95th Oscars General Ceremony Discussion

[Mister Tee]

People have mostly chimed in with examples where the career performance did win, so a few others that clearly missed:

Paul Newman -- I'd say The Hustler, maybe Nobody's Fool if I'm in a more autumnal frame of mind. Definitely not The Color of Money.

Al Pacino -- need I say more? Of course, it would have helped if he'd been nominated lead in The Godfather, where he belonged.

Jack Lemmon -- for me, it's Some Like It Hot; some (including Sabin) might go The Apartment. Nobody's picking Save the Tiger.

Julianne Moore -- I like Still Alivce, but Far from Heaven was her peak work.

[Greg]

. . . but I don't think anyone thinks Bette Davis or Katharine Hepburn won in their finest hours.

I think Hepburn gave one of her best performances in The Lion In Winter. I haven't seen Davis' Jezebel.

[taki15]

how often have actors won for performances judged to be their finest? I think that's often been the case with mediocre actors who hit the high note once -- Ray Milland, Broderick Crawford, Nicolas Cage -- but I wonder if it's the exception and not the rule with actors whose careers have had more staying power. Cagney in Yankee Doodle Dandy, Brando in On the Waterfront, Penn in Milk are certainly positive examples... but I don't think anyone thinks Bette Davis or Katharine Hepburn won in their finest hours.

Frances McDormand in Fargo springs immediately to mind, at least among those with multiple wins. Jack Nicholson in Cuckoo's Nest as well.

I haven't done the full scan yet -- I used up most of my energy composing the recap -- but I'd agree with both of those. Also Fonda in Klute, Streep in Sophie's Choice (though Damien would have violently disagreed with the latter). On the other hand, Dustin Hoffman's Midnight Cowboy, Tootsie, or The Graduate would rank above either of his wins for most. I'm not sure where Kate Winslet would win, but The Reader wouldn't be a likely spot.

From the top of my head, Robert De Niro for Raging Bull, Anthony Hopkins for Silence of the Lambs, Sophia Loren for Two Women, Vivian Leigh for a Streetcar Named Desire, Daniel Day-Lewis for There Will Be Blood.

[Reza]

I'm not sure where Kate Winslet would win, but The Reader wouldn't be a likely spot.

Revolutionary Road? I don't think any of her actual nominations were worthy of a win.

[Mister Tee]

how often have actors won for performances judged to be their finest? I think that's often been the case with mediocre actors who hit the high note once -- Ray Milland, Broderick Crawford, Nicolas Cage -- but I wonder if it's the exception and not the rule with actors whose careers have had more staying power. Cagney in Yankee Doodle Dandy, Brando in On the Waterfront, Penn in Milk are certainly positive examples... but I don't think anyone thinks Bette Davis or Katharine Hepburn won in their finest hours.

Frances McDormand in Fargo springs immediately to mind, at least among those with multiple wins. Jack Nicholson in Cuckoo's Nest as well.

I haven't done the full scan yet -- I used up most of my energy composing the recap -- but I'd agree with both of those. Also Fonda in Klute, Streep in Sophie's Choice (though Damien would have violently disagreed with the latter). On the other hand, Dustin Hoffman's Midnight Cowboy, Tootsie, or The Graduate would rank above either of his wins for most. I'm not sure where Kate Winslet would win, but The Reader wouldn't be a likely spot.

[Eric]

how often have actors won for performances judged to be their finest? I think that's often been the case with mediocre actors who hit the high note once -- Ray Milland, Broderick Crawford, Nicolas Cage -- but I wonder if it's the exception and not the rule with actors whose careers have had more staying power. Cagney in Yankee Doodle Dandy, Brando in On the Waterfront, Penn in Milk are certainly positive examples... but I don't think anyone thinks Bette Davis or Katharine Hepburn won in their finest hours.

Frances McDormand in Fargo springs immediately to mind, at least among those with multiple wins. Jack Nicholson in Cuckoo's Nest as well.

[Big Magilla]

Taking up precious time for stars of a new Disney movie to essentially force a commercial into the show proper seemed something of a new low. Later on, they crammed in the Warner Brothers "tribute" -- which also had no purpose -- seemingly just to disguise the crassness of ABC promoting Disney. And why did a Warner Brothers tribute include clips from Singin' in the Rain and Ben-Hur? Just because those films are all part of Ted Turner's library doesn't mean they're Warners.

I address this in my wrap-up on Cinemasight.com which hasn't posted yet.

This was even worse than the Disney promo. It's Warner Home Video's promo for films currently available on Blu-ray, many of which are being marketed for the umpteenth time in combo packages, including the pre-1986 MGM catalogue and pre-1950 RKO catalogue which they own. King Kong, also included in the clip, was RKO. It is not a recap of classic Warner Bros. films which might have been nice to see if handled properly.

I ended my comment on this with by asking what they will do for MGM's 100th anniversary next year.

[Greg]

First film to win 7 or more Oscars since Gravity in 2013, first Best Picture winner to take more than 4 Oscars since The Artist in 2011, first Best Picture winner to take more than 5 Oscars since The Hurt Locker in 2009, and first to win more than 6 since Slumdog Millionaire in 2008.

When was the last time a film won six Oscars in the above-the-line categories? (Film, Directing, Acting and Screenplay.)

Never. Everything, Everywhere All At Once is the first. Three films managed five: It Happened One Night, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and The Silence of the Lambs.

Technically, Going My Way won six above-the-line awards; but, that is because its screenplay won two separate awards. That was back in the 1940s when single screenplays could win awards for both story and screenplay. Now, it is only possible for a single screenplay to win one award.

[Mister Tee]

I've been thinking a lot about something that was said by the editor of Everything Everywhere All At Once, whom everyone on Twitter is thirsting after. Put aside all that. I was really taken by something that he said to the Daniels. I'm not sure I've ever heard it before at the Oscars. He told his directors that the team they've assembled isn't all here because of the art that they make. They're there because of the people that they and and "if this all goes away, we're still here with you" or something like that. Basically saying, "Yeah, these Oscars are nice, but no matter what, we're your friends." That's really, really lovely. So glad his category wasn't cut this year. They found another way to keep it going by giving out two awards at once. I think they figured that out.

Anyway, this man deserves to be thirsted after.

Yeah, his name is Paul Rogers and he was remarkable on a number of fronts. The first thing I noticed was his body language, which was very composed and just chill while standing before the whole world. He said that this was the second film he’s ever worked on. He said that his wife was the most incredible woman in the room. Then he said all those nice things about who the Daniels are as people. It was clear that human connection is more important to him than craft. And, yeah, he’s a nice-looking guy. The swooning was well-earned.

I meant to single him out, as one of the most engaging, likable winners of the evening.

As far as the Daniels: a friend's two sons both worked on Swiss Army Man, and they, too, have nothing but nice things to say about the guys. Whatever else, they seem like genuinely good people.

[Mister Tee]

Not with a bang, but a whimper.

I've been clear about opining this was a deeply sub-par year -- third in a row, which I'll continue to attribute to the pandemic (pending the results of next year, which (on paper) looks more promising).

The only thing I could have hoped for, in such a context, was suspenseful races -- which did largely happen -- and a jolt or two of pleasure at the climax -- which, sadly, did not. The thing I most admired about this misbegotten year was the writing and, especially, acting in TAR and The Banshees of Inisherin. That all the people responsible for those things went home conspicuously prize-less made this a very disappointing evening for me. Like danfrank, I turned off the TV disconsolate.

To address things in more or less chronological order...

I thought Jimmy Kimmel's opening monologue was close to first-rate. Even playing it again today, it strikes me as having a very high laugh-quotient. Loved his Nicole Kidman/AMC joke (though maybe you have to see most of your movies at a local AMC to understand how mortally sick many of us are at seeing that blasted PSA over and over).

It happened too early to really land, and I wasn't utterly over the moon about it, but Del Toroi's Pinocchio was one of the more praiseworthy selections of the evening, so it wasn't the worst way to begin.

I'm baffled why the producers would choose to distribute both supporting Oscars so early in the evening. There are only so many (metaphorical) face cards among the 23 awards, and dealing out 2 of them among the first 3 prizes made for a close to 3-hour gap between them and the next awards most care about. Is the idea that the inattentive need to be grabbed in those opening minutes, and this is the only way to do it? I get giving one of them really early on -- that's a long-standing tradition -- but both seems ridiculous scheduling.

Weird thought: did they do it so Stephanie Hsu had time to get backstage for her unfortunate musical number?

Ke Huy Quan was such a done deal I had almost no reaction to his win. I can't believe he exists at that amped-up level so much of the time.

I at least enjoyed Jamie Lee Curtis' speech, and took some comfort in the fact that Angela Bassett didn't win. Bassett is a far more impressive actress than Curtis, but her work this year simply didn't rate recognition. Curtis' wasn't great, either -- I'd rate her 4th in the line-up, with Bassett 5th -- so, minor relief.

I don't know if someone's already noted it, but Curtis matches Laura Dern's feat, of winning after both parents were nominated and lost acting awards. She, like Dern, wins the category in which her mother lost. She exceeds Dern's years-span -- Dern won 45 years after her mother's first nomination; Curtis 62 years after Leigh's Psycho nod.

An Irish Goodbye's live short win was the only thing that averted an Irish shutout in their big year. Though the Avatar Visual effects guy appeared to hail from there, as well.

Taking up precious time for stars of a new Disney movie to essentially force a commercial into the show proper seemed something of a new low. Later on, they crammed in the Warner Brothers "tribute" -- which also had no purpose -- seemingly just to disguise the crassness of ABC promoting Disney. And why did a Warner Brothers tribute include clips from Singin' in the Rain and Ben-Hur? Just because those films are all part of Ted Turner's library doesn't mean they're Warners.

And how did Morgan Freeman -- and Margot Robbie, whose dreams of strolling in as best actress candidate this year took quite a tumble -- get themselves attached to such a cheesy stunt?

The Naatu Naatu number wasn't quite the knockout it was in the movie, but plenty lively, especially for a crowd who'd already suffered through a Diane Warren song and This is a Life. (I actually like the musicality of This is a Life, but the staging brought back memories of some of the worst 70s/80s numbers.) And, down the line, when the song won, it gave me one of my few moments of actual joy. (Though I found it odd the song award was paired up with sound. I don't think that's ever happened before.)

As far as the rest of the songs, my feeling about Gaga was, not much of a song, but she sure sold it. And I kind of like Rihanna's song. Oddly, didn't much care for it in her Super Bowl show, but liked it both in the movie and here.

The one frisson of interest in the entire evening came early in the 3rd hour, when All Quiet went on a seeming run, and a repeat of its BAFTA startler seemed a possibility. This came to a crashing halt with the screenplay awards, as the adapted prize was pretty much an obligatory part of any upset. And the corresponding (numbing) original screenplay award to Everything ended all hope.

In retrospect, All Quiet's brief hot roll was probably more evidence that you shouldn't bet on movies that bomb and people hate -- the two key categories involved (production design and score) were predicted by many to go to Babylon.

Elvis also crapped out unexpectedly below the line. I guess people will take the make-up result and the ultimate Fraser win as proof the two categories are intertwined. But I actually thought you could make a case this year for a split -- I (incorrectly) predicted Butler, but went with The Whale in make-up on the basis of its being a far more elaborate transformation, whatever the best actor result. If Mask could win it, I saw no reason The Whale wouldn't.

The adapted screenplay outcome was my other more or less happy moment of the night. Apologies to those here who don't like the film, but I thought it was the best of the paltry crew, and also enjoyed the angst it caused in people like Jordan Ruimy, who campaigned against the film as if it carried Ebola.

And then we got to the top awards, with hope flickeringly alive for my choices, but no satisfaction in the end. I find myself with a different take on best actor from dws', despite my not fully disagreeing with his opinions of the films/performances. I was completely behind Farrell (with Mescal/Nighy probably running 2nd/3rd), and, once it wasn't him, I was somewhat indifferent. I agree with dws that The Whale is a worse film than Elvis, but I'm not sure I agree that Butler was better than Fraser. And I guess I ended on the premise that I'd rather see a win by someone with at least a wisp of a resume than a total newbie. So, I preferred Fraser. (Also liked that he was, by my surveys, a 2-1 underdog in the category; he and Curtis -- who ran 3rd among predictors -- at least meant the bloggers missed some big categories.) His tribute to Hong Chau was one of the night's nicer elements.

By the time we got to best actress, it seemed almost impossible for Michelle Yeoh to lose, and that proved out. I'm sorry I couldn't be as excited for her as her deepest fans are. I just can't overlook the fact that a legendary performance was passed over in favor of something that made people feel good. Last year, I'd have had no trouble enjoying her win.

Two things:

Blanchett's loss, for a performance widely thought to be perhaps her greatest ever, got me to wondering: how often have actors won for performances judged to be their finest? I think that's often been the case with mediocre actors who hit the high note once -- Ray Milland, Broderick Crawford, Nicolas Cage -- but I wonder if it's the exception and not the rule with actors whose careers have had more staying power. Cagney in Yankee Doodle Dandy, Brando in On the Waterfront, Penn in Milk are certainly positive examples... but I don't think anyone thinks Bette Davis or Katharine Hepburn won in their finest hours. This might be a subject to look at in more detail after the season has washed away.

The three winners from Everything Everywhere definitely floated on narratives as much as their film's popularity, but, as someone pointed out at another site, those narratives had shades of difference. For Quan, it was kiddie star, years of disuse, stirring comeback. For Curtis, it was legacy LA citizenship, long-time laborer in undersung genres. For Yeoh, years of service, also in unsung genres (and ignored when her earlier film did hit the Oscar jackpot), and, no doubt, diversity (plus, her competition having already been heavily rewarded). A24 played all of these for all they were worth.

Sometimes, stats are just odd. Everything Everywhere becoming only the third film to win three acting prizes -- and the first to also win best picture -- is obviously some kind of achievement, but it's hard to square on the excellence model. It feels more a matter of timing than anything. Both those previous entries were kind of fluky themselves -- Streetcar because it seemed fully-possible it'd win all four, and only sentimental voting prevented that; Network because Straight was a flat upset, and Dunaway was in a tight race with Liv Ullmann -- the film could as easily have walked away with 1. One could also look at films that might easily have matched the 3-category parley over the years -- From Here to Eternity and On the Waterfront seem prime candidates. I guess it's a sign of how little this year's show engaged me, that I've drifted to long-term thoughts like these.

Odd thing for me: I don't know if I just wasn't paying enough attention, but when the cameras found Bill Nighy and Andrea Riseborough after their nominations were read out, it was the first time I'd been sure they were even in attendance. They were like ghost nominees.

So, Everything Everywhere somehow becomes one of the most feted films of recent decades. And All Quiet matches the strongest awards haul of any International Film winners, matching Fanny and Alexander, Crouching Tiger, and Parasite. Both those facts feel like instant entries into the Which One Doesn't Belong? Hall of Fame. Leading me to conclude, Forget it, Jake -- it's Pandemic Town.

I know, I've had halfway complimentary things to say about Everything Everywhere, but I warned I could turn cranky if I felt it was over-rewarded. Sadly that came to pass. The whole thing makes me feel just a bit old. I get the feeling, for many younger/Internet folk, this film's victory is what Midnight Cowboy's was for my generation: a sign that we were storming the gates, pushing aside the fusty tastes of our predecessors. I'd like to be more enthusiastic, but I just can't muster it up for what I see as an ultimately trivial film.

It happens, while I was cleaning up last night, I flipped over to TCM, where I caught the tail end of From Here to Eternity. I've mentioned previously, that was a key film in my coming to love movies. I was already a bit bewitched by the Oscars a year or two earlier, but when I saw this movie, at age 14, and subsequently found out it had won the top Oscars, that cemented in me an idea about the kinds of films that should win best picture. I've certainly been disappointed on that score many times over the years, but I don't know that the standard has ever felt further away than it has over these past few, post-Parasite years. It can come back, of course -- as a recovering Catholic, I'll always hold out hope of redemption. But keeping the faith requires flashes of reassurance. And this year's awards simply didn't provide me any.

[danfrank]

I've been thinking a lot about something that was said by the editor of Everything Everywhere All At Once, whom everyone on Twitter is thirsting after. Put aside all that. I was really taken by something that he said to the Daniels. I'm not sure I've ever heard it before at the Oscars. He told his directors that the team they've assembled isn't all here because of the art that they make. They're there because of the people that they and and "if this all goes away, we're still here with you" or something like that. Basically saying, "Yeah, these Oscars are nice, but no matter what, we're your friends." That's really, really lovely. So glad his category wasn't cut this year. They found another way to keep it going by giving out two awards at once. I think they figured that out.

Anyway, this man deserves to be thirsted after.

Yeah, his name is Paul Rogers and he was remarkable on a number of fronts. The first thing I noticed was his body language, which was very composed and just chill while standing before the whole world. He said that this was the second film he’s ever worked on. He said that his wife was the most incredible woman in the room. Then he said all those nice things about who the Daniels are as people. It was clear that human connection is more important to him than craft. And, yeah, he’s a nice-looking guy. The swooning was well-earned.

[Sabin]

I've been thinking a lot about something that was said by the editor of Everything Everywhere All At Once, whom everyone on Twitter is thirsting after. Put aside all that. I was really taken by something that he said to the Daniels. I'm not sure I've ever heard it before at the Oscars. He told his directors that the team they've assembled isn't all here because of the art that they make. They're there because of the people that they and and "if this all goes away, we're still here with you" or something like that. Basically saying, "Yeah, these Oscars are nice, but no matter what, we're your friends." That's really, really lovely. So glad his category wasn't cut this year. They found another way to keep it going by giving out two awards at once. I think they figured that out.

Anyway, this man deserves to be thirsted after.

[Reza]

I turned off the show feeling disappointed. There are far worse films than EEAAO to have won Best Picture, but it felt like none of the major winners were truly the best of the year. Reza is right that sentiment played a huge part in the selection of the acting winners. It’s as if the Academy is more interested in telling a story than in selecting the best of the year. I know this is nothing unusual when it comes to the Oscars, but it’s nevertheless disappointing.

The Academy does mainly choose deserving winners but sentiment has often played a part in actors winning. In hindsight one cannot really begrudge those cases as it allowed great actors to finally win which became a tribute to their very long and distinguished careers - John Wayne and Henry Fonda are just two in a rather long list.

This year the best performance by an actress in a leading role was Cate Blanchett. Yeoh's win made for a feel-good moment and one came away happy for her while thinking Blanchett already has two Oscars so no big deal. Blanchett is sure to be back while most probably this was Yeoh's only chance.

Similarly Jamie Lee Curtis' win was a tribute to her Hollywood background and very long career. She was the least exciting aspect of her movie and didn't really deserve it. But you can't begrudge the win. It was received with great rapture by the audience. And no Angela Bassett did not deserve the award either. If not this sentimental choice it should really have gone to Kerry Condon. But you can't deny that a Condon win would not have been as crowd pleasing as the one for Curtis. The Oscars are a show after all and their foremost concern is entertainment and ratings. That's Hollywood for you. Business first.

[danfrank]

The ceremony was… fine. Jimmy Kimmel is an unobtrusive host, more nice than edgy, entertaining enough. The show had two low points, the ghastly performance of that EEAAO song, and the decision to use the ceremony to advertise an upcoming Disney film. There were some nice speeches. The Naatu Naatu composer singing the Carpenters song was hilarious.

I turned off the show feeling disappointed. There are far worse films than EEAAO to have won Best Picture, but it felt like none of the major winners were truly the best of the year. Reza is right that sentiment played a huge part in the selection of the acting winners. It’s as if the Academy is more interested in telling a story than in selecting the best of the year. I know this is nothing unusual when it comes to the Oscars, but it’s nevertheless disappointing.

[Reza]

Ruth Carter is the first Black woman to win two Oscars.