Entertainment >
Movie Awards & Nominations
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the Oscars honor movie producers too?
Results so far:
| Yes | 71% | 207 votes | Total: 293 votes | |
| No | 29% | 86 votes |
Yes
by Henri Zimand
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe Oscars is the most prestigious event and the most cherished prize. This prize is chosen by the industry and its own people therefore it is supposed to be a neutral prize to the best films both in the production way , the artistic way and all that surrounds the production.
The producer is in fact the main person, the key person in the production of the film, we need to understand what we call a producer. On the screen often you will see several producers and different kind of producers . Basically there is one key person that decides that he wants to produce a certain film. Sometimes this producer has funds available and it is easier for him to produce the film but most of the time these producers have little or no money and they need to go and find funds from banks, private people or big studios. These people or organizations are also given the title of producer in one way or another.
We are speaking of the producer that is the key person who does the whole work, chooses what film he will do , what team he wants , what actors he want , and this person , producer is the one that has to risk everything from the beginning , when the story is chosen , when the script is written and then when the funds are looked for.
The producer most of the time works several years before the film comes into production and then he is in charge to make sure that the budget is not gone over. He is the one that by his choice and capabilities can make a film successful or a flop. The right choice of the right people involved is the decision of the producer.Most of the time the producers have challenges of finding money and funds and it can sometimes take 7 years for a movie to be produced and be seen on the screens.
So now that you know what a producer is , of course i believe that a producer should get an Oscar, without the producer a movie would not exist they are the ones doing all the work behind the scenes. All other people involved have a chance of getting an Oscar, from the actor or actress , to the music producer , to the director and the artist building the scenes and the artist doing the clothes , so why not the producer. The producer is the key person that if his choice is right will bring the movie to full production and to success.
Therefore i believe that since the whole movie industry lives thanks to producers , that yes they are the ones that should also receive an Oscar. It would be nice for the Academy to decide to give an extra prize which will include producers.
Learn more about this author, Henri Zimand.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
There is a case that the Oscars should honour movie producers who have had a long and distinguished record in the field of film production. The Academy frequently presents Oscars such as Lifetime Achievement Awards to recognise the contribution an individual has made throughout a long and illustrious career. They play a pivotal role in making sure movies get made by coordinating the funding: without money, nothing gets done in Hollywood. On this basis, perhaps someone such as Michael Douglas, who has produced a galaxy of blockbuster movies in three decades in the business, may be soon worthy of such recognition.
However, the Academy should not include an annual award category for 'best producer'. There are two main reasons why the Oscar should not go to anyone nominated for their production ability. Firstly, the Oscars are the awards voted on by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Hence the aim is to reward achievement that fits within one of these two categories. Arts, with a capital 'A', denote the performing arts related to movie making. Primarily, these include acting and direction, but they also include such things as original song, screenplays and costume design. While in common parlance, the producer's role of money-wrangling might be regarded as an 'art', it does not come within the capital 'A' sense used by the Academy. Similarly, Sciences include those disciplines such as cinematography and editing, technical skills that require the manipulation of equipment rather than the manipulation of investors' egos and vanity. The common thread is that all the disciplines rewarded by the annual Oscars categories highlight creativity.
The second problem is one of practicality. How on earth would one judge which producer did the best job in ensuring a movie moved from script to screen? Would movies such as Titanic, where there were massive cost blowouts accompanying masses amount of money-raising and creative thinking, be worthy of such an award? Or would low-budget, or comparatively low-budget movies be rewarded for using thrift and enterprise rather than megabucks to crystallise a creative dream? The mere existence of a movie represents the reward for the producer. If producers do wish to be recognised, perhaps their better course is to be recognised annually by business. Surely there is a Hollywood Chamber of Commerce or some such that can issue annual awards for excellence in raising other people's money. If not, perhaps producers should use their creativity and form one.
Learn more about this author, Andrew Newman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Movie Awards & Nominations
- Should the Oscars allow winners to have longer speeches?
