On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Tom Wolper <[email protected]> wrote:
> Emmys are safe choices because their voters, the people who make > television, don't have time to watch a lot of television and they will > vote by reputation. > Oscars aren't always safe choices. There are always small independent > films nominated and when they win there's criticism. If by safe > choices we mean keeping out really obscure films, there have to be > some eligibility requirements, especially as the large studios have > been the force behind the awards. (SNIP) > > And over time cultural rebels either become part of the mainstream > culture or they flame out. It's breathtaking to see a cultural rebel > emerge and speak truth to power. But who can keep up the quality of > the work consistently over decades and still remain a rebel idol? I'm > thinking of somebody like Lou Reed and I think Lou's core audience is > as old as he is. > If by "safe" we mean commercial success and not critical favorite than I agree with you - last year the Hurt Locker was not a "safe" pick in that sense. But if by safe we mean "middlebrow" - a film made to be slightly challenging entertainment but not serious art, intended to make its audience feel educated and "classy" without actually putting in the hard work necessary for either, and that is ultimately manipulative and overly sentimental rather than honest, then the Oscars are almost the definition of middlebrow. Ghandi, Chariots of Fire, The King's Speech are all prototypical. I enjoy a lot of middlebrow fare, but we can't confuse it with art. OTOH, real artists can't bitch that their work is not recognized by the constituters of middlebrow entertainment. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
