Why Award Shows Matter to Hollywood and our Culture?

3 Oct

The race has already begun although the Golden Globes and Oscar Award shows don’t occur until next year 2013. Today consumers are asking. Why are these award shows necessary? So LIH writers got together to discuss why award shows are important to Hollywood and our culture? We hope you join in on this discussion.

The Host

By Littlebells

The next time we see the gold shiny man, aka “Oscar”, Seth MacFarlane (“Family Guy”, “Ted”) will be hosting.  Not Billy Crystal, Neil Patrick Harris or Jimmy Fallon.  I think when Award shows pick their host; they are trying to bring in a new demographic or go with what has worked before.  I think Mr. MacFarlane’s appearance, as host will definitely generate a larger audience of a younger crowd.  I myself do not watch “Family Guy” but most people I know do and most of the nation/world seems to know who this man is.  He is sure to bring along several “voices” and give us the comedy that has captured the younger generation.  If the Oscars are a televised success, it goes to show that what is important to us culturally at this time is what viewers want to see.

The Actor on Oscar Night

By Parisienne

Given the previous article entitled For Your Consideration: An Actor’s Campaign For Oscar, I don’t think awards are for the public consumption. The award is for the actor as an acknowledgement that lets them know the Academy is proud of how hard they worked not only on the film but on the campaign trail as well.

The public in turn lives vicariously through the actor on Oscar night. We watch them walk around in fancy clothes and be applauded for making an insane amount of money. Although all good actors know its not about the money. It’s also about advancing themselves personally within their craft.

Our Changing Times

By Comic Relief

The whirlwind of technological innovation is so severe in our communication media it threatens to unseat our potential to speak, think, recall, and forecast.  Yet we all pretend we have it under control.  Somehow this denial points to an even less tolerable course of events.  With Blue-ray and DVD piracy rewarding and threatening national economies, video on demand and other forms of streaming media on the rise, some enterprising directors filming their work with their cell phones, motion capture that has dimensioned our desire for the finest character emulating animations, and never before have more movies been created with partial to whole casts existing as fabricated people we need to recalibrate both our vision and our beliefs. We need award shows to remind us of the rate technological change and how so many technological norms used to help us represent our pasts, presents and futures.  Oh so you thought I was going to refer to the performances of acting artists who grace the leading roles of most feature films.  Certainly they are the most tangible representative ambassadors of our contemporary age. Their both fine and visceral performances defy us to separate them from what we can conceive pertaining to the present.  But the actors like surfers, when great, actually lull us into believing we’re seeing what we have already seen.  Unfortunately for the contemporary audience, this deception proves to be more dangerous. For the stories continue to evolve as radically as everything else and we have little and less control than our mutating means to present.  Choosing the best and brightest gives the illusion of our relevance and gives us the impression we understand our changing times.

Today’s Culture 

By Open Book

See if you agree? Here’s some commentary from one moviegoer on “Why The Oscars Don’t Matter Anymore?

Please join us for a discussion 10/4/2012@7pmE/12UTC

Advertisements

28 Responses to “Why Award Shows Matter to Hollywood and our Culture?”

  1. littlebells October 3, 2012 at 12:20 PM #

    I do enjoy watching the Oscars, but for entertainment value. I honestly agree with this commentator, OB. Especially the internal politics. I think they have interferred with the quality of a film and what is truly deserving of an award. Interesssssssting about the voting percentages…I would love to know what the percentages really are between the films nominated.

    • Open Book October 3, 2012 at 7:31 PM #

      Hi LB-

      Yes, ITA that Oscar politics is getting in the way of real filmmaking. However, I also believe what’s driving down the quality of filmmaking is the rapid fire production. Sure technology has improved making it easier and faster but the story/spirit is getting lost in all the CGI, violence and sex. The films he mentions from the 70’s and 80’s its true they are still relevant today. Why is that?

      • littlebells October 3, 2012 at 8:01 PM #

        I think the focus on the 70s 80s films is the story. Also they picked actors who were TALENTED and not just “famous”. You don’t need all the extra stuff to make a movie memorable and relevant decades later when you have the right story and the right talent.

        I do agree with you about rapid fire with getting films out. I would also like to put some blame on society and accepting mediocrity and crap. if people stopped seeing these films that mean nothing a day later, directors and producers would probably go back to creating quality, ORIGINAL work. (And yes, I do know that some of those films were adapted from book. 🙂 )

        • Open Book October 3, 2012 at 8:09 PM #

          “(And yes, I do know that some of those films were adapted from book. )”

          I can’t fool u. However, I agree with everything u said. People need to wake up and become more culturally aware of what they are sucking down for entertainment. I think many people have developed an unhealthy relationship with entertainment today people use it to pacify instead of educate themselves.

          • Open Book October 3, 2012 at 8:30 PM #

            and what I mean about educate…… that the story resonates interest that makes u want to discuss or find out more about the topic.

  2. parisienne October 3, 2012 at 6:06 PM #

    Hi Everyone!

    I can’t make it all the way through the video that guys voice is irritating to no end. I mean no disrespect. Can someone give me the gist of what he said? LB, I LOVE FAMILY GUY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Here are some fun clips from my fav character Stewie.

    and some funny ones that have to do with Twilight!

    On the last vid skip to 1:00 I’m waiting for him to say this to her!

    • parisienne October 3, 2012 at 6:07 PM #

    • Open Book October 3, 2012 at 7:39 PM #

      Hahahahaha! This is funny!

      No need to apologize. He does sound like he has a cold or something. Anyway, he makes a plausible argument why Oscar winning films over the last decade aren’t very memorable. He believes filmmakers are choosing actors and directors by the number of awards they have and not if the actor or directors are right for the movie.

      • Comic Relief October 5, 2012 at 4:48 AM #

        OB,

        I know what you mean when you say:

        “…choosing actors and directors by the number of awards they have and not if the actor or directors are right for the movie.”

        I understand your point, but he should have told us exactly who was cast wrongly to prove his point. In what cases would casting have modified or improve an Oscar winning film that we know of.

        If studios are casting Oscar winners to place a film in Oscar contention than they are only trying to assure a better audience for their films. The audience who does not go to Oscar winning film’s like the audience who prefers “Star Wars” or “Lord of the Rings” (both excellent technology Sci Fi and fantasy films) will likely not attend those movies. These are movies like “Annie Hall” and “Kramer vs. Kramer.”

        Since “Oscar Ranter” claimed he never saw “Annie Hall” here’s a clip below:

        • Comic Relief October 5, 2012 at 5:35 AM #

          I think nostalgia for the past may be seductive, especially if you are talking about films where the same male stars are always winning; evidence the films “Oscar ranter” names. Another film he conveniently missed “Kramer verses Kramer” actually documented a period of time when more women could actually choose to leave marriages that they did not prefer. Hardly a perfect film it named a new liberty that women had even if it did not make her a heroine.

          Here’s a clip of “Kramer versus Kramer”

          • Comic Relief October 5, 2012 at 5:36 AM #

            He never successfully describes what “relevant” actually is but if you notice he neatly avoids any progressive film that describes the realities of women or people of color. Though not a crime or a fault, he may appreciate “Broke Back Mountain” because he may be a member of that group.

            He’s hated “Crash” for it’s anti-racist message, in fact he claimed that was the most serious verification of the academy’s dive into irrelevantness. He was dismissive of “Slum Dog Millionaire” with it’s all Indian cast as being below par. And to be honest he wouldn’t even talk about last years crop of films with the “The Descendants,’ “The Help,” “Albert Nobbs,“ and “Tangled.”

            In case the other video was not clear.

            • Open Book October 5, 2012 at 5:23 PM #

              U make some great observations CR. I really think it helps to look at things from more than one perspective.

              • Comic Relief October 6, 2012 at 3:22 AM #

                OB,

                Thank you!!!! You did an as usually excellent job of finding material or speakers that promote discussion differently than how we might approach the topic.

                I’m a little sorry for being dismissive yet the guy I call “Oscar ranter” posed his ideas so people could consider his ideas. Randomly posting your ideas with no attributing identity or pseudonym made him an easy target for evaluation. Also his views are far more opaque than I believe he can tell.

  3. parisienne October 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM #

    the last two wouldn’t post but at 1:00 it looks like Rob is calling Kristen a freaking psyhopath. What they did was take the vocal tracks from family guy and put them over Twilight.

    • Open Book October 3, 2012 at 7:42 PM #

      Darn it!!

  4. Comic Relief October 4, 2012 at 4:03 PM #

    Paris,

    You could give us the addresses on youtube. I showed up late and I did not see them either.

  5. Open Book October 4, 2012 at 4:14 PM #

    Hi Everyone-

    Here is some info from Paris article “How Actors campaign for an Oscar?”

    “The actors begin their campaigns in the beginning of December by walking many red carpets and by attending individual events to increase their Oscar chances. They attend film festivals such as the ones held in Palm Springs and Santa Barbara. They also attend the Golden Globes, the Screen Actors Guild Awards, the National Board of Review Awards, the Directors Guild Awards as well as the Producers Guild Awards.”

    Q: If these shows are for actors/industry more than the consumer. Why do u think they televise these shows?

  6. Open Book October 4, 2012 at 4:22 PM #

    Everyone-

    LB stated, “If the Oscars are a televised success, it goes to show that what is important to us culturally at this time is what viewers want to see.”

    Q: Why didn’t the Academy ask Ricky Gervais to host the Oscar’s this year? I know he’s had better success with the GG but that should have gotten him dibs on the Oscars. No??

    • Comic Relief October 5, 2012 at 4:19 AM #

      Just speaking as someone who has been on the site for sometime, you might be curious as to how this topic came to be realized in the article before you. Open Book (OB) whom generally runs the site, said recently she wanted to address the Golden Globes and Oscars since that season will be upon us sooner than we might expect. I believe everyone agreed.

      So OB asked everyone to contribute a paragraph, similar to what we did for our “Cosmopolis” series of two months ago. Our assignment was to address why the telecast of the two most popular award shows was significant to our culture. So as I said before I appreciated the assignment so I liked OB introduction.

      Oh it was so down to earth to hear Little Bell’s (LB’s) feelings about the current Oscar Host. She’s absolutely correct that this simple hire could have a dynamic or devastating impact on the telecast. LB has done full articles on this topic before. Recently branching into movie production/writing and acting James Hibberd of EW magazine notes that: “With Seth MacFarlane named next year’s Oscars host, a parents group is renewing its longtime campaign against the envelope-pushing writer-producer-actor.”

      Equally down to earth it was great hearing Parisienne’s (Paris) take from an acting perspective. Frequently we here actors accept awards but we rarely hear from them otherwise if they are neither a nomination nor an award. Hearing her paragraph provided the eeriest passport to the event that it would be hard to receive otherwise.

      Distracted by off site events, I hated my own. But I hope everyone recognized my focus on technology was an attempt to isolate how the means of filmmaking actually affects the product, possibly more than we know.

      A writer, who has recently talked about the advent of color film, ozzie20, (Ozzie) was probably missed the most by me.

      Yet, sorry OB and LB, like Paris I was not thrilled with the video by the person I will call “Oscar Ranter.”

  7. Open Book October 4, 2012 at 4:25 PM #

    Q: Can u think of anyone who has hosted for the GG and the Oscar’s?

  8. Open Book October 4, 2012 at 4:29 PM #

    Paris- This is for u and anyone else interested.

    http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/06/the-50-best-family-guy-episodes/brian-the-bachelor

  9. Open Book October 4, 2012 at 4:36 PM #

    CR- U stated, “We need award shows to remind us of the rate technological change and how so many technological norms used to help us represent our pasts, presents and futures. ”

    Q: Are u saying Award Shows help us document these advancements and achievements more effectively so we can appreciate them better?

  10. Open Book October 4, 2012 at 4:43 PM #

    It’s funny most people fail to recognize the significance of the last word in this title.

    “Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences”

    “the Scientific and Technical Award, an Academy Award for scientific or technical achievements, which are presented at “a dinner ceremony separate from the annual telecast.”[1]

    Q: Why do u think they don’t televise this event?

    • Comic Relief October 5, 2012 at 4:24 AM #

      I think the term should be UNDERSTAND them better.

      In the past when Hollywood introduced movement (in animation), sound, color, and even the move to television; the medium changed dramatically. Today’s tech changes are far more subtle and I believe this is the reason the changes are far harder to recognize.

    • Comic Relief October 5, 2012 at 4:29 AM #

      It requires an audience participation that is way too sensitive than what “Oscar Ranter” wants to do. Internet snarkers want to through out their subjective evaluations and be done with it. The time it takes to prepare a researched response really isn’t nearly as fashionable.

      Wish I had prepared a better example.

      • Comic Relief October 5, 2012 at 4:35 AM #

        Oops, I meant a better ALTERNET example.

        • Comic Relief October 5, 2012 at 4:36 AM #

          Bigger Oops, “ALTERNATE.”

  11. Comic Relief October 5, 2012 at 4:33 AM #

    – the first comment referring to your “CR- U stated” comment

    – the second comment referring to your ““Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences” comment.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: