Planet One…Film Making Zero
By jasondilworth
Well it happened An Inconvenient Truth won “Best Documentary” film, can information be presented in a less interesting way!? Boo to the Oscars for choosing such a “film” and I use the term very loosely. What good is saving the planet if our documentary films have come to this.
This entry was posted on February 25, 2007 at 9:07 pm and is filed under film reviews, global warming, oscars, trends. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 26, 2007 at 1:22 am
Perhaps your sense of what is interesting differs from that of the general populace; the film has been quite well-received by both public and critics.
Why should the quality of films have anything to do with whether or not we should take care with our planet?
February 26, 2007 at 9:57 am
Darmok, you are probably right about my sense of what is interesting differing from the general populace, but ask your self this, was it really the best documentary film of 2006? if you still feel so may I suggest actually watching a one of the other nominees.
I’m bitterly opposed to presenting information in the dumb down format of what has come to be known as a “powerpoint presentation”. An inconvenient truth has done a great service at spreading the word about global warming (explaining everything that we have know for 20+ years), but it did a great disservice to documentary films.
February 26, 2007 at 10:19 am
Jason you are right. The Oscars ideally would reward films for their entertainment, artistic use of film, quality of acting, or their technological achievements. A film should not be selected just because the information is controversial or current ‘hot topic.’ There 500 other documentaries from 2006 that are more entertaining, more controversial, and have a higher quality of filming then An Inconvenient Truth.
On the other hand I would fully support rewarding An Inconvenient Truth Best PowerPoint of the Year.
February 26, 2007 at 10:17 pm
As I see it, there are two issues here. One, you are complaining about An Inconvenient Truth itself. Second, you are complaining that it won Best Documentary.
I understand that you’re bitterly opposed to the format he used (incidentally, he does not use PowerPoint), but that’s not very relevant. Regardless of its effect on you, the film was very powerful, and affected a great number of people, far more than documentaries usually do. Their purpose was not to produce an artistic film, it was to get the message out on global warming and motivate and and inspire people. (I know you already realize this.)
The second issue is whether or not it deserved to win. I don’t know what criteria the Academy uses in making its selection, but I do feel that the subject matter, especially for a documentary, should play a role. It appears the Academy feels similarly.
Finally, I should point out that the logic of being selected because global warming is a “hot topic” is somewhat reversed. I would argue that global warming is a hot topic in the United States today in large part because of An Inconvenient Truth. None of the other nominees came close to stimulating the sort of societal change that An Inconvenient Truth has done, and I believe the Academy recognizes that. My quick overview of other major film critic associations suggests they view things in a similar manner.
February 27, 2007 at 8:28 am
It gives me great hope that one day my “Keynote” on typography and chimps will win a little Gold Statue.
March 8, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Darmok, in your last comment you provide evidence to my point of being concerned with the way the academy of motion pictures gives awards. If the best picture was handled in a similar way would we see films like the Ghost-rider or Norbit receiving all the praise and being hailed as Best Picture.