“A casual relationship with reality”
Categories: Movies
We missed the tail end of the Oscars because Tivo fell for ABC's claim that this show would run three hours, when in fact it was closer to three and a half hours.
Gee, who'd have thought that? Who ever would have thought that this show would manage to run three and a half hours? I mean, just because it has ever since I've been alive is no reason to believe that this year would be the same. Except that it is. Great, so we have another un-Tivo-able show. Anyhow, I don't understand why they don't just schedule it for three and a half hours. This show didn't run long, it ran the exact same length it always does.
Now, we should ask, why does it continue to run this length? I mean, they've cut out the retarded and poorly rehearsed dance numbers that used to eat up a whole lot of time (though, perhaps for "Tributes to..." are a bit much). People keep blaming the length of the speeches, but that's bullshit. There are 24 categories, and typically a speech that runs long runs long usually by a maximum of 30 seconds. So if half of the speeches runs long, and they run an average of 30 seconds too long, that's six minutes of extra content. The other 24 minutes are already there. And the truth is, those six minutes are scheduled in as well, since they know it's going to happen. The truth is, they've cut a ton out of these broadcasts compared to ten or fifteen years ago, but the length remains the same. Why? Because for every cut they make, they add in a commercial.
So, quit kidding around. Oscar people, ABC, the-powers-that-be... I know you're not going to turn down advertising money so asking you to cut commercials is ridiculous. But just admit that you know full well that this event is going to run three and a half hours so that it's possible to Tivo this thing.
Incidentally, I'm not completely excited about the surprise Best Picture win for "Crash". I liked "Crash" a lot, but in all honesty, I don't love it. It's a bit of a sledgehammer for a subject that requires a scalpel. I haven't seen "Brokeback" (or even most of the other BP nominees) so I can't comment on whether they were better except by observing the reactions of critics and friends. But I did see "Munich", and I liked that more than "Crash", and if the other three are better than that then one of those should have won in my opinion. But then again, all this is pretty subjective. I'm surprised by the win, though, because I really didn't think Lion's Gate (the US distributors) had the marketing muscle, though Focus Features, the distributors of "Brokeback" aren't exactly Oscar players the way Miramax used to be and Dreamworks is. That's not a criticism, Focus is really the only true remaining indie distributor anymore and they're delivering some exceptional movies to a market that has withered substantially from the heights independent cinema enjoyed in the mid-90's. But the point is, the momentum generally goes to the fim with the most nominations, especially in above-the-line categories like writing, directing and acting. Overcoming that usually takes savvy Oscar marketing and only a couple of companies really have the skills to pull it off.
Anyhow, regardless of who won, this year's Oscars hopefully represent a resurgence in independent cinema. Of the BP nominations this year, only "Munich" had traditional studio funding. That being said, this is "independent" in only the most technical of terms, but they're still (relatively) big budget, star-driven movies and bear a lot more in common with traditional studio pics than, for instance, "Pulp Fiction", "Fargo" and "The Crying Game" did when they were nominated, and next to nothing in common with so-indie-they're-unnominatable movies like "Do the Right Thing", "Leaving Las Vegas" and "Trainspotting" (OK, yeah, "Do the Right Thing" was distributed by Universal, but it's much more independent than, for instance, "The English Patient"). Independent cinema isn't what it was, and that's a real shame and frankly, a bit of a surprise. Digital video and Hi-Def were supposed to liberate a whole new generation of filmmakers, allowing the principle barrier to producing good movies — the costs associated with film — to be circumvented. But I watched that movement largely fade out as independent was co-opted by the marketing divisions of the major studios. Don't get me wrong, I think the Hollywood studio system is capable of turning out great movies and they do, year after year, mixed in with Lindsay Lohan vehicles, 70s TV remakes and so forth, they manage to get some genuinely good movies out, and that's great. But they all have their "independent" branches which are increasingly funding indie movies and as a result, true indie pics aren't being picked up and distributed the way they used to be.
Though, that's not all bad. Looking for a silver lining to this cloud, at least that means I haven't had to watch a Henry Jaglom movie in years.
P.S. Yeah, I know this post meandered.
posted by Mark Kawakami at March 06, 2006, 12:03 AM // permalink // (444) Comments