Terminological Accuracy in the Academy Awards

[tealin]

I hereby petition the Academy of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences to change the official title of awards handed out, when applicable, from 'Best' to 'Most.' This would more accurately reflect the guidelines by which winners are selected.

For example:

Best Special Effects: Master & Commander
Most Special Effects: Return of the King

Best Animated Feature: Persepolis
Most Animated Feature: Ratatouille

Best Costume Design: Sweeney Todd
Most Costume Design: Elizabeth: the Golden Age

I don't know if this would work for Most Director unless the award traditionally went to the director whose fingerprints were deepest in his film, or if you could have a 'Most Picture,' though it would be interesting to see how running time correlates with award probability (it certainly worked for Titanic). I'd look it up only I'm supposed to be unpacking. I will, however, look up this year's in an attempt to predict the winner ... using Science!
Atonement: 118 min
Juno: 96 min
Michael Clayton: 119 min
No Country For Old Men: 122 min
There Will Be Blood: 158 min
According to my scientific process, There Will Be Blood should claim a surprise victory over the front-runner No Country, unless you go by perceived running time wherein the latter seemed to last for a good four hours.*
UPDATE: Well, the bookies had it. So much for science.

*I dislike it more every day. So far the biggest thing it's got going for it is that it wasn't The Cooler.

Comments

[septentrio.livejournal.com]

God, I so agree. Especially when it comes to costume design. That's exactly what I was thinking when Sweeney didn't win.

Two reasons why.

1. I heard from a costume-o-phile that the costumes in Elizabeth are not actually very period accurate.
2. Sweeney took more creativity. You could very easily draw from historical images for Elizabeth, but Sweeney was a fantasy that was barely based in reality.

Stupid Academy. :\

[twirlynoodle.livejournal.com]

Not only were Sweeney Todd's costumes more creative (and were friggin' CHARACTER DESIGN, not just costume!) but the costumes in Elizabeth were ... so ... costumey. Okay, the Elizabethans had pretty artificial fashions, but they should have looked less machine-made and plasticky. Raleigh's outfit looked lived-in, as it should, but everyone else's looked like it was sewn for a semiprofessional Shakespeare company. They're even more costumey-looking up close.

Yeah, generally I pick the most cynical winners possible but sometimes even the Academy surprises me.

[anathelen.livejournal.com]

As a reenactor for the two periods before Elizabeth's (England circa 1539 and 1483) I can't say too much about the patterns of the costumes, but the dyes and fabrics aren't accurate (don't get me started on the armor). Those purples and reds are synthetic, and her costume definitely isn't made of silk velvet, wool, and linen. Then again, it's hard enough to get reenactors to use only period colors since dying all of one's fabric is expensive and cumbersome, so I wouldn't expect a film to comform to such rigorous standards. Wool is incredibly hot under studio brights and no one cares anyway; it doesn't take away from the story for Elizabeth to be wearing rayon.

What is important is that most of the actors looked like they were wearing costumes, not clothing. It didn't look like the actors spent much time in their outfits, which is a shame. Costumes that become clothing are much more enjoyable and natural to live in. Reenactors will never be satisfied by costume dramas, but I'm more than willing to sacrifice absolute accuracy for characters with costumes that give personality.

[twirlynoodle.livejournal.com]

That's a really fascinating take on the subject – and you're absolutely right, they didn't look like they belonged in their clothes at all.

(then again, that might give some rationale to why they were so eager to take them off... the director strikes me as the 'statement' type.)

[anathelen.livejournal.com]

Certainly, the director could be making a statement: these people, these characters, are men and women in clothes they're not comfortable with, unsure of where they are and what they're doing. The state of their existance is artificial and forced. Or it could just be that the actors didn't spend enough time eating, drinking, and going to the bathroom in their costumes.

I must confess I've stolen the inception of this idea of costumes being a part of a character from watching the part of the DVD extras on the Lord of the Rings where the actor who played Aragorn talks about how he wore his costume outside of filming, fixed it himself when it broke, and let it get dirty. I've noticed that I can tell the old reenactors from the new ones: even if their outfit is brand new, an old-timer is used to that style of clothing. Elizabeth would probably be very uncomfortable in a business suit. I've worn my garb long enough

I didn't see Sweeney Todd, but looking at stills it really looks like 'Todd had better costumes inasmuch as they pointed to the nature of the characters much better than Random Noble Garb Costume #4 in Elizabeth. The costumes were less arbitrary in 'Todd.