It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
But wouldn’t you agree that emphasizing the popularity contest cheapens the art in much the same way box office coverage does? I’ve been guilty of both myself, and can’t say I’m proud of it in the least. Before I moved to Hollywood, the Oscar chase was something to be mocked, and while I now understand how important a nomination can be for burgeoning actors and writers and designers, there’s still something undeniably repugnant about the whole spectacle.
When you consider that, for example, the Coens didn’t receive a single Academy Award nomination until 1996 for FARGO (and that their brilliant collaborator, Carter Burwell, has yet to snag one), it’s hard to be anything but contemptuous of the whole process.
In that entire rant do they even mention any name of any so-called Oscar prognosticator?
Jeremy – To me, that would be like being contemptuous of horror movies, as a genre, for instance. (And ironically, I stand on one shore of horror where a lot of people think I “don’t get it,” when in fact, I just have specific tastes that don’t include crap like Cabin Fever.)
Of course The Oscars are not The Answer!
But they are not dogshit either.
Box office should not be the basis on which people make movie choices. And the reality is, there is not much indication that it is.
Both areas of discussion are self-expanding, as there is perceived and real promotional and financial advantage in both. The importance of box office coverage has increased significantly not just because of Top 10 charts in every newspaper, but because the studios have been frontloading the theatrical revenues more every year for a fifteen years. So that opening weekend really is news now. And the prestige of Oscar wins can float a career every bit as much as a $150 million movie.
All that said, the discussion of the value of all of this coverage – which is, in the case of Oscar, expanding exclusively because media outlets are trying to sell more ads to studios – is a good discussion to have. But the idea that the people who participate in the conversation are either evil or not as worthy as someone who criticizes films with no awards context is lazy and easy and showboating… in my opinion. Hate the game, not the players… especially when you/we all find ourselves participating in the conversation through our sneering lips.
The best point in the whole discussion is that prognostication reinforces the mediocre taste of the Academy. Months of this speculation results in a field of ten or so “Oscar movies,” and it’s a good year when even half of those movies are at all worthwhile. And the attention given to those ten movies distracts both Oscar voters and the moviegoing public from the many movies out there that are far more deserving of their time.
This whole problem could go away if they separated best drama from musical/comedy. How can Moulin Rouge and A Beautiful Mind even be compared? Or The Departed to Borat?
Eric – Can’t the same be said of the Presidential race every four years?
Ugh, the horror movie discussion again. DP, I know this is a tangent, but I think it would be more accurate for you to say “I like _some_ horror movies” than to say that you are a fan of the genre as a whole.
My 2 cents.
Back to Oscar, of course it’s ‘evil’. So are Twinkies.
The thrust of that article seemed to be that Oscar prognostication is bad, because it clouds critical judgments. As in, if people get hung up on the fact that a particular film isn’t getting awards traction, that bleeds over into dismissing it as an artistic accomplishment.
I sort of see the point — during the Oscar season, one hears the same titles bandied about over and over, while other deserving titles that just don’t have the traction can get lost from the spotlight, even if they deserve it on merit — but the point is way, WAY overstated. The only Oscar coverage that mistakes awards traction for artistic merit are shallow pop rags written by reporters who don’t really care about movies in the first place. From actual movie people, the mantra is always the same: Oscar screwed up with this nomination, or that nomination, or passing over this or that, etc, etc, etc.
Even those of us that care about the Oscars tend to be fault-finders, not idolizers.
So I don’t know what the big deal is.
Can’t wait to read this. A few of my fellow critics (those who don’t take part in any of the Oscar prognostication business) generally hate some of the people who do it all year round. I’ve been on the receiving end of a few hilarious rants about how they’re ruining the film experience.
Incidentally, after my guild screening last night and listening to a couple members of the Directors, Actors and Writers guild babbling among themselves, it makes it so obvious idiotic the people who actually nominate and vote on these awards actually are. It’s all about popularity and public opinion with no one really wanting to be defiant or doing something different.
I think that’s really where critics end up in the equation because I expect that a good number of the non-working actors, directors and writers in these guilds (and there are a LOT) do read reviews and do go or don’t go see movies based on them.
“The only Oscar coverage that mistakes awards traction for artistic merit are shallow pop rags written by reporters who don’t really care about movies in the first place. ”
Yeah, and Tom O’Neil.
My only real problem with Oscar prognostication is that the legend tends to become the fact way too often. I don’t recall even hearing Gladiator seriously discussed as an Oscar contender until the prognosticators started playing it up and WHAM – big wins for Pic and Actor, when it had no business being even nominated for either.
Same deal with Chicago – the winner before anyone saw it.
I don’t have a problem with a guy like Dave, who clearly values the art as well as the commerce. But guys like O’Neil and Friedman only pull this crap ’cause it gets them ink and appearances on Scarborough Country. Neither one gives a crap about the movies.
Eric – Can’t the same be said of the Presidential race every four years?
That’s a silly question. Just because they have some similarities doesn’t mean they have to be alike or that they should be alike.
If this proves anything, it’s that nobody should complain there are too many legitimate groups giving out specious awards. Human beings are political animals with herd mentalities, agendas and imperfect democratic processes. So we need more debate, not less.
To correct myself, when you separate musical/comedy from drama you get Walk The Line tossed where it doesn’t belong into musical. And I didn’t mean Borat, I meant “For Your Consideration” and “Dreamgirls.”
Not dogshit isn’t exactly fair.
The Oscars are notoriously horrible at rewarding great art, and of the last sixteen years (which are pretty good pickings all things conisdered for them) about 25% will be well regarded in the future. But that’s the way it is, and has always been. For every Unforgiven, there’s three Olivers. Like Box Office, there are stories to be told, but this discussion needs to be framed in its value to the artform and humanity, of which there is little.
And, to someone who loves films, and since the Academy rarely gets it right, to devote a lot of time and energy to that discourse has the effect of lowering the standards of film discussion in the mainstream, and also (as BO discussion has) turns too many Joe Sixpacks into prognosticators who confuse preference with trends. Sure, same as it ever was, but the energy now devoted to it is pretty useless and is essentially doing the studios shilling for them, since so much of what gets traction is knowing the studio muscle behind it.
The Oscars are notoriously horrible at rewarding great art, and of the last sixteen years (which are pretty good pickings all things conisdered for them) about 25% will be well regarded in the future. But that’s the way it is, and has always been. For every Unforgiven, there’s three Olivers.
Except Unforgiven wasn’t all that great to begin with. 🙂
But the truth of the matter is the Best Picture Oscar is not called “The Academy Award for Best Picture Which May or May Not Stand Up Through the Test of Time, Be It Five Years, Twenty Years or Seventy Five Years From Now.” Of course, most of us knew even then that Network and All The President’s Men was better and more relevant to society than Rocky in 1976 and that remains the same today, but the Oscars have never really been about what is the best but what is the most popular. People in 1976 bought in to the whole Stallone as underdog story, and that the film made so much money when no one expected anything from it helped win the film its glory.
That Gladiator won in 2000 will never change for me the fact that Almost Famous, then and now, remains the better made and more interesting film. Oscars only mean as much as you, the individual, put into them.
I’d argue that Unforgiven is canonical whether you like it or not. I’m not saying the Oscars aren’t fun and don’t have a point (and to that end help careers), but they certainly aren’t about great movies, or great artists being rewarded for great art (sometimes one and not the other). They may not even reflect a general sense of the world, or what people like, or even what people thought was the best film of the year.
To me the awards are summed up by Sofia Coppola winning an Oscar for the screenplay of Lost in Translation. Now from the outset you could call that (many did) but… Damn, you know?
I agree with Damon, and hopefully to add to his point, the problem is that the Oscars suck up so much time and attention as to divert people from the movies and stories that really do matter. It’s the media-industrial hype machine that serves to promote certain ends (studio publicity, star hype) but not, ultimately, to make the world of film a smarter or better place.
I am troubled by the influence reputed journalists and bloggers wield over the eventual nominees and the industry-at-large. Yet any self-respecting cinephile will eventually accept the futility of OP and see the whole Oscar race for what it really is – a yearly pageantry of egos, self-importance, and shameless, pandering marketing not-so-cleverly disguised as, ahem, “a group of peers bestowing honor upon their own.”
Looking at the winners over the past decades – take “Gigi” versus “Vertigo,” in 1958, for just one example – anyone, even the pundits, should be able to concede that the Oscars only serve as a timely measurement of a notoriously insulated industry’s tastes. Nothing more, nothing less.
It’s also true that the Hollywood pundits who cater to this empty pursuit of so-called “excellence” actively participate in the rat race for gold, casting attention on atrocious, middle-brow pap like “World Trade Center” (or “Chocolat,” or fill-in-the-blank from past years, “Green Mile,” “Cider House,” etc., etc.) and away from more challenging, rewarding fare in release.
In an ideal movie world, the Oscar season would fall between the announcement of the nominations and the ceremony, not all fucking year long. Then again, in an ideal movie world, the entertainment media would focus on films themselves, not their award potential, and the industry would invest the millions they waste touting their supposed “contenders” into developing and promoting good films, staking their reputations on quality work rather than trophies. (Color me naive, I know.)
Which reminds me: how ANYONE can ever take the Oscars seriously after “Crash” won is beyond me. Last year, when Nicholson purred out the egregious winner, I nearly fainted from laughter.
OPs are as silly and misguided as the Oscars themselves. One will never be in tune with the other, not matter how hard the other side tries. Case in point: around this time six years ago, wasn’t Mr. Poland trumpeting Sean Connery’s win as Best Actor for Finding Forrester? We all know how that turned out. Sure brings to mind Mr. Poland’s current endorsement – nay, prophetic vision – of Jennifer Hudson’s surefire win, does it not?
So… really… you have the time to consume all the hard core coverage and criticism about film that is available on the web and has nothing to do with Oscar?
Gigi did not beat Vertigo for Best Picture because Vertigo was not nominated.
I think we’re losing sight of what the Oscars are really about and why they are still relevant. Namely it is the industry’s way of celebrating itself, and since I think most of us film lovers who are here still believe in the American tradition of filmmaking, Oscar still has a place despite who wins.
For the record, can anyone name a major award that actually does get it right? The Grammys, The Emmys, The VMAs, The Razzies…
The Razzies are pretty close, Mr Palmtree. They just don;t seem as accessible anymore since there are so many Hollywood films “eligible” for the Razzie honors in recent times. Razzie planning committee needs to expand the categories.
As everyone knows, since its inception the Best Picture has periodically been given to mediocre films and even downright bad films have scored nominations (Doctor Dolittle anyone?) but since this era of Oscar Prognastication began for my tastes there has never been a worse run of Best Picture winners – Crash, Chicago, A Beautiful Mind, American Beauty, Gladiator, blechh.
I understand why David, Wells and the rest of them do it – there’s money to be made – but for the life of me I don’t understand why so many self professed film lovers are so interested in carrying the studio’s water. What’s in it for them?
Does anyone here really think if, instead of columns dedciated to Oscars, papers ran ads saying audiences should go out and see a certain movie, ad nauseum, these films would see signifigantly more business?
Look at Television. The Emmys are not as competitive in its camapigns. Less time is devoted to them. Likewise, more time is devoted to TV columnists saying “You should watch this show. Please watch this show.” These shows will still get cancelled. Even the ones that win Emmys.
Almost Famous didn’t get lost in the shuffle because of awards pundits. It’s because Oscar voters related more to old timey classical filmmaking than a movie about Rock and Roll starring a bunch of newbies, some which were under the impression they were stars. In fact, as I recall, many, many Oscar prognostics pieces asked “Can Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon…I think it can”, though occasionally some were resigned to cynicism. Even then, it’s not like they were rooting for it.
I don’t think Oscar predicting has ha a particularly bad effect. Frankly, that a movie’s even being talked about as an awards loser, or a money loser actually gives the movie some kind of proile, in a way an exclusively “Let the movies speak for themselves” culture would not.
I get more of a “preaching to the choir” kind of feel from that article, I don’t think they present enough arguments to convinve anyone who doesn’t already share their opinion.
Sure Oscar hype tends to attract people’s attention to a reduced number of films, leaving in the shadows other worthier ones, but I don’t get the feeling all that many people are influenced by this phenomenon (except once the nominations have been announced). Just about all the people I know (and that’s a large number, in several countries) will choose a movie to watch or drop based on wether or not they like the story/director/actor (usually in that order) and on word of mouth. In fact I know more people who are offput by hype (I’ve been trying unsuccessfully to convince a friend to see Devil Wears Prada, she doesn’t like seeing movies that are all hyped) than those who are attracted to it. But then I live in Europe, we get less “cinema” related publicity here (posters on bus stops, ads in newspapers, the occasional radio announcement) than in the US (imo). And we have a larger diversity of films to choose from… :o)
Most people around here don’t care squat for Oscar (some friends think I spend too much time on the internet reading about movies etc, but then they always come to me for info/opinions) except perhaps the week before the awards (it would help if the show weren’t on paying channels) and the winners are announced in the next day’s newscast. In specific countries they tend to center on their own festivals, perhaps mentioning as well the results of Cannes or Berlin. But all this rarely influences the average European movigoer who tends to be rather faithfull to his/her tastes.
YAWN. This debate happens multiple times a year and it’s always the biggest waste of space. Yes, some people actually enjoy debating what films were the best of the year and what they think the Academy will say. Just like I’m sure there’s plenty of people out there who like to debate over which car manufactorer makes the best designs and anticipates the latest releases and such. And really, isn’t debating the quality of the latest carborators just as frivilous as debating which movie had the best art direction.
You can say it “cheapens” the films, or you can say it gives studios a reason to make good movies or to give movies releases that benefit them and give films a chance to capitalise.
And people who say that it can work the oppposite and that some movies don’t get the chance to break out before the buzz kills them, well… if your movie stinks, people are gonna realise it at some point.
Camel, I think the argument is not that the movies stink but that a lot of small movies that won’t fit into the Academy’s taste get overlooked in the OP media, despite being good or at least worth seeing.
Take Stranger Than Fiction. It’s a perfectly fine film, with some fun humor and a pleasant feel to it. Is it great or an Oscar movie? No. So it’s getting lost in the OP media.
I’m not sure the argument is against OP completely, but how it is taking up space where criticism of all movies, and not just movies that fit into the Academy’s taste, should get mentioned.
I will admit that when I used to read Ebert’s top ten list, I would make an effort to see those movies. Now I just try and see most of the Oscar nominees. And because of that I’d now miss out on a The War Zone, or something equally great.
Whenever these articles pop up each year I always wonder why it is they’re always clamoring for more small films to be recognized by oscar (and why is it so important to them)? And how come there’s never an article complaining that oscar doesn’t recognize achievements like Spiderman or Pirates of the Caribbean Curse of the Black Pearl anymore? Just to be cantankerous I think the Weinsteins were the worst thing to ever happen to the Academy Awards. In today’s oscar field films like Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T. The Sting, Going My Way, The French Connection, Thin Man, Wizard of Oz, Mary Poppins, The Exorcist and so on would never even be nominated.
That’s a damn shame.
The funny thing is, look at the last fifteen years of winners (overall a pretty damned good batch, not the 1970s winners, but probably the second best run of BP winners). What films are winning? The films that defy the current oscar trend of important, slow, good-for-you-like-nasty-medicine films.
Maybe that’s what is really pissing cineastes (who piss and moan endlessly about the oscars) off; they haven’t completely exterminated all the good movies from the oscar race–but they’re so close! I for one am glad there are still Forrest Gumps and Braveheart’s, Gladiators and Lord of the Rings out there.
>>>>>Yes, some people actually enjoy debating what films were the best of the year and what they think the Academy will say.< Camel, you are missing the point. OPs aren't arguing what films are better - they are arguing which films will win Academy Awards. Big difference. (Unless you think the likes of Chicago and Crash were unsurpassed as cinema in their respective years.) The AV Club guys are calling for a return to arguing about which films are actually the best.
To play devil’s advocate:
“The AV Club guys are calling for a return to arguing about which films are actually the best.”
The one flaw in their argument is when they bring up the point about how professional sports does prognostication to a degree even more obsessive than Oscar. But they accept it because it’s done with passion. Well, to be honest, Oscar prog is also very passionate…witness Brokeback Mountain.
To take the sports analogy further, it would be like arguing which football team was best rather than trying to guess who would win the Super Bowl. Both seem to be essential to the process, not superfluous.
“The AV Club guys are calling for a return to arguing about which films are actually the best.”
Which is nonsense. There is no “best.” There’s only a collection of opinions. The love/hate factor of both BROKEBACK and CRASH proves that. You’d probably hafta go back to SCHINDLER to find a BP winner that most people believed was correct.
Even with Schindler’s List there are lots of cineastes who are so bitter they dismiss the entirety of the movie because Spielberg dared to fudge history a little bit and give Schindler a two minute redemptive moment at the end before running for it. But I think Schindler probably won Best Picture by one of the largest margins in oscar history, hell the Weinsteins admitted to voting for it over their own films.
the oscars are somewhat predictable, but the most predictable thing about oscar season is the backlash the day after. The people who hate the oscars are far more herdlike than the academy because they do the exact same thing every year without fail. At least the academy usually offers a few surprises every year.