Originally Posted by Sculpt (Post 963661)

I know what you mean, Ferret. Film enjoyment, like all art enjoyment, is intrinsically a subjective endeavor. So naturally critiques, ratings and awards are also intrinsically controversial. I know you know I'm stating the obvious. But look at it this way, it's a way to discuss and appreciate the work and the artists. I think feeling hurt by a perceived "snub" for an award is form of envy.

Hmm... thinking about it, disagreeing with a rating or critique really need not involve any hurt/nagative feelings; since it's obvious we all have different opinions. Actually feeling hurt/angry/etc about a poor rating or critique... the bad feeling is probably envy for the praise of acknowledging one's own good taste. Some of us like to say it's loyalty to the art/artist, but that might be a masking of feelings, especially if the artist isn't around to hear it. But I digress.

You may be right about personal film industry profits being too personally tied to the Oscars. I don't know enough about it myself. I know film industry artists vote. And film sales get a boost by receiving an award; and films going for that tend to be released just before the Globe/Oscar consideration. There's a lot going on. I think of any names off hand, but I have heard of a many nominations for films that were early in the year. Not sure about winners though.

Originally Posted by urgeok2 (Post 963673)

Personally, I think the Oscars are an annual freak show where regular folk sit at home watching, in the hopes that they'll see famous people embarrass themselves by doing or saying something inappropriate or stupid so they can talk about it on facebook the next day.

the same way other people watch car races for the crashes and hockey for the fights.

We all know art is subjective so it usually ends up being a popularity contest

Originally Posted by ferretchucker (Post 963670)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that criticism of art per se is bad. Just that when Roeper or Kermode grade a film it is understood that THEY are grading it. It's just like having a very well informed friend give you their opinion.

The Academy, however, is - to the average person - essentially an abstract entity. And the way it, presents itself and is presented, it is seen as an almost omnipotent and objective figure.

And likewise, they're not saying what's good or bad, but what is the BEST. But take best cinematography for example. What makes something the best? Most inventive? Most ambitious? That which imparts the most meaning? In Classical Hollywood style the best would be the least notable for it's invisibility. It differs in all cultures, genres, times etc. A written review can explain WHY something is GOOD. But to just reduce the entire years output into one single best is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Angra (Post 963740)

"Gravity" 9/10

Best picture, best director, best visual effects, best cinematography. And then some.

Originally Posted by neverending (Post 963749)

Gravity will not win any of the big 6, and I'm not making any comment on the quality of the film- just on its chances of winning one of the top 6 awards.