Re: General Oscar Telecast Discussion
Posted: Mon Feb 29, 2016 2:02 pm
I don't know what it was like at anyone else's place, but when Andy Serkis announced Ex Machina as the winner for FX, it was like a bolt of lightning -- the first time in years, it seemed, to have a winner utterly from the blue. It reminded one of how much fun the Oscars used to be on occasion.
But that, of course, was only a minor category. With Vikander's desultory win already in the books, I awaited Patricia Arquette's announcement with dread -- basically thinking, if this comes up Stallone, the precursor/blogger squad will have drained all the fun out of what seemed an unusually free-range season. Rylance's win brought a whoop from me: Oscar spontaneity may remain on life support, but it ain't completely dead yet.
And then the finale was icing on the cake. All season, even as precursors mounted, best picture had seemed somewhat open, for reasons we'd all been poring over -- the prejudice against making anyone, especially Innaritu, the first back-to-back picture/director winner; Revenant's lack of a screenplay nod; the three-way split at PGA/SAG/DGA. And by that point in the evening, with (as BJ notes) The Revenant having amassed an in-context paltry three wins, a win by one of the other two contenders seemed very possible, even though it would take us back to 1952 for a precedent, a film winning best picture with only one other trophy.
A few things about that: 1) I started to watch my DVR late last night, and noted the same thing Sonic did: that, with screenplays having been uncharacteristically chosen to open the show, Spotlight had the truly weird distinction of winning the first and last awards of the evening, with nothing in between. 2) Mark Harris notes that this is the first time since the 1981 trainwreck that film/director/editing went to three different films. Similarities to that race: the editing prize went to a action franchise that won the most overall awards (Raiders tied Chariots of Fire, actually); the best picture winner was the only one of the three that won screenwriting; and Reds, like The Revenant, came in with 12 nominations and best picture hopes, but won just director/cinematography and an acting prize. 3) When the preferential ballot/group of up-to-ten system was inaugurated in 2009, some of us thought film/director splits might become common. For the first three years, it didn't happen -- but now we've seen it in three of the past four years (each under different circumstances). And, going back further, 7 times in 18 years. This is a sea-change: from 1952 to 1998, the split was basically a once-per-decade thing. We now have to consider it an active possibility almost annually.
One funny thing: while the night stacks up as one with more surprises than usual (toss in the Sam Smith win, as well), it wouldn't have felt so surprising if you'd shown me this list in December. Spotlight had been declared the year's winner in September by Vulture, and had done well enough in critics' voting to be confirmed as the favorite -- and we all along figured it was the kind of indifferently-directed film that might not carry along its director. Mark Rylance had been a pretty big critics' favorite, and I'd have assumed he'd have swept through the TV awards. In fact, post-critics pre-Globes/SAG, I'd have thought the person on this win list with the most precarious route might have been Brie Larson. The precursors added some suspense, and took some away.
The Mad Max putsch of the tech awards was kind of dreary, though the only one I truly begrudge it is costuming. Was anyone else half-thinking, given the near-sweep, that George Miller might pull out best director? Though the loss in visual effects was a bump in the road. (Another reason why the Ex Machina win was so startling.)
I decided to add "last in the In Memoriam" as a tie-breaker at our party this year, and the only person correctly choosing Leonard Nimoy happened to have the worst overall score. (He was also the only one to correctly pick Writing's On the Wall -- apropos of which: I echo BJ's "the song's not that bad/they all sucked, anyway"...though Gaga's rendition of her mediocre material was powerful.)
I'm glad my instinct on Son of Saul was wrong -- I'd feared it might be too technically innovative, and had heard from many people that they responded far more emotionally directly to Mustang (which I haven't got to). Either Saul's prominence or the Holocaust-rules! custom saved the day.
I'll stick to my prediction that DiCaprio's win will not be viewed kindly by history. But his speech was graceful and gracious.
I'll save my futures forecast on Vikander for Who'll Be Back?, but I'll just say here that her win was just a shrug for me -- I do like her, and acknowledge her solid year, but this is not a win I can endorse. And Tom Hooper now has acting wins for three consecutive films.
Chris Rock's opening was pretty terrific -- he had a difficult job, but seemed to me to strike just the right notes.
Best presenters: Ryan Gosling/Russell Crowe -- who knew Gosling's comic timing was that good? It almost makes me think I'll go to see their upcoming movie, though the coming attraction looked pretty dire.
Worst presenter: Sacha Baron Cohen, who was off doing his own thing and really ended up trashing Room in the process. And, geez: all the winners got played off after 40 seconds, but he got to go on and on.
As far as the Internet's overdue gang: Stallone of course was skunked, as was Diane Warren; DiCaprio and Ennio Morricone were the only ones to successfully nab the life achievement prizes. Hence, their standing ovations (shared with Joe Biden).
I'll perhaps think of more to say after I've watched my DVR top-to-bottom, but these are my primary reactions. All tolled: thanks to just enough unpredictability, the most fun set of winners in a while.
But that, of course, was only a minor category. With Vikander's desultory win already in the books, I awaited Patricia Arquette's announcement with dread -- basically thinking, if this comes up Stallone, the precursor/blogger squad will have drained all the fun out of what seemed an unusually free-range season. Rylance's win brought a whoop from me: Oscar spontaneity may remain on life support, but it ain't completely dead yet.
And then the finale was icing on the cake. All season, even as precursors mounted, best picture had seemed somewhat open, for reasons we'd all been poring over -- the prejudice against making anyone, especially Innaritu, the first back-to-back picture/director winner; Revenant's lack of a screenplay nod; the three-way split at PGA/SAG/DGA. And by that point in the evening, with (as BJ notes) The Revenant having amassed an in-context paltry three wins, a win by one of the other two contenders seemed very possible, even though it would take us back to 1952 for a precedent, a film winning best picture with only one other trophy.
A few things about that: 1) I started to watch my DVR late last night, and noted the same thing Sonic did: that, with screenplays having been uncharacteristically chosen to open the show, Spotlight had the truly weird distinction of winning the first and last awards of the evening, with nothing in between. 2) Mark Harris notes that this is the first time since the 1981 trainwreck that film/director/editing went to three different films. Similarities to that race: the editing prize went to a action franchise that won the most overall awards (Raiders tied Chariots of Fire, actually); the best picture winner was the only one of the three that won screenwriting; and Reds, like The Revenant, came in with 12 nominations and best picture hopes, but won just director/cinematography and an acting prize. 3) When the preferential ballot/group of up-to-ten system was inaugurated in 2009, some of us thought film/director splits might become common. For the first three years, it didn't happen -- but now we've seen it in three of the past four years (each under different circumstances). And, going back further, 7 times in 18 years. This is a sea-change: from 1952 to 1998, the split was basically a once-per-decade thing. We now have to consider it an active possibility almost annually.
One funny thing: while the night stacks up as one with more surprises than usual (toss in the Sam Smith win, as well), it wouldn't have felt so surprising if you'd shown me this list in December. Spotlight had been declared the year's winner in September by Vulture, and had done well enough in critics' voting to be confirmed as the favorite -- and we all along figured it was the kind of indifferently-directed film that might not carry along its director. Mark Rylance had been a pretty big critics' favorite, and I'd have assumed he'd have swept through the TV awards. In fact, post-critics pre-Globes/SAG, I'd have thought the person on this win list with the most precarious route might have been Brie Larson. The precursors added some suspense, and took some away.
The Mad Max putsch of the tech awards was kind of dreary, though the only one I truly begrudge it is costuming. Was anyone else half-thinking, given the near-sweep, that George Miller might pull out best director? Though the loss in visual effects was a bump in the road. (Another reason why the Ex Machina win was so startling.)
I decided to add "last in the In Memoriam" as a tie-breaker at our party this year, and the only person correctly choosing Leonard Nimoy happened to have the worst overall score. (He was also the only one to correctly pick Writing's On the Wall -- apropos of which: I echo BJ's "the song's not that bad/they all sucked, anyway"...though Gaga's rendition of her mediocre material was powerful.)
I'm glad my instinct on Son of Saul was wrong -- I'd feared it might be too technically innovative, and had heard from many people that they responded far more emotionally directly to Mustang (which I haven't got to). Either Saul's prominence or the Holocaust-rules! custom saved the day.
I'll stick to my prediction that DiCaprio's win will not be viewed kindly by history. But his speech was graceful and gracious.
I'll save my futures forecast on Vikander for Who'll Be Back?, but I'll just say here that her win was just a shrug for me -- I do like her, and acknowledge her solid year, but this is not a win I can endorse. And Tom Hooper now has acting wins for three consecutive films.
Chris Rock's opening was pretty terrific -- he had a difficult job, but seemed to me to strike just the right notes.
Best presenters: Ryan Gosling/Russell Crowe -- who knew Gosling's comic timing was that good? It almost makes me think I'll go to see their upcoming movie, though the coming attraction looked pretty dire.
Worst presenter: Sacha Baron Cohen, who was off doing his own thing and really ended up trashing Room in the process. And, geez: all the winners got played off after 40 seconds, but he got to go on and on.
As far as the Internet's overdue gang: Stallone of course was skunked, as was Diane Warren; DiCaprio and Ennio Morricone were the only ones to successfully nab the life achievement prizes. Hence, their standing ovations (shared with Joe Biden).
I'll perhaps think of more to say after I've watched my DVR top-to-bottom, but these are my primary reactions. All tolled: thanks to just enough unpredictability, the most fun set of winners in a while.