A Cineaste's Room

Month

February 2011

104 posts

Feb 28, 2011
“

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)
Feb 28, 201153 notes
Feb 28, 201137 notes
Feb 28, 2011339 notes
Russia Against Napoleon: The True Story of the Campaigns of War and Peace  → ___ http


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…

Feb 27, 2011
Is that a book you got there?

fridayreads:

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!

Feb 25, 2011174 notes
Feb 25, 20112 notes
#penguin #tea #timer
Feb 25, 201144 notes
Feb 25, 2011417 notes
Feb 25, 2011
#fridayreads #penguinclassics
Feb 25, 201166 notes
Feb 25, 20116,530 notes
#missbanshee #@missbanshee
Feb 24, 20111 note
#march madness #powell books #field notes
Feb 24, 201111 notes
Feb 24, 2011161 notes
Feb 24, 201160 notes
We Have Always Lived in the Castle  → ___ http


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:

Feb 23, 2011
Feb 23, 201124 notes
“Much like how computers play chess, reducing the algorithm into “crunchable” elements can simulate the way humans do things in the result even though the computer’s method is entirely different. If the result—the chess move, the Jeopardy answer—is all that matters, it’s a success. If how the result is achieved matters more, I’m not so sure. For example, Deep Blue had no real impact on chess or science despite the hype surrounding its sporting achievement in defeating me. If Watson’s skills can be translated into something useful, something groundbreaking, that is the test. If all it can do is beat humans on a game show Watson is just a passing entertainment akin to the wind-up automata of the 18th century.” —

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)

Feb 23, 201166 notes
Savannah Book Festival - 2011 → feedproxy.google.com

This was the fourth of the annual literary event, all taking place on Telfair Square. It’s a superb setting with easy access to everything the festival has to offer. Speakers and…

Feb 23, 20111 note
Next page →
2012 2013
  • January 20
  • February 22
  • March 14
  • April 28
  • May 30
  • June 10
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2011 2012 2013
  • January 65
  • February 68
  • March 31
  • April 35
  • May 18
  • June 48
  • July 39
  • August 69
  • September 69
  • October 50
  • November 38
  • December 21
2010 2011 2012
  • January 46
  • February 104
  • March 74
  • April 66
  • May 47
  • June 60
  • July 44
  • August 62
  • September 46
  • October 68
  • November 60
  • December 102
2010 2011
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September 20
  • October 2
  • November
  • December 25