This is Alpha, the first-born, when he was 2YO.
This is Beta, the second-born, when he was about 2YO.
This is Gamma, the third-born, when he was about 18MO.
The What Awards?
Mar
17
2008
Most people have probably forgotten about the Oscars by now, so it is time for me to post something about it. The Academy Awards (AKA the Oscars) are becoming increasingly irrelevant for the general population. The Academy voters, along with critics in general, are selecting movies using their own odd criteria. And those criteria are more along the lines of esoteric “art” or the right social issue – not necessarily what makes a movie a good movie.
Judging anything is subjective, and movies are no exception. So there is bound to be some level of disagreement with the selections. But most of the movies chosen are not popular movies, meaning that most people would rather see other movies. Doesn’t that mean that there are better movies than those which won Oscars?
I agree with Molière, in his Critique of the School for Wives, when he says that if we followed the same philosophy as movies in other areas of life, such as food, then we wouldn’t know whether to enjoy the meals we ate until we consulted a food critic. “That’s like a man who might find a sauce delicious, and who would then try to find out if it was good by looking it up in Le Cuisinier français.” He argues that the opinions of the general public is more important that those of critics. Why do the movie studios produce movies – for the critics? No, they produce movies to make money, which means selling tickets, which means that the public should be more important than the critics. Molière produce his play in 1663, so this disconnect between critics and audiences has been around for at least a few hundred years.
I find that I am more likely to trust people I know than a critic whom I don’t know. The critic may provide some useful information in his description of a movie, but I don’t trust a simple rating, such as 3 stars or 2 and a half roses or 4 tomatoes. What I do want to know in a movie review, but most don’t provide, is what level of what objectionable content there is. To a critic, it seems there is no objectionable content. I like the reviews in World Magazine, which uses Kids in Mind.
I think many people fall into the same category as I – they know that the Academy selects movies that they’ll never watch. The Academy awards movies in order to promote them. It is just a big advertisement and marketing campaign. “We know you don’t care much about this movie and no one you know has seen it, but look at all the accolades it has received. With all this publicity, it must be a good movie!”
“For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.”
– 2 Peter 2:18-19
This little article thingy was written by Some Guy sometime around 10:38 pm and has been carefully placed in the Life category.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:15 am
The IMDB (www.imdb.com) has started letting users list objectionable content in movies. Since the IMDB’s content listings are user-generated, they may be a bit less consistent than KIM’s listings, but the feature is there.
But really, the IMDB is cool simply for the amazing wealth of information available for each production.