SCREEN-L Archives

October 1998, Week 2

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 12 Oct 1998 13:25:45 -0500
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Scott Hutchins <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Comments:
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (82 lines)
>Since the Academy has the avowed goal of advancing the motion picture
>arts and sciences, it has always given special attention at Oscar time
>to films that seem to be ("tastefully") artistic or socially conscious.
>Not just SCHINDLER'S LIST, but GANDHI and many others testify to the
>"uplifting" qualities of Oscar winners or major also-rans.  It is a
>truism that comedies are rarely nominated, let alone win!  But there
>are also artistic and social limitations on what the Academy will allow.
 
We must all remember that there is one major genre that has never won an
Academy Award for Best Picture, that of fantasy and science fiction,
unless we count Olivier's _Hamlet_ because it has a ghost.
 
Scott
 
 
 
 ===============================================================================
Scott Andrew Hutchins
http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frances:  I've led a pretty boring life compared to yours.
 
Freddy [the neighbor]:  Mine was pretty boring, too.  I've just got a
knack for picking out the interesting bits.
 
                                    --David Williamson
                                    _Travelling North_
                                    Act Two Scene Three
 
 
 
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Donald Larsson wrote:
 
> Damian comments:
>
>
> > I'd just like to reiterate this point, that I made earlier:
> >
> > *I may be a little cynical, and just a little bit suspicious
> > of the Academy, but I feel I must comment on this. I've
> > always understood there to be a very lively debate as to the
> > political nature of the Academy Awards, and that rumours,
> > substantiated or no, have often abounded as to the expediency
> > of awarding the prizes. It would be foolish to assume that
> > Spielbergs SL Oscars were purely motivated politically, and
> > that the Academy pays special attention to films which make
> > political statement; that is not my point. But, call me
> > cynical, I've always suspected that the Academy consider
> > themselves moral exemplars when the moment suits them, and
> > even more appropraitely when there is a genuine attempt to
> > portray a difficult and necessary subject for discussion. I
> > would very much like it if my suspicions were proven to be
> > wrong.*
>
> Since the Academy has the avowed goal of advancing the motion picture
> arts and sciences, it has always given special attention at Oscar time
> to films that seem to be ("tastefully") artistic or socially conscious.
> Not just SCHINDLER'S LIST, but GANDHI and many others testify to the
> "uplifting" qualities of Oscar winners or major also-rans.  It is a
> truism that comedies are rarely nominated, let alone win!  But there
> are also artistic and social limitations on what the Academy will allow.
>
> But is there an award-granting institution that is not subject to at
> least some of the same pretensions?  Even the Nobel Prizes, especially
> in literature, have been subject to similar criticisms.
>
> Don Larsson
> ----------------------
> Donald Larsson
> Minnesota State U, Mankato
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ----
> To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
> in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
>
 
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite

ATOM RSS1 RSS2