Grouching About the Oscars

[vovat]

I guess the Oscars are going to be televised this year, despite the rumors that they weren't? Anyway, I have seen a grand total of two of the Oscar-nominated films. One is The Golden Compass, which is nominated for art direction (and rightly so, I would say). The other is Sicko, nominated for best feature-length documentary. I have to wonder why The Simpsons Movie didn't get a nomination, not because I think it's an Oscar-worthy film, but just because you'd think they'd want something to add to the three nominees for Best Animated Film. I'll probably see and enjoy some of the Academy-lauded films in the future, but I'm just not so keen on going to the movies. It's expensive, and it can be a hassle to find a good time. I believe I only saw seven movies from 2007 in the theater, and three of them were connected with properties that I enjoy (The Golden Compass and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix on books, and The Simpsons Movie on the show). Two others (Spider-Man 3 and Saw IV) were sequels, and another (Halloween) a remake. As far as I can recall, the only truly original film that I saw in a theater last year was a documentary.

So, because of my own viewing habits, I can't comment on most of the choices. It does deeply disturb me, however, that Norbit was nominated for something. As if it isn't bad enough that filmmakers keep putting out these "Hey, aren't fat people funny?" movies, the Academy has to encourage them by implying that a fat suit is one of the three best uses of makeup in any movie released last year. Also, why were three different songs from Enchanted nominated? I mean, I haven't seen the movie or heard the songs, so maybe they all really do deserve it, but it still kind of strikes me as overkill.

What qualifications does a movie need to qualify for nomination, anyway? I've never been entirely clear on that point.

Comments

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

I just saw an article yesterday-- I don't remember if it was online or in some magazine at my parents' house-- with a headline that went something like "How to make the Oscars better: nominate movies people have heard of."

But I think the Best Animated Feature category has ALWAYS only had three nominees.

I think the only qualifications are that it gets votes.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Well, the thing about the Oscars is that it's really just the movie industry celebrating itself, so I'm not sure why the general public takes it seriously anyway. Saying that a movie won an Oscar is basically saying that people who make movies liked it, which is kind of saying something, because you'd think they would have higher standards than most of us. Still, it's not a guarantee that anyone else would like it.

But I think the Best Animated Feature category has ALWAYS only had three nominees.

Fair enough. I can't say I've ever heard of Persepolis, though, although I kind of like the name. {g} Having separate categories for cartoons, foreign language films, and documentaries is kind of insulting, because it implies that none of these things are likely to be considered for Best Picture. I guess it's good that they're getting SOME recognition, though.

I think the only qualifications are that it gets votes.

But if every movie made anywhere in the world is eligible, how come the vast majority of the nominees are pretty much always American?

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Yeah, like The English Patient= most BORING MOVIE EVER. But that's just me. And my best friends.

Persepolis is based on a graphic novel-- a YA graphic novel (as most seem to count as) at that-- so that's why I know of it!

Can't answer your last question though.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen The English Patient, but hearing about it generally just makes me think of the Seinfeld episode where Elaine hated it.