Very interesting reading, David.  Thanks for sharing themt. Somehow after
Ben Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln were
going to be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while
Argot was cleary a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined
to become a classic. 
 
FRANC

-----Original Message-----
From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David
Kusumoto
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:55 PM
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.


A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along
with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of
all time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards.  "Argo" was fine,
but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better.
Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in
my mouth a little.  The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from
the NY Times. - d.



“Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser

Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood
have against its most successful resident? 

by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013

 
<http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2013/2/23/17/enhanced-buzz
-25736-1361658499-3.jpg> 
Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters

Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The
triumph of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of
Lincoln brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in
seven at bats for entertainment's biggest prize. 

And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once
seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in
which Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and
handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee.

For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his
unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned
untouchable since before many of today's young directors were born — facing
up to yet another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a
clear and consistent rebuff. 

Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his
seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered
favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie
Brown, forever having the football pulled away. 

This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar nominations
being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked like a
shoo-in to win the prize. Only to see Argo stage a last minute surge and
steal its thunder again. 

So to what do we attribute this ongoing snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's
love/hate relationship with its greats. The number one thing Hollywood hates
is failure. The sad fates of those who have fallen beneath the C list
demonstrate every day how little empathy the town has for those who can't
soar with the eagles. 

But the number two thing Hollywood hates is success. Praying for the
downfall of its mighty is practically the industry's official religion.

Spielberg these days is such a venerable figure that one can easily forget
his historically troubled history with the Academy. After receiving one for
a Best Picture nominations for his first outing — Jaws, but then being
denied for nearly a decade that followed, Oscar finally broken down and
ponied up nods for E.T. — when it became the day's highest grossing of all
time — and Color Purple. 

But both those films still lost out on the grand prizes, and to add insult,
he was shut out in Best Director category throughout the 70s and 80s as
well.

After the Color Purple loss, Academy officials were so alarmed by the serial
snubbing of Hollywood's most successful director that they took the unheard
of step of bestowing upon Spielberg at age 40 the Thalberg Lifetime
achievement award, until then reserved for septuagenarians at the end of
their careers. 

It wasn't until seven years later, when he made a three hour holocaust film
that Oscar finally couldn't deny giving him their grand prize for
Schindler's List. But since then, it has been a 20 year sea of also-rans.

Of course, he hasn't gone completely unrecognized. Eight Best Picture
nominations is something most directors will never even dream of. Add to
that, two Best Directing awards making him the most awarded director since
William Wyler in the 1950's.

But still, somehow the Best Picture prize keeps sliding from his grasp, and
for a man at the top of Hollywood, to be the town's perpetual also-ran in
its biggest contest has to be galling.

In a town with — despite the disruptive presence of the internet — a fixed
number of studios and a shrinking number of major releases, entertainment
remains a zero-sum game. Celebrating the achievement of the man with a
permanent position on top is never entirely in one's best interest (unless
you're doing it to his face). 

And in a place where, as William Goldman famously put it, "no one knows
anything" and everyone knows that they don't know anything, seeing the
mighty stumble does even the chaotic playing field a bit.

But even more to the point, as big a business as entertainment is, even as
it stands as America's #1 export, the residents of Hollywood still need to
think of themselves as scrappy outsiders, the oppressed souls who fled the
closed minds back in their small towns and came to a place where at last
they could breathe the air of artistic freedom. 

The fact that this is the story of almost no one in modern Hollywood,
dampens its power not a bit. Even as they drive their $50,000 hybrids paid
for by CGI-explosion fests, Hollywood's need to think of itself as The
Oppressed Outsiders holds an undying power.

In choosing their Best Picture each year, the members of the Academy choose
what story they want to tell the world about Hollywood. First there is the
story the film tells on the screen; and in recent years these have become
trended heavily towards the edgier, hipper end of the dead center of
middlebrow filmmaking; Oscar has ceased awarding the schmaltzy Braveheart's
and Driving Miss Daisy's that paint the industry as a place of uptight
squares in favor of Slumdog Millionaire's and Hurt Locker's. 

Even a thriller like Argo is animated by a minimalist aesthetic that speaks
to restrained, hipster sensibilities far more than the genre winners of a
decade or two ago.

But more than the story on the screen, Oscar likes to tell a good story off
the screen about the making of a film. And however contorted and difficult
the journey of a Spielberg film to get to the multi-plex (and Lincoln did
take thirteen years) in the end, "Billionaire Hollywood Titan Makes Good
Movie", is not a tale to inspire the unwashed masses.

On the awards trail this year, Ben Affleck ran circles around Spielberg
playing up the gracious, just-happy-to-be-allowed-back comeback story. He
showed up at all the events, was warm and self-deprecating. People who
remembered how far he fell post-Gigli could not help but be touched by his
redemption story. And when the empire seemed to be rubbing it in by shutting
him out of the Best Director nominations, they rallied to his side. 

In contrast, Spielberg, as he always is when he gets into an Oscar race,
went into a heavily managed bunker posture, limiting his appearances,
keeping his interviews to few, appearing handled and protected at every
turn. 

The fact of the matter is that a heavily guarded, insulated oligarch is much
closer to the true face of Hollywood than a vanquished actor giving one more
chance to redeem himself, as an artist. But its not about what story is
true, it's about what story projects the way Hollywood would like to think
of itself.

The shame of it is, the real Spielberg on the rare moments when he emerges
from behind the palace gates is a wonderful story and a wonderful story
teller. He has had a career like no other of his generation, has in his time
taken enormous risks both as an artist and producer that have led to be
triumphs and disappointments. He is responsible for a busload of films high
and low destined to stand the test of time. 

And when he submits to interviews, he is warm, gracious, avuncular,
undefensive and endlessly fascinating with five decades of filmmaking
stories under his belt.

However, he is also, as this race shows again, all too willing to play the
mighty mogul on high. And in the end, the fear that position inspires might
keep him at the top of the industry, but as he has discovered once more, it
doesn't make Hollywood see him as its ambassador to the world.


http://www.buzzfeed.com/richardrushfield/argo-win-makes-spielberg-hollywoods
-biggest-loser


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Oscar-Winning Lessons in History and Hard Sell

 
<http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/02/28/arts/28CARPETBAGGER1/28CARPE
TBAGGER1-articleLarge.jpg> 
By MELENA RYZIK for the NEW YORK TIMES
February 27, 2013 

LOS ANGELES — A few months into awards season, at a party celebrating
another movie, a veteran actor-writer-director-producer, who takes his
Academy Awards duties very seriously, whispered to me that he was sure
“Lincoln” would win big on Oscar night. 

“Because it’s Lincoln,” he said. “It’s like not voting for George
Washington. And you really feel like you get to know Lincoln. We can’t not
vote for our favorite president.” 

The more than 6,000 members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences apparently did not see it as their patriotic duty to vote for
“Lincoln” or its director, Steven Spielberg. 

Daniel Day-Lewis’s win for his performance demystifying the 16th president
was not compensation. 

Mr. Spielberg, one studio boss said, looked stricken when he lost the best
director award to Ang Lee.

In the days after “Argo” won best picture at the ceremony on Sunday, it’s
been a parlor game among Hollywood types to figure out why “Lincoln” lost.
After all, it had all the hallmarks of an Academy Award-dominating film: a
venerated director; a celebrated, erudite scriptwriter in the Pulitzer
Prize-winning Tony Kushner; a landmark role for Mr. Day-Lewis; good reviews
and even better box office; and, not least, millions to spend on
campaigning.

Lobbying voters is frowned on by the Academy and yet a necessity of the
monthslong award cycle. This season, insiders said, the team behind
“Lincoln” — executives at DreamWorks and Disney — overcampaigned, leaving
voters with the unpleasant feeling that they were being force-fed a highly
burnished history lesson. “It was a good movie, not sliced bread,” one
veteran awards watcher said.

Overreaching was perhaps a failure of the broadcast itself too. The host,
Seth MacFarlane, and the producers, Neil Meron and Craig Zadan, tried to
marry old-school showbiz panache with “provocative” humor and the result was
an entertainment grab bag: the Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles; a
foul-mouthed talking teddy bear; splashy song-and-dance numbers for every
conceivable demographic (save anybody who likes hip-hop); Captain Kirk; sock
puppets (sock puppets!); racist, sexist punch lines that seemed lifted from
the insult-comic era; and the first lady of the United States. About the
only things missing were kitten videos and the Harlem Shake (but in
blackface).

But since the ratings were up slightly, especially in the coveted 18-to-49
age bracket, and despite some high-level protests — the reviews were not
entirely scathing, the production could ultimately be considered a success.
(Mr. MacFarlane, though, has already said he won’t be back as host.)

In a three-and-a-half-hour spectacle of glossy celebration for a roomful of
superstars dripping with jewels and self-regard, the question of how much is
too much may seem moot. But with the right tone and perspective, even that
ego parade can seem fun to watch. In choosing Mr. MacFarlane in its quest
for a younger, more male viewership, the Academy sacrificed its central
constituency — women make up the majority of the Oscar audience — and
fomented cultural battles in an awards season already full of them.

Then again, it was the political posturing that made this one of the most
interesting Oscar races in recent memory. As the vibrant discussion of just
how much truth bending is acceptable in fact-based movies shows,
authenticity — or at least the perception of authenticity — still counts. 

Though it took liberties with its story, “Argo” squeaked by on truthiness.
It also triumphed as a consensus choice in a field of high-quality
candidates, each with its own passionate faction of defenders. As Mr.
Spielberg himself said, when he lost the Directors Guild Award to Ben
Affleck and “Argo,” “There have been moments when I wish it was a slightly
less incredible year for movies.”

There may have been other reasons “Lincoln” fell by the wayside. Dimly
illuminated, to replicate the lighting of the period, and stuffed with long
passages of speechifying by waistcoated, bearded men, the film did not play
well on DVD screeners (nor, perhaps, did another historically based
competitor, “Zero Dark Thirty”). 

Cynics also say that Mr. Spielberg, as Hollywood’s reigning titan, was
primed for a takedown — envy being as motivating a force as greed in this
industry — and that voters were enthralled by the comeback story that Mr.
Affleck represented.

Somehow Mr. Affleck could not overcampaign, or at least, his combination of
movie-star charm and tabloid comeuppance won people over. Also, he talked
film references like an expert. Which, having won an Oscar at 25 (for
writing “Good Will Hunting” with Matt Damon) after a career as a child
actor, this college dropout turned director pretty much is.

Casual viewers often wonder if Oscar victory comes down to something
simpler: who makes the best movie. It does not. Nor does the funniest person
make the best Oscar host. There is a narrative to both endeavors, a
combination of self-effacement and artistry (voilà, Mr. Lee), being of the
moment and timeless, that is hard to pull off. Mr. Spielberg will no doubt
try again, and in the meantime he and the other also-rans can console
themselves with another prize, Hollywood’s ultimate popularity contest:
record-breaking ticket sales.

And next year, may we suggest to the Academy, hire Jennifer Lawrence to
host. 

Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.




         Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
   ___________________________________________________________________
              How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
                                    
       Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
            In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
                                    
    The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.

Reply via email to