Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
- Gun-owner Chipper Jones against civilians having assault weapons
- Parents arrested for binding daughter with duct tape
- Rome gets rare snowfall, and it's an ancient winter wonderland
- Gap's new ad 'normalizing' breastfeeding is making people really, really happy
- 5 secret shopping perks only Costco members know about
Comments
I've shaved 23 words off that statement, and it still holds true:
The Oscars...pretend...to be
ing...quality.The Oscars don't exist to reflect the opinions of bloggers, journalists or the general public. The level of quality of a work of art is the most subjective thing in the world, which is why I think it's a mistake to discredit the legitimacy of an organization that hands out awards for artistic achievements based on how much (or how little) one agrees with it.
The Oscars represent what the film industry has decided to single out as special achievements, which is why they matter to film professionals, fans and historians, and why they always will. I think Louis B. Mayer was one of the first high-profile people to say something along the lines of (I'm heavily paraphrasing, I'm sure), "We need these awards to make us look better than we actually are" - but if this really were the sole reason for the existence of the Oscars, how would the votes of individual members be any less of an honor for the nominees and winners? If these films and people are chosen by their peers as the best examples in their fields, regardless of the reason for the existence of the awards, isn't that extremely flattering?