The Toronto Star on the Oscars

This is an excellent Toronto Star article as posted by Jeffrey Wells over at Hollywood Elsewhere. Check it out:
The thing about the Oscars is that they "have nothing to do with standards of good moviemaking," laments the Toronto Star's Geoff Pevere. "And I mean nothing, as in what's left when you take zero from zero, multiply it to infinity and divide it the number of times Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hawks, Ingmar Bergman or Akira Kurosawa won for Best Director. (Which was zip, by the way.)

"If they did have anything to do with the quality of movies, the following would necessarily follow: It would not be possible that the hysterically-cloying Little Miss Sunshine would be nominated for Best Picture and Children of Men would not.

"It would not be possible that Chicago could be mentioned in the same breath with 'Best Picture.'

"It would not be possible that the great Barbara Stanwyck would have died with no Oscars on her shelf and Hilary Swank, who will not presumably die for some time yet, should already have two.

"It would not be possible that Ron Howard would be more esteemed than Orson Welles.

"It would not be possible that, when the searing Goodfellas lost to the all-but-unwatchable Dances With Wolves, Martin Scorsese should be told that sorry, but you're just not as visionary an artist as Kevin Costner.

"And it would not be possible for Will Smith to commit as heinous an act of sentimental terrorism as The Pursuit of Happyness -- holding his own son hostage on-screen in the process -- and actually be rewarded and not jailed for it."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Except I would take issue with his calling Dances with Wolves all but unwatchable. I think it's a masterpiece. None of the movies he mentioned are bad, per se, but the other candidates they beat out were far more deserving.


Popular Posts