You Keep the Oscar. I'll Stay the Grouch

    How can I put this nicely? The modern Academy Awards are....no, there's no nice way to put it. I guess I'll just put it as non-vulgarly as I can. The modern Academy Awards are an absolute joke. It hasn't always been this way. There used to be a time when winning an Oscar meant something. I'm not sure when things changed exactly. At some point, it went from recognizing greatness in the medium of film to just being an insulting party of back slappers and in-crowders boosting egos and celebrating how great they think they are with little regard to the actual films.
    I can still remember the exact Academy Awards Ceremony that was the final straw for me. It was 2001. I was watching it because of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. When I saw that it had won for Best Foreign Language Film, I knew that it was not going to win the Best Picture Award it truly deserved. Even back then, I was cynical enough to know that since it was foreign, the Academy would give it A Best Picture but not THE Best Picture. That was it for me. I was done with them.
    Now, before you go on about my love of foreign film, especially Wu Xia, making me bias, let's look at some of the other mistakes the Academy made in just that one year. Gladiator won Best Picture. Give me a break. That was a piece of crap. It tried to be an Epic and failed. It was so full of cliches and slow and...I could go on and on, but I'll hold myself back. I will admit that I have not seen all of the movies that were nominated, but here's the list. Someone please tell me not only how Gladiator made it onto the list, but how the hell did it win? Gladiator, Chocolat, Erin Brockovich, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and Traffic were the nominations. Also out that year and nominated in other categories were Cast Away, Requiem for a Dream, Wonder Boys, O Brother Where Art Thou, Pollock, Billy Elliot, etc. etc. etc. Granted, some of those are not Best Picture contenders....wait...what? Cast Away wasn't a Best Picture contender!?! Nope, but you know what was? Sadiator. Get it? Sad because compared to many many films it is just sad. Not sad emotionally, although I'm sure at points they tried to evoke that emotion, but like with so much of that film, they failed.
    Let's just continue our investigation a little further. Best Leading Actor...I just mentioned Cast Away being out that year. Of course Tom Hanks had to of won the Best Leading Actor Oscar. I mean, that movie hinged entirely on him, and he succeeded. I cannot think of any other actor that would have really made that role work. Well, at least the Academy got it right on that one....OH WAIT! NO! NO THEY DIDN'T! Russel Blows...err Crowe won it for Gladiator. Hmm, oh how about Best Costume Design. Did it go to Crouch Tiger? How about a period piece like Quills? I know, a live action Dr. Seuss? Nope. Gladiator again. I know with movies nominated like The Perfect Storm, Cast Away, U 571, and the Patriot, I'm sure Best Sound wouldn't go to Gladiator, except that it did. Best Visual Effect? There were only 3 nominations. Two of them were Hollow Man and The Perfect Storm. Any guesses on what the 3rd nomination was. Hint: it won the award. Hint 2: It didn't deserve it. That's right. Gladiator again.
    Ok, I should probably pick some other mistakes the Academy has made. Let's look at 2011. The biggest travesty was Hailee Steinfeld. If you have not seen the new version of True Grit. Go and see it. Once you see it, maybe you'll be able to explain something to me. The girl in it, Hailee Steinfeld, was in fact nominated for an Oscar. Considering that the entire film centered on her character, it is quite obvious that she is not only A Leading Actress in the film but is THE Leading Actress in the film. One could even go so far as to say that without her character the movie couldn't have been made. She is the cornerstone of the whole thing. It is her story. Jeff Bridges' role is supporting her role. So why in the name of all things holy, did she not get nominated for Best Leading Actress? She was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. WTF!!!! Explain this to me! Explain this to me now! Oh and Jeff Bridges was nominated for Best Leading Actor. So the support gets the lead and the lead gets the support. Neither won by the way.
    It seems commonplace these days for a movie to win multiple awards. In some cases, I'm sure this is appropriate. Well, at least it was back when the awards meant something. The Deer Hunter deserved all of its awards and nominations. That's another thing. The nominations. It used to mean something to have been nominated. Putting that on a DVD case to promote a movie had some value. Back then. It used to be there were 4 maybe 5 nominations for any of the major Oscars. These represented the best. The winner was therefore the best of the best. 2011 had 10, count them 10, nominations for Best Picture. 2012 had 9. 2010 had 10. Damn near every other year, had 5 or less. I'm sorry, but even though there are probably some really good films amongst the 29 nominations over the past 3 years, I'm guessing many of them are not Oscar-worthy. Well, at least they wouldn't be if they were actually held to the standards of the past.
    Now, don't get me wrong. I'm sure there was some back slapping and ego stroking back in the earlier days of the Oscars too. I just don't see where it was nearly as prevalent or as blatant as it is in modern times. Also, just as a little word of warning, not only should you be cautious of any movie claiming nominations and wins as part of its selling points, at least any post a certain time period when the Oscars lost meaning, be sure to check to see what the awards were actually for. I saw a DVD case that spouted the director as being an Academy Award Winner. It was true. He was. It just wasn't in directing. It was for special effects or sound editing or something technical of that sort.
    Oh yeah, and one last thing before I forget. When did the critics and studios start labeling certain movies as "their Oscar contender." It has seriously gotten to the point where instead of just making great film, you can simply make your film a certain way to practically guarantee not only a nomination but an award itself. And this year, the award for best contribution to the degradation of film and its art goes to....Hollywood. Go ahead, stroke your egos and pat your backs. I'll be over here watching good film and spreading the little lesser known gems to people I know who appreciate film. Even if I do it in the most pretentious, cliquey, and snooty way I can, I will be safe in the knowledge that every year, the Academy Awards Ceremony will outdo me.
    Now stop reading my ranting and go watch some good films. Peace.

Holding Movies to My Standards

    There are those out there that would say I am over-critical of movies. It would be foolish to try to deny these claims. I do pick up on little details and let them bother me more than they should. One the same token though, I don't usually let these details ruin a movie for me. Correction, I don't let them if the movie is good.
    I do not consider myself a "film snob." If you've ever run into a stereotypical film student, that is what I consider a film snob. If you were to go through my collection, not only would you find that some classic films that any proper film snob would include are missing, you would also find many movies that no snob would touch. Seriously, I don't think any film snob would have a copy of Puss in Boots starring Christopher Walken in their collection even if they were trying to be ironic and hipster. Now, don't think that it is in my collection for any good reason beyond it being just too bizarre to get rid of. Well, that and having it around to inflict on people.
    Ignoring for a moment those previous couple of sentences, I consider my critical opinions and general pickiness to come from my having standards. That sounds rather snobbish, I know. My standards come from the variety and number of movies I've seen and have collected. The problem comes from seeing so many really good films. Sadly, at least for Hollywood, the majority of these really good films seem to be foreign or independent. We you watch and collect these quality films, other films, especially modern Hollywood made ones, fall flat. I'll save my tirades and opinions on modern Hollywood for another blog.
    Since I can't seem to do anything simply, this is a good place to mention that my "standards" vary depending on the film. I am not going to hold a '70s Blacksploitation to the same standards as a Period Epic. That would just be silly. In order to be able to justify this varying scale of standards when it comes to film, I must address an X factor. A movie should simply be what it is. This gets a bit philosophical. We're seeing lately in American Cinema a push (not just the remakes and being generally uncreative) to try to capture an essence or style from other movies in an attempt to be one of those movies. It seems like they want to recreate "exploitation films" and the whole "grindhouse experience." Or, there is this idea of trying to make independent films have this "independent film" feel. These "feels" they are trying to create pretty consistently hurt the quality of the movies. If the movie has a good script, good director, and some good actors, generally speaking the end result will be an good movie. If you are trying to give the movie a certain "feel" that is unnecessary to the development of the film, it will show. You'll be able to tell that they were "trying too hard." Just let the movie be what the movie is.
    Let me give you some examples. Hobo with a Shotgun had many elements that would make it fall into the exploitation genre. The problem is that the elements were taken from the '70s but none of their essences were. They tried to make it an "exploitation film." They failed. They simply made a bad movie. Had they simply tried to make Hobo with a Shotgun instead of Hobo with a Shotgun the grindhouse-style exploitation movie, it may have worked. In not trying to become something, there was a fair chance that they would have actually become that very thing. Let's look next at all those so called parody films that got mass produced straight to DVD based of the success of the first Scary Movie. I don't think I really need to go into any kind of detail as far as the "trying too hard" argument goes. A joke is funny simply because it is funny. A forced joke loses its humor. I think I could easily make the comparison of these types of movies to the deterioration of something as you continue to make copies of copies. ("She touched my pepe, Steve.") The problem can be traced to the very first copy. Scary Movie based its parody off of Scream. This is problematic. Why? Most people, I'm assuming the makers of Scary Movie are included here, missed the fact that Scream was a satire of horror movies. So they made a parody of a satire. Of course they threw in a bunch of topical jokes and toilet and drug humor too. Given that those are three areas of humor that require a subtle touch and are rarely understood by the people who use them, they probably weren't the best choices to add to their "parody." Granted, topical humor generally doesn't translate well years later. Although, a properly done topical bit is still funny, just not as funny as it would be if you knew where it was coming from. The other problem was that there people were trying to make a "Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker film." I would be remiss if I didn't say that I know at least one of the Zuckers was involved in some of the Scary Movies. Regardless, we are still looking at copies of copies.
    I think I should reel this back in. Simply put, stop trying to hard to make these movies something that they aren't. You can imitate a director's style, but you'll never make one of those director's films. So yeah, anyway, standards. I hold the movies to the standards of their fellow films. It's just a shame when so many foreign, independent, or older American films set the bar so high. So, I for one, am not going to sit back and eat, drink, or buy into what the machine is saying is good. That is a different rant though.
    Highly critical though I am and holding the high standards that I do, I can say one thing for sure. I don't recommend movies lightly. If I don't think you'll like it, I won't recommend it to you. If I think it is one of those movies that is simply fantastic, I will probably recommend it to everyone. I hate to put it in this pompous way, but if the general populace finds many of the modern mediocre movies to be really good, imagine how blown away they would be if they saw a film that was actually really good.
    Regardless of your level of love for film, music, literature, or whatever is your thing, at the very least, I hope that you love them for what they are. I hope that you love them because you love them. Don't like anything simply because others say you should. If we can't love our entertainments for simply being what they are, how can we ever learn to love others simply for being who they are?