The award season if underway with the Golden Globes from Sunday and the BAFTAs nominations announced yesterday. I was going to wait until the BAFTAs was over or the Oscars were announced but I saw no point. The last few years have shown me that they will just be the same anyway, which begs to the point. Why do we need so many? Why are American films invlovled in a British ceremony? Why can't we just have one award show for films and one for TV? (both individually for America and British) It begs to the question that are the actors, directors and everyone else even botherd anymore. After watching the Globes and Oscars last year you could clearly see that everyone is bored to be there and would rather leave for the bar after the fifth to eigth award has been given out. They know who's more than likely, just like us, is going to win, because they know just as many what is classified as an "Award winning film" they have seen them and been involved in them so many times before, so is there a point anymore? I'd say pretty soon, No, they won't be.
So what makes a good "Award winning film". Well the theory is it has to have a sense of autorship and a great mise-en-scene but anyone who has seen 3-10 seconds of a movie knows that this is just a bunch of BS. Without mise-en-scene the film would not exist anyway, and it would be really stupid for the actors dressing as an 1980s person for a 1930s movie. (Unless the storyline conflicted this in some way) Which leaves the old famous auteur theory. Auteurship is a director who has his own unique style in how the films they make are shown and how they are brought across. Which is kind of why the same directors are nominated for the Best Director catogory and their films are hyped all the time.
This years nominations hype films are The Artist and The Descendents. I haven't seen The Artist yet so I cannot comment on that but I have recently watched The Descendents and my view is that although the film was good and well made. There have been some films better than this to fit into the Best Film section. For instance Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Source Code, the lesser known Brotherhood and Win Win and possibly even at a push Jodie Fosters The Beaver. Even though some of them won't even fit into an "Award Winning Film" Brotherhood, Win Win and even The Beaver will do. Both were well shot, well scripted, well acted and brought out the emotion that the film was trying to achieve. So why aren't they nominated? I have no idea, the jury on who selects these things must have thought that the film were lacking in something and thought that the films that are nominated were better.
So what about the actors? Why do the actors who are in the Best films award are in the Best Actor category. It's because in order to make the film into a Best film you need to have Best acting? Which is where the academy screws the actors in the ass. Many actors but on a fantastic performance without being in a "Best Film" sometime putting on better perfromance than them and do no get the recognition that they deserve and probably never will until they do appear in a "Best Film" thing. Don't get me wrong some of them really do deserve it, but I'm saying of the acadmey lifted their restraints a little they might see as far as some actors in comedy films perform well. Take Will Ferell for example, he was fantastic actor in Anchorman, Stanger than Fiction, Step Brothers, Elf, but he who is seriously underlooked because he is a "comedian" which is complelty unfair and biased. Many others have been screwed as well, Bruce Willis, Denzil Washington and Robin Williams to name a few.
To round off what does make a good movie? I'd say it's the one you enjoy. The more you enjoy it the better the film is. Which is why I think the award seseon is slowly turning to a big joke, there was a time that it was indeed a highly respected show, but now it's at the point where no-one hardly cares about it. Even the people who make the films don't seem that botherd anymore. We will see as time goes on.
No comments:
Post a Comment