Feb

27

The trophy

The awarding of the trophy to The Artist shows how 100% of voters are tilted towards the "change man". The trophy had to go to the show that had the least attendance during the season to keep man small, and to show how the public is stupid, and how the arbiters in the academy are on a higher plane of significance, a higher aesthetic than you and I.

How long before they all get invited to the Oval, and how consistent with the idea that has the world in its grip, and how bearish for the long term market.

John Tierney, the President of the Old Speculator's Club, writes: 

Considering much of Hollywood's output, it's surprising The Artist didn't also capture Best Screen Play….

Victor Niederhoffer adds: 

That's funny, Mr. President. But The Academy Awards is in the main a profit making deal which must cost 1.5 million a picture to enter, considering the perks and costs. The 1.5 million for the lowest budget film, The Artist representing a 10% capital contribution has the higher return to that input and is show in to win if it shows how deficient and low brow the public is in its taste. How beautiful to give it to one without talking that went out of style 100 years ago to show how we need redistribution and a raising of the capital gains rate as a solution to our problems.

Vince Fulco writes:

I was discussing a similar matter with someone this weekend re: Gingrich's plan for $2.50 gas. While not focusing on any one political party, what is it about the US citizenry that keeps them accepting (broken) promise after (broken) promise? Thereby guaranteeing they'll stay small.

Pete Earle writes: 

I suspect that the GAP's ability, and willingness, to get snookered by political actors and parasitical systems time and time again is the dark side of what, turned over again, is an exceptional ability and willingness to imagine enterprises and undertakings which in many other places would be cast off as unrealistic, insurmountable, or unnecessary.

Essentially, I believe that productive/entrepreneurial optimism is yin to political optimism's yang.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

7 Comments so far

  1. W Bassetti on February 27, 2012 3:28 pm

    what?

  2. Ronald Weber on February 27, 2012 6:22 pm

    Vic, in this regard, check this great article on Forbes, ”The Oscars, “The Artist” and the Death of Your Business Model”, about the irony of this year’s selection, which heralds the decline of the movie industry as we know it!
    Link:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffready/2012/02/27/the-oscars-the-artist-and-the-death-of-your-business-model/

  3. douglas roberts dimick on February 28, 2012 9:21 am

    The 5-w’s of A Model

    Teaching ESL (English as a Second Language) here in China, my paradigm is ET (or English Thinking). As we find in grade school, the problem for Chinese students is learning the ABC-123 (outline) format based on asking the 5-w’s to prioritize key words of the given subject for a topic presentation of our thoughts and feelings.

    Ronald’s cited article by J. Ready provides a unique instance — when asking those same six questions of who, what, where, when, why, and how, which I teach in that exact order – that indicates the time-space related question that the Chair previously posed… “Do markets learn from each other?”

    See… http://www.dailyspeculations.com/wordpress/?p=7214

    Here, as queried by Ready, the like-kind issue is whether industry sectors learn at lateral as well as vertical stages of the life of a business model?

    For the past 16 months, my student-teacher independent film project here in Shanghai presented similar issues. Now I find that the two key students of the project have failed to follow through on post-production due to either my direction or their competing commitments or interests.

    Did the model here evolve or become obsolete or was merely abandoned by actors central to the process?

    Was there space or time issues or both that, if identified and examined early enough in the process, would indicate the resulting issues of (non)performance?

    Who was essential as the phases of production developed?

    What were the priorities and divisions of those parties as the model changed or became stagnant relative to the project requirements and timeline?

    Where were the markers or performance points that would indicate or red-flag valuation (or time and production) concerns?

    When (in this student-teacher instance) were divergent taskings of personnel supplanting or masking what were previously convergent functions?

    Why was the format as first specified for a plan of production ultimately reduced to an obsolete framework to maintain commitment among the parties?

    As noted in the Oscars article, how did adaptation of technology (or failure to do so) occur given declines in quantitative valuations known by the players involved?

    My take is that the film industry is not in decline but that (strata) concentration of highly-paid actors, producers, directors, and studio execs simply do not command the same level of compensation as before due to the democratization of the industry itself via technology. Hurray…

    dr

  4. steve on February 28, 2012 9:47 am

    Chair I know you speak in riddles, nonetheless I would like to weigh in on this subject. My great friend Mds Dreyfus far more qualified than I should also comment. That said…..

    I felt that unquestionably the two finest films I saw for 2012 were Hugo and The Artist in that order. The next two were Midnight in Paris and War Horse. I feel that Hugo is one of the most perfect movies as a work of art as one could ask for. The Artist was the most unique film I have ever seen. Not easy to watch and a challenge since it requires quite a bit of work to appreciate, yet it does have its place but only to a limited audience.

    As for Midnight in Paris, it is just a notch below these two yet a strong and fanciful film. The screenwriting by Mr. Allen was exemplary. Thus well deserving of an award for original screenplay. War Horse can just be enjoyed as an event befitting of any collaboration of Spielberg and John Williams.

    Jean Dujardin gave a performace reminiscent of the great performances of bygone eras. He combined the incredible acting skills of John Barrymore with the entertainment skills of Fred Astaire. I cannot think of one actor in the world who could have done as masterful job as he did.

    As for the voters “making a statement” I just am not seeing it here. Many times the film selected as Best Picture does not do well at the box office. http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011 Two years ago The Hurt Locker was voted the Best Picture yet it had terrible sales. The year before No Country for Old Men took the award and fared poorly at the box office. Even last years winner The Kings Speech did not crack the top ten in sales.

    Is the public stupid. No it is just that a great film does not coincide with wide and wondrous appeal.

    As far market implications, I am at a loss to discuss this. There is however a huge bias toward very liberal thought in the film industry. And actors and celebrities despite their incredible and amazing wealth creation are obtuse with respect to world events.

  5. Andre Wallin on February 28, 2012 3:27 pm

    “what is it about the US citizenry that keeps them accepting (broken) promise after (broken) promise?”

    consumerism, sports, sex, societal acceptance, “how are you today?” and “good”

    a changing cycle of Edward Bernays’ methods, however they morph just like the markets.

  6. jim on February 28, 2012 10:09 pm

    Not to be elitist,but I hypothesize that in the arts, the average person IS stupid. Look at the music industry. Are you telling me the most money making bands are truly gifted and have something to say?
    There are incredibly talented starving jazz musicians who dedicated their lives to their craft with only other jazz musicians as their audience. Sure a true artist should connect with their audience regardless but come on. There is a big difference between true art and commercial success IMO.

  7. steve on March 1, 2012 10:17 am

    with respect to ticket sales, I suggest it is a reflection of the demographic shift in the country. The highest grossing films are nimated or cgi thus look who is going to see these. Grandparents take their grandchildren. It has become the family event of sorts for people today.

    Cinema’s are adapting to format also. 3D is doing very well. Major box office films such as Pirates, Harry Potter, Marvel comics sell lots of tickets. Be careful to confirm the demise of the movie theatres there is much left in their resources.

Archives

Resources & Links

Search