81st Oscars: The Show

[ITALIANO]

I cringe even just thinking of it. But the Americans here loved it, so it must be a cultural thing. The most embarassing thing I've ever seen at the Oscars after Snow White & Rob Lowe, and I saw many.

[Uri]

Put me down for one who liked the acting awards presentation very much. I found it a moving tribute to the actors, and may have actually done more for the general public than a clip. A clip shows that Richard Jenkins is angry and screaming, but Adrien Brody's description of his body of work puts him in context.

Nah... Words, just words, and often general, empty words, too obviously written by others and not very convincingly spoken by some of those actors. (But then who'd be convincing saying THAT to, for example, Angelina Jolie?!). Also it went on forever. The film clips are still the best way, believe me. (And I know, I work in television).

But, but – didn't you get it? Woopie Goldberg, who played in Sister Act (!), had a personal and deeply felt appreciation for Amy Adam. I still don't understand why Sally Field, being the ultimate authority when it comes to nuns, aerial ones or others, wasn't ask to give her objective evaluation of Streep's performance.

[Big Magilla]

I've been jaded about Oscar shows, and award shows in general, for a long time but I loved this one.

The awards themselves were predictable, but there was suspense nonetheless. This is the first time since 1989 that the two people I wanted to win best actor and actresses actually won. Before someone checks up on my Oscar Shuldabeens and points out that I gave my awards to Forest Whitaker and Helen Mirren just two years ago, let me remind you that although I gave my award to Forest Whitaker I was rooting for Peter O'Toole who had already won my award twice.

As for the show iself, the opening number was fantastic. Yes, it was Billy Crystal redux but put over with such panache that even Hugh Jackman's singing about swimming in excrement to Kate Winslet seemed beguiling and bringing Anne Hathaway up on stage for a brief duet was utterly charming.

With such a strong opening number the show could have immediately gone downhill but it only got better with the introduction of the five former supporting actress winners. Eva Marie Saint looked lovely. It's hard to believe she's 84. Her heartfelt tribute to Viola Davis beautifully set the tone for the remainder of the tributes. Whoopi Goldberg had just the right touch to bring a little levity with her tribute to Amy Adams and Anjelica Huston, I think it was Anjelica, reminded me of why I thought Taraji P. Henson gave the best supporting actress performance of the year - when Brad Pitt comes back, having missed her in he years he was away, the audience is reminded that they missed her as well, the earmark of a great performance.

I may be wrong, but I think the tributes took the winners to a higher plane. Penelope Cruz's acceptance speech was far and away the best one she's given, way better than her performance in the film - truly wonderful and the first of many nice acceptance speeches throughout the evening.

The remainder of the show moved along at a quick pace. It bogged down a little in spots - having Will Smith present four awards was a mistake, not that he wasn't good but it kind of diminished the awards he was giving out, a bit of a throwaway as if to say "here you go, now get out of here so we can get on with the really important stuff".

I thought the tribute to Jerry Lewis was well done. He looked bad, but his speech was from the heart without any of the cloying sentimentality he is capable of and free of the unfunny schtick I dread.

The Ledger family was very moving. All those teary eyes in the audience - I couldn't help but wonder if they were thinking if they won a posthumous Oscar who would accept for them and would they handle it half as well.

The production number in the middle of the show was well done but probably more appealing to oldtimers than the younger crowd, though it was nice to see young Hollywood singing and dancing to the real "oldies".

Queen Latifah's singing of "I'll Be Seeing You" accompanying the In Memoriam segment was a nice touch, but the camera should have been on the montage, not split between the montage and the singer. And that damn applause, probably impossible to tone it out completely.

I loved Shirley MacLaine's tribute to Anne Hatahway, which seemed spontaneous even if it was rehearsed. I agree with those who thought Sophia Loren looked hideous, but no more hideous than Goldie Hawn and she's eleven years older than Goldie!

One thing I didn't like was the darkened audience throughout most of the show.

There were no fashion disasters among the women, but there were two among the men. What was that with Seymour and the wool cap? He wore the same thing to the Indie Awards the day before. He looked like a jerk then, but at least that was an informal gathering. At the Oscars he looked totally out of place, like a bum who should have been thrown out at the door. And Mickey Rourke! I appreciate his heart on the sleeve story as much as anyone, but I'm a little sick and tired of his potty mouth and his appearance. He's funny to a point, but enough is enough. At least he got a haircut, but doesn't he have anyone to tell him how to dress for a special occasion like the Oscars?

Best speeches in addition to Penelope were those of Lance Black, Sean Penn and Kate Winslet. Danny Boyle's thanking the choreographer whose name he left off the credits of Slumdog Millionaire was a nice touch and his explanation of his jumping like Tigger was cute.

I'm not sure what to make of the cast of Slumdog being brought up on stage. Where do those kids go from here, back to the slums?

[ITALIANO]

Put me down for one who liked the acting awards presentation very much. I found it a moving tribute to the actors, and may have actually done more for the general public than a clip. A clip shows that Richard Jenkins is angry and screaming, but Adrien Brody's description of his body of work puts him in context.

Nah... Words, just words, and often general, empty words, too obviously written by others and not very convincingly spoken by some of those actors. (But then who'd be convincing saying THAT to, for example, Angelina Jolie?!). Also it went on forever. The film clips are still the best way, believe me. (And I know, I work in television).

[FilmFan720]

Put me down for one who liked the acting awards presentation very much. I found it a moving tribute to the actors, and may have actually done more for the general public than a clip. A clip shows that Richard Jenkins is angry and screaming, but Adrien Brody's description of his body of work puts him in context.

That said, I wish they had done the same thing for the director award too. Surely they could have found five director winners people recognize, or have heard of: Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, Eastwood, Redford, Costner, Gibson (ugh), Howard (although he couldn't as a nominee this year), even James Cameron or Robert Zemeckis. It would have been a nicer touch to that category, which got lost amongst the longer presentations of the other big awards. It seemed like a throwaway category this year.

[ITALIANO]

As wonderful the concept of presenting the Acting awards from five actors/actresses spanning throughout history is... dare I say it?... it was so overwhelmingly reverent, not to mention loooong, that I won't be surprised if it gets an overall thumbs down from the general public, plebes though they may be.

Well, I'm happy to be among the "plebes", which is where I think I belong - because if I have to be really honest (and I feel that some here aren't) I found this way of introducing the nominees TERRIBLE. Boring, embarassing for them and frankly for most viewers, and SO fake. So unbearably fake. But unsurprisingly here everybody claims that it was great. Oh well.

As for the show itself, it - and its host - were good. There were some nice moments. I don't understand why all those clips of non-nominated movies, but ok, I guess there MUST be a reason. Still, when I read people here calling it "groundbreaking", "revolutionary" etc, I wonder if we saw the same Oscars. But I must admit that if it was boring - and it was - it's just because most of the winners were very predictable and unsurprising. Nothing could be done with that.

Speaking of which, those who now complain about how predictable for example Best Supporting Actress was, should read some of their own posts - written even just a few days ago - where they kept insisting that Viola Davis (Viola Davis!) would have got it (or Meryl Streep for Best Actress). Of course anyone has a right to express his or her opinion (though this year the level of absurdity was honestly unheard of), but I think it could be a good idea to read again all the posts and see who saw it right from the beginning. Just a suggestion.

[OscarGuy]

I think one of the group awards (Sound Mixing, maybe?) Had them played off...one person got to drone on the acceptance and no one else got to talk.

I don't begrudge Rahman a win, though I'm not familiar with his work, but with the Score montage they presented, the elegant and beautiful score of Benjamin Button was more deserving, IMO. Though, the Defiance score was good, I am getting tired of World War II/Holocaust/Jewish films using the violin as a motif. It's like there are no other instruments that can wail mournfully for the lost. Other than, IMO, his atrocious score for The Golden Compass, I am really coming around to see that Alexandre Desplat is one of our great modern film composers. John Williams has become so hackneyed and trite in his compositions that the more subtle and melodic Desplat has supplanted him fairly easily. For memorable scores, Williams is god, but as far as lack of obtrusiveness, Desplat wins in a landslide. One day, he will get the recognition he deserves.

[paperboy]

The greatest achievement of the show was that not a single winner was played off by the orchestra.

[Sonic Youth]

One noticable absense: no Jack Nicholson. He wasn't at the show and he wasn't at the Globes, either.

Is he okay?

[Sabin]

Really, Sabin? Haven't you already seen the movies? Personally, I thought Eva Marie Saint and Robert DeNiro going on about how much they loved so-and-so's acting was far more refreshing and genuine than seeing a generic clip that we've seen over and over all season long. I mean, I thought we were here because we HAVE seen the movies?

We're not talking about what I want. If I ran the Oscars, it would be cancelled. Done. Never allowed back on television. I'm talking about showing America why Richard Jenkins, Melissa Leo, and Michael Shannon were nominated, or why maybe Frost/Nixon and The Reader are worth a see. I don't need to see this - thank you, Sonic - overly reverent tribunal mispronounce Philip Seymour Hoffman's name.

[rain Bard]

I would think the fact that the two sound categories had a historic split result would indicate that the Academy members finally at least think they know the difference between the two.

[Sonic Youth]

4) Um, please try to tell us the difference between Sound Mixing and Sound Effects.

But didn't they take great pains to do so?

Yeah, I forgot it again.

[Cinemanolis]

I generally liked the show very much.

I loved
The Acting categories innovation
Hugh Jackman as presenter
Hugh Jackman and Beyonce musical number, although i wish we could see/hear more of the 4 other performers
The Screenwriting presentation
The stage backround for most of the awards (costumes, art direction, etc)

I could live without
Will Smith presenting 4 awards, i generally prefer the the 2 presenters per award formula
The 'In Memoriam' sequence was good, but it was very difficult to read most of the names and their professions.
I didn't get the clips of older oscar winning films in between the 5 Best Pictures montage.

[Sonic Youth]

It's very difficult to compare this broadcast from previous ones, because this was so unlike previous ones. From the first minute of Hugh Jackman's entrance on the new stage, the Oscars broadcast immediately felt different, more like the Tony's. Yup, it was a radically different Oscars this year. I was glad to see this ungainly beast get a shake-up. But if one of the goals was to transfix the viewers and get those ratings up, I don't think they went about it the right way. As wonderful the concept of presenting the Acting awards from five actors/actresses spanning throughout history is... dare I say it?... it was so overwhelmingly reverent, not to mention loooong, that I won't be surprised if it gets an overall thumbs down from the general public, plebes though they may be. It was just a little too much. Lots of lovely sentiments were expressed, but it only reinforces the notion of how much Hollywood loves to honor itself. (That said, it was lovely to see Anne Hathaway in teary awe of her heroine Shirley MacClaine bestowing praises to her.) And I can forgive one musical number, but not two. Most people in 2009 unaccustomed to the conventions of the musical won't even forgive one. The entire affair was stylish and meticulous, if a bit mish-mashy, and I wish its reception all the best. But unless I'm underestimating the American public, I think the show's yearning for sophistication may ultimately be its downfall.

Damien, to what extent were you involved in this year's production? And have you introduced this board to Bill Condon to this board, and does he lurk here? Because I know that for years I've been saying they need to conceptualize the "lesser" awards in order for people to better understand and appreciate them. I came up with the "pre-production", "production", and "post-production" segments years ago. Did someone come up with the same idea independant of me? Or did someone here - I won't name names - read it here years ago and pack it away in the recesses of their unconscious until now? Or was it just blatantly lifted? If I'm in any way responsible for the structure of this broadcast, I'd like to know to what extent. And can I get a job, please?

Oh, and a clip from Braveheart interspersed with Milk, that wasn't your idea, was it?

You know how sometimes you get those unfortunate Oscar years where the headlining award winners give the awkward embarrassing speeches, and the tech people outshine? It was the opposite this year. Give it up to the big guns tonight. Milk didn't win Best Picture, which I know many here wanted to see, but it took home Screenplay and a not-at-all-certain Actor prize, and that ain't cheese-whiz. But even better were the speeches by Penn (the delivery was a huge improvement over his previous halting, lumbering speech from five years ago) and Black, each in their way addressing their own age demographics. These speeches may prove to do more for the cause of gay marriage and equal rights than anything Obama has done so far and from the looks of things will ever do. Political speeches? These were calls for political activism. As Tina Fey would say, Bill O'Reilly, suck it! And yes, Kate, there is that line in between teary and blubbering, and I'm glad you learned it since your Globes breakdown(s).

It couldn't have been an accident that the very somber presentation for the Best Documentary category immediately followed the Heath Ledger win, although His Smugness Bill Mahr broke the mood.

What an awesome set that was!

Sofia, I hate to break it to you, but you're old. Learn to accept it.

I appreciate that not everyone here likes Slumdog Millionaire. I would not say it acheives greatness either, although I'm going to see it again to see if it holds up. Except for Slumdog, I've seen every Best Picture nominee twice. I liked them all except for "The Reader", but I thought for a while "Slumdog" was better than any of them... until I finally got around to "Benjamin Button" and now I'm rethinking this, but let's save that for another time. I don't think "Slumdog" is a four-star movie, but I would call it a very nifty hippie movie, espousing such banal ideas and themes with such earnestness and emotional investment (actually, "Ben Button" does this too), that I dug it. But you all know the real reason why I was rooting for it. And she had the night of her life. Hey, she's had the last few months of her life. There's Anil Kapoor on the front page of CNN.com. Cool! A.R. Rahman is a two-time Oscar winner. Speaking as someone who has known Rahman's music longer than anyone else here on the board except for Reza, you can't know how thrilling that is. The whole juggernaut has been a thrill. When I read some people here having nothing but contempt for the film, that's perfectly okay but it is a little bit of a heartstab for me to read. But it was to be expected and I certainly don't begrudge anyone their opinion. Although if Titanic can win 11 Oscars, why resent poor Slumdog its 8?

But I throw down the gauntlet at the nasty cracks (not always here) that Rahman's wins for score and song were based on political correctness, or an opportunity to ride the Slumdog juggernaut, or what a travesty because this upstart's music clearly does not measure up to the veteran composers who have been nominated year after year and anyone with ears can hear that. If you have a preference over Rahman, I won't quarrel.* But say that this music is so inferior to its competion, and I reserve the right to say you're a limited Western-centric pig. This is contempory Indian music, film and pop. And as such, A.R. Rahman is the king of his field. Which Indian composers do you prefer? And how can one judge Rahman is so inferior when his musical cultural background is so unlike that of his competition? Of course, the question could be turned back at me. How can we judge if Rahman is better than the competish, for those same reasons? But then we get into issues of how can art be judged at all against, especially when it's so disperate from each other, and we'll be getting into Woody Allen disregard-the-Oscars-entirely territory.

*Again, as someone who has been a fan of Rahman for 12 or 15 years, I can comfortably speak with authority when I say: I don't LIKE "Jai Ho" very much. Oh, I love the soaring "Jai Hoooooo!" part of it, but Rahman has always been at his weakest when he employs foursquare rhythms, and the song is rather arch to me. He's far more interesting when he incorporates eastern rhythms into his pop, and "O Saya" is far more bracing to me. Of course, it had no chance of winning since it doesn't sound anything like a song as defied by our boring conventions of verse-chorus. And the production and engineering is like nothing I've heard from any other Rahman so I suspect M.I.A. had a big hand in this. As for score, I probably would have voted for Desplat, whose score for "Button" is chillingly good (reminds me of Prokofiev's 5th symphony adagio, for all you music geeks.) But Rahman's score is quality "world music" and if you can't hear it, trust me. Don't distrust the music.

[Penelope]

1) Clips of performances...come on now. Help Michael Shannon out.

3) I WANT TO SEE CLIPS OF THE NOMINATED FILMS THROUGHOUT THE BROADCAST. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. -- if you must, break up the finale montage into five parts throughout the broadcast so it's not just one lump sum.
4) Um, please try to tell us the difference between Sound Mixing and Sound Effects.

Really, Sabin? Haven't you already seen the movies? Personally, I thought Eva Marie Saint and Robert DeNiro going on about how much they loved so-and-so's acting was far more refreshing and genuine than seeing a generic clip that we've seen over and over all season long. I mean, I thought we were here because we HAVE seen the movies?

But I whole-heartedly agree with #4. I STILL don't know what the difference is, and I suspect most members of the Academy don't know either--otherwise, why would The Loud Knight have won?



Edited By Penelope on 1235375907