{"id":2536,"date":"2010-03-08T16:51:21","date_gmt":"2010-03-08T15:51:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.whiteberg.dk\/2010\/03\/08\/hvorfor-vandt-the-hurt-locker\/"},"modified":"2010-03-08T16:51:21","modified_gmt":"2010-03-08T15:51:21","slug":"hvorfor-vandt-the-hurt-locker","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.whiteberg.dk\/?p=2536","title":{"rendered":"Hvorfor vandt The Hurt Locker?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kathryn Bigelows krigs-thriller The Hurt Locker<\/b> vandt i g\u00e5r Oscaren for bedste film. De fleste havde ellers tippet p\u00e5 James Camerons “Avatar”, fordi den har v\u00e6ret en s\u00e5 k\u00e6mpe kassesucces, mens The Hurt Locker ikke har indtjent det store. Grunden til, at The Hurt Locker alligevel vandt, kan blandt andet skyldes et nyt afstemningssystem i Det amerikanske filmakademi. \u00d8konomen Hendrik Hertzberg skrev i februar i The New Yorker<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\nTo understand why requires drilling down into the mechanics of voting systems. It\u2019ll only hurt for a minute. From 1946 until last year, the voting worked the way Americans are most familiar with. Five pictures were nominated. If you were a member of the Academy, you put an \u201cX\u201d next to the name of your favorite. The picture with the most votes won. Nice and simple, though it did mean that a movie could win even if a solid majority of the eligible voters\u2014in theory, as many as seventy-nine per cent of them\u2014didn\u2019t like it. Those legendary PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants don\u2019t release the totals, but this or something like it has to have happened in the past, probably many times.<\/p>\n

This year, the Best Picture list was expanded, partly to make sure that at least a couple of blockbusters would be on it. (The biggest grosser of 2008, \u201cThe Dark Knight,\u201d was one of the better Batman adventures, but it didn\u2019t make the cut.) To forestall a victory for some cinematic George Wallace or Ross Perot, the Academy switched to a different system. Members\u2014there are around fifty-eight hundred of them\u2014are being asked to rank their choices from one to ten. In the unlikely event that a picture gets an outright majority of first-choice votes, the counting\u2019s over. If not, the last-place finisher is dropped and its voters\u2019 second choices are distributed among the movies still in the running. If there\u2019s still no majority, the second-to-last-place finisher gets eliminated, and its voters\u2019 second (or third) choices are counted. And so on, until one of the nominees goes over fifty per cent.<\/p>\n

This scheme, known as preference voting or instant-runoff voting, doesn\u2019t necessarily get you the movie (or the candidate) with the most committed supporters, but it does get you a winner that a majority can at least countenance. It favors consensus. Now here\u2019s why it may also favor \u201cThe Hurt Locker.\u201d A lot of people like \u201cAvatar,\u201d obviously, but a lot don\u2019t\u2014too cold, too formulaic, too computerized, too derivative. (Remember \u201cDances with Wolves\u201d? \u201cJurassic Park\u201d? Everything by Hayao Miyazaki?) \u201cAvatar\u201d is polarizing. So is James Cameron. He may have fattened the bank accounts of a sizable bloc of Academy members\u2014some three thousand people drew \u201cAvatar\u201d paychecks\u2014but that doesn\u2019t mean that they all long to recrown him king of the world. (As he has admitted, his people skills aren\u2019t the best.) These factors could push \u201cAvatar\u201d toward the bottom of many a ranked-choice ballot.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Hurt Locker var en film, som de fleste kunne se kvaliteten i, og derfor har den rangeret h\u00f8jt p\u00e5 de flestes lister. Avatar derimod, har mange haft en skepsis overfor (mig inklusive), s\u00e5 selvom den har f\u00e5et mange 1. pladser har den ogs\u00e5 f\u00e5et mange p\u00e5 nr. 10. Med det nye system vinder den film, som de fleste rent faktisk synes om, ikke kun den, der har f\u00e5et flest f\u00f8rstepladser. L\u00e6s resten, der er endnu mere.<\/p>\n

P.S.<\/strong> – Berlingske Tidende skriver her, at prisen ogs\u00e5 kan v\u00e6re politisk betinget<\/a>. Den med at favorisere en kvindelig instrukt\u00f8r k\u00f8ber jeg, men argumentet om, at prisen g\u00e5r til Hurt Locker fordi den er “anti-krig” opfatter jeg som meget m\u00e6rkeligt (og det kommer da ogs\u00e5 fra Michael Moore, der ikke har sagt to sammenh\u00e6ngende s\u00e6tninger de senete 15 \u00e5r). For det f\u00f8rste er den overhovedet ikke politisk, tv\u00e6rtimod er den da om noget sympatisk overfor soldaterne og deres indsats, selvom de bliver vanvittige af den. For det andet har der de seneste \u00e5r v\u00e6ret en lang r\u00e6kke meget kritiske og politiske film om Irak-krigen, men det har ikke givet dem nogle Oscars. For det tredje er “Avatar” jo faktisk en meget eksplicit anti-Irak-krig film, inklusive i replikker og det hele. S\u00e5 hvis man ville et politisk statement, skulle man da stemme p\u00e5 den? Hvis prisen er politisk skal det snarere ses som en opbakning til soldaterne, som da ogs\u00e5 kom fra b\u00e5de manuskriptforfatteren til The Hurt Locker og Bigelow selv. Moore er en idiot, Berlingske b\u00f8r ikke citere ham uden lige at t\u00e6nke efter f\u00f8rst.<\/p>\n

Opdatering:<\/strong> Her er TIME Magazines bud p\u00e5, hvorfor Avatar tabte<\/a>. Gode pointer om alderen og smagen hos akademiets medlemmer.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Kathryn Bigelows krigs-thriller The Hurt Locker vandt i g\u00e5r Oscaren for bedste film. De fleste havde ellers tippet p\u00e5 James Camerons “Avatar”, fordi den har v\u00e6ret en s\u00e5 k\u00e6mpe kassesucces, mens The Hurt Locker ikke har indtjent det store. Grunden til, at The Hurt Locker alligevel vandt, kan blandt andet skyldes et nyt afstemningssystem i … L\u00e6s mere Hvorfor vandt The Hurt Locker?<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[108,247],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.whiteberg.dk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2536"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.whiteberg.dk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.whiteberg.dk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.whiteberg.dk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.whiteberg.dk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2536"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.whiteberg.dk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2536\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.whiteberg.dk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2536"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.whiteberg.dk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2536"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.whiteberg.dk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2536"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}