It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!

81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

I loved the appearances of Tina Fey and Steve Martin ("Don't fall in love with me"), of Natalie Portman and "Joaquin Phoenix," and the video with Seth Rogen and James Franco.

I couldn't find decent clips of all of these moments, but here's Natalie and Joaquin:

Moments like this made me realize how bored I was with everything else on the show!

Around 11:30, my mounting boredom gelled into a 'buzzkill revelation' -- All of the Kodak Theater's millions of dollars of production value, and this broadcast to upwards of 50 million viewers, is all centered on some (admittedly talented) people saying almost nothing of value!

I mean this in all seriousness: I think the Oscars ceremony would be far more intriguing if the ceremony were only photographed. Then when I'd see a picture of Hugh Jackman singing with Anne Hathaway, I'd wish I could've seen the whole event. As it is, I wish my friends and I had, instead of watching the Oscars, played Boggle.

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

SkyPilot:

I loved the appearances of Tina Fey and Steve Martin ("Don't fall in love with me"), of Natalie Portman and "Joaquin Phoenix," and the video with Seth Rogen and James Franco.

I couldn't find decent clips of all of these moments, but here's Natalie and Joaquin:

Moments like this made me realize how bored I was with everything else on the show!

Around 11:30, my mounting boredom gelled into a 'buzzkill revelation' -- All of the Kodak Theater's millions of dollars of production value, and this broadcast to upwards of 50 million viewers, is all centered on some (admittedly talented) people saying almost nothing of value!

I mean this in all seriousness: I think the Oscars ceremony would be far more intriguing if the ceremony were only photographed. Then when I'd see a picture of Hugh Jackman singing with Anne Hathaway, I'd wish I could've seen the whole event. As it is, I wish my friends and I had, instead of watching the Oscars, played Boggle.

You bastard!  I opened this post at work where I can't hear any audio, and all I saw was the still image of Joaquin with Natalie Portman.  And you call him Joaquin too!  And I actually didn't see most of the Oscars and I couldn't believe I had missed this.  Now I finally watch it and realize it's just Ben Stiller doing some lame impression!  Dang, I wish it really was Joaquin.  How stupid.

Yeah as I said I didn't see much of it.  Maybe the last half or third while I was eating with my girlfriend.

The most exciting part was when I realized that Richard Jenkins was nominated for an Oscar!  Of course he didn't win, but I didn't realize before hand that he was even nominated.  Now I'm looking at the movie he was nominated for and realize it's one that people had been talking about way back at the beginning of 2008.  Actually IMDB says the movie was released first in 2007.  I guess I ought to see that one.

The most disappointing part was when they did the retrospective of who had died that past year because the screen was always in the background with Queen Latifa singing in the forground.  You couldn't even see the text on the screen!  Whose lame idea was that?  It's more of a disrespect to the dead people than an honor.

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

Risselada:

You bastard!...Now I finally watch it and realize it's just Ben Stiller doing some lame impression!  Dang, I wish it really was Joaquin.  How stupid.

The most exciting part was when I realized that Richard Jenkins was nominated for an Oscar!...

The most disappointing part was when they did the retrospective of who had died that past year...

Dude, honestly sorry to have misled you. I was trying to "go along" with Stiller's joke, but sometimes I forget that tone doesn't come off so well in the written word. 

I agree that the retrospective was a little off-putting. I could tell they were trying to 'keep it fresh,' but didn't they film it in a swaying, drunken sailor rhythm?  

You mention how excited you were to find out Jenkins was nominated--I can relate to that. There was some real drama in rooting for my favorite actors, whether they won or lost, but I considered most of the night to be less than interesting.

P.S. -- I thought Stiller's impression was pretty funny. It wasn't 'realistic' but I thought it showed good comic timing. I'll agree to disagree, since you are, after all, a professional comedian.   :)

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

Well, I liked it all, and as far as I'm concerned, the Oscars will never win.  To be fair, it will never be a show of substance, and why should it be?  They're awards for entertainment, movie entertainment, and, let's face it, movies are still entertainment.  Movies can be a valid, thought-provoking, and intelligent medium for entertainment, but that's what they are at their core.  Besides, whenever the Oscars get political or too topical, people get all hot and bothered about that, too.  Jon Stewart not being asked back is a marker for that attitude.

Imho, It was infinitely more exciting than last year's ceremony.  No Oscars ceremony has been perfect, at least not since the Billy Crystal days.  There are the occasional moments that stand out.  I liked Ben Stiller's mock of Joaquin (because he made that whole bunch of crap much more ridiculous) and Tina Fey and Steve Martin and a few of the other presenting teams (though not Jennifer Aniston and Jack Black, that was a little uncomfortable).  I liked the actor-to-actor testimonials, the big musical numbers, and Hugh didn't try to be funny for too long, and that was ok by me too.  None of the acceptance speeches ran on for miles and hours.  To me, I would consider the ceremony a success.  Plus, I'm marginally more excited about the films up for the awards this year than last year, at any rate.  There are some I'm chomping at the bit to see, not the least of which includes Doubt, Frost/Nixon, The Reader, and Revolutionary Road (and I guess Slumdog too, but, sheesh...that better be some darn good movie with all the gold it got).

Though I agree with Rizzo, I had a problem with the In Memoriam section and its presentation.  Queen Latifah's song was pretty, but she should have been in the background, and the photos should have been shown more straightforwardly.  That part always makes me shed a tear, and I was frustrated because I like to reflect. I forgot that Roy Scheider passed this past year, and RIP Paul Newman (and all).

And I loved Kate Winslet's dress.  What a dress to win an Oscar in.  I want one.  Best ensem I saw all evening.

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

pippin06:

...as far as I'm concerned, the Oscars will never win.  To be fair, it will never be a show of substance, and why should it be?  They're awards for entertainment, movie entertainment, and, let's face it, movies are still entertainment.  Movies can be a valid, thought-provoking, and intelligent medium for entertainment, but that's what they are at their core.

I disagree with you, pippin -- it seems the Academy has made continuous attempts to be seen as doing work of real substance, albeit in an entertaining format.

But you're right that the Oscars can never please everybody, especially when they're trying to be two things at once. Aren't the two words in the title, "Academy" and "Awards," like signposts toward the dual goals of the whole enterprise?

Academy?

If anyone views the Academy Awards in just the first way--as weighty words from an authoritative Academy--then such a person has much to be disappointed about. The Titanic of 2008 has just won Best Picture.

Awards?

If someone only sees the Academy Awards in the second way--as the mother of all showbiz extravaganzas--I can see why such a person would be more satisfied with the event. There was a lot that was fairly entertaining in this year's broadcast, but it's easy to forget that many of these actors are inarticulate and boring when they're given a statuette and a microphone.

I think my main point is that I'm getting older (26!) and crotchety, and I'm losing patience with the bloated Academy and any "entertainment" that doesn't entertain me.

whining like a mule,

adam

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

SkyPilot:

I disagree with you, pippin -- it seems the Academy has made continuous attempts to be seen as doing work of real substance, albeit in an entertaining format.

But you're right that the Oscars can never please everybody, especially when they're trying to be two things at once. Aren't the two words in the title, "Academy" and "Awards," like signposts toward the dual goals of the whole enterprise?

Academy?

If anyone views the Academy Awards in just the first way--as weighty words from an authoritative Academy--then such a person has much to be disappointed about. The Titanic of 2008 has just won Best Picture.

Awards?

If someone only sees the Academy Awards in the second way--as the mother of all showbiz extravaganzas--I can see why such a person would be more satisfied with the event. There was a lot that was fairly entertaining in this year's broadcast, but it's easy to forget that many of these actors are inarticulate and boring when they're given a statuette and a microphone.

I think my main point is that I'm getting older (26!) and crotchety, and I'm losing patience with the bloated Academy and any "entertainment" that doesn't entertain me.

whining like a mule,

adam

Oh Adam - if you're crotchety at 26, what does that make me when I have five years (or so) on you????

I guess I'm trying to understand who you are speaking about, who sees the Awards "as doing work -- or attempting to do work -- of real substance."  To the moviemaker, of course they're substantive.  The Oscar is the ultimate recognition for something the moviemaker has made, and whether deserving or not, Oscar has been and will always be the end-all, be-all in in moviemaking recognition.  They are the Academy because they are acknowledged as such. 

To the moviegoer, they may not seem so substantive, and you may be one of those moviegoers.  I look at the broadcast as Awards of entertainment for entertainment, but then again, I place more stock in the Academy than say Sundance (or other film festivals) because I don't get to go to those festivals.  I get to watch the Awards on TV.  So, they're substantive to me.

And as covered as they are by news outlets of every type, someone must think they're substantive enough to pay attention to them.

But ultimately, the broadcast itself is supposed to be entertainment.  Why, then, go through all the trouble of finding a host and staging elaborate musical numbers?  But not everyone is going to be entertained.  True, some actors need scripts (and can't read a teleprompter to save their lives).  But, they are what they are.   Sorry you were unimpressed.  I wasn't particularly elated by them, but I felt that the producers really tried to put on a show this year, and, like I said, comparatively they were better than last year. 

I don't think Academy and Awards are a contradiction in terms, by the by.  Again, it depends on your perspective.  Meryl Streep, one of the greatest actresses of all time (imho), has been nominated a record number of times, has won twice, and she still keeps showing up.  That should mean something to somebody because it means something to her. :-D

PS, knock Titanic all you want, but it remains one of the top 10 grossers of all time; it must have connected to somebody.  Plus, I still like that movie, and I don't care who knows it.  He's king of the world, dammit.  If Slumdog translates similarly, I'll probably like it after all! :-D

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

pippin06:

...I don't think Academy and Awards are a contradiction in terms...

I wasn't very clear here, was I? I don't think authority ("Academy") and entertainment ("Awards") are a contradiction in terms. I just didn't think the Academy was particularly authoritative or entertaining this year.

It's no mystery how I can say I wasn't entertained, but I must defend my claim that the Academy wasn't authoritative. I will do that below.

pippin06:

I guess I'm trying to understand who you are speaking about, who sees the Awards "as doing work -- or attempting to do work -- of real substance."

Academy: authoritative? The Academy claims authority. Would you agree that calling an award "Best Picture" signifies that they're making a value judgment? That they believe some movies are actually better, more accomplished, more deserving of praise than other movies?

This being my assumption, many of the Academy's value judgments (for example, Titanic as Best Picture) make it hard for me to take the Academy seriously when they say they're "Dedicated to the advancement of the arts and sciences of motion pictures" (a quote taken from their official webpage, oscars.org). But...

Academy: worthwhile? Now that I'm looking into some of the non-profit activities of the Academy, I am actually impressed with them. According to their webpage, selling the telecasting rights to the Academy Awards is their big cash cow, and this helps me cut them some slack for (what appears to be) their self-importance on Oscar night: they've been financing the arts all year long!

pippin06:

Sorry you were unimpressed. 

No fault of yours, of course, but I was so unimpressed, I started to wonder just how valuable the Academy is. I'm finding out they do some pretty good stuff. (Incidentally, I'm finding that this is how my mind often works: When I feel myself having a strong emotional reaction, I try to investigate logically whether or not these strong impressions are warranted.)

pippin06:

PS, knock Titanic all you want, but it remains one of the top 10 grossers of all time; it must have connected to somebody. 

I don't mind that a lot of people liked Titanic, but popularity isn't equal to excellence.

And there blooms another point of contention..............excellence. In short, I believe in it.  

:)

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

SkyPilot:

Academy: authoritative? The Academy claims authority. Would you agree that calling an award "Best Picture" signifies that they're making a value judgment? That they believe some movies are actually better, more accomplished, more deserving of praise than other movies?

Yes--of course--they are making a value judgment.  They're making a widely recognized, highly sought-after, decades-acknowledged value judgment.  But that's my point: you're looking at it from a movie-viewer's perspective.  The Oscars are still ultimately for the movie-makers (even if the broadcast is designed to rope in viewers and their ticket-buying dollars).  Now, if you, as a viewer, are looking for solid recommendations for your own viewing purposes, and if you've disagreed with past choices (i.e. Titanic), then you are not going to agree with the Oscars and probably think they are crap and a lot of frivolous hooey, to get really technical here.  There are other places to go to formulate your viewing pleasures.  That's why I brought up places like Sundance.  However, the Academy is comprised of people within the motion picture-making community, and the members voted for Slumdog Millionaire.  Is it the best of the year?  Maybe not in your opinion...but the Academy's opinion certainly matters to the people ultimately providing their membership and being eligible for their nominations...and to a few others too.

SkyPilot:

This being my assumption, many of the Academy's value judgments (for example, Titanic as Best Picture) make it hard for me to take the Academy seriously when they say they're "Dedicated to the advancement of the arts and sciences of motion pictures" (a quote taken from their official webpage, oscars.org). But...

Ah, but aren't you also making a value judgment?  You are suggesting that Titanic is not worthy of excellence and suggesting that the Academy, by awarding Titanic or Slumdog Millionaire Best Picture, is contradicting its very purpose...but how do you know that?  See below. 

SkyPilot:

I don't mind that a lot of people liked Titanic, but popularity isn't equal to excellence.

And there blooms another point of contention..............excellence. In short, I believe in it.  

:)

Cheeky. :-P

This is my favorite part of your post because it kind of goes to thoughts I've been having about things and how I approach evaluating a film when I'm, say, writing a review about it.  I've decided, personally, that I'm the average of all Spout users.  I'm the median between those who look at a film for its artistic excellence and those who look at a film strictly to be entertained.  I think I take a more populist approach to films.  I want both.  If the movie has both, it's a damn fine film, indeed.  I think a film can be excellent as a strict piece of popular entertainment, though, too (which is why I have problems with words like "overrated").  And I like to think that the Academy tries to keep it all--art and entertainment--in mind because its nominating and voting members are just like me - humans who love movies.  So, some years, they might be inclined to make sentimental choices toward the "entertainment" flicks over the "artsy" ones, even if arguably the choices are not the artistically best.  But, do you agree that at least they've nominated five really good flicks that might be some worthwhile movie recommendations; in other words, Slumdog may not be the best of the five nominated films, but at least the five nominated are considered the "top 5" of the year, and aren't they worthwhile to take a look at?  Of course, I always wonder, when someone is condemning a Best Picture choice, if the person doing the panning saw all the nominees (or even all of the eligible pictures of the year) and feels savvy enough to offer their best alternative?  Because it's one thing to say the Academy is questionable in its own value judgments, but what makes the detractor the expert?  In other words, if the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences aren't the actual experts, who is, and what makes the detractor's value judgment more valid than the Academy's?

Of course, I am trying to avoid the "In defense of Titanic" argument.  I've played that game before, and it feels to me like a recreation of the Black Knight scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where I'm playing the part of the Black Knight with my limbs cut off while I'm still calling it all a draw lol.  We can always disagree with the Academy.  That's half the fun of dissecting the Oscars; I have at least one major disagreement with at least one category's selected winners every year - this year, though I haven't seen Slumdog, I'm thinking it's going to be Cinematography.  But!  For every someone who disagrees, there's a someone who thinks the Academy presents some worthwhile options to explore.  I think this thread is a case in point! :-D

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

pippin06:

Yes--of course--they are making a value judgment.  They're making a widely recognized, highly sought-after, decades-acknowledged value judgment.  But that's my point: you're looking at it from a movie-viewer's perspective.  The Oscars are still ultimately for the movie-makers (even if the broadcast is designed to rope in viewers and their ticket-buying dollars). 

Great point.

pippin06:

Now, if you, as a viewer, are looking for solid recommendations for your own viewing purposes, and if you've disagreed with past choices (i.e. Titanic), then you are not going to agree with the Oscars...However, the Academy is comprised of people within the motion picture-making community, and the members voted for Slumdog Millionaire.  Is it the best of the year?  Maybe not in your opinion...but the Academy's opinion certainly matters to the people ultimately providing their membership and being eligible for their nominations...and to a few others too.

 

Also a good point.

pippin06:

Ah, but aren't you also making a value judgment? You are suggesting that Titanic is not worthy of excellence and suggesting that the Academy, by awarding Titanic or Slumdog Millionaire Best Picture, is contradicting its very purpose...but how do you know that?

I was suggesting that Titanic and Slumdog Millionaire were not the most excellent pictures. And yes, I'm making a value judgment, I think fostering judgment is a great thing for the arts and the people who enjoy them. Pursuit of value, understanding, truth, etc.

pippin06:

...I like to think that the Academy tries to keep it all--art and entertainment--in mind because its nominating and voting members are just like me - humans who love movies.  So, some years, they might be inclined to make sentimental choices toward the "entertainment" flicks over the "artsy" ones, even if arguably the choices are not the artistically best.  But, do you agree that at least they've nominated five really good flicks that might be some worthwhile movie recommendations;"

Great points again.

pippin06:

Of course, I always wonder, when someone is condemning a Best Picture choice, if the person doing the panning saw all the nominees (or even all of the eligible pictures of the year) and feels savvy enough to offer their best alternative? 

PIPPIN: En guarde!

SKYPILOT: Touche!

But first I'll tie my arms behind my back: I haven't seen Slumdog, I've only read reviews and listened to my FilmCouch friends hash it out and re-hash it!

I'll carry on like the Black Knight (I like your metaphor) -- Films I'd like to have seen nominated over Frost/Nixon, which is the only contender I saw (there go my legs!): Gran Torino, The Wrestler.

Come here pippin, I'll bite your ankles until you yield! No, but seriously, you've helped me see the Academy in a new way. I'm not less disappointed in them, but I'm less bitter about them. :D Next year I'll probably just play Boggle instead of tuning in.

Re:81st Oscars - Sh!t or Shinola?

Ok, I've been watching this thread for the last couple days without time to respond and it's been interesting, but here are some of my thoughts.

SkyPilot:

P.S. -- I thought Stiller's impression was pretty funny. It wasn't 'realistic' but I thought it showed good comic timing. I'll agree to disagree, since you are, after all, a professional comedian.   :)

Oh it was a very good impression!  Like I said, I really thought it was Joaquin from the picture.  And if they hadn't said "Ben Stiller" when he came out I think everyone would have wondered if it really was him.  But by just looking like him and repeating his actions without really introducing any new context what are they saying?  It just reveals that everyone thinks Joaquin is crazy or just a joke.  Maybe he is crazy, but if so it's a great crazy!  And if it is a joke, then the joke is on those people.  So that's just what I was saying.  I've become fascinated by the guy.  Maybe because he seems to be showing a contempt for the Hollywood world, which is I guess the same thing that is a bit of the disagreement here in this thread.  Of course it's more complicated than that.

And please, I'm not a professional commedian.  I think professional implies that I'm somehow making money off of it, which has been quite rare.

As for many of the other points, I would like to start out by saying I do not recognize such a distiction between art and entertainment in movies as maybe you do Pippin.  If I find a movie artistic I often also take some entertainment away from it.  If I am entertained by a movie, it's usually because I can also say there is some art to it.  Also, unless a movie is just an exploration of abstract sound and color, if it is a narrative of sorts that features actors and a story it is presenting a view of how the world works.  Whether it's a movie that explicitly proposes that it should be taken seriously, or some kind of goofy comedy it is presenting you with a worldview.  I find that a lot of the movies that come out of Hollywood and that are recognized and mentioned at the Academy Awards are more often movies that present certain worldviews I find distasteful.  Many of them are simplified worldviews, often just reinforcing a constructed set of values accepted by popular society.  These sets of values were generally created by a back and forth between the media reinforcing certain values and people accepting them, and eventually the values are so accepted that in order to make money the media needs to keep recreating them.  To question them is artistic, but not often profitable.  Maybe not entertaining the the highest percentage of people, but probably still more entertaining and thought provoking to people who care about such things if given a chance to see them.  This of course is a generalization.  There are of course many, many great films that come from Hollywood and are mentioned at the Academy Awards, but this is a general trend I see.

Also I think it is alway a matter of taste.  As for the argument of how someone can claim authority to name a movie the "best picture", I think it is absurd for anyone to do so.  It would be more appropriate to call the awards "favorite picture".  In my talks about films I try to never claim that one film is better than another, although it's hard not to use words like that.  In the end I'm just saying I have a preference over one.

For instance a lot of people LOVE musicals.  I find the worldview that most of them bring to be mostly unchallenging and the fact the people are singing and dancing kind of makes any kind of statement they are making a bit absurd (of course there are many musicals I do enjoy, so I have to do some more self investigation as to whether these are the exact reasons for my distaste of some over others).  Pippin you say the Academy Awards are largely about entertainment.  With all of the glitz and glamour and singing and dancing musical numbers that are part of the ceremony, I can see that people consider it entertainment.  I generally just don't find it entertaining.  There's no arguing on that.  It's just a matter of taste.  But there are moments of the ceremony where they do try to take this pretentious role, and as far as my taste goes it generally doesn't mesh well for me.