People should understand that there are so many more countries that produce movies that the bigger audience just doesn't have the chance to see. There is also the Oscar for best animated movie. This is a subjective one too because, for example, the animation industry in Japan is so big, it's impossible to compare those films with European or American ones. Once again, the Oscars are a representation of American Hollywood-films that will find their way to the big public. This public thinks they get to see the best films there are, but that view is a wrong one.

I think the Oscars are important because, in their own way, they represent the awards for the best movies. They are the reflections of a general view. In my opinion, this view just doesn't show the best movies there are. The film festivals of Cannes, Berlin, or Venice show the lesser known, really interesting movies.

Super gun cinema

Dennis Logan is an independent filmmaker from Toronto, Ontario. He produces and directs short films and web sketches, as well as writing screenplays. As far as feature films, Mr. Logan played a lead role as Macduff in Macbeth 3000: This time, it's personal, as well as adapting the screenplay from Shakespeare's play. In development on several projects, he posts his independent film experiences to his blog at www.superguncinema.com, the guerrilla film production company he co-founded with his high school friends.

What are the Oscars to you?

The Oscars are an afterthought at the extremely independent level. There is the film industry, which "unknowns" among the indies try to break into, and there is also "the Hollywood film industry", the Oscars being where the elite in the latter honor themselves for excellence in an absurdly and yet appropriately vain way. As an "indie filmmaker", to receive a nomination, let alone a golden Oscar would be an extreme honor-an affirmation from Hollywood industry leaders that your work is of quality to their taste-but many of my favorite films are not always "Oscar material". In a sense, there are certain kinds of movies that have "Oscar appeal". They usually involve big name stars and epic dramas. Outside of that, the scope is very narrow; comedies rarely fare well and compete in categories where performances and technicalities appeal to different tastes.

From Toronto, the Oscars are a long way off-a resonant series of images beamed through the television to entertain the masses with the celebrity hand-me-down-glamour from the 1930's studio reign. The much more important battle is on the film set, and the real reward is in the reactions of the audience. A Palm D'Or or a nomination from any of major film festivals are just as rewarding from a career perspective. Many filmmakers view an Oscar as a token that says "I've made it in Hollywood," which to some degree is usually indicative, but there are many levels and types of success. On a level of filmmaking driven by tight budgets and available resources, it's best not to think of that golden idol until you have the resources and the desire to make an "Oscar film". Though deep in the heart of every filmmaker is the hope of one day going on stage in front of all those fellow actors and directors and saying "Thank You" (before being ushered off stage by the music).

Do the Oscars truly reflect the finest in film?

While the Oscars tend to honor films that are definitely worthy of merit, it is with a biased appeal, and leaves out many films. The Oscars represent certain aims in the Hollywood industry as WELL as being an awards show. The bell-curve-like selection process limits which categories a film can compete in... for instance, if a Canadian film were to be nominated, it would be competing with films from Europe and Asia in the "foreign" category. Still, if you understand that the Oscars primarily favor the "Hollywood market", it is definitely a good meter for "fine film" in that regard.

I think that the Oscars could stand an update, but ultimately, if a film hasn't been nominated or won an Oscar, that's not to say that it is of less quality than an Oscar-winner equivalent. A long time ago, before the internet and home video, people saw movies in theaters, and the Oscars represented the finest of those films to the public. "Cult hits" were hard to come by. But in today's cyber-age, people have far more available resources for finding quality films in all shapes and forms. The viewer has their own taste and Oscar has his-but the "finest" of film is probably best left to whoever is watching.

Catholic in film school

Rebecca Christian is a sophomore screenwriting and theology double major at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, CA. She blogs at http://catholicinfilmschool.stblogs.com.

To me, the Oscar is the ultimate award. The actual award show is painfully boring, but the award itself is a status symbol. It means that you ("you" here meaning Oscar winners) have achieved a level of critical acclaim and box office success without compromising the art and the integrity of the piece. There are plenty of great scripts and films that get butchered during the re-write or the production process because people were worried about money. But then again, there are plenty of talented filmmakers who are in the poor house because they decided to do something "fresh." Oscar-winning films usually push past that ugly, greed-driven side of the industry for the sake of the film, but still manage to make a few dollars. That shiny little gold man represents the best of both worlds.

Do the Oscars truly reflect the finest in film?

The Oscars represent a certain stock of film-usually big budget studio films that are able to survive the critics and make some money at the box office. While Oscar-winning films are usually some of the best the particular year had to offer, calling them "the finest in film" is a mistake, I think. What about the indie projects that dominated prestigious film festivals? Most of those movies never get an Oscar nod (primarily because no one else saw them). I was so excited when "Juno" won Best Screenplay-one, because it was a great film; two, because it tackled a cinematically dangerous subject (abortion); and three, because no one thought it would be that successful. It had a very small release in the beginning of its theater run, but that little train chugged along. To me, that performance and resonance with audiences equates to a fine film, though I know a number of film industry professionals who hated it on a critical level. So the "finest in film" is a relative term.

Note: Buck contacted the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for their input but received no response.