comment #1

NDH says ...

If the Academy just wants to reward popularity, as opposed to art, they might as well establish a rule that automatically gives the Best Picture Oscar to the year's highest grossing film. That's essentially where they're heading anyway.

Personally, I think AMPAS has a responsibility to pick high-minded, though-provoking, intellectual movies, as the Oscars are the only real venue for these films to shine. Plus, it seems the mindless masses need to be reminded every year of what constitutes a good movie, and were the Oscars to award films like Marley & Me, it would only justify the mediocre taste of the average moviegoer. As soon as the Academy caves in and becomes the People's Choice Awards, we can say goodbye to any film that tries to elevate the money-grubbing, uninspired world of cinema.

comment #2

titwhistler says ...

Haven't they already broadened their standards by passing out hardware to the likes of Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, Chicago, and LOTR? Dumbing it down any further would turn it into the Golden Globes.

comment #3

Bilge says ...

I don't understand how Goldstein can be writing this article right now, at this point in time. The Oscars are many things, but elitist is most certainly not one of them. Indeed, poor box office performance is often a good way for a film to cripple its box office chances. These are the people who give awards to Lord of the Rings, Titanic, The Departed, Charlize Theron, and Halle Berry. There's nothing wrong with those choices (for the most part), but they're hardly anyone's idea of highbrow.

comment #4

George Prager says ...

The Academy is not an organization that cares about motion pictures. The Academy's sole purpose is to tell seventysomethings that they should drive (or be driven to) the Commack Multiplex and spend $6.00 to see MILK and BENJAMIN BUTTON.

comment #5

drbob says ...

I passionately love movies, but I couldn't give two figs about the Oscars or any other awards show.

comment #6

DarthCorleone says ...

Goldstein's statement quoted here doesn't even make complete sense to me.

How does one define "skill and craftmanship" as opposed to "aesthetic and social importance?" The former indicates to me a non-mainstream attribute, unless you're talking about the "skill and craftmanship" of getting people in the seats. "Aesthetic" does indicate a less mainstream attribute, but the question of "social importance" could be interpreted in varied ways - some related to outright audience popularity and some not.

Actually, I've always thought of the Best Director award as being the forum for a more artistic slant and the Best Picture award as being an opportunity to distinguish a film that has a more socially influenced appeal. That's not a hard and fast rule for me (certainly something groundbreaking artistically should be worthy of Best Picture), but it's something to consider.

Regardless of the semantics, I do agree with you Jeff and the commenters above. The Oscars are mainstream enough, and if film is stay a vitally important element of our culture, it doesn't hurt to remind the public that there is an art to it outside of Forrest Gump, The Dark Knight, etc.

We don't "put" the Oscar movies in limited release with the aim of depriving audiences. Public demand and the market do. That's the end of this equation that needs to be altered: the demand - not the supply.

Good lord, things are already dumbed down enough, and it's already enough not to make a movie with flatulence and blows-to-the-groin humor. Put a little faith in the common person to not only occasionally skip the stupid movie of the week that had the marketing push but to maybe understand and appreciate the more artistic alternative as well. The problem is a vicious circle; it's not a straight line. Consciously altering the standard of the Academy Awards will only make the circle a more inescapable one.

comment #7

Josh Massey says ...

I'm reading Goldstein's comments a little differently. He's not arguing that the Oscars should nominate Mamma Mia for Best Picture. He's saying that they're routinely rewarding allegedly decent films with politically correct messages, instead of singling out the best overall work.

Can anybody argue Crash was the best film of 2005? That An Inconvenient Truth was really the best documentary of 2006? That eventual nominee Milk is one of this year's five best? Probably not, but they allowed voters to affirm their own beliefs and pat themselves on the back while checking the right box.

comment #8

Krillian says ...

The Academy's been this way always, struggling between what it thinks will stand the test of time as art, and what's just popular that year. That swings us back and forth between crap like The Greatest Show on Earth winning and deserving movies like E.T. getting dismissed for Gandhi. Does anyone remember A Beautiful Mind that fondly, aside from Crowe's work?

comment #9

Glenn Kenny says ...

Darth Corleone nails it:

"How does one define 'skill and craftmanship' as opposed to 'aesthetic and social importance?'"

As idiots go, Goldstein isn't even a useful one. Never has been.

comment #10

tmurry says ...

I think this is one of those instances of drift of an idea deriving from lazy thinking. The idea that the academy is out of touch because it is not mainstream enough derives, I think, from the fact that what is remembered by many as the academy's biggest (and most telling) mistake - the win by Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan - was an issue of disregarding a more commercial film. This idea sort of sits out there, unexamined, waiting for unsuspecting bloggers to try and apply it broadly.

Is the Academy too far its own asshole - yes. Does it need to broaden its criteria - yes. Is the problem that is disregards mainstream fare - no. The diverse level of opinion on the internet, driven by the fact that there are now 25 year olds who have seen 10,000 movies (among other things) has lead to the developments of a lot of critical approaches, and a sense that there are competing groups of canons/consensuses that sort of morph on the fly. There is no way the Academy could keep up with this completely but they don't even try and today's broader critical audience shines a light on the deficiencies of an institution that cares more about a inviolate set of signifiers (it doesn't help that this set includes "social import," which Oscar has a horrible track record of recognizing authentic examples of, and "the importance of art" which is applied by promoting any movie which aggrandizes their jobs - see, again, Shakespeare in Love) than what the "best" is.

It's been a while now that the Academy has been seen not as the objective standard of quality but as signifying a type of film which doesn't completely eschew the mainstream (although the Venn diagram intersect is not huge), but indicates the product of one value system that doesn't represent the high end of a unified spectrum it is one bit of quality information (this has been true at least since the early 80's, probably a lot earlier. In the past few years, however, their value criteria (probably due to exposure and comparison to more robust gauges of quality more than change in the criteria or even the context) have started to look more irrelevant.

comment #11

Chase Kahn says ...

"Anyone who cares about real film art needs to ensure that the game is defined and controlled by denizens of those small pockets of urban America. Once an awards show starts taking into account the opinions of Average Joes in Fresno and Abilene and Trenton, it's finished."

Brilliant. I don't want Joe in Fresno seeing 'There WIll Be Blood', either. I hate the fact that my novice, poor taste sister has seen and loved 'Slumdog Millionaire' when I saw it two and half months ago...

comment #12

T. Holly says ...

Ah Glenn, maybe you could go to the Cinema Eye Honors this year and lend a voice. I was just about to post this on your pal Karina's site:

Cinema Eye became Bert Parks channeled through Sarah Palin this year, to wit ,"Another thing is the extraordinary craft in the film, particularly in the cinematography and editing, which creates this sense of fragility and beauty." What? When you're done shaking your head, heed the rally to "realize the movement" and lay claim to the genre's "return to its roots" via a "Nonfiction New Wave."

comment #13

Mr. Buckles says ...

The Academy Awards will always be a mutual admiration society and grab ass - stars, producers and directors tossing each other's salads. Did I mention that EVERYONE at the Oscars is a genius and usually a total blowhard?

To begin with, you think you can judge artistic merit accurately? To note the difference between Scary Movie XIV and Frozen River isn't even necessary; it's like telling me that broccoli is better for me than Cheetos. Good fucking lord, I know that (but I still like me some Cheetos). But at least food can be measured in calories, how the fuck do you measure the difference between There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men or Transformers? Box Office - oh wait, nevermind.

I also think that the notion that movies used to be a whole lot better, artful, honest - not as cynical about making money - is hogwash. Nostalgia is the cheapest and easiest form of currency to counterfeit. Anyone want to force a musical number into a scene?

The very notion that assclowns demand pageants to give people trophies is demeaning to the art it supposedly serves. Really, I just want to know who made the dress that someone affixed a squirrel's nest to (Len Tuckwilla perhaps?).

You know what, I recall hearing everyone complain about the Coens last year b/c they weren't blowing everyone and properly in awe and impressed. You give proper artists their due and I think many feel this way deep down; they probably make movies in spite of and because of mainstream popularity fests that had many seeking refuge the corners of their high school halls growing up. The glowing ones (Halle Berry) are just the kings and queens of their Prom (and Halle, we want that Oscar back).

Making fun of the Oscars is just as bad. If I didn't care, why would I spend the time to even write this port no one cares about? You know why? Because I'm a hypocrite.

comment #14

arturobandini2 says ...

AMPAS will gain credibility with me when they get around to nominating Isabelle Huppert just once for Best Actress in anything. As far as skill and craftmanship go, has any actor been braver or more consistently on-target these last 20 years?

The Oscars suck for basically two reasons:

1) It takes tremendous audacity to declare anything "Best" when you admit you haven't seen everything -- and 50% of what you have seen is on screeners (which are too easy to turn off). It's always struck me as odd that the Oscar awards aren't called "Most Popular ___," because it's obviously a popularity contest. So are film festivals, but at least the judges have to watch every competing film, and the awards themselves have non-exclusive names like "The Gold Palm" and "The Silver Lion."

2) The Academy's judging criteria always rewards the work that calls the most attention to itself, when the best editing, directing, acting, etc. should really be inivisible. The most lavish period costumes always win, as do the loudest/schmaltziest scores, the most gimmicky original scripts, the actor wearing the most latex or playing the most self-destructive celebrity (or both), etc. Imagine making an annual trip to a whorehouse and always choosing the trollop who wears the most makeup and fingers herself.

Which is why, if Kristin Scott Thomas isn't at least nominated this year, why bother to watch? The Oscars ARE the People's Choice Awards already. Diamonds and limos and $10,000 gowns have nothing to do with good filmmaking.

comment #15

the400blows says ...

The Academy does NOT acknowledge high brow art--that's essentially left to the Independent Spirit Awards. If the Academy did acknowledge high brow art, then they would nominate "Wendy and Lucy" this year. However, I don't see that happening. The biggest problem with the Academy is that they have no mind of their own. Most of them are too lazy to do their own research and rely far too much on the press for answers. For example, MIlk and Benjamin Button are over-rated and neither of them deserve to get nominated for Best Picture. But because the press likes them, they'll probably get nominated. I thought Frost/Nixon was a much better political bio-pic than Milk. I think Doubt should win the Oscar for Best Picture because it's the most thought-provoking film I have seen all year. I thought Revolutionary Road was brilliant and Kate Winslet should finally win an Oscar for Best Actress. I saw The Wrestler and thought it was all right but doesn't deserve to get nominated for Best Picture. (Although Mickey Rourke does deserve to get nominated for Best Actor.)

comment #16

lipranzer says ...

If all Goldstein's point was we should honor good mainstream movies like, say, THE DARK KNIGHT and WALL*E, I'm all for that. But sadly, right now, those are the exception, not the rule, and the Oscars should be about the best films, period, no matter how little or how much money they make, and whether they try for broad appeal or niche appeal.

comment #17

Sabina E says ...

@ Krillian:

dude, you actually think "E.T" is more deserving of an Oscar than "Gandhi"??? o_O

although I cannot argue with you about The Greatest Show on Earth being a crappy film.

and Darth definitely got this statement RIGHT:

"How does one define 'skill and craftmanship' as opposed to 'aesthetic and social importance?'"

I don't see how you can separate art from politics.

Remember this classic quote? "Art is not a mirror-- it is a hammer."

as for the Oscars-- I am very mixed on this. On one hand, the Oscars is a self-congratulatory masturbatory session, and on another hand, it can also be great for recognizing "little known" films that many Americans never bothered to see (see No Country for Old Men, as an example).

I respect the fact that the Academy Awards actually give out awards to cinematographers, scene designers, sound effects, make-up, costumes, etc, while other popular awards do not.

anyway, ask me again when I am 30, and then maybe I'll make up my mind about the Oscars.

comment #18

televisiontears says ...

Not to go all Lennon-y but imagine a world with no Oscars. Imagine great films being released without unnecessary hype and predictions. No fanfare, just films people love and hate and the dialogue that follows. Imagine a world without creepily disingenuous emotional manipulation like Pursuit of Happyness and The Soloist. Or a world without pseudo-socially-important obvious bullshit like Crash. Imagine decent films being released around the calendar, as opposed to the November/December clusterfuck.

I hate this time of year.

comment #19

Glenn Kenny says ...

@T Holly—Wow, rhapsodizing like a failed ESL student really IS all the rage nowadays, huh? And the Cinema Eye people are supposed to be high-minded. Oh well. A lot of "progressives" like Maya Angelou, too...

Another thing that cracks me up about Goldstein's conception of "elite art" is that it falls short on both fronts. I think if something by Jacques Rivette, never mind Pedro Costa, were to find its way into Goldstein's consciousness, his self-satisfied head would likely explode.

comment #20

btwnproductions says ...

The blockbusters are often as lacking in craft as they are in content. There's nothing to nominate.

And, yes, E.T. and Tootsie were more deserving of the 1982 Oscar than Gandhi, a respectable, passionless biopic. Missing and The Verdict were no slouches either. But voters were swayed by the subject and the decades-long effort to bring it to the screen. "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

comment #21

Jonah says ...

"Can anybody argue Crash was the best film of 2005? That An Inconvenient Truth was really the best documentary of 2006? That eventual nominee Milk is one of this year's five best? Probably not, but they allowed voters to affirm their own beliefs and pat themselves on the back while checking the right box."

I could definitely make those last two arguements.

comment #22

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Deaf,

Do you really have a problem with E.T., or are you just a devious instigator? That's a beautiful damn film. One of the select few from my very early childhood that I've found actually holds up.

I actually don't trust anyone that can watch the conclusion of that film and not mist up even a little.

comment #23

Sabina E says ...

CitizenKaned, trust me, I love E.T and it's definitely one of the most moving films (and yes, one of my faves).

I was born in 1982 and I grew up with a stuffed E.T toy.

of course I have a soft spot for E.T, fuckinggoddamnit. but I dont think it was Oscar-worthy, but then again maybe I really don't know any shit what exactly "Oscar-worthy" means.

comment #24

T. Holly says ...

@Glenn Kenny -- And the Cinema Eye people are supposed to be high-minded. Oh well. A lot of "progressives" like Maya Angelou, too...

Exactly, don't give up man, I hear from them that not enough people review docs the way they want. Do you think you're not qualified?

comment #25

erniesouchak says ...

Hey, don't diss the Queen! If the Academy were true to its mission, it wouldn't televise the awards at all. Then again, that would leave it with no money.

comment #26

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Ohh, I see, Deaf. Yeah, I really can't see E.T. winning the Best Picture Oscar, either. But maybe that's just a mental block on my part because it *didn't* win, ya know?

Man, it's only January 2nd and I am absolutely exhausted by Academy Awards talk already. Fuckinggoddamnit, indeed.

comment #27

Chase Kahn says ...

Televisiontears: I agree with everything you said until the last line, "I hate this time of year". What?

Get back to me in April. Honestly, I live for the November/December movie rush -- I think it's a blast.

comment #28

corey3rd says ...

The Oscars are an industry award show that's meant to give the industry a ton of free publicity. The Oscar season is supposed to help sell movie tickets. It generates buzz for the wannabes, the nominees and the winners. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's whether you get that magic bounce when it comes to moving tickets or DVDs.

comment #29

Agent of Nerd 1 says ...

Plenty of elitist dickbags have the Wrestler and Slumdog Millionaire at or near the top of their ten best lists. Both will get Oscar nominations. The Independent Spirit Awards Best Feature trophy has gone to Juno, Little Miss Sunshine, and Brokeback Mountain the last three years. All Oscar nominated films that received a fair share of critical support and achieved solid box office success. Why is E.T. regularly included on lists of the 100 greatest films ever made but somehow not worthy of Best Picture status? Too popular?
I think the mainstream public isn't as ignorant as people on movie websites make them out to be, and cinephiles don't have such remarkable taste after all. The Oscars are bullshit because you can't prove that Scorsese is a better director than Eastwood or Ang Lee. It's art and we all have different interpretations and opinions. The Oscars are entertaining bullshit if you enjoy sharing opinions and debating each other's various interpretations.
If you think there is any greater value to any of this than that, you're kidding yourself.

comment #30

televisiontears says ...

Chase Kahn, perhaps I generalized a bit. I love seeing a really decent film nearly every week, but the shadow of potential validation by a meaningless society hangs thick over these films, and it sickens me a little more each year.

One one hand we have some of the best films of the year, week after week, but on the other it feels cheapened by the publicists and speculative articles. Sometimes, it feels like it's not about the movies anymore (as many on this thread have pointed out in greater detail).

comment #31

btwnproductions says ...

Slumdog Millionaire, despite the unconventional structure and "exotic" locale, is a crowdpleaser through and through. Nothing "elitist dickbag" about it--and with Fox Searchlight having lost out on Best Picture two years in a row, I think the industry town will finally reward its "dependie" underdog. (I doubt The Wrestler, from the same distributor, will wrestle more than a Best Actor nom.)

Looking back on it, 1982 was a classic spread-the-wealth situation, with an ultra-popular family fantasy and a big-hit comedy nominated, a biopic, a courtroom melodrama (with a stealth "uplift" component) and a bleak, left-leaning political thriller all nominated for Best Picture. It's a nice mix, even if the most conventional choice won.

comment #32

Josh Massey says ...

I still think Rocky III shoulda won in '82...

comment #33

BurmaShave says ...

I think the only issue that really matters is that THE DARK KNIGHT is one of the 5 best films of the year. Goldstein is stil a toolbox though.

comment #34

btwnproductions says ...

Nah. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. "Khaaannnnnn!"

comment #35

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

"Look at the recipients of the People's Choice Awards. It''s like a vision of narcotized hell. This year they have Queen Latifah as their spokesperson, for heavens sake."

You mean Queen Latifah the Oscar-nominee for "Chicago"?

I'm no particular fan, but anyone who was Oscar-nominated has awards -show cred if nothing else. Even Cuba Gooding.

comment #36

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

I've been on the fence about Goldstein since his column began, but this one is pushing me into "He's an idiot" camp.

Which Oscars has he been watching the last 5 years???? It's nothing but crowd pleasers these day. They gave Scorsese the award for one of his weakest films, for chrissakes.

comment #37

Doug says ...

I think screeners are part of the reason for the disconnect between Academy Members and the audience. Academy members are seeing films they never would have seen otherwise, movies not yet released on DVD and that are only playing in a few theaters around the country. So we get Oscars like Marcia Gay Harden for "Pollack" instead of Kate Hudson in "Almost Famous" and the public goes, "Huh?"

comment #38

byanyother says ...

The reason Goldstein is doing this is because the Oscars have marginalized themselves. Even though they operate under a delusion that the best films are being recognized, really, it's mostly the flavor of the month and it doesn't last. Many of the films that have been ignored by Oscar over the years were ignored because the films were considered beneath their tastes. This is why the French humiliate us continually and why it took their collective insight to recognize Alfred Hitchcock as an artist.

comment #39

actionman says ...

http://www.variety.com/VR1117997910.html

Shit, Travolta's son died. What a terrible thing. Just awful. Parents should never outlive their children.

comment #40

BurmaShave says ...

That's a nightmare. Thoughts going out to the Travoltas right now.

comment #41

K. Bowen says ...

". So we get Oscars like Marcia Gay Harden for "Pollack" instead of Kate Hudson in "Almost Famous" and the public goes, "Huh?" "

Are you upset about this? This looks awfully prescient in retrospect.

comment #42

K. Bowen says ...

I believe critics ignore popularity at their own peril. Sometimes the audience has a better idea of what is going on culturally than a critical elite. There were a lot of art films in the eighties that we were all supposed to be watching nowadays. Where are they, exactly?

This year, the problem is a bit of the opposite, though. Goldberg appears to have a point. If the predictions hold, the Academy could nominate two films that are both popular and critical favorites (Dark Knight, WallE). But they appear to be more interested in less critically successful box office mediocrities.

I mean, WallE is a much bigger critical and popular success than Frost/Nixon. So why in the world would the Academy go about nominating the latter over the forner? Just because the former is an animated picture and therefore incorrectly assumed to be entertainment, while the latter is about an allegedly importat event? Yet that is what people seem to think is going to happen.

comment #43

Agent of Nerd 1 says ...

btwnproductions, I agree with you completely about Slumdog, and that was exactly my point. It's the movie website regular gnashing his teeth about the lack of quality at the Oscars, and alleging his superiority over the rest of the population that I'm taking issue with. The majority of films on critics top ten lists are popular choices. Slumdog, The Wrestler, Wall-E and The Dark Knight appear again and again. I like all these movies, but how is this at all different from the popularity contest sponsored by the Academy? The movie nerds are bigger fanatics than your average small town barber, but that just foolishly leads them to believe that their generic, same-as-the-next-guy choices for best film are somehow more insightful and erudite. They are no better than the guy who loves Top Gun. They have different prejudices, but they are lemmings just the same. When will a quality action film or comedy that isn't drowning in cynicism win something? When the Academy fails spectacularly (Crash) it's when they try too hard to be "elitist dickbags". That was what I meant by that. Even the dickbags aren't really dickbags. They just want to be. And that's just as pathetic as crying at the end of Armageddon, as far as I'm concerned. Okay, maybe not that pathetic. But it's close.

comment #44

Jeremy Fassler says ...

I think that occasionally the Academy sees itself as a social messenger. They shouldn't have to do that. MILK is a solid picture with some great performances, but if it wins Best Picture it'll be because of politics, not because of the filmmaking. And those kinds of movies are the ones that don't hold up great in later years. If MILK wins over something like SLUMDOG, people will wonder what the Academy was thinking. Look at GANDHI over THE VERDICT or E.T. No question that there were better movies that year than GANDHI, but GANDHI had the strongest message, so it won.

Honestly, I'm upset right now that REVOLUTIONARY ROAD isn't getting the due it deserves. I was talking with a friend last night who lashed into it, and I think it must really rub people the wrong way with its attack on marriage and suburbia. MILK leaves everyone feeling like they saw something significant and politically relevant--including me. Maybe that's what puts it over the top at the end of the day.

comment #45

scooterzz says ...

so many people make it sound like academy members actually confer on how votes will be cast...it really doesn't happen like that....

many people also make the assumption that votes are cast for 'political reasons'.....well, not as much as you'd (apparently) think.....

if you look to the archives for discussions of past nominations, you'll find endless variations of the exact same topics being railed at this year....

i guess the question is, "when will people stop bitching about the academy awards presentation and just accept it for what it's been for eight decades?"...seriously....

comment #46

D.Z. says ...

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/john-travoltas-16-year-old-son-dies-in-bahamas/17122?nc

comment #47

Mr Bohemian says ...

seriously, The good films will always be discovered and championed and become art of the lexicon where the soup of the day will grow cold and be forgotten. Only due to people like us who care enough to tell people about what a film meant to us.

comment #48

BurmaShave says ...

D.Z., not to trivialize something so sad with my annoyance, but seriously:

http://www.variety.com/VR1117997910.html

Shit, Travolta's son died. What a terrible thing. Just awful. Parents should never outlive their children.

Posted by actionman Author Profile Page at January 2, 2009 8:56 PM

comment #49

Josh Massey says ...

Saw Benjamin Button last night. Didn't believe I wouldn't absolutely love a Fincher/Pitt collaboration - but man, that was spectacularly unspectacular. Not a bad film, sort of a pretty good one, but not nearly what I expected those creative elements to pour out.

And it'll probably win Best Picture, as the Academy has no imagination.

comment #50

byanyother says ...

Josh, Slumdog is winning Best Picture. It has no challenger so you can lay off Benjamin Button for now. I'd say it's taken enough of a beating.

comment #51

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Burmashave - There was no way D.Z. was going to let someone other than him hijack the thread. He lives for links like this.

comment #52

masanf says ...

"list of the ten most popular films of any given year makes it clear that average ticket-buyers only occasionally care about "high standards." They mostly like movies that provide laughs, jolt rides, cheap cries and wish-fulfillment fantasies. Look at the recipients of the People's Choice Awards. It''s like a vision of narcotized hell. This year the PCA's have Queen Latifah as their spokesperson, for heavens sake."

After reading quotes like this, I just don't get why a majority of Americans find the Oscars to be a bunch of worthless nonsense put on by a bunch of elitist millionaires for the sole purpose of patting themselves on the back for making boring crap.

comment #53

masanf says ...

And Gwyneth Paltrow has an Oscar for God's sake. That is as poignant an argument as one needs to disregard the notion that the Oscars are about "high standards".

comment #54

masanf says ...

"Can anybody argue Crash was the best film of 2005? That An Inconvenient Truth was really the best documentary of 2006? That eventual nominee Milk is one of this year's five best? Probably not, but they allowed voters to affirm their own beliefs and pat themselves on the back while checking the right box."

"I could definitely make those last two arguements. "

If you can make the argument that a hypocritical ass standing in front of a crowd giving a Power Point presentation represents the pinnacle of the documentary filmmaking art, I would love to read it.
The Academy's choices for best documentary, more than anything else, provide proof to a whole heck of a lot of people that the main criterion for winning anything is having the "proper" politics.

comment #55

Jonah says ...

"If you can make the argument that a hypocritical ass standing in front of a crowd giving a Power Point presentation represents the pinnacle of the documentary filmmaking art, I would love to read it.
The Academy's choices for best documentary, more than anything else, provide PROOF to a whole heck of a lot of people that the main criterion for winning anything is having the "proper" politics."

Okay then, what's the proof? Or is it just your biased opinion? I'm ready to hear the proof when you're ready to provide it.

comment #56

MTS Converter says ...

Thank you for submitting this cool story - Trackback from Dotbot.

comment #57

shaomiaoshelley says ...

MTS Converter is an excellent mts conversion software that can convert mts files to other video and audio formats. In addition, The MTS Converter can convert mts, ts, trp hd video files perfectly and quickly.

comment #58

bony says ...

There are 4 solutions below for iPhone users to Convert DVD to iPhone.
Thus you can easily enjoy dvd movies on iPhone or iPhone 3GS.
DVD to iPhone Converter, is designed to help you rip DVD movies and convert DVD to iPhone video,
FREE and EASY TO USE

comment #59

weid502 says ...

After a long time of searching on various of websites on this winter vacation, at last I find this delicate Mac DVD Copy with easy outlooking but powerful functions. I am a fan of dvd software and interested in studying neo-developed ones. Fortunately, the operating system of my PC is mac and this portable device runs well on it.
I would like to tell you how to use it with very simple words.After installing it, you click the Full Mode button or Main Movie button to select the copy mode that your need, and then elect the copy source from the pull-down menu of source. Finally click button to start the copy.
It is very easy to operate it and what you need is just a few clicks.

Copy DVD on Mac

Mac DVD Cloner

comment #60

free online games says ...

Hello site owner, a big heads up for providing this unique info... I found it very useful. Regards, ...

comment #61

dd says ...

If you can make the argument that a hypocritical ass standing in front of a crowd giving a Power Point presentation represents the pinnacle of the documentary filmmaking art, I would love to read it.
The Academy's choices for best documentary, more than anything else, provide proof to a whole heck of a lot of people that the main criterion for winning anything is having the "proper" politics.

Designer Handbags

comment #62

soft27 says ...

iPad 動画変換
iPad Max
DVD iPad変換

comment #63

kastablog says ...

However, even when he falters, his films are always interesting, especially his dialogue, which you have to admit IS (and has always been) original. To call him the Michael Bay of drama is completely inaccurate and unfounded because a) Tarantino makes comedies, b) Bay's editing style is the complete opposite of Tarantino's, c) QT is a true cinephile, as his influences clearly span nearly all of world cinema (whereas Bay seems influenced entirely by 80s American action cinema of Jerry Bruckheimer/Don Simpson/Joel Silver/Tony Scott, d) Bay is not a screenwriter (thank God), purely a director-for-hire.
Show me the quote where Avary says Quentin is a bad writer. Or save yourself the trouble, you won't find one. Post-Tarantino, Avary's writing credits include such gems as Driver, Beowulf, and Return to Castle Wolfenstein -- I think he's missing Quentin's a helluva lot more than vice versa. Perhaps for his "comeback", Roger can do an interesting documentary on the effects of DUI/manslaughter.

"No, based on production, location, and shooting costs, versus the actual demand for it."

Actual demand for WHAT? It's a script, you imbecile. It's impossible to weigh demand for fictional works in any sort of monetary way so that you could weigh it against factors such as production costs. By the way, trying to estimate production costs from even the most detailed script is impossible because there are a million different ways of interpreting words on a page into moving images onscreen. That is the director's job.

Jesus Christ, you spend so much time on movie sites one would think you would know something about movies, if only by accident.
You mean the song that was actually amusing, and not that lame-ass Black Eyed Peas shit?"

More like a singer so desperate for attention, she has to resort to making fun of a one-hit wonder, because she's that washed up.

"So by that rational, My Best Friend's Birthday is a great Tarantino film."

Well, yeah, if he probably didn't see other camcorder recordings over the years.

"And that's all you got, isn't it?"

That's all he's got, really.

"Oh, and the car was moving. And the cars were trying to ram each other off the road. Normally all that constitutes "action" even without the stunt person hanging onto the hood for dear life. See any Michael Bay film."

Michael Bay films would include shoot-outs and jumping
from one car to another.

"What kind of bizarro definition of the world libel are you using?"

Ask QT, not me.

"Both. So where's the quote, then?"

His dead site. He was saying that he had to correct the grammar and that a big chunk of Pulp Fiction was his material.

"I guess that means "Standing Still" and "Phantasm IV" are fair game for Avary, then."

How about a Muppets special for QT?

"Nah...a Folger's commercial might suffice, tho."

How about a CSI appearance?

Kecil Jadi Kawan, Besar Jadi Lawan
kastablog
javahostindo web hosting indonesia
bennydwimahendra
civillaw77
civillaw77
dicitu

comment #64

istanbul says ...

travesti genclik kolları başkanı sayın travesti carpici aciklamalarda bulundu nolcak bu vip travestiler in hali bilmiyorum. travesti

comment #65

istanbul says ...

sikismek isteyen kizlar istanbulda nerde bulunur bilinmez porno izlemek icin porno izle tikla sende gel turkce porno izle guzel sikis icin lolita porno

comment #66

dicknoe says ...

Nice shared friend, i like that...
blog lucui indo informasi blog bisa - bisanya give info terbaru indonesia , berita game online and law loans consolidation . manuk kluruk .
Thanks. :)

comment #67

Kodak Sport zx3 says ...

very nice post! That swings us back and forth between crap like The Greatest Show on Earth winning and deserving movies like E.T. getting dismissed for Gandhi. Does anyone remember A Beautiful Mind that fondly, aside from Crowe's work?

460 sli benchmark | 580 benchmark | 570 benchmark | 560 Ti benchmark | 6990 benchmark | 590 benchmark | 480 benchmark | 6970 benchmark | 5670 benchmark | 4670 benchmark | 6850 benchmark | 6870 benchmark | 6950 benchmark | Black Ops benchmark | 5870 benchmark | 5850 benchmark | 5830 benchmark | The Witcher 2 benchmark | gt 240 benchmark | 295 benchmark | 5450 benchmark | 5570 benchmark

comment #68

kaos futsal says ...

When you're done shaking your head, heed the rally to "realize the movement" and lay claim to the genre's "return to its roots" via a "Nonfiction New Wave."

baju futsal | jersey futsal | kaos bola