Tuesday, March 9, 2010

My Oscar Reflections

Another year's Academy Awards have come and gone and I haven't been this happy with the winners since the 79th awards show three years ago (way to go Marty!). Sure, Sandra Bullock got her predicted and undeserved Oscar, but for some reason I am okay with that now. It might be the fact that I had all ready come to terms with the inevitable or it might just be that the ending of her speech really won me over. Whatever the case, this is the first year in a while where I was pleased with most of the Academy's choices.

THE SHOW ITSELF

Is it just me or did this show kind of suck? I love Neil Patrick Harris, but his opening musical number wasn't funny...at all. And don't get me started on Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin. Their jokes fell flat faster than COP OUT at the box office (ZING!!!). What happened to the golden days of award show hosts with people like Billy Crystal? His opening parodies of movies always killed. I remember the year TITANIC was nominated and Crystal was super imposed into various scenes of the film. I was rolling on the floor with laughter! I don't think there has been a show that has made me laugh that much since. The only host who really came close for me was Jon Stewart and maybe Chris Rock.

The problem with Martin and Baldwin was...I don't really know. It should have worked. I really like Steve Martin as long as he's not trying to fill the shoes of Peter Sellers and Baldwin gets a lot of laughs from me on 30 Rock. What happened? Perhaps they played it too safe? Probably. Plus, there weren't nearly enough sketches for them to stretch their comedic wings. I enjoy breaks in the awards with funny sketches here and there. They were completely absent this year save for the musical number at the beginning which I all ready stated bombed big.

On the subject of breaks from the awards, when did they decide not to perform the nominated original songs? I always enjoyed that! I really wanted to hear "The Weary Kind" live! Damn you, Academy!

Add some interpretive dance into the show where dancers were breaking dancing to THE HURT LOCKER score and doing the robot to the UP score and you'll find it kind of sucked overall. Step it up, Academy!

Finally, you have the tribute to horror films toward the middle of the ceremony. It was great watching all my favorite horror films and monsters presented through a clip show wonderfully during the Academy Awards, but why did they have to have those TWILIGHT fucks present it? And why was a clip from one of those films included in the tribute? TWILIGHT isn't horror, people. It's a tween romance. There's nothing horrific to be seen (save for maybe the acting or effects). God, that was a huge misstep.

One thing they certainly got right was the tribute to John Hughes. That was beautiful and moving. I also liked Ben Stiller as a Na'vi, though I would have liked to have seen what Sacha Baron Cohen came up with that they cut because of inappropriateness.

THE AWARDS

Like I said above, the awards given were pretty spot on, if a little expected and predictable. There always seems to be a year where the Academy awards the filmmakers who they are expected to award and then years in between where they kind of surprise everyone. It's really all about politics I suppose. This year was definitely a year where they gave it to the expected winners and, honestly, this is one of the few times that might be okay with me.

THE HURT LOCKER was the big winner and deservedly so. While if I had any true choice in the matter Tarantino's INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS would have swept the thing, I was just fine with Bigelow's film doing it.

A lot of hate has surfaced against THE HURT LOCKER after the final award was given (quite clumsily and haphazardly by Tom Hanks. Still irritated by that), which is probably to be expected, but I don't get it. People are claiming it's an unrealistic portrayal of modern warfare or something and that it's overrated. Well, what true narrative film presents its subject, real world or not, completely realistically? RAY told the story of Ray Charles' life from birth to death. However, the filmmakers fabricated parts to make the film more entertaining. Like Ray's flashback and visions of his brother. How do they know he even had those in such detail? It's for entertainment. You want realism? Watch a documentary.

I'm getting off topic. Give the best actress award to Gabourey Sidibe and that's really the only change I would make.

WHAT THE ACADEMY AWARDS MEAN TO ME

Every year I watch the Oscars with a twinkle in my eye. I know it's predictable, I know it's pretty corporate, I know it's all about celebrity status and fashion, but damn it, I can't help but dream about being there one day. Ever since I was a young lad I fantasized of receiving one of those golden bald men. I would practice my various speeches in front of my bathroom mirror during commercials and just gaze in wonder at the show itself. Seeing how excited recipients like Roberto Benigni and Cuba Gooding Jr. got when they were approaching the stage and giving their speeches, I couldn't help but see myself reacting in the same fashion.

It doesn't truly matter who wins or who loses in the end (well, at least at this point in my life). What does matter is the fact that I'm at home watching avidly, cheering or screaming in anger loudly, and dreaming a little dream of being a nominee. That'll be the day, friend. That'll be the day.

Overall, a good year for movies, but the programmers need to bring back some of the magic that was lost this year.

7 comments:

  1. What's your official opinion of the actors talking about the best actor/actress nominees? I kind of like it...I think it humanizes them, like when they tell a personal story about the person.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I forgot to comment on that! I'm fine with it. It's kind of neat, I suppose, but they need to do that for writers and directors as well in my opinion. Actors get too much fucking praise when they're only one part of a big picture. Do it for all or none, I say. A movie starts with a writer. It ends with a director/editor. Actors come, do their work, and leave.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But couldn't that get ignorantly long? I can see adding it in for directors and writers too, but beyond that it could really bog down the show and lose some of the appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It could get long, but actors get too much recognition. I know they're important to a film. Without them, we filmmakers would be lost and alone. However, without us, actors wouldn't be getting their dicks sucked by their peers on awards night. I say do this sort of thing for writers and directors and not actors. Or, tell people to not speak for so fucking long and do it for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That comment was too phallocentric for me to proceed in this discussion :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. They kinda experimented with getting rid of the song performances last year.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What about this, Ami? Actors wouldn't get their dicks sucked and clits licked without us. That better?

    ReplyDelete