Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Why people find Chris Rock funny is beyond me. Always racially sensitive, Chris Rock is now bashing an awards show he agreed to host. I can't believe that he can get away with comments like saying the only time he watches the Oscars is when black actors were nominated or that the awards themselves are "idiotic" and have the producer brush it off. It sounds to me like a little more than "humorous digs" at a show that is "a bit too stuffy".

The thing is that I actually don't have a problem with the actual statements. He's entitled to his view just like everyone else. I just can't understand the double standard that says he can be as inflammatory as he wants, but it is viewed as edgy or hip. I could bring up the "Could you imagine the outrage if a white person had said...", but really my only question is why would the academy want someone to host their show that is going to say such derogatory things towards it?

7 Comments:

At 12:45 PM, Blogger Ricardo Grande said...

That's easy - any publicity is good publicity. And when your show is famous for being a self-congratulatory, bloated snooze-fest full of faux dramatic moments, the idea that the host may so something rash is bound to bring in viewers. I know I'm more likely to watch, anyway.

 
At 1:37 PM, Blogger romeotheBT said...

Awesome, maybe next year Howard Stern will be available. The Academy Awards is supposed to be for recognizing excellence in film-making achievement. I'm not sure where you are getting the self-congratulatory, bloated snooze-fest from, but it is still an award that carries a lot of weight with it. Studios campaign vigorously for those nominations and it is not insignificant for a film to be recognized.

Bringing in shock value in the form of Chris Rock may invite curious onlookers, but unless the academy is interested in competing with the MTV movie awards, that's not the way to go.

 
At 7:59 PM, Blogger Ricardo Grande said...

Well, I get "self-congratulatory" from the fact that the Oscars is an industry giving itself awards. At least the People's Choice Awards and the MTV Movie Awards are voted on by actual viewers. I get bloated from the excessive length of the Oscars broadcast, full of musical numbers and lame scripted bits, and I get snoozefest from the fact that it's hard to stay awake while you wait for the big awards. Sure, the studios campaign for the awards, but that's because it brings in extra money when people are duped into thinking that the award-winning movies are truly powerful (see: Return of the King, last year's best film, or lord help us, Titanic).

 
At 10:07 AM, Blogger romeotheBT said...

Let me start by re-emphasizing my original point. I think Chris Rock is a terrible choice to host the Oscars. I don't find his racist comedy funny at all.

I can't understand why the academy has chosen someone as a host who has stated that he'll only watch the Oscars when a black person is nominated and that he thinks awards for art are "fucking idiotic". I don't see it, but I realize I am in the minority. If shock value is what the Academy wanted, I think they got it.

Nextly... I am not a fan of the Oscars. In fact I never watch them whether a white person is nominated or not, but I understand the fact that the Academy Awards are supposed to be for excellence in film making. Yes they are professionals in the industry, but their goal is not economic gain for studios. To try and lend credibility to the MTV movie awards by saying that the people vote on them is asinine. I'd like to point out that they gave a lifetime achievement award to Godzilla. That sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

If the Oscars were in fact such a bloated snooze fest it wouldn't be one of the highest rated television broadcasts of the year.

Finally, to criticize the films the Academy gives awards to is even more ridiculous. You pointed out Titanic and The Return Of The King. Even if they weren't the #1 and #7 highest grossing movies of all time, they were both given very good reviews by critics. Are you looking for them to give awards to bad movies? What is your criteria for a good movie? These aren't awards for indie movies.

Like I said, some people may tune into the Oscars waiting for Chris Rock to drop the F-bomb or to throw out a racial blast, I will not be one of them.

 
At 10:53 AM, Blogger Ricardo Grande said...

I hardly think it's asinine to say that the public voting for an award makes it more legitimate. All winning the Oscar means is that your studio was able to convince a small, unelected mandarinate to vote for them (I feel the same way about the Heisman). While Titanic and Return of the King certainly did well financially, I think the fact that they won their Oscars is emblematic of the fact that only two kinds of movies win Oscars (at least, Best Film Oscars):
1) Sweeping, expensive epics
2) Movies about retards, terminally ill people, the handicapped overcoming adversity, etc.
When was the last time a comedy won best film? Certainly, one of these years, a comedy was the best film. The nearest thing to a comedy I can find is Annie Hall, in 1977. I think that this is what Chris Rock is getting at when he calls awards for art "fucking idiotic" - that it's all subjective and that essentially it's the film industry sucking its own wang. While I actually like the other hosts probably more (I'm thinking of Billy Crystal and Steve Martin) I'm interested to see what Chris will do. Hell, maybe the Academy will finally get over itself and give Godzilla the recognition he deserves. :)

 
At 11:20 AM, Blogger romeotheBT said...

What are you talking about "when was the last time a comedy won best film?" Schindler's List won in 1993!

Seriously though my main point is not to defend the Academy or it's choice for best film etc... In fact your point about a comedy not winning is absolutely right. You obviously have an organization that wants itself to be taken very seriously. It's not as if the award automatically goes to the highest grossing film each year. I think the Academy very much wants to be recognized as an extremely subjective organization that awards excellence in film making.

So why would they chose someone who has such obvious disdain for the process itself, unless it is for some sort of kitsch factor or shock value or whatever.

Anyway, I have to get some work done, or I'm going to get fired!

 
At 12:07 PM, Blogger Ricardo Grande said...

Hehehe - that's a good laugh. I agree that Chris Rock is there to generate publicity and ratings. I guess my argument is that they need that because the show is only interesting if some actress has a boob fall out or if some colossal fan favorite (like Titanic) is up for awards. There. Done, done, and done. :) Next topic!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker