The LA Times reminds us it's being done this awards season, as it is every awards season.
... [T]he Writers Guild of America has once again eliminated some of the year's best films for consideration for its awards because the films are not signatories to the guild's Minimum Basic Guarantee. Among this year's omissions are "The King's Speech," "Winter's Bone" ... "Toy Story 3" [and "How to Train Your Dragon."] ...
There are those who have big problems with organizations that hand out awards to "their films" and not the best films.
But I'm not one of them. This is because I don't look at awards ceremonies for best movie, television show, or cumguat as anything more than political (or commercial) enterprises anyway.
I mean, How Green Was My Valley? Best picture winner (1941) over Citizen Kane? Really? And of it wouldn't have had anything to do with 20th Century Fox (Valley's producer) being a corporate powerhouse, and RKO (Kane's studio) being a midget. Or that William Randolph Hearst -- who loathed Citizen Kane for obvious reasons -- ran a full-throated campaign against Orson Welles' flick, and Hollywood didn't want to cross him.
That couldn't have anything to do with Citizen Kane ending up an also-ran. It was all about quality.
So when the Writers Guild of America says they're removing certain theatrical features from consideration for one of its glittery awards, I think "Sure, why the hell not? If the picture doesn't forward your agenda, why give it a platform?"
And if you think this is philosophically wrong-headed, I'll share with you what Niven Busch, a writer-producer from Tinsel Town's Golden Age, said to me years ago.
"Back in the 'thirties, the studios expected you to attend the premieres of their pictures, and vote for those pictures at Academy Awards time.
"If you didn't, you weren't considered a good company employee." ...
But of course. Any more than you'd be considered a good member of the Writers Guild or Directors Guild, voting for a non-Guild theatrical feature. On one level, it's adhering to the idea of a meritocracy divorced from politics and the real world. But on another level, it's giving aid and comfort to "the enemy."
Posts
10 comments:
Shameful. King's Speech is one of the best written and best films of the year.
Why shameful? The Writers Guild Awards are, as the name implies, designed to recognize work of Writers Guild members. King's Speech (which I loved) wasn't written under a guild contract. That's not shameful; it's just a fact.
I'm curious do the other Guild awards do this? The Directors, Actors, etc?
I have no problem with them furthering their own agenda, but they should make sure the award isn't for Best Screenplay, but for Best WGA Screenplay....
I'm curious do the other Guild awards do this?
The Screen Actor Guild does, but not sure on the others.
Union before industry.
I guess...
Actually, yes. Shameful. The King's speech wad written by a WGA writer on spec. The film just happened to have been PRODUCED by a compant that wad non- signatory.
So if TAG did have an award ceremony then Pixar wouldn't be invited (not to mention so many others)...pretty funny. All the Pixies would bust a gut.
Union before industry.
I guess...
It's a union awards ceremony. There are plenty of other awards ceremonies where non-union films can get their due.
The people who work at non-union studios are not "the enemy." I hope your use of quotes is to indicate that you don't really believe they are, either.
The creatives who actually do the work of making a film may or may not belong to a union, and they may or may not have any choice in the matter. Regardless, you will find the same passion, skill, and hard work at any well-run studio, union or no. When you fight against a film's award chances based on the politics of studio management, you are treating the emotions and reputations of these rank and file as collateral damage. Is it any wonder that these same rank and file vote "against their own interests" when asked to organize? I'd expect a certain amount of spiteful feelings against an organization that actively fought to downplay these people's hard work and painted their entire studio with the broad brush of "the enemy."
"Sure, why the hell not? If the picture doesn't forward your agenda, why give it a platform?"
ie, quality is for the individual to defend on their own. institutions cherry pick the lucky successes that fit their agenda. how courageous. corporations are guilty of the same sin. thanks for clearing that up.
Post a Comment