The Academy Awards. Last night, a hundred-some-odd million viewers in over 106 countries watched the glitz-and-glam show. Personally, I don’t see the interest in watching rich, beautiful folks pat each other on the back. I’ve tried, but not once have I been able to sit through an entire Oscar show. These people already get way too much undeserved attention and money thrown at them for a what amounts to an easy job, too much freedom, and a "living the dream"-fueled superficial existence. There’s something very perverse about wanting to watch them gather in a room and getting singled out for this? True, there are more starving actors than there are wealthy ones, but, let’s be honest, the Oscars really isn't about hard facts and reality; Oscar Night is all about celebrating Hollywood excess and keeping those artificial wheels well greased.
Selection biases; complaints of cronyism; popular and pathetic pandering; all the usual criticisms aside, what baffles me is the dollar amount associated with this one evening. What other industry spends an estimated $35 to 40 million just to hand out statuettes?
The current ”world’s most expensive party” title is attributed to the luxury resort, Atlantis, The Palm, with a lavish grand opening beach party (Nov. 20, 2008) for over 2000 guests that cost $35 million. This included a $6.8M fireworks display and a $ 4M Kylie Minogue concert, as well as several other events. And yes, this was Dubai, where over-the-top extravagance rhymes with incredibly stupid spending.
So, how the hell does Hollywood manage to spend $40M for a 3-hour-21-minute awards ceremony? Proof that watching people receiving awards then thanking countless others, especially god, isn’t an exciting activity per se if it warrants spending that much to make it magical? And what are we to make of the fact that, according to ABC spokesperson Andrea Canning, more than a year’s worth of preparation goes into each Oscar Night? Before 2011’s show aired, ABC was already in the planning for 2012’s.
Only one thing can justify such expenditures: substantially larger revenues.
So one thing should be clear: it’s not really about the awards and recognition. Yet, the Academy Awards isn’t "big business" as much as it is the whole of Hollywood giving themselves a Holy Day in the grand sense of holiday. Oscar Night has become an inescapable tradition that, like Christmas or Easter, relies on and propagates a myth that is able to create a major and lucrative pre, during and post event buzz for such an otherwise mundane, subjective affair. I’ll leave it up to readers to draw parallels between The Academy and Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Christ, et al., but it should be noted that The Academy, like them, is able to generate massive and unjustified spending and revenue streams. This is why The Academy isn’t big business by itself, it sits above it, belongs to all those that can profit from this yearly celebration; it’s a make-or-break event for certain companies and the reason-to-be-for others. For celebrants, it’s an unreasoned reason to spend unjustified amounts and to spread the ol’ joy. How much joy?
According to CNN, had the 2008 Oscars been cancelled due to the writer’s strike, this “no-show” would have cost $400M to Los Angeles and the industry. That’s more than the GDP of at least 15 countries and Republics that’s generated out of one TV extravaganza.
The salary of show producers, organizers, engineers, and technicians notwithstanding, vast sums are pumped into pure frivolity. From hotels to caterers, airlines and limo drivers, hairdressers and jewellers to fashion consultants and designers, personal trainers and all ancillary trades taking advantage of people with too much money and the warped sense of values that one inherits in a la la land where image is as all, convinced that this evening is their fairy tale moment; this validates a need for thousand-dollar hair styles, and tens of thousands on a one-time-only wardrobe as well as for car and jewellery rentals, all this for just a few hours.
But does that include all the drugs and escorts and other big-bash necessities?
And there are the Paparazzi and tabloid magazines and gossip shows; Oscar-specialized publications and even “serious” news; betting pools and predictions of all sorts, all these and more generating billions of printed or broadcast words in the month that precedes and follows the event (which I’m partaking in, I know).
And then there’s all the advertising opportunities. Tremendous amounts of them. ABC was able to sell its 30-sec slots for an average of $1.4M, and that’s only one outlet—broadcast rights aren't cheap and offer plenty more 30-sec slots.
Next, there’s all the indirect product-placement type opportunities. It’s estimated that one good red-carpet picture can translate into $1M worth of sales for jewellers or fashions houses.
And why else would all sorts of companies—even those not selected or affiliated with the official Oscar Bag—be willing to give merchandise to be included in “swag bags” (gift bag) to be given to all nominees, people who already have all? Anything from spa certificates to diamonds worth more than $100,000? In fact, this year’s losers in the Top Actor categories were, on top of the official goody bags, all offered swag bags worth $75,000 by Distinctive Assets, an independent swag bag broker (speaking of event-specific job creation...).
Let’s not forget the boost in DVD and ticket sales; nominated and winning movies automatically see their sales increase by 25% to 75%, and winning actors and directors invariably see a renewed interest in their filmography.
And I’m certain I’m forgetting to mention other areas... Feel free to point them out, below.
Oscars. A-world-of-illusions celebration that's more important than an all-too-real third-world economy.
*UPDATE: Please note that the crediting issue mentioned here has been fixed after this post was written, and a new version of the film, with credits, was released.
Since "Ethos" is Greek for, "guiding beliefs or ideas that characterize a community," the filmmakers chose their title well. Their film does more than talk about the manipulation and lies and lack of ethics it tries to expose, it embodies them.
"Ethos" is a newly available, feature-length documentary directed by Pete McGrain and released by the Santa Monica-based, Media for Action. This is their first official release, which boasts itself as powerful, controversial, and new.
I call it shameful; a lazy yet arrogant collage. Like students copying material from several sites and pasting it into one document, adding a bit of glue between paragraphs then calling it their own essay, that’s precisely what this film is. Totally unoriginal. A form of fraud.
Clearly, despite the fact that Media for Action loudly embraces the non-profit label, these people are full of crap, doing this for personal gain, hoping that the star-power of their host, Woody Harrelson, will attract a sufficiently large audience to eventually guarantee a worthwhile career and paycheck for Media for Action folks through Ethos. If Micheal Moore can make millions with this growing genre, why not us?
In short: people with absolutely nothing new to say who are trying to take an easy advantage of a market by ripping-off those who, before them, have worked very hard to deliver a worthwhile and profound message.
At the beginning, Harrelson specifies, “the material for this film is taken from facts available to the public, and from interviews with some of today’s leading thinkers.”
In truth, the material is entirely lifted from several documentaries, including all interviews, and presented here as if fresh, complete with a new voice reading a highly or directly plagiarized narrative text.
Amongst some of the documentaries "Ethos" directly steals from:
The Corporation; Zetgeist; Zeitgeist Addendum; Manufacturing Consent; War Made Easy; Beyond Treason; Invisible Empire; The Century of the Self; The Future of Food.
Ethos merely skims through one documentary before moving on to the next and as such offers only a basal overview and absolutely nothing new. From what I can tell, the film contains no more than 10% new material, all of it ‘glue’ to tie-in their “cut & paste” job.
No credits are given anywhere; the only people mentioned are the director and producers, all three names mentioned are clearly those of Media for Action founders. Slightly more info is offered on the official movie page, ethosthemovie.com, but again, the only credits for all the lifted source material is, "...and source material from the finestdocumentary film makers of our times." That's it. Press releases, websites, film et al. zero signs of respect and even less adherence to copyright laws.
In fact, the Media for Action website, despite being official looking, contains no real information whatsoever on the company and, surprise, their mission statement is just a series of clichés taken from several sources and strung together. No address and no members board; no organization breakdown and an anonymous contact form.
Further, the “recent articles” they present, and which, at first glance, we are led to believe are either by Media for Action people or about the company, are random articles on any subject of “independent media” taken from a wide variety of sources and reposted on their site (but with sources mentioned this time). There is however, a very contradictory and ambiguous though very carefully worded disclaimer which has absolutely no validity given that the film was made by an organization member and that they themselves do not abide to any copyright laws.
Yet, in a press release, Isabella Michelle Marles, Co Producer and Founder of Media for Action, is bold enough to claim, “Proper journalism is about asking tough questions. Having a constant eye to the bottom line or corporate agendas compromises good journalism. Operating as a non profit lets us negotiate that dilemma.” In fact, the entire press release is one egotistical piece of propaganda considering the film’s content and their own manipulation of information and facts.
Keep in mind that their slogan is, “Sponsoring Truth in Media Across the Globe.”
True, the film may be passing on a diluted but worthwhile message, but still, that's no reason to encourage the Media for Action folks. No other industry would tolerate such blatant plagiarism, neither should documentary makers and enthusiasts, no matter how granola or good-hearted. I reluctantly include the film here; for you to judge:
In a recent post, Petitions: Making the World Go 'Round... in Circles, I expressed a certain disdain towards our current obsession with e-petitions and the false sense of action and participation they tend to provide. They've become so widely abused that they now represent an empty tool to pacify any intolerance, hereby stripping "the petition" and the act of "petitioning" of any real worth and weight.
Apps and sites now make it easy for anyone to create a far-reaching petition within a few minutes, and as expected, there are plenty of silly petitions and groups out there on the Web. However, today, on Facebook, I stumbled upon what, in my mind, epitomises all of my complaints, especially so due to the meta nature of the cause. So much so, that I had to vent; here we are.
This cause, filed under, “Public Advocacy; Voter Education and Registration”, is the following:
“Please do not limit the amount of neighbors you can send gifts to. It's not fair to have to choose.”
The cause description: Most games limit how many names you can send gifts to. Get this changed to unlimited amount of friends.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with Facebook, under the obvious layer lies an intricate web of games and virtual worlds and virtual exchanges of all sorts that exploits one’s network. In this parallel world, apparently, there’s a limit to how many virtual gifts—anything from cutsy hearts to pointless, insipid rubbish, including cows and spankings—one is allowed to give to their virtual friends.
This, what some have called a “worthy cause”, is upsetting users.
If only a handful of misfits had joined the cause, that would be one thing, but, in its short life—barely ten days old—this cause has already garnered 23,283 supporters (at time of posting), having gone semi-viral just in the last few days; over 1000 joined the cause in between the time I became aware of it and the three hours it took me to find the twenty minutes to complain about it.
Besides the fact that the most vapid, pointless subjects always attract easy attention, what’s really disconcerting here is that people are treating this like a real and viable cause. Albeit the majority of supporters are, no doubt, just voicing a meaningless ‘wish-list’ preference, a clear portion, as seen by the comments and posts, are equating game limitations in a game world with democracy and freedom; people "should have the right to choose the number of friends they want to send [virtual] gifts to"—limitations is oppression and control. And nope, this isn't one of those The Onion moments where you realize it's a joke.
There’s so much wrong with this picture, and it belittles any real and urgent cause whilst reducing democracy and freedom to: the right to do what I want, anywhere.
Equally unsettling is the slew of comments which can best be summed up by these two examples:
“I believe all my good neighbors should get a daily gift from me. It used to get confusing on who did\didn’t get a gift.”
“People have to keep track one way or another of who sent and who didn't and it's not right to have to pick and choose [...] We have enough issues to deal with.”
Right. Of course. Machine-generated love on free applications needs to be made easier. Silly me. Why send a few personalized words or anything that demands just a bit of real effort when, with just a few clicks, you can send totally impersonalized, overly-shared, pixelated virtual kitsch to hundreds of strangers at the same time to show each how much you care?
Rejoice! Someone was kind enough to post a link to a solution: behold, GiftAuto! The app that automatically accepts Facebook gifts and sends a gift in return so you can truly show that you do care, without keeping track.
An open letter to that much touted, "American pursuit of justice":
It would appear as if Obama’s definition of “change” offers us a new class of Robber Barons, one that is entirely above reproach. That, or an entirely new approach to justice. Either way, the question, “where are the handcuffs,” (see video, below) should rise out of the American public like excess bile, forcing a collective need for relief that isn’t easily appeased. Yet, nothing. It wasn't all that long ago that we witnessed the destruction of lives at the hands of the Savings and Loans Associations (S&L) and their dirty dealings. It was a gut-wrenching tragedy to witness, leaving a bitter taste of just how unconscionable a certain class of men-in-suits can be; life savings had vanished, the sweat and toil of entire lives dissolved in the hands of a ravenous few. That debacle cost the American government a hefty $87.9 billion to cleanup. Guess who was left holding the bill? Although thousands implicated in the S&L crisis were arrested and jailed, once the dust had fallen, how does the quasi-cozy institutionalization of a thousand patsy employees and a few upper-management fall guys even compare to the systematic bankruptcy of hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting Americans? Although not offering anywhere near a balanced form of justice for such a huge hammer of destruction, and even though, naturally, the majority of the top echelon, give or take a few scapegoats, escaped to pillage another day, we could feel that, at least, something had been done. Today, we’re witnessing something altogether different. This new wave of fraudulent banksters have outdone the criminal bunglers at S&L, and in so doing, they’ve stumbled upon a secret formula for becoming the invisible men of financial fiefdoms. Seriously, an image of Lloyd C. Blankfein, C.E.O. of Goldman Sachs, unraveling bandages in maniacal glee as he pushes the American public down the stairs doesn’t seem farfetched. Frankly, I'm gobsmacked at the lame reaction of the American government to this blatant, public greed fest, which, inevitably, leads to this question: who's deluded and who's colluded? Come on America, wake up and smell the dirty greenbacks! Let's whip justice back into shape! It's time to put these criminals where they really belong, in a good old fashioned pauper's workhouse.
Hopefully, this recent coverage (by corporate media, to boot) will spur a real call to action:
