Awards becoming meaningless?

[Mister Mets]

As an example of the lack of meaning of awards, a survey of active entertainment consumers shows that less than half are aware of any of the best picture nominees.

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/b...es-1234937081/

This is an unusual year as some marquee films were delayed due to Covid.

[Kirby101]

I think with the inclusion of streaming movies, less people see or even hear about some of the nominees.

[godisawesome]

Pulitzer and Nobel still has some substance to how they are judged and handed out - doesn’t mean they’ll “get it right,” but it usually means they have some modestly greater consistency in having more substantial selections.

The Grammies and Oscars are both very much in a constant tug-o-war between what the actual zeitgeist is and what it’s voters perceive or desirethe zeitgeist as being.

The Grammies are catching flak (justifiably) because it’s pretty clear they’re out of step with the zeitgeist more these last few years than they should be.

The Oscars have waxed and waned in how perceptive they are multiple times, and are arguably both more inconsistent as a matter of course because of their “political” voting process, and also more detached from the mainstream audience, since there’s long been an undercurrent of bored snobs only interested in certain types of movies and seemingly enforcing double standards on popular films with the mainstream audience.

[Kieran_Frost]

I don't see a connections with popularity/pop awards like the Oscars and Grammys and awards for particular achievements like the Nobel and Pulitzer. The latter are a recognition for important work done, not for "the best" of anything.

I respectfully disagree. Entertainment has been so important to the health, growth and narrative of cultures across societies since the dawn of time. 'The Arts' is the heart of a culture, because it's the best record of the mentality of the people, of the trailblazers, of the issues that matter to the soul of a country. Remember during WWII when Churchill was asked to cut funding from the arts to give more money to the military budget and he said "Then what are we fighting for?" An even more relevant case and point... imagine this past year without movies, TV and music. BOOM! Game changer to the mental health of the world.

Entertainment is HUGELY important work.

It's fine if John Ford can't receive another oscar. But John Wayne still deserved an oscar. After all he didn't receive one until True Grit. Anyways I don't think His True grit performance was great as his Searchers performance.

I... maybe not the best person to answer this, I think John Wayne is just a terrible actor. I can't recall seeing a performance by him that I thought was anything above mediocre (and for some of his work, that is a generous phrase)

For awards to be meaningful, there are going to be times when the same people win a lot.

Oh agreed... but again, ONLY John Ford was won Best Director 4 times. He was already the most decorated director in Oscar history by the time the Searchers came along...
FUN FACT: only two directors have won 3 Oscars for Best Director (Frank Capra and William Wyler)

[QUOTE=Mister Mets;5459971If there were awards for theater in Elizabethan England, it would be natural for Shakespeare to dominate.[/QUOTE]
Actually I'm not sure he would have, Marlowe was more 'respected' by those who decided such things at the time. Towards the end of his career Shakespeare was very well respected, but still not revered the way he is now.

The issue with the Searchers isn't that Ford and cinematographer Winston C. Hoch should have won (although they probably should have) but that they weren't even nominated.
There are plenty of other major omissions in Oscar history. In some cases, it's understandable, as it can take a while for a work to get exposure, and awards are a deadline.

It's inevitable there will be omissions. For one, tastes change, and what isn't seen as groundbreaking at the time, can become trailblazing years later. Two, there is more and more films made every year, that's more films to sift through. Three, there are, of course, things that effect voting at the time, that is inevitable in human taste/sentimentality.

In other cases, it's not that understandable. North by Northwest, Singing in the Rain and Spartacus weren't nominated for Best Picture, Best Director or Best Actor. Psycho wasn't nominated for Best Picture, Best Actor or Best Score.

I love Singin' in the Rain, it's one of my ten favourite films of all time. Spartacus I can... understand the lack of Best Actor nomination; as Kirk Douglas basically made the film because he didn't get Ben Hur, and that won Charlton Heston Best Actor.
Also let's be fair:
Spartacus - nominated for 6 Oscars, winning 4 including Best Supporting Actor (for Sir Peter Ustinov)
Psycho - nominated for for 4 Oscars, including Best Director and Best Supporting Actress (for Janet Leigh)
North By Northwest - nominated for 3 Oscars, including Best Original Screenplay
Singin' in the Rain - nominated for 2 Oscars, including Best Supporting Actress (for Jean Hagen)

These aren't minor accolades, the films weren't ignored; and Best Picture isn't the only trophy for respect. It's just not a science in who happens to get nominated.

That said, imperfect awards can still be meaningful.

Very much agreed. It's ultimately opinion, which is imperfect by definition.

The Oscars have waxed and waned in how perceptive they are multiple times, and are arguably both more inconsistent as a matter of course because of their “political” voting process, and also more detached from the mainstream audience, since there’s long been an undercurrent of bored snobs only interested in certain types of movies and seemingly enforcing double standards on popular films with the mainstream audience.

The voters do care about the art of film more than the general populous, but I think that's a GOOD thing, personally.

[Powerboy]

I think with the inclusion of streaming movies, less people see or even hear about some of the nominees.

I watched the Oscars in 1978 to see Star Wars lose (not what I was expecting) and didn't watch them again until, I think, 1993, when, to my surprise, Unforgiven won.

But the reality is that, unless movies that a significant number of people watched and thought was the movie they liked best that year start winning, the Oscars are not going to be this psychological health boost to the nation but only to a very much smaller group. But that's not going to happen, the most popular movies are not going to stat winning which is why the Oscars are not exactly irrelevant but, rather, grant an award that most people don't care about enough to bother watching.

I don't. I only think about it when I see a thread like this and it's something silly to argue about. I haven't watched the Oscars since 1993. Why would I? Seldom is a movie I saw going to win. I know The Return of the King won and I heard about it but too little too late to bother watching.

[Kieran_Frost]

But the reality is that, unless movies that a significant number of people watched and thought was the movie they liked best that year start winning, the Oscars are not going to be this psychological health boost to the nation but only to a very much smaller group. But that's not going to happen, the most popular movies are not going to stat winning which is why the Oscars are not exactly irrelevant but, rather, grant an award that most people don't care about enough to bother watching.

Draws in an average audience of 30+ million. Hardly something to sniff at...

[Kirby101]

I respectfully disagree. Entertainment has been so important to the health, growth and narrative of cultures across societies since the dawn of time. 'The Arts' is the heart of a culture, because it's the best record of the mentality of the people, of the trailblazers, of the issues that matter to the soul of a country. Remember during WWII when Churchill was asked to cut funding from the arts to give more money to the military budget and he said "Then what are we fighting for?" An even more relevant case and point... imagine this past year without movies, TV and music. BOOM! Game changer to the mental health of the world.

Entertainment is HUGELY important work.

I was talking more about how the awards are arrived at rather than comparing the importance of each endeavor.

[godisawesome]

The voters do care about the art of film more than the general populous, but I think that's a GOOD thing, personally.

That is the *ideal* yes... but there’s been a few too many times where it’s been clear that a strictly niche genre film will get too much preference while genuinely artistic but popular films will have to fight an uphill battle because of the genre they belong to.

Some of it is understandable, I think; “craftsman” more interested in the “craft” than in the *art*, so to speak. But there’s also just some plain old-fashioned bias caused by the POV of the voters where they live, who they are, and what interests them, and it’s common enough to have been worthy fo mocking for literally decades now.

...Though that might also be a reflection of how different movies are from other type of art. Orson Welles’s comparison of a film to being like an army on campaign is pretty apt when considering how many moving parts and pieces there are, and how many strategies can be deployed by the filmmakers.

The result, in my opinion? A somewhat ridiculous and easy to eviscerate category of “art films” that I would argue deserve no special consideration because of their particular strategies and priorities, that often impact how professional film critics view things, to the detriment of art and culture. They’re not *bad*, mind you... but they do not automatically grant themselves some innate superiority over blockbusters.

(I’ll be honest, some of this is formed by my personal disgust with what I think are snobby, disconnected and myopic defenses of some films that I despise, because they conform to “art film” standards at titles - stuff like The Last a Jedi especially, which was arguably dumber, less original, and more elitist than what came before it, but confirmed to the niche preferences of “art film” fans.)

[Mister Mets]

I think with the inclusion of streaming movies, less people see or even hear about some of the nominees.

It is weird that the millions who have the streaming services don't care for the award contenders.

Would The Sound of Metal, Nomadland or Mank get more coverage if they're playing in art-house theaters?

Draws in an average audience of 30+ million. Hardly something to sniff at...

We'll see how the next one goes.

The numbers have been declining.

Pulitzer and Nobel still has some substance to how they are judged and handed out - doesn’t mean they’ll “get it right,” but it usually means they have some modestly greater consistency in having more substantial selections.

The Grammies and Oscars are both very much in a constant tug-o-war between what the actual zeitgeist is and what it’s voters perceive or desirethe zeitgeist as being.

The Grammies are catching flak (justifiably) because it’s pretty clear they’re out of step with the zeitgeist more these last few years than they should be.

The Oscars have waxed and waned in how perceptive they are multiple times, and are arguably both more inconsistent as a matter of course because of their “political” voting process, and also more detached from the mainstream audience, since there’s long been an undercurrent of bored snobs only interested in certain types of movies and seemingly enforcing double standards on popular films with the mainstream audience.

Awards differ.

Nobels are awarded based on career output, while something like the Grammies is meant to reflect a particular work.

If the Academy chose an actor and actress to honor each year, we wouldn't see breakout performances (Cristoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds, Lupita Nyong'o in 12 Years a Slave, Mahershala Ali in Moonlight) win, but Glenn Close and Samuel L Jackson would have Oscars by now.

The Pulitzers are different in that it is selected by a small jury, while the Grammies and Oscars are selected by peers, a process that means a lot of the voters are older and have been in the industry for a while.

The pitfalls can differ, as each organization can lose credibility in different ways.

[CSTowle]

IMO (for what that's worth) the ratings/interest for awards shows like the Oscars/Grammies have more to do with our culture's obsession with celebrity and parading them around in outfits far more than any real interest in who is going to win. That's important to a select few people, mainly those in the room or gaining money/prestige from the outcomes (producers/etc.).

[skyvolt2000]

Draws in an average audience of 30+ million. Hardly something to sniff at...

Far too many times we have films that come out like in December and already got award nominations.

Other times we have films NO ONE has heard of for whatever reasons-most cases limited runs or international films.

And those rating have gone done in reply to nominations. When black folks were left out those rating were horrible.

It's those ratings that determine cost of ads during the show. So changes happened after that.

[Kieran_Frost]

That is the *ideal* yes... but there’s been a few too many times where it’s been clear that a strictly niche genre film will get too much preference while genuinely artistic but popular films will have to fight an uphill battle because of the genre they belong to.

Some of it is understandable, I think; “craftsman” more interested in the “craft” than in the *art*, so to speak. But there’s also just some plain old-fashioned bias caused by the POV of the voters where they live, who they are, and what interests them, and it’s common enough to have been worthy fo mocking for literally decades now.

I think it's fair to say there is still (though much less now) 'disinterest' in sci-fi and fantasy and animation being considered for the top awards. But it's changing. Though truthfully I don't think much has been over-looked from those genres (just because fanboys felt Avengers should have been up for Best Picture, doesn't mean it should have). It's an inevitable result of something being voted on professional opinion... somethings will miss out. But I don't know a better way to pick who should be nominated, than those in that field deciding?

The result, in my opinion? A somewhat ridiculous and easy to eviscerate category of “art films” that I would argue deserve no special consideration because of their particular strategies and priorities, that often impact how professional film critics view things, to the detriment of art and culture. They’re not *bad*, mind you... but they do not automatically grant themselves some innate superiority over blockbusters.

There was a fascinating essay I read once, I forget where, asking "does a film have to end sadly for it to be considered art?" And it talked about how nearly all the highest rated and revered romance films... nearly all end with the partners NOT together (for whatever reason). And I know I'm guilty of this too, if a film ends sadly it feels more worthy. Makes no sense, I agree, but there we are...

(I’ll be honest, some of this is formed by my personal disgust with what I think are snobby, disconnected and myopic defenses of some films that I despise, because they conform to “art film” standards at titles - stuff like The Last a Jedi especially, which was arguably dumber, less original, and more elitist than what came before it, but confirmed to the niche preferences of “art film” fans.)

I'm afraid I cannot comment on this specific example, I thought the first one was so terrible, I made no effort to see the rest of the new trilogy.

Far too many times we have films that come out like in December and already got award nominations.

That would be for Oscars. To be eligible for nomination, I believe, you have to have played for a week in 25+ cinemas in the Los Angeles area. I could be wrong about the number/catchment area, but it's something along those lines. For me Jan - March is prime Oscar nomination catch-up time, as we have the Golden Globes and BAFTA noms to go off of, as an idea what will probably be contenders at the Oscars.

Other times we have films NO ONE has heard of for whatever reasons-most cases limited runs or international films.

Oh let's not begrudge foreign films from being allowed a seat at the table. What did they ever do to you?

[Kieran_Frost]

I was talking more about how the awards are arrived at rather than comparing the importance of each endeavor.

Ah I see.

It is weird that the millions who have the streaming services don't care for the award contenders.

Agreed.

We'll see how the next one goes.
The numbers have been declining.

Declining but still many many millions. Though I think this year will either see a huge drop or a huge rise, for curiosity of how they do it? I don't know. Most of the films nominated are streamed now, so that could help. More people could have seen them all. I'm working my way through, slowly.

If the Academy chose an actor and actress to honor each year, we wouldn't see breakout performances (Cristoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds, Lupita Nyong'o in 12 Years a Slave, Mahershala Ali in Moonlight) win, but Glenn Close and Samuel L Jackson would have Oscars by now.

Glenn Close has sadly had bad luck on her strongest years, it matters who you are up against. But she'll win next year for Sunset Blvd so it's all good. I mean... are we really putting Glenn Close and Samuel L Jackson in the same category??? One is an acting goddess; the other... while very fun in many films... can be safely described as NOT REALLY TRYING in a vast amount of his body of work. Samuel L. Jackson is not owed an Oscar. And I don't mean any offense with that, but the man himself says he picks roles on what he thinks will be 'fun' to film. I fear 'the craft' of it, long since dissolved from Mr Jackson.

The Pulitzers are different in that it is selected by a small jury, while the Grammies and Oscars are selected by peers, a process that means a lot of the voters are older and have been in the industry for a while.
The pitfalls can differ, as each organization can lose credibility in different ways.

One of the reasons I rate the Oscars and the BAFTAs but NOT the Golden Globes is for that very reason: peers vs. critics. Peers get it, they understand the pitfalls and complexities. Critics... think they know how to make a good cheesecake because they've eaten so many at fine restaurants. #shadeshade

IMO (for what that's worth) the ratings/interest for awards shows like the Oscars/Grammies have more to do with our culture's obsession with celebrity and parading them around in outfits far more than any real interest in who is going to win. That's important to a select few people, mainly those in the room or gaining money/prestige from the outcomes (producers/etc.).

With the Oscars I'd disagree; I don't know anything about music or the Grammies, so I can't comment on that. If what you say was true there would be a colossal ratings dip after the red carpet, if people just cared about who went and who wore what (though that is a big draw for some). Similarly they have Best Picture last for a reason. Again if it was about 'celebrity culture' people would disappear after Best Actress is announced.

[Zauriel]

I have bothered to check the story about Oscars 2021 and see who won the awards. It was announced on April 25th.

https://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2021

Actually I didn't watch any of those movies. Well, I don't usually go to theaters anymore

So, what does anyone here think of those movies that won the oscars? Were the wins well deserved?

[C_Miller]

I have bothered to check the story about Oscars 2021 and see who won the awards. It was announced on April 25th.

https://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2021

Actually I didn't watch any of those movies. Well, I don't usually go to theaters anymore

So, what does anyone here think of those movies that won the oscars? Were the wins well deserved?

I’m of the belief that most of the time the films that are nominated are mostly deserving. The winners are less important to me as how do you, define who did the best art? Of the movies that won, I liked all of them and generally enjoyed the aspects that were awarded. I will say Anthony Hopkins gave my favorite performance of the year and I fear that people in these circles are going to be upset.