Derek wrote:The whole King Kong thing was in regards to you saying that the oscars are all about politics and money and that sometimes the most deserving films do not win. I merely picked King Kong because it was not too good in my mind...
It's a well accepted truth that the Oscars, particularly the Best Picture award, do not generally go to the "best" of each category. In the case of Best Picture, it is a well-documented fact that the studios behind each of the nominees (and even potential nominees, before the nominations are even made) wage advertising campaigns - among the academy voters - to try to garner the award for their films. This is because the Oscars are huge moneymakers: films which win, for example, Best Picture, are almost ensured another few months' run in movie theaters. And also slapping that "BEST PICTURE" on DVD cases certainly is very good incentive for people to buy a film they might not have seen, rather than just renting it. Thus there is a big incentive for studios to try to get their film to win an award like Best Picture. If I recall correctly, the studio behind Crash sent personal copies of the movie on DVD format to all of the academy viewers, as well as other "gifts". Thus it happens that the studio which wages the best advertising campaign will often come down with the trophy, even though it may not be "the best film". Furthermore, smaller studios and independent films obviously cannot compete with the advertising capabilities of the large production companies like New Line, Sony Pictures, Columbia Tristar, etc. Which is why "Big Blockbuster Movies" often win the big awards (Titanic anyone??) even though they probably don't deserve it.
Furthermore, there's a lot of politics involved. If you've won a few awards already, the academy seems more likely to turn you down. Shakespeare in Love winning Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan? Please... that was all because the academy didn't want to give another one to Spielburg. If the contest is between an actor/actress who has won the award three times and an actor/actress who has never won, it will often go to the one who has never won. It's a "well you won before, now it's someone else's turn" mentality. This also, in a way, comes down to money - the more "Academy Award Winning Actor So-and-So"s that are out there, the more movies that can use this as an advertising lure to sell movies. Notice how EVERYONE is an academy award winner, now? Notice how actors who have traditionally done comedy roles eventually move to drama, even if they're not really good at it? It's because they want to get that "Academy Award Winning Actor" title in front of their names, which is the acting equivalent of the Ph.D. You probably immediatley double your acting price if you have it.
Seriously, the whole system is a sham. And don't even get me started on Foreign Films - because often the best movies come from other countries and they rarely get anything besides an inclusion in the laughable "Best Foreign Film" category, which is so pretensiouly wrong it makes me sick. As I've mentioned before, the best movie (really, the best, thought-provoking jaw-gaping holy sh*t that was awesome movie) that I have seen in a long time was the German film Downfall. And what did it win? Bupkes. In fact, the whole Oscar phenomenon is nauseating, from the films that win, the money that is poured into them, to the royalty status we append to talentless celebs. Ugh, it just makes me sick.
And let's not even think about talking about the Grammys.
"What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?" - Richard P. Feynman
