Posted on 02/07/13 04:14 PM | Last edited on 02/07/13 04:14 PM
After a recent back and forth with my fellow RT friend Jordan A. about the quality of the Razzies (The Golden Rapsberry awards show for the Worst films of the year) and the Oscars (The Academy Awards show for the best of cinema each year) I decided to post a blog about my continuing support for both.
The Razzies : Founded in 1981 by publicist John J.B. Wilson after watching several bad films and being unable to get a refund (hell hath no fury like a publicist scorned) The Razzies have gained recognition and support with each passing year from simply a group of college students celebrating in a living room to...well a larger collection of friends and coherts, but hey they're in a hall now! While always keeping the big 7 (4 acting categories, writing, directing and of course Worst Picture) the show has toggled different "joke" categories through the years like Worst Screen Couple, Worst Remake, Worst Use of 3D, and possibly the best category ever Worst Reckless Disregard for Human Life and Public Property (Awesome!). I first found out about the Razzies in 2002 when Tom Green swept the awards for his terrible film Freddy Got Fingered (2001) and made history as the first celeb ever to attened the awards and accept his Golden Raspberries (Bill Cosby so loathed the final cut of his 1987 debacle Leonard Part 6 that he paid to have a real solid gold trophy made and accepted it, though he didn't attend the ceremony). At the time I was still clinging to the MTV Movie awards, aka the best awards show ever...for the first 5 years or so, hoping they'd get some of the magic back but more on that later. Since Tom Green, there have been two celebrities who have attended the show and accepted their Razzies. Halle Berry, at the time my pick for least deserving actress ever to win an Oscar, attended the 2005 ceremony to accept her award for her performance in Catwoman (2004). Her acceptance speech was awesome! She got into the spirit of the ceremony, made fun of the show/herself and to this day I say it was the most entertaining thing she's ever done, it really was that good of an acceptance speech. The Razzies really hit the public consciousness just two years ago however when Sandra Bullock, my new worst actress to win an Oscar, won both a Golden Raspberry and an Oscar within a 24+ hour period (How the academy gave her the award for The Blind Side was one of the most eggregious errors I've ever seen, replacing their Erin Brockovich snaffu). There was MAJOR buzz and coverage over this and I'm infuriated that the ceremony STILL hasn't been telecast on TV or online. There are several youtube videos of some of the presentations and other fun stuff from the show (including Berry and Bullocks acceptance speeches) which will have to satisfy me for now. People critize the Razzies for picking only high profile duds and not necessarily the "worst" films of the year. While I think just about all their choices are pretty justifiable even if you disagree I feel you're just not getting into the spirit of the show. The Razzies is a mock-awards show. They make fun of Hollywood, awards shows and the whole process in a basic lampooning of The Oscars. If they pick high profile "worst" movies its largely due to a critique of other awards shows picking high profile "best" films (take that The Master (2012)). Also the Razzies are 100% independantly produced. They are outside the industry and really don't owe it to anyone to select or do what they do in any certain way. Also keep in mind only films that are eligible for The Oscars are eligible for The Razzies, so no limited releases that never get around to the big locales, no film festival premires that never get picked-up and no Sharktopus (2010). In a nutshell its not The Razzies job to actively seek out the most deserving films for Worst of the year. They're just done for fun and are a blast.
The Oscars : No awards show gets more heat than The Oscars. Of course that's because they're the best at it and easily the most high profile show. No one really cares toooo much if the Grammies or the Emmies snub a paticular artist but when The Oscars do it, look out cuz it's in all the papers and nearly breaks the internet. Speaking of other awards shows The Emmies do a fairly decent job each year but with 9,087,470.2 categories It's really hard not to. The Grammies are a F*^(ing joke. Remember those great albums of the year like Taylor Swift's Fearless (the movie equivalent of Twilight), Robert Plant & Alison Krauss' Raising Sand or Herbie Hancock's River: The Joni Letters (and all that's just in the past 5 years). The Tony Awards are dead in the water. When the best musical of the year is Spamalot (basically Monty Python's The Holy Grail set to music), The Book of Mormon (The South Park guys, yah that's right Those South Park guys love letter to a religious sect/cult) and the best one of all last years winner Once, a musical based on the film Once...itself being a musical?!?! Um...is the concept of originality not associated with the Best Musical award? The greatest awards show ever was the MTV movie awards in the 90's back when MTV was awesome. The first MTV movie awards was in 1992 when Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1992) won every single award it was nomiated for, why? because it was f$^#ing awesome that's why (suck it Unforgiven (1992)). They also had great categories like Most Desirable Male/female; Best Action Sequence; Best SANDWICH!!! in a movie, Best Villain and Best New Filmmaker. The show, like the network, unfortunately has had a meteoric collapse that would rival MC Hammer and is now the biggerst joke in awards ceremonies (The last four winners have been Twilight (2007); Twilight: New Moon (2009); Twilight: Eclipse (2010); and Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1 (2011)...somebody get on the line with Vegas and put my house down for Part 2 in 2012 please!). Most other awards shows are for specific things BAFTAS: British stuff; Independent Spirit Awards: movies under $20; and the Guilds: Category specific. Oh and let's not forget the Golden Goldes: Let's nominate the most famous people so they'll attend in our round-table floor; and the Critics Choice Awards: 6 nominations per category (We couldn't snub somebody if we tried!), multiple acting categories (Why choose between Jessica Chastian and Jennifer Lawrence when we can give the awards to both!) and also freaking genre categories (When Cabin in the Woods is nominated and Looper's taking home a statue you know you're trying too hard to please everyone).
The Oscars on the other hand still have integrity and it still means something to get nominated and win (even if there's 9-10 Best Picture nominees now). The show itself is up and down, mostly down. You watch 24 acceptance speeches, with maybe only 1-2 memorable ones, and for every interpretive dance set to nominated scores, Ben Stiller in full green suit, and Hugh Jackman dragging Anne Hathaway on stage for a musical number; you get several absolute duds for attempts at entertainment (or you get James Franco hosting!). But it's not really about the show its about whose nominated and who wins and trying to get it right and I still argue they do a better job than anyone. Look at the last five winner The Artist (2011), The Kings Speech (2010), The Hurt Locker (2009), Slumdog Millionaire (2008), No Country for Old Men (2007). With the exception of No Country I wouldn't call these the best of their respective years but they're all deserving top 10 films of the year and the true best pic is usually nominated The Tree of Life (2011), The Social Network (2010), Avatar (2009) yah that's right I said it. And enough has been written about the exclusion of The Dark Knight (2008) changing the way they do the voting. Regardless of who wins I guarantee that 75% of people feel the best picture of the year is among the nine they nominated 15% are convinced it's The Master (2012) and trust me I hear ya, 5% are clinging to an indie or foreign pic and 5% have no taste. Also The Oscars honestly just can't win sometimes. People complain that they don't recognize foreign films or festival pictures and then they give very deserving nominations to Amour (2012) and Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012) and all anyone does is complain that they snubbed Affleck and Bigelow (and no I don't know who David O. Russell slept with to get the nomination). People complain that the Oscars are too predictable, then they go against the grain and people cry fowl. They complain all they do is nominate successful pictures and then they give it to The Hurt Locker and The Artist and people cry fowl. You just can't please everybody but I would still aruge the Academy does better than most. For what it's worth I myself still haven't gotten over Gladiator (2000) instead of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000). Pro-wresteling in Rome!!! Come On!!!