http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/movies/awardsseason/13carr.html?ref=arts
This article, written by David Carr, focuses on Oscar nominations: who was nominated? Who wasn't? Do these people deserve nominations? What determines if an actor should be nominated or not?
The perspective on this article is to pull away from all the glitz of the awards show- the fashion, red carpet, etc.- and focus on the credibility of the actors actually nominated. Oftentimes there are nominations that are obvious and, well, expected as is the case with Mickey Rourke this year. Rourke's "The Wrestler" has received much buzz in recent weeks although it was not an initital front-runner. However, Rourke's "comeback" and backstory contribute to this publicity and the movie is gaining more recognition.
However, there are still some films which were not highly publicized receiving nominations- have many people heard of Melissa Leo in "Frozen River?" Either way, Carr states that the awards should be determined by the acting talent and not the publicity surrounding the film.
Carr provides much detail about the films/actors he is discussing so that the readers know the background information and can understand why they are nominated. Carr writes, "Sometimes it’s not the actors who pull us — and the academy — into films, but the films themselves." Therefore, the award should not be given to the actor with the biggest name, but rather the actor with the biggest talent.
I agree with Carr because the general public tends to get caught up in the glamour and publicity surrounding the nominations while not even thinking about the actual talent all of these actors possess. If we focus on popularity or names to determine the winner, aren't we losing the purpose of the awards being given?
Carr says it best when he writes, "But for those of us who are either too busy or too lazy, the Oscars, of all things, can serve as a frame on the wonders we might otherwise miss." There is true talent within many films, even if we have never heard of them, and we must respect that or else genuine talent in our generation may go unnoticed, which we be an upset for us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This was an interesting topic to address and the author made a lot of good points. However, I found the actual op-ed boring to read and rather listy. Perhaps this is somewhat due to that fact that I had no knowledge about any of the films or actors mentioned except for Heath Ledger.
I also found the author's frequent use of very lengthy sentences annoying. Sometimes long sentences work but in this case, by the end of the sentence, Carr had either lost my interest in his point or the meaning had been smothered by all the extra words and terminology thrown in. In any case, about a quarter of the way into into the article I found myself scanning, which is something I rarely ever do.
I'm not saying that Carr necessarily did a horrible job writing the piece but it certainly did not carry my interest.
Post a Comment