Tuesday, March 25, 2008

The Oscars

You won't find a bigger movie fan than me. I love movies so much it's scary. I worked in a video store for nine years and took full advantage of it. Watching and reading about movies has probably consumed about half my life at this point. I've seen thousands, and am clearly obsessed. However, keeping that in mind, I have absolutely no interest in the Oscars. I never watch the broadcast. Besides being a banal display of emptiness, fit only for vapid entertainment news programs, that is completely at odds with the supposed "foreign", pseudo-intellectual bent of whoever decides who is nominated.
It is really now simply a display of snobbish, elitist liberalism (is there any other kind?), because 99 percent of Hollywood is liberal, and those who aren't are scorned and not showered with awards. If you don't toe the party line, your artistic endeavor suddenly isn't worth awarding.

This is evidenced by the fact that many foreigners win the awards and films with an anti-American tendency always seem to win. It could be just that those films are better. I don't know, you be the judge, I haven't seen any of them.

Sacheen

But I have a theory about how the movies are chosen to be nominees. Haven't you ever noticed that ONLY movies that come out right before the awards show, say about three months or less before the telecast, seem to be the ones nominated? Apparently the crusty old dinosaurs that are the great arbiters of taste can't remember back much farther. If you were to release an awesome, Oscar-worthy film in the months following the awards, woe be to you. You won't be nominated. But if Michael Moore vomits forth another propaganda piece a month before the awards, he is an artistic genius. They should either have two or more Academy awards shows per year, and make them much less showy and long, so EVERYONE gets a chance, or they should try their best to remember the films that are released during other times of the year besides RIGHT before the Oscars.

No comments: