We have seen the future, and it sucks.

The 2012 Oscar Noms: More Proof Hollywood Doesn’t Care About You

30th January 2012

Read it.

We don’t care about Oscar because Oscar stopped caring about us.

Let’s look at the Best Picture nominees:  “The Artist,” “The Descendants,” “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close,” “Hugo,” “Midnight in Paris,” “The Help,” “Moneyball,” “War Horse” and “The Tree of Life.” For many of these, that’s the first time anyone has looked at them – only three of these movies are even nearly within even the loosest definition of a “hit.”

And, indeed, I feel no impulse to see any of them, even at the Dollar Theater.

Hollywood defaults to the darlings of the urban elite – I’m doubting “The Tree of Life’s” mopey, soul-searching spiritual journey through time and space and Sean Penn’s soul did a lot of business outside of hipster-infested coastal cities where neo-beatnik audiences in skinny jeans snapped their fingers in approval of the groovy insights Terrance Malick flashed on screen in the place traditionally filled with things like ”a plot,” “action” and “a point.”

But you knew that….

3 Responses to “The 2012 Oscar Noms: More Proof Hollywood Doesn’t Care About You”

  1. Dennis Nagle Says:

    What, exactly, is the author complaining about? That the Oscars aren’t a popularity contest? They were never meant to be so.

    He seems to be under the impression that Big Box Office = Artistic Merit. Somehow I have difficulty accepting that car chases, big explosions, adolescent tit jokes, and kung-fu/Uzzi mayhem are the pinnacle of American movie achievement. When it comes to movies, folks in America are more than happy to glut on the same low diet every day, month after month, year after year. H.L.Mencken said it, and it’s still true: No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

    Saying that movies are not great because they didn’t draw well is rather like saying that Mozart wasn’t great because he never had a platinum album.

    Let the Academy Awards be what they were supposed to be, awards by one’s peers–who are the ones who should know what it means–for powerful images, good dialogue, important themes, great music, great acting, and great directing.

    Playboy centerfolds garner more attention than a Van Gogh or Matisse exhibit, but that doesn’t make the centerfold photographer worthy of an Artist Of The Year award.

  2. Dennis Nagle Says:

    P.S.: I saw ‘War Horse’, and I highly, highly reccommend it to you, Tim. See it on the big screen if possible. It’s not a heart-warming Disney pony show.
    The horse, although a central thematic element, is more a foil to the plot; it’s a much or more about the trenches of WW I and how that experience affects and changes the lives of those who live through it.

  3. RealRick Says:

    What you’re saying is true, Dennis, but I think what the article is pointing out is the gap between Hollywood’s elite and reality. I’ve not seen a single one of the nominated movies. (My wife wants to see “War Horse”, but I’ve been resisting since the ads do make it appear to be “pony show”.)

    Hollywood seems to be producing 2 kinds of films: Elitist crap (e.g., George Clooney movies), or really bad sequels to anything that made a buck. (“Ghostrider II”) We’ve been fighting two wars for 10 years and Hollywood only managed to make 1 decent movie about it (“The Hurt Locker”).

    I did go to see “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” and it was very well done (because it stayed true to the book), but I was probably the youngest in the audience. Movies based on books only appeal to those who read and that seems to be becoming the realm of the elderly. And that would be an entirely different dyspepsic topic.