Althouse: "[T]he new [Academy] award won’t devalue the artistic merits of a regular Best Picture victory

August 14, 2018

"[T]he new [Academy] award won’t devalue the artistic merits of a regular Best Picture victory—nobody will be fooled."

"But it will divert some of the limelight away from the actual Best Picture nominees and winners, and, in so doing, it will divert some of the commercial significance of those nominations and awards, as well. The new category appears to be a play by the studios to siphon off some of the commercial benefits of the awards—to redistribute Oscar-related money upward from independent producers to the studios, from productions costing and yielding tens of millions to ones costing and yielding hundreds of millions. It’s the Oscars equivalent of Republican tax 'reform.'"

There's an analogy!

From "What the Oscars’ New “Popular Film” Category Says About the Art—and Business—of the Movies" by Richard Brody (The New Yorker).

71 comments:

readering said...: I can't see the category lasting. Too amorphous and confusing.; 8/14/18, 5:26 PM
Sebastian said...: “to redistribute Oscar-related money upward from independent producers to the studios . . . It’s the Oscars equivalent of Republican tax 'reform.'"

A perfect analogy!

Except for the fact that in these United States money gets redistributed downward.

With our without tax cuts, we have just about the most progressive taxation of any western country along with massive programs funneling money toward the poor and lower middle class—who receive more from government (i.e., their fellow citizens) than the median income of most countries.

By contrast with Europe, where honest leftists insist that the poor show solidarity by paying taxes and VAT, America’s poor pay so little tax that no cut could benefit them.

A better analogy would be for the Oscars to promise to take half of all "rich" studio profits and give them to “poor” independent producers.; 8/14/18, 5:34 PM
tim in vermont said...: The gap between the art and the business of movies is larger than ever.

The bastards won't eat the dog food! It's almost like the audience wants to be entertained rather than hectored, and, in the immortal words of Bill Maher, if we let that happen, "the audience will have won."; 8/14/18, 5:35 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Ha Ha!

I saw the ending after getting a only third through the paragraph.

I also knew it was meant to be a sad ending. Cause, some believe, it’s bad to have sucess rewarded with more success.

OTOH, at least there’s an acknowledgement that market decisions are what makes the economy work best. Presumably it’d be more fair to steal/tax the successful movies and give to the popularly-disliked movies.

So many analogies.; 8/14/18, 5:38 PM
tim in vermont said...: That he thought that the "tax reform" comment was somehow telling explains all you need to know about what is wrong with the Oscars. It was telling, just not in the way he thought.

And it’s for these independently produced projects that an Oscar win has special commercial significance, propelling lower-profile, lower-budget, and lower-box-office films onto the world stage.

Well, we saw what happened to UpWorthy...; 8/14/18, 5:42 PM
langford peel said...: This new Oscar is specifically created to give "Black Panther" an award which it has no chance to win under the normal rules.

It should be called "The Seperate But Equal" Award.; 8/14/18, 5:44 PM
tim in vermont said...: Presumably it’d be more fair to steal/tax the successful movies and give to the popularly-disliked movies.

Obviously. Didn't you read the article? That was the whole point of it.; 8/14/18, 5:46 PM
tim in vermont said...: It doesn't even occur to me to go to the movies anymore. There is so much great content, and even the cheap TVs are great nowadays. Who needs their constant politicking?; 8/14/18, 5:48 PM
Yancey Ward said...: I call this the Black Panther award because we already know what the first winner will be, don't we?; 8/14/18, 5:48 PM
Yancey Ward said...: I see Langford Peel beat me to it.; 8/14/18, 5:49 PM
Mark said...: You can always count on the left for a wholly gratuitous slam which really does not make much sense when held up to the light.; 8/14/18, 5:52 PM
AustinRoth said...: This is a much easier solution than making great films people actually want to watch. It also means they can keep giving the Best Picture award to the latest SJW-approved film de jour.; 8/14/18, 5:54 PM
Mark said...: Presumably it’d be more fair to steal/tax the successful movies and give to the popularly-disliked movies.

Isn't that what the studios already do? The pop movies make all the money that goes to finance the money-losing ones?; 8/14/18, 5:54 PM
langford peel said...: You should only watch a movie at home on your wide screen TV with a streaming service. It's cheaper and you don't have to sit with Latisha and Jamal screaming like gibbering monkeys in the row in front of you.

The Oscars as is true with the NFL has lost touch with a vast segment of their fan base that we never get back.; 8/14/18, 5:55 PM
Rabel said...: "...to redistribute Oscar-related money upward from independent producers to the studios, from productions costing and yielding tens of millions to ones costing and yielding hundreds of millions."

I think his analogy works - but not the way the author thinks.

If you have a lot of time, watch the end credits on one of those big budget movies. They go on for days. The lead actors may have made a huge payday and the studio may have turned a healthy profit but hundreds and hundreds of people were employed and got paid for work they would not have had if not for that big budget.

Rewarding the big budget movies with an award will in some small way beget more big budget movies, which will then employ hundreds and hundreds more.

That sounds like a win for the economy, the industry, and the people who make their living from it.

If Republican tax reform produces a similar result on a broader scale, we all benefit.

And if Trump is able to move the work those Asian graphic artists do back to the US, we will benefit even more.; 8/14/18, 6:01 PM
MikeD said...: Everything Hollyweird does to make money today is geared to the foreign markets, especially China. I don't believe a single "big-budget movie" would break-even in the US market.; 8/14/18, 6:09 PM
Sprezzatura said...: “Isn't that what the studios already do?”

Yur thinking of the NFL.

But, it was ‘t the communism that bigots complained about.; 8/14/18, 6:10 PM
n.n said...: The equivalent to Democratic health care "reform". We'll see if the Republicans can restore market function to control costs and do better than merely redistribute the burden with less than universal medical care.; 8/14/18, 6:11 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Until Patrick Swayze wins a lifetime achievement award for his performance in Roadhouse, as a NYU philosophy major, turned red-necked bouncer, I am going to boycott the ceremony.; 8/14/18, 6:11 PM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: When will there be an award category for Not Crap?; 8/14/18, 6:15 PM
tim in vermont said...: Taxing a successful business to subsidize an unsuccessful one isn't "communism." It isn't even socialism, its just the auctioning of stuff that doesn't belong to you for the votes of people who are stupid about economics. But like Churchill said, "democracy is the worst system of government, except for all of the others."; 8/14/18, 6:24 PM
Seeing Red said...: Revoke the Hollywood tax cuts!; 8/14/18, 6:26 PM
tim in vermont said...: The NFL is a business that has decided, as a matter of good business sense, that if only New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles ever win people in Green Bay will stop showing up. But football, unlike economics generally under capitalism, is a zero sum game.; 8/14/18, 6:27 PM
Quaestor said...: A circle jerk in which the big dicks cum first.; 8/14/18, 6:33 PM
chuck said...: Like the Hugos, the Oscars have become a sure guide to what sucks.; 8/14/18, 6:33 PM
Two-eyed Jack said...: Perhaps the new award will help critically overlooked big-budget pictures get the fawning reviews that they deserve.; 8/14/18, 6:37 PM
Birkel said...: Moby peel tries but nobody plays his stupid reindeer games.

Hollywood would lose money if they were forced to use standard accounting practices.
It’s a racket; it is a mob-style racket.
Racketeering.; 8/14/18, 6:40 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Right TinV,

In real economics there is no downside to a few (or one) dominating an industry.

In general, good business is finding markets w/o too much competition. Best of all is no competition. E.g., being Halliburton getting deals in Iraq, etc. DJT = crony.; 8/14/18, 6:42 PM
William said...: Prior to WWI, the men among the different royal families of Europe used to take pleasure in designing and wearing new uniforms. Then they'd visit each other's countries and pin medals on each other in elaborate ceremonies. Remind you of anything?...... Nowadays, Hollywood is our royalty. The male stars have thus far refrained from wearing plumed helmets, but the women wear some eye catching outfits. And we're all the better for it. There should be more award shows with more pretty women in expensive gowns instructing us on truth and beauty. Who could possibly tire of such moral uplift?; 8/14/18, 6:43 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Croniest!; 8/14/18, 6:43 PM
readering said...: Why the obsession here about Black Panther? Opened on a very cold NY February weekend so upon taking my warm seat early I fell asleep before trailers and woke up about ten minutes in. Not my cup of tea. But the basis for a change in categories? More likely driven by long time broadcast home ABC (since 1976 after sharing with NBC for two decades).; 8/14/18, 6:44 PM
Seeing Red said...: Best of all is no competition. E.g., being Halliburton getting deals in Iraq, etc.

If you wanted in, you should have bought stock.; 8/14/18, 6:47 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Reader,

It’s these folks fussing about “demographic changes.”; 8/14/18, 6:48 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Crony capitalism is cool.

Thanks DJT!; 8/14/18, 6:50 PM
JackWayne said...: What I think will happen is that all filmmakers will attempt to make pictures that are big AND best. 1934, 1961 or 1975 for just 3 examples. And there are several dozen similar years. The tide turned in 1977 with Annie Hall and it’s been mostly poor since then. Not just Best Picture but the nominees also. I believe this new award is the last gasp of the “art movies” cabal in Hollywood.; 8/14/18, 7:03 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Like Jack W, I enjoy seeing a good picture, and fussing about Hollwywood cabals.; 8/14/18, 7:08 PM
eddie willers said...: You can always count on the left for a wholly gratuitous slam which really does not make much sense when held up to the light.

And, of course, no comment section.; 8/14/18, 7:10 PM
Henry said...: It's an analogy that works very well in favor of tax reform.; 8/14/18, 7:12 PM
Henry said...: I refer you back to Rabel's post, upstream.

If you have a lot of time, watch the end credits on one of those big budget movies. They go on for days.

And they're all union jobs.; 8/14/18, 7:13 PM
rcocean said...: Has anybody looked at the *artistic* value of the Best Picture Award?

Argo, 12 Years a Slave, Spotlight, Crash, Million Dollar Baby, Gladiator, Titanic, Driving Miss Daisy, Kramer vs. Kramer, Rocky, Greatest Show on Earth, Gentlemen's Agreement, Mrs. Miniver.

There is NO "artistic value" to be "Devalued". Like expanding the list of Best Picture Nominees to 10, this is all about $$$ - which is what Hollywood has *ALWAYS* been about.; 8/14/18, 7:14 PM
tim in vermont said...: In real economics there is no downside to a few (or one) dominating an industry

Nor is there ever any downside to people outside of the business transaction picking winners, for their own political ends, ever.; 8/14/18, 7:17 PM
rcocean said...: At least Brophy gets it. There was some dumbo conservative who headlined this as "Hollywood throws a bone to Red State viewers".

When its just Hollywood trying to make more money. Now there were be 2 "Best Picture Winners" who will get more DVD sales and Ticket sales. AND 4-9 more movies that can plaster "Nominated for Best Picture*" on their DVD Jacket.

You can see the $$$ rolling in.; 8/14/18, 7:19 PM
tim in vermont said...: If you are against crony capitalism, it's weird that you are so supportive of Hillary, although I know you have adopted a shtick where you support Trump ironically.; 8/14/18, 7:21 PM
Sprezzatura said...: TinV,

She woulda lost by more if her supporters included folks who never voted for HRC (not to mention owning a Hillary-for-prison bobble head).

OTOH, if my state was in play, I would have felt pressure to meaningfully vote against the DJT child. Old lib loon beats old fool (recent lib), IMHO.; 8/14/18, 7:30 PM
Sprezzatura said...: TinV,

HRC couldn’t get away with one percent of the picking winners (economically and judicially) that DJT spews.

Con entertainment is good at manipulation, libs are bad at it. DJT is free (actually encouraged) to crony.; 8/14/18, 7:35 PM
Drago said...: adSs: "HRC couldn’t get away with one percent of the picking winners (economically and judicially) that DJT spews."

She was very, very, very good at picking Russian energy oligarch "winners" for awarding of US Uranium (and a big, big thanks to Bob Mueller and his FBI team that hid the corruption, investigations and convictions surrounding that from congress and other agencies to ensure the deal went thru).

And, then, Hillary was very, very, very good at being picked by Russian energy oligarchs for awarding of a cool $150 miilion into the Clinton slushfun...er...Global Initiative.

Good times, good times.; 8/14/18, 7:38 PM
tim in vermont said...: Hillary was more than happy to kill Keystone XL for her pal and patron Vladmir. It doesn't get any more "picking winners" than that, well picking losers.; 8/14/18, 7:42 PM
Leland said...: "Diverting commercial significance" would seem nearly the definition of "devalue", no?

At least Dick is right that we aren't being fooled.; 8/14/18, 7:43 PM
tim in vermont said...: I like the way that Bill collected 17 million of that Putin booty as "pay" for his part time job of Chancellor at good old Clinton Foundation U.; 8/14/18, 7:44 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Drago, TinV,

You’re doing talking points re smallball where HRC wasn’t the “decider.” IOW, you prove my point.

Tnx.; 8/14/18, 7:47 PM
tim in vermont said...: ou’re doing talking points re smallball where HRC wasn’t the “decider.

Keystone XL was killed by State after she left. You are right. I was wrong. Just like I was right when I argued with you that she got her "We came! We saw! He died!" idea from Sydney Blumenthal, employee of Clinton Foundation subsidized by Putin.; 8/14/18, 7:55 PM
Sprezzatura said...: TinV,

I know that Sid was pushing the idea that taking credit for that was politically useful. But, I will never concede that anyone other than HRC was responsible for that sickening sociopathic summation.

So, you’re wrong both times.; 8/14/18, 8:00 PM
buwaya said...: "In real economics there is no downside to a few (or one) dominating an industry."

That is basic business strategy, not economics.
You want to be in a position to make monopoly profits, if you can manage it. That benefits you, if you are a monopoly.

And in economics you have the problem that there is always a downside for someone.

In this case you do not have the claimed greater rate of R&D. R&D has been very bad for some time. Rate of innovation has slowed down terribly. No flying cars, etc. A problem for economics. Partly because a real monopolist has no great incentive to turn R&D into products, if he can simply buy all potential competitors and put them on ice. And defend itself against any others with IP protections.

Just sit and grow fatter.; 8/14/18, 8:03 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Btw, imagine if DJT had BHO’s wisdom. BHO said no Sid. DJT staffing could have been more selective.; 8/14/18, 8:05 PM
Francisco D said...: "I see Langford Peel beat me to it."

Do you know that Peel is a Moby?

He says borderline racist things to discredit this blog. Michael Fitzgerald is his accomplice.; 8/14/18, 8:40 PM
Roughcoat said...: The Wife and I saw "Equalizer 2" over the weekend. Found it very entertaining.

And it occurred to me: a movie should be made with the Equalizer, John Wick, Ben Affleck's Accountant, Bruce Willis's character in Unbreakable, and the Boondock Saints boys teaming up to fight evil.

Generally I hate superhero movies. But that's a superhero movie I could really get behind!; 8/14/18, 8:40 PM
rhhardin said...: It's all downhill since Harvey Weinstein left.; 8/14/18, 9:04 PM
Otto said...: So what is your aim Ann? Do you wan't your readers to concentrate on the new
Oscar's category. Do you want your readers to discuss the merits of the analogy. Do you want your readers to concentrate on the Trump hatred at the The New Yorker. Or is this just a Goat F?; 8/14/18, 9:13 PM
GRW3 said...: If the Best Picture award comes after the popular award, nobody will see it.; 8/14/18, 9:29 PM
langford peel said...: It really seems to upset the cucks when people are honest about race and class and identity politics.

Maybe you girls should concern yourselves with your own comments and let the rest of us comment as we please.

You ladies sound as gay as George Will.; 8/14/18, 9:47 PM
rcocean said...: "It's all downhill since Harvey Weinstein left."

Harvey is still here. He's operating behind the scenes.

And not taking any showers.

Damn, he stinks.; 8/14/18, 9:53 PM
Churchy LaFemme: said...: Unfortunately, this still won't help get the prestige acting awards assigned better. Forex, Patrick Stewart deserved a Best Supporting Actor for his performance in "Logan", but that's not the kind of picture those awards go to.; 8/14/18, 9:58 PM
Howard said...: rc: u got it backwward and rhhardon nails it. Harvey Pervstein's boutique movies won't get their ocsar stroke anymore.; 8/14/18, 10:17 PM
Howard said...: Keystone was killed by the Saudi's before Jared cut them a better deal...cough Iran cough; 8/14/18, 10:19 PM
CWJ said...: "Why the obsession here about Black Panther?"

Two comments is an obsession. After all, it's twice as much as one.; 8/14/18, 10:32 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Readering asked:

"Why the obsession here about Black Panther?"

Actually, it isn't my obsession- I haven't even seen it- but I noticed when it opened that the movie was being talked about like it was an art-house film with incisive societal critiques, and by all the people trying to prove they are "woke", so to speak. I can easily see it winning this new award, and would be shocked if it doesn't.; 8/14/18, 11:17 PM
Bob Loblaw said...: That he thought that the "tax reform" comment was somehow telling explains all you need to know about what is wrong with the Oscars. It was telling, just not in the way he thought.

I thought the same thing with a slightly different spin. Hollywood is famous for churning out movies that have hundreds of millions of top line revenue and yet somehow lose money. It's so bad people know what you mean when you say "Hollywood accounting". I don't want to hear a peep about taxes out of these con artists.; 8/15/18, 12:16 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: There was something about "The Blair Witch Project" that broke Hollywood's, or filmmaking's, hold over me, and I can't get it back. I've tried! So now I don't care what they do. It's all a racket and if they want to tweak it, so be it. Every year there's homeopathic concoctions in their goodie bags and - Oh look - Dana Loesch is selling "superbeets" on television.

I've never liked her.

Anyway - at least rewarding (or are they celebrating?) "Popularity" figures, in this environment, doesn't it?

There doesn't seem to be room being made for much else.; 8/15/18, 2:08 AM
sdharms said...: and what goes unsaid is NOBODY CARES!; 8/15/18, 6:52 AM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: Telling that they went this way rather than introducing a new Oscar for Best Art Film. The Oscars is the first reality TV show. It’s got to up its game to compete with the Golden Globes.; 8/15/18, 9:52 AM
Jim at said...: With this award, Star Wars can finally beat Annie Hall.; 8/15/18, 1:51 PM