It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!

Thoughts on the broadcast, 2006

All in all, I was kind of bored.  Jon Stewart did fine and all, he was silly and spontaneous and slightly political as always.  But what was with the film montages?  Also, aside from perhaps Crash, I just didn't feel the excitement this year for the nominees. 

And the most fun song performance, I thought, came from Dolly Parton.  And I'm not really a 9 to 5 kind of girl.

My highlight - the opening schtick where previous Oscar hosts politely declined for varoius humorous reasons only to find Mr. Stewart not dreaming of George Clooney in his bed.  Also, was this not Clooney's night?  3 nominations, 1 win, and a whole bunch of comments from members of the peanut gallery.  I never used to like him; now, I think I'm in love with him.  Marry me, George!  Oh, wait.  He's not doing that anymore.

My lowlight - the endless film montages.  Normally, I dig playing "guess the movie," but this year, I just didn't see the point.  And they were ENDLESS.  Even Jon said, "We've run out of film clips!"

What did you think?

Re: Thoughts on the broadcast, 2006

I was disappointed with the outcomes, to be perfectly honest.

First, as wonderful and timely as Crash was, I do not think it was the best nominee. The film certainly showed how dynamic 21st century racism is, and accurately illustrated that even the worst human beings have some good in them (ie. Matt Dillon). However, I think it was more emotionally compelling than thought provoking (gosh do I sound like an annoying film ***). Anyways, I think Good Night, Good Luck was most deserving of the award. It was stylish, well-crafted, and it's message was incredibly relevant to the various issues us Americans face. Issues such as the risk of speaking truth when the government is not, using mediums such as television and radio responsibly,  and the need to respectfully interact with  people whose opinions/worldviews are different, even contrary to your own.

I'm happy Phillip Seymour Hoffman won Best Leading Actor for Capote, but I still think Heath Ledgers performance in Brokeback Mountain was fantastic. He played a controversial, fragile character in a film that effectively portrayed certain people, emotions, and questions that most movie-goers (andpeople, for that matter) are too embarassed to face. Heath Ledger made his character move, talk, feel, think, and act like a REAL person, as opposed to an actor merely playing a real person. I think it's unfortunate that, especially in the last few days leading up to the Oscars, a lot of negative attention was focused on Ang Lee's riveting film. Regardless of one's opinion on the morality of the film's issues, the film should be commended for being as tactful as it was controversial.

And I was just mad that Woody Allen didn't win for Match Point. Regardless of the fact that Allen is my favorite filmmaker, this film was entertaining, artful, and tragic from begining to end. I loved it. Allen was in need of change, and changing his setting to New York City to London worked perfectly.

Alright, sorry I only talked about my thoughts...I'm kind of new at this whole online film blogging thing.

Take care,

Justin

Re: Thoughts on the broadcast, 2006

Hey, you're doing a fine job, Justin.  The film blogging thing is a new concept to me too (though blogging is not).

Actually, Good Night and Good Luck was the other "big" nominee I saw besides Crash.  I loved it.  And while I agree that the thrust of the film established important parallels to the events of today, I think the message was a bit more subversive than the average moviegoer might pick up on, and you don't sound average!  I believe Crash is more socially relevant because it is emotionally compelling.  The average moviegoer is not a thinker but a feeler.  They go to be entertained, not to be propagandized.  I think Crash was an extremely graceful dance around and through issues of racism that most people still have trouble confronting. 

Good Night, and Good Luck, on the other hand, presented a message, I believe, that people would get only if they are willing or open to the parallels being drawn.  It had a political resonance that could not be denied.  I agree, however, that it was extremely well put together.  I sat noticing everything from the properties to the lighting choices to the camera work.  I plan on buying this movie same as Crash.

I have no opinion on the best actor category.  I haven't seen either film, though Oscar can be a bit disappointing or predictable when it comes to its choice.  I have no doubt that Heath Ledger gave an extremely compelling performance in what could be characterized as a far tougher, more nuanced role than an eccentric (if not sociopathic) author.

On Match Point, I have no opinion either.  All I can say is that for me, Woody Allen tends to be a hit or miss.  At least he was nominated, but as this was the film's only nomination, it was an outside shot from the start.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but it never really had a chance of winning.  And I'm still a huge proponent of Crash, the winner of the Original Screenplay category.

One thing I've learned about my favorite awards show is that it never pleases everyone.  There's always something to celebrate and something to gripe about.  That's what makes the broadcast kind of fun if you think about it!  An American cultural icon.  At its heart, it's still all about the movies.  Thanks for your post!  Your thoughts were interesting.  Keep posting.  This group will be about the Oscars all year round!

Re: Thoughts on the broadcast, 2006

Hey,

Yeah, Woody Allen tends to be hit or miss. His last four or five movies(with the exception of Anything Else and Melinda, Melinda, have been terrible...terrible...terrible.

So to finally have a great one come out (seriously, you have to see Matchpoint) that is fantastic is a treat.

Do you know how they actually decide who and what is awarded the particular Oscars???

Re: Thoughts on the broadcast, 2006

Speaking from memory, the Academy itself is comprised of I'm not sure how many members, possibly 100 or so, representing all of the different types of movie-makers including actors and directors and cinematographers and costumers and the like.  A first vote is held where pluralities of votes determines what gets nominated.  After the nominations are released, a second vote is held before the actual ceremony to determine the winner of each category, which most times has five nominations each. 

Thus, of all the movies released in 2005, Match Point, for example, achieved a plurality of votes to receive a nomination but not enough to win.

Of course, how those votes get determined is up for debate.  There are lots of different theories, some of which are probably true.  One factor is the clips.  Once a film or performance gets a nomination, the distributing company usually sends in clips for review.  A good clip has been known to swing categories.  There is also lots of speculation about "Oscar campaigning."  Miramax, which was formerly owned by the Weinstein brothers (until a hostile takeover forced them to resign, more or less), under the brothers' ownership, was infamous for "campaigning" for its films.  In 1999, for example, the favorite to win Best Picture was Saving Private Ryan; Steven Spielberg won his second Best Director for the film, but Miramax allegedly successfully campaigned for Shakespeare in Love, which won Best Picture.  Frankly, I've seen both films, and I'm female, and I enjoyed "Ryan" much more.

There are all sorts of other influencing factors, as well.  Those who engage in predictions, such as myself, are familiar with trends.  A film that receives the most nominations in one year usually wins Best Picture.  Except not this year.  There is a theory that the film that wins Best Editing will win Best Picture, because those two awards seem to correlate quite often.  That was true this year - Crash won both awards.

Prior awards can influence voting.  Before the Oscars even get around to being broadcast, Hollywood is saturated with awards shows: the Golden Globes, the Screen Actors' Guild Awards, the Critics' Choice Awards, the Directors' Guild Awards, and a bevy of others.  Winning awards at other awards shows can influence Oscar voting.  So too can box office success.

The actual decision comes through a voting and compilation process developed by the Academy, though.