Oscar Season Distilled to 29 Words

The latest in a series: "The Oscars have become the golden fig leaves that the industry wears to pretend it’s as committed to being in the quality business as it was in the past." [NYT]


  • J.M. says:

    I've shaved 23 words off that statement, and it still holds true:
    The Oscars...pretend...to being...quality.

  • Remy says:

    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?