| Main |

Not Giving the Oscar Audience the Finger

    Did you notice, in the Academy Awards montage of decades of Oscar-winning foreign films, that the Academy had to pander to the lowest priggish denominator, and the FCC, even for a flash of a moment?

    It wasn’t on the screen even long enough for me to recognize the film, but in the scene, the character was extending a middle finger -- and the Academy producers digitized the digit. They scrambled the image so you wouldn’t see the flip-off finger, even though anatomically that was the only finger it could be, and even though everyone who’s completed second grade has seen that gesture.

  Pitiful.

  I watched the Oscars in the company of a two-time Academy Award winner, the nephew of an Oscar winner, the son of a renowned British actor, and sundry creative folk, and amid all the joshing and droll commentary, everyone fell silent during the montage of Oscar-winning foreign films of the past.

    They were so stunning, so simple, so human and humane, that you couldn’t help thinking how many of the American-made ‘’best pictures’’ would fare in comparison. It isn’t about the quality of the acting, it’s about the scale and the message of the American winners: big-sweep blockbuster pictures about war and gore and crime, and the musicals and spectacles … and not very often thoughtful, intimate, complex films about the passions and joys and torments of ordinary life.

     Maybe it’s a case of huge Hollywood budgets fueling the drive to make huge motion pictures, and maybe it’s a function of a big industry in a big and important country making movies to match its brawn. But oh, ``La Strada,’’ ``Black Orpheus,’’ ``A Man and a Woman,’’ ``Closely Watched Trains,’’ ``Z’’ –  if there were an international trade deficit for brilliant, award-winning small films, Hollywood would be up to its neck in red ink of its own making, or unmaking. 

Comments

Maybe Hollywood should heed to the phrase, "Keep it real."
As for the brilliant award-winning small films having it all over us, well, that is just for starters.
Many of the films made today would have a hard time competing with the films of years ago.
As you said, it is not the acting.
The problem is not enough acting.
Many Hollywood films have too much of everything else.
Special effects are great, but does it take away from the actors?
Is there not enough acting?
A small film with great acting is better than a bigger film with not enough acting.
For example, many singers todays use a variety of effects in their music.
Sometimes, their voices are mixed in with the background enhancements.
In this case, no one is sure what the singer really sounds like.
The reality is lost.
Take away the effects, and you won't even know who the singer is, even after hearing the entire song.
Acting is the same way.
Mix it with too much, and you lose the human feel.
I say leave the big-time blockbuster effects to the sci-fi, war, and fantasy movies, and get back to inter"act"ing.
No one knows this better than those who took home an Oscar because they "Kept it real."

George Vreeland Hill

Post a comment
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In





ADVERTISEMENT


All LA Times Blogs

All The Rage
All Things Trojan
Babylon & Beyond
Bit Player
Blue Notes - Dodgers
Booster Shots
Bottleneck
Comments Blog
Countdown to Crawford
Daily Dish
Daily Mirror
Daily Travel & Deals
Dish Rag
Extended Play
Gold Derby
Greenspace
Hero Complex
Homeroom
Homicide Report
Jacket Copy
L.A. Land
L.A. Now
L.A. Unleashed
La Plaza
Lakers
Money & Co.
Movable Buffet
Olympics: Ticket to Beijing
Opinion L.A.
Outposts
Readers' Representative Journal
Show Tracker
Soundboard
Technology
The Big Picture
Top of the Ticket
Up to Speed
Varsity Times Insider
Web Scout
What's Bruin
Your Scene Blog
Los Angeles Times - Opinion