Okay, it's my annual take on the Oscars.
First off, as of Saturday morning I hadn't seen any of the "Best Picture" nominees. By the time the Oscars aired, I had seen four of the five. Plus "Doubt', which wasn't nominated, but should have been. And I don't want to say how I saw them - I did NOT illegally download movies - but I still feel dirty. Out of guilt I will have to buy the DVD's when they come out. Let's just say that Chinese YouTube (YouKu) doesn't follow the same infringement laws as the U.S.
So, "Slumdog Millionaire" won. Did it deserve it? That's a great question. Of the nominees I saw (I didn't watch "Frost/Nixon") it was the least depressing. But while everyone is touting it as the 'feel good movie of the year', I have to warn you that it was the most depressing 'feel good' movie I have ever seen. Sure, it has a 'happy ending'. But it takes a long, arduous, painful journey to get there. Still, I liked it better than "The Reader" (in all fairness, I read the book and hated it, so the fact that the picture was as slow, dull and self-important as it was was no surprise.) "Milk" was a good movie (I'd say it was a great movie, but there is a documentary narrated by Harvey Feirstein, called "The Times of Harvey Milk" that covered this same subject better, it was a great movie so "Milk" only gets a 'good' from me.) Josh Brolin was good in "Milk", so deserving of his nomination. Sean Penn? Well, we'll get to that later. "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" was good too. So they were all excellent choices for Best Picture. But they all made me long for Prozac. In the end, I'll say yes, the right movie won "Best Picture". But probably a little of that was for the little indie film, which Oscar loves to recognize so that it can feel proud of itself while still sucking at the teat of corporate film making.
Okay, on to Oscar night itself. Dull. Dull. Dull. In a time when the economy is bad, I want happy, gaudy, over the top Oscars. But it was a sea of beige, with a bland host, hardly any comedy and a musical number that was, well, weird. First, Hugh Jackman. Lovely man, very handsome, still faithful to his wife, incredibly talented. Not an Oscar host. A Tony host? Sure, absolutely. But Oscars, not so much. There is a reason why the best Oscar hosts (Carson and Crystal, IMO) are comedians, because this night needs the levity. The opening number was okay, but not boffo and it went downhill from there. The only "highlights' for me were Jackman's intimation that Streep's numerous nominations might be the result of performance enhancing drugs, Tina Fey with Steve Martin (Fey: "Someone once wrote "To write is to live forever", Martin: "The person who wrote that is dead") and Ben Stiller's hilarious send up of Joaquin Phoenix, which was brilliant. But there were no over-the-top gowns or production numbers, no crazy flubs (unless you count Alan Arkin calling 'Phillip Seymour Hoffman' as "Seymour Phillip Hoffman' as crazy.
First up was "Best Supporting Actress" which showed the bizarre new format for the night of five former winners in the category introducing the five nominees in kissy-kissy fest that brought so many nominees to pseudo tears. (Real tears ruin makeup). The winner was Penelope Cruz. Not that she wasn't good enough to win, but Viola Davis in "Doubt" brought my mother to real tears - real, eye reddening, makeup smearing tears. (By the way, my mother watched "Doubt" with me and said that was the worst thing (meaning the legality of watching pirated video on the net) she has done in many, many years. Which made me think, it's probably not the worst thing I've done this month. It's tough to live with a saint.) So Viola was my choice, but she was in only one scene of the movie. Next was "Best Supporting Actor". And by next, I mean an hour and seventeen minutes later.
Look, I love the awards for screenwriting, documentary, short subject, makeup and set design as much as the next person (an probably more than the next person, unless the next person is a nominee for screenwriting, documentary, short subject, makeup or set design.) But there has to be a better way to intersperse the five "big" awards so that one isn't at 5:43, one at 7:30 and three at 8:42. I'm just saying, that's all. Of course, "Best Supporting Actor" went to Heath Ledger. You could have bet the farm. Not that you really could have bet the farm since his Vegas odds were 1-2. (Yes, you would have lost a dollar on that bet if you had won, weird, huh?) It was a really great performance by Heath, I'm just not entirely convinced that he would have won had he not died.
Disappointments? Well, I missed having five song nominees. The Academy decreed that no more than two songs could come from a single film (after last year's three songs from "Enchanted" debacle) but to then have only three songs with two of them from "Slumdog Millionaire" win wasn't any better. Worse was the tribute number where they tried to mix the two Bollywood songs with the Peter Gabriel song from "Wall E". It was awkward and odd. 'Jai Ho' won, probably the first time a Best Song went to a song that most Americans couldn't understand the lyrics to (not counting Bob Dylan singing the "Wonder Boys" song in 2001.) And the "In Memoriam" is one of my favorite parts of the Oscar telecast and having Queen Latifah sing was fine, in fact she did a beautiful rendition of "I'll Be Seeing You" but they should seriously fire the director who kept the camera on her while ignoring the video with the dead people on it. Um, hey, it's the point of the memorial segment to show the dead people. I don't know whose picture I missed due to this blunderheaded move but I hope their families get really mad at the Academy. Also, while I harangue the Academy, what was with the 'advertisements' for upcoming releases at the end of the show? Tacky, tacky, tacky.
Okay, "Best Actress" went to Kate Winslet. Now I like Kate just fine, although I think calling her 'the finest actress of her generation" is laying it on a bit thick. But she did not deserve her win last night. I know that Meryl Streep is nominated for an award every time she sneezes, but she was wonderful in "Doubt". Much better than Kate. (I'm sorry Kate, but you know it's true.) But Kate has been nominated six times and never won before so I guess the Academy thought they had better honor her before she did a Susan Lucci. It still seemed odd though, considering hardly anyone even saw "The Reader" (heck even Hugh Jackman did a joke about it.) "Best Actor" went to Sean Penn and while my secret hope was for Richard Jenkins (and my mom was rooting for anyone BUT Penn or Brad Pitt) I can see why he won. I even liked his speech, or at least the first 45 seconds of it. Then he went all political and lost me. Plus he didn't thank his wife. Guess the reconciliation isn't going as well as they would like.
And then the big win for "Slumdog Millionaire" which won awards it wasn't even nominated for. (Just kidding!) I agree with the "Best Picture" win but I have a quibble with the "Best Cinematography" win. But that's just my opinion and since I'm not an Academy member (yet) my vote doesn't count.
Okay, on to fashion. I'm no stylista and I don't much care but here is my two cents. Best gown to Natalie Portman because it wasn't beige, black, grey or navy blue (was this a funeral?) Worst gown, Miley Cyrus (and what the hell was she doing at the Academy Awards? Oh, wait, Disney owns ABC.) Worst jewelry, Angelina Jolie. I'm sure those emeralds cost a bloody fortune but they could have been from a candy machine and no one would have been able to tell the difference. Gaudy and ugly. And didn't anyone tell her that emeralds are unlucky? And did anyone else notice how similar in style and color the dress that Queen Latifah wore to sing and the dress that Reese Witherspoon came out in moments later were? I would have thought they exchanged clothes except Resse is a size 00 and Latifah is a ginormous size ten or twelve (which is heifer by industry standards.)
And my favorite red carpet moment? When someone asked Miley Cyrus (after he asked her to plug the new "Hannah Montana" movie that opens in April) if she would like to be a nominee someday and she said "Oh yes, I'd love to be nominated for this film, it's very different than what you expect". Um, Miley, the chances of you being nominated for an Oscar for a Hannah Montana film are about the same as me being nominated next year for the film I'm working on. Not if you were the last actress on the planet Earth. Sorry kid, but thanks for a great moment of humor.
Okay, the 2009 awards are over. Next year, more glitz, more humor and more fun, please!
3 comments:
You and I agree on a lot. Not everything, but a lot. I liked the show overall. I thought Hugh Jackman did a fine job. But I would have to say that Crystal is still my favorite. I also liked it when Carson, Goldberg, and DeGeneres hosted. Over the years though, I've always thought they made too big a deal about the host which leads to people trying too hard to come up with something great and then missing the mark.
I was also really ticked off at how they handled the in memoriam segment. I didn't even realize that I missed some altogether until you wrote it, but I did notice that they didn't make the pictures of honorees full screen which meant I couldn't read their names, so unless it was a super famous actor/actress, I didn't know who they were. It was awful and really annoyed me.
You are right in that there were no real stand out dresses, but at least there were no dead birds draped around anyone's neck. Natalie Portman did look great - I think she was born with more class and good taste than most people achieve over a lifetime. I was so glad you had posted about Joaquin last week, otherwise I wouldn't have had a clue as to what Stiller was up to. That was hilarious. And I really liked the Tina Fey/Steve Martin bit, particularly when he told her not to fall in love with him.
I thought the skirt for Myley's dress was ok, but I hated the top of it. (Sometime's you wonder why they pay stylists who obviously have no style.) I couldn't decide if I liked Marisa's pleats - it was very unusual but I think I would have had to look at it a while longer to really make up my mind. I had the gumball machine thought about Angelina's jewelry, too. What was she thinking? Bigger is not always better.
As for the winners, I have not seen most of the nominees so I can't really say if there was a lot of injustice. Noreen told me she really wanted Viola Davis to win, too. I did not see Doubt yet so I can't comment. I did see Vicky Cristina Barcelona and while I liked the movie overall and I thought Penelope did a good job, I don't know that it was an Oscar worthy performance. After seeing it, I was a little surprised that she had been nominated at all. I also saw the Dark Knight and thought Heath was fantastic. But it was a very quirky role and those are not usually rewarded at the Oscars so I, too, wonder if he would have gotten it had he lived.
I also thought it was ridiculous that there were only three songs nominated. I can't believe that with all the movies that are released in a year, they couldn't come up with two more Oscar worthy songs.
Where you and I really part company, though, is the five previous winners presenting to the nominated actors. I liked that a lot. Maybe I'm just a sap, but some of the tributes almost made ME cry, never mind the nominees. And I liked it because it gave more recognition to those who didn't ultimately win. Getting nominated is a big deal and I think it was nice that each nominee got a bit more than their names read aloud and a clip from the movie shown. I think this made it a little more personal for them. And I especially liked it for those nominees that aren't super famous - Richard Jenkins and that woman from Frozen Creek, for example.
I was wondering about the Robin/Sean reconciliation, too. Last night, and at the Golden Globes, too, she didn't really look too thrilled to be there. She did smile and kiss him when he won, though. But it was sucky that he didn't mention her. But he didn't mention his kids, either. I guess he was just too busy trying to get his political message across.
Anyway, sorry to have gone on so long, but I'm glad I could share my thoughts with you, Shae. Larry is not that big into the Oscars so I don't have anyone to talk to about it! And I honestly can't wait until the day comes when they are reading your name for best screenwriter!!
Maura-
Don't apologize, the Oscars are my Superbowl, I love having another commentator to do play by play!
I didn't hate the multiple presenters thing, and when they went "off book" I liked it. But most of the commentary had little to do with the role they played and when people see scenes from films they might then want to go see those films. (Melissa Leo from "Frozen River" is a great example...but with her intro I don't think many people will rent the flick.)
I think Marisa's pleats were a bit much (one commentator called them 'napkins') but I really hated the beige. In a different color the dress would have been bold haute couture. But in beige, not so much.
And how can you not fall in love with Steve Martin. it's like telling ice cream to not be delicious.
This is why I didn't watch the Oscars. I knew you'd give me a better run-down of the whole thing than the show itself. Thanks for such a thorough review. (Oh and I didn't see one of the movies nominated for Best Picture.) I saw Dark Night and I think that's it for movies where people were nominated. Sad part is I saw more of the movies on the Razzies list.
Anyway, I've been in love with Steve Martin forever.
Post a Comment