Film Awards as Indicators of Cinematic Creativity and Achievement: A Quantitative Comparison of the Oscars and Six Alternatives

Simonton, Dean Keith

doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1602&3_2

Cited by 37 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the one hand, awards and nominations in the categories of directing and writing correlate about as highly with critics' ratings as best picture recognition; on the other hand, the correspondences are noticeably smaller for the categories of acting, film editing, cinematography, and art direction, and smaller still for the remaining award categories. In fact, nominations and awards in the category of best song can actually exhibit negative correlations with critical evaluations (Simonton, 2002(Simonton, , 2004b(Simonton, , 2007b. In general, the critics' opinions show the strongest association with the awards that represent the dramatic quality of a cinematic product.…”

Section: The Criteria Intercorrelationsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…For instance, Simonton (2007b) (8), and song 0.81 (4). Moreover, of the various awards, the Oscars provide the most reliable index of the overall consensus across organizations (Simonton, 2004b). 2 2 Although movie awards display a high degree of consensus, it is also true that the awards are probably subject to various contaminants, including contagion effects (Collins & Hand, 2006) and "sympathy votes" (Pardoe & Simonton, 2008).…”

Section: Movie Awards In 1928 the Motion Picture Academy Of Arts Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The correlation between these two criteria of cinematic success is consistently positive (e.g., Cattani & Ferriani, 2008;Holbrook, 1999;Simonton, 2002Simonton, , 2004bWallace, Seigerman, & Holbrook, 1993). For example, one study of 1322 films obtained a correlation of 0.49 between a composite measure of best picture awards and nominations based on seven professional organizations and a composite measure of critical evaluations based on five movie guides (Simonton, 2004b). Of course, because the later were published after the completion of the award season, the awards could have influenced the ratings.…”

Section: The Criteria Intercorrelationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Critics are better at recognizing the validity of movie awards already granted than they are at anticipating which films will be so honored. It is important to recognize that other award categories may not necessarily correlate highly with critical acclaim (Simonton, 2002(Simonton, , 2004b. On the one hand, awards and nominations in the categories of directing and writing correlate about as highly with critics' ratings as best picture recognition; on the other hand, the correspondences are noticeably smaller for the categories of acting, film editing, cinematography, and art direction, and smaller still for the remaining award categories.…”

Section: The Criteria Intercorrelationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although films often contain quite memorable music, the composer's direct contribution to cinematic success is less clear (Simonton, 2007b). Not only are the nominations and awards that make up the music cluster (score and song) orthogonal to the nominations and awards received in the dramatic, visual, and technical clusters (Simonton, 2004c), but also music awards and nominations are only weakly related to best picture awards and nominations and sometimes negatively related to critical evaluations (Simonton, 2002(Simonton, , 2004b(Simonton, , 2004c. Worse yet, music quality seems to be uncorrelated with the main financial performance criteria (Simonton, 2005a).…”

Section: Personnelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Cinematic success criteria and their predictors: The art and business of the film industry

Simonton

2009

Psychology and Marketing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The author reviewed the empirical research on the factors underlying the success of feature-length narrative films. After specifying some methodological caveats, the review examined the three main criteria by which a film's success can be evaluated: critical evaluations (both early and post-theatrical run), financial performance (including first weekend and gross), and movie awards (including dramatic, visual, technical, and music categories). To what extent do these criteria represent distinct aesthetic and economic assessments? The review then turned to the various predictors of these success criteria. How is success connected with the film's production and distribution characteristics? To what extent do the predictors converge and diverge across alternative criteria? The article then closes with a discussion of some psychological issues raised by the reviewed findings.

show abstract

Section: The Criteria Intercorrelationsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Movie Awards In 1928 the Motion Picture Academy Of Arts Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Criteria Intercorrelationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Criteria Intercorrelationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Personnelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Cinematic success criteria and their predictors: The art and business of the film industry

Simonton

2009

Psychology and Marketing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluating Excellence in the Arts

Ginsburgh¹,

Weyers²

2014

The Wiley Handbook of Genius

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I remember my elder colleague Ernst Kris [keeper at the Kunsthistorishes Museum in Vienna, and psychoanalyst] returning from a trip to Italy and my asking him eagerly what new insights about psychology of art he had brought back. 'I have made a discovery,' he said gravely. 'It is the great masters who are the great masters.' (Ernst Gombrich, 1979, p. 165) drawn judges often "nominated" Aeschylus, Euripides and Sophocles, who are still part of today's theatre canon.In chapter 36 of his Natural History, Pliny the Elder reports on a contest between two Greek painters Zeuxis and Parrhasius active during the fourth century B. C. This is how Pliny describes the event, at the times during which imitation of nature was the objective:"Zeuxis, who [had] represented some grapes, painted so naturally that the birds flew towards the spot where the picture was exhibited. Parrhasius, on the other hand, exhibited a curtain, drawn with such singular truthfulness, that Zeuxis, elated with the judgment which had been passed upon his work by the birds, haughtily demanded that the curtain should be drawn aside to let the picture be seen. Upon finding his mistake, with a great degree of ingenuous candor he admitted that he had been surpassed, for that whereas he himself had only deceived the birds, Parrhasius had deceived him, an artist."The notions of genius, canon and ranking are hard to disentangle. A canon is often a set that contains geniuses. Artists who belong to a canon can be ranked, and the first can possibly be considered geniuses.The chapter is organized as follows. In Section 1, we discuss canons, how they form, whether they are "ideologically" pure, and whether they are stable or not. We also discuss the difference between open and closed canons, and the idea that canons may consist of concentric circles in which canonicity is negatively correlated with distance to the center. We finally describe how canonic choices are made. Section 2 turns to rankings that result from compilations of encyclopaedias and art history books or from competitions and voting procedures. Section 3 is devoted to concluding comments. CANONSThe first (informal) canon that comes to mind is the one established in the third century B. C., a list of the "seven wonders (actually sites) of the ancient world." These consisted of constructions (the Great Pyramid of Giza, The Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, the Colossus of Rhodes, the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, the Lighthouse of Alexandria and the Statue of Zeus at Olympia) visited mainly by Greek travelers during the last centuries B. C. Though each of them was considered unsurpassed in the "country" in which it had been erected, they were not ranked within the canon. None of them was considered of "higher" importance than any other.

show abstract

Do experts and novices evaluate movies the same way?

Plucker

Kaufman

Temple

et al. 2009

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do experts and novices evaluate creativity the same way? This question is particularly relevant to the study of critical and public response to movies. How do public opinions differ from movie critic opinions? This study assessed college student (i.e., novice) ratings on movies released from 2001 to 2005 and compared them to expert opinions and those of self-declared novices on major movie rating Web sites. Results suggest that the student ratings overlapped considerably-but not overwhelmingly-with the self-described novices, student ratings correlated at a lower magnitude with critic ratings, and the ratings of students who saw the most movies correlated more highly with both critics and self-described novices than those of students who saw the least movies. The results suggest a continuum of creative evaluation in which the distinctions between categories such as "novice," "amateur," and "expert" are blurry and often overlap-yet the categories of expertise are not without importance.

show abstract

Film Awards as Indicators of Cinematic Creativity and Achievement: A Quantitative Comparison of the Oscars and Six Alternatives

Cited by 37 publications

References 17 publications

Cinematic success criteria and their predictors: The art and business of the film industry

Cinematic success criteria and their predictors: The art and business of the film industry

Evaluating Excellence in the Arts

Do experts and novices evaluate movies the same way?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About