When the Best Movie does not have the Best Director... an analysis.
I think this issue has become our Achilles Heel of Golden Globe and Oscar competitions. What does it mean? A movie is good enough to be The Best, but its director is not good enough to be The Best...?
Let's try to pose an similar situation: Two hamburger restaurants across the street from each other, whose sole purpose is to crank out hamburgers, are in direct competition. You go to each for dinner, have their combo meals and make a mental note of your dining experience. Two days later you are on the same street with a friend. She's hungry and wants to have a good lunch, so she asks you: Who has the best burger, restaurant A or B? To which you answer: Restaurant A has the best burger in town, but Restaurant B is the best restaurant in town.
Is this a contradiction, or is such a response logical?
Let's breakdown the answer. Restaurant A, whose sole purpose is to crank out hamburgers, sells the tastiest Kahuna burger in town. Now, this implies that all of its efforts are perfectly coordinated in such a way that when the burger is sold, every buyers thinks: Um, that's one tasty burger!
Meanwhile, Restaurant B, whose sole purpose is also to crank out hamburgers, does not have the best Kahuna burger in town. Yet, you are arguing that while it can't sell the best burgers, Restaurant B itself is better than Restaurant A.
This is where the argument breaksdown, if you ask me. If the sole purpose is to sell burgers, then anything else that might make restaurant B better is nothing but a diversionary tactic. The fact that the restaurants may or may not produce the best burger is the only criteria we can use to give a rating. We can not use other criteria (such as nice chairs or clean floors) to lessen or take away from the fact that Rastaurant A has the best burger.
In the movie realm, if the sole purpose of the director is to make the best movie of the year, and the Academy agrees that his movie is indeed the best of the year, then the Academy is contradicting itself by telling that same director that he is not the best because he did not do MORE than just directing the best picture. But how he could do more, if his sole puspose was to make the best movie?
As you can see, this whole issue is based on circular logic and this invalidates any best movie/best director award split. Such occurances are contradictory, insulting to any logical person and a lasting shame to the Academy.
Let's try to pose an similar situation: Two hamburger restaurants across the street from each other, whose sole purpose is to crank out hamburgers, are in direct competition. You go to each for dinner, have their combo meals and make a mental note of your dining experience. Two days later you are on the same street with a friend. She's hungry and wants to have a good lunch, so she asks you: Who has the best burger, restaurant A or B? To which you answer: Restaurant A has the best burger in town, but Restaurant B is the best restaurant in town.
Is this a contradiction, or is such a response logical?
Let's breakdown the answer. Restaurant A, whose sole purpose is to crank out hamburgers, sells the tastiest Kahuna burger in town. Now, this implies that all of its efforts are perfectly coordinated in such a way that when the burger is sold, every buyers thinks: Um, that's one tasty burger!
Meanwhile, Restaurant B, whose sole purpose is also to crank out hamburgers, does not have the best Kahuna burger in town. Yet, you are arguing that while it can't sell the best burgers, Restaurant B itself is better than Restaurant A.
This is where the argument breaksdown, if you ask me. If the sole purpose is to sell burgers, then anything else that might make restaurant B better is nothing but a diversionary tactic. The fact that the restaurants may or may not produce the best burger is the only criteria we can use to give a rating. We can not use other criteria (such as nice chairs or clean floors) to lessen or take away from the fact that Rastaurant A has the best burger.
In the movie realm, if the sole purpose of the director is to make the best movie of the year, and the Academy agrees that his movie is indeed the best of the year, then the Academy is contradicting itself by telling that same director that he is not the best because he did not do MORE than just directing the best picture. But how he could do more, if his sole puspose was to make the best movie?
As you can see, this whole issue is based on circular logic and this invalidates any best movie/best director award split. Such occurances are contradictory, insulting to any logical person and a lasting shame to the Academy.
posted by Tranka at 10:42 AM
<< Home