Awards Season 2009

[Grand Illusion]

Hey, I was redirected here from the Women's criterionforum. They thought I was trolling.

[Lemmy Caution]

But separate is not equal. While it is certainly acceptable for sports competitions like the Olympics to have separate events for male and female athletes, the biological differences do not affect acting performances.

When I was watching the Winter Olympics, I was wondering why they had separate male and female curling teams.

[domino harvey]

This just in: The Independent Spirit Rewards are a bigger joke than the Oscars now

[mfunk9786]

Do they have a clear definition of what makes a film an independent film? I'd be curious to know what that criteria is.

[domino harvey]

It's based on the budget of the film

[Duncan Hopper]

BEST FOREIGN FILM
“An Education," directed by Lone Scherfig.



Not a bad film, but the best film released in 2009? Out of all the countries in the world? (Outside the USA)

As nearly all films made outside of the USA would meet the criteria of the independent spirit awards, this would make an An Education a near world champion.

Better than A Prophet? I think not.

Actually, I don't know why I get annoyed at all these awards shows every year, we all know they're bullshit.

[domino harvey]

That's like the only good award they gave out last night

[Zumpano]

If I have to see the "If I'm going to die, I'm going to die comfortably" clip from "Hurt Locker" one more time, I'm gonna go all Monique on Summit for only providing that one f-ing clip for their Best Picture nominee. Over/Under on that being the clip shown during the Oscar Ceremony?

[Jeff]

Do they have a clear definition of what makes a film an independent film? I'd be curious to know what that criteria is.

9. What makes a film eligible for a Spirit Award?

• All submitted films must be at least 70 minutes long (i.e., Chris Munch’s The Hours and Times—at 67 minutes—and Michael Winterbottom’s Nine Songs—at 69 minutes—were not eligible for Spirit Awards).

• Eligible films must have either played one week in a commercial theater in 2008, or have been shown at one of the following six film festivals: the Los Angeles Film Festival, New Directors/New Films, New York, Sundance, Telluride, or Toronto.

• Eligible films must be made for no more than $20 million, including post.

10. Who decides what films are nominated?

Experts in the field. Three nominating committees - one each for Domestic Narrative Films, Documentary Films, and Foreign Narrative Films - are made up of 15-20 members of the film community. Committees may include film critics, film programmers, actors, producers, directors, writers, cinematographers, and members of Film Independent's Board of Directors.

What's the nomination process?

It's a rigorous process. All films submitted are distributed to the committee and are discussed at regular meetings throughout the fall. Each committee member will take the nominating guidelines into consideration when determining the nominees. A final two-day meeting is held prior to the nomination announcement where all committee members discuss the films at length and vote on each category.How does the Nominating Committee determine if a film is “independent”?

The Spirit Awards Nominating Committee applies the following guidelines in making its selections:

• Uniqueness of vision

• Original, provocative subject matter

• Economy of means

• Percentage of financing from independent sources

Films that are made with an “economy of means” AND are fully financed by a studio or an indie studio division may still be considered “independent” if the subject matter is original and provocative. In other words, Film Independent does not—as of 1994—define “independent” strictly on the basis of financing. (The first studio film we honored was Darnell Martin’s I Like It Like That from Columbia Pictures in 1994.)

11. What does “economy of means” mean?

Films that are made with lower budgets (often microbudgets), up to $20 million. This included Tarnation ($220) and House of Sand and Fog ($18 million). But the idea is to value films made with lower budgets more highly, since lower budgets usually mean more creative control on the part of the filmmakers.

12. Didn’t the budget ceiling for nominated films used to be lower?

The Film Independent Board of Directors never actually set a budget ceiling for Spirit Award films prior to 2006. The task of setting a budget ceiling—of deciding which films to include in our nominations and which films to exclude—was given each year to the Spirit Awards Nominating Committee. Some years, like in 1995, the committee nominated films with budgets as high as $22 million (Bullets Over Broadway). Typically, the ceiling has hovered between $16 - $18 million. The Board of Directors was reluctant to set a hard-and-fast limit in the past, but, at the request of the Spirit Awards Nominating Committee to give the committee more specific direction, the Board fixed the budget ceiling at $20 million in 2006.

[domino harvey]

I found Food Inc. incredibly bland. I'm sure it's a useful primer for those who never thought about such things, but I don't recall learning one thing I didn't know already. Well, okay, I didn't know how long chickens are allowed to live before being grocery-stored. But the film was frustrating in not going into detail or providing info at many points. I also found all of the sinister language and innuendo, primarily in the intro, to be rather silly and dubious. My favorite part was the opening credits utilizing ordinary grocery store writing -- sale tags, aisle labels, special stickers, etc. It was a slickly put together film without anything new to say.

Then again I'm a vegetarian and pretty well-versed in such issues.
I also found it interesting that the film ends with a whole shopping list of eating recs, but never advocates or even mentions vegetarianism.

I'm watching this now on Netflix streaming (I'm here to take a break from the monotony) and all the film does is sort of halfheartedly bring up an idea and then abandon it without much examination. Forget the nomination, how did this even get wide distribution?

[domino harvey]

Sandra Bullock brings Razzie audience DVDs of All About Steve

[Lemmy Caution]

I found Food Inc. incredibly bland...
My favorite part was the opening credits utilizing ordinary grocery store writing -- sale tags, aisle labels, special stickers, etc. It was a slickly put together film without anything new to say.

I'm watching this now on Netflix streaming (I'm here to take a break from the monotony) and all the film does is sort of halfheartedly bring up an idea and then abandon it without much examination. Forget the nomination, how did this even get wide distribution?

Yep, good way of putting it.

Btw, I meant "price tags, aisle signs, and sales stickers."
Think I've been in China a little too long when I don't even know what a price tag is called.
----------------------
No Impact Man was another '09 eco-doc dud.
Though I was amused how no-impact man was eager to smash flies to death, but that was absolutely nothing compared to the absurdity that the whole purpose of the zero-environmental-impact project is ... to write and sell a book.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Every year on several obituary forums people put together their predictions of who will be in the In Memoriam segment. Not one list I've seen this year has included Eric Rohmer. I'll bet he's on the Academy's list though.

Also, given the changes to the Best Picture category, the farce last year with the acting nominees being "serenaded" by their peers and the absence of the honorary awards, I'm far less interested in the ceremony than ever before. I'll still watch it but I'll have an internet connection handy to deal with the boring bits. Hopefully Steve Martin is on his best form.

[domino harvey]

I'm just periodically refreshing ONTD's post while I do other things. Who even watches the Oscars anymore

[souvenir]

Who even watches the Oscars anymore

Not people with Cablevision.

[domino harvey]

I gotta tell you, reading through hundreds of bitchy remarks about what people are wearing is way more entertaining that actually watching it all unfold on TV anyways.

[Brian C]

I'm watching tonight, but I have to say, my heart isn't really in it. It's hard to find even quixotic causes to get behind tonight. I'd like to see A Serious Man win Picture, and The White Ribbon win Foreign Film (and Cinematography, I guess), and Carey Mulligan to win Actress. It'd be nice if Bright Star win Costumes, I suppose. If Fantastic Mr. Fox wins Animated, that'd make me happy, but I like Up also.

But that's it. The acting categories are almost all complete wipeouts as far as I'm concerned, and I can't get worked up about either The Hurt Locker or Avatar, even in the limited context of the cultural posterity that the Oscars represent. So I'm probably destined to spend the evening wondering why I'm watching and feeling vaguely depressed about the state of the world.

I could skip it and go see Alice in Wonderland, I guess, but that doesn't sound so great either.

[Zumpano]

I'm drinking every time they say "Precious: Based on the novel "Push" by Sapphire".

Suffice to say: I'm pretty lit.

[aox]

opening was painful.

[domino harvey]

That screenplay award was one big LOL @ Tom O'Neil, basically

[HistoryProf]

Oh Christ me

link doesn't work anymore, so here's a NYT link for those who want to read it...

[domino harvey]

And the second screenplay award was one big LOL @ all of us, basically

[HistoryProf]

But separate is not equal. While it is certainly acceptable for sports competitions like the Olympics to have separate events for male and female athletes, the biological differences do not affect acting performances. The divided Oscar categories merely insult women, because they suggest that women would not be victorious if the categories were combined. In addition, this segregation helps perpetuate the stereotype that the differences between men and women are so great that the two sexes cannot be evaluated as equals in their professions.

Surely I'm not the only one to notice the gap in causation here. Just who exactly is suggesting it's the females that would come up short on victories if the categories were combined? The exact same evidence proves equally well that it's the males who would suffer and that the segregation panders to them. If your evidence is so equivocal that it equally proves the exact opposite of your argument, you've embarrassed yourself.

That's what stood out to me the most as well...glad i'm not the only one. the specious logic is awe inspiring. And she's completely wrong. There was a bit on NPR about this very topic a week or so ago in fact, that noted the separate categories actually originated in the fact that there were so many strong actresses in the 1930s and 40s while men lagged far behind. The "Greats" were nearly all women! The commentator used 1935 as an example. 3 guys from one movie (Clark Gable, Charles Laughton, and Franchot Tonein "Mutiny on the Bounty", + VICTOR MCLAGLEN in "The Informer") versus:

BETTE DAVIS in "Dangerous"
Elisabeth Bergner in "Escape Me Never"
Claudette Colbert in "Private Worlds"
Katharine Hepburn in "Alice Adams"
Miriam Hopkins in "Becky Sharp"
Merle Oberon in "The Dark Angel"

add in Barbara Stanwyck, Norma Shearer, Carole Lombard, Irene Dunne, Greta Garbo, Ingrid Bergman, Joan Crawford, Gene Tierney, Greer Garson, Claudette Colbert, Rosalind Russell, Olivia de Havilland, etc etc etc and it's really no contest. If the awards were gender neutral back then it would have taken decades for a guy to win!!!!

[domino harvey]

I'm not sure Gene Tierney would have been much of a threat five years before her screen debut

[domino harvey]

Also, man, Precious is gonna pull a Crash, isn't it