I offer you a study of contrasts(and synchronicities), to begin a discussion on the sociology, political economy, and semiotics of the documentary award, beginning with this year's Global Media Lab in which Gary Hustwit made the case for staying indie (let's hope it's captured in the videoblog), juxtaposed to last year's GML with Eugene Jarecki and Alex Gibney making the case for selling your doc to the majors (see February 2007 archive); then watching last week (online, not primetime) the Spirit Award for the 'Truer than Fiction' category which went to 'The Unforeseen' rather than nominee 'Helvetica' (damn); followed this week by the Oscar for Best Documentary going to Gibney's 'Taxi to the Dark Side' (huzzah). My question(s): Why do we have such contests? How do we judge the success of a documentary? What should we make of the fact that Jarecki won the same Spirit award (Truer than Fiction) in 2003 for 'Trials of Henry Kissinger'? Why is the Spirit Award female (winged victory) and the Academy Award male (Oscar). Share your thoughts (and bonus point for anybody who identifies which Spirit Award honoree titled her presentation about studio business practices as"The Scum-Sucking Vampire Pig Theory of Hollywood"?

VTY
JDD