Oscar Gold? How This Year’s Academy Awards Measured Up

As a film student, I can wholeheartedly admit that I have hoped and dreamed that some day I will walk down the red carpet dressed in a designer gown reveling in my Academy Award nomination. Of course actually winning the coveted statue would be the icing on the cake — but I would settle for the nomination! I will even admit that I spent twelve hours on set on Oscar Sunday, wrapped filming at 10:00pm and then proceeded with my crew to watch the TiVoed Award Ceremony late into the night. That is how big a deal the Oscars are to industry insiders and prospective filmmakers despite the fact that for years there have been rumblings that the Academy Awards are outdated; no longer reflecting popular culture, mainstream sensibilities and box office returns. In no previous year has the rumbling been as loud as this year. A thunderstorm of controversy surrounded this year’s picks. Criticism and disappointment were the sentiments expressed around town when The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan’s artful and epic comic book-but more than a comic book- film, was NOT nominated for Best Picture nor was Nolan recognized in the Best Director category. Admittedly, the film nabbed eight nominations, mostly in technical categories and one in the best supporting category for the late, great Heath Ledger. However because the film was adapted from a comic book and featured action and explosions it wasn’t deemed serious or artful or thought-provoking enough?

The disconnect between the Oscars and mainstream audiences both widened (as shown above) and narrowed (nominated animated movies made for children grossed hundreds of millions) this year but still the Oscars seem to remain detached from the public, boring to watch and increasingly political. The Oscars are no longer just about the films or about the art form. I scoured the web before and after the awards and found that many people both agree and disagree with me. I decided to examine their posts on the subject and respond with my own thoughts, which I felt would be beneficial to share below. Sean Penn’s “surprise upset” (which wasn’t really an upset) in the Best Actor Category intrigued me because of its political undertones. I chose to examine a post by Ron and Anna Winship, written before the Oscars, entitled “Why Sean Penn Should Win the Oscar!” Then early this morning I found another article that weighed both the pros and cons of the Oscar show on Ken Tucker’s Watching TV page on EntertainmentWeekly.com entitled “The Oscars: Congrats to the winners! The TV show is finally over!” For convenience I have posted links to the blogs below and my own comments.

"Why Sean Penn Should Win the Oscar!"
Comment

While I applaud your efforts to persuade the public to overcome homophobic attitudes and go see Milk, and I concur that Sean Penn’s portrayal of Harvey Milk— the first openly gay official elected to public office in the United States— was powerful, moving and effective I feel that his now Oscar win had little to do with that performance and more to do with current Hollywood Politics. As a political blog you may be ok with that but as a filmmaker that is not the purpose of the Academy Awards. Released in mid-December, Milk came out on the heels of the outrage regarding the passage of California’s Proposition 8 and I believe his win is more a reaction to those events. Sean Penn delivers in this role, perhaps even better than his fellow nominees but this award was not about his acting, or his craft, it was about Hollywood sending a message.

When Prop 8 passed the loudest outcry in California came from the entertainment industry. Penn received a standing ovation for his win but watching the awards, as you looked at the crowd cheering for Mr. Penn, they were really cheering for themselves. This moment was their moment of redemption, not just for Prop 8 but for the Academy snubbing Brokeback Mountain, a superior film, three years ago. Although Brokeback won three out of the eight awards it was nominated for, it is widely believed that Hollywood wasn’t then ready for a homosexual-themed film to sweep the awards(Though I will admit, “Milk” didn’t get to Sweep the awards but it would have had it not been for underdog “Slumdog Millionaire”). Milk, was the academy’s opportunity to make amends, an attitude spurred by Prop 8. Apparently it only took another three years for the Academy to be prepared to take such an action. Even Heath Ledger’s academy award for best supporting actor, which was well deserved and whose worth should not be diminished, was tied to his Brokeback Mountain performance. His immersion into his Brokeback role was just as deep, haunting and mesmerizing as his role as the Joker. Last night was Ledger’s last opportunity for an Oscar and the Academy made sure he got one in appreciation of his trade craft as reflected in his entire repertoire of work. Both Sean Penn and Heath Ledger are amazing actors worthy of their accolades, awards and recognition but by politicizing the Oscars you are diminishing the art and honestly modern films are already achieving that on their own(Fire Up anyone?). Politics need not assist them in that endeavor.

Lastly I would like to say that contrary to everyone exalting Sean Penn’s acceptance speech I found it crude. Harvey Milk believed in showing homophobes that homosexuals were the every man, and thus they were equal, not in “shaming” his opponents. Penn’s tone suggested to me his own personal hate crusade. Ron and Anna, I wonder what you think about Penn now that he has won. You praised the film for its portrayal of effective community activism. Is this what you had in mind, “shaming” the opponent? I am sure you didn’t. Make no mistake; I am strictly opposed to Proposition 8 and any other existing legislation of its type anywhere in our nation however I felt Penn’s remarks were not appropriate for the time and place. On the other hand, Milk screenwriter, Dustin Lance Black, gave one of the most heartfelt and touching speeches of the night proving you can be insightful, thought provoking, and effectively promote a cause in a more graceful and gracious manner.

“The Oscars: Congrats to the winners! The TV show is finally over!”
Comment- (For this one I was unfortunately not able to fit my comments in just one post and had to post three times. You should read the first(as in the third down), second, and third in that order if you link to the page)

Where has all the sparkle of the Oscars gone? I enjoyed your quips, observations and occasional compliment on the show but I do wonder why you didn’t further lament over the fact that there were no surprises at this year’s Oscars. Japan’s Departures wining out over early favorites France’s The Class and Israel’s Waltz with Bashir was the only upset of the evening. The rest of the awards went to the expected choices, leaving Oscar betters satisfied but not excited about the winner who snuck in. When did the Oscars and thus the industry get so predictable?

More importantly when did the Academy get so bad at producing its own show? There were awkward montages, brief and lackluster performances, long winded introductions, and a rambling off of categories. Yes, there were moments, as you pointed out of hilarity, brilliance, and beauty, but overall the supposedly revamped and abbreviated (?) Oscars were a fumble. Why Ken, in your professional opinion, do you think the show came up so short? I would like to hear a more specific analysis from you.

I know that the Producers tried to condense the show this year to make it more accessible and less boring to viewers. They made it shorter but they didn’t restructure it correctly. I know it was a first attempt but I think many missteps were made. They kept long drawn out montages which featured movies not nominated and which did not cut well together. I can only assume this was their attempt to incorporate more mainstream material into the snooty Oscars but specifically during the Best Picture Montages it did not work. (Raging Bull and Milk intercut?) Additionally, in their effort to shorten the show they threw together all of the technical categories spitting them out one after another. It has been proposed to take these out of the televised show but in my opinion that isn’t right. Yes, I am biased as a film student but the people working in these categories deserve recognition. Their work is integral to the success of the film experience.

My final lament about this year’s Oscars (though I have plenty more) were the performances of Best Song. I know that you Ken said you are not a big spectacle person but this was a section I felt should not be cut down to a mere minute. These performances are a long standing tradition. Go ahead and make some cool remix that slides from one to the other but please let the song play out. My personal highlight of the night? That had to be Kunio Kato’s, the director of Le Maison en Petits Cubes(pictured to the left), acceptance speech which he so artfully ended with “Domo Arigato, Mr. Roboto”. Now there’s a guy who knows how to have fun! I nominated him to direct the show next year.

Seeing in 3-D: The Challenges of Creating a Film Renaissance in a Recession

Since its inception, the film industry has used innovative new technologies such as feature length narratives, sound and color to attract movie theater goers. When television drew audiences away from the movies, early 3-D films and cinemascope and widescreen formats were implemented to appeal to the public and lure them back into theaters. Today’s leading film executives are hoping that new 3-D films will once again entice viewers to get off their couches and computers and head back into the multiplexes. Though by no means a new technology, 3-D films— which have been mostly non-existent in mainstream Hollywood for almost twenty years, but have enjoyed prominence in IMAX— are now experiencing a resurgence in popularity and industry focus. In part this development results from the success of the IMAX 3-D release of The Polar Express in 2004 and last year’s smash hit Disney’s Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus, The Best of Both Worlds 3D Concert Event which grossed over seventy million dollars. The Jonas Brothers, also successful Disney protégés, are following in the footsteps of Miley Cyrus by currently promoting their own IMAX 3-D Concert which will be released on Feb. 27th. The 81st annual Oscars -which will take place this Sunday- nominated two 3-D films, This Way Up and Bolt for best animated short and best animated feature length film respectfully. Additionally, Coraline(poster pictured above), an animated short being praised for its unique visuals and integrated use of 3-D debuted at number three at the box office its opening weekend and has remained in the top five, averaging the second highest grossing per screen revenue. In the summer of 2008 at the Intel Developed Forum (IDF) Jeffrey Katzenberg announced that 3-D is the “greatest innovation to occur in the movie business in 70 years,” and the great success of theses films does seem to support his claims but overall box office attendance still remains down and industry reliance on new 3-D films as their economic savior seems doubtful and almost irresponsible. As the economic crisis deepens the costs of creating these films, distributing them, and equipping multiplexes with the technology to screen them continues to grow. These increase costs have contributed to the rise in 3-D ticket prices at a time when the public is being seriously challenged by the current state of the economy. While film has always been a tool of escapism from the hardships of life it is doubtful that the 3-D renaissance will have the same opportunity to succeed as Katzenberg and others envision given the realities of the current recession.

The Polar Express 3-D film was screened at IMAX theaters but now that the film industry is promoting 3-D films as the new norm— with the upcoming releases of Monster vs. Alien, Avatar, G Force, Up, Final Destination 4 and the current releases of My Bloody Valentine and Coraline, all in 3-D,— regular multiplexes must adapt to the new digital 3-D technology or risk loosing substantial business. Even small independent theaters, which operate in specific market niches, are becoming 3-D equipped in order to remain competitive with other movie theaters and elaborate home entertainment systems. While 3-D is being exalted as the new frontier theaters are putting themselves at risk by investing in these expensive technologies before there is proof that 3-D is sustainable and not a passing fad.

In the fall of 2008 as AMC, Cinemark and Regal, the three largest theater chains in the US, were seeking to borrow money for digital 3-D conversion the world economy went into financial meltdown and the multimillion dollars worth of credit they needed disappeared, leaving only 22% of the 5,620 designated screens converted to 3-D digital. This left theaters ill equipped to receive the 3-D films they were meant to exhibit in the coming months and left studios without exhibition spaces for their films. With the release dates of multiple 3-D films quickly approaching the film industry went into panic mode trying to devise a way to still achieve wide releases(and thus profits) when only about 1,200 screens nationwide were 3-D ready. This disaster echoed the words of Knowledge @ Wharton who voiced fear in 2008 that theaters would not be ready in time for the influx of 3-D films. At the end of January, Paramount stepped up and is offering to pay “a specified "virtual" print fee to theater owners that convert at least 50% of screens to digital; the fee is higher for screens converted to 3-D”. Under this plan at least 2,000 screens should be 3-D ready in time for the films’ premieres and although studios planned for a larger screen count per the original conversion plan they are making it work and hoping that their bottom line isn’t too negatively impacted. Paramount itself is taking a huge risk financing these theaters but it is also hopefully leading a trend in Hollywood that others will follow. By financing 3-D and thus digital conversion it is preparing for Hollywood’s eventual shift to (film-print -free) digital exhibitions that will ultimately cost studios less money printing the film.

RealD is the industry leader in both converting 2-D theaters to 3-D and supplying equipment for 3-D filmmaking. Filmmakers are spending an extra $10-15 million dollars using this technology in their films and theaters are spending about $100,000 to upgrade a single screen from a standard 2-D to 3-D theater with an annual licensing and maintenance cost of about $25,000-30,000 per screen. The burden of these costs is being increasingly passed along to individual moviegoers who are expected to pay premium ticket prices for these films. While a normal 2-D movie has an average ticket price of $7.18, 3-D movie tickets had an average price of $15 in 2008 and they are expected to rise.

Back in 2007 Foxnews.com reported that Regal Entertainment Group said “moviegoers made no complaint about paying premium ticket prices [for 3-D] that were $2.50 to $4 higher than regular tickets”. Web Users disagree. Andrew James of rowthree.com was outraged by the $2 rental fee he was unexpectedly charged upon arriving at the theater to see Coraline. Even more troubling was Marina Antunes, who spent $30 for a ticket to My Bloody Valentine. Audiences are already feeling the pinch of raised movie tickets prices, and these additional 3-D charges could be their breaking point. By increasing their output of 3-D films studios expect a larger return, but by releasing so many 3-D movies studios may be driving audiences out of theaters with their premium prices.
Additionally, the draw of 3-D as an experience unique to the theater is quickly disappearing. Next3d.com is advertising HD quality 3-D content available at home through the X-box system. They claim that their technology could be ready as early as this spring and interest in such technology will only increase as moviegoers once again crave cheaper at-home alternatives to movie theaters. More importantly, studios and production companies themselves will need to utilize such technology in order for audiences to screen their 3-D films at home since the majority of movie studios make their revenue from DVDs sales and television licensing deals. It is ironic that studios must have a part in developing and utilizing the very technology that will ultimately draw its audience away from theaters.

Jeffrey Katzenberg honestly believes a new age of cinema is upon us. "The first [was] when movies went from silent films to talkies, and the second is when they went from black and white to color," he says. "And I believe what we are facing as an opportunity today is as great as either of those were.” He predicts that in "less than a handful of years," the great majority of films will be made and shown in 3-D. 3-D movies were always where the medium of film was thought to be headed and they will have their day, whether it is now or after the economic crisis. With a dozen 3-D films being released this year 2009 will be the year of 3-D irrespective of their individual success. However the question remains will 3-D be able to sustain itself after 2009, after its novelty has worn off and its technology has been spread to the masses? Only time and maybe Three Dimensional glasses (pictures above)will tell.

Film Exposure: A Look at Web Based Film and Television Resources

As a cinephile there is nothing more difficult than deciding what film to watch. There are always just too many I want to see. In determining which films to screen I rely heavily on the world wide web which provides sites that offer detailed reviews and production news. At times the abundance of film or entertainment related articles on the web can seem overwhelming and the material presented is often repetitive. As a new member of the blogosphere I scoured the web using search engines like Google, Blog Flux and Technorati, in order to find relevant websites and blogs that I can draw from for my own posts and which I am sharing in the linkroll to the left. I decided to give an introduction to these sites in my first blog post(ever!). In order to maintain a level of accountability and professionalism when choosing the website for my linkroll I used the Webby Awards and IMSA criteria as guidelines. The Webby Awards criteria requires one to review the visual design and interactivity of a site to determine whether it is stimulating to the reader and easy to navigate while maintaining convincing authorship. IMSA criteria is more specific to the Blog world. It stresses the importance of any blog author being experienced in his/her field and requires that he/she use factual and established sources for their articles while honestly admitting their biases and responding to them. The first links that I added to my Linkroll were Variety (pictured above), The Hollywood Reporter, and Entertainment Weekly, all of which are respected trade papers of the entertainment industry. IndieWire is similar to theses sites except that it focuses solely on independent films. SlashFilm is an alternative movie news and review blog that has been cited by major media sources like CNN and BBC while Thompson On Hollywood is the daily blog written by Ann Thompson, the deputy editor of Variety. I also included independent producer Geoffery James Clark’s blog TheGuyBehindtheGuy.com which gives more of a personal view of the industry from someone working within its confines. Business Exchange: Movie Business is an aggregator that links to more business oriented film articles. Aside from having an extensive database of films, Internet Movie Database also has an excellent aggregator that draws from Variety and many other sites already on my linkroll. I hope that my blog will be a valuable resource to its readers and that my individual experience as a film student will enhance this blog’s success in being informative while providing a unique and personal perspective on the subject matter.