Philip Seymour Hoffman for Oscar

dearheart

Philip Seymour Hoffman is one of the favourites for Best Actor nominee.
WELL IT'S ABOUT BLODDY TIME HE WON. We love you Phil... [can't wait to see Capote].

But I'm unsure about whether I should be celebrating the fact. Do the Oscars mean anything in particular any more? For me it was was always one of these over-blown events perfectly content with limiting the competition to a select group of typical Hollywood adherents. Everything is fine as long as Charlize's dress turns up. What does Hollywood have to congratulate itself about, exactly? It depends on your notion of what art is - and Hollywood's concept of it involves large budgets & special effects [neither of which, it has been proven by better directors, are necessary for making a good film]. There's also the almost beaurocratic way in which it promotes artistic diversity eg. The Black Year - sorry, the 2002 Oscars at which Halle Berry, Denzel Washington & Sidney Poitier collected the major gongs. Fair enough, these are not untalented actors [obviously in Poitier's case], but the blatancy with which these awards were doled out hints at the most vulgar of post-9/11 positive discrimination. And at the risk of deserving abuse, I would suggest that Halle Berry [along with many a successful black Hollywood actress] is one of the whitest 'black women' I've ever seen. Just an observation.

The previous year, the famously anti-Academy/LA Woody Allen presented a montage of his films as a dedication to post-9/11 New York. What was this supposed to convey? As much as they are love letters, Allen's films are largely vitriolic parodies of New York & New Yorkers. It seems patronising that the Academy felt that this gesture would be expected to come from them, as if Hollywood actually represents anything real or true about 'being American'. As if Hollywood is the godhead of Western cinematic artistry. As if Los Angeles could speak for New York by reducing Woody Allen to the status of 'Hollywood director', which he isn't. At the outset, the Academy show only the most basic understanding of Woody Allen's output. That night, it was the director's shuffling, sulky demeanour - no doubt suffering from his "chronic Los Angeles syndrome" - that made me think that the US had little idea of how to handle its profound grief. And that was before Iraq happened.

Tusky

dearheart wrote:

Philip Seymour Hoffman is one of the favourites for Best Actor nominee.
WELL IT'S ABOUT BLODDY TIME HE WON. We love you Phil... [can't wait to see Capote].

But I'm unsure about whether I should be celebrating the fact. Do the Oscars mean anything in particular any more? For me it was was always one of these over-blown events perfectly content with limiting the competition to a select group of typical Hollywood adherents. Everything is fine as long as Charlize's dress turns up. What does Hollywood have to congratulate itself about, exactly? It depends on your notion of what art is - and Hollywood's concept of it involves large budgets & special effects [neither of which, it has been proven by better directors, are necessary for making a good film]. There's also the almost beaurocratic way in which it promotes artistic diversity eg. The Black Year - sorry, the 2002 Oscars at which Halle Berry, Denzel Washington & Sidney Poitier collected the major gongs. Fair enough, these are not untalented actors [obviously in Poitier's case], but the blatancy with which these awards were doled out hints at the most vulgar of post-9/11 positive discrimination. And at the risk of deserving abuse, I would suggest that Halle Berry [along with many a successful black Hollywood actress] is one of the whitest 'black women' I've ever seen. Just an observation.

The previous year, the famously anti-Academy/LA Woody Allen presented a montage of his films as a dedication to post-9/11 New York. What was this supposed to convey? As much as they are love letters, Allen's films are largely vitriolic parodies of New York & New Yorkers. It seems patronising that the Academy felt that this gesture would be expected to come from them, as if Hollywood actually represents anything real or true about 'being American'. As if Hollywood is the godhead of Western cinematic artistry. As if Los Angeles could speak for New York by reducing Woody Allen to the status of 'Hollywood director', which he isn't. At the outset, the Academy show only the most basic understanding of Woody Allen's output. That night, it was the director's shuffling, sulky demeanour - no doubt suffering from his "chronic Los Angeles syndrome" - that made me think that the US had little idea of how to handle its profound grief. And that was before Iraq happened.

for people who dont want to read teeeeny text.