February 2011
104 posts
The Motion Picture Academy, at considerable expense and with great efficiency, runs all the nominated pictures at its own theater, showing each picture twice, once in the afternoon, once in the evening. A nominated picture is one in connection with which any kind of work is nominated for an award, not necessarily acting, directing, or writing; it may be a purely technical matter such as set-dressing or sound work. This running of pictures has the object of permitting the voters to look at films which they may happen to have missed or to have partly forgotten. It is an attempt to make them realize that pictures released early in the year, and since overlaid with several thicknesses of battered celluloid, are still in the running and that consideration of only those released a short time before the end of the year is not quite just.
The effort is largely a waste. The people with votes don’t go to these showings. They send their relatives, friends, or servants. They have had enough of looking at pictures, and the voices of destiny are by no means inaudible in the Hollywood air. They have a brassy tone, but they are more than distinct.
All this is good democracy of a sort. We elect Congressmen and Presidents in much the same way, so why not actors, cameramen, writers, and all rest of the people who have to do with the making of pictures? If we permit noise, ballyhoo, and theater to influence us in the selection of the people who are to run the country, why should we object to the same methods in the selection of meritorious achievements in the film business? If we can huckster a President into the White House, why cannot we huckster the agonized Miss Joan Crawford or the hard and beautiful Miss Olivia de Havilland into possession of one of those golden statuettes which express the motion picture industry’s frantic desire to kiss itself on the back of its neck? The only answer I can think of is that the motion picture is an art. I say this with a very small voice. It is an inconsiderable statement and has a hard time not sounding a little ludicrous. Nevertheless it is a fact, not in the least diminished by the further facts that its ethos is so far pretty low and that its techniques are dominated by some pretty awful people.
” —Raymond Chandler, “Oscar Night In Hollywood” (The Atlantic, March 1948)![]()
author: Dominic Lieven
name: Meaghan
average rating: 4.25
book published: 2009
rating: 3
read at:
date added: 2011/02/26
shelves:
review:
I don’t pretend to be an expert historian…
Well you KNOW we want to hear about it! Reblog this post with a line about what you’re reading this week, and you’ll be automatically entered to win wonderful books and prizes.
This week’s giveaways include 20 book cover t-shirts from Out of Print clothing!
![]()
author: Shirley Jackson
name: Meaghan
average rating: 4.09
book published: 1962
rating: 0
read at:
date added: 2011/02/23
shelves: currently-reading
review:
Garry Kasparov, the Russian chess champion who sparred with IBM’s Deep Blue in 1997, ponders last week’s Jeopardy! contest between IBM’s Deep Blue and champions Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter.
Read the rest at The Atlantic.
(via theatlantic)
![]()