Fuck ’em
Cutting back on televised categories is EXACTLY what they should do to make the show watchable, but somebody really screwed up when they decided to include editing and cinematography in the excised group.
Here are the words of the academy member who nailed it:
“You move the Oscars for the two jobs that are hand-in-hand collaborations with the director but televise the award for animated short.”
If this were my choice, I’d televise ONLY
Best Picture
Best Animated Feature
Best Foreign-Language Picture
Best Documentary Feature
The four acting categories
The two writing categories
The two music categories
Editing
Cinematography
Absolutely nobody cares about shorts of any kind.
I am not discounting the value of production design or sound editing or special effects or anything else, but the viewers simply don’t know any of the nominees and therefore have no interest in the outcome.
While that is also true of editing and cinematography, it obvious that the overall pace and coherence of the film, as well as its appearance, are two of the most important elements in the process. As Alfonso Cuaron wrote, “In the history of CINEMA, masterpieces have existed without sound, without color, without a story, without actors and without music. No one single film has ever existed without CINEMAtography and without editing.”
Actually, I think Cuaron is wrong in saying no film has ever existed without editing. Alexander Sokurov’s Russian Ark, a complex feature-length film which is considered a masterpiece by some, was shot entirely with the camera rolling in one single uninterrupted take, and went straight from the camera to the theaters. But Sokurov just did that to prove he could do it. Cuaron’s point is valid in general.
meanwhile, Sound Editing and Sound Mixing (inexplicably, 2 separate awards) will be televised?
Totally agree about the editing and cinematography (which is really more about how the light is recorded by the camera) being included in the broadcast.
People may not realize it, but the difference between a brilliant cinematographer and a poor one is largely what makes a film look high quality or cheap. (Citizen Kane v. a piece of shit on LMN). It is probably the single most important part of film (even more-so than the director).
I’m okay for not televising cinematography. I had to look it up. It’s a touch-feely wishy-washy kind of thing, like production designer, which we shouldn’t televise either.
Editing though is obvious, but I can understand removing that too. You don’t have office discussions, outside of film studios and the like, over who got shafted for best editor. I don’t remember who won best editor the day after, but might remember some of the others.
You had to look up cinematography?
Running the camera for a movie is a wishy-washy kind of thing?
That’s another position, the American Society of Cinematographers defines cinematography as a creative and interpretive process that culminates in the authorship of an original work of art rather than the simple recording of a physical event. So he’s not running the camera.
Why broadcast them at all?
Profit for the TV network?
Granted, Oscar ratings are down. In fact, last year was the all-time low point, and viewership has dropped some 40% in just four years, but the network can still sell a lot of ad space with 27 million viewers. If ABC didn’t air it, somebody else would.
What are the demographics for those 27 milllion?
I thought that maybe they were trying to reduce the number of white males on TV to make it look more diverse.
Well, they also cut make-up and hairstyling. I’m pretty sure that’s not dominated by straight white males.