View Single Post
Old January 23 2009, 01:24 AM   #43
chrisspringob
Commodore
 
Location: North Ryde, NSW
Re: 2009 Oscar Nominations

Orintho wrote: View Post
However, (IMO) many films are specifically made and target the Oscars. For example, for years major Woody Allen films only came out at the very last of the year to qualify for Oscar consideration. This is why you see all the depressingly melodramatic films released around that time as well. I consider movies like 'Cold Mountain' to be merely attempts at Oscar grabs.
This is my main problem with the Oscars. It's not that the Oscars are too "highbrow". (The Oscars are *supposed* to be highbrow. They're not just supposed to affirm audiences' existing blockbuster preferences.) It's that too much energy is being devoted to churning out pre-packaged Oscar contenders. I'd prefer if we had a wider range of choices among highbrow movies, but the desire to win more Oscars has led to a ridiculous level of box checking among Oscar season movies. In that respect, I agree with Ross Douthat's commentary here:

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/a...e_oscars_2.php

Studio executives are a risk-averse lot in the best of times and, faced with the cruel Darwinism of the holiday season, they seem to have decided that the best way to hedge their bets is to green-light films within an ever narrower range. How else to explain this house-of-mirrors movie season: two Clint Eastwood movies released within 40 days of each other; a pair of Oscar-caliber Kate Winslet performances playing against each other in the local art house; and not one or two, but five films about the Holocaust and Nazis playing between mid-October and the New Year.
chrisspringob is offline   Reply With Quote