Saturday, March 3, 2012
Ben Wardinski on Sounds of Cinema
Ben Wardinski returns to co-host this weekend's edition of Sounds of Cinema. Ben and Nathan will take a look at the upcoming releases in 2012 and include music from Alien and The Dark Knight.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Commentary on the Academy Awards 2012
The 84th Annual Academy Awards ceremony will air on television tonight. If you listen to any of the mainstream media coverage of the Oscars, the awards show is often referred to with phrases like “Hollywood’s biggest night” and the Academy refers to itself as "the world's preeminent movie-related organization" of "the most accomplished men and women working in cinema." Most major media outlets speak of the Academy Awards with a level of respect, with insinuations that the Oscars represent the final word on cinematic excellence.
Regular listeners to this show are probably aware that I no longer toe that line. In the past I’ve discussed the growing irrelevance of the ceremony although it is also important to note that without the Hollywood awards circuit, a lot of major studios might not be interested in prestige films at all because they do not make the kind of money expected by those who run the major motion picture companies. Universal Studios head Ron Mayer has proclaimed, “It's great to win awards and make films that you're proud of and make money, but your first obligation is to make money and then worry about being proud of what you do." It is known that winning awards gives pictures a financial boost, and so the various award ceremonies do have some value by creating an incentive for studios to make or distribute them.
Of course, when money gets involved it has a corrupting effect. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which hosts the annual Golden Globe ceremonies, has been plagued by charges of bribery, with former publicist Michael Russell quitting his job just days before the 2011 ceremony and filing a lawsuit against the organization, accusing its members of payola and other ethical breaches. (It’s important to note that the lawsuit has not yet been resolved.) It is also known that the culture around the Academy Awards is based on campaigning for votes, not unlike a campaign for public office, and studios spend millions of dollars in their efforts to woo the Oscar voters. The exact extent to which the money impacts actual Oscar voting is hard to say but its pervasiveness is enough to impugn the integrity of the Hollywood awards establishment.
Recently, a new aspersion has been cast on the Academy Awards. In an article in the Los Angeles Times, writers John Horn, Nicole Sperling and Doug Smith attempt to profile just who the Oscar voters are, since the Academy’s membership list is kept secret. The article found that Oscar voters are about ninety-four percent white, seventy-seven percent male, and have a median age of sixty-two years old, with voters younger than fifty years old making up just fourteen percent of the membership.
The fact that the Oscars are decided by old white men is not exactly a surprise and the lack of diversity has been a longstanding issue for the Academy. As the article details, very few actors of color have been nominated or even brought on stage to present awards. Whether the Academy should more accurately represent the racial and gender constitution of the American population or if it should represent those working as professional filmmakers regardless of their identity is something that I’ll leave to be debated among people who specialize in ethnography and gender studies, at least for now.
However, the nugget from the Times article that is really most damning about the Academy has little to do with the race, gender, or age. Within the piece, the writers observe that hundreds of academy voters haven't worked on a movie in decades and some are people who have left the movie business entirely but continue to vote on the Oscars. What this means is that the institution that calls itself “the world's preeminent movie-related organization” of "the most accomplished men and women working in cinema" and that the mainstream press treats like the definitive judgement on motion pictures does not make its annual award decisions based upon the opinions of people who are currently working in the business.
This flies in the face of the whole image of the Academy Awards. The assumption made by the tens of millions of Oscar television viewers, or at least those who think about these things, is that the people who get on stage were voted there by the people sitting in the audience. And while that is true to an extent, it is clear that votes are also being made by people who have no immediate attachment to the industry and perhaps no interest in film.
And that is far more damaging to the integrity of the Academy Awards than the influence of money or the passé nature of the televised ceremony. An award only means something if the people bestowing it are qualified to be doing so. If the Academy Awards is really just a group of old men, a portion of whom haven’t even worked in the business in years, deciding who gets a career defining golden idol and who doesn’t, then these awards really don’t mean anything more than the yearly picks of a random blogger, and they probably mean less than the picks of professional critics or a film’s score at rottentomatoes.com.
When actor George C. Scott was nominated and subsequently won an Oscar in 1971 for his role in Patton, Scott refused to show at the ceremony, saying “the ceremonies are a two-hour meat parade, a public display with contrived suspense for economic reasons.” When the hoopla of the ceremony is set against the Academy's blatant lack of integrity and their awards’ bareness of meaning, it reminds us of just how right Scott was and his words ring even truer today.
Regular listeners to this show are probably aware that I no longer toe that line. In the past I’ve discussed the growing irrelevance of the ceremony although it is also important to note that without the Hollywood awards circuit, a lot of major studios might not be interested in prestige films at all because they do not make the kind of money expected by those who run the major motion picture companies. Universal Studios head Ron Mayer has proclaimed, “It's great to win awards and make films that you're proud of and make money, but your first obligation is to make money and then worry about being proud of what you do." It is known that winning awards gives pictures a financial boost, and so the various award ceremonies do have some value by creating an incentive for studios to make or distribute them.
Of course, when money gets involved it has a corrupting effect. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which hosts the annual Golden Globe ceremonies, has been plagued by charges of bribery, with former publicist Michael Russell quitting his job just days before the 2011 ceremony and filing a lawsuit against the organization, accusing its members of payola and other ethical breaches. (It’s important to note that the lawsuit has not yet been resolved.) It is also known that the culture around the Academy Awards is based on campaigning for votes, not unlike a campaign for public office, and studios spend millions of dollars in their efforts to woo the Oscar voters. The exact extent to which the money impacts actual Oscar voting is hard to say but its pervasiveness is enough to impugn the integrity of the Hollywood awards establishment.
Recently, a new aspersion has been cast on the Academy Awards. In an article in the Los Angeles Times, writers John Horn, Nicole Sperling and Doug Smith attempt to profile just who the Oscar voters are, since the Academy’s membership list is kept secret. The article found that Oscar voters are about ninety-four percent white, seventy-seven percent male, and have a median age of sixty-two years old, with voters younger than fifty years old making up just fourteen percent of the membership.
The fact that the Oscars are decided by old white men is not exactly a surprise and the lack of diversity has been a longstanding issue for the Academy. As the article details, very few actors of color have been nominated or even brought on stage to present awards. Whether the Academy should more accurately represent the racial and gender constitution of the American population or if it should represent those working as professional filmmakers regardless of their identity is something that I’ll leave to be debated among people who specialize in ethnography and gender studies, at least for now.
However, the nugget from the Times article that is really most damning about the Academy has little to do with the race, gender, or age. Within the piece, the writers observe that hundreds of academy voters haven't worked on a movie in decades and some are people who have left the movie business entirely but continue to vote on the Oscars. What this means is that the institution that calls itself “the world's preeminent movie-related organization” of "the most accomplished men and women working in cinema" and that the mainstream press treats like the definitive judgement on motion pictures does not make its annual award decisions based upon the opinions of people who are currently working in the business.
This flies in the face of the whole image of the Academy Awards. The assumption made by the tens of millions of Oscar television viewers, or at least those who think about these things, is that the people who get on stage were voted there by the people sitting in the audience. And while that is true to an extent, it is clear that votes are also being made by people who have no immediate attachment to the industry and perhaps no interest in film.
And that is far more damaging to the integrity of the Academy Awards than the influence of money or the passé nature of the televised ceremony. An award only means something if the people bestowing it are qualified to be doing so. If the Academy Awards is really just a group of old men, a portion of whom haven’t even worked in the business in years, deciding who gets a career defining golden idol and who doesn’t, then these awards really don’t mean anything more than the yearly picks of a random blogger, and they probably mean less than the picks of professional critics or a film’s score at rottentomatoes.com.
When actor George C. Scott was nominated and subsequently won an Oscar in 1971 for his role in Patton, Scott refused to show at the ceremony, saying “the ceremonies are a two-hour meat parade, a public display with contrived suspense for economic reasons.” When the hoopla of the ceremony is set against the Academy's blatant lack of integrity and their awards’ bareness of meaning, it reminds us of just how right Scott was and his words ring even truer today.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Sounds of Cinema Valentine's Day Weekend
Sounds of Cinema will not be heard on 89.7 KMSU FM in Mankato on February 12th since the station will be participating in its annual Trivia Bonanza in coordination with 88.1 KVSC FM. You can find out more information about the trivia contest here.
Those listening from 89.5 KQAL FM in Winona will hear the regularly scheduled program which will feature reviews of One for the Money and The Woman in Black. The episode will also "celebrate" Valentine's Day with music from some ironically selected films including Basic Instinct and Fatal Attraction.
Those listening from 89.5 KQAL FM in Winona will hear the regularly scheduled program which will feature reviews of One for the Money and The Woman in Black. The episode will also "celebrate" Valentine's Day with music from some ironically selected films including Basic Instinct and Fatal Attraction.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Frozen River Film Festival
For those of you in the Winona area, the Frozen River Film Festival is now underway. You can find the schedule of screenings here. There were some last minutes changes to the schedule so you may want to consult the website before heading out to the events.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Best and Worst Films of 2011
On today's episode of Sounds of Cinema I counted down my picks of the best and worst films of the past year:
Best:
1. Margin Call
2. Shame
3. The Artist
4. Melancholia
5. Hanna
6. A Better Life
7. Page One: Inside the New York Times
8. 50/50
9. Hugo
10. Warrior
Worst:
And lastly, here is a clip from Hardball with Chris Matthews in which the host interviews Margin Call director J.C. Chandor and actor Kevin Spacey about their film.
Best:
1. Margin Call
2. Shame
3. The Artist
4. Melancholia
5. Hanna
6. A Better Life
7. Page One: Inside the New York Times
8. 50/50
9. Hugo
10. Warrior
Worst:
- Jack and Jill
- Your Highness
- The Hangover Part II
- Priest
- Sleeping Beauty
- Bad Teacher
- Road to Nowhere
- Mr. Popper's Penguins
- 30 Minutes or Less
- Sucker Punch
And lastly, here is a clip from Hardball with Chris Matthews in which the host interviews Margin Call director J.C. Chandor and actor Kevin Spacey about their film.
Friday, January 20, 2012
2011 Year End Wrap Up Episode
The Sounds of Cinema episode for January 22 will review the year 2011 and I'll unveil my picks of the ten best and worst films of the past year. Be sure to tune in to see if your favorite films made the cut.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
January Updates
Happy (belated) New Year.
Any of you who check out this blog on a regular basis have probably noticed the lack of posting in it throughout the last quarter of 2011. My apologies for that. Circumstances beyond my control made it difficult, if not impossible, to make meaningful contributions to either of my blogs, but I'm resolved to return to regular postings in 2012.
Another year has come to a close, and that means I am at work on a special episode reflecting on the films released in the previous year, including a countdown of my picks of the best and worst pictures. I've been busy screening notable films from the past year that I missed during their theatrical run because they didn't get released in this area, they were pulled from theaters too quickly, or I refused to see them in the theater (Smurfs, I'm looking at you).
Because I am so busy screening films and putting together the year end wrap up, this weekend (January 15th) will see a rerun of an earlier episode. The 2011 Year End Wrap Up is planned to air January 22nd, 2012. Remember that you can find previous year end wrap ups here.
In the meantime, here are some links to other end of 2011 retrospectives from other critics:
Any of you who check out this blog on a regular basis have probably noticed the lack of posting in it throughout the last quarter of 2011. My apologies for that. Circumstances beyond my control made it difficult, if not impossible, to make meaningful contributions to either of my blogs, but I'm resolved to return to regular postings in 2012.
Another year has come to a close, and that means I am at work on a special episode reflecting on the films released in the previous year, including a countdown of my picks of the best and worst pictures. I've been busy screening notable films from the past year that I missed during their theatrical run because they didn't get released in this area, they were pulled from theaters too quickly, or I refused to see them in the theater (Smurfs, I'm looking at you).
Because I am so busy screening films and putting together the year end wrap up, this weekend (January 15th) will see a rerun of an earlier episode. The 2011 Year End Wrap Up is planned to air January 22nd, 2012. Remember that you can find previous year end wrap ups here.
In the meantime, here are some links to other end of 2011 retrospectives from other critics:
- Mark Kermode picks his favorites and least favorites of 2011.
- The Cinema Snob's picks of the worst films of 2011.
- Roger Ebert's picks of the best films of 2011.
- Richard Roeper's picks of the best and worst of 2011.
- The A.V. Club's picks of the best of 2011.
- Rotten Tomatoes list of the 100 best reviewed films of 2011.
- Todd McCarthy's picks of the 30 best films of 2011.
- Peter Travers' picks of the 10 best films of 2011.
- Kenneth Turan's picks of the best films of 2011.
- The Huffington Post: 11 Great Films You May Have Missed
- Owen Gleiberman's picks of the 10 best of 5 worst films of 2011.
- Lisa Schwartzbaum's picks of the 10 best and 5 worst films of 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)