2024-03-08 06:55:42
Almost since the beginning of cinema, the awards that accompany it have been increasing, spreading and diversifying, especially in the past few decades. After the first silent short film, “The Great Train Robbery” (1903), by American Edwin Porter, won the “National Council for the Protection of Film” award in 1908; After awarding the first American and European awards in the field of cinema, in the early 1920s, based on public voting; After the launch of the “Mussolini Trophy”, awarded for the first time in 1932 at the “Venice International Film Festival”, as the first award at an international film festival; After all this, there are hundreds of awards dedicated to various aspects of the film industry, without exaggeration, following limiting them to the film itself, or to the director. After the public vote was the basis or the decisive factor, voting was entrusted to arbitration committees that were numerous, diverse, and varied, according to countless differences, calculations, and balances, both declared and hidden.
Importance versus fuss
Since the beginning of awarding the Oscars, the end of the 1920s; The launch of major international festivals in various parts of the world, and granting them their own prizes. After launching regional or continental awards as well; And ending with awards for specific cinematic genres; The commotion that accompanies most of these awards is renewed annually, regardless of the awards’ antiquity, their importance, or their high value, morally, literary, culturally, materially, or promotionally.
The noise of awards, regardless of their donors, has become, in recent years in particular – with the tyranny and influence of money, trade and politics, the incursion of interests, and corruption in the film industry, festivals and relevant institutions – among the issues that accompany the awarding of any award, prestigious or not. The matter is no longer limited to differences and discrepancies in artistic viewpoints and tastes, as all of this has gone beyond suspicions, suspicious trends, and damning condemnations, in which the artistic is mixed, in a blatant and sometimes crude manner, with the material, commercial, political, and ethnic.
Some people promote that winning major cinema awards reflects, consequently, a high level, artistically, aesthetically, intellectually and experimentally, of the winning cinematic works and of the people who receive them, especially if the award is prestigious. Independent of the material, literary and moral value, an award can bring a film tremendous appreciation, advance and expand the distribution area, wide geographical spread, raise the status of the film’s owners, materially and morally, and open unprecedented horizons for engaging in future projects, or funding flows from various parties. Not to mention overcoming invaluable obstacles and difficulties. Sometimes, this applies if individuals or a film wins sub-awards, such as cinematography, music, costumes, special effects, etc. This is all true to a large extent, and cannot be denied or belittled.
Therefore, no one can doubt the importance of awards, and their diverse and varying cultural, artistic, literary and financial returns on films, as well as on the industry and its leaders. Of course, there is its creation of an exciting artistic situation, activity and interest through artistic and critical conversations, discussions, and media coverage, identifying public perceptions and prevailing tastes, crystallizing opinions, viewpoints, and trends, and even influencing the trends of the industry itself. Its effects may extend to measuring the social, political, ideological, ethnic, and racial opinions, whims, moods, and tastes of different peoples and societies. Winning an award such as an Oscar can also breathe new life into screenings of a film that was unknown, or did not receive proper distribution or targeted demand. Examples of this abound, especially recently.
Despite the many important aspects and roles that awards have played in many aspects of the film industry since its inception, it is very important to note that the importance of awards granted in the industry, especially in recent years in which things have been very mixed, has become subject to many things, factors and variables, which vary. From one person to another, from one award to another, from one country to another, and from one period of time to another.
It is also noted how the selection process is being influenced by many factors, to the point of confusion, as it has overshadowed the original artistic purpose and content of the award, and skewed it towards other, essentially non-artistic, purposes that serve policies, interests and whims related to the industry, marketing strategies, and biases towards male and female stars. And so on. All of this, of course, affected the levels of winning films, and will, in the end, contribute to harming the industry as a whole.
Legitimate questions
Some may accuse the awards of being biased towards directors and production companies, or of ignoring films from specific cultures and countries, influencing popular culture, directing the cinematic tastes of the audience, and focusing on a specific type of film dedicated to a desired style, thought, or trend, at the expense of other types. This, of course, affects the financing of other films, their manufacture and distribution, and thus the diversity of the final cinematic product.
However, there are basic, urgent and critical questions: Who gave the other importance, weight, credibility and longevity: the awards awarded, or the works and personalities that won them? Why has the situation changed now, and winning an award has become a standard and a test of credibility for a male or female director, film, etc., and not the other way around? Why is it not taken into account that the weakness of winning films, the flattery of personalities, or the imposition of trends, as a result of the blatant interference of commerce, interests, and political correctness, contributes to the destruction of the awards, and undermines their credibility acquired over significant periods of time?
This is despite the fact that the awards themselves, or the committees that award them, are sometimes unfair to the films themselves. It happens, for many varying reasons, that the cinematic productions in that period, or that year, in this competition or that festival, were not at the level hoped for, or were characterized by weakness, convergence of levels, or lack of something remarkable, new, or artistic. In the end, awards must be given, as it is very rare, in the history of cinema, for an award to be withheld for any reason. What is interesting to note is that this poor selection and granting obscures, hinders, and blocks the way to films that are successful, influential, or deserving of appreciation or awards, but they happened due to bad luck, or poor marketing, promotion, or programming, or when there is ignorance of the name and identity of a director, male or female, or other. Things are an obstacle to winning. This is in contrast to what was happening previously, when the awards did justice, with the utmost boldness, to names that had become illustrious, and drew attention to the cinemas of countries, artistic waves, and male and female artists.
From here, the important, influential, dangerous and desired role of the opinions of honest and loyal critics of the profession emerges strongly, especially in these days when things are very mixed, given their ability, unlike the members of award jury committees usually, to judge impartially and fairly and to a large extent free from pressure. And evaluating businesses in isolation from whims, courtesies, or profit and loss calculations. They must sift through the awards and return a quorum to the films that deserve attention, regardless of the nature of the awards awarded. This is despite the fact that awards create pressure on critics and sometimes push them to evaluate films in a more commercial or hasty manner, or to be vulnerable to prevailing influences, whether positive or negative. Accordingly, there is a need for the relationship to be essentially complementary, not a subordinate relationship, or merely a companionship for professional or other purposes.
Finally, from a purely historical perspective, awards and their chronological history play a very influential role, unintentionally of course, which becomes very clear when referring to the archives of an award and reviewing its results since its inception, or over its recent decades. The importance stems from clarifying the stages of ups and downs, brilliance and disparity, conflict and failure, which the award itself has gone through in its history. It shows the most important artistic stations and cinematic levels, the most important names that the award highlighted or discovered, and the titles that it highlighted and presented. It is undoubtedly useful for historians, researchers, and amateurs, and for those interested in determining the credibility and importance of an award, and evaluating the artistic level of cinema, in its various aspects, in a specific period or periods of time.
Film awards are multifaceted and of great value to the film industry, in terms of recognition, audience reach and cultural impact. However, it is always important to be aware of its limitations and nature. Most importantly, we should not lose sight of the context and surrounding circumstances, with their differences, and how, in the end, they never determine the absolute value of a film or artist, nor do they gain any credibility or artistry that is not theirs. The award should not be the only measure of the value of a director, director, actor or actress, or any worker in any profession in the industry.
1709882185
#Film #Awards #Endless #Ado
