CJ:
You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.
IMHO, “No Country for Old Men” was a disgusting depressing celebration of a psychopathic killer triumphant over everything and everyone decent or even half so. You might as well celebrate Jeffrey Dahmer, Wayne Williams or Richard Speck as far as I’m concerned. If I never see it again it will be too soon.  Waste of fine actors, though.

When I realized that NCFOM was made by the same guys who made “Fargo” and “The Big Labowski” it made sense that I hated it—I hated those two movies as well.  The only thing they made I know of that I liked was “Raising Arizona”.

But….that’s what makes horse-racing.  Lots of people loved and cried over maudlin crap like “The Big Chill” and “Terms of Endearment”.  Not me.  However, I’ve never seen a John Sayles movie I didn’t like.  And I even like dumb romantic comedies from time to time like “Notting Hill” or “The Holiday”.

Again, that’s what makes it personal taste.

“No Country For Old Men” is, of course, terrific. As always in the case of best duo (or solo, for that matter) in history of Hollywood, the Coen brothers managed yet another masterpiece of mixing social commentary and thriller. Art because not blatantly political, though strongly so in form, and in content too, but sans overweening agenda of any kind. The difference is subtle, but that between art and mere entertainment.

Coens always with send-up that is never condescending. They never mock as they reveal to us other, actually real America. By story-telling, not by didactic lesson. All that is required of audience is attention.

Not that simple entertainment isn’t means by which to pass time more or less pleasantly. Most movies fall into the category of “entertainment,” which is still far better than too earnest/doctrinaire instruction. Documentaries aside, since the point of those is to present actual events as they happened, usually from one or another point of view. I love documentaries, most especially when righteous. I believe in righteousness. Without that, nothing worth bothering over.

The Academy is an organization whose business is promotion of movie business. As such, it’s fairly ridiculous to expect the organization somehow to be “objective.” Even more absurd—as George C. Scott noted awhile back in so many words—to think of any art form in the way one thinks of sports. Making art isn’t about contesting in the way sports is (per Lombardi, quite rightly) ONLY about winning. Well, sports are about more than that, but first and foremost about prevailing in competition. Which was Lombardi’s point. (Lombardi was not simply football coach, but also astute observer of American culture, wherein “winning” really is regarded as be-all end-all, regardless of arena. That this is true is what so plagues Americans! Obsession with Number One, always with concern for who’s Number One. To the point of regarding those determined by various means to be Number Ones as deities, aka, celebs.)

Whatever else art is about, it’s not about competing in hopes of winning. Competition does enter in to the degree than any in the arts or in any other arena are partially driven by desire to excel. But arts differ from sports in the sense that there is no finish line, no time to beat, no “scientific” measure by which to determine “value.”

Certainly, there ARE standards, but not in the way there’s finish line. The Academy Awards ceremony attempts to be Super Bowl, Stanley Cup Finals and World Series all-in-one.

And so beyond noting (as in the case of Nobel Prize for Literature) an artist’s body of work from time to time, handing out awards makes absolutely no sense beyond business sense, which though of cents is not of sense. Any more than it makes any sense for a society (bounded by geographical borders or not) to carry on at the level of political-economy as though that too were only a matter of winning, which is (EARTHQUAKE!) winning relative only to losing. We love winners, hate losers. Why and what sense in thinking in such terms?

EH:

I have no desire to see Slum Dog—sounds like the same thing as No Country or There Will Be Blood—violent crap dressed up as an “art film”.  It’s funny that when it comes to movies we can be so simpatico!

“the criterion I find most useful for evaluating films is their ability to continue to be entertaining - over longer periods of time.  So many films are designed to thrill or uplift or inspire for just a fleeting moment or two.  Others remain year after year (not day after day) to give us a tear in the eye or tug at the heart or loud guffaw or a fist-pound for some technical aspect.  When a film is crafted so well that audiences appreciate it over generations, that’s when it proves itself. “

Hulk, I couldn’t have said it better myself.  In fact, I did make this point in another thread, applying it to ALL art, not just movies.

The only film YOU listed that I didn’t like is “Christmas Vacation” (I hate ALL the “Vacation” movies, despite liking Chevy Chase and Beverly D’Angelo, once described as having the sexiest overbite in Hollywood.)  But that’s OK—it’s what ENTERTAINS you—I’d substitute “Major League”, but that’s just MHO.

ITW - You’re right that the Academy has never been a bastion of taste, but really, “Slum Dog” is just the most vulgar piece garbage ever, even compared to the questionable previous winners you mention. I found that “Slum Dog” just got more asinine with each passing minute. The last third is unwatchable. It becames a wallowing montage retrospective of itself, trying to bludgeon the required emotional response from the viewer.

My Dad ran a tiny theater in a tiny Michigan town ... and his mother before him and her mother before her (those ladies even played piano to accompany silent films).  I’ve been a movie fan for many, many years - more or less it’s “in the blood”.  The awards come and go; but the criterion I find most useful for evaluating films is their ability to continue to be entertaining - over longer periods of time.  So many films are designed to thrill or uplift or inspire for just a fleeting moment or two.  Others remain year after year (not day after day) to give us a tear in the eye or tug at the heart or loud guffaw or a fist-pound for some technical aspect.  When a film is crafted so well that audiences appreciate it over generations, that’s when it proves itself.  Ask yourself which of the current films will meet that measure.  Which can you bear to watch more than once and not just say “ho hum” to yourself?  We need to look past the over-obvious over-selling that producers and artists do.  I have MANY favorites of varied genres e.g. Casablanca, Blade Runner, Ground Hog Day, Cyrano de Bergerac, Christmas Vacation, Caine Mutiny. Are they all “award winners”?  Not sure - but they DO entertain.  If they don’t do that, one might as well watch Lucy reruns on TV (horrors!).

Last year it was “No Country for Old Men” and “There Will be Blood” that got all the hype. Two of the most atrociously bad movies I have ever seen.

Just remember: “The French Connection” beat “A Clockwork Orange”.  “Ordinary People” beat “Raging Bull”. “The Last Emperor” beat “Empire of the Sun”. Sally Field has won 2 Oscars, both for chewing the scenery, but Glenn Close has never won.  Tom Hanks won more Oscars than Paul Newman or Henry Fonda.  James Mason never won.  Hillary Swank has won 2.  Has Dame Judy Dench won more than 1? I don’t think Peter O’Toole has EVER won an Oscar.

The Oscars exist solely as a marketing device, and the studios lobby just as hard as politicians, because winning means box office.  It has nothing to do with brilliance of concept, writing, directing, story-telling or acting.

I always admired George C. Scott for staying away and refusing to recognize it as important.  How much classier than “You like me! You really like me!”

“Slum Dog Millionaire” is excruciatingly corny and crass. I can’t believe it’s received such praise. The Academy’s standards have never been lower.