Thoughts about Oscar
I had a chance to check out the Oscars on Sunday night (a ceremony for which TiVo was invented, by the way), and I’ve got a few thoughts about things.
Jon Stewart was hilarious. Let’s just get that out of the way. The fact that a room full of big-headed and self-important celebrities couldn’t laugh at themselves or the imaginary world that they live in didn’t affect the fact that his jokes were on point and kept the show moving. In fact, I found it even funnier that the audience didn’t laugh at a lot of the material. Case in point, the segment where the show came back from a commercial to Stewart advocating Scientology “not just for this city, but for the country” was spot on, but you could hear crickets during the delivery.
I imagine I’m not the only one who enjoyed the jokes about piracy and Hollywood liberalism, but unfortunately those of us who did enjoy Stewart weren’t actually in attendance. The problem with hosting the Oscars is that the hosts are picked on the basis of how they will entertain the stars, and judged on how the stars reacted. Chris Rock’s year was awesome, but he’ll never be back because he offended some ever-so-fragile egos; ditto Dave Letterman. It’s a no-win situation for the hosts and the home viewing audience if we let movie stars dictate who should and shouldn’t host the show. They’re the ones being honored, sure, but there’s enough butt-kissing going on already that you need a host that’s going to bring the show back to reality. We already had a segment this year that emphasized how great movie theaters are and how movies aren’t the same when you watch them on DVD. Do we really need to watch Billy Crystal or Whoopi Goldberg for the other three hours? And I swear—if either of them hosts ever again, I’m boycotting the ceremony forever. All right, that’s a lie, but I’ll be mad.
I don’t usually comment on celebrity fashion, but did you see the dress that Charlize Theron was wearing? The rule should be that if there’s any part of your dress that’s bigger than your head, you should not wear it. That bow on her shoulder was monstrous. On the other hand, Selma Hayek looked outstanding, not that she can help it.
As for the winners, I’ve said this every time I’ve talked about the Oscars to anyone, so excuse me repeating myself if you’ve heard this before, but the fact that A History of Violence wasn’t even nominated for Best Picture is a crime. The only movie that I’ve seen so far (I don’t get to the theater much—screw you AMPAS President, whatever your name is) is Crash, and while it was indeed excellent, A History of Violence was better. Of course, to me discussing winners of the Academy Awards is pointless. The performances and quality of movies rarely have everything to do with whether a movie wins in my estimation.
This year, the movies nominated were all movies that addressed some kind of social issue. Does that necessarily mean they weren’t excellent? No. But I guarantee there were better movies and performances out there. Also, why is no comedy ever nominated in the big categories? It seems sometimes like the show needs a theme. This one was social issues and piracy. A few years ago it was giving awards to black people (Denzel Washington should have won the year before for The Hurricane, and Russell Crowe should have won that year for A Beautiful Mind. Of course, Halle Berry deserved an Honorary Oscar just for being able to have graphic sex scenes with Billy Bob Thornton. Gross. And of course, this is the same night when Sidney Poitier was given the Lifetime Achievement award.) I’m not saying these aren’t all worthy themes, but why can’t we just have the awards given out to people who deserve them when they deserve them? I won’t go as far as to say the Oscars don’t honor good movies, but they certainly don’t always honor the best ones. But that’s enough of my anti-Hollywood ranting. I still love movies—just not politics.
There’s a couple of reviews coming this week—probably Friday.
Jon Stewart was hilarious. Let’s just get that out of the way. The fact that a room full of big-headed and self-important celebrities couldn’t laugh at themselves or the imaginary world that they live in didn’t affect the fact that his jokes were on point and kept the show moving. In fact, I found it even funnier that the audience didn’t laugh at a lot of the material. Case in point, the segment where the show came back from a commercial to Stewart advocating Scientology “not just for this city, but for the country” was spot on, but you could hear crickets during the delivery.
I imagine I’m not the only one who enjoyed the jokes about piracy and Hollywood liberalism, but unfortunately those of us who did enjoy Stewart weren’t actually in attendance. The problem with hosting the Oscars is that the hosts are picked on the basis of how they will entertain the stars, and judged on how the stars reacted. Chris Rock’s year was awesome, but he’ll never be back because he offended some ever-so-fragile egos; ditto Dave Letterman. It’s a no-win situation for the hosts and the home viewing audience if we let movie stars dictate who should and shouldn’t host the show. They’re the ones being honored, sure, but there’s enough butt-kissing going on already that you need a host that’s going to bring the show back to reality. We already had a segment this year that emphasized how great movie theaters are and how movies aren’t the same when you watch them on DVD. Do we really need to watch Billy Crystal or Whoopi Goldberg for the other three hours? And I swear—if either of them hosts ever again, I’m boycotting the ceremony forever. All right, that’s a lie, but I’ll be mad.
I don’t usually comment on celebrity fashion, but did you see the dress that Charlize Theron was wearing? The rule should be that if there’s any part of your dress that’s bigger than your head, you should not wear it. That bow on her shoulder was monstrous. On the other hand, Selma Hayek looked outstanding, not that she can help it.
As for the winners, I’ve said this every time I’ve talked about the Oscars to anyone, so excuse me repeating myself if you’ve heard this before, but the fact that A History of Violence wasn’t even nominated for Best Picture is a crime. The only movie that I’ve seen so far (I don’t get to the theater much—screw you AMPAS President, whatever your name is) is Crash, and while it was indeed excellent, A History of Violence was better. Of course, to me discussing winners of the Academy Awards is pointless. The performances and quality of movies rarely have everything to do with whether a movie wins in my estimation.
This year, the movies nominated were all movies that addressed some kind of social issue. Does that necessarily mean they weren’t excellent? No. But I guarantee there were better movies and performances out there. Also, why is no comedy ever nominated in the big categories? It seems sometimes like the show needs a theme. This one was social issues and piracy. A few years ago it was giving awards to black people (Denzel Washington should have won the year before for The Hurricane, and Russell Crowe should have won that year for A Beautiful Mind. Of course, Halle Berry deserved an Honorary Oscar just for being able to have graphic sex scenes with Billy Bob Thornton. Gross. And of course, this is the same night when Sidney Poitier was given the Lifetime Achievement award.) I’m not saying these aren’t all worthy themes, but why can’t we just have the awards given out to people who deserve them when they deserve them? I won’t go as far as to say the Oscars don’t honor good movies, but they certainly don’t always honor the best ones. But that’s enough of my anti-Hollywood ranting. I still love movies—just not politics.
There’s a couple of reviews coming this week—probably Friday.
Tha Docta's two cents. | 4:58 PM
<< Home