I got yer list right here.
Normally I don't talk much about movies in this blog, because I already do enough of that on every other web site of which I am a part. This morning, however, I got wind of the Online Film Critics Society Awards for 2002 and felt the wave of revulsion usually reserved for American Film Institute lists.
A bit of history: waaaaaay back in the day (1997?), Stomp Tokyo was rejected from the OFCS because we didn't cover "current" movies. At that time, membership was limited to people who reviewed a certain number of new releases annually, and we didn't qualify. We had a heyday bellowing from the front page that we'd been "banned by the OFCS!" and we even received a few plaintive e-mails from Society members reminding us that we hadn't been "banned," merely "rejected." We knew the difference, of course, but it was more fun to pretend to small bit of notoriety. Since then, membership requirements have changed and we'd probably qualify. We haven't bothered to apply.
This back story might be enough to explain any bad feelings I might have towards the Society's list of last year's best films, but the truth is that lately I harbor resentment towards any list of the "best" of any sort of entertainment, particularly when one has been singled out as the best. I'm sick to death of the relentless pigeonholing that goes on, and then the endless rounds of discussion that result between the people who disagree with the order in which the pigeons were, uh, holed. For example, I could natter on about the fact that I don't think that a fundamentally flawed documentary like Bowling for Columbine could possibly have been the best film of its kind produced that year, but that's the sort of thing that drives me crazy.
The creators of these lists rarely provide any sort of explanation as to why a film was considered superior to its fellows – the lists are simply tossed out there like beached whales at which the gulls may pick. Neither do I think they foster any particularly productive discussion – most of the conversations I've seen concerning lists are merely attacks on their order or on the omission of certain movies that "shoulda been" included. I'm getting tired just writing about the subject, but why not just talk about whether the film was good or bad? Did it accomplish the things it set out to do? Why all the focus on which one was the best? Go ahead - tell me that our society is fascinated with lists, labels, and the drama of awards night. See how far it'll get you.
Scott and I have participated in a couple of lists over the years, most notably the Internet Film Laser Squad Top 100 Funniest Movies, which SeanBaby put together in retaliation for the AFI list on the same subject. (Tootsie at #2? Jeez Louise, the mean age of the AFI must be about 86.) I think that list sort of self-destructed when Seanbaby found out that our list was a bit more conservative than his. But hey, we actually like classic comedies. I look back at our personal list today and think it could be improved (Austin Powers 2 at #35? Was it really that funny?), but most of all I just think it was something we shouldn't have done in the first place.
Even our lava lamp ratings (excuse me, LAVA© Motion Lamp Ratings) are a bit of a joke. If it weren't for the excuse to work in that awesome lava lamp graphic at every opportunity, I doubt we'd have a ratings system at all. You'll notice that we ditched them for the book.
My thoughts about this are much less organized than I'd like, and I realize I've done little more than whine about my dissatisfaction with lists. (Suggest to me that I should make a list of things I hate about lists and you will get slapped.) But there it is. Lists, awards, labels – they're all crap. The only positive thing I can say about them is that they occasionally encourage people to see movies or experience things that they wouldn't have otherwise. I'd like to think that well-written reviews do that to a greater extent. I know better.
A bit of history: waaaaaay back in the day (1997?), Stomp Tokyo was rejected from the OFCS because we didn't cover "current" movies. At that time, membership was limited to people who reviewed a certain number of new releases annually, and we didn't qualify. We had a heyday bellowing from the front page that we'd been "banned by the OFCS!" and we even received a few plaintive e-mails from Society members reminding us that we hadn't been "banned," merely "rejected." We knew the difference, of course, but it was more fun to pretend to small bit of notoriety. Since then, membership requirements have changed and we'd probably qualify. We haven't bothered to apply.
This back story might be enough to explain any bad feelings I might have towards the Society's list of last year's best films, but the truth is that lately I harbor resentment towards any list of the "best" of any sort of entertainment, particularly when one has been singled out as the best. I'm sick to death of the relentless pigeonholing that goes on, and then the endless rounds of discussion that result between the people who disagree with the order in which the pigeons were, uh, holed. For example, I could natter on about the fact that I don't think that a fundamentally flawed documentary like Bowling for Columbine could possibly have been the best film of its kind produced that year, but that's the sort of thing that drives me crazy.
The creators of these lists rarely provide any sort of explanation as to why a film was considered superior to its fellows – the lists are simply tossed out there like beached whales at which the gulls may pick. Neither do I think they foster any particularly productive discussion – most of the conversations I've seen concerning lists are merely attacks on their order or on the omission of certain movies that "shoulda been" included. I'm getting tired just writing about the subject, but why not just talk about whether the film was good or bad? Did it accomplish the things it set out to do? Why all the focus on which one was the best? Go ahead - tell me that our society is fascinated with lists, labels, and the drama of awards night. See how far it'll get you.
Scott and I have participated in a couple of lists over the years, most notably the Internet Film Laser Squad Top 100 Funniest Movies, which SeanBaby put together in retaliation for the AFI list on the same subject. (Tootsie at #2? Jeez Louise, the mean age of the AFI must be about 86.) I think that list sort of self-destructed when Seanbaby found out that our list was a bit more conservative than his. But hey, we actually like classic comedies. I look back at our personal list today and think it could be improved (Austin Powers 2 at #35? Was it really that funny?), but most of all I just think it was something we shouldn't have done in the first place.
Even our lava lamp ratings (excuse me, LAVA© Motion Lamp Ratings) are a bit of a joke. If it weren't for the excuse to work in that awesome lava lamp graphic at every opportunity, I doubt we'd have a ratings system at all. You'll notice that we ditched them for the book.
My thoughts about this are much less organized than I'd like, and I realize I've done little more than whine about my dissatisfaction with lists. (Suggest to me that I should make a list of things I hate about lists and you will get slapped.) But there it is. Lists, awards, labels – they're all crap. The only positive thing I can say about them is that they occasionally encourage people to see movies or experience things that they wouldn't have otherwise. I'd like to think that well-written reviews do that to a greater extent. I know better.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home