Best Actor Oscar 2002
Wed, 3 Apr 2002, 01:43 pmWalter Plinge19 posts in thread
Best Actor Oscar 2002
Wed, 3 Apr 2002, 01:43 pmRussell should have nailed that award but @!#$ does happen these days. If he'd taken the oscar this year instead of last for Gladiator (which he was awesome in - but at heart, was written as a very one dimensional role), the cherry would have been twice as sweet. Imagine that, three consecutive nominations and then on the final, falling ass-backward into Oscar Glory.
Oh well.
Who cares if he gets in a few biffs. Surely that doesn't draw away from his performance, which, lets face it, has raised the benchmark in the history of screen acting. He has every reason to demand respect. He is not paid twenty million a film to 'respect his elders' and be on his 'best behaviour'. He is paid to produce the exemplar final product - which there is no argument, he does.
But, on reflection, Brando did miss out on the Oscar for 'Streetcar.' So this isn't the first time that this has happenned.
Stay cool, everyone.
Oh well.
Who cares if he gets in a few biffs. Surely that doesn't draw away from his performance, which, lets face it, has raised the benchmark in the history of screen acting. He has every reason to demand respect. He is not paid twenty million a film to 'respect his elders' and be on his 'best behaviour'. He is paid to produce the exemplar final product - which there is no argument, he does.
But, on reflection, Brando did miss out on the Oscar for 'Streetcar.' So this isn't the first time that this has happenned.
Stay cool, everyone.
Pushing the Envelope Please
Sat, 6 Apr 2002, 01:12 amKyla Winslet wrote:
-------------------------------
>>If the Oscars are indeed an indication of excellence in acting skills, please explain....
Hi Kyla
It's a popular misconception that awards like the Oscars correlate with excellence.
Any award system for the Arts judged by a relatively small committee (eg. the Board of the Academy) is only going to be representative of that small group's opinion, at that singular moment in time. Why one wins over another is more an arbitrary lottery than a true reflection of value. And why are some nominated in the first place, when some deserving others miss out on getting even that far? (Baz?)
By increasing the size of the judging panel, a more representative opinion can be found (eg People's Choice at the Logies) but that still doesn't guarantee awards are given for excellence; it rather indicates popularity, which is something quite different.
Often a production/artist of excellence will win the popular vote, which perpetuates the myth of correlation. But the popular production/artist doesn't always win, which creates misplaced controversy and outrage.
The larger the panel, the less likely it can consist entirely of "expert" judges, so we discredit its opinion. But the smaller the panel, the more we doubt that it's members are representative of our concept of "expert", and so we discredit its opinion anyway.
Who can really define "excellence" anyway, by means of concrete example? When the subject matter is entertainment, how do we make definitive value judgements? Who are the experts? Who can account for taste? It's all pretty vague and arbitrary.
People have criticised this year's Academy's for being overtly political, but really - when has it ever NOT been political?
I'd like to thank the Academy, Mum, Dad and my lawyer.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/====/-------
-------------------------------
>>If the Oscars are indeed an indication of excellence in acting skills, please explain....
Hi Kyla
It's a popular misconception that awards like the Oscars correlate with excellence.
Any award system for the Arts judged by a relatively small committee (eg. the Board of the Academy) is only going to be representative of that small group's opinion, at that singular moment in time. Why one wins over another is more an arbitrary lottery than a true reflection of value. And why are some nominated in the first place, when some deserving others miss out on getting even that far? (Baz?)
By increasing the size of the judging panel, a more representative opinion can be found (eg People's Choice at the Logies) but that still doesn't guarantee awards are given for excellence; it rather indicates popularity, which is something quite different.
Often a production/artist of excellence will win the popular vote, which perpetuates the myth of correlation. But the popular production/artist doesn't always win, which creates misplaced controversy and outrage.
The larger the panel, the less likely it can consist entirely of "expert" judges, so we discredit its opinion. But the smaller the panel, the more we doubt that it's members are representative of our concept of "expert", and so we discredit its opinion anyway.
Who can really define "excellence" anyway, by means of concrete example? When the subject matter is entertainment, how do we make definitive value judgements? Who are the experts? Who can account for taste? It's all pretty vague and arbitrary.
People have criticised this year's Academy's for being overtly political, but really - when has it ever NOT been political?
I'd like to thank the Academy, Mum, Dad and my lawyer.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/====/-------
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···