The Oscars: Too New, or Too Old?
As a New Age Democrat, I am also a huge fan of movies. Or, to be more accurate, I am a huge fn of movies that speak about the human condition and give us advice on how to improve it. Thus, I like movies that provide a message instead of seeking to merely entertain. I like movies that show real tensions in life and suggest ways to resolve them. I especially like movies that show the use of technology or communication to change the way we live or understand the way we live. For instance, one of the recent movies I like is "Cellular", which shows the use of information technology to save a woman from kidnappers and put kidnappers in prison.
The biggest problem with being New Age - loving information technology and all the empowerment it brings - is that there is too much information. There are too many movies to watch, too many channels to watch on Cable and Network television, too many books to read, too many newspaper articles to read from around the world, and too many events to be aware of. Consequently, I rely on rankings to help guide me to the best. I also rely on reviews. I have used books reviews to guide me to helpful political books and steer clear of unhelpful fiction. Thus, I own MoveOn.org's 50 ways to help your country, and I have not read a single line of "The Corrections", by Jonathan Franzen. The former provides useful advice to make a difference while the latter shows the horrible condition of some people without offering advice about how to help that condition. I know this from the reviews. Simply put, I choose to be inspired by movies and television shows that I watch, or by books and articles that I read. If I know that something probably won't inspire me, I stay away from it.
Hence, we come to Sunday night's Oscar show. There are too divergent opinions on the show. One offered by USA Today and the other offered by The New York Times. USA Today laments the new format of Sunday's show, saying it distracted viewers from the awards themselves. It says that the producers of the show didn't take the Oscars seriously enough, and asks, "Doesn't anyone have a sense of occasion anymore? " The New York Times, in contrast, praises the new format, but says the show is too old for its own good. For the New York Times, the Oscars show takes the Oscars too seriously, especially when there are so many other awards shows that come before the Oscars: The Golden Globes, the Screen Actors Guild, the People's Choice, to name the most prominent awards show. These shows all feature the exact same nominees, the exact same winners, and the exact same speeches for the most part. Consequently, the Oscars offer no surprises, and people simply stop watching.
For people like me, who love movies, the Oscars show offers a form of ritual. I watch the show in order to be inspired. However, I must ask myself: why do I watch only the Oscars to be inspired, and not the many other awards shows? The answer has three parts. First, the Oscars are the most important awards show, so the winner of the Oscars gets promoted more in our media culture. Second, the Oscars has a long history, and the other awards shows don't. Finally, the Oscars highlights movies that I will want to see because I judge the opinion of the actors themselves as more legitimate than the opinions of the audience. I don't watch the Golden Globes because the awards are given by the Foreign Press Association, not by the actors. I don't watch the People's choice awards for the same reason. The closest show to the Oscars is the Screen Actor's Guild because it has an accurate record of predicting the Oscar winner. Yet, the SAG awards lack the history that the Oscars have.
So, what exactly makes the Oscars different from the other awards shows? Here are some important reasons. Actors dream about winning the Oscar, and they prepare their Oscar speeches from childhood. They do not dream of winning the Golden Globe, the People's Choice Award, the SAG, or any other awards. Why don't actors dream about winning other awards? This gets to the second reason why the Oscars are different. The Oscars, because of their history, carry cultural weight. First, they provide some instruction about which movies are important. But, even for the people who follow their own guidance when picking movies, the Oscars tell us who we should admire. This is what makes the Oscars stand out from the other awards programs. The People's Choice Awards and the Golden Globes largely celebrate celebrities. In other words, we watch them because we want to see famous people, and the awards are our way of saying "thank you for being famous."
Yet, fame doesn't actually mean anything. A person must be famous for actually doing something important and intelligent. We live in a celebrity culture that celebritizes people, and popularizes celebrities. This is the seesaw of celebrity culture. Reality shows, awards shows, talk shows, magazines, and other media, take ordinary people, or somewhat interesting people, and tell us, you should like this person because he is a celebrity, even though the person may be no different from any of us. The celebrity is artificial, and it can fade as quickly as it is bestowed on a person. "15 minutes" of fame last ONLY 15 minutes because the famous person isn't actually blessed with any gifts or talent to make us keep paying attention. The awards shows provide the opposite side of the celebrity culture. They take genuinely talented people and tell us, "see these famous people, they are just like you and me, except they are in movies and on TV." Thus, we see genuine talent, and the awards show tells us to ignore the talent, focus on the person. The celebrity is made to be ordinary, thanking mother and father, wife or husband, agent and director. The celebrity merely says, "I am not all that special because I have interesting people around me." This is somewhat accurate, but the real reason the celebrity is surrounded by interesting people is because they share a craft, or an art, and the celebrity happens to be better at the craft than other people.
So, reality TV and minor awards shows tell us to think of ordinary, untalented people as celebrities even though they aren't. Major award shows tell us to think of celebrities as ordinary, untalented people, even though they are not. The Oscars present the only show in which genuinely talented and extraordinary people are minted as the new celebrities, while current celebrities are cherished for their talent and art without trying to pass them off as ordinary. The Oscars draw a line in the sand, saying, some people are talented, most people are not. We give the award for talent, not for the sake of turning people into celebrities. Thus, Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears may be cute, but they have no real talent. The various awards shows that precede the Oscars don't tell us this, but the Oscars can be counted on to shut out Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears. Hence, it is a surprise when Eminem wins an Oscar, but not when Clint Eastwood wins an Oscars. Eminem has been celebritized. He has some talent, but no more talent than anyone else. Clint Eastwood, on the other hand, is a true genius. The Oscars verify this fact while the other award shows try to hide it.
This is ultimately why I watch the Oscars. When celebrities win awards at other shows, they rarely talk about the art or the talent. Instead, they talk about themselves and about each other. We don't expect interesting, thought-provoking speeches, and we are surprised if someone gives such a speech. In contrast, the Oscars gives award winners the chance to talk about the art. That is why we get so bored with the winners merely thanking everyone they know. We not only expect a thought-provoking speech, we desperately want it. We want to be touched emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually by the actors at the Oscars in the same way that their movies or songs have touched us. While other award shows allow us to thank celebrities for being celebrities, the Oscars allow us to thank celebrities and non-celebrities for affecting us deeply and helping to change our lives. This is why it matters that Halle Berry, or Adrien Brody, or Jamie Foxx, or Michael Moore, or Tom Hanks, gives a good, stirring, emotional, thought-provoking speech at the Oscars. At any other award show, the speech is an after-thought. At the Oscars, the speech is the most important part. However, it is only important for the actors, directors and producers. It is not important for the technical people. The technical people do not affect us emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually the way the actors, directors, and musicians do.
So, I consider Oscar night 2005 to not only be a success, but to be the best night ever. First, it had a smart, provocative host, Chris Rock, who told us the truth about movies. Some people have genuine talent, others do not. Movies stars have genuine talent, and that is why they are stars. Everyone else has less talent. Movies should provoke us, not just entertain us. Hence, Farhenheit 9/11 and the Passion of the Christ are more important than Barber Shop or Soul Plane. Chris Rock spoke the truth, and the truth shocked many people in the audience. Next, the awards themselves gave genuinely talented people a chance to speak. It was a pleasure to watch dignified Morgan Freeman accept and award, just as it was a pleasure to watch Cate Blanchett. Both Hilary Swank and Jamie Foxx gave inspiring speeches. I knew they would win, just as I knew the previous actors would win, but I didn't watch to see who would win. I wanted to hear inspiring words. Both Swank and Foxx delivered. Both Swank and Foxx are real people who have lots of talent. That is why they won the awards. We don't watch them to see who will win, we watch to see how they got that talent in the first place. Swank told us: she had a dream. Foxx told us: his grandmother trained him, and he talks to her even though she is dead. Both Freeman and Blanchett gave speeches that didn't address their talent, but that is because they don't have a technique to be talented. Freeman is naturally dignified while Blanchett is naturally poised and independent, just like Katherine Hepburn, who she played in The Aviator.
The other award shows do give the winners the opportunity to make speeches, but the speeches mostly focus on the production process of the art: thanking directors, screenwriters, technicians, etc. The speeches at other awards shows don't aim to make a statement or to inspire. We watch the Oscars because we want the speeches to make inspiring statements. Indeed, it is because we expect serious, inspiring statements that we get alarmed at humorous, ironic statements that winners make, like James Cameron joking that "I'm the king of the world." He was joking, but the rest of Hollywood didn't get the joke.
So, I appreciate the efforts of the Oscars show to become more efficient and entertaining. I want to see speeches by the actors, not by the technical winners. While the technical winners may make humorous statements, I want to be inspired. Oscar night 2005 focused on the actors, not the technical winners. When the technical winners did give boring speeches, at least I had a cool set to look at. I appreciate Chris Rock. He told the truth about movies, about actors, and about the importance of movies. I expect a host to lecture to the audience, because that is the role of the host: assess the good and the bad in the industry, give the audience some way to measure the talent of each actor, or the worth of each movie. Once the host gives the audience the means to measure actors and movies, the audience then determines whether it agrees with the choice of the winner. As a movie lover, I want to have the same power in choosing winners as the actors themselves. Since I don't have that power, I at least want to know whether the choices make sense. If I agree that they make sense, I can spend my time and money to see the movie and check out what I have been missing. The last thing I want is an award show to point me toward a movie or song that isn't really worthy of my time and resources. The Oscars have the credibility, but the other award shows do not. The best movies do not always get nominated, or even win the Oscar, but at least the Oscars give me an accurate indication of what I will probably enjoy. The other award shows tend to give inaccurate indications.
I believe this is why many people have turned away from critics and award shows. They disagree with the judgment of the critics and the assessment of the award shows. Thus, many people go to see movies that they think they will enjoy, only to find that they were fooled by the critic or award show. I don't want to be fooled, and I don't want to go see every movie ever made. Hence, I rely on the Oscar show because its past choices have proven accurate in pointing me toward movies and music that I enjoy. Its past is a heavy factor in the present.
So, I don't really want the Oscars to move into the 21st century, as the New York Times suggests. I want the Oscars to continue to highlight inspiring movies in which characters overcome struggle in order to succeed in an endeavor. I don't want to watch a movie in which characters are falling apart, and I don't want the Oscars to highlight them. People may fall apart and get depressed in real life, but I don't care about real life. My deepest desire is for a movie to give my help in changing real life into something better. A movie with a message is a tool for me to help myself and others. A movie without a message serves no purpose except to entertain, and I don't need to "pass the time". I already have too many things to do in my life, and not enough time to do them. I am not bored or depressed, and I don't want a movie to make me bored or depressed. This is why I dislike "Lost in Translation" and "The Girl with the Pearl Earring". They pass the time more than anything else, and they don't provide me with any help to improve my life. They feature characters who are largely falling apart, and need someone to come to their rescue. I want the Oscars to take movies, and itself, seriously, because I take movies, and myself seriously. I don't laugh at myself, though I laugh easily. Thus I don't expect an awards show to laugh at itself or at me. However, I also want the Oscars, or any awards show, to take the right things seriously, not the wrong things. I don't want to be pointed to things that are meaningless - meaning that they don't help me and only pass the time. I do want to be pointed to things that will give me better tools to deal with the world around me.
Thus, the Oscars must strike a balance: focus on the things that matter to people, and spend less time on things that we don't really care about. Tell me the truth about movies, actors, and different works of art. Don't try to create something out of nothing, or turn something into nothing. Help me distinguish between what is real and what is fake, what is good and what is bad, what is useful and what is useless. If an awards show accomplishes that, I will remember it and cherish it as I watch it.
The biggest problem with being New Age - loving information technology and all the empowerment it brings - is that there is too much information. There are too many movies to watch, too many channels to watch on Cable and Network television, too many books to read, too many newspaper articles to read from around the world, and too many events to be aware of. Consequently, I rely on rankings to help guide me to the best. I also rely on reviews. I have used books reviews to guide me to helpful political books and steer clear of unhelpful fiction. Thus, I own MoveOn.org's 50 ways to help your country, and I have not read a single line of "The Corrections", by Jonathan Franzen. The former provides useful advice to make a difference while the latter shows the horrible condition of some people without offering advice about how to help that condition. I know this from the reviews. Simply put, I choose to be inspired by movies and television shows that I watch, or by books and articles that I read. If I know that something probably won't inspire me, I stay away from it.
Hence, we come to Sunday night's Oscar show. There are too divergent opinions on the show. One offered by USA Today and the other offered by The New York Times. USA Today laments the new format of Sunday's show, saying it distracted viewers from the awards themselves. It says that the producers of the show didn't take the Oscars seriously enough, and asks, "Doesn't anyone have a sense of occasion anymore? " The New York Times, in contrast, praises the new format, but says the show is too old for its own good. For the New York Times, the Oscars show takes the Oscars too seriously, especially when there are so many other awards shows that come before the Oscars: The Golden Globes, the Screen Actors Guild, the People's Choice, to name the most prominent awards show. These shows all feature the exact same nominees, the exact same winners, and the exact same speeches for the most part. Consequently, the Oscars offer no surprises, and people simply stop watching.
For people like me, who love movies, the Oscars show offers a form of ritual. I watch the show in order to be inspired. However, I must ask myself: why do I watch only the Oscars to be inspired, and not the many other awards shows? The answer has three parts. First, the Oscars are the most important awards show, so the winner of the Oscars gets promoted more in our media culture. Second, the Oscars has a long history, and the other awards shows don't. Finally, the Oscars highlights movies that I will want to see because I judge the opinion of the actors themselves as more legitimate than the opinions of the audience. I don't watch the Golden Globes because the awards are given by the Foreign Press Association, not by the actors. I don't watch the People's choice awards for the same reason. The closest show to the Oscars is the Screen Actor's Guild because it has an accurate record of predicting the Oscar winner. Yet, the SAG awards lack the history that the Oscars have.
So, what exactly makes the Oscars different from the other awards shows? Here are some important reasons. Actors dream about winning the Oscar, and they prepare their Oscar speeches from childhood. They do not dream of winning the Golden Globe, the People's Choice Award, the SAG, or any other awards. Why don't actors dream about winning other awards? This gets to the second reason why the Oscars are different. The Oscars, because of their history, carry cultural weight. First, they provide some instruction about which movies are important. But, even for the people who follow their own guidance when picking movies, the Oscars tell us who we should admire. This is what makes the Oscars stand out from the other awards programs. The People's Choice Awards and the Golden Globes largely celebrate celebrities. In other words, we watch them because we want to see famous people, and the awards are our way of saying "thank you for being famous."
Yet, fame doesn't actually mean anything. A person must be famous for actually doing something important and intelligent. We live in a celebrity culture that celebritizes people, and popularizes celebrities. This is the seesaw of celebrity culture. Reality shows, awards shows, talk shows, magazines, and other media, take ordinary people, or somewhat interesting people, and tell us, you should like this person because he is a celebrity, even though the person may be no different from any of us. The celebrity is artificial, and it can fade as quickly as it is bestowed on a person. "15 minutes" of fame last ONLY 15 minutes because the famous person isn't actually blessed with any gifts or talent to make us keep paying attention. The awards shows provide the opposite side of the celebrity culture. They take genuinely talented people and tell us, "see these famous people, they are just like you and me, except they are in movies and on TV." Thus, we see genuine talent, and the awards show tells us to ignore the talent, focus on the person. The celebrity is made to be ordinary, thanking mother and father, wife or husband, agent and director. The celebrity merely says, "I am not all that special because I have interesting people around me." This is somewhat accurate, but the real reason the celebrity is surrounded by interesting people is because they share a craft, or an art, and the celebrity happens to be better at the craft than other people.
So, reality TV and minor awards shows tell us to think of ordinary, untalented people as celebrities even though they aren't. Major award shows tell us to think of celebrities as ordinary, untalented people, even though they are not. The Oscars present the only show in which genuinely talented and extraordinary people are minted as the new celebrities, while current celebrities are cherished for their talent and art without trying to pass them off as ordinary. The Oscars draw a line in the sand, saying, some people are talented, most people are not. We give the award for talent, not for the sake of turning people into celebrities. Thus, Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears may be cute, but they have no real talent. The various awards shows that precede the Oscars don't tell us this, but the Oscars can be counted on to shut out Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears. Hence, it is a surprise when Eminem wins an Oscar, but not when Clint Eastwood wins an Oscars. Eminem has been celebritized. He has some talent, but no more talent than anyone else. Clint Eastwood, on the other hand, is a true genius. The Oscars verify this fact while the other award shows try to hide it.
This is ultimately why I watch the Oscars. When celebrities win awards at other shows, they rarely talk about the art or the talent. Instead, they talk about themselves and about each other. We don't expect interesting, thought-provoking speeches, and we are surprised if someone gives such a speech. In contrast, the Oscars gives award winners the chance to talk about the art. That is why we get so bored with the winners merely thanking everyone they know. We not only expect a thought-provoking speech, we desperately want it. We want to be touched emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually by the actors at the Oscars in the same way that their movies or songs have touched us. While other award shows allow us to thank celebrities for being celebrities, the Oscars allow us to thank celebrities and non-celebrities for affecting us deeply and helping to change our lives. This is why it matters that Halle Berry, or Adrien Brody, or Jamie Foxx, or Michael Moore, or Tom Hanks, gives a good, stirring, emotional, thought-provoking speech at the Oscars. At any other award show, the speech is an after-thought. At the Oscars, the speech is the most important part. However, it is only important for the actors, directors and producers. It is not important for the technical people. The technical people do not affect us emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually the way the actors, directors, and musicians do.
So, I consider Oscar night 2005 to not only be a success, but to be the best night ever. First, it had a smart, provocative host, Chris Rock, who told us the truth about movies. Some people have genuine talent, others do not. Movies stars have genuine talent, and that is why they are stars. Everyone else has less talent. Movies should provoke us, not just entertain us. Hence, Farhenheit 9/11 and the Passion of the Christ are more important than Barber Shop or Soul Plane. Chris Rock spoke the truth, and the truth shocked many people in the audience. Next, the awards themselves gave genuinely talented people a chance to speak. It was a pleasure to watch dignified Morgan Freeman accept and award, just as it was a pleasure to watch Cate Blanchett. Both Hilary Swank and Jamie Foxx gave inspiring speeches. I knew they would win, just as I knew the previous actors would win, but I didn't watch to see who would win. I wanted to hear inspiring words. Both Swank and Foxx delivered. Both Swank and Foxx are real people who have lots of talent. That is why they won the awards. We don't watch them to see who will win, we watch to see how they got that talent in the first place. Swank told us: she had a dream. Foxx told us: his grandmother trained him, and he talks to her even though she is dead. Both Freeman and Blanchett gave speeches that didn't address their talent, but that is because they don't have a technique to be talented. Freeman is naturally dignified while Blanchett is naturally poised and independent, just like Katherine Hepburn, who she played in The Aviator.
The other award shows do give the winners the opportunity to make speeches, but the speeches mostly focus on the production process of the art: thanking directors, screenwriters, technicians, etc. The speeches at other awards shows don't aim to make a statement or to inspire. We watch the Oscars because we want the speeches to make inspiring statements. Indeed, it is because we expect serious, inspiring statements that we get alarmed at humorous, ironic statements that winners make, like James Cameron joking that "I'm the king of the world." He was joking, but the rest of Hollywood didn't get the joke.
So, I appreciate the efforts of the Oscars show to become more efficient and entertaining. I want to see speeches by the actors, not by the technical winners. While the technical winners may make humorous statements, I want to be inspired. Oscar night 2005 focused on the actors, not the technical winners. When the technical winners did give boring speeches, at least I had a cool set to look at. I appreciate Chris Rock. He told the truth about movies, about actors, and about the importance of movies. I expect a host to lecture to the audience, because that is the role of the host: assess the good and the bad in the industry, give the audience some way to measure the talent of each actor, or the worth of each movie. Once the host gives the audience the means to measure actors and movies, the audience then determines whether it agrees with the choice of the winner. As a movie lover, I want to have the same power in choosing winners as the actors themselves. Since I don't have that power, I at least want to know whether the choices make sense. If I agree that they make sense, I can spend my time and money to see the movie and check out what I have been missing. The last thing I want is an award show to point me toward a movie or song that isn't really worthy of my time and resources. The Oscars have the credibility, but the other award shows do not. The best movies do not always get nominated, or even win the Oscar, but at least the Oscars give me an accurate indication of what I will probably enjoy. The other award shows tend to give inaccurate indications.
I believe this is why many people have turned away from critics and award shows. They disagree with the judgment of the critics and the assessment of the award shows. Thus, many people go to see movies that they think they will enjoy, only to find that they were fooled by the critic or award show. I don't want to be fooled, and I don't want to go see every movie ever made. Hence, I rely on the Oscar show because its past choices have proven accurate in pointing me toward movies and music that I enjoy. Its past is a heavy factor in the present.
So, I don't really want the Oscars to move into the 21st century, as the New York Times suggests. I want the Oscars to continue to highlight inspiring movies in which characters overcome struggle in order to succeed in an endeavor. I don't want to watch a movie in which characters are falling apart, and I don't want the Oscars to highlight them. People may fall apart and get depressed in real life, but I don't care about real life. My deepest desire is for a movie to give my help in changing real life into something better. A movie with a message is a tool for me to help myself and others. A movie without a message serves no purpose except to entertain, and I don't need to "pass the time". I already have too many things to do in my life, and not enough time to do them. I am not bored or depressed, and I don't want a movie to make me bored or depressed. This is why I dislike "Lost in Translation" and "The Girl with the Pearl Earring". They pass the time more than anything else, and they don't provide me with any help to improve my life. They feature characters who are largely falling apart, and need someone to come to their rescue. I want the Oscars to take movies, and itself, seriously, because I take movies, and myself seriously. I don't laugh at myself, though I laugh easily. Thus I don't expect an awards show to laugh at itself or at me. However, I also want the Oscars, or any awards show, to take the right things seriously, not the wrong things. I don't want to be pointed to things that are meaningless - meaning that they don't help me and only pass the time. I do want to be pointed to things that will give me better tools to deal with the world around me.
Thus, the Oscars must strike a balance: focus on the things that matter to people, and spend less time on things that we don't really care about. Tell me the truth about movies, actors, and different works of art. Don't try to create something out of nothing, or turn something into nothing. Help me distinguish between what is real and what is fake, what is good and what is bad, what is useful and what is useless. If an awards show accomplishes that, I will remember it and cherish it as I watch it.
posted by Marriah @ 10:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home