[QuickTidal]

I think we were commenting on Amphs assertion that MOONLIGHT deserves the nod because of its subject matter...as opposed to it being one of the best films. He was commenting on political aspects of the film being made, as opposed to the internal content by which it should be judged by the Academy.

[worry]

QuickTidal, on 26 January 2017 - 12:10 AM, said:

I think we were commenting on Amphs assertion that MOONLIGHT deserves the nod because of its subject matter...as opposed to it being one of the best films. He was commenting on political aspects of the film being made, as opposed to the internal content by which it should be judged by the Academy.

Maybe, but I read Amph's posts as being all-inclusive (though admittedly I just scanned some of Amph and Champ's posts to avoid spoilers).

Regardless, I'm saying that one's "should" isn't the universal "should", because we're discussing art. Some focus solely on the internals, some find externals (sociopolitical context, metacommentary, etc.) just as worthy of note. Like, you can choose whether or not you want to rate a Jackson Pollock painting by how much you "enjoy" it, but you can't insist that be the only frame for everyone.

[worry]

(That's not meant to discourage complaining about or praising any movies, awards nominations, wins, or whatever...just saying there's no one right way to approach art, in or out of The Academy, as long as one is honest about it.)

[QuickTidal]

Meh, I don't think external issues of a film being made should be included in the Academy's choices. Not saying they wouldn't...just that I don't feel that's applicable to the notion of "best" for a personal opinion.

[worry]

It's impossible not to do that though, especially for an annual award. Sometimes a movie is the 'best' because it was the exact movie you needed right now.

Orgs like the AFI can handle "Top 100 Films Ever"-type lists from a decent remove (and of course there's still internal compromises there -- I mean you don't see Blazing Saddles or Young Frankenstein on their list, do you?), but immediacy invites the pantheon of personal quirks to smash directly into the public pressure of "posterity".

[amphibian]

I also like movies that push into newer ground more than movies that retread already much trodden ground.

[QuickTidal]

death rattle, on 26 January 2017 - 09:05 PM, said:

It's impossible not to do that though, especially for an annual award. Sometimes a movie is the 'best' because it was the exact movie you needed right now.

Sure it's possible. You just remove any socio-political aspects of "making the movie" from the qualifying round. Look, Uwe Boll could make a really important movie (but a shit movie, as is his usual) with a cast and crew of underrepresented people...but that doesn't give him an automatic "in" to an Oscar nom. That's silly. Now, that said, if the movie is all those things AND is a great film. Well that's different. I think that's the point here. Does MOONLIGHT stand up to scrutiny after the socio-political aspects have been removed? I don't know, I have not yet seen it...but I was defending Champ's notion that socio-political behind-the-scenery aspects should not make up the reasons a film should win an Oscar.

amphibian, on 26 January 2017 - 09:33 PM, said:

I also like movies that push into newer ground more than movies that retread already much trodden ground.

Hey man, that's great and a super lauded point of view and effort. For sure. And in that vein MOONLIGHT's socio-political aspects are VERY important. I think the difference for me lay in the fact that I'd like the film to stand on its own as a film and story first. I haven't seen it, so I can't comment fully on that. But that's all I was saying.

[champ]

QuickTidal, on 27 January 2017 - 12:47 PM, said:

death rattle, on 26 January 2017 - 09:05 PM, said:

It's impossible not to do that though, especially for an annual award. Sometimes a movie is the 'best' because it was the exact movie you needed right now.

Sure it's possible. You just remove any socio-political aspects of "making the movie" from the qualifying round. Look, Uwe Boll could make a really important movie (but a shit movie, as is his usual) with a cast and crew of underrepresented people...but that doesn't give him an automatic "in" to an Oscar nom. That's silly. Now, that said, if the movie is all those things AND is a great film. Well that's different. I think that's the point here. Does MOONLIGHT stand up to scrutiny after the socio-political aspects have been removed? I don't know, I have not yet seen it...but I was defending Champ's notion that socio-political behind-the-scenery aspects should not make up the reasons a film should win an Oscar.

QT definitely put it better than I could with the socio-politicial comment.

To me, the whole point of the film, Moonlight, is: "Look at this, I can make a film that turns stereotyping on it's head..."

You take that away from the film and it is average.

I was watching the film, wondering where it was going and then...

Spoiler

The kid asks if he is a fa***t.

The moment he said that it actually took me out of the film, it was a case of "Ah okay... so is this where they are going?" As that moment came out of nowhere, it was obviously from what his mother was screaming at him but still... it felt like this was just where they wanted to point the film...

Then we had the beach scene and it was a case of okay, so I guess that is the purpose of the film...

The film had something it wanted to say... it just didn't do it very well - for me.

QuickTidal, on 27 January 2017 - 12:47 PM, said:

amphibian, on 26 January 2017 - 09:33 PM, said:

I also like movies that push into newer ground more than movies that retread already much trodden ground.

Hey man, that's great and a super lauded point of view and effort. For sure. And in that vein MOONLIGHT's socio-political aspects are VERY important. I think the difference for me lay in the fact that I'd like the film to stand on its own as a film and story first. I haven't seen it, so I can't comment fully on that. But that's all I was saying.

Diversity is good, I'm with you there Amph, Clerks is my all time fav film... so don't get me wrong, I can see why it was included in the nominations.

Just the above is my opinion.

[worry]

I don't disagree that there are certain basic standards a film should meet, at least if it seeks major/mainstream accolades. The part of your argument that is basically 'filmmaking is both art AND craft', we're in accordance there.

That said, stripping away the sociopolitical aspects of "making the movie" isn't a non-political act, and it doesn't lead to any higher level of "objectivity". It's just another brand of subjective, and can be as artificial in its motivations as any other decision. For instance, to judge Birth of a Nation or Gone With the Wind solely on whether or not they succeeded in telling the story they wanted to tell -- on whether you felt something for their respective heroes and heroines -- may frankly be more politically motivated, less honest readings of those films than to consider they are both pro-slavery and include KKK apologia. There's no vacuum.

[worry]

I do recognize that when the balance is off too far the other way, especially w/ the Academy Awards, this can lead to condescending tokenism and that rictus-smile Hollywood "we're good liberals, see? see??" posturing that leads to elevating dreck like the aforementioned Crash and The Blind Side. But nothing's perfect!