OK, you're objectively right. I can agree with you there. But you're also plucking my word "triumph" out of context.ITALIANO wrote:And when I see this whole messy thing described on this thread with words like "triumph" or "greatness" (words that I'd use for a Da Vinci painting, or a Pirandello play), how shall I put it without sounding offensive - I KNOW that I am right. Objectively right.
81st Oscars: The Show
Very rarely, Joseph. VERY rarely. And you can check all my posts about these Oscars - in the whole year - to see how rarely I am wrong.Penelope wrote:Sometimes, Marco, you're wrong.
I'm surprised that you can't see the hypocrisy of those moments, honestly.
As for the rest of the production, Original BJ, I said it wasn't bad, so you are wrong, sorry. But of course the true shock of MY life is that people like you, or others, DO like everything Bill Condon does. Guess why! Liars, all of you.
I'm an extremely gracious person. OG, you are forgiven.
Poor, poor Marco. Someone at the bold prediction thread said that he'd definitely hate the show. It was a very cunning way of effectively silencing him, wasn't it? Now he has to be rather cautious. But I'm not.
First – I'm thrilled by the sight of five Divas side by side on the same stage just as the next guy. And five Divos, for that matter. Now – I'm totally with Marco on that one, but let me add another thing. How many stars does it take to honor 1 actor? The answer is 5. How many stars does it take to honor 9 behind the scene, hard working people, in 4 deferent categories? 1. Now, I used to be quite good at mathematics when I was young. 5 times 9, the last time I checked, was 45. So, from now on say: 1 actor, accolades wise, equal 45 common technicians. That’s the ratio in Hollywood. Good to know.
And using my abacus, I'm afraid, is much in the spirit of last night show. It had this distinctively didactic feeling about it. The schematic structure – first, children, there is the script (as if we don't know that first there is the high concept pitch, but never mind), then there's the set design - skip the casting couch – then cinematography, editing and so on. I guess they know that with the declining rating they are heading to PBS, and last night was the pilot. Like so many things on the show, including the past winners parade, the intentions were definitely good (though rather klutzy at times) but the materialization was heavy handed, lacking any kind of nimbleness, of creative spontaneity and most of all a real sense of humor. (Somehow, even Tina Fay and Steve Martin managed to be unfunny).
I love musicals numbers. Sometimes, out of the blue, I start humming "Oscar, everybody loves you Oscar". But the opening lets-do-something-completely-new-ok-it's–Billy-Cristal-but-with-a-cardboard-scenery number was, appropriately, very Sesame Street, but the second, the one with the leading singer whose hips were more developed than her vocal cords, was a musical blood bath if ever there was one. And then I found out it was by Baz Luhrmann. Why? Is this the way to revive the musical genre, by mutilating it to a degree it's of no use anymore? Haven't anybody seen Moulin Rouge! Before hiring this guy?
Sorry. This is what happened when you set the clock, wake up at 3 am all hyped up and exited and then, 4 hours later, frustrated and bored to death, forced to face a totally indifferent world whose only care is that some fucking Japanese movie stole our, OUR, Oscar.
p.s The other day I said Philip Seymour Hoffman is a good actor. After seeing him last night, may I take my words back?
Edited By Uri on 1235410366
Poor, poor Marco. Someone at the bold prediction thread said that he'd definitely hate the show. It was a very cunning way of effectively silencing him, wasn't it? Now he has to be rather cautious. But I'm not.
First – I'm thrilled by the sight of five Divas side by side on the same stage just as the next guy. And five Divos, for that matter. Now – I'm totally with Marco on that one, but let me add another thing. How many stars does it take to honor 1 actor? The answer is 5. How many stars does it take to honor 9 behind the scene, hard working people, in 4 deferent categories? 1. Now, I used to be quite good at mathematics when I was young. 5 times 9, the last time I checked, was 45. So, from now on say: 1 actor, accolades wise, equal 45 common technicians. That’s the ratio in Hollywood. Good to know.
And using my abacus, I'm afraid, is much in the spirit of last night show. It had this distinctively didactic feeling about it. The schematic structure – first, children, there is the script (as if we don't know that first there is the high concept pitch, but never mind), then there's the set design - skip the casting couch – then cinematography, editing and so on. I guess they know that with the declining rating they are heading to PBS, and last night was the pilot. Like so many things on the show, including the past winners parade, the intentions were definitely good (though rather klutzy at times) but the materialization was heavy handed, lacking any kind of nimbleness, of creative spontaneity and most of all a real sense of humor. (Somehow, even Tina Fay and Steve Martin managed to be unfunny).
I love musicals numbers. Sometimes, out of the blue, I start humming "Oscar, everybody loves you Oscar". But the opening lets-do-something-completely-new-ok-it's–Billy-Cristal-but-with-a-cardboard-scenery number was, appropriately, very Sesame Street, but the second, the one with the leading singer whose hips were more developed than her vocal cords, was a musical blood bath if ever there was one. And then I found out it was by Baz Luhrmann. Why? Is this the way to revive the musical genre, by mutilating it to a degree it's of no use anymore? Haven't anybody seen Moulin Rouge! Before hiring this guy?
Sorry. This is what happened when you set the clock, wake up at 3 am all hyped up and exited and then, 4 hours later, frustrated and bored to death, forced to face a totally indifferent world whose only care is that some fucking Japanese movie stole our, OUR, Oscar.
p.s The other day I said Philip Seymour Hoffman is a good actor. After seeing him last night, may I take my words back?
Edited By Uri on 1235410366
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
I think this year's Oscars are evidence of the fact that the show can be great (which, in my opinion, it was) and the winners list can be quite good (again, more personal opinions) but the lack of surprises can still be disappointing. By my estimation, the only category with a real surprise was Foreign Language Film -- when the upset of a film no one has seen over a couple films only a few people have seen is the most earth-shattering surprise...well, you can't really describe it as anything but monotony.
It sort of seems we've been building to this for a couple years now. (We nearly had it in '05, would that the final award had gone to the frontrunner.) I know I would have done better in my Oscar pool if I had just gone with EVERY frontrunner, which is pretty much what happened. (I also sort of have to rescind my criticism of EW's predix -- I guess sometimes every frontrunner does win.) By the end of the evening, I was half-hoping Meryl Streep or Mickey Rourke would prevail, just to shake things up a bit.
One wonders if this is merely a one-off -- last year we had a couple real races -- or if the overwhelming number of precursors have started to kill the ability for surprise for good. What's particularly interesting is that this year's NOMINATIONS offered some pretty substantial surprises -- at least ones that went against the precursors -- but the awards were, well, not that. Thank god we had the screwy Kate Winslet supporting situation -- one can only wonder if the Globes and SAGs would have gone for Penelope Cruz and made that category as predictable as any.
As for the show, I thought it was very strong. Hugh Jackman is a terrific performer, I think, and thought he made a wonderful host. I LOVED the presentations to the actors -- it was great to see some of those old winners brought out, and I thought the tributes to each of the nominees were really special. (Agreed they should have done it for Director as well.) I guess I didn't miss the clips like I thought I would (or did in '02), as this format I think made every acting nominee feel special, like a real winner, and their heartfelt joy at hearing those words was incredibly touching.
For me, I was happy with most of the winners. A good number I thought were the best in their categories (yeah, Sean Penn!), but this marks the first year in god knows when I thought every winner, even down-ballot, was at least nomination-worthy. Winslet was indeed better in Revolutionary Road (not to mention Eternal Sunshine, Sense and Sensibility, Little Children, etc.), but, like Penelope, I thought she was pretty terrific in The Reader, and was thrilled to cheer her victory even though I didn't much like the film. Heath Ledger's family gave a moving tribute, and Penelope Cruz was so great in Volver I've just decided to pretend she won for that.
And, not to co-opt Mister Tee's thesis, but with Danny Boyle, we continue this decade's trend of auteur directors winning the trophy.
One thing I'd like to add -- the constant joking about how nobody watches Oscar films, or that, as Will Smith said, Oscar movies don't have fans. For everyone in the audience, as well as those watching on tv, we LIKE "Oscar" movies, even if we don't always agree with the choices, and I guess I just find the joking disdain a little disrespectful. No one made fun of Juno last year for being popular instead of being high art.
And Italiano doesn't like a Bill Condon production? Shock of my life.
Edited By The Original BJ on 1235409733
It sort of seems we've been building to this for a couple years now. (We nearly had it in '05, would that the final award had gone to the frontrunner.) I know I would have done better in my Oscar pool if I had just gone with EVERY frontrunner, which is pretty much what happened. (I also sort of have to rescind my criticism of EW's predix -- I guess sometimes every frontrunner does win.) By the end of the evening, I was half-hoping Meryl Streep or Mickey Rourke would prevail, just to shake things up a bit.
One wonders if this is merely a one-off -- last year we had a couple real races -- or if the overwhelming number of precursors have started to kill the ability for surprise for good. What's particularly interesting is that this year's NOMINATIONS offered some pretty substantial surprises -- at least ones that went against the precursors -- but the awards were, well, not that. Thank god we had the screwy Kate Winslet supporting situation -- one can only wonder if the Globes and SAGs would have gone for Penelope Cruz and made that category as predictable as any.
As for the show, I thought it was very strong. Hugh Jackman is a terrific performer, I think, and thought he made a wonderful host. I LOVED the presentations to the actors -- it was great to see some of those old winners brought out, and I thought the tributes to each of the nominees were really special. (Agreed they should have done it for Director as well.) I guess I didn't miss the clips like I thought I would (or did in '02), as this format I think made every acting nominee feel special, like a real winner, and their heartfelt joy at hearing those words was incredibly touching.
For me, I was happy with most of the winners. A good number I thought were the best in their categories (yeah, Sean Penn!), but this marks the first year in god knows when I thought every winner, even down-ballot, was at least nomination-worthy. Winslet was indeed better in Revolutionary Road (not to mention Eternal Sunshine, Sense and Sensibility, Little Children, etc.), but, like Penelope, I thought she was pretty terrific in The Reader, and was thrilled to cheer her victory even though I didn't much like the film. Heath Ledger's family gave a moving tribute, and Penelope Cruz was so great in Volver I've just decided to pretend she won for that.
And, not to co-opt Mister Tee's thesis, but with Danny Boyle, we continue this decade's trend of auteur directors winning the trophy.
One thing I'd like to add -- the constant joking about how nobody watches Oscar films, or that, as Will Smith said, Oscar movies don't have fans. For everyone in the audience, as well as those watching on tv, we LIKE "Oscar" movies, even if we don't always agree with the choices, and I guess I just find the joking disdain a little disrespectful. No one made fun of Juno last year for being popular instead of being high art.
And Italiano doesn't like a Bill Condon production? Shock of my life.
Edited By The Original BJ on 1235409733
You know what? I don't agree with any of these five points.OscarGuy wrote:I think the whole greatness of the five-past-winner segment was manyfold.
1) It's a great thing for Oscar fans to see many of the names they've known for decades as winners show up in one place at one time and for more than a stupid Oscar Family Photo.
2) It's a tribute to the great work these actors/actresses achieved in their winning performances (whether you liked them or not) and their places in Oscar history.
3) For an actor to be recognized so specifically and in detail, even if it is pre-written, is a great feeling. To believe that your work is being respected and appreciated by a PERSON and not just some series of canned film clips, that has to be a great feeling for the nominees.
4) To follow up the above, it's a great feeling not just to have an individual recognize your work, but when these are past winners of your category. Oscar winners themselves taking the time out to honor you, it just puts icing on the cake for these ladies.
5) And when the actresses (and even a few of the actors), many of whom were tearful at the tributes, are feeling an emotional attachment to the presentation, even if it is rehearsed, it makes you feel vicariously part of their experience and it draws you into the proceedings in ways that have never been felt previously.
And when I see this whole messy thing described on this thread with words like "triumph" or "greatness" (words that I'd use for a Da Vinci painting, or a Pirandello play), how shall I put it without sounding offensive - I KNOW that I am right. Objectively right.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
I think the whole greatness of the five-past-winner segment was manyfold.
1) It's a great thing for Oscar fans to see many of the names they've known for decades as winners show up in one place at one time and for more than a stupid Oscar Family Photo.
2) It's a tribute to the great work these actors/actresses achieved in their winning performances (whether you liked them or not) and their places in Oscar history.
3) For an actor to be recognized so specifically and in detail, even if it is pre-written, is a great feeling. To believe that your work is being respected and appreciated by a PERSON and not just some series of canned film clips, that has to be a great feeling for the nominees.
4) To follow up the above, it's a great feeling not just to have an individual recognize your work, but when these are past winners of your category. Oscar winners themselves taking the time out to honor you, it just puts icing on the cake for these ladies.
5) And when the actresses (and even a few of the actors), many of whom were tearful at the tributes, are feeling an emotional attachment to the presentation, even if it is rehearsed, it makes you feel vicariously part of their experience and it draws you into the proceedings in ways that have never been felt previously.
For me, I think director and picture would have been great uses of the 5-winner strategy, though it would be much more difficult to present these, but the directors would have been fairly easy with the name directors (though really, you could probably have gotten Ang Lee up there and it would be just as effective as Eva Marie Saint who, despite being a well known actress and Oscar winner among her peers, is hardly a name actress to most in the audience). But what would have been perfect for Best Picture was to trot out actors from Best Picture-winning films. That could have worked beautifully as well.
1) It's a great thing for Oscar fans to see many of the names they've known for decades as winners show up in one place at one time and for more than a stupid Oscar Family Photo.
2) It's a tribute to the great work these actors/actresses achieved in their winning performances (whether you liked them or not) and their places in Oscar history.
3) For an actor to be recognized so specifically and in detail, even if it is pre-written, is a great feeling. To believe that your work is being respected and appreciated by a PERSON and not just some series of canned film clips, that has to be a great feeling for the nominees.
4) To follow up the above, it's a great feeling not just to have an individual recognize your work, but when these are past winners of your category. Oscar winners themselves taking the time out to honor you, it just puts icing on the cake for these ladies.
5) And when the actresses (and even a few of the actors), many of whom were tearful at the tributes, are feeling an emotional attachment to the presentation, even if it is rehearsed, it makes you feel vicariously part of their experience and it draws you into the proceedings in ways that have never been felt previously.
For me, I think director and picture would have been great uses of the 5-winner strategy, though it would be much more difficult to present these, but the directors would have been fairly easy with the name directors (though really, you could probably have gotten Ang Lee up there and it would be just as effective as Eva Marie Saint who, despite being a well known actress and Oscar winner among her peers, is hardly a name actress to most in the audience). But what would have been perfect for Best Picture was to trot out actors from Best Picture-winning films. That could have worked beautifully as well.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Can we all agree on one thing?
These little pissers are just too damn cute.
(Hope the link works.)
These little pissers are just too damn cute.
(Hope the link works.)
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
Did you find it a "triumph"? I don't know... I wouldn't say that THOSE words were of high-literature caliber (to be honest, I found them atrocious), and I'm sure that images, in this case, would have been much more eloquent.rain Bard wrote:It's not as practical a way of selling the movies, but I also liked that it was the triumph of words over images for a change.
But seriously, do ALL Americans here find those speeches to be so great, so profound, so honest? I can't believe it that I (and Uri, another foreigner) are the only ones to see how ridiculous they are. I am worried, really.
ITALIANO wrote:I found this way of introducing the nominees TERRIBLE. Boring, embarrassing for them and frankly for most viewers, and SO fake. So unbearably fake. But unsurprisingly here everybody claims that it was great. Oh well.
I thought it was fake too, but fake in a refreshing way. It was like a different kind of performative piece than the ones we usually see (speeches and the expressions given when another's name is called for the win). I have no idea if the nominees were hearing these words for the first time or if they'd been literally rehearsed before. But in a number of situations it felt like they probably hadn't, and were improvising their reaction to being serenaded by a previously-Oscared actor. Some of the combinations were genuinely touching, even if they were fake.
It's not as practical a way of selling the movies, but I also liked that it was the triumph of words over images for a change.
Edited By rain Bard on 1235403545
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
The show is getting mixed reviews overall, which is an improvement. Usually it gets dull reviews, and the good reviews are quite good indeed.
Variety - From the Couch (mixed)
Variety - From the Kodak Theatre (rave)
Hollywood Reporter (rave)
New York Times (mixed)
Los Angeles Times (negative)
USA Today (positive but mixed)
Michael Sragow (negative)
Salon.com (rave)
The Guardian (rave)
The BBC (rave)
Nikki Finke thought it was the worst thing ever shown on TV Emininent TV critic Tom Shales hated it, too, but I can't access the article without registering.
I guess I should qualify my earlier review. Although the Oscar telecast didn't sweep me away, it was still the best I've seen in years as far as these things go.
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1235402298
Variety - From the Couch (mixed)
Variety - From the Kodak Theatre (rave)
Hollywood Reporter (rave)
New York Times (mixed)
Los Angeles Times (negative)
USA Today (positive but mixed)
Michael Sragow (negative)
Salon.com (rave)
The Guardian (rave)
The BBC (rave)
Nikki Finke thought it was the worst thing ever shown on TV Emininent TV critic Tom Shales hated it, too, but I can't access the article without registering.
I guess I should qualify my earlier review. Although the Oscar telecast didn't sweep me away, it was still the best I've seen in years as far as these things go.
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1235402298
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler