tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8077259096493787089.post895478114866322579..comments2024-03-09T00:26:54.278-08:00Comments on The Oscar Buzz: Birthday Take: Cecil B. DeMille in "The Greatest Show on Earth" (1952)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8077259096493787089.post-9882677038163567162015-08-16T00:36:42.060-07:002015-08-16T00:36:42.060-07:00I'm with you on the "film/decision" ...I'm with you on the "film/decision" thing. As I continue to develop more personal thoughts on the Oscars, I find them often shifting to better understand the eras. For instance, I think that the politics debate has and will continue to sabotage the Best Picture race (that, and Harvey Weinstein). It is the reason Citizen Kane lost as well as High Noon. Controversy has likely kept films as recent as Zero Dark Thirty and American Sniper from being more prominent winners. They help attract buzz, but the safe bet is too tempting.<br /><br />This is where I begin to shrug my shoulders and accept that I am fascinated just as much about what the Oscars does right as I do its faults. I believe more often than not, they began going with the safe bets. Safe bets - in more understandable words - means "appeals to mass audience." This is why Titanic's winning year ceremony had the highest ratings of the past 20 years. As dumb as it sounds, it partially has to do with how recognizable the mass audience finds the film. <br /><br />I think that Birdman is a good example of this. Much like Greatest Show, it is spectacle and an "intellectual Hollywood satire." It's already appealing to voters who have no connection to politics. You can also recognize Michael Keaton on a poster in the Birdman outfit more often than say Boyhood's Mason (I don't think Boyhood stood a chance anyways) - who isn't conventional enough to appeal to mass audiences. I argue that this is the case with Greatest Show. You are more likely to recognize Charlton Heston and trapeze artists over Gary Cooper as a cowboy. It may sound dumb, but I think there's truth in there and I have tried not to get bent out of shape when my favorites lose (2010 was rough when The King's Speech beat The Social Network. I had quite the hissy fit over that). I may not always agree, but sometimes I find the "How" it won to be too baffling to worry about.<br /><br />Now, I will say this: I am not up to par with my 1952 filmography knowledge. I have only seen 2/5 of the nominees (High Noon being the better). I have no strong ties, and it is likely why I am capable of just shrugging off that spectacle won. Then again, I just think that the 50's was a very weak Best Picture decade anyways between Greatest Show, Around the World in 80 Days, GiGi, and Ben-Hur. None of those are necessarily my favorites and all indicative of a larger trend: spectacle over craft. <br /><br />I don't agree with it, but I do try to think more rationally about this stuff as I educate myself more. Sometimes you get the Birdman win and you have to just piece together "Spectacle, Hollywood satire, mass audience appeal" without deeper concern. It made this past ceremony a little apathetic for me, but indicates that this is always how the Oscars operated (at least post 1950. I'm willing to forgive 1927-1940 because of the award's newness). It's why I run a seasonal "Failed Oscar Campaigns" column to understand how films vie for top prize. It has made me both more understanding and unfortunately more skeptical.<br /><br />Do I love Greatest Show? Not really. I like it just fine (I've even seen it twice). I just think that you have to look at the bigger picture. Yes, High Noon was plagued with politics. It's just one of the many victims. It's why I believe that there is endless merit in the best "film/decision" debate and why it's interesting to debate this, even if I will likely just sigh and say "It's politics" and judge the film for what it is - in this case, cornball escapism.Thomas Willetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18386975559775402747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8077259096493787089.post-41080838742221747762015-08-15T22:10:27.974-07:002015-08-15T22:10:27.974-07:00It's certainly not a bad film, but voting it a...It's certainly not a bad film, but voting it as Best Picture is undeniably one of the worst decisions the Academy made. (Btw, there's a difference between talking about Oscar-winning films by the quality of the film and by the quality of the decision. You know, things like competition and how the decision holds up today.)<br /><br />High Noon should've been the winner, but since the Academy gave John Ford his fourth Directing Oscar, why not vote for The Quiet Man just to sync it up? It would've made sense (because the film is just as awesome and is magnificently colorful), they'd've dodged the blacklisting stigma, and it would've demonstrated that "oh hey, the Academy just liked one film over the other." The fact that they compromised with DeMille's fairly decent escapist circus film is both baffling and bad because they just put more controversy upon themselves by making a dishonest decision, despite how good Greatest Show is.BlueFox94https://www.blogger.com/profile/14195892941224578493noreply@blogger.com