1y ago

Emmy award winner talking about Oppenheimer.

44 comments

Danny Vliet “won 2015 Emmy for "Best in Interactive Media" as a Production Coordinator on Bravo's The Singles Project.”
- I worked at Sbarro when I was 14 and Olive garden is the best authentic Italian food in the world.
- It seems worth mentioning that was a juried award, determined by a panel of professionals in each respective peer group.
  Deliberations include an open discussion of each entrant’s work and, at the end, voters are asked to answer the question “Is this entry worthy of an Emmy award – yea or nay?” Only those with unanimous approval win.
  
  Sure, but 'production coordinator' is not exactly a job which requires an extensive knowledge of and ability to critique film on a level higher than most people.
- Remember everyone: correlation is not causation
  
  https://xkcd.com/552/

As someone else with a film degree, there are movies that are far longer and have far more dialogue. Stop trying to make that into an elitist thing. Or go watch Jeanne Dielman on repeat until you can’t get off to high brow cinema any more
- As someone who doesn't have a film degree, I'm surprised that the degree doesn't teach OP that movies are subjective.
  
  As someone with a film degree, I can safely say film buffs are among the most gatekeeping of gatekeepers, right along metalheads (which I also am). "Subjective" is not a word in their dictionary.
- If your movie is far longer than 3 hours, it's practically a miniseries.
  
  The movie Gettysburg is 4 1/2 hours long. My wife and I couldn't make it through it when we saw it in the theater.
  
  Lonesome Dove fits that bill and it's fantastic.
  "Sometimes doing the right thing costs ya a few feet of good rope."
  I need to go back and re watch that. Wonder if it ever made it off of VHS
- As the overeducated on the subject child of someone who founded a film history department at a major university, I'm less qualified, but I agree with you 100%.
  And Avengers: Endgame was 3 hours long and had tons of dialogue, so if that's the criteria for 'too highbrow for the normies,' then the bar is set pretty low.
- Oh this is cool. What's your favorite movie as someone with refined tastes

Its possible that people appreciate different things about movies and that arguing about subjective interpretation of art is pointless regardless of the qualifications.
- But he specifically said that not everyone has to like it.
  It is possible something is objectively very very good (depending on the criteria picked) but is still disliked by many. Similar with a lot of stuff happening around the fight against the speed of climate change.
  
  But he specifically said that not everyone has to like it.
  He said not everyone can handle it, implying there's something with people that don't like it.
  There's this irritating Emperor's New Clothes thing with movies and TV lately where creators can make the most boring stuff imaginable, and then when people say it's boring you simply imply they aren't smart enough to understand it.

I mean, just because you won awards for your own shows doesn't mean your opinions on other people's movies are more valid than anybody else's...
Sometimes certain Academy Award nominated actors can still be in bad movies...😞
- Yes, but the implication is that they don't know what they are talking about. All art is subjective. Nothing they said was invalid.

I mean I have zero issues with a 3 hour movie. Oppenheimer was not masterfully written and at some points the directing was plainly bizarre.
It was a good movie but it's not a movie I would go out of my way to see again. 90% of it was just taken from his wiki page - it wasn't deep or insightful.
Again, good movie, definitely doesn't make my top 5 or top 10.
- I have issues with a three hour movie if I'm watching it in theatres. Unless there's an intermission
  
  They don't do intermissions in movies anymore for some reason. I don't know why. I think it's a good idea.
- In a world where taping a banana to the ceiling is considered art, Oppenheimer can be considered a masterclass in writing and cinematography.
  I agree with you tho, good movie, but not great movie.
  
  wasn't the banana taped to a wall? I think the banana on the ceiling is still up for grabs
  
  if not everything can be art — you're saying there should be an arbiter of what is and isn't art, and they have to look at every single piece of art past, present and future and designate "art" or "not art"?
  or are you saying the best way to understand art is to have a general consensus of the world population and designate what is art? Wouldn't that give a massive amount of power to Asian sensibilities, which vastly outnumbers other ethnicities?
  or are you saying that once somebody taped a banana to a wall, art is no longer possible, and thus neither Oppenheimer, Barbie, or indeed any other movie, poem, song, painting, play, dance, sculpture etc is art any more?
  
  Everyone talks about the banana on the wall and no mentions the Banksy painting that shred itself immediately after it was sold at auction.
  Both are brilliant in terms of making money and having an impact. Both are scandalous in terms of defining what is art. Personally, I love both of them for what they are.

Yeah, no. I have no problem with a dialogue-driven 3-hour cinematic tour-de-force. Oppenheimer was not that.
Also, let people like (or not like) things.

Sorry Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings extended edition trilogy is the best movies of all times.
- Tell me you haven't Killer Bean Forever without telling me you haven't seen Killer Bean Forever
- Nah that's not true

This is not the first time I see one of these. The format: X says something. Z puts X's something into question. X supposedly owns Z by revealing how awesome they are.
Why this got me triggered?
Maybe the format. No problem here. Someone else likes this and this is why it gets posted and upvoted. No surprise there.
Maybe the content. In making aesthetics, judgments, we're mostly guided by affections. Trying to own an aesthetic discussion with degrees or prizes is... well, an aesthetic.
Because we all know instances of very knowledgeable people making questionable aesthetic judgements. What makes their judgement questionable is OUR relation to the object in question.
It's this personal relation to the object that structures the whole jugement. This, as people correctly say, it's... subjective.
So, here the proof is like that at many levels. First the level of the meme. You like this format? If yes, you move to the next level. Then the movie itself. If you loved it, you love to hear others praising it to the skies. Finally, the so-called credentials presented here. You consider an Emmy a great award? If feel it is, than you feel vindicated, feeling this is a great argument.
It is not. It's a subjective display of affections masquerading as an argument.

The only other person in the country with the same name as me, due to an unusual last name, won an Emmy. My bios which use my real name usually say, "no, not the ____ who won an Emmy." I only met him once, but we got along swimmingly.

Emmys are not as impressive.

44 comments