Oscar Thoughts

My feeling about the 80th annual Academy Awards is......huh? What happened? Did we really wait out the writers' strike for this?

Everything just seemed so bland...from the dull selection in dresses, to Jon Stewart's safe hosting duties...to the expected wins. There was nothing shocking or gasp-inducing. Even Marion Cotillard's win for Best Actress had been presaged by her Golden Globe, BAFTA and Cesar wins. Not such a huge surprise when you think about it. Her performance as Edith Piaf relied on a complete physical transformation....and Oscar loves a young pretty actress getting ugly for her art. Think of Charlize Theron for Monster...or Hilary Swank for Boys Don't Cry.

However, it's exciting to see that Hollywood is looking beyond just English language films at last.

Of course, they're not looking far enough to award Persepolis with the best animated feature prize! It was totally predictable that Ratatouille would win here, even though I feel that Persepolis broke new ground in demonstrating how animation could be used to tell thought-provoking, grownup stories.

I was thrilled to see The Bourne Ultimatum take home three prizes, albeit in tech categories. Makes me wonder if it could have been a contender in some bigger categories if it had been released later in the year.

And finally, I was disappointed that There Will Be Blood didn't win Best Picture. All the nominees were excellent films this year, so I'm not sad to see the Coen brothers rake in the goodies...but I do feel that Paul Thomas Anderson's tale of capitalism and religious fervor deserved the highest accolade. It was a dark story....as was Michael Clayton and No Country, and perhaps it didn't have the perverse humor that the Coen brothers managed to inject into their western. Everyone loves a villain, and Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh was the more colorful bad guy...complete with silly hair and a coin-tossing gimmick. Perhaps Daniel Plainview was just too damn human.

Comments

[adled]

Perhaps the big 'formal' affairs like the Oscars have had their time. Once upon a time it must have been fun to dress up for such an occasion both for the fan and celebrity. But where old Hollywood dictated the terms of what was glamourous then fashion industries and others tell Hollywood what is glamourous now. That seems a lot less fun to me.

[3fingerbrown]

Two reasons why the Academy Awards show has lost its entertainment value. First, movie stars are much too ubiquitous in the media year-round. In the old pre-Internet days, the big A-list movie stars appeared on TV rarely, and when they did, it was an event. During the Oscar broadcast, you could catch a rare glimpse of your favorite star with their spouse, speaking in their own voice, wearing their own clothes, interacting with other stars. It was a once-a-year treat. Today, I can get hot-and-co­ld-running Angelina Jolie any minute of the day.

Also, the Oscars during the '70s and '80s were big, overblown, tacky spectacles. Lots of people, and I was one of them, used to tune in just to see how deliciously vulgar the whole thing was. (What was Cher going to wear? How hilariously stupid was the opening production number going to be? Did they really just hand the emaciated Henry Fonda an Oscar live via satellite from his deathbed? How hard would Billy Crystal work for a laugh? The phrase "water-cooler moment" was coined for times like these.)

In an attempt to be cool and hip the show's producers have ditched all the old-timey showbiz vulgarity. It's amazing how boring "cool and hip" plays on TV.

[Rockwell]

I didn't see a single movie that was nominated. But I watched the Oscars anyway. The trick is TIVO. I watched the monologue then scanned fast forward. I watched all of the Jon Stewarts lead-ins. I watched the acceptance speeches from people I liked. I watched the clips from the movies. And whenever I saw a big crowd reaction I'd run back and watch whatever it was that tickled them.

I was stunned by Marion Cotillard. To see the movie clip of the old-Judy-G­arland-lik­e burnout and then to see the young actress. Pretty amazing.

There have been plenty of boring Oscars. Maybe you just aren't old enough to have seen them. I thought Jon did a solid job and I enjoyed what I saw.

TIVO is the answer. Oh, and Gin and Tonic.

[ProudLiberalDan]

I don't believe there can truly a "Best" when it comes to creativity and art and I wish the various Academies found a non-competitive way to give honor and prestige to multiple artists and their works of art.

That being said, I went in rooting for Daniel Day-Lewis (for whom if hid didn't win, there would be no point of coming back next year) and "Falling Slowly" from the achingly beautiful, low-budget film "Once".

I wanted both Cotillard and Christie to win, so I knew I would feel bad for the one who didn't. While the Golden Globes lack credibility, they at least split drama and musical/comedy which allows for more winners. Both could have won. Sigh. I feel really bad for Julie Christie who deserved it, just as I would feel really bad for Marion Cotillard if she had lost, as she also really deserved it too.

I thought The Diving Bell and the Butterfly should have won Best Director, but I already realized the Coens would win that one.

[QueenCeleste]

This was the most lackluster year ever. And, good heavens, didn't the Academy jump the shark with Miley Cyrus as a presenter? Would it have killed them to have a couple stars of yesteryear present? I had no interest in any of the nominated movies, but strongly feel that Julie Christie was robbed. She was just brilliant in "Away From Her." Finally, weren't those Disney songs just dreadful?!

[ObamaEdwards]

This was one of the best years ever for Oscars. All the actors who won deserved to win. The show was engaging, and I especially liked the segment in which soldiers read the nominees and winner. A great, great night.

[moodygirl]

I agree that this year's Oscars were really insipid. I had more fun getting my munchies together while waiting for the show to start. My biggest beef is the Oscar for best song. What a joke, every other entry was better and the one Raise it Up(?) was the best. The presenters looked fine but could have had more interesting prattle beforehand. Jon Stewart's routine was limp (is the the writers fault or is he just better behind a desk?). Boring!

[OttoMann]

I, too, thought Blood was the masterpiece of the year, but how often does that win Best Picture? Besides, all the haters would just be bashing it today, so now they just have to slink off and shut up. I think as time goes on, more film buffs will see it in a better light, and wish they'd appreciated it more in its moment.

As for the show, it did seem flat. I was really up for watching it, too. Everyone has commented on how there were to many montages. Montages are fine -- it's a chance to celebrate film, by showing, well, film. The problem wasn't that they put these montages together, but that they were so weak. It was all rapid-fire editing, so you never get a sense of any one clip before it's off the screen to make way for the next one. The Best Picture montage isn't a bad idea, unless you only show three seconds of each film. They might as well just flash up the name of the movie, because you never got a chance to both read the film's title (and year) AND watch the (extremely brief) clip. In other words, to improve it, they should spend the same number of minutes of montages, but cover less topics with longer clips of each. (But then, of course, they LOVE that kind of endless quick cuts, which is why Bourne Ultimatum was a shoo-in for Best Editing. The award should be Most Edits To Prevent The Audience From Actually Seeing What's On The Screen At Any Given Moment.)

[mediastinger]

Here's my take re the Oscar Show. The opening montage was a real show-stopper...not the way to build excitement and highlight what's supposed to be the most glamor-filled Hollywood event of the year. How about a montage of arrivals instead? Don't you understand that's what people tune in to see? Next, the host, John the cocky play-it-safe cable guy. Unless I went to sleep, my clock showed 41 minutes of his unfunny ego-logue before the show plodded into its first award. Maybe the producers can explain why Stewart got so much face time while the award winners are booted off stage before they can finish a sentence. Ah, but understand, winner's words are deemed boring. After all they aren't penned by the show's crack scribes, you know, the ones who wrote banter duller than an instruction manual for door stops. Apparently they were worn out from too many hours on the picket lines. And the set...it looked like the tubes that held dead alien bodies in "Independence Day". Maybe the producers should have asked the Art Direction nominees for some input. Also missing...any attempt to creatively stage production numbers. Conventional wisdom says they always must be bad. Not true. The Grammy and Tony Awards get it right a lot of the time. Maybe it was the songs. And again those montages! Intrusive.­..unimagin­ative...as if the excitement of the moment wasn't enough...that the audience had to be hyped by tripping back to Oscar's glory days. Sadly they only underscored what was obviously missing from this awards show...genuine excitement and its handmaiden, authentic glamor! Where were the Eastwoods, Pacinos, DeNiro's etc? Badly needed on stage. Anybody catch how great Mickey Rooney looked on the red carpet? How about a long-deserved salute to a talent who was the top box office star for seven years? Your point about viewers wanting longer clips of the nominees couldn't be more correct. Hey Academy! Your audience deserves better. You need fresh ideas...from a totally new production and creative team...or maybe the ratings will take another 20 percent nosedive next year. If that happens..."There Will Be Blood"!