ANOTHER NOTE ON THE OSCARS

I HAD A FEW COMMENTS ON THE LITTLE SPIEL ON THE OSCARS THAT PRECEDED FEBRUARY'S WRAP-UP POST, AND WAS DISMAYED TO LEARN THAT I HAD BEEN MISUNDERSTOOD. FROM FRENZIED GOOGLING OF MY OWN BLOG IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THIS MISUNDERSTANDING IS NOT UNCOMMON AMONGST READERS. TO CLEAR THINGS UP: PIXAR IS GREAT. LIKE MOST OF YOU, I TOO WENT INTO TOY STORY 3D WITH NOTHING BUT A HOLE IN MY COAT POCKET AND EXPECTATIONS OF A GOOD TIME. BUT SOON, TO MY SURPRISE, I WAS PAYING JUST AS MUCH ATTENTION TO WHAT WAS ON THE SCREEN AS TO THE ACTION OFF IT. TOY STORY 3D WAS A GOOD MOVIE! IT GAVE US CHARACTERS WE CARED ABOUT AND PUT THEM IN SITUATIONS THAT LET US FEAR FOR THEM AND FEEL WITH THEM. IT WAS A VERY WELL-TOLD ADVENTURE STORY WITH AN AUTHENTICALLY ELEGIAC FLAVOUR THAT IS RARE IN ANY CHILDREN'S ENTERTAINMENT. MY ISSUE IS NOT WITH PIXAR. THEY MAKE EXCELLENT AND INTELLIGENT ART CAPABLE OF SATISFYING CHILDREN JUST AS WELL AS THE ADULTS WHO MOLEST THEM. MY ISSUE IS WITH THE ACADEMY AWARDS THEMSELVES!

WHAT KIND OF PROBLEM COULD I POSSIBLY HAVE WITH THE OSCARS, YOU ASK? WELL, THAT'S A VERY FAIR QUESTION. IT DOES SEEM PUERILE TO KNOCK A NIGHT OF CELEBRATION OF THE ART OF FILM -- WHAT HARM COULD SOMETHING LIKE THAT DO?

WELL, AS USUAL YOU'RE ALL FUCKING IDIOTS AND I HAVE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE WORLD WORKS LIKE I'M TALKING TO LITTLE WHINY BABIES. A VERY BRIEF GLANCE AT THE HISTORY OF THE AWARDS IS ENOUGH TO SHOW US THAT THEY ARE NO BETTER AT PREDICTING WHAT HAS REAL, LASTING VALUE THAN IS YOUR AVERAGE 40-YEAR-OLD MOTHER OF THREE WHO "REALLY ENJOYED" ATONEMENT (NOMINATED 2007) OR A TWELVE-YEAR OLD BOY WHO THOUGHT AVATAR (GROTESQUELY NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE IN 2010) WAS "SO COOL".

(A NOTE: LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE I CAN'T DEFINE ARTISTIC VALUE AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO. NOTHING BLINKERS GOOD CRITICAL VISION MORE THAN FORMULATING A SET OF RULES FOR WHAT IS GOOD ART. LEARNING TO APPRECIATE A MASTERPIECE IS NOT ABOUT BRINGING THE RIGHT THINGS TO IT, IT IS ABOUT TAKING FROM IT WHATEVER IT OFFERS. ALL CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT IS AN OPENING OF THE MIND, AND WHAT IS IMPORTANT ABOUT A PIECE OF ART IS MOST OFTEN WHAT IS UNIQUE TO IT. HOW THEN CAN A GOOD CRITIC JUSTIFY DISMISSAL OF ANY ART, IF WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT ABOUT CRITICISM IS LEARNING TO APPRECIATE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE FROM ALL ART WE COME ACROSS?

WELL, THE UNFORTUNATE FACT IS THAT MOST OF US ARE GOING TO DIE ONE DAY. SURE, WE CAN PUT IT OFF WITH MEDICINE, EXERCISE, OR BY DRINKING THE URINE OF PREGNANT WOMEN, BUT AT SOME POINT WE ARE HEADED TO THAT UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY FROM WHOSE BOURN NO TRAVELLER RETURNS. WE HAVE A LIMITED TIME ON THE PLANET AND WE MUST MAKE CHOICES ABOUT WHAT ART WE CONSUME IN THAT TIME -- ESPECIALLY WHAT WE WANT TO CONSUME MULTIPLE TIMES: WHICH BOOKS WE WANT TO READ AGAIN, WHICH FILMS WE WANT TO WATCH AGAIN. THERE IS NO WAY TO EXPLAIN WHY A WRITER LIKE SHAKESPEARE HAS MORE TO OFFER, ESPECIALLY ON REPEAT READINGS, THAN, SAY, HIS CONTEMPORARY GEORGE PEELE. BUT IT IS A DECISION TO WHICH EVERYONE WHO IS HONESTLY READING FOR PLEASURE MUST EVENTUALLY COME, OUT OF SELF-INTEREST MORE THAN ANYTHING. AND JUDGING A WORK AS GOOD OR BAD IS LITTLE MORE THAN MAKING THAT CHOICE, BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU FEEL YOURSELF WANTING OR NEEDING TO PUT MORE TIME INTO IT. AESTHETIC VALUE CAN ONLY BE RECOGNIZED BY A KIND OF FEELING OF BEING TRANSCENDED BY THE ARTWORK, OR AS EMILY DICKINSON ONCE SHOUTED IN BOLD BLOCK CAPITALS "IF I FEEL PHYSICALLY AS IF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WERE TAKEN OFF, I KNOW THAT IS POETRY, YOU STUPID MORONS")

ANYWAY, BACK TO HOW USELESS THE OSCARS ARE: CITIZEN FUCKING KANE LOST OUT ON BEST PICTURE 1941 BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS BLOC VOTED AGAINST IT, NOT BECAUSE OF ANY AESTHETIC JUDGMENT, BUT BECAUSE RANDOLPH WILLIAM HEARST USED HIS RIDICULOUS RICHES TO INFLUENCE THEM (AS WELL AS HURT ORSON WELLES' CAREER BY BRIBING CINEMAS TO LIMIT BOOKINGS). HE DIDN'T LIKE THE PORTRAYAL OF HIMSELF AS A WEALTHY AND CORRUPT OLD PROPAGANDIST. FUNNY THAT.

ON ANOTHER OCCASION THE COMMITTEE AWARDED AN HONOURARY MAKE-UP PRIZE TO PLANET OF THE APES FOR ITS CONVINCING APE MAKE-UP -- IN THE SAME YEAR STANLEY KUBRICK'S 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY WAS RELEASED. BECAUSE PEOPLE LITERALLY DID NOT REALIZE THAT THE APES IN 2001 WERE ACTORS IN MAKE-UP. AND HEY REMEMBER THAT TIME ROCKY BEAT TAXI DRIVER FOR BEST PICTURE?

THE MORE YOU LOOK INTO THE OSCARS -- THE WAY THEY ARE RUN, THE CHOICES THEY MAKE, THE WAY CRITICS THINK AND WRITE ABOUT THEM, THE IMPORTANCE THE GREAT GENIUSES OF FILM HAVE PLACED ON THEM, IT BECOMES INCREASINGLY CLEAR THAT THE WHOLE DEBACLE IS RUN BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE LITTLE TO NO IDEA OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND WHO CARE LESS, FOR MORE OF THOSE SAME PEOPLE.

SO WHAT EXACTLY DO THE OSCARS DO? HOW DO THEY WORK? HOW DO THEY AFFECT PUBLIC OPINION AND THE FILM INDUSTRY? ARE THE EFFECTS POSITIVE?

A FILM LIKE BLACK SWAN, WHICH WON A MAJOR AWARD THIS YEAR AND WAS NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE, IS A GOOD CASE STUDY OF HOW OSCAR VALUES COINCIDE WITH PUBLIC VALUES, AND HOW LITTLE EITHER OF THOSE LINE UP WITH WHAT MAKES A MOVIE GOOD. THE OSCARS TEND TO LIKE TWO CERTAIN TYPES OF FILM, BOTH OF WHICH HAVE A VERY WIDE APPEAL. THE FIRST TYPE IS BIG, SPECTACULAR BLOCKBUSTERS, LIKE BRAVEHEART, BEN-HUR, ROCKY, TITANIC, GLADIATOR, THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING, ALL OF WHICH WON BEST PICTURE. NOW, THERE'S NOT A LOT THAT CAN BE SAID AGAINST THIS TYPE OF MOVIE, BECAUSE THEY ARE USUALLY AN EARNEST AND SUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT AT A BRAND OF ENTERTAINMENT BASICALLY UNIQUE TO CINEMA. ONE COULD PROBABLY QUESTION WHETHER ROCKY IS A BETTER MOVIE THAN TAXI DRIVER, BUT IT'S PRETTY UNDENIABLE THAT ROCKY IS A VERY GOOD FILM IN ITS OWN RIGHT.

SPECTACULARS WORK ON A VERY OLD PRINCIPLE OF NARRATIVE MOST FAMOUSLY EXPOUNDED BY JOSEPH CAMPBELL. HE CALLS IT THE MONOMYTH, AND USUALLY THE PERCEIVED SIMPLICITY AND LACK OF EMBELLISHMENT CONCEALS A STRUCTURE THAT, WHILE SIMPLE, IS PROFOUNDLY EFFECTIVE AND IMPORTANT TO HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS. AND BECAUSE OF ITS SIMPLICITY IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DO WRONG. FOR THIS REASON WE CAN FEEL IN STAR WARS SOME OF THE SAME DEPTH WE FEEL IN HESIOD, IN VIRGIL, IN MOST HERO-SAGA, IN THE LEGEND OF THE BUDDHA, IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE BIBLE.

ON THE OTHER HAND. THE SECOND TYPE OF FILM IS A FAR LESS SATISFYING AND DEEPLY SCHLOCKY PARODY OF MISUNDERSTOOD FINE ART. WITH THE FAUX-ART FILM, THE EMBELLISHMENT DISGUISES AN ACTUAL AND DISAPPOINTING SIMPLICITY. HACK ROMANCE, BODICE-RIPPING, SOAP OPERATIC STORIES AND THIN STOCK CHARACTERS (RATHER THAN ARCHETYPAL CHARACTERS AS IN THE SPECTACULAR) ARE BURIED UNDERNEATH A MOUNTAIN OF GENRE CONVENTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH "SERIOUS ART" AND INCLUDED TO MAKE THE AUDIENCE BELIEVE THEY ARE VIEWING "A SERIOUS ARTWORK". THIS TYPE OF FILM APES THE NOVEL OR THE TRAGEDY RATHER THAN THE EPIC OR THE MYTH, THE UNFORTUNATE REALITY BEING NOVELISTIC ART IS FAR MORE DIFFICULT TO IMITATE. THE ADVANTAGE OF THE FAUX-ART FILM IS THAT IT ALLOWS SIMPLE HUMAN IMPULSES -- SCANDAL, SEXUAL EXCITEMENT, SADISTIC PLEASURE IN THE HUMILIATION OF VICE-FIGURES, SENTIMENT -- TO BE AROUSED IN A CLASSY SETTING. IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT THE AUDIENCE IMAGINES HIGH ART TO LOOK LIKE. BUT MERELY DRESSING UP AS AN ASTRONAUT WILL NOT GET YOU ANY CLOSER TO THE STARS.

BLACK SWAN THUMPS OUT THESE GENRE CONVENTIONS OF "ARTISTIC FILM" UNTIL THERE ARE VERY FEW CLICHES LEFT TO EXPLOIT. "A FINE ARTS THEME," "REALLY INTENSE ACTING THAT MOSTLY AMOUNTS TO UGLY CRYING," AND "HAVING THE WORD 'PSYCHOLOGICAL' ON PROMOTIONAL POSTERS" ARE CHIEF AMONG THEM. IT ALSO INCLUDES, IN A VERY UNFULFILLED MANIFESTATION, THAT MOST STINKING OF FAUX-ART FILM STINKERS: THE LATE-REVEAL IMAGINARY FRIEND, COMPOUNDED OF THIRD-HAND CONCEPTS OF JUNG'S SHADOW AND ANIMA/ANIMUS AND FREUD'S LIBIDO. WHAT THE MOVIE UNFORTUNATELY LACKS IS DECENT PACING TOWARDS THE END AND INTERESTING CHARACTERIZATION -- THOUGH IT MAKES STEPS TOWARDS THESE REDEMPTIVE GOALS, IT EXTINGUISHES ITS MOST INTERESTING HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS TO SERVICE THE ABORTION THAT CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS "WHAT THE FILM IS TRYING TO SAY": A REDUCTION FAR LESS THAN WHAT IT COULD HAVE SIMPLY BEEN. BLACK SWAN IS NOT ART, MOSTLY BECAUSE OF HOW HARD IT'S TRYING TO LOOK LIKE IT IS.

THERE IS NO RELIABLE DIFFERENCE IN QUALITY BETWEEN OSCAR NOMINEES AND NOT; OSCAR CONTENDERS ARE SIMPLY COMMERCIALLY SUCCESSFUL FILMS THAT ADHERE TO CERTAIN CONVENTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ARTINESS. THE ACADEMY CANNOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MOVIE DRESSING UP AS ART, LIKE BLACK SWAN, AND REAL ART: DARREN ARONOFSKY'S EARLIER AND FAR, FAR BETTER OFFERING, THE WRESTLER -- MICKEY ROURKE LOST THE AWARD FOR BEST ACTOR, NATALIE PORTMAN WON BEST ACTRESS WITH A SUPREMELY INFERIOR PERFORMANCE THAT NEVERTHELESS HAD MORE UGLY DROOLY CRYING, BECAUSE THE LOGIC OF THE OSCARS DICTATES THAT A LOT OF ACTING, ACTING YOU REALLY NOTICE, IS GOOD ACTING.

IF ONE REQUIRES A MORE RIDICULOUS EXAMPLE OF THE OSCARS' BAD TASTE, LOOK AT BEST PICTURE NOMINEE INCEPTION -- THE AVATAR OF THIS YEAR'S AWARDS. THE FILM DEVELOPS NO CHARACTER, 80% OF THE DIALOGUE IS VERY AWKWARD EXPOSITION OF SOME SIMPLE IDEAS, AND ALL THAT IS GOOD ABOUT IT IS IN THE FINAL THIRTY MINUTES OR SO. MOST DAMNINGLY, THE BRIEF-LIVED THRILL OF WATCHING IT ONCE IS EXTINGUISHED ON THE SECOND VIEWING, WHEN WE REALIZE NO CHARACTER IS A REAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND APART FROM THE ELEGANCE OF THE FINAL ACTION SEQUENCE NOTHING IN THE FILM IS INTERESTING ENOUGH THAT WE WANT IT EXPLAINED FOR A FURTHER TWO HOURS. BUT IT HIT CINEMAS TOO RECENTLY TO HAVE STARTED FADING, AND ITS CONSTANT EXPOSITION GIVES THE ILLUSION THAT ANY OF ITS MAJOR POINTS NEEDS TO BE LAID OUT -- IT PRETENDS TO BE A DIFFICULT FILM AND IS IN FACT ONE OF THE SIMPLEST OF THE YEAR, BECAUSE IT CONTAINS NO PEOPLE, NO INSIGHTS, NOTHING ON WHICH A VIEWER CAN MEDITATE. IT WOULD BE THE PERFECT FAUX-ART FILM IF, LIKE BLACK SWAN, IT PRETENDED TO BE LESS OF AN ACTION MOVIE.

NOT THAT I'VE SAID ANYTHING AT ALL NEW HERE. CRITIQUES OF THE OSCARS ARE PLENTIFUL, FROM AMATEURS AND PROFESSIONAL CRITICS. AND HUMANS, EN MASSE, HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TEMPERAMENTAL JUDGES OF WHAT IS GOOD, AND REALLY AWFUL JUDGES OF WHAT IS BAD. BUT WHAT CERTAINLY DOES NOT HELP THE HUMAN RACE IN ITS HILARIOUS STRUGGLE TO FIND REAL MEANING, LASTING VALUE IN ART, IS GIVING A CERTAIN PROPORTION OF THOSE HUMANS, NO MORE QUALIFIED THAN ANY OF THEIR PEERS, THE STATUS OF OFFICIAL TASTE-MAKERS: ANYONE REMEMBER THAT OTHER TIME HUMAN BEINGS LET A PANEL OF MIDDLE-CLASS RETARDED PEOPLE CALL ITSELF AN ACADEMY AND DECIDE WHETHER ART WAS OFFICIALLY GOOD OR BAD? IT DIDN'T WORK OUT SO WELL. LUCKILY AN ARTIST LIKE MANET, EVEN THOUGH HE DESPERATELY DESIRED THE FACILE APPROVAL OF THE ACADEMIE, HAD THE INTEGRITY TO PURSUE HIS OWN ARTISTIC VISION AND CHANGE THE FACE OF PAINTING FOR ALL TIME, WORKING IN SPITE OF THE SOCIAL SCORN THAT ACADEMIE CONDEMNATION EARNED HIM FROM THE SWINE AT THE COMMON TROUGH.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACADEMIE DICTATING TASTE IN THE VISUAL ARTS AND THE ACADEMY DICTATING TASTE IN FILM IS, OF COURSE, THAT IT REQUIRES THE PARTICIPATION OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PRODUCER FUNDING TO MAKE A MOVIE. A DIRECTOR CANNOT SIT DOWN ALONE AT AN EASEL AND CREATE MASTERPIECES LIKE MANET COULD. FILM IS A SOCIAL AND COLLECTIVE ENDEAVOUR WHICH REQUIRES MASSIVE SUPPORT TO FUNCTION.

WHEN THE MOST PROFITABLE FILMS ARE THOSE WHICH DO NOT CHALLENGE THE UNEDUCATED, AHISTORICAL PUBLIC'S NOTION OF "ARTY MOVIES", YOU GET EXACTLY THE SITUATION OF PARIS UNDER THE ACADEMIE: SOULLESS AND COMMERCIAL TECHNICAL EXERCISES PARADED AS GREAT ART WHILE GENUINELY LASTING ART GOES SCORNED OR UNNOTICED. ONLY, IN THIS CASE, THE GENUINE ART IS NOT EVEN MADE, BECAUSE IT HAS NO FUNDING.

THERE'S A FEEDBACK LOOP, BECAUSE THE OSCARS THEMSELVES ARE MOST PROFITABLE WHEN THE PUBLIC HAS A CLEAR FAVOURITE TO WIN: THAT IS WHEN THE HIGHEST RATINGS ARE REPORTED. SO THE ACADEMY IS RESTRICTED TO PROMOTING ONLY THOSE FILMS WHICH ARE ALREADY POPULAR PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY FIT THE STANDARDS WHICH THE OSCARS HAVE SET UP FOR "QUALITY FILMS".

THERE IS A LEGITIMATE OBJECTION IN THAT THE OSCARS DO SOMETIMES HIT UPON SOME PRETTY GOOD FILMS. I WOULD COUNTER BY OBSERVING THAT THEY ARE ALL FILMS OF A CERTAIN TYPE: GENUINE ART OF THE KIND SOMETHING LIKE BLACK SWAN IS MIMICKING. HEREIN LIES A CENTRAL ISSUE WITH ANY COMMITTEE-AWARDED PRIZE FOR ART.

THE NOBEL PRIZE IN LITERATURE PASSED OVER PROUST, JOYCE, KAFKA, BORGES, NABOKOV, MACHADO DE ASSIS -- THE FIRST THREE OF WHOM, AT LEAST, ARE UNDOUBTEDLY THE THREE MOST LASTING AND INFLUENTIAL AUTHORS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY (BECKETT, WHO MIGHT BE A FOURTH AMONG THEIR NUMBER, WAS HAPPILY AWARDED THE NOBEL). AND THE COMMITTEE BY THE VERY NATURE OF A SYSTEM THAT SEPARATES "SCIENCE AND MEDICINE" FROM "LITERATURE" WAS UNABLE TO IDENTIFY FREUD AS THE VITAL AND UNPARALLELED TWENTIETH-CENTURY ESSAYIST THAT HE WAS AND REMAINS.

IT DID HOWEVER RECOGNIZE (AMONG A STEADY STRING OF INEXPLICABLE NON-ENTITY WINNERS) AUTHORS LIKE ERNEST HEMINGWAY, ALBERT CAMUS AND JOHN STEINBECK. TODAY WE CAN SEE MORE ACCURATELY THE POSITION OF THESE WRITERS IN WORLD LITERATURE: CAMUS SEEMS A PRODUCT OF THE FIFTIES AND DOOMED TO EMBODY HIS TIME RATHER THAN THE ETERNAL, AND WHILE STEINBECK IS STILL TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS HIS CRITICAL REPUTATION HAS DWINDLED TO DOUBTFUL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE GRAPES OF WRATH AND RIGHTFUL DISMISSAL OF HIS OTHER WORK AS CHEAP IN SENTIMENT AND POOR IN STYLE. HEMINGWAY REMAINS IMPORTANT BUT WE SEE HIS FLAWS, HIS TENDENCY TOWARDS PAINFULLY UNAWARE SELF-PARODY, THE LIMITATIONS OF HIS APPROACH, MORE CLEARLY NOW.

WHAT CAMUS, STEINBECK AND HEMINGWAY HAVE IN COMMON IS THAT THEY ARE ALL VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND, TO THE POINT WHERE THEY ARE OFTEN THE FAVOURITES OF VERY YOUNG PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT YET HAD TIME TO READ A LOT. THEY OFFER UP WHAT THEY CAN WITH MINIMAL EFFORT ON THE READER'S PART. THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT A POINT AGAINST THEM, BUT IT HINTS AT WHAT A PRIZE COMMITTEE GENERALLY IS ABLE TO VALUE: ART WHICH CAN BE READILY APPRECIATED BY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE BEFORE A JUDGMENT DEADLINE, AND ART OF WHICH THE RECOGNITION WILL BE APPLAUDED BY THE PUBLIC. THESE ARE THE TRAPS INTO WHICH ANY PRIZE FOR ART MUST FALL. POINTLESS TRAPS, BECAUSE THE ENDEAVOUR ITSELF IS POINTLESS. WHAT ON EARTH IS THERE TO GAIN, FOR ANY OF US, FROM PEOPLE SITTING AROUND A TABLE TRYING TO DECIDE WHICH ART THEY WILL PUBLICALLY ANNOUNCE TO BE THE BEST? NO SUCH EFFORT IN HISTORY HAS EVER BEEN ACCURATE OR USEFUL, AND HAS OFTEN PROVED A HINDRANCE IN BOTH ACADEMIC CRITICISM AND THE ENJOYMENT OF WHAT IS SOMETIMES LAUGHABLY REFERRED TO AS "THE COMMON READER".

GOOD BOOKS SOMETIMES TAKE CENTURIES TO SURFACE, BUT THEY DO, WHETHER LAUDED BY COMMITTEES OR NOT. AND WHEN THEY ARE APPRECIATED, BY THE ONLY AUDIENCE WHICH HAS EVER TRULY EXISTED -- MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE CUT THEMSELVES FREE FROM THE ACCIDENTS OF THEIR TIME AND CULTURE TO ROAM THE ENTIRE WORLD'S HISTORY IN SEARCH OF BEAUTY, IN ALL ITS MILLION FORMS -- WHEN THESE REAL READERS, DEEP READERS, FIND IN THEM WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE TO FIND, THE CRITICAL TASTE OF THE TIME IN WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED INVARIABLY STRIKES US AS DEEPLY AND OBVIOUSLY MISGUIDED.

WHAT CAN THE OSCARS, AND THE NOBEL, AND THE NATIONAL BOOK AWARD AND SO ON AND SO ON BE EXCEPT A MONUMENT TO FUTURE AGES OF HOW POORLY WE UNDERSTOOD OURSELVES AND OUR ART? IF THEY WERE ABLE TO CONSISTENTLY AND ACCURATELY SORT WHAT IS GOOD FROM WHAT IS FORGETTABLE, THEY WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. BUT THEY CANNOT. THEY ARE NO BETTER AN INDICATOR OF QUALITY THAN THE OPINION OF RANDOMLY-CHOSEN PEOPLE ON THE STREET. WERE THEY ABLE TO POINT THE WAY TO AUTHENTICALLY FASCINATING ART FOR THE PUBLIC, THEN THEY WOULD AT LEAST HAVE SOME SORT OF A USE. BUT THEY DO NOT. OSCAR NOMINEES ARE FILMS THAT HAVE DONE WELL AT THE BOX-OFFICE IN THE FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS BEFORE THE CEREMONY. AND THIS IS WHAT I WAS GETTING AT WHEN I MENTIONED PIXAR: THE ACADEMY PUT NO MORE EFFORT INTO SEEKING OUT QUALITY ANIMATED FILMS THAN WOULD ANY PERSON WITH NO INTEREST IN FILM OR ANIMATION. IT PICKED A WINNER AND THEN FILLED UP THE NOMINATIONS WITH WHATEVER WAS ON HAND. WHY DO WE NEED A COMMITTEE TO DO THAT FOR US? I DISMISS SHIT WITHOUT TRYING TO LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT IT ALL THE DAMN TIME.