No, I'm not going to write about my Oscar picks. I want to talk a little about them though. There was an interesting point brought up in a recent discussion of Cold Mountain. Should movies be made with the express purpose of winning Oscars? Now, I think the Academy Awards have almost become a joke these days. Very rarely do deserving films, actors, etc. even get nominated, much less win. However, the Oscars are still the benchmark that most people in this country look to for which movies are "good". Now, that is neither here nor there, and could be grounds for a long discussion. But back to my original question.
My gut response would be no. I think it's kind of cheesy to make movies just to win Oscars. But really, it depends on the genre of movie you are talking about. Action movies, comedies, etc. should be made to entertain. Dramas and the like, in my humble opinion, should be made for aesthetic, and artistic quality. I don't like pretentious films, but I do like thought-provoking, interesting ones. Anyway, that is not the point. These days, I would say that most movies are made solely to make money. Now, I think THAT is a terrible motivation. But to make a movie to win Oscars? Not so bad. I mean, think about it. When you attack a movie for trying to win Oscars, you’re not attacking the movie itself. You’re attacking what it’s trying to do. But what is so wrong with what they are trying to do? Of course it’s trying to win Oscars. A movie is not inherently bad just because that is why it is made. Fundamentally, if a movie tries to win Oscars, it is trying to be a good film, because (theoretically) the good films are the one that win Oscars. So by trying to win Oscars, it’s trying to be a good film, which should be the goal of any director/crew/cast/etc. Like I said, however, most movies these days want to win Oscars to make money, and so the Oscars have almost become a joke. But when you get right down to it, making a movie to win Oscars can almost be a good thing, if those making it stay true to the spirit of making a good film, and the belief that the good films will win the awards. And as a side note, I think Cold Mountain stayed that course pretty well.
You have to remember that movies are first and foremost a business. Even low budget films can cost as much as $10 million to make. Very expensive ones can cost upwards of $200 million to make. Thus, it's naive to criticize Hollywood for making movies for the express purpose of making money. Of course that's why they make films. When you look at the massive variance of movies' returns, too, it only makes more and more sense. If they were not aggressively pursuing profits, then movies wouldn't be made at all, since flops are more common than blockbusters. There's a lot of risk attached to moviemaking, and a lot of money is put up to make them. Investors, if they weren't trying to make money, would simply direct that money elsewhere.
Besides, it's the very fact that studios pursue profits so intensely that studios are also willing to take risks regularly. Miramax, for instance, has at least two main strategies, each strategy run by one of the two Weinstein brothers. On the one hand, they church out "Oscar" movies like Cold Mountain. While these are hit-or-miss at best, in terms of becoming blockbusters, Miramax helps offset some of that through their Dimension films, which essentially churns out reasonably popular, cheap, teen horror films.
Posted by: scott cunningham at February 10, 2004 06:30 PMJust read the rest of your post - the reason, I think, why Miramax tries to make movies aimed at winning Oscars is not because they're trying to make "good movies." I'm sure they would like you or me or anyone to believe that, but the real answer is almost certainly more crudely financial in nature. Oscars are big money. They fuel demand for current films in the first and second-run movie houses, and they also add long life to the rental market. Oscar is important because of how it generates interest for the movie at the level of DVD sales and rentals, which as you probably know, can substantially increase the profits of movies.
Posted by: scott cunningham at February 10, 2004 06:35 PMi realize what you are saying scott. of course they want to make money. and yes, it is naive to criticize producers to make movies for money's sake. yet that's how i like to remain. i don't want to be jaded about the whole process. i like to remain optimistic that there are still people out there making movies for ARTISTIC quality. and i think that still goes on somewhat. your main points in your last three comments have been directed at producers, such as the weinsteins. and you have a good point. however, there ARE directors out there who, while not free from studio contro, have a lot more freedom than others. and i think minghella is one of them, based on the fact that he has done well in the past. others are scorcese, crowe, shymalan, tarantino, etc. who are almost given carte blanche to make THEIR movie. so i think there are exceptions out there, and i tend to dwell on that, instead of the raw money end of things that, say, an economist might focus on:)
Posted by: Uncle Josh at February 11, 2004 09:09 AMWhy do you think directors like Tarantino and Shymalan have so much control over their films? For those two, it's most likely because they consistently create films that are blockbusters. Tarantino's name alone is probably worth $100 million in terms of box office revenue.
I don't think I'm jaded at all; I'm very interested in all aspects of moviemaking. How the industry functions like an actual industry is interesting, and there's a sense in which it's absolutely necessary to understand Hollywood as a profit-maximizing entity if you want to understand why movies get made, etc. I don't think I'm jaded about movies; seeing the profit motive behind production has helped me get a better handle on why movies are being made.
Posted by: scott cunningham at February 11, 2004 11:55 AM