I just don't care who wins and loses but i like the fact that we have this gold standard for movies where artists award each other. Also i would not feel comfortable with the most prestigious awards going to movies that only want to entertain you.
It's an American award show, other countries have theirs. The more artsy stuff also has its own award shows. These are movies that attract a regular all ages audience.The Oscars are far from being the gold standard for artistic achievement. I agree there should be stuff out there that honors movies that aren't just trying to entertain you, but the Oscars only reward a specific kind of movie and only if it's in English. (With rare exceptions).
The Oscars love biopics and issue movies about currently popular topics and currently popular villains in the United States, and they absolutely adore large amounts of talking. Reflective movies, artistic genre movies, metaphorical movies, movies that are not between 90 and 180 minutes in length, visually oriented movies, cinematography oriented movies, movies from the perspective of a person living in a poorer country, all get the shaft and the Oscar committee raises hell at the prospect of them even being considered.
If artistic movies are what you're looking for, you can probably get better recommendations from the Sight & Sound poll than you can from the Oscars.
So you're saying you're glad the Oscars exist because they celebrate a moderate level of artsiness rather than too popular or too artsy? What's the point of having a show that just celebrates one specific level of artiness? If we're going to claim, this is about American movies, then there's no reason not to include mainstream movies. Just make it about Hollywood films without the pretense.
Why should art recognition be segregated by country of origin? Shouldn't art just be art? It's not like Americans don't have access to foreign movies.
I'd rather see an award show that rewards great mainstream films like Guardians of the Galaxy and the LEGO Movie than one that pretends to be about art but ignores the most artistic films. Under The Skin was in English and it got ignored too.
If the Oscars are going to make the claim that they are about art, then let them be about all art, not just a specific type of art. Otherwise, just drop the pretense and include all great Hollywood films even if they are mainstream films.
What's the point of having a show that just celebrates one specific level of artiness?
American Hustle is mainstream, just not a blockbuster.If we're going to claim, this is about American movies, then there's no reason not to include mainstream movies. Just make it about Hollywood films without the pretense.
Why should art recognition be segregated by country of origin? Shouldn't art just be art? It's not like Americans don't have access to foreign movies.
There are some who would argue that the Oscars are too artsy and therefore out of touch with mainstream tastes. There are others who would argue that the Oscars award only big mainstream popular movies. I've watched them since the 1960's and some years the award artsy fartsy and some years the more popular mainstream movies get recognized.So you're saying you're glad the Oscars exist because they celebrate a moderate level of artsiness rather than too popular or too artsy? What's the point of having a show that just celebrates one specific level of artiness?
Why does *anything* or *anyone* deserve an award for being what it is or doing what it does?Why do movies warrant awards
I do, I like that it's a way to draw attention to films that at least may be good but on their own might not get a lot of viewers (and often I think the nominees and winners are at least reasonable and deserve that increased attention) but the last few years most haven't seemed good enough to watch.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.