Oscar Ceremony

[Big Magilla]

As I said in an edited portion below: this happened when Laurence Olivier gave out best picture to Amadeus for 1984; that night, it was clearly a screw-up by an addled old guy (and winner Saul Zaentz tried to cover for it by naming the other films in his acceptance speech).

In this case, because Cynthia Erivo/Ariana Grande also gave out best song without reading the nominees (on the basis we'd heard all the names when individual songs were introduced), it suggested this method could have been intended -- that the showing of clips for each of the 10 nominated films was considered sufficient as citation, and Pacino reading out the winner without preamble was his actual assignment.

But the fact that Al stumbled out there, seemingly three sheets to the wind, didn't inspire any confidence this was the plan. I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure.

We do know. It was reported and confirmed elsewhere that the plan was for Pacino and Michelle Pfeifer (who dropped out at the last minute) to be introduced as the stars of the 40-year-old remake of Scarface on the eve of its 4K UHD Blu-ray restoration, recap the ten nominated films and open the envelope. The producers then changed the set-up to introduce Pacino as the star of the (not-quite-yet) 50-year-old Godfather II, recap the ten nominated films and open the envelope. Everything got tight at the last minute thanks to Trump's tweet and Kimmel's reading of it that they told Pacino to just open the envelope. The soon-to-be 84-year-old legend did so without the help of a teleprompter proving that his ability to ad-lib isn't his strong suit.

[Mister Tee]

I'm seeing a few complaints about how predictable the ceremony was, which is something we've been complaining about a little bit. The biggest surprises were Best Sound and Best Actress, both of which were BAFTA winners.

It was refreshing the blogger consensus failed in several areas, but the fact that we're still subject to BAFTA/SAG hegemony means we might never see a genuine surprise -- a Don Ameche, Marisa Tomei, Adrien Brody -- again. Till someone wins without a major precursor, the Oscars are irredeemably less fun than they used to be.

[Mister Tee]

mlrg wrote

When Tom Hanks presented best picture to The Hurt Locker he also didn’t recap the nominees and opened the envelope straight away.

I don’t recall anyone complaining about that back then.

The short answer is bc this felt more chaotic.
[/quote]
As I said in an edited portion below: this happened when Laurence Olivier gave out best picture to Amadeus for 1984; that night, it was clearly a screw-up by an addled old guy (and winner Saul Zaentz tried to cover for it by naming the other films in his acceptance speech).

In this case, because Cynthia Erivo/Ariana Grande also gave out best song without reading the nominees (on the basis we'd heard all the names when individual songs were introduced), it suggested this method could have been intended -- that the showing of clips for each of the 10 nominated films was considered sufficient as citation, and Pacino reading out the winner without preamble was his actual assignment.

But the fact that Al stumbled out there, seemingly three sheets to the wind, didn't inspire any confidence this was the plan. I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure.

[Eenusch]

Just finished looking at 188 Oscar photos on IMDB.com from the red carpet, backstage, and post-show parties.

I have no idea who 75% of these celebrities are and I'm not that old.

In 1984 when I was a teen I would not have been this clueless.

[Sabin]

mlrg wrote

When Tom Hanks presented best picture to The Hurt Locker he also didn’t recap the nominees and opened the envelope straight away.

I don’t recall anyone complaining about that back then.[/quote]
The short answer is bc this felt more chaotic.

[mlrg]

When Tom Hanks presented best picture to The Hurt Locker he also didn’t recap the nominees and opened the envelope straight away.

I don’t recall anyone complaining about that back then.

[Sabin]

I just realized something. Jimmy Kimmel sort of pointed this out during the show but if they gave Al Pacino the Best Actress envelope again the same thing would've happened. He would've read out Poor Things. Because he 100% was not in a following the rules kind of mood that night.

I know Al Pacino says that the producers told him to skip reading off the nominees but I don't totally trust his recollection of the events.

Like, I don't know how the conversation with Al Pacino went but I'm guessing it was something like this:

"Al, just read the nominees off the card."
"Got it! So I get up there and the card will tell me the names of the nominees..."
"Oh fuck. He's wasted."
"HELLO, CARD! IT'S ME! AL PACINO! WE'RE GONNA BE FRIENDS FOR THE NEXT FEW HOURS."
"No, Al, you're up in two minutes..."
"UH OH! CARD? DO YOU HEAR THAT? I'M HEARING VOICES AGAIN, CARD. WHAT'S HAPPENING? WHERE AM I?"

[Reza]

There's a ton of controversy around Jonathan Glazer's comments ranging from disagreement to straight-up mangling his (admittedly somewhat unclear) statement.

Controversy for the sake of controversy. Frankly there is no controversy. It was absolutely clear that Glazer was soundly condemning both the October 7 attack on Israel as well as Israel's continued attacks on Gaza.

The controversy, if any, is being created by the pro-Israel factions who can't bear the fact that Glazer also condemned Israel's relentless attacks on Gaza.

Glazer's speech was clearly about peace - an anti-war stance.

[Sabin]

It seems like general consensus is mixed leaning positive, which is a triumph as far as Oscars are concerned. Maybe we're out of the retooling era. The two standouts seem to be Gosling's "I'm Just Ken" number and John Mulaney. Those are higher highs than most shows get. On the con side, Jimmy Kimmel's reception seems pretty negative. There's a ton of controversy around Jonathan Glazer's comments ranging from disagreement to straight-up mangling his (admittedly somewhat unclear) statement. I'm seeing a few complaints about how predictable the ceremony was, which is something we've been complaining about a little bit. The biggest surprises were Best Sound and Best Actress, both of which were BAFTA winners.

Ratings were up, but it's still tallest kid in kindergarten territory. The 19.5 million is under the freakout we saw in 2018 and the lowest viewership in 40 years (ahem... 26.5 million, now an unachievable bullseye) which led to years to retooling. If the answer is "Uh, let's put it on Sunday an hour earlier and not make it a schizophrenic mess" sounds like a fine solution.

Hopefully we're out of the retooling era.

[Big Magilla]

Wes Anderson's explanation of his absence:

“If I could have been there, I (along with [producer] Steven Rales) would have said ‘Thank You’ to: the family of Roald Dahl; the team at Netflix; Benedict [Cumberbatch] and Ralph [Fiennes] and Ben Kingsley and Dev [Patel] … and more [of the cast and crew],” Anderson stated. “And also: If I had not met Owen Wilson in a corridor at the University of Texas between classes when I was 18 years old, I would certainly not be receiving this award tonight — but unfortunately Steven and I are in Germany and we start shooting our new movie early tomorrow morning, so I did not actually receive the award [in person] or get a chance to say any of that.”

[Mister Tee]

So...

My experience of the Oscar show, when it finally arrives, is always so scattered -- I'm hearing the jokes, monitoring the winners, but also serving drinks, dinner and dessert, chatting with friends...it all becomes a blur. I have my overall impression, but it takes me till after I've watched my DVR (fast-forwarding quite a bit) to really nail my thoughts.

For me, it's always been more about the winners than the showmanship -- there've been technically horrible years I've loved because the winners have been either so much to my taste, or so surprising. The former is, as ever, hit-and-miss, and the latter very difficult to achieve in this era of drowning in precursors and algorithms that lead to everyone in your orbit predicting the same winners. So, I've narrowed it down some: I'm pleased if, at least in a few cases, winners differ from the hive-mind consensus. There was just enough of that this year that I view the show as a plus.

Kudos, in case no one noticed, to BAFTA, which -- a year after matching in no above-the-line categories (and precious few below) -- nearly ran the AMPAS table, including in the only major category where it differed from SAG. I guess that "whichever precursor goes last rules" premise didn't last through its maiden voyage.

I'll agree with most below that Kimmel wasn't as good as he's been in other years (last year in particular), but I think people are going overboard in suggesting he should be tossed aside at this point. He wasn't great, but he wasn't desperately unfunny -- I mean, just compare him to any host of any other show this year. And his reading of the tweet near the end -- with a beautifully coined one-liner to follow -- was prime stuff. According to press reports, the producers didn't want him reading the tweet, but he insisted...for which I say, good call.

But, yes: John Mulaney's two minutes or so of madcap free association on Field of Dreams was deeply hilarious, and I couldn't ever object to giving him a shot at the gig. I thought a good many other people did well with their bits, as well -- Catherine O'Hara and Michael Keaton, then Keaton from the audience playing off the Twins reunion; Gosling and Blunt, McKinnon and Ferrera, John Cena. Sadly, Melissa McCarthy/Octavia Spencer not among them; they really tried hard (Melissa, especially), but the material just wouldn't levitate.

Though the producers mostly stuck to their two-at-a-time/save-time strategy from last year, they had the good sense to separate the supporting awards -- in fact, putting supporting actor over an hour later than supporting actress. Which, as I argued last year, is the way to keep people engaged; you've only got so many face cards to play, and wasting two right off the top was insane strategy.

Unhappily, pushing the screenplay awards early in the show made a return visit. It didn't so much matter this year, as the screenplay awards felt oddly disconnected from best picture (as they sort of did in 2017, and very much so in 2004), but it's a bad strategy if we have a year where screenplay is dispositive (like, say, Green Book in 2018). The two winners were solid, by me (I don't quite get the hostility from some over the American Fiction win).

The early Boy and the Heron win was an early sign that the bloggers hadn't quite figured the entire slate out -- there were stray picks of Heron, but Spider-verse ruled most prediction lists. A bit deflating that Miyazaki wasn't there to accept.

Along those lines: was Wes Anderson's absence his way of saying "I don't care how much Netflix campaigned, I don't want a junior Oscar"?

The sad truth about the shorts categories is, they've now -- with full membership voting -- become a bigger-is-better arena. You could have predicted those three without watching a single nominees...in each case, the most heavily-promoted effort took the prize. Removing their potential for settling Oscar pools (not to mention the better film being acknowledged).

Wise scheduling, to put the single no-brainer-est acting category at the top. Randolph's speech was a high point.

Proving reactions can be affected by the attitude we bring in...having revealed my dubiousness about Downey in that post the other day, I -- unlike most here, it seems -- found his speech decently affecting.

The mid-point of the show was interesting at the Oscar nerd level -- Poor Things' big showing among the techs causing a bit of a stir (I can't tell you how much unseemly pride I took in outguessing the bloggers on the make-up category); The Zone of Interest actually pulling it off under sound. Oppenheimer had a mildly odd night -- no one can deny it had what constitutes a sweep in this era. But given that, as okri noted the other day, it could easily have hit double digits, losing that sound award, and seemingly not having been even considered for screenplay, gives a slightly hollow undertone to what is, from most angles, total triumph. Put it this way: Everything Everywhere won 7 awards last year by maxing out every place it could; Oppenheimer achieved the same total by getting close to its bare minimum.

I'm Just Ken seemed clearly designed to rock the show, and pulled it off with room to spare. I'll talk about Gosling in Who'll Be Back? later on, but, honestly, at this point you have to ask, what can't he do? He came out of the night a bigger star despite losing his category.

But ballads are what the Academy loves, and Billie Eilish triumphs again. I just love listening to her sing.

What put Oppenheimer above its minimum was, of course, Murphy winning a competitive lead actor category. Having Ben Kingsley introduce him seemed a canny choice: another not-especially-famous actor who won a lead acting award in connection with a sweeping biopic. It was certainly a good performance, and his speech was gracious.

I felt similar synergy when Spielberg arrived to award Nolan -- the trajectory the two have followed (being ignored for commercial work, having fans demand recognition, finally winning for a 3-hour historical work) is eerily similar.

I guess my ultimate comment about the five-wide intros to the acting awards is, I felt no compunction about fast-forwarding through them during my DVR rewatch. It was impressive that, I believe, both lead actor and actress assembled teams that represented five separate decades.

We who follow this stuff so incessantly never thought of Gladstone as "locked" in the same way that Downey and Randolph were, but others, I think, did. The problem with prediction-mania is, every category has to have a favorite, even when the competition is more wide open. So, many read the widespread predictions for Gladstone as ensuring her a win, and viewed Stone's (clearly possible, not remotely undeserved) win as a huge upset and borderline insult. (Several at our party reacted that way.) It reminds me a bit of when Winona Ryder became the favorite-because-some-has-to-be for an earlier Scorsese movie, The Age of Innocence, and it felt like a rejection of her when Anna Paquin won instead. We, as fans, love these moments for their drama, but actors have to be wounded by them. (Though Gladstone projected great enthusiasm for Stone, feigned or not.)

And that's about it, until I remember other stuff I meant to say. Not the best year, not the worst. I presume I'll be along for another round next March.

ON EDIT: It's hard to tell if Pacino screwed up, going right to opening the envelope without reading the nominees. It was a definite faux pas when Olivier did it all those years ago ("And the winner is...Amadeus!"). But best song was announced the same way, without introduction, the premise being "You've heard all the songs, here's the winner" It may have been the individual clips of each nominated film over the course of the evening were meant to serve as the reading of the nominees. Or addled Pacino blew it. Maybe we'll get a definitive answer on that over the next few days.

ON EDIT 2: Anatomy of a Fall is the 5th (mostly) non-English-language effort to win original screenplay. But it, and Parasite 4 years ago, are of a different breed from the international efforts that previously triumphed in the category.

Divorce-Italian Style, the first barrier breaker, won because its competition consisted of two way-weirder foreign films (Through a Glass Darkly and Last Year at Marienbad), a second-tier single-nomination Huston film (Freud), and yet another smarmy Doris Day comedy (That Touch of Mink), of which even the Academy was getting sick. In that context, an actor/director-nominated Italian comedy hit was nearly the most populist choice.

A Man and a Woman, a major make-out hit of the era, also had acting/directing nominations, which put it above such minor/single-nod efforts as Khartoum and the Naked Prey, and second-tier Billy Wilder (The Fortune Cookie). With Blow Up its major competition, A Man and a Woman was, if anything, the conservative choice.

The next such occurrence -- 2002 -- did have a major best picture contender involved, Gangs of New York...but it was a best picture candidate that, in retrospect, felt a result of Harvey Weinstein bullying, as the film failed not only to win for Scorsese, it crapped out in categories (actor, production design song) where it seemed to have strong shots. It was also, from the start, viewed as a film whose direction covered over massive script flaws. Other nominees included a crappy comedy mostly there as salute to its financial success (My Big Fat Greek Wedding), a Todd Haynes movie -- always AMPAS kryptonite -- also viewed as directorial achievement. Two foreign films were the strongest of the batch, and Talk to Her's directing nomination put it a notch over Y Tu Mama Tambien.

These films won screenplay prizes primarily because of the weakness of the field surrounding them. But that's not been the case with the past two wins. Parasite triumphed over at least two films -- Marriage Story and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood -- that would have been top-drawer choices. And Anatomy of a Fall beat out fellow non-English Past Lives plus The Holdovers, the sort of movie that has routinely won in the past.

Conclusion: it's possible that, rather than only winning when there's no better option, foreign films are now competing on closer to an even field with English-language efforts.

[Franz Ferdinand]

Supposedly Ryan Gosling referred to his performance of "I'm Just Ken" as "when you lose the Oscar but win the show." I didn't thnk it was all that, but okay.

The School of Rock example when No Vacancy wins the Battle of the Bands but clearly School of Rock steals the audience's hearts.

[Big Magilla]

I thought it was an average show but well done for what it was.

There were no obnoxious presenters and most of the acceptance speeches were what you'd more or less expect. Cord Jefferson, Da'Vine Joy Randolph, and a genuinely surprised Emma Stone came off best.

Supposedly Ryan Gosling referred to his performance of "I'm Just Ken" as "when you lose the Oscar but win the show." I didn't thnk it was all that, but okay.

[Sabin]

It started off pretty shaky with Jimmy Kimmel's opening monologue. I groaned when the tribunals started up. I'd argue it settled into a little more of a groove as it went along. Some presenters fell flat, some were funny, and some were in between. On the whole, the film has a loose, occasionally weird feeling as winners ran into presenters back stage. It felt super un-choreographed. Even though Oppenheimer won the same total of wins as Everything Everywhere All At Once (and Poor Things won the same number as All Quiet on the Western Front!) the night lacked the feeling of a unifying winning film. Winners from Oppenheimer felt a little more free agent, especially Downey Jr who gave a lousy speech. The Poor Things winners felt a little more on the same page. The songs ranged from good to excellent. I suspect that memories of this Oscar ceremony will always have a high ceiling if only for the "I'm Just Ken" number which appropriately brought the house down. The night's MVP was probably Ryan Gosling who demonstrated terrific timing next to Emily Blunt with B- material. All things considered, the tribunals were probably appropriate because this night felt like a night for Hollywood to honor itself. I'm seeing mention of the number of political moments throughout the show. None of them landed IMO.

My favorite presenter had to be John Mulaney. Between this and his Governor's Awards speech, I'd be astonished if he doesn't end up hosting next year. I think Kimmel knows his time as Oscar host is done. He didn't really add anything fresh this year. I got the sense the room was a little tired of him. He's served his role as an Oscar host. His place in Oscar history is secure as both linked to the La La Land/Moonlight fiasco as well as playing damage control after years of host-less crap.

Best speech was probably Cord Jefferson's.

On the whole, the night was fine. I preferred this year's winners to last year's but last year's show felt a little stronger. This show is notoriously hard to do. Fine is fine.

[Eenusch]

I haven't watched the Oscars in its entirety live in maybe 10 years but tonight I joined about 600 others at a local theater and watched...and enjoyed it! I thought it was well paced and Kimmel did a fine job. He doesn't overpower the event like Billy Crystal or Bob Hope used to and I like that.

A solid B+ from me.