Quote:
Originally Posted by ferretchucker
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.
|
Ya, I know what you mean. I look at it as more of reminiscing about the films of the year. The nominations grab memorable moments and films. And we just say, yeah, that was meaningful.
So which Best Picture Winner years bothered you the most? These are some that bugged me:
For 1981 Chariots of Fire won best picture over Reds, On Golden Pond and Raider of the Lost Ark (all of which were much better). Bogus.
And Atlantic City was nominated for best picture. That film sucked -- a dispicable film about dispicable people, without meaning.