Best Cinematography not going to be aired at Oscars

[Hrvoje Simic]

I think this is a slap in the face to the people who toil in cinematography, editing, and the HMU/costuming departments.

And the value of all of those statues has just plummeted. Devalued by their very makers. Intelligence = A+
Not that it had great standing already in recent years.

It should take time for some folks to realize the scope of bizzare idiocy of this move, when it blows back in the face, together with repercussions affecting perception of the Academy and this awards ceremony, and I'd say the wave of global ridicule will last for years, if not decades. Those two memes I posted, taken from Facebank, were just the start.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Their on screen time is being limited by not presenting them live, but in a shortened, edited form.

So...will the show make-up artist also remove make-up from the awarded make-up artists faces, and show DoP compose awarded cinematographers out of the shot, like the show editor will edit out awarded editors out of live broadcast ? It would keep this train wreck of thought systematic if nothing else.

I'd pay to see the face of the editor cutting the editors out of live broadcast...of something which symbolizes appreciation and validation of their essential contribution to Cinema and pinnacle of their career.



...



https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...present-oscar-categories-commercial-b-1186605

In an open letter to the Academy, a long list of prominent filmmakers, including Oscar nominees and winners from branches including cinematographers, editors, production designers, sound and VFX, are calling for the decision to be reversed.

A lengthy list of leading filmmakers are blasting the Academy's plan to present four awards categories at the upcoming 91st Oscars during commercial breaks as "nothing less than an insult to those of us who have devoted our lives and passions to our chosen profession." They are calling for the Academy to reverse its decision.

Their remarks are part of an open letter that has been signed by such directors as Spike Lee, Martin Scorsese and Quentino Tarantino; cinematographers including Roger Deakins, Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubeski and Robert Richardson; editors Tom Cross, William Goldenberg and Mary Jo Markey; and additional past and present Oscar nominees and winners from those branches and others including production design, sound and VFX.

With the Feb. 24 awards show, set to air on ABC, just 11 days away, the Academy and the show's producers Donna Gigliotti and Glenn Weiss are now facing what is becoming an open revolt. The Academy did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

"Relegating these essential cinematic crafts to lesser status in this 91st Academy Awards ceremony is nothing less than an insult to those of us who have devoted our lives and passions to our chosen profession," the letter reads. "When the recognition of those responsible for the creation of outstanding cinema is being diminished by the very institution whose purpose it is to protect it, then we are no longer upholding the spirit of the Academy’s promise to celebrate film as a collaborative art form."

 

[M Most]

So...will the show make-up artist also remove make-up from the awarded make-up artists faces, and show DoP compose awarded cinematographers out of the shot, like the show editor will edit out awarded editors out of live broadcast ? It would keep this train wreck of thought systematic if nothing else.

I'd pay to see the face of the editor cutting the editors out of live broadcast...of something which symbolizes appreciation and validation of their essential contribution to Cinema and pinnacle of their career.

I'm trying to be sensible, pragmatic, and reasonable and you're being pretty ridiculous. So I'm going to stop now. I have my opinion. Others have theirs. Doesn't change anything.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I'm trying to be sensible, pragmatic, and reasonable and you're being pretty ridiculous.

I know you are. It is clear that this decision had some basis in numbers, viewers, revenue etc.

It is also evident that it's based on what is commonly referred to as "left brain dominant" thinking.

But unfortunately, there is more to it, much more, and as a bizzare case of irony, those same ones "cut out" of live broadcast see the world not only through numbers but meaning, context, interpretation, impression and feelings. Without whom all of this wouldn't exist in the first place. And those are the ones feeling outraged. And seeing beyond the sterile numbers, into meaning itself, would tell you that the Academy decision makers just undervalued the Craft, its own backbone, by that the Academy itself, this ceremony and those statues. All in one swoop. Technically dominant mindsets may not see that, creative mindsets who have to utilize both modalities to see "beyond" and to be able to merge science and art into expressive work of value - do.

Who meant what by what is one thing and what the outcome of the intent is - is another. No one cares about my reasoning process if the outcome of my judgements negatively affects others. I can reason all I want. Everyone cares about the results and repercussions. The same rule applies to those sitting on boards, not just us working our ass off on sets and in editorial to make this all possible.

So...the chosen rhetoric was not me being ridiculous but pointing out the bizarre irony in this situation. This move may seem reasonable to those who made the decision but to many across the globe and creative domain it seems like reason has left the building and got hit by a truck. Driven by a soulless autopilot.

 

[Evin Grant]

I think the term the Academy is trying not to use is "separate but equal", and it's about as "equal" as the last time that term was applied. There is no getting around the fact that this is a diminishing move.
I don't really give a fuck how long the Oscars are, the crappy ratings they have had in recent years has nothing to do with length and everything to do with execution and relevance. No amount of time trimming is going to make the Oscars more relevant to the average phone addicted sub 30 year old. Be honest about honoring the craft and make it a good show, otherwise it's just rearranging deck chairs on James Cameron's Titanic.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Is money the root of all evil? Perhaps. The ceremony started out as a celebration of cinema and an opportunity to recognize the many different crafts involved in the collaborative process. As the rights fees increased, the Academy became dependent on the revenue from the Oscars telecast for it's annual operating budget. Now, faced with an existential risk of collapse, the priority is keeping enough viewers to pay the bills. Does the end justify the means? Is the survival of the Academy more important than it's essential mission statement - promoting the art of filmmaking?

Cheers - #19

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Is the survival of the Academy more important than it's essential mission statement - promoting the art of filmmaking?

No amount of intake will ensure survival of a body with neglected pillars.

 

[Michel Hafner]

Those commenting here might want to read this: https://www.indiewire.com/2019/02/o...est-editing-cinematography-awards-1202043791/

Why? Because of this link on the bottom?
https://www.indiewire.com/2019/02/christopher-nolan-villeneuve-join-protest-against-academy-oscars-1202044209/
I guess a lot of big names have also more growing up to do...

 

[Tom S]

I, for one, would like to hear more about the political views of pretty people who memorize lines written by someone else. [/sarcasm]

 

[Marc Wielage]

Is money the root of all evil? Perhaps. The ceremony started out as a celebration of cinema and an opportunity to recognize the many different crafts involved in the collaborative process. As the rights fees increased, the Academy became dependent on the revenue from the Oscars telecast for it's annual operating budget. Now, faced with an existential risk of collapse, the priority is keeping enough viewers to pay the bills. Does the end justify the means? Is the survival of the Academy more important than it's essential mission statement - promoting the art of filmmaking?

I don't see a solution beyond taking the show off ABC and putting it on HBO, Showtime, Netflix, Amazon, or any service that can air it live without interruption and without regard to "ratings" or flashy-commercial musical numbers, glitz, and glamor. Make it all about honoring the great artists and craftspeople who make movies and about celebrating the art of cinema, and less about the red carpet and all that bullshit. F the ratings.

I'm sure he does. Doesn't change my opinion, though. One needs to recognize that the show is a show, and the awards are the awards. They are essentially two different things.

The head of your guild -- Local 700, the Editors Guild -- has released an even more incendiary opinion. It would seem that you disagree with the head of the ASC, the head of IATSE, the head of 600, and the head of 700. I suspect more people disagree with you than agree with you, Michael.

American Cinema Editors, Editors Guild Heads Call on Academy to Reverse Its Oscars Decision
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...calls-academy-reverse-oscars-decision-1186836

IATSE Leader Demands Oscars Reverse Course on Awards Presented During Commercials
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...e-course-awards-presented-commercials-1186233

Cinematographers Society Rejects Academy's Justification for Oscar Change
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...s-academys-justification-oscar-change-1186992

So you're saying you're smarter than the heads of 600, 700, the ASC and the IA? Man, I'd never have the chutzpah to say that. Me personally, I think they raise good points and I lean towards their opinion.

 

[M Most]

I don't see a solution beyond taking the show off ABC and putting it on HBO, Showtime, Netflix, Amazon, or any service that can air it live without interruption and without regard to "ratings" or flashy-commercial musical numbers, glitz, and glamor. Make it all about honoring the great artists and craftspeople who make movies and about celebrating the art of cinema, and less about the red carpet and all that bullshit. F the ratings.

If that did happen, you could immediately say goodbye to both the show and very likely the Academy. Money has to come from somewhere to support the show, the presentation of it, the distribution of it, and the organization that creates it. "F" the ratings? Really?? How do you think things like the Academy Awards exist?

The head of your guild -- Local 700, the Editors Guild -- has released an even more incendiary opinion. It would seem that you disagree with the head of the ASC, the head of IATSE, the head of 600, and the head of 700. I suspect more people disagree with you than agree with you, Michael.

a) It's not "my" guild. I took an honorary withdrawal last year.

b) The reactions have been pretty predictable.

No doubt a lot of the comments are sincere. I just think that a lot of people are not looking at the situation realistically. The Academy Awards are largely paid for by whatever network airs them. Those networks are businesses. They are not in this to make editors and cinematographers feel good, even though from what I'm seeing they're still attempting to do that, just not in exactly the way those people would like them to. But that is the reality. When you're paying the bills you get to make the rules.

 

[Tom S]

An interesting twist I read is that Disney which owns ABC, has many nominations, but none in the 4 categories to be awarded during a commercial break.

 

[John Brennick]

Is money the root of all evil? Perhaps. The ceremony started out as a celebration of cinema and an opportunity to recognize the many different crafts involved in the collaborative process. As the rights fees increased, the Academy became dependent on the revenue from the Oscars telecast for it's annual operating budget. Now, faced with an existential risk of collapse, the priority is keeping enough viewers to pay the bills. Does the end justify the means? Is the survival of the Academy more important than it's essential mission statement - promoting the art of filmmaking?

Cheers - #19

If Shaving 5 minutes off of the Academy awards is literally the ONLY THING that could save the Oscars from their "Now, faced with an existential risk of collapse...." then there truly is no hope for them AT ALL.... They are still going to show the people receiving the awards... However, they wont have the build up... They wont have the walk up.... and they have given themselves the right to edit their speech if they deem necessary. If you want the extended version... head right on over to the website for the full airing... Thats such a copout. Just the insinuation that not presenting the same exact build up, walkout, and speech as everyone else because its "The only thing they could do to prevent collapse..." is not being pragmatic at all. It's utterly lazy and and cheap way out of this situation. And if you're asking a question of "Is the survival of the Academy more important than it's essential mission statement - promoting the art of filmmaking?" I would answer with a resounding No! They are the same thing. That mission statement is the foundation and fundamentals of what people are referring to. For an industry already bloated with few millionaires making decisions and thousands upon thousands of NON-millionaires doing as their told, to just step all over the ideals of equality which is constantly touted by those same millionaires is morally and ethically wrong. Fortunately a lot of those millionaires appreciate the fact that they're only millionaires because of the hard work of those that are not and in such are voicing their objections publicly as well. For some.... That may be the only time in their life that they ever experience their dream they have had their whole lives... To reduce that is to reduce every persons dreams as a whole because eventually it will be one of us on that stage or someone we are close with.

 

[Marc Wielage]

If that did happen, you could immediately say goodbye to both the show and very likely the Academy. Money has to come from somewhere to support the show, the presentation of it, the distribution of it, and the organization that creates it. "F" the ratings? Really?? How do you think things like the Academy Awards exist?

Most of the various studios just had some of their biggest financial successes in history over the last year:

I think they could each afford to kick in 1/2 of 1% to help out the Academy. And I also think an entity like HBO or Netflix would gladly pay $20 million for the prestige of carrying the Oscars exclusively on their channel and also pay for a lavish live production equal to or better than what we've seen in the past.

Again, it's not just me saying it's an insult to the Editing and Cinematography branches: it's IATSE, the ASC, Local 600, and Local 700. If you disagree with me, you're disagreeing with them as well... and a growing tide of much more-famous creative people who are absolutely furious about it.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Billions squandered and made in cinema & "entertainment" industry, cinema awards struggling with money (?) > Logic: cutting out cinema makers from cinema awards



Age of Idiocy.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I think they could each afford to kick in 1/2 of 1% to help out the Academy.

Corporatosaurus in the Idiolithic is unable to cultivate the forest, feeding urge has dominance over mental faculties and required extremities are undeveloped.

 

[Hugh Scully]

The ASC says that the Oscars changed their mind. So, there ya go.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Peace at last! Peace at last!

Oscars: Academy To Reverse Decision And Award All Categories On Live Broadcast

https://deadline.com/2019/02/oscars-reverse-decision-categories-live-show-controversy-1202558670/

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

The core mission of the Academy; to advance the art, science and craft of cinema is close to my heart. To be successful in that quest requires resources from somewhere. If a tight 3 hour TV presentation is the only way to do so, then I echo other posters who wonder why cutting the number of awards presented "live" is the only solution. Here's a couple off the top of my head:

1) Fewer ads sold at a higher rate - sell the prestige and exclusivity
2) Put the nominees in an "on deck" location near the stage to shorten the time it takes to walk up (Bonus: a group shot of all the nominees' reactions when the winner is read)

Of course the other obvious path is to secure other funding sources so the ratings number of the telecast isn't so crucial...

Cheers - #19

 

[Marc Wielage]

Of course the other obvious path is to secure other funding sources so the ratings number of the telecast isn't so crucial...

I think ultimately that's what's going to have to happen: the Oscar telecast has to get away from ABC and move to a platform (like HBO or Netflix or Amazon) that won't be as concerned about attracting a huge mass-audience of people who want glitz and glamor and musical numbers and are willing to sit through commercials for detergent and toilet cleaners. Heck, they could take a 3-minute break and just let the off-stage orchestra play to allow the stage people to reset the scenery and move on with the show if necessary.