The full-screen In Memoriam montage is linked below.
It was the best Oscar show I've ever seen, and I've seen plenty. The Academy didn't bring it in under three and a half hours, but maybe they simply couldn't, given the number of categories. What they did do was make the time seem to pass more quickly, and more entertainingly. And they finally cleared the logjam involved in merely reading the names of the nominees. By bringing out former winners to single out each of the acting nominees and praise their work, they replaced the reading of lists with a surprisingly heart-warming new approach.
I had a feeling Hugh Jackman would be a charmer as host, and he was. He didn't have a lot of gag lines, depending instead on humor in context, as when he recruited Anne Hathawy onstage for their duet. His opening "low budget" song-and-dance was amusing, and we could immediately see how the show would benefit from the reconfigured theater.
By moving the orchestra onstage and replacing a traditional orchestra pit with the semi-circled seats of nominees, they made the Oscarcast feel a little less like a show, a little more like a party. The new design also made possible a crucial new camera shot, looking directly at the nominees from behind the presenters on stage. The looks in the eyes of Viola Davis, Marisa Tomei and Amy Adams as they were praised by Oscar legends was dramatic--infinitely better and less sadistic than the traditional practice of framing the nominees in little boxes so we could see the instant reactions of the losers. It's often said "the real award is the nomination itself." This presentation style rewarded the four eventual losers with a closeup and the praise of a peer--their payoff for having taken untold efforts to make themselves look fabulous on their big day.
There must have been cheering in the streets of Mumbai. Earlier there were shots of public prayer vigils on behalf of the film. As one "Slumdog" winner after another came to the podium, I imagine some Indians felt elevation similar to that experienced by Chicagoans during the Grant Park telecast on the night of Nov. 4: At last, recognized and vindicated. After the terrorist events in Mumbai, do you imagine there was a general feeling of uplift and relief? Did you notice how many of the "Slumdog" winners were Indian?Nice that Anil Kapoor was in the room. The Bollywood star with the warm smile is a huge favorite back home. And all the kids worked the red carpet like seasoned pros. Dev Patel and Freida Pinto had great chemistry together--no, not that kind, the kind that means they play off each other nicely. Patel said something you rarely hear on the red carpet: "You're being too modest."
Arriving for Hollywood's prom night: Rubiana Ali and Ayush Mahesh Khedekar. They played the young Jamal and Latika
My predictions were right in 11 of the top 14 categories. I was wrong about Viola Davis, cinematography and best foreign film. My educated guesses got me 5 of 6; my Elevated feelings would have scored 4/6. Is there anything less interesting than Oscar predictions after the show is over?
I worked live on the red carpet for WLS, KABC, KRON and other ABC-owned stations for many years, but of course all that is over and done with. It is hard to get out in one piece, let alone do well. I watched the live red carpet coverage on E! and thought Ryan Seacrest did the job about as well as it can possibly be done, under the circumstances. It's amazing how, under pressure, you can forget names and credits. Over on the ABC network, a red carpet guy actually asked Sarah Jessica Parker to introduce her date. If you don't know what a howler that was, I'm not going to tell you.
Seacrest's E! coverage was sadly interrupted by innovations by producers with way too much time on their hands. One was an overhead PinpointCam which had boxes with star's names and long, thin arrows pointing to the dots on the red carpet that were allegedly the star's heads, so you could see that, gasp!, Brad and Angelina were way down there, and currently four feet apart!
That was useless, but harmless. More alarming was the employment by their Fashion Guru of one of those magic markup pens used by football commentators to show you how somebody scored a touchdown. This guy was using it to superimpose wavy lines on top of freeze-frames of actresses posing in their gowns. "...these ruffles here...the off-the shoulder look, off this shoulder...these bangles on her wrist." The effect was not unlike graffiti.
In my coverage of the Indie Spirits on Saturday, I wrote: "...the Oscarcast is unlikely to equal anything like the Indies' use of actors to portray two of the presenters as a raging Christian Bale and a catatonic Joaquin Phoenix." Was I ever wrong. This years 'cast felt looser and more irreverent, and there was Ben Stiller in a beard as Phoenix. Now even David Letterman thinks he might have been deliberately goofed with Joaquin's famous appearance last week. Wouldn't it be ironic if the Phoenix hip hop act isn't a put-on, and he really is going through a nutzoid phase?
[Monday p.m.: I've given Stiller's bit some more thought. Yes, it showed the Oscarcast as looser, but was it a good idea? (a) If Phoenix is having some kind of a breakdown, it was cruel; (b) if he isn't, Stiller was essentially promoting that rumored Casey Affleck documentary; (c) what did the alleged millions watching around the world make of it? (d) although Natalie Portman bravely carried on with grace, it's obvious no one thought in advance about how she should react, and (e) although ad-libs on the show can contain zingers, should the scripted parts get involved with material like this? At the Indie Spirits, yes. Not at the Oscars.]
Dev Patel and Freida Pinto as lovers destined since childhood
After the ceremony was over and my story was filed, I went surfing to see what others felt. My first, and last, stop was an astonishing live blog by the usually sane Nikki Finke, here, until it's taken down. Did she overdose on the mean pills? She has a perfect right to her opinion, but see how angry and bitter she is, how vitriolic her hyperbole. The show was too gay? Because Hugh Jackman sat on Frank Langella's lap? Jackman's opening number was the worst ever? Even worse than Rob Lowe dancing with Snow White? He shouldn't have had a lawn chair as a prop? She writes: "This is the Oscars, people, a celebration of the movie industry, not some low-tech Off-Off-Off Broadway musical" Do you think maybe she didn't get the joke?
Finke took off the gloves, so I'm also going to. I suspect I have a clue why she was so livid at the show's producers. Finke prides herself, usually with good reason, on the accuracy of her scoops. This year, her inside sources fed her misinformation and she fell for it hook, line and sinker. Even the Independent of London led with her column, writing in its pre-show lead: "George Clooney, Nicole Kidman, Angelina Jolie, Jack Nicholson and Kate Winslet all declined invitations, according to an exposé on the Hollywood journalist Nikki Finke's website." That's funny. I'm sure I saw all of them on the show except Clooney, who apparently really did have a reason he couldn't be there.
[Monday p.m.: Nikki Finke says on her blog that the London Independent, and therefore me, incorrectly read what she wrote. I am guilty of finding the quote above on the Independent's web site. When I went to Finke's site, I found her "Live-Snarking the Oscars." Finke explains she never said those stars "wouldn't" be on the program [as presenters], but that they didn't "want" to be. Point taken, although it was not expressed with crystal clarity. I was reckless in assuming her negative tone was inspired by pique at the show's producers. I guess she was just genuinely pissed off.]
Nikki Finke rained, but my parade continues. Having survived so many Oscarcasts, I deserved to see a good one. And yes, I've always seen the Oscars on TV just like everybody else. After the red carpet duty, I join my fellow ink-stained wretches backstage in the press room, and we follow the events on overhead TVs. One year at the Shrine Auditorium, we were actually outside in a tent. This was a good show, and that's that, and all I can add is the headline proposed by the brilliant Joel Carlson of our night news desk, which you will find at the top of this entry.[Tuesday a.m.: Having now read some 130 comments, I can conclude there is one thing everyone agrees with about the TV presentation: The In Memoriam montage was utterly botched. The weird and swooping camera angles made it impossible to identify many of those remembered. They seemed chosen to center on the performance, and were treated visually as a sidebar. As one reader observed, the applause at the end for Queen Latifah (who sang wonderfully) sounded strangely like applause for the honorees having died.]
¶
The In Memoriam montage we never saw:
¶If Mickey had won, maybe this is what the world missed:
¶
As i peer through the sticks i see the world of white people changing, it's opening up, it's shifting, my goodness!
Look at the nominees and the winners of the past months from the election thru the award season.
The changes, they are a timing!
About time, too.
I don't know. I live blogged it, too, as I have done for the past three years, and this was probably my least favourite (I've been watching the Oscarcasts since 1988 and I've only missed the 2000 ceremony for I was on a rugby tour in Prag). I was so stoked for Hugh Jackman, and really looking forward to the song and dance numbers. Jackman was indeed a charmer, as you also observe, but I disliked both the opening medley and the later homage to musicals. The former just was not funny, and reminded me of how great a job Billy Crystal used to do with them; and the latter brought to mind memories of an old Knowing Me Knowing You With Alan Partridge episode, when Alan has to do an Abba medley with a guest on his show. Not what they were going for, I am sure...
The singling out of each nominee by a previous winner generally did not work, I thought, with the supporting actress one particularly weird. I am not a cynical person, nor am I a jaded one (I love the Oscars, always have, always will), but this innovative way of presenting the nominees just did not work for me (though DeNiro talking about Penn was great).
The bits that I did enjoy were:
- Jack Black's betting on Pixar gag, and his "Yes!" after WALL-E won.
- Steve Martin and Tina Fey, and the Scientology gag.
- The Pineapple Express bit
- Kunio Kato's Oscar speech, which, in itself, was like a great film: ending with the inevitable, yet surprising all the same: "Domo Arigato, Mr Roboto."
Dustin Lance Black's speech was also very moving, as was Heath Ledger's family's accepting his posthumous Oscar.
Over on the ABC network, a red carpet guy actually asked Jessica Sarah Parker to introduce her date. If you don't know what a howler that was, I'm not going to tell you.
That embarassed "aw-aw-aw-aw-aw" you heard all the way from Istanbul? That was me. That was so, so embarassing.
I think you go too far with "the best in all your years"....maybe 3rd or 4th best, because Johnny Carson as host was the best over the years.
It was staged much better than previous years.
I watched the Oscars last night, and thought, for the most part, that it was very good. I think that Hugh Jackman did a wonderful job. He was very classy, fitting for the Oscars. Something different indeed. I'm not sure what Ms. Finke was in need of? I'm also glad that the academy did not go overboard with the "Bale" thing, because it's old now, done deal. It's time to leave the man alone. Glad they didn't jump on the bandwagon with everyone else. If they had of, I think, in my opinion, it would have taken some of the class out of the show. The "Phoenix" thing was borderline. I don't think it's good to "pick" on someone at this type of event...or at all for that matter. It wasn't very funny to me. Overall...kudos to the Academy.
Oh, dear Lord..I couldn't sleep when it was over. At all.
OK, did you see Meryl Streep interacting with the Slumdog kids on the red carpet????? Hand to chest in a "I can't believe I'm meeting YOU" sort of way. Charming, charming, charming.
I LOVED the past winners saluting nominees-what made it work was the genuine reactions of the actors. Brilliant. Comparing Mumbai to the day after feeling of the rally--very very insightful. It does feel similar--though I'm more relieved to have no Sarah Palin than I am to have Mickey Rourke statue-less.
How much do we love Lance Black? I'm with you, though..Viola should have won. It's always my favorite category.
I called my sister during a commmercial and said, "This show is NOT for the casual movie goer." Hence, I had a terrific time. OH, wait, and COMING ATTRACTIONS at the end???? Are you kidding me???? :)
xxoo
I was all ready to hate the new formats, but besides some awkward song medleys, I agree with you (and Danny Boyle), it was lovely.
The whole veteran actors on stage to praise each of the nominees was a masterstroke. They made it about celebrating the performances and the films, so that every single nominee got an “Oscar moment.” The Oscars could learn a thing or two from the Indie Spirits, and obviously the nominations don’t please many people, but for all the things that Condon and Co. could control, I thought they pulled it off magnifiscently.
Bravo!
Agree with your comments, Roger - thought the show was one of the best ever. Only thing they should have omitted was the boring dance routine in the middle of the show.
Although I realize, in your case, this is professionally impossible, I have found over the years that the best way to criticize a long, sometimes very boring show about movies is to watch a movie, preferably an epic. And so, last night, while Mr. Jackman was singing and dancing and the Academy was being thanked more often than it is ever thought of the other 364 days of the year, I saw Les Enfants du Paradis for the first time. Arletty's face is more beautiful, I think, than any of the gowns on display last night. And, of course, I've probably stuck my foot in my mouth as usual...
Ebert: Not at all. Your movie choice was superb.
For me, the best moment of the event was Philippe Petit's completely unexpected appearance alongside the producers of "Man on Wire", and proceed to amaze and delight anyone who was watching. From the coin trick to the balancing of Oscar on his chin (head first!) he stole the show as deftly as any pickpocket could.
And truth be told, I did find myself entertained by the show more than I had expected. There were points that sagged, but others that were quite delightful. (Hearing Jack Black talking about taking his paycheck from Dreamworks and betting it on Pixar to win the Oscar managed to get a giggle out of me. And his reaction on the winner was definitely a highlight.)
A shame about Mickey Rourke losing Best Actor, but could you imagine the acceptance speech he would have given? It wouldn't be able to match what he gave at the Spirit Awards, which was probably one of the few truly "given from the heart" speeches I've heard.
Here's to the winners and the runner-up's, all worthy of the attention they've received.
Didnt Rourke have a tougher hill to climb by making us care about a guy most would immediately dismiss? Is that not the hallmark of a great performance? Is it also not another hallmark when the performance rises above the overall production? I think Rourke demonstrated those criteria abundantly. Penn, meanwhile, had the advantages of playing a hero, in a much higher produced and budgeted production, surrounded by excellent performances, telling an inspiring story. Could not most competent actors today do as well?
Ebert: I'd say Penn was a great deal more than competent. Neither film was big-budget. I would have been pleased to see Rourke win.
I do think Hugh Jackman was a good choice and things moved along fairly well. Overall I liked how things were grouped to tell the story of how a movie is made andI liked the montages. And most of the scripts for the presenters wasn't too painful. I liked the opening number. I thought Anne Hathaway did a great job.
However while I understand and appreciate the theory behind having 5 past winners praise, mentor and whatever the actors in the category they're presenting, I found it very painful to watch.
Having initially felt a strong identification and response to SDM my enthusiasm had waned since not one of the people around who had seen it (not many) had much to say about it. In any case it's a worn out memory by now and a bit of a surprise it struck that rich abroad. Even if it's not India quite and something of a fairy tale it unsimplistically presents it as a bundle of ambiguities which real life always is and has authenticity at its core.
Bollywood is Bollywood and SDM is Hollywood. Except the music.
Before Daniel Craig assumed the mantle, I campaigned for Hugh Jackman becoming the next James Bond. Last night, we saw what the result would have been... and why does Hugh need Bond? Was there ever a better Bond girl than Anne Hathaway? Why give the award for Best Costume when you can be the host?
Was last night's show too gay? A better question is, How did the Oscars get away with pretending to be straight for so many years? John Wayne is spinning in his grave.
George Clooney was in Africa, campaigning for an end to genocide as a UN ambassador, his pet project for many years now.
Should Mr. Jackman ever get over his shyness problem, I think he could be pretty good.
OK, seriously, what's the fun of reporting on the Oscars when you can be on-stage giving an acceptance speech? Roger, you need a screenplay, and I'm going to suggest a no-brainer, based on what I've read in the last few weeks.
Our hero owns a newspaper in Chicago. His father owned it before him, along with a baseball team. Our hero has been a newspaper man all his life, and as the saying go, "I spared no expense." Every year, the newspaper lost money, trying to compete with the Trib. Every year, he went further into debt, until the red ink is everywhere. Our hero can't imagine a life without a family newspaper, but when the banks come to foreclose, what's a guy to do?
Enter... oursourcing. A family in India has become billionaires from outsourcing everything that can be done over the telephone from American corporations. American workers have been filled by Indians, something the Lone Ranger would certainly approve of. (Yes, a Lone Ranger joke. And make it gay.) The daughter of this family in India is an Anne hathaway type who longs to be an American. She comes to Chicago with enough rupees to save the newspaper, and our hero takes her through the landmarks of Chicago on the coldest night of the year, showing her why Chicago is the greatest city in America. At the end of the night, tragedy strikes, and she drowns in the frozen... oh, wait, we need a huge Bollywood dance number at the end. Forget the drowning. Leo already did it, anyway.
As James Cameron said, "All my movies are love stories." A love story between a Chicago newspaperman who bleeds ink instead of blood, who has to change before he loses it all, and has to confront his greatest fear in life in order to find True Love. I don't think I've mentioned anything that hasn't appeared on this blog, so it's a "no-brainer," but it needs a re-write by an insider. And Marty Scorsese as director.
Last night's winners? Certainly not Zac Efron. After making High School Musical 3, he had to hand out an award to one of those three bizarre Best Song nomineess? I would have chosen any one of three love poems to Vanessa from HSM3 over them.
Sorry Viola Davis didn't win, but the Academy is about actors, and Penelope has been... well, she was Tom Cruise's girl friend for a while, and got dumped, and she's still working.
Kate Winslet? Of course. She had two movies, stepped in for Kidman at the last moment, did the best acting of the year. If life was fair, she would have gotten the Bond role.
It was the best Oscar show I've ever seen. I agree! Hugh Jackman is a fine actor but I had no idea what to expect from him as a host. He was brilliant. And I agree about the former winners singing the praises of the nominees (though I winced a bit when Michael Douglas praised Frank Langella's performance as the best Nixon "ever" while Anthony Hopkins stood a few feet away). Involving former winners was a great touch. And Queen Latifah eulogizing with song was beautiful.
I could not agree with you more. Watching the reaction of the nominees as distinguished past winners praised their work added a visceral emotional connection to the broadcast. As for Ms. Fincke she even hammered Jerry Lewis! His humanitarian award was long overdue. Lewis was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his fund raising efforts.
Wait! I didn't mean I WANTED Mickey statueless. I thought he did a fantastic job...him not winning doesn't affect my life the way a different outcome on Election Day would have....
He was a HOOT on the Independent Spirit Awards. I would have been entertained again, I'm sure if he won last night.
I totally agree that this was one of the best Oscar ceremonies in organization, design and quality. I think the only problem was the winners and their near-predictability. But the Wolverine Song, Steve Martin jokes, stage setup, and montages were marvelously done.
And, Joaquin is ACTUALLY a nutzoid.
I agree on the observations about the Finke live blog. She operates a first class news blog but the mean-spirited myopia throughout the commentary could have been (and seems to have been) written weeks and weeks ago. The pre-destined hate for the show has been evident in circles like this (particularly on the internet) for weeks. It seems the producers could have done very little if anything to please her.
I thought some of the new things they tried were good - - and some of it not as good as it could have been. At least they tried some new ideas and formatting. They can improve what worked and dump the rest and I'm sure they will - it's not like they don't care what people think of the show.
The dance number mid-show was a bit inert unfortunately but the stage design was really great - moreso in HD.
Ebert: I'd say Penn was a great deal more than competent. Neither film was big-budget. I would have been pleased to see Rourke win.
So you think it was a toss-up?
Ben Kingsley summed it up best when he asked why do we care about the character and fate of Randy `the Ram` Robinson? Mickey Rourke.
Do we care about Harvey Milk because of Sean Penn? No. To a significant degree (much more so than The Wrestler is my point) we care because of the context of the story. Penn of course did a fine job.
Rourke`s performance reminds me of Keitel`s Bad Lieutenant. That type of acting, that makes you care about failed humanity, is likely the toughest. After comedy. Or so Ive heard.
I was surprised at negative comments about last night's telecast on the web this morning, because I found the show last night to be fast-paced, entertaining, and quite moving. From the very intimate introductions of each acting category nominee by 20 fantastic past-Oscar winners delivering their lines with respect and flair, to the intricate, overlapping display of songs and musical numbers brilliantly orchestrated and professionally delivered by Beyonce and Jackman and guests, this was very much a team effort, a "we" feeling and not the usual huge ego spectacle that the Oscars can sometimes seem to be.
Jackman was a surprise - yes, a song and dance man with the occasional flat joke (did he really sing "wading through human excrement" to Kate Winslet?) But he was handsome, funny, self-deprecating, charming - strong of voice and fleet of foot, carrying his weight and that of an enchantig Miss Hathaway and Ms. Knowles in the Musical show-numbers effortlessly. As to those boring musical numbers, I loved them! The "big show number" is such a wonderful break from the long lists and painful attempts at one-line comedy. Queen Latifah was gorgeous, glowing and sang stunningly, managing to get us to smile instead of cry at the images of thouse we now "celebrate instead of mourning."
I didn't much care for Jack Black's lines nor Jen Aniston's tense attempt at humor; and Ben Stiller was initially funny but too distracting from the presentation. (Thank Goodness for Natalie Portman's beautiful speaking voice and appropriate demeanor!)- But all in all, the presenters were remarkably fresh, competent, respectful and seemingly substance-free. The teleprompter slipped into the background, as should be. Looks like some people rehearsed!
The decision to presenting technical achievement awards in groups, embedded with explanations and examples made them much more interesting and the recipients much more sympathetic. Jerry Lewis was ailing and gracious. Heath Ledger's monumental absence hovered, but did not sit like a weight upon the evening. He was neither over-nor underpresent in the Dark Knight clips. His family was a little awkward, which was just right - we were left with the feeling that something was missing - just as it should be.
All in all, this was a welcome break from the "Formula" of the Comedy-presenter hosts of Crystal, Stewart, Martin, or the painfully insulting evening Chris Rock subjected us to a few years back.
In particular, I LOVED Shirley Maclaine's moving and intimate tribute to Anne Hathaway, and Hathaways rapturous expression as she lapped it up; Kate Winslet's elegant and yet down-to earth free-form acceptance ramble, Meryl Streep's humble demeanor at each referral to her "goddess" status, Robert de Niro was handsome and natural introducing Sean Penn. Danny Boyle's utter delight for his fellow artist's each time an award was swept for "Slumdog Millionaire" left you feeling that it must be a dream to work for him. Sean Penn was handsome and gracious, Penelope Cruz beautiful and charmingly overwhelmed.
Thanks for seeing this evening in a positive light!
It's hard, in a way, for me to grieve Mickey Rourke's loss: Sean Penn really was wonderful in Milk. He was better still, to my mind, as Jimmy Markum in Mystic River, a movie that still shakes my bones when I think of it. That doesn't mean, though, that it didn't break my heart to see him win Best Actor over Bill Murray, whose performance in Lost in Translation was somehow unique, age-defining, and permanent. Mickey Rourke's performance was similar: he brought to life a character who had not been seen before and etched him irrevocably in our common memory.
Again, it's hard to complain about Sean Penn's wins: he's one of our greatest actors. But, somehow, in picking what were truly the best performances of the year, the ones that meant the most, I think the Academy got it wrong both times.
My friends on Twitter generally agree with your assessment; it was a terrifically entertaining stage show. There will always be those who are unsatisfied, something which is unavoidable when you reach such a massive audience. I personally hope that Hugh Jackman comes back as a perennial host.
I had no idea Hugh Jackman was so talented. The opening number was great! I loved the Wrestler bits, the repeated brushing back of the hair, the elbow pads and the Top Rope big finish. His interview with Barbara Walters was charming too. I'm looking forward to reading his biography.
Anne Hathawy was a nice added bonus. I barked out a laugh when she wove that mini-parady of Nixon into her song. They both reminded me of good ol' fashioned "Stars as Entertainers, not just Stars" in the manner of Billy Chrystal and Bette Midler.
The only sour note was Bill Maher's comments about his own documentary during the doc award. I like Bill and was expecting an entertaining little quip, but he didn't hit the right tone (which is rare for him), and I thought it a little awkward. But it wasn't a big deal.
I was disappointed with the memorial segment to people in the industry who had died in the past year. They tried so hard to be techie that a lot of people weren't even shown on the screen.
And the tribute to Paul Newman was pretty weak. One of the all time greats and ...
On the other hand, having the five former winners introduce the best actors and best actresses nominees was great.
I found this Oscar telecast a refreshing change. The set, the charm of Hugh Jackman (who was seemingly having a good time), the acting nominations by a group of peers, the change of look - all made it more of a party. I have enjoyed Billy Crystal and previous shows had great moments, but this is the first time I felt the time go faster then it did, which is unique. Happy to have rough edges too, since over-produced shows have a soul-less quality that is tiresome. Anyhow, it worked for me. Bravo!
This show wasn't bad at all. When the previous winners praised the nominees, well, that's all it took to tear me up. What a great honor that was visible on all their faces. As for Mr. Jackman, I didn't enjoy the broadway stuff as much, but it was different and lively and definitely not boring as usual.
Bravo!
Ben Stiller's act, I thought, was a bit inappropriate.
Not only was he beaten to the punch at the Spirit Awards, as you noted, but he also distracted from the work and celebration of the nominees for Cinematography.
That's the kind of thing you'd expect at the MTV Movie Awards, but not here.
I understand their desire to make the show more fun, but it shouldn't be at the expense of the nominees.
Other than that, I totally agree that the show was a blast, and for the first time, I watched from start to finish.
And you shouldn't complain about E!'s preshow, Roger, those of us watching ABC had to see Jackman give Barbra Walters a lap dance. XO
Do you feel that the construction of the stage was too insular? For movie buffs like yourself and well, me as well, I did enjoy the intimacy but the set up, I thought, made it feel like it was their club and added to that the uber congratulatory introductions of the lead and supporting acting nomineees just made the whole affair seem quite exclusive.
I still enjoy the show though. I give it a solid 8 out of 10.
I thought the former winners were just too inconsistent in their praise for the current nominees. DeNiro did a great job, and Shirley MacLaine was making Anne Hathaway cry, but many of them were wooden, read-off-cue cards "good job" platitudes. If they are going to do something like that, they should all glow with praise and humor and earnestness.
Also, was anyone else reminded of ringwraiths descending on Frodo in Fellowship of the Ring, the way they all walked onto stage from different directions? The nominees even looked like frightened hobbits at that point too...
There was something else about the telecast last night that made it more . . . more something. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something good. There was more restraint and more respect -- somehow it seemed more a celebration of film and performance than about personality and stardom. A non-articulate comment for sure, but it was the first time in a while I watched the awards and wasn't turned off by something or other. It just seemed a great night to celebrate actors and performances.
The biggest surprise of the night for me was when they read the nominees for best original song. There were only 3, and two were from the same film. Not saying the winner wasn't deserving, but how can the title track from the Wrestler not be included? I guess people bolt before the credits these days, but I really found the end of that movie, and the credit sequence with the Bruce Springsteen song that captured the protagonist beautifully to be an excellent summation. To not even garner a nomination was bizzare to me.
I was surprised by how few mistakes there were. It was as if everyone was relaxed and enjoying a night of good feeling. The night would have been perfectly capped by a Mickey Rourke win. I found Sean Penn's performance in "Milk" to be astonishingly good, but come on now: Wasn't Rourke's acceptance speech one of the two or three most anticipated moments of the evening? I haven't even seen "The Wrestler" yet, but I went to bed last night feeling a very particular emptiness.
Penn was in a difficult position, winning last night. What could he have said, other than to go over to Rourke and wrap his arms around his "brother"? Many viewers are no doubt growing a little weary of actors' telling them how they should feel about things; despite my politics' being closer to Penn's than to, say, Jon Voight's, I was at least a little disappointed by Penn's very speech, not just by the feeling of letdown over Rourke's loss. Is anyone really convinced that acceptance speeches make a bit of difference in the world politically, other than as an ostentatious exhibition of the honoree's own political disposition? But Penn could have been more unpleasant.
Back to Rourke. Rourke's like a certain cool visiting us from the past, from a time that is certainly out of reach but doesn't seem so long ago. His is a compelling story. I can see, Roger, why you've said you would have liked very much to see it happen.
I feel that a great omission was made on the part of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences during this year's Oscars.
Don LaFontaine, the "Voice of God", the creator of all that film promotion is today was not mentioned during the memorial segment of the Academy Awards. How many of us have sat in a dark theatre and got a chill when we heard his glorious voice boom the words, "In a world..."? He introduced me (and I'm sure many of you) to films we may not have seen otherwise if it were not for his colourful and grand introductions, many weeks before the film's release. His voice created 'a world' for us and made us look forward in eager anticipation.
To omit this Hollywood Icon from the list of great lost talents was a travesty, and a grave dishonour to his amazing body of work and his tireless dedication to the film industry.
(The fact that Don was also the narrative voice of the Oscars themselves for many years makes this omission even more offensive)
I agree, Jack. For all the criticism montages take, I always look forward to the "In Memoriam" segment of the Oscars- usually a simple tribute to the departed, with short clips or their great moments. This year, that formula was tossed:
1) The visual presentation, of clips on various screens on the set made it very difficult to really see anything. I have an 46" HDTV and I couldn't make out much.
2) Latifa's song was distracting, but worse, prevented any use of any film clips with audio.
3) In 2008, we lost two giants: Sydney Pollack and Paul Newman. With all the talk beforehand of 'surprise presenters', I had my hopes up for Robert Redford strolling out and giving a tribute (and montage!) to Newman's incredible film biography and charitable work. No such luck. His name just rolled quickly by, given a few more seconds than Bernie Mac. Redford could've done Pollack too ("Out of Africa" and six other films together).
Although the set and some set pieces were improved, I have to disagree with those who found a better pacing this year than years previous. Once again, the 'second act' dragged on and on, punctuated by Jackman's and Luhrmann's silly musical number. The clock ticks on and as we wait for the rush Director/Actor/Actress/Picture.
Thanks to Roger and all of you for a great blog.
Are you people sure you saw the same Oscar telecast I did? After a few minutes of watching it I had to change the channel, and felt a massive wave of relief after I had done so. Didn't even bother watching the rest of it, and apparently most of America didn't either. It speaks volumes about how bad Oscar was this year that it lost over 20% of its audience as the evening wore on. That's 8 million viewers. Yes, Oscar, you suck, and suck hard.
And shame on you all for attacking Nikki. Her observations about Oscar were amazingly astute and on target; that she has the gumption to speak truth to power about what Oscar is REALLY all about says much for her, and quite a bit about all of you so intent on knocking her down a few pegs.
Finally - Mickey Rourke not winning Best Actor is criminal. ABSOLUTELY criminal. Sean Penn has won 2 Best Actor awards that frankly belonged to two other people (Bill Murray and Mickey Rourke).
I would disagree that it was the best Oscar telecast ever. I did enjoy it thoroughly though, I think the new way of introducing the nominees was fantastic. What really stuck out in my mind was Dustin Lance Black's acceptance speech, which is probably the best I have ever seen at an awards show.
I would disagree that it was the best Oscar telecast ever. I did enjoy it thoroughly though, I think the new way of introducing the nominees was fantastic. What really stuck out in my mind was Dustin Lance Black's acceptance speech, which is probably the best I have ever seen at an awards show.
I'm Waiting For Roger Ebert's Apology...
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/im-waiting-for-roger-eberts-apology/
I loved last night Oscars. Hugh Jackman was charming, funny, and kept the awards rolling. My favorite part was when the previous winners said something personal and intimate about each actor. That was a tribute and award in itself. Much more personal.
I love Sean Penn but I thought Mickey Rourke should have won.
Loved it!!!
It was a nice telecast, but they botched the memorial segment. Queen Latifah's song was quite beautiful but they overdirected that part, swooping cameras around her and the screens behind her, instead of just displaying the montage on our screen.
I thought it was also too bad that there was such an elegant ceremony to celebrate a weaker crop of movies than usual, but I may be in the minority with that opinion.
I thought it was more glamorous and lavish than the last few Oscars, which seemed kind of cheap and under-budgeted.. Hugh Jackman was a charming host, who had an old-fashioned kind of presentation that was very refreshing. Also, I liked that he didn't make any mean-spirited comments about anyone. I also was very touched by:
Penelope Cruz's speech about the artistic unity of the Oscars
Adrian Brody's introduction of Richard Jenkins
Sean Penn's speech about human rights for all
All in all, a very impressive awards ceremony. I was really rooting for Mickey Rourke to get the Oscar, but just seeing him there, and hearing the nice comments about him from Sean Penn and Ben Kingsley was very touching.
Finally, it was very touching to see the under-rated Frank Langella nominated for Frost/Nixon. He really deserves an award too.
Thanks for the great wrap-up, Roger, and your live commentary from the past is indeed missed, by me and I'm sure a great many other viewers. Still, it was a more enjoyable show than any I've seen in a long time, and I agree that some of the innovations--if they can be called that--brought a lot of charm to what had become something of a drag to watch.
The look on Anne Hathaway's face during Shirley McClain's comments was priceless--every bit the star-struck ingenue, shocked and thrilled to be where she was, basking unashamedly in the wholehearted (if scripted) praise of someone she'd probably admired from afar for years.
I was surprised "The Departed" won over "The Class" for best foreign-language film. I saw the movie (on a flight from Tokyo to Honolulu last year), and found it moving and well-acted (Tsutomu Yamazaki, of "Tampopo" fame, is at the top of his game), but otherwise a rather ordinary and very typically Japanese film, full of quiet moments and long, still shots but not particularly memorable--"The Funeral" had a much more interesting, and revealing, take on the Japanese approach to death.
I thought Bill Maher's flogging of his own documentary--which you delicately declined to mention--lacked class, coming as it did in the midst of his introduction of the nominees for Best Documentary, and while I've always enjoyed his work as a political humorist, for me this just showed that the "intelligent" in his pet subject is sometimes overblown.
Finally, it was disappointing to see that, during the tribute to those artists who left this world in 2008, the mention of the great Kon Ichikawa was accompanied by a clip of Rentaro Mikuni (the star of Ichikawa's 1956 "The Burmese Harp", but still very much alive at 86), rather than Mr. Ichikawa himself. I'm sure Mr. Mikuni would be surprised to hear of his untimely demise.
For some reason, hearing Eddie Murphy say "from one Nutty Professor to another" while presenting the award to Jerry Lewis gave me goosebumps.
In the death-montage, why did Heston get a fleeting few seconds?
Nikki, you still missed the point of the opening number, and what's wrong with the show being "gayer" than normal?
I'm divided on the "five presenters" thing for the acting categories. It does show a nice comraderie, but on the other hand it made each presentation really long, while leaving no time for actual clips of the performances. And why single out the actors, why don't the writers and the directors and the editors get this kind of respect?
Someone asked this above, but Springsteen's song from THE WRESTLER didn't make the cut in an early nomination runoff system that seems to have been cobbled together in response to some poorly received decision years back. This system will most likely be discarded in time for next year's awards.
I thought Hugh Jackman did a great job of putting his heart into his performance, though the song-and-dance numbers weren't all that great (though I thought the opener was better than the salute to musicals, especially when he dragged Anne Hathaway up on stage, I honestly thought for a minute she was being shanghaied). But he's no Billy Crystal; he just couldn't seem to make the comments to the audience feel impromptu the way Crystal was so good at. Though I did love the "contractually obligated to mention Brad and Angelina five times" remark.
Bringing out the five previous winners to praise the nominees was an interesting touch, though it made me miss seeing the clips that has been the classic method for introducing the nominees. I don't know if it worked very well in every case, but it did seem to help things when it got to the best supporting actor, given that all most critics and pundits have wanted to do up until last night was praise Heath Ledger for his outstanding work. Having the previous winners praise the other actors was a nice way of reflecting on the fact that they, too, put in excellent performances this year, even if they couldn't touch Ledger.
What I think hurts the Oscars the most is their seeming unwillingness to nominate high-grossing movies for the big awards. It seems like year after year, the movies that get listed for best picture, that's when I first hear about them, because they got listed for best picture. The highest ratings for the broadcast came when Titanic, the highest grossing picture of all time, was up for best picture. When Lord of the Rings: Return of the King was poised to sweep 11 categories including best picture, the ratings jumped as well. Last year, it was a lot of indie or otherwise low-grossing films, and guess what, the ratings for the broadcast were equally low. Even if the nominated films are all well crafted, it's just hard to get excited about films you've never heard of going after the big prize.
That's not to say that a high box office should automatically translate to a best picture nod. But it shouldn't keep a film out of the running, either. This year, two films that got tons of attention from critics and movie-goers alike were The Dark Knight and Wall-E, both of which shocked critics when they were absent in the final list of nominees. Not saying that either of those films deserved to win over Slumdog Millionaire, only that had they been in the running, more people might have cared and more people might have watched. And the extensive changes to the presentation, some admittedly for the good but many for the bad, wouldn't have really be necessary, the audience would have been there. I know that the last time I really cared about the broadcast, until I wanted to see Heath Ledger's win last night, was when Return of the King swept. I don't think I'm alone about that.
This wasn't the best I've seen, but I absolutely loved the new stage, the more intimate setting, and especially how the acting awards were presented. Masterstroke!
Hugh was good but his second musical number with Beyonce & Co. was astonishingly bad.
Oops, I hit submit too soon.
I think far and away my favorite Oscarcast (assuming my memory serves me correctly) was the 1992 show.
Billy Crystal comes out dressed as Hannibal Lecter, Jack Palance does one-armed push-ups (after saying he craps bigger than Billy Crystal), then the rest of the night Crystal serves up riotious zingers at Palance's expense, AND 100-year-old Hal Roach was there, gives his speech too soon, in the middle of the audience and before a mic can get to him.
This leads to maybe the funniest line ever, where Crystal says Hal Roach's silent speech was perfect given that he began his career in silent movies.
CheckMATE!
Roger, thank you for this insightful review. And don't you DARE apologize to that nitwit Finke. She's a clueless twit anyway, and all of us in the industry know this. (Honestly, does this woman ever do anything but sit alone in a dark room and scheme about how to condescend to the rest of us? Find new and vile ways to spew doom and gloom about everyone else out there actually trying to contribute positively to the world of entertainment? I think not.) YOU had it right when you said last night's Oscars was one of the best. I absolutely agree. With the exception of the Academy completely snubbing Clint Eastwood's incredible "Gran Torino," and only having three song nominees (when they could have had five, say, possibly from "Gran Torino" or "The Wrestler"???)...I thought last night was amazing. It seems like the Academy has finally figured out how to do this show. The audience seemed to love it, as did most of the viewers, as I've been reading comments all over the internet. What a sparkling celebration of THE MOVIE in general. Classy, elegant...loved bringing back the previous winners to present...Queen Latifah's song was beautiful...and Hugh Jackman, well...to say he was incredible would be an understatement. Adorable, sexy, talented, funny...if the Academy doesn't bring him back along with this inspired team of producers, production designers and writers next year, they are simply as crazy as Nikki Finke. Period. I really think that anyone trying to sling nasty criticism at last night's event has a serious screw loose, or some sort of major chip on their shoulder. In fact, I predict that last night's production will win a well-deserved Emmy this year. Just beyond fantastic. A truly enjoyable show, on every level!!!
I just read a negative review from The Los Angeles Times, so I immediately came here for comfort. Roger, you are my voice. Thanks for the Elevation.
Roger, I spotted an error in this entry. You wrote:
My first, and last, stop was an astonishing live blog by the usually sane Nikki Finke
... when in fact Nikke Finke is almost always completely bat-poop CRAZY. Just thought I'd let you know about the typo.
Roger, THANK YOU for recognizing the welcome entertainment and emotional value of this particular ceremony. Judging by all the snide cynical sniping online, I thought I must've been dreaming. I got misty-eyed several times... when Sophia Loren showed up, everything in the world suddenly seemed right. It was an excellent show, and I've been listening to "Jai Ho" over and over all day.
Call me a sentimental fool, but I judge an Oscar show by the number of times I'm moved to cry. I cried a lot last night. The show was fantastic. Most inspired moments were the former Oscar winners presenting the acting awards. I was outraged when I heard rumors that Marion Cotillard was not presenting alone, boy was I wrong. This was a respectful tribute to former winners welcoming the next member "of the club". It was so powerful to watch the group introduced and walking onto stage after the audio of their "win" was played. (I had to rewind and rewatch those bits!) I also enjoyed the "how a movie is made" theme. Kudos! For us film buffs, I really enjoyed Janusz Kaminski having fun in a spoof and also presenting. Did this put off John Q Public, who knows, but I want more of that! A big thank you to the producers/director for not bringing up the music and cutting off speeches. My secret beef (but I realize it has to be the way it is) I wish there was a separate tribute to my hero, Sydney Pollack. Hugh Jackman, please come back next year. You were perfect. ps You don't owe Nikki an apology. She's just continuing her snarkfest.
I wasn't surprised so much that Penn won (I thought it was a toss-up) as that Milk won for screenplay. I thought that both Milk and The Wrestler were films that really didn't live up to the performances in them.
Every time I hear people say, 'The musical is back", i can't help but think they are masking the real truth: that the musical isn't anywhere near being back. I know that there have been a few spotted here and there through this past decade, but to assume that it has forced its way into the heart of the american people as a viable hollywood genre is way over the top. The musical died in the fifties and I doubt it's coming back. I simply can't imagine movies like "Meet Me in St. Louis", "The Pirate", "Singin' in the Rain", "Swing Time", "Le Million", or any of the fabulous Lubistch musicals coming out again. I doubt we have room for such pure unabashed happiness and silliness.
I did not watch the Oscars and have not seen Slumdog Millionaire yet, so I can't comment on the goodness of the telecast. I sure have seen plenty of bad ones though, so if they are moving towards improvement, Godspeed.
Question, or point, depending; When did the Oscars become such an important part of determining the quality of movies? Unless I'm mistaken, weren't the Academy awards created to sort of draw attention to films during the 'off season'? And if the awards are given out by the same folks that make them pretty much, isn't it a little elitist? I hardly think the People's Choice Awards should be given more sway, or else Stallone would have been the greatest actor of the 80's, but I have a hard time accepting Hollywood's interpretation of what a good movie is when so many good movies are made only AFTER being shunned by Hollywood in the first place!
Maybe I'm just angry that Clint wasn't nominated for anything. Please forgive my disgruntledness. (It says that disgruntledness isn't a word, now I'm even MORE disgruntled.)
You do not owe Nikki Finke an apology. Let her stew, she enjoys that anyways.
The eulogy portion was not done very well. I love Queen Latifah and thought she did a beautiful rendition of "I'll Be Seeing You," however the swooping camera work made reading some of the names impossible; it was if the cameraman was drunk or stoned. The whole effect was very distracting and frustrating and was not a worthy tribute to those who passed on in the past year.
Nikki, face it, you were sourpussed throughout the night. Just like last year. And then to proclaim that certain actors wouldn't appear b/c of this and that. And then to have all of them except Clooney show up. You were misinformed but that's your M.O.
To be negative about the industry you make a living on. I realize that actors can be a pain in the butt most of the time but please attempt to be so negative every day. And then for you retort to be that you don't like to cover the event every year yourself is 1000% ironic w/ your scoop about certain actors wanting to do the same thing.
I'm shocked, Roger! I can't believe you enjoyed that nightmare. Oof, those cult-like circles of actor and actress Oscar winners was beyond creepy, completely awkward and uncomfortable.
Of course the Oscars were fine; they always are--although last night was particularly good-looking, with amazing intro/incidental music--the first Oscar Soundtrack? I won't bother addressing the negative critiques. This is a show about show business, and so it's always slightly silly, self-aggrandizing, and so on. What did you expect? It's like complaining about those two people you saw hitting each other at a boxing match.
Speaking of hitting, I too am sorry Mickey Rourke didn't win an Oscar. But, as he told Barbara Walters, "You can't eat it, you can't f--k it, and it won't get you into heaven." So forget about it; let's focus on getting Mickey and Scorsese together.
Was Jack Nicholson even there? Usually he stands out in the front row of stage right but for the life of me I don't recall seeing him?
Roger, it's great to see you recently in the various entertainment shows and news broadcasts. I have truly appreciated you over the years as really trying to critique films in a constructive way. I even appreciated your abstention from critiquing Mamma Mia this summer because the audience it appealed to so connected with it that I think you knew early that it might not meet with your total approval..but you anticipated the audience excitement about it.
With regard to last nights Oscar show, I too thought it was terrific, fast paced and I thought really built on President Obama's notion of inclusion by making the stage more intimate and just the whole ambience of feeling that I was not an ant watching this show from outer space but I actually felt like I was sitting there in the audience. I loved Hugh Jackman , I loved the singing and I thought it was really fast paced. It was both elegant and mainstream at the same time. Nothing high-brow or exclusionary about it. Like what Preston Sturges tried to say in Sullivan's Travels, in these times, people need to change the focus , if for only a moment ---because soon enough they will again have to face the reality of their own lives. I do have one regret. I don't know what the Academy wants from Meryl Streep. I feel they feel that she has been rewarded enough, has 15 nominations and two wins and doesn't need anymore. I truly thought her performance was so much better than Kate Winslet and I admire Kate. I think Streep's excellence is taken for granted and it becomes an expectation,,,,much like in business when you have a high potential and proven performer you rate them average only because you know they are capable of that and more. Well Streep is high potential. I am not asking her to get the award for just breathing...but the breath and breadth she brought to Doubt was remarkable.
My best to you, God Bless and take care.
I blogged on last night's Oscars, and I found it acceptable. I was working last night, so I had to watch it on a smaller TV. Today, I was able to watch my HD-DVR recording, and I was a little more impressed than I was last night.
However, as I said in my blog, the Academy did two major disservices to viewers last night:
First was the limitation on the Best Song award. I've watched the Oscars for years now, and I've never seen them butcher this award like they did tonight. If you're wondering why Peter Gabriel didn't sing "Down To Earth" from "Wall-E," it's because the Academy imposed a 65-second time limit on the songs. Gabriel refused the "honor" of singing a truncated version of his song. And the guy they had sing it couldn't hit the notes right!
Of course, the Academy has screwed up this category before. When Phil Collins was nominated for "Against All Odds (Take A Look At Me Now)" in 1984, the Academy had Ann Reinking sing the song even though Collins was there at the ceremony. They didn't know him, so they just had Reinking sing the song.
The second screwup was the "In Memoriam" sequence that has always been a hallmark of the Oscar telecast. It was wonderful to have Queen Latifah sing a song of tribute, but instead of cutting straight to the video after her opening bars, they had the camera pan back and forth across the video screens. I couldn't make out who the first person was being listed (some female dancer), and it was hard to follow the sequence with all of the pans. I thought I was watching the "eye in the sky" cam at an NFL game.
Funniest comment: "Slumdog" director Danny Boyle thanking the executives at Warner Bros. for turning down "Slumdog" and letting Fox Searchlight take over.
I have watched each of the last 35 Oscar shows and most of them have blended together but, after this year's telecast, I am thinking that that is a good thing. I'll remember this one as the most dull, frustrating and poorly directed.
I was disappointed at the lack of surprises although perhaps that had more to do with the films themselves. I was not "blown away" by any of the five best picture nominees. While I greatly admired Slumdog Millionaire, I was far more impressed by Milk for its storytelling, production design and acting. And Benjamin Button, was, in my opinion, the most impressively produced film of the year (although the writing was weak and the logic of the world it created was dubious at best).
I actually found the five-star presentations rather cloying, though the star power was something to behold. Perhaps if they had integrated that with the traditional clips, it would have been better. Personally, I would much prefer being able to view a highlight clip from the performance, albeit brief, than listen to the scripted fawning of some of Hollywoods biggest stars. (Shirley MacLaine had a difficult enough time trying to read her lines let alone sound convincing!) And what will happen if they keep this up as a tradition? Won't they run out of stars rather quickly? Or worse: digitally reincarnate stars past?
And the direction seemed to be suffering from attention deficit. What was with the swaying to and fro during the In Memorium segment? It is a sombre moment for which dizzying camera work is a rather poor choice. I missed some of the members' identities altogether due to the camera distance and its endless distracting movement.
And on a more personally frustrating note, Peter Gabriel is my favourite musical performer. He is the ultimate showman in performance art and would no doubt have provided something special. There were only three nominated songs this year - let the man perform his song in its entirety!
This year's telecast stood out alright and will likely be one I remember for a long time. But as the Big Mac of Hollywood awards ceremonies, there are some basic expectations to meet -- big splashy numbers, clips of the nominated films, and a camera that isn't attached to a swinging rope!
Has anyone seen John Cusack recently? Don't be surprised if Joaquin Phoenix soon gives up hip hop to become a puppeteer.
Show, don't tell. They didn't show us clips of performances this year, they had other actors tell the nominees (and us) how great they are. It just didn't work for me.
Wow, the Mickey Rourke clip is unbelievable. Unbelievable. The ecstasy of not giving a f***.
I just saw "The Wrestler" last night. It is miraculous. Terrifying. The best cinematic allegory thus far of the United States from the Reagan era to present. This is a worthy partner to Children of Men, though even that film is not able to include the power of the entertainment industry (what scholars call "spectacle") as an essential part of global phenomena and perpetual catastrophe. Summary of our current situation: we live in a world of appearances through which reality has begun to peek through, in the same way that age beings to mark the invincible body of the wrestler/stripper.
The film's denouement is almost criminal-- somehow our collective comeuppance is figured as something woeful and worthy of sympathy. Maybe it is.
I have to respectfully disagree.
The "In Memorium" segment is one of the highlights of the show for many people, and ought to have been left alone. In their zeal to 'make it all new!' the people responsible for this year's Oscars very foolishly botched this great and traditionally solemn segment. We at home got swooping cameras and a live performance, and were unable even to see the first few people who had passed, and most of the later ones were not focused and could hardly be read. It was an amazingly bad decision.
Another bad decision, to me, was the 'five former winners speak about the current nominees' thing. For one, it was forced and awkward and took too long. For two, it cost us seeing clips from the performances nominated - for many in the audience, this would be the only time they'd see any part of the nominated performance, and it always helped to provide context - as if to say THIS is what the person is nominated for. Making it personal the way they attempted to do may well reflect what the awards are really about (see: Pacino's win for Scent of a Woman) but we like to believe it's not about politics or personalities, but about the performances. This decision also cost us an opportunity to see Heath Ledger acting, when a proper clip of his performance would have made his win that much more immediately poignant. In general, and I know people knock the montages, there were far too FEW this year. They went too far the other way on including film clips. The few we got were haphazard and sloppy and all focused on new movies - not what Oscar is about. I missed the clips of the nominees, and the montages of classic films. Just my take.
I will also point out that the voting this year was unusually bad. I'm no advocate for genre films, and I thought Dark Knight was only OK, but - first it gets snubbed, THEN - in two tech categories where the nominees were two genre films and Benjamin Button - Benjamin Button magically won both awards. What a joke. Why even nominate genre films for anything anymore? Apparently it's not enough that they're relegated to the technical awards ghetto, now they can't even win there, because the Academy decides to nominate a 'real' movie, and all the Hollywood sheep vote accordingly.
I was also delighted to see two of my film heroes, Herzog and Shanley, were nominated. But they both lost, naturally (neither really deserved to win - but losing to the awful Slumdog is kind of a joke, for Shanley).
And about Slumdog, finally - it got old, quick, for most Americans, and for most film fans, I suspect. Slumdog is well-known and loved with a very select group - people who know enough about movies to see many of them (often because they work in the industry in some capacity, usually media), but who are not especially discerning as filmgoers. It's not a good movie. And I think as it became clear that this movie no one had ever heard of, and that wasn't that good in the first place, was going to sweep the awards, I suspect many felt as I did, and were bored by it. It felt like watching a party no one else is in on, watching those people pat each other on the back and revel in their success. It felt especially annoying in that it was undeserved, and several of the wins in smaller categories were patently due to the picture's general - inexplicable - momentum with voters.
And I won't even get into how Sean Penn stole what was likely Mickey Rourke's one shot, just because Hollywood wanted to make a political statement. But then, he knew the company he was keeping, being an actor. Better than most I suspect.
Final word to keep this from being altogether negative - Hugh Jackman was wonderful, and the Pineapple Express skit was wonderful, and Fey and Martin were wonderful.
These Ocasrs sucked! First off, they ran late...like always. This is because they don't know what to cut from the program during run-throughs. That "Tribute to the Musical"? Screw that! Not needed. Those retrospective "Best of Animation", "Best of Comedy", etc.? Not needed. The only interstitial that is required each year is the "In Memoriam" Keep that, cut the rest. Also, they can ditch the "red carpet" BS... no one cares about necklaces and dresses that no one watching can afford. I also don't think that even the male celebrities care where they get their tuxes from, so stop telling us! Let the winners give their speeches, no matter how long... although more than 2 minutes can get tedious... give the noms a heads-up on that.
I did like that they brought back previous winners from certain categories to list the noms this year. That was good. They can keep that.
Otherwise, oh well... maybe next year.
I, too, was touched by the multi-star presentations for the acting awards. Kate Winslet was beautiful, near to tears, beautiful and beautiful as she was praised for her work. I was so happy to see her win!
And at the very end, I was the one who was nearly crying when I saw all of the smiling 'Slumdog' kids up there on the stage with the triumphant team that brought us the movie. I hope that they grow up healthy and happy, and that they aren't swept aside and forgotten now that the hoopla is dying down.
I actually attended the Oscars for the first time last night, and I am still so absolutely blissed out from this experience that I can hardly contain myself.
We hit the Carpet at about 3:45PM LA time; the car got cavity searched before it was parked. I walked in beside Kevin Kline and Phoebe Cates, both looking terrific. Robert Osborne interviewed Richard Jenkins, Melissa Leo, Viola Davis, and Taraji P. Henson as I walked in. Cameras going off all over the place. Tim Gunn waved to me (actually to the person I was beside but when he saw me wave back he actually waved to me, as well!) The presenters did not go in on the red carpet, so celebrities were fewer and further between.
I have no idea what you saw on TV and I can't wait to see the telecast when I get back. Hugh Jackman was magnificent; he kept the crowd entertained during the commercial breaks. He and Brad Pitt practiced the baton toss before Hugh's 2nd musical number. Hugh also brought his wife a big plate of cookies ot cake or something since he knew she was getting hungry.
I am a bass player, and my old friend Dave Stone played bass for the jazz group that played off to the side during breaks. It was his first Oscar gig; he also played on the film scores for Ratatouille and the up coming UP from Pixar. The guy with the white hair on electric bass in the big orchestra (onstage) was the incomparable Abe Laboriel, who I saw on the way out. He gave me a big handshake and said he was glad to see me there. He is one of the best and busiest bass players in the world. More reasons to love the show.
Folks, I am still in such a state of giddiness that I don't know what else to say.
Sophia Loren, De Niro, Tony Hopkins, Whoopi, Shirley MacLaine...WHAT A NIGHT! Oh WOW!!!!
Ebert: Inquiring minds want to know: How did you score the tickets?
The problem with The Oscars is that it is produced like it's a movie.
It's not a movie, it's a TV show. They make the same mistake every year. That's why it is always too long and full of so much nonsense.
This show was crap. They took an already bad show and combined it with the Tonys.
The way the acting awards were presented will be ridiculed for years. It was that pompous.
Wasn't her date Seymour Phillip Hoffman?
I'm glad I missed that part of the pre-show drivel; sadly, I didn't miss the talking head asking Robert Downey, Jr. about his date, nor did I miss Randolph Duke's (Did he steal that name from Trading Places, or is it actually his name?) sneery cheers and jeers on everyone's fashion choices. The insipidity of most comments/questions I did see was mind-numbing, and I couldn't wait for the show itself to begin.
I enjoyed the show itself, particularly the past-winners' gaggles introducing the nominees (elevation, anyone?), but I missed the clips of nominated performances. I say bring back the clips, and lose the cheesy musical performances. Hugh Jackman's opener was pretty good, but the nominated songs are pretty much always bathroom break time -- even if I don't have to go right then.
Ebert: Sarah Jessica Parker's date was her husband since 1997, Matthew Broderick.
I didn't mind last night's Oscar telecast. I'm glad the best of the nominated films won, but on the other hand, the utter lack of surprises (I couldn't see Rourke winning) made the awards themselves a little dull.
Now, for my pet peeve:
Why does a blue ribbon panel get to determine who nominates and wins the Best Foreign Language Film award, but EVERY member of the Academy gets to vote for Best Sound and Best Sound Editing?!
I know members of the Academy work in the film industry and therefore, might be more knowledgeable about sound than say, I am, but it still seems like a category that requires a higher level of specialization to adequately assess.
This year, "Slumdog" beat "WALL*E" in the category of Best Sound and "The Dark Knight" beat "Slumdog" in the Sound Editing category. Did they deserve it? I doubt it, but who knows. I bet most members of the Academy couldn't tell you that either. Unlike the visual categories, determining sound is a trickier proposition - we don't notice film sound unless it's unsynchronized, too loud, too quiet or - in surround venues, coming from behind us. And with the possible exception of Cinematography, most visual categories don't suffer from being viewed at home.
With all the hard work sound designers go through for every film, I feel there has to be a better way of determining recognition.
Ebert: Perhaps the hope is that all or most of the voters will have seen the films; with docs and foreign, their committees reformed the process by requiring you have to see all five before you can vote.
Ya know, Nikki. I know you couldn't care less what some random schmoe like me thinks, you know what you sound like when you criticize a show for being too gay, but hasten to add the obligatory "not that there's anything wrong with that" and then stress that you voted against Prop 8? You sound like that obnoxious co-worker that everybody has who tells racist jokes but punctuates them with them with "but I'm not racist. Some of my best friends are black". Ya see, you can't keep knocking something because you perceive it as being "too gay" but then turn around as try to pretend that you're not saying that "gay" is a bad thing. It's really quite mind boggling how so many of these so-called progressives will rail against anti-gay bigotry and then in the same breath use the term "gay" in a pejorative context, that it's bad when something is "gay". Talk about having your cake and eating it, too.
Did anyone else get annoyed with the memorial part? By moving the damn camera around and about and in and out, you couldn't clearly see these people, their work, and oftentimes their names. I may not always recognize the face of a behind-the-scenes person, but I often do know their name. That made my teeth grind. Just put it on the screen, stop swinging all over the place!
My favorite thing about the oscars was the screenplay part. My first years on the internet, when I didn't know you could just switch off parental controls, all I had to do on the internet was read movie scripts from script-o-rama.com or movie-page.net and eventually read your website, Roger...But that was years later. I haven't done that really since that time, so I felt a nostalgia, but I also just thought it was neat in its own right.
But this was the only Oscars I've ever watched...I mean, I saw a few pieces from other ones, but found it too boring and perhaps, sadistic, as you said. And I did like how that changed..with the former winners praising the nominees individually--it was more classy and sometimes funny, such as when Whoopi Goldberg poked fun at herself from the "Sister Act" movies. And Hugh Jackman at the beginning really livened it up.
As a fan of Herzog's (I was introduced to him years ago by reading you) I was anxious to see if he might finally win the Oscar. I wasn't surprised that he didn't (tough competition) and, of course, he doesn't need the validation of awards at all. But at that moment when he appeared on screen with the hopeful grin and quick shake of his head, I felt hope for him that he would get this reward for his incredible body of work, a win would no doubt open his work up to even wider audiences and create even more fruitful sources of funding for his future work. And so while I felt mild disappointment that he did not win, I almost immediately felt a sense of poetic justice when I heard "Man on Wire" star Phillipe Petit say this:
"The shortest speech in Oscar history: "Yes!" But I always break the rule, I break my own rules very quickly and of course this film would have not been made without my Kathy. And also, Werner, I always carry the coin you gave me. And you were right. We won. So now it's time to thank the Academy for believing in magic."
I suspect that few people even caught or recognized Petit's shout-out, but I found it to be the perfect, unassuming toast by Petit to Herzog -- from one believer in impossible dreams to another.
A few moments in the Oscars which, for me, induced the highest emotional, as you like to say, “elevation”:
1) Heath Ledger’s family accepting the reward on his behalf. I felt that vindication had been done for a performance that was in no way “supporting.”
2) Hearing the Academy’s symphony playing the score from Slumdog Millionaire… Every ounce of joy and relief I felt at the conclusion of the movie came flooding back, and I realized that it really was the best movie of the year.
3) Just one more. Any time Danny Boyle was shown during the acceptance of the awards that Slumdog won, but he wasn’t on stage for. He appeared so genuinely thrilled that I became thrilled myself. I guess that the team that worked on the film really became close friends in its making.
Oh, and in the post-Oscar, post-News Jimmy Kimmel Late Night Show, Mel Gibson was able to act so strangely that I think he may have haunted my dreams last night. He spoke about helping Brittany Spears out of a rough spot, and expressing his regret that he didn’t do the same for Heath. Personally, I think that anyone who makes a mock-preview with Jimmy Kimmel for a movie about the rise and fall of Colonel Sanders may have issues of his own.
In real life, it's impossible to "never complain; never explain," but Ms. Finke's mean-spirited tempest in a teapot brings that adage to mind. Time to move on with our lives, folks.
I liked many of the new things this year's Oscars had. Especially I liked the previous winners addressing the nominees--that's wonderful, brilliant, and meaningful. And I thought Hugh Jackman was a great host. I'd like to go back to the way they used to present the "In Memoriam" segment; lovely song well performed, but distracting; and with my small TV screen I often from across the room couldn't even tell who was being remembered . . .
Sean Penn showed real class; Anne Hathaway hit the high note; Kate Winslet was the sublime Kate Winslet. Great Oscars overall!
I intentionally missed the show this year. Nothing against the nominees; I was, as always, keenly interested in the outcome. However, the last few broadcasts basically resulted in extended yawning sessions. So, this year, my wife April and I decided to watch "Personal Journey With Martin Scorsese Through American Movies" instead.
Now, I'm getting messages from my friends that this Oscars broadcast was actually enjoyable.
Oh well, that's how my luck usually goes.
In an Oscar telecast that lacked the usual tons of jokes, my biggest laugh of the night came while learning the CUSTOM DESIGN nomination for MILK. It reminded me of you and Gene Siskel making fun of the nomination of the same category for HARLEM NIGHTS years ago in IF WE PICKED THE WINNERS, and pointing out that suiting up performers in tuxedos could have earned you both a nomination, as you were wearing them for your show as well.
That last comment was too gay.
Roger,
While it seemed to be a foregone consclusion, how did you feel when Ledger won his Oscar? Anything in particular? I thought it was handled well.
I wanted to kill my boss after receiving a phone call from him around 7:00 pm to show up at office as there was an emergency situation (which it wasn't, even remotely). I was planning to watch A R Rahman walk to up to stage and receive the Oscar for months. I ended up watching it on youtube and immediatly broke down into tears.
As an Indian, in late twenties now, I grew up listening to the tunes of A R Rahman. Me and my friends back in India used to wonder how is that Rahman, who to us was by an equally, if not a better, composer than Western counterparts, was totally ignored by Hollywood. To us the ignorance of western audience towards Indian cinema and music was a shocker.
Your review of Taal made me immensely happy (for which A R Rahman was the composer and the music for this movie made more money than the box office collection)as the nation's most beloved critic noticed something good in our Cinema. I read your review of Lagaan (Rahman again was the composer) dozens of times and you said what I wanted to say to people who did not want to see an Indian movie, "It will be your loss".
I found the show genuinely heartwarming and joyous. I was so happy to see 'Slumdog Millionaire' so successful. Although the last few weeks it has become the predicted winner, looking back a year or even six months ago... who would have imagined? I was first disappointed that we wouldn't get clips of the actors/actress performances, but by the end I felt like the tributes of each was so moving... I guess the main things I found disappointing was Mickey Rourke not winning. Sean Penn was great, but I just felt hopeful for Mickey. I also thought the musical montage was a little ridiculous. But what wonderful moments when Kate, Penelope, Danny Boyle, the cast of 'slumdog', all came on that stage and showed genuine joy and exhilaration. What a beautiful night... I'm actually having a tough day since one of my favorite nights of the year is over. I look forward to it for so long... i'm already pumped about next year. I'm looking forward to seeing on screen and maybe on oscar night for 2009: Shutter Island, Inglorious Basterds, Nine, The Human Factor, 500 Days of Summer, Push, An Education, The Road, A Serious Man, Whatever Works, Taking Woodstock, Up, The Tree of Life... and who else knows!
Mickey Rourke got robbed. I'm sorry. I can't help but feel that they didn't give this guy his day in the spotlight. Besides that, I'm not even a big fan of Sean Penn...so this was just an entire disgrace on my part. I'm sorry, but it's how I feel.
Roger, Roger, Roger. I was makin' a funny on your having typed Jessica Sarah Parker -- which I see you've since corrected -- and conflating it with Alan Arkin's switching of P. S. Hoffman's first and middle names in his intro. Do I seem so unaware that I wouldn't know a) Matthew Broderick, and/or b) his long-time status as Sarah Jessica Parker's hubby? O, ye of little faith...
Ebert: Ron, Ron, Ron. My bad.
I like it that their son's middle name is Wilkie, after Wilkie Collins, one of their favorite authors. That speaks very well for them.
So often it seems that when the general populous gives their opinion, they do so with more concern as to how they will be received for giving their opinion than for what it actually is. How many times have those in our social circles flown in the face of logic just for the sake of sounding elitist and, therefore, cool?
Case in point, the new awarding format on the Oscars. I cringed when I heard various post-show reports on TV saying the format was not universally well received. There is no logical reason for it. Why not allow the nominees their moment in the sun, to find out WHY they were nominated instead of simply going off of assumptions from those in the know? Why not put previous Oscar winners to work, and decorate the show with as much star power as possible? Most importantly, why not allow audiences to hear about great movies they may not have seen, and a shelf of reasons why they should? Surely the answers to those questions, if there are any, would either be completely illogical or just plain mean.
I had this Oscar ceremony forced upon me by my coworkers (usually they shove the NBA down my throat), but for once I was glad they did. I enjoyed this style of ceremony more than any awards show I have seen in sometime. Terrible that the academy will likely give into pressure to return to the old format next year simply because elitists fear change. I mourn the loss already.
As an aside, I also wish Sean Penn had saved his political comments for after the ceremony. Now I have to hear about how Mickey Rourke's loss is some sort of critical blow to the conservatives and god. Not on this blog of course, but you get the idea.
I believe that the Oscars on Sunday night were not only the best ever, but one of the most important days in modern history. Hugh Jackman is a modern day Abraham Lincoln in the way he put the show on his shoulders and carried the day. Danny Boyle reminds me of a more important and more dynamic General George S. Patton in his clear and uncompromising vision. Sean Penn=Louis Pasteur?
I'm sorry if I have come off as melodramatic, or over the top, but its such a significant event. I would touch the on the Golden Globes, or the Spike TV Video game awards, but even if you love all of your children, on your daughters wedding day is your attention anywhere but on her?
"At first, art imitates life. Then life will imitate art.Then life will find its very existence from the arts."~Fyodor Dostoevsky
I'm glad someone else enjoyed the Oscar telecast. I've been reading mixed reviews, and I thought maybe I was too easily pleased. It seems like "The Oscar telecast sucked" is one of those cynical things some people say by rote, like "This wasn't a great year for movies."
I thought "Slumdog Millionaire," nice as it was, was over-rewarded. I couldn't help but think of all those films I liked better that got bupkus, and it's a long list. Making up for that was the inspired choice to have previous winners announce the acting categories and give each nominee his or her moment in the spotlight. I would like them to do this every year, but I guess after a few years they'd run out of previous winners available to present the award and they'd have to start recycling through, and it would lose its impact.
Maybe they could do it next year for the directing category. Wouldn't it be great to have Spielberg, Scorsese, Eastwood, the Coens, and Danny Boyle there to anoint the next directing champ?
Ebert: Now that's a great idea.
Oscars weren't shown in this territory, or if they were nobody here cared enough like they did with the Superbowl. But I've seen so few good movies this year I really didn't see the point.
Seriously, the last movies that came out here(and I'm so desperate I watch them all) were Madea Goes to Jail, Bedtime Stories, Pink Panther 2, Underworld 3, and so on in that order of Oscarlessness.
So Steven Spielberg and John Williams have collaborated to give us some of the most recognizable film music in history.
And which music do they play as they're introducing Spielberg on the Oscars? The unmemorable theme from "The Lost World: Jurassic Park."
How delightfully random. Who's inside joke was that?
The one thing that I really missed this year was the voiceover while the winner walked up indicating how many other nominations and Oscars that person had and what they were for.
I suppose that goes hand-in-hand with the change in focus towards the acting nominees and somewhat de-emphasizing the winners -- and also the seating arrangement of the nominees closer to the stage -- but I think we lost some sense of the poignancy and joy of a long-time nominee receiving his/her first Oscar. But it's not like the winners were going to skip the hugs and kisses from loved ones and collaborators in their rush to get onto the stage...
Show, don't tell. They didn't show us clips of performances this year, they had other actors tell the nominees (and us) how great they are. It just didn't work for me.
I just read a little of the Finke blog. What vapid, shallow rambling it was.
Hmm, I dunno. I loved the faster pace, loved that there were several awards given-out between commercial breaks, liked the five actors/actresses giving out awards, loved the screeplay introduction, but found it a little out of touch with what people are expecting these days. What I mean is passages like "if music is the words, then singing is a punctuation" will only release a groan from the people watching - and the 50-odd people I've asked all agree. Also a song-&-dance too many, but I was pleasantly surprised by Hugh Jackman. (By the way, Anne Hathaway sings like an angel.) The smaller atmosphere was great, but there were some cheesy elements throughout I'd have loved to change, and many of the 19 year-olds around me agreed. I also hated how so many jokes were set-up with no pay-off, I guess, like the Joaquin Phoenix one, which I personally thought was leading-up to a punchline that never came. My fault, I guess.
I think that they should get rid of "Best Animated Feature" category. I also wish either "In Bruges" or "Wall-E" won for Best Original Screenplay, if anything because they were film school in a 120 pages. But hey, you know what? I'm happy. The Oscars are back, still suffering from the cringe-worthy cheesiness of the last few years, by this point never going to reward the films that dare go out there and explore the true power of cinema (Oldboy, Three Colours, Synecdoche, New York), but at least they're giving-out awards to Slumdog, which was pure fun and at least something you can watch and not wonder why you still bother with movies. I also hope they keep it this small.
But most of all I wish the Oscars could make fun of themselves again, the way Chris Rock did it. Movies are magical, but even magic turns to dust if you take it too seriously.
(Oh and totally off-topic, but tomorrow they're playing Butterfield 8 and My Girl Friday at the same time. I've seen neither, and I was wondering which one Ebert would tell me to go to.)
Oh, actually there was one other thing that I really disliked: During the tribute to the actors, directors, and other craftspeople who left us since the previous Academy Awards, why on Earth did they try to film the screen behind Queen Latifah from different camera angles rather than use a static camera angle?
I'm still not sure who one or two of the people being honored were, as the cameras were in motion and the names and professions displayed were small (on my 32", non-HD set). It was a little like being on a rollercoaster as distorted images of dead people whizzed by...
My only major (and I mean MAJOR) GRIPE with the way the telecast was presented was how disrepectful and unnecessary the "In Memorium" segment was handled. The camera needlessly swooped in and out, at times making it very distracting and difficult to see the names and the footage of some of the dearly departed.
The worst part of all? Instead of the moment of silence at the end as the telecast fades to commercial, the audience was roaring in applause for Queen Latifah's performance. I believe in my heart that this was a poorly handled and directed moment of the show, and needed to resort to its tried-and-true format of just showing a full screen image of the deceased. This poorly handled moment actually sparked fumes from me.
Things I've always enjoyed about the Oscars:
Film montages - Apparantly some people get annoyed by these. I don't know why; few things are better to me than those nice big mixed bags of film clips spanning the silent era to era of CGI blockbusters. It gives me that feeling of elevation you talked about before. I could sit through those for three and a half hours alone. Love them!
Fun moments from acceptance speeches - Obviously. My favorite this year was probably Petit's balancing the Oscar on his chin. I can't recall ever having seen that before at the prestigious Academy Awards! Good for him. And how Kate Winslet asked her dad to whistle--the emotion in her voice was touching.
The stage decorations - Past years haven't been especially memorable, in my opinion. But this year we had that huge arch covered in strands of glittering crystals--what splendor! What magnificent opulence! At last the Academy decided to get away from the more demure, sleek, forgettable modern look and wholeheartedly embrace what Hollywood has always stood for in the first place: glamour. And, you know, wealth, and privilege, and goodies like that. All I could think of whenever I saw that arch was: "Wow. I want to be there, in the audience, surrounded by people that practically reek with fame and money, looking up at all those sparkles." Heavenly.
Like so many others I was exceptionally pleased with Leger's posthumous Oscar win--even though it was of course a shoo-in. The excitement that was in theaters this past summer is something I will always remember. Was I the only one, however, who noticed that Ledger was missing from the "In Memoriam" film? There's always a distinct possibility that I somehow passed out for two or three seconds but I am quite sure he wasn't on there. Perhaps they thought that the speeches/tributes to him during the Best Supporting Actor ceremony were sufficient? Also, I seemed to detect a surprisingly muted response to Charlton Heston's name during the same film. I thought he deserved far better for his stature as an actor--the man played Moses in a DeMille epic, for heaven's sake. And not one hoot nor holler did I hear from the crowd.
I have one thing to say about the 2009 Oscars...
During the "In Memoriam" part, where Queen Latifah sang, I was completely distracted by all the swooping and panning and other fancy camera work supposedly concentrating on numerous monitors.
How disrespectful can the Academy be?! Most of the "constantly moving" shots were extremely wide on the main monitor--especially for the very first remembrance, of Cyd Charisse.
To me, it was a complete lack of respect for the deceased artists and a blatant "Look what I can do!" by the producers Bill Condon and Laurence Mark.
After I witnessed that segment, I changed the channel...
I love Hugh Jackman, and after seeing him in Boy From Oz, knew how multi-talented he is. But I wasn't 100% pleased with the Oscar show. The opening number was really fun, and I was impressed by Anne Hathaway, but that middle medley, featuring that hoariest of chestnuts, "Puttin' on my top hat," was just dreadful. Beyonce was adequate, but I couldn't imagine why Hugh kept dubbing her "Maria" (and yes I recognized the musical sources) It's not like they were playing characters, so it just seemed odd to me, and distracting. I actually thought at first that the singer was somebody named Maria and not Beyonce, since I'm not that familiar with pop music. And then they added all of those "Tween" stars who could barely keep up, and it was a train wreck.
I also like the idea of the 5 previous winners presenting, but not the execution. I think the "tributes" to the nominees went on too long, especially the ones for Supporting Actress. I know that I wasn't the only one to fear that the show was doomed to last four hours at that point. And I really missed the film clips.
But the most egregious failure of the evening was the "In memorium" which is usually my favorite part of the evening. I don't know why, but I enjoy being reminded of the stars I knew had passed away, and being surprised by the ones I hadn't heard about. But as television viewers, we were robbed by fancy camera work. I didn't mind hearing Queen Latifa sing, even if they did dig out another old chestnut, but they didn't really have to show her after the opening..the screen should have belonged to the people who were being remembered. I missed half of them, and found myself yelling at the screen, "Stop messing around and show us the damn clips!"
That said, I enjoyed the rest of the show, and think Hugh Jackman could make a regular gig of it. It's a shame, that except for the X-men films, the movies really haven't found a way to put Hugh's talent to work. If you haven't seen it already, I highly recommend his taped live performance of Oklahoma!
Hi, Roger:
A few of my own comments on the Oscar telecast.
1. I enjoyed the show. I thought Hugh Jackman did well as host. I couldn't care less what everyone was wearing, but everybody looked good. They always do.
2. I did not agree with the new innovation of having former winners in the Acting categories come out to pay tribute to the Acting nominees for their performances. It was like a "Shriner's tribute dinner" for the nominees. As if the Academy Awards were not narcissistic enough! Do we really need to hear former Oscar winners saying "You da man!" twenty times over, to each of the acting nominees? (Apparently, Alan Arkin has been taking elocution lessons from Chief Justice John Roberts.)
There's a reason why the Academy almost always uses short clips from the Oscar-nominated performances in handing out the acting awards. You're supposed to let the nominated performances speak for themselves before you give out the statue to one of the five nominees.
3. I think Mickey Rourke might have damaged his Oscar chances by "F-Bombing" during his Golden Globes acceptance speech. It's interesting when you think about it, that in the lead-up to the Oscars, Sean Penn was considered the most well-behaved Best Actor nominee.
4. The Academy has a long tradition of giving consolation Oscars to actors for the wrong performances (i.e. Paul Newman won for "The Color of Money," one of his least performances). This year, they chose to give Kate Winslet an Oscar for the wrong performance in the wrong category. She should have won Best Actress for "Revolutionary Road," not for "The Reader," which was a supporting performance. Next year, I suppose they'll give a consolation Oscar to Joan Allen in the Best Supporting Actor category.
5. Being a Batman fan, I was glad to see Heath Ledger win Best Supporting Actor for "The Dark Knight." I thought his family did a nice simple tribute to him in accepting the award on his daughter's behalf.
Obviously, Ledger knew that playing a vicious, ruthless, sociopathic anarchist with no morals or compassion who causes chaos and terror wherever he goes is a sure way to win an Oscar. (I'm surprised that Richard Dreyfuss wasn't nominated for his similar performance as Dick Cheney in Oliver Stone's "W.")
6. I thought Ben Stiller's "Joaquim Phoenix" schtick would have been much funnier if he hadn't done it while presenting the Cinematography award. Stiller's antics distracted the audience from acknowledging an award that deserves some attention and respect.
The "Joaquim Phoenix" bit would have been more appropriate if Stiller had been presenting the Best Makeup Effects award, since Stiller was in makeup. (Besides, nobody takes the Makeup award seriously. This is the category where awful movies like "Click," "Norbit," and this year's "Hellboy II: The Golden Army" get nominated.)
7. And finally, I can't believe it took them this long to give Jerry Lewis the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. How many Labor Day telethons does a guy have to host to be eligible for that award?
You know Roger, I want to thank you for your evaluation of the Oscars which you printed as the head item on your website. The thing I appreciate about it most is that it isn't mean-spirited.
User polls around the web say they liked Hugh as the presenter. And the ratings that come back all seem to indicate that the show was better received than the last few years.
Maybe I'm too exasperated from all of the over-the-top criticism that I've read from several news sites. Self-congratulatory? It's the premier award show in Hollywood about the movies. Of course it's going to be just that. Extravagant? Isn't that part of movie allure? To escape grim realities?
Without trying to sound over-analytical, it was a very entertaining show, and Hugh Jackman pulled out all the stops. You can see that he really loves his trade/craft, and he shows his joy by selling through showmanship.
It worked for me and I enjoyed it immensely. Why can't most people just leave it at that and not be such god damn cranks.
Personally the oscars make me want to puke. Phony praise for overblown movies hyped by a rigged system that pushes aside any truly original and well acted movies.
And Ryan Seacrest? Please...don't even get me started on that ignorant douchenozzle.
Oh where to start?
With what I liked and disliked about the Oscars? Missed and lamented the absence of? Wanted to see more of? Or throw caution to the wind and jump right in with a postmodern self-indulgent snarky rant trying to disguise itself as “witty” social commentary?
Oh decisions decisions. What to do! At least I know what I “don’t” want and that’s to critique the Oscars akin to a sporting event via the play-by-play accounting of it all; as that’s a long and tedious post to ask someone to read, eh? So instead, and for having given it considerable thought now, I think I’ll simply go with why I bothered to watch the show at all.
Mickey Rourke.
I’m not easily shocked by “the colorful” and thus hard to offend. Rather, what gets me is ironically the easily offended. For their shock invariably gives rise to the sound of what can only be described as barely restrained hysteria, which I then I have to endure! It’s all I can do at times not to toss a brick at the TV set whenever I hear the astonished scream of some hyper-ventilating woman (off-screen where they inevitably lurk) gasping aloud from the utter SHOCK of it all.
Someone just SWORE!
At which point I’m torn; should we offer the poor thing a paper-bag to breathe into, or pull a plastic one over their head and get it over with? As clearly, you’re too delicate a creature to live and it would be cruel to let you.
I mention this because there was a time when the Academy Awards were broadcast “live” and I miss the spontaneity of it. A time when there was no five-second delay to safeguard “real Americans” from the possibility of hearing profanity or seeing nudity. And why, for having once been less confined as a country, you were more inclined to react with tolerant laughter and amused understanding; for taking things in context now as opposed to over-reacting to them on a surface level. And why there was a time when it was possible to hear your own voice out loud.
And because Mickey Rourke embraces his right to express himself in terms freely chosen and not forced upon him for having to self-censor, why I wanted him to win.
I wanted to hear that voice. Not because he swears, but because he’s not AFRAID to. Not because I think it’s cool to use the F-word (I’m not in high school anymore) but rather that I don’t care if others do while expressing an honest emotion. I wanted him to win because I’m so weary of censorship I could puke. And sick of seeing things homogenized and watered-down and cleaned-up and all reportedly to save me from what I’ve never asked anyone to! It feels like a straitjacket; this conservative-minded assumption that people can’t be trusted with language and so it needs to controlled.
And I wanted to hear the sound of someone standing-up in defiance of that. For knowing that when they beeped him (and they would) it would be because Rourke didn’t give a crap if they did; and to take solace in that. Note: I don’t begrudge Sean Penn for winning the Oscar instead – hell, no! I’ve adored Penn ever since Fast Times at Ridgemont High; his Jeff Spicoli rules! And his wonderful acceptance speech for “Milk” was no less heart-felt and thus moving for being expressed with a clean vocabulary. Moreover the Oscar could have gone either way imo, and neither actor would have been robbed as they both put their hearts into it. Apples vs oranges.
I just want to live in a world where it’s okay to speak your truth however you want to say it. And I believe that’s what you can hear in Mickey Rourke’s acceptance speech for the Spirit Award; an uncensored personal truth.
"They gave me a bed to sleep in 10 years ago. And I thank them—I asked them for two pillows, they told me to [bleep] off. But anyway, thank you, Darren Aronofsky, for believing in me … He is one tough son of a bitch and he don't like it when I say that 'cause he goes, 'Mickey, you'll scare all the other actors away from me.' But Darren, you know what, if they ain't got the balls to bring it, then [bleep] 'em, you know?" – Rourke.
It may be coarse on the surface but there was nothing coarse in the sentiment it contained. And why I like him so much. For what was meant by it.
P.S. I agree with many re: what they liked and didn’t like about the Oscars this year, that I chose to write a post about this as opposed to simply echoing their sentiments.
Ebert: These days a lot of TV people routinely drop the f-bomb and are bleeped, and everyone knows what has been bleeped. So, WTF?
Hugh Jackman blew away all my expectations as an Oscar host. It was a great show overall. I thought his first joke of the evening set the mood right.
The way I remember it: "Kate Winslet, British, playing a German. Nominated. Robert Downey Jr. American, playing an Australian who's playing an African American. Nominated. Hugh Jackman, an Australian playing an Australian in a movie called Australia. Hosting."
I'm just a little peeved since I haven't seen the two big winners of the night. I missed Slumdog Millionaire because it hasn't premiered yet in my country and I've avoided The Curious Case of Benjamin Button because of your review.
Serves me right, I suppose. I like most of David Fincher's films, even Alien 3. Granted, the ending is bad on that one and you did trash it nicely.
I actually thought this year's Oscar ceremony was something of a train-wreck. Am I the only person who noticed when the crystal curtain malfunctioned at the beginning of the show, as they tried to show a montage of best supporting actress winners? And I respectfully disagree about the new format for introducing/honoring acting nominees; it bogged the whole show down. Besides, rather than hear about how good a performance was, why not just show us a particularly outstanding clip? Afterall, a picture says a thousand words; you can talk up Penelope Cruz's performance all you want, but a 30-second clip from the scene where she first enters Vicky Cristina Barcelona would have been far better (and done a lot more to help promote an otherwise under-represented film). I loved how they presented the nominees for Best Documentary, though, giving each film-maker a chance to speak about the medium and really show us what their documentary was all about.
Also while the musical number to open the show was impressive, the next fifty-or-so musical numbers were boring and pointless. Are these the Oscars or the Grammys? Give me a break, if you're going to waste my time with this stuff then make it montages of really meaningful moments in film, not some song and dance.
As for Ben Stiller's, er, tribute to Joaquin Phoenix, however, I completely agree with Mr. Ebert. Funny and a bit edgy, but potentially very cruel if Phoenix truly is coming apart (and confusing to anybody who is not familiar with the Letterman appearance). I also feel that the show is ultimately about the nominees and winners, not the presenters. Ben Stiller kind of stole Anthony Dod Mantle's moment with his little act.
The musical is back? When did the Oscar producers figure this out -- maybe seven years ago, when Chicago got 13 nominations and 6 awards, including Best Picture?
Stiller came off as a self-involved jerk. (Yes, I got the joke.) He's there to honor people who worked hard on movies, and instead he'd rather draw attention to himself. If I were a nominee whose work was being showcased while Stiller was wandering around the stage, I'd be furious.
I'm not sure why the orchestra being on stage would be considered a plus. When they're playing the medley of nominated scores, which would you rather see: clips from the movies they represent, or shots of the trombone player? How did the director manage to get this wrong?
Worst of all was the idea to have former acting winners give speeches to the nominees. What's wrong with clips of their performances? Show, don't tell.
And whose idea was it to remind us that Whoopi Goldberg, Goldie Hawn, and Michael Douglas have won acting awards? Was Roberto Benigni unavailable?
ToddToronto: And which music do they play as they're introducing Spielberg on the Oscars? The unmemorable theme from "The Lost World: Jurassic Park." How delightfully random. Who's inside joke was that?
Random, but not so unmemorable if you can pick it out! I thought it was a wonderful, non-cliched choice, especially in the year of "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull." It's one of John Williams' more curious themes.
The music director Sunday night was the wonderful Michael Giacchino, who has come a long way from scoring video games -- he has delivered fabulous scores for "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille," and works magic on a weekly basis on ABC's "Lost." The musical choices throughout the telecast were quite refreshing.
I agree with Roger that this was a most entertaining show. They definitely need to keep the bit with the past winners introducing the acting nominees, although I do wonder if such elevation of the actors made the writers, directors and techies a little jealous.
I wonder if anyone will track down Brian Collins, the originator of the phrase "Boom goes the dynamite," for a follow-up story; hearing his infamous Internet fad spoken by the biggest star in the world on Oscar night must have been quite a thrill.
It's 24 hours later, and I'm still disappointed that Mickey Rourke didn't win Best Actor. I realize that
a) it's just an award,
b) the Academy makes questionable/political choices all the time, so I shouldn't be surprised, and
c) Sean Penn was terrific in 'Milk' and deserving in his own right.
Yet while Penn was superb with another great performance in a very impressive career, Rourke's turn felt like the role of a lifetime --one that was not only a startling physical transformation, but a role where he really revealed a part of himself and created a heartbreaking and unforgettable character. Mickey went all out for this, and I can think of no one who could have played Randy the Ram better. The more I saw Rourke in fascinating interviews and heartfelt speeches, I really began to root for the guy. (Don't get me started about Loki.)
"The Wrestler" was the year's best film, in my opinion -- shamefully overlooked for Picture, Director, Screenplay, and Song at bare minimum. I worry that by denying Rourke and the film their moment in the spotlight, they might be forgotten and drift into obscurity. That would be a great shame. Penn already has a previous Oscar and an established career. He's not going anywhere. With Mickey, it could have not only been a heart-warming finish to a great comeback, but could have been a big plus in helping to restart a viable Hollywood career.
By far, one of the best improvements, was to have Queen Latifah sing "I'll Be Seeing You," for the "In Memoriam" segment. In the past, the applause, that always drowned out the orchestra, seemed more of a popularity contest than a celebration of the departed. On another note, I think the policy requiring academy membership to recieve mention on "In Memoriam" is ridiculous. A far more inclusive tribute is played at the end of every year on Turner Classic Movies. (By the way, it was extremely classy of Whoopi Goldberg to give a thumbs up for Gene Siskel ten years ago when she hosted the Oscar's.)
There was more to like about the new format than to dislike. The stage was inspired. Hugh Jackman was entertaining. Steve Martin and Tina Fey were brilliant. Three hours into the show, I looked at the clock and couldn't believe it was already three hours later. I've never had that happen while viewing the Oscar's.
Great speeches from Sean Penn and Dustin Lance Black. Other than that, I didn't like the Oscars this year... For one, The Wrestler got major snubbing while a certifiably, widely-regarded-as mediocre big budget movie got nominated for best movie, not counting the certifiably mediocre movie that actually won that award and "swept" the Oscars. "Slumdog Millionaire" is your average melodrama with some Indian flare thrown in (to admittedly good effect). "The Wrestler" is, by contrast, one of the most moving movies to come out in the past ten years. Rourke (roided out and cutting himself) and Tomei (pierced nipples, extended pole climbing scenes) were definitely robbed, and Aronofsky was given a snubbing that's not as surprising as the Dark Knight, but in much worse taste.
Yes it was the best Oscars i've watched and even the way how the people set up those stages and made it 1940's like. Like whoa. DeNiro, Hopkins, Kingsley and other Oscar winners coming up to the front stage as strong leaders. Very nice.
Slumdog Millionaire deserved the wins and respect but felt envious since I wanted to be up there celebrating when they won best picture, but a man can dream. It seems like some people were offended by Sean Penn's comment. Do you think Penn did the right thing? Was stunned Viola Dvis not winning for her performance in Doubt and Kate Winslet winning for The Reader. I thought Winslet was better in Revoltionary Road but thats just my opinion.
Todd,
Michael Giacchino, this year's Oscars music director, got his start in the composing business when he was asked to score the video game version of The Lost World: Jurassic Park. Playing John Williams' Lost World theme was probably his way of saying thanks.
Once again, sir, you are correct in your assessment. I cannot recall the last time I missed an Oscar ceremony ( I've watched every year since I was eight years old, when my mother and I lamented the shut out of The Color Purple). I have sat through the time David Letterman nearly brought down the whole academy with his atrocious performance, through the snark and sarcasm of Jon Stewart and Chris Rock, the ancient jokes of Whoopi Goldberg, the gems brought by Billy Crystal. I even watched Rob Lowe sing that awful song with Snow White and never walked away ( I was eleven and frankly too stupid to notice it sucked).
I had all the faith in the world in Hugh Jackman, seeing as I am also a diehard theater geek who never misses a Tony Awards, which he hosted three times ( and won an Emmy for one year- and yes, I don't miss that award show, either). He has proven to be charming and talented, funny without being jokey, and he can sing and dance. He did not disappoint me.
I liked the five actors presenting the award idea, as my daughters all exclaimed when Eva Marie Saint walked out and now we have a date to watch On the Waterfront and North by Northwest this Saturday afternoon, followed by Jerry Lewis in the Nutty Professor and The Bellboy, Sophia Loren in Two Women, and then another viewing of The Dark Knight and a trip to the theater on Sunday night for our third go at Slumdog Millionaire. Any time a classic star like Eva or Jerry or Sophia walks on stage, and my kids fail to recognize them, I get thrilled to show them the art they created. My kids love this time too as they get mommy time.
I apparently liked the musical numbers a little more than others, but again, I'll sit through any musical simply because I love them, even bad ones ( well, not Repo: the Genetic Opera bad, or Sgt. Pepper's bad, but say, Crybaby bad.)
Dustin Lance Black and the Ledgers made me cry. Sean Penn made me smile, even though I wanted Mickey to win so badly.
And Tina Fey and Steve Martin should be asked to host next year if Billy's unavailable and Hugh is too busy looking incredibly hot and shirtless on a beach near Sydney to host. I'm just throwing that out there.
Oh, and I cracked up at Seth Rogen and James Franco, but I have been accused by friends of stalking Judd Apatow in my head. Whatever that means.
And P.S.- do NOT apologize to Nikki Finke. My WGA friends still have "issues" with her.
I'm slightly ashamed to admit that I cry during the Oscars. Not just the "In Memorium" segment, either, nor just the more heartfelt acceptance speeches. Some of the former Oscar winners tributes made me cry -- though some were admittedly awkward. I even choked up pronouncing the answer to my own question, "Who do you get to pay tribute to Meryl Streep? Sophia Loren. But what seemed strange to me was that the tribute to Jerry Lewis was relatively unmoving. His acceptance of the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award was gracious but brief. Eddie Murphy seemed distracted while he introduced Jerry, as though he was just reading a speech about someone he didn't recognize. It should have been the emotional high point -- well, maybe second emotional high point after Heath Ledger's award -- but instead it felt flat and oddly disconnected from the rest of the show.
Other than that I enjoyed the show a great deal and I think it benefitted greatly from the restaging. The sets were terrific -- intricate and sophisticated without being obtrusive, the pacing was much-improved, and I think that the innovation of the 5 returning winners honoring the current nominees may well be the way it will done for years to come, if they tweak it just a little bit.
I enjoyed most of the show as well. The added touch of having former winners present the awards in acting was a great idea (though honestly I kinda missed the reading the name followed by the short clip from the movie).
The only thing that bothered me was that there were two song and dance numbers with Hugh Jackman (the second one I thought was really unnecessary), while the nominees for best song were only able to perform a short snippet from the nominated song.
The world is a much duller place for not being able to hear an improved acceptance speech by Mickey. I would have definitely paid a nickel for that.
Also, I would like to credit coinage-of-phrase to Daniel S of Pago Pago for the brilliant word "Oscarlessness." If it's been used to describe a film's state of being before, I haven't seen it.
I am really stunned at all of the negative reactions to Sean Penn's win for "Milk" over Mickey Rourke's performance in "The Wrestler". For me, Penn's win was the most satisfying moment of the night (mainly because I was convinced that Rourke would win). This is not to say I didn't like Rourke's performance; on the contrary, I liked it a lot. But was it an acting stretch for Rourke to basically play his own bungled past? In other words, if Sean Penn was in "The Wrestler", playing The Ram, I am certain he could have easily done just as good a job as Rourke, but I am convinced that Rourke could never have played Harvey Milk (the thought actually makes me laugh a little). Thus, for me, that makes Penn's win appropriate, justified and deserved. Penn, simply put, undoubtly has much more range and, seemingly, unlimited skill as an actor, than Rourke (who is very good, but limited to what characters he can play).
Ebert: I'm not at all sure Penn could have played Randy the Ram. Despite all their versatility, actors are limited by their own physical realities. Sometimes there is a coming-together of actor and role that is made in heaven.
Am I losing my mind?
I could have sworn that as Liam Neeson read the nominations for the Best Foreign Language film category, NONE of the movies he named corresponded with the title cards that were shown. As a matter of fact, when the Japanese film "Departures" nomination was announced, Neeson called it "Death", only later when it won did he announce the name of the film as "Departures". Before that point, the word "Departures" was never even spoken by him.
I seem to remember Neeson giving english titles for all of the nominated films, but absolutely none of them matched. "Waltz with Bashir"? "The Class"? These words were never uttered by him.
Was I hallucinating?
It was the best Oscarcast in a very long time. It was fun, witty, creative, renewing, and overflowing with talented artists. Full employment for actors? More people, less tech? The Oscars renewed itself as did Mickey Rourke.
Jackson can sing, dance, act with his body and his powerful dramatic speaking voice. Plus, he's humble. You could see how some dramatic actors were overwhelmed by his all-around talent. I like musicals a lot so I enjoyed it all immensely.
I thought the personal presenting to each nominee was a stroke of genius. In practice, some actors were better than others at presenting. It seemed the presenter was more effective if there was a personal connection with the nominee. I liked Penelope Cruz's speech about world-wide unity in art. Art is everywhere you look, people expressing themselves.
The only real misstep for me in the evening was the ridiculing of Phoenix before one billion people across the globe. Big mistake. The Oscars this year honored a comeback from self-destruction in Mickey Rourke and one who did not come back, Heath Ledger. Then they mistakenly allowed Ben Stiller to cheapen them all and us, the audience, with his ridicule of another suffering from self-destruction.
By the end of Ben Stiller's presentation, my opinion of Ben was unsalvageable. However, Phoenix, like Rourke, could easily make a comeback with me. Phoenix is most likely a half-jerk when sober and, as an addict, he's probably unbearable. But he is obviously bent on self-destruction. To assist him, as Letterman did, is to become an accomplice. To taunt Phoenix at the Indie Awards is in bad taste but it's more a collegial function and reaches a miniscule fraction of the global audience. To ridicule Phoenix before the world, as Ben Stiller did, was more than colluding, it was joining Phoenix in the self-destruction. Ridicule on this level has a clear boomerang effect. Nobody wins. Not the audience. I felt cheap and low just watching. Ben Stiller, unsalvageable world-wide.
Wasn't Kate Winslet advising Meryl to 'suck it up' a little tasteless, though?
Ebert: I think "up" was the saving word. :)
Re Humbled
"At first, art imitates life. Then life will imitate art.Then life will find its very existence from the arts."~Fyodor Dostoevsky
I just finished "Crime and Punishment" because Roger said it was impossible to put down after the first paragraph. I have a feeling Roger would recommend Dickens out of the books I own (my first job I stacked up on classic novels at a used book store in the same shopping strip, but haven't touched them!..I didn't think I was quite ready--emotionally, intellectually...whatever it meant). I'm a cautious or carefully reasoned late-bloomer. I stuck with Stephen King and Elmore Leonard. And "Crime and Punishment" was more suspenseful to me than Stephen King, although I haven't read many of his books. I like novels that have no chapters, like his "Dolores Claiborne", or Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea."
Ebert: If you've never read Dickens, you tend to think of him as a Classic or something. He is the most readable of authors. He isn't so popular because people read him out of duty. They love him.
My previous post was in sync with Danny Boyle and Christian Colson, Director and Producer of Slumdog Millionaire.
Follow the link below to their Oscar press conference video.
http://oscar.com/video/index?tab=BackstageCam&playlistId=181045&cmp=09_Oscars_Backstage_CO2#
Hearing bits from Giacchino's wonderful Cloverfield Overture sprinkled through parts of the ceremonies, I had to wonder why it hadn't gotten a nomination for best song - goodness knows the category could have used another selection.
By Daniel Montgomery on February 23, 2009 9:23 PM
Maybe they could do it next year for the directing category. Wouldn't it be great to have Spielberg, Scorsese, Eastwood, the Coens, and Danny Boyle there to anoint the next directing champ?
I don't watch the Oscars. But didn't Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Francis Ford Coppola all present the Best Director award the year when it was obvious that Martin Scorsese was finally going to win it?
I hated, hated, hated, HATED the new approach to the acting categories.
Whatever happened to "show, not tell" in regards to the theme/story?
To take a visual medium - the moving picture - and reduce the presentation of the acting categories to someone merely describing the performance goes completely against the idea of the visual medium.
Yes, it's old and likely boring to people who watch the Oscars every year, but I want to see the performance we're supposed to be so excited about. We're not talking books here. We're talking movies.
I also feel for those "little movies" who could stand to have a clip shown up on the screen ("Frozen River" anyone?). Your big-budget-and-blockbuster-loving mainstream moviegoer's only exposure to a small gem like that is likely the clip itself.
On top of that, I couldn't quite figure out whether the actors wrote the intro for their "assigned" nominee or not. Some of the intros were articulate and entertaining, while others amounted to a ho-hum, "It was a performance we will always cherish! A fine job indeed! Bravo and kudos!"
I'm surprised so many people have dropped the ball on this one. It was a horrible misstep, and I hope it is abandoned prior to the next Oscars.
You've hit upon the perfect quote to describe the Oscars in general, though you were describing the PinPointCam: "useless, but harmless". They are to cinephiles as post office board meetings are to philatelists.
To say that any given Oscar broadcast is better than any other is to implicitly admit that the show is the triumph of form over content, which, no matter how you pretty it up, is still the world's most privileged people solemnly congratulating each other for acts of relative triviality.
To paraphrase an old saw: if your brain was on fire, would you run in and save memories of any Oscar broadcast over any moment of reading in bed with a loved one? That's what we did Oscar Night.
Oh, and there's no Santa Claus.
Ebert: I like your post office analogy.
When I heard that Hugh Jackman was going to host, I immediately thought, "Well, that'll be quite fine, but was Jamie Foxx busy?" Think about it: If you're looking for young and hip and talented, wouldn't Jamie Foxx come to mind? He's a standup comedian, a former cast member of "In Living Color" and headliner of his own television sitcom, a platinum-selling and Grammy-nominated recording artist, owner of a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and an actual Oscar winner, for Best Actor.
I agree that having the past nominees celebrate the current acting nominees was elegant and meaningful, but I was somewhat dismayed that no actual clips from the nominated performances were shown. Surely, such clips help expose lesser-known films to audiences and inspire viewers to seek them out. The Academy should maintain this new change, but also bring back short clips so that the home viewers can get a taste of what the actors/acresses were nominated for.
ToddToronto: "So Steven Spielberg and John Williams have collaborated to give us some of the most recognizable film music in history. And which music do they play as they're introducing Spielberg on the Oscars? The unmemorable theme from "The Lost World: Jurassic Park." How delightfully random. Who's inside joke was that?"
That was probably Michael Giacchino's. He was conductor this year, and before he became an Oscar-nominated composer, he did video game scores. I believe his first one was for "The Lost World" game, and it's been said that Spielberg personally approved him for that assignment. It was probably a tip of the hat to the man who gave him his big break.
I didn't like the previous acting winners fawning over the nominees. It felt like a creepy Skull & Bones initiation ritual. Which I guess it is. Also, you'd think people involved in film would know that a picture is worth a thousand words and use clips from the movies instead. But, then again, the Oscars tend to reward scripts with way too much talking and acting that usually devolves into speechmaking.
Other than that, good show, and the best nominee won for Best Picture.
Worst winner: Sean Penn for "Milk." A fine performance, but I liked it better the first time he did it, as the coke-snorting lawyer in "Carlito's Way."
And "Milk" was the weakest movie I saw all year. "Milk" was shit.
I liked it the first three times I saw it when it had singing and dancing and was called "Ray," "Walk the Line," and "That Edith Piaf One."
I hope history honors me as a Great Man with the exact same goddamn two-hour montage of exposition and music that every Great Man gets. Although I can't decide if I want Reese Witherspoon or James Franco to play my long-suffering wife. Just as long as it's not Laura Linney again.
The Oscar broadcast seemed to move faster this year, thank heavens. None of the presenters stumbled over names, or squinted at a too-small-print Teleprompter; their scripts were shorter and blessedly relieved of dud jokes. The previous-award-winners mostly gave the seeminly-sincere speeches to the nominated actors that one would expect from experienced actors, whether they meant it or not, and it was touching, and much better than excerpts from the films. The acceptance speeches were blessedly short. It's nice to have major stars in the front row, where we can see them well. I like plenty of red carpet coverage, I like to see the gowns. My only comment is that many ladies paid more attention to their gowns than to their messy hair-dos. There's no reason to hold back on red-carpet glamor during a recession; the movies supply the glamor we don't have in our own lives. Blessings to you, Roger, I greatly enjoy your blog.
Ebert: Watching the Indie Spirits, I noticed the Kevin Smith look was out of fashion. In good times, we dress down. In bad times, we dress up. Should we expect a big-budget musical about ballroom dancing?
I thought this year's Oscar was one of the best in a long time. I do have some quibbles about the In Memoriam (the performance by Queen Latifah was unnecessary), and other small details. For the most part though, the show was very entertaining with many touching moments. I loved the intimate and personal feel of the show. I got a real sense of the mutual love and respect floating around everyone.
I also think Hugh Jackman was wonderful and charming (The Reader musical number was hilarious).
I think Slumdog Millionaire deserved to win, and even though some think its sweep was annoying and predictable, I'm perfectly fine with it. The movie obviously moved many and that's that (those kids are so gosh darn cute!). Even Danny Boyle admitted many times how generous the Academy has been to the film. I don't understand why people are accusing the film of being overrated. Sure, it's a populist film, but then it almost wasn't even released.
Anyways, I agree with you Ebert, about people taking the Awards show way too seriously. I also hate all the mentions of the show being "gay".
The show didn't have much surprise except "Departure", which was released last year in South Korea(I missed the chance to see it, da*n it!). I correctly predicted 19 out 22 and Foreign language film is one of the categories that I was wrong. Other ones are Sound(I predicted "Dark Knight") and Short animation(I predicted "Presto").
I just knew "Slumdog Millionaire" would be Best Picture winner after reading many enthusiastic reviews including yours last year. In this January, I initially predicted it would take 3-4 awards just like previous winners in 4 years. However, after watching the movie and BAFTA award result, I changed my prediction. The movie turned out to be serious contender in technical award categories, people loved the movie, and the buzz level was getting higher. Conclusion: It will be near sweep. I predicted 7 awards(Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Score, Song, Cinematography, Editing) in Outguessing Ebert Contest, but the answer was 8 awards.
Yeah, there was little surprise, but I liked the show anyway. Hugh Jackman's Opening number a la "Be Kind Rewind" was amusing(are those bats!?), and I wondered what he would do about "The Reader". I laughed a lot when he showed he could sing and dance while talking briefly about the movie. Considering that Holocaust is not good for song and dance, it was right and hilarious choice(I know, I know. I felt the movie was more than that). Tina Fey and Steve Martin as Screenplay awards presenters were side-splittingly funny("It has been said that to write is to live forever" - "The man who wrote that is dead"). Maybe I can forgive Mr. Martin for those awful Pink Panther movies. And never mind whether winners are good English speaker or not. Sometimes these 'bad' speakers give you best ones. Bringing out former winners was good choice, especially for Best Supporting actor nominees. It was wonderful, but I hope it won't be overused.
I enjoyed these wonderful moments even though I watched the show through internet steaming video. The image quality was low, but I could hear well. After several hours, there were video files(about 4.3Gb) in high quality on Internet. I could enjoy the show more, and I think you're right about that; it was improvement. Let's hope we won't have quality problem anymore after this. And I hope I will able to watch Academy award show with more better way on Internet.
(They don't show it on cable anymore because rating has been pretty low. My god, it's 10:30 AM in South Korea when the show starts. What are they thinking?)
P.S. "Naked Gun 33 1/3 : The Final Insult" can be good inspiration for producers next year if they want song and dance again. Can the dance sequence with Pia Zadora be possible?
Ebert: Your information from Korea confirms my doubts about the "billion people worldwide" who allegedly watch the program.
I am limited in my Oscar viewing because my hard headed roommate likes to flip back and forth to NCIS (or similiarly acronymed rerun). While did get to see a bit of Buddy Love's speech, he was rudly flipped before he morphed back into the Professor. How did that go over? Did Brad Pitt cry?
I thought it was a much classier set up and even than it has been in the last several years. The set design made it look intimate and having former Oscar winners present for each of the main catagories was a great gesture.
The two things I am dissapointed in The Best Actor
and Best Original Song categories. I love Sean Penn - and I loved "Milk". Penn's performance was remarkable. Penn has become one of the greatest American actors of our generation - so I don't begrudge him the award - but Mickey Rourke's performance was far more deserving. His performance in "The Wrestler" left me shattered, touched, moved; even Penn said he "wept through watching it". Rourke had millions of people rooting for him again, and it was a big letdown to see him not up there accepting the award. I guess it all boils down to the politics of hollywood and maybe Rourke hasn't quite made amends with some of those bridges he burned. I dunno.
Also, not having Springsteen's "The Wrestler" even nominated for the Best Original Song category is a downright shame. It is a starkly brilliant song that captures the essence of the character and the film to a tee - and having a performance from Springsteen on the telecast wouldn't have hurt ratings either.
In the after-show, they had a person on the network interviewing some of the winnners and nominees as they were leaving (or going to a party, whatever it was they were headed for.) At one point, out walks Danny Boyle after his big night for Slumdog Millionaire. The interviewer tells him something like, "I've been covering the Oscars for about 20 years, and I've never seen people as happy to see your film win Best Picture as any other." Count me in as one of those. I was so elated after watching this film that I thought to myself, "OH, this definitely must win."
I'm sure you've had that feeling before. I know your choice for best film of the year hasn't always coincided with the Academy's. But then you had a couple of 'At last!' years with Million Dollar Baby and Crash, so I imagine you felt that kind of giddiness.
As for Slumdog Millionaire, I don't technically know if it was the best film this year. But it did leave an impression on me unlike any other in the past year. An exhiliarating piece of cinema that has deserved its moment.
Although I enjoyed watching with my daughter I think the telecast might have been improved if the network (in a nod to Benjamin Button)had presented the entire evening backwards, beginning with the credits and 2009 coming attractions, then off to the best picture, best actor, best actress, best director etc. as night turns into sunset and the sky outside brightens, the event concludes with the stars and starlets striding down the red carpet toward their limos and zooming off into the sunset. The last to leave the theater, long after the stargazers and technicians have closed up shop and departed could have been a befuddled Ben Stiller. We watch him wander out of the theater and continue down the boulevard, perhaps he pauses to relieve himself on a fake potted cactus then disappears into an alley.
(cue)"Hooray for Hollywood" performed by Ladysmith Black Mumbasso.
Ebert: The uncut DVD could continue right back to Thomas Edison.
Hello Ebert,
thanks for a great article.
As an indian, i was moved by the Oscars and recognition specifically of A.R.Rehman who has been composing wonderful music for bollywood (and amazing stand-alone music) for years. The man is a humble genius. You may recall he did the music for LAGAAN. It's odd to see someone so well known in the east, and with accolades and trophies in his possession over the past 15 years, be recognized in the west this way. Comments on certain web chats described him as a "new talent", though he has been around and applauded by eastern cinema all over India, the Middle East, China, and even Japan.
I saw that you reviewed CHANDNI CHOWK TO CHINA (a very poor Bollywood film).
May I humbly reccomend some films that are absolutely outstanding, and the very best "mainstream bollywood" has to offer.
1. Luck By Chance (playing right now in mainstream cinemas in the USA)
2. Jodhaa Akbar
3. Swades
I love reading your blog!!!
Vikas
Ebert: I've asked the distributors to let me see "Luck by Chance."
As a 35 year old father of two, I saw maybe 3 movies this year. It's sad. I used to make a point of seeing most of the nominated movies for best picture, and I just don't have the time anymore. Kinda like golf. Who has the time? So, I didn't watch the Oscars because I did not feel I had a rooting interest in the outcome.
Had Dark Knight been nominated for best movie, I may have watched because that is the one adult movie that I watched last year. I liked the movie, but have no idea whether it was the best or not. I am assuming the Academy got it right, despite fanboy protest.
But I was listening to Stern this morning and they were talking about the Academy Awards the year his movie was released. Titanic won that year, but other movies like Good Will Hunting, As Good as it Gets, LA Confidential, were arguably "better".
Seeing the ratings this year, and knowing that the ratings were low if not the lowest ever last year, what pressure if any does the Academy have to put a film like Dark Knight because of its box office numbers? I would love to find out what the Academy thought in 1998 regarding Titanic: if they picked Good Will Hunting or As Good as it Gets, what would the reaction have been? I think it is interesting.
Off-topic p.s. I am a Star Wars fanatic. I don't dress up, but have gone to conventions. I waited in line for 10 hours the day before my last law school exam EVER to get tickets to The Phantom Menace. I don't mind being called idiotic for my passion. To thine own self be true. The only excuse I have is that there is something to being a part of something, even if that something is goofy, that is bigger than one's self. I think people went to Woodstock for other reasons than the music, just like people traveled to the inauguration who did not vote for Obama. It's a primal need, I feel.
I went to Punxatawney, PA for Groundhog's Day in 1999 (left from Syracuse NY at 9:00 at night with absolutely no planning involved). Let me tell you, my friend and I went as a complete goof. The event is nothing like the movie by the way. Way more alcohol and college kids. I stood out in the rain in February in near freezing temperatures in a field (Gobbler's Knob) a mile or so out of town (completely sober as we arrived in Punxy thirty minutes after the bars closed), to see a bunch of dudes in tuxedos and top hats talk to a Groundhog and read from a scroll (prepared by the groundhog how?) to say that there would be six more weeks of winter. Idiotic? Absolutely. By the by, do you know that another name for groundhog is "whistlepig"? I think the day would be so much better if it was Whistlepig's Day.
Ebert: Something we can agree on.
I disliked many of the changes, and wish the show had been funnier. However, they did use the changes to eliminate two of the more tasteless elements of past shows.
First, the new acting awards format eliminates the shot of the losing nominees with a frozen smile trying not to look disappointed as one of their only two shots in the show. Now they all have a nice moment where they can smile sincerely and later rewatch. Although some of the remarks by presenters were much better than others.
Second, Latifah drowned out the sound (for tv viewers anyway) of the tasteless selective clapping that the live audience does based on the relative fame of the people in the in memoriam segment. I always feel bad for the families of the dead for whom the audience sits in silence.
Why was Heath Ledger not included in the "In Memoriam" tribute?
Ebert: He wasn't?
I see by your comments/That you are all experts/ If I make a comment/ Can I be an expert too? /*/*/ If watching the Oscars is such a drag on the heart and mind and soul, than why in hell are we all watching? Possibilities: (1) It's live, and that means something can go wrong. (2) We get to see Celebrities all dressed up, subjected to alternating fawning and ridicule. (3) We get to show off to our friends about how much smarter we are than the Pros in The Industry. (4) We've got money down on the outcome. (5) Admittedly the least important: a few of us might be looking for some good movies to see down the line. /*/*/ The Oscars have always been the movie business's number one promotional tool - the big party we all get to go to, thanks to TV. If this misbehaving star or that rattled starlet makes things more "interesting" (read: disastrous), so much the better. And if by some miraculous mischance things should go right, it's a bonus for everyone. I just sit back and let it happen, be it a simple train wreck or Allan Carr's demolition derby or even, as it was this year, a good show. Good, not great - they could have lost the production number in the middle - but far from a disaster. /*/*/ On the Memorial reel: Confession: when I heard last week that James Whitmore had died, my first thought was "Who's getting squeezed out of the Dead Guys?" I know that they have a limited amount of air time for this, and that many worthy souls don't make the final cut each year (hey, if you can come up with a better, or at least less tasteless metaphor, go for it). Still, they mean well, which makes the dancing cameras they used this year possibly the worst idea ever in an Oscar show /*/*/ The Awards themselves: I haven't seen most of the movies involved, except "The Wrestler", so I can't really say. I have a sneaking suspicion that if Mickey Rourke had won, he just might have crossed everyone up by behaving himself. Now that would have been a major surprise: think of Brent Bozell and his PTC troops, on the edges of their respective chairs, in delirious anticipation of the first F-bomb - and it never comes, reducing them all to incontinence. Ah, dreams that never were... /*/*/ One last irrelevancy: That red-carpet guy (whose name I didn't catch) who didn't recognize Matthew Broderick - - matbe I'm being charitable here, but I got the idea that he was making a little joke. After all, Sarah Jessica Parker has been omnipresent in all media lately, between Sex & The City and all those covers and commercials, while her husband's profile on the national level has been quite low of late. Mr. Redcarpet might have been making a feeble (very feeble) jest about that. It would have been a bit more obvious, perhaps, if he had done the same joke with Kyra Sedgwick and her husband.... oh, you know, Whatsisface with the red hair? (That was a joke, by the way.)
Ebert: Yeah, but it wasn't a joke. And Matthew Broderick has been a movie star for years and recently starred in the biggest Broadway hit in a generation. A red carpet guy should know that.
I, like you, enjoyed the personal commendations to the nominees. Every year I get frustrated at people like Seacrest and the style experts who take Film (capitalization intended) out of the Academy Awards. But the one-on-one praise of each nominee really made you understand why we were watching in the first place: to celebrate the art of moviemaking.
And yesterday I saw a photo of Beyonce on the Internet with half a nipple exposed during her number with Hugh Jackman. I should be embarrassed to admit that, but she should be embarrassed for lip-syncing her performance when Hugh Jackman soldiered through it live and did a marvelous job, too. Everyone should log on and laugh at her exposed nipple as punishment to Beyonce for not being talented enough to do it live.
I'm always stunned by the vitriol generated in some bloggers by what is essentially a few hours of free entertainment.
I loved this blog, even if my take on the show is a bit different. Loved some of it, liked a lot, yawned a few times. The only true debit was the live-musical-montage thing. I found it headache-inducing, not to mention somewhat insulting to those of us who love musicals for their unique, emotional method of storytelling, not for the occasional iconic lyric or melody. But I can't deny the number was delivered with a certain panache, and I admired the lack of irony.
The rest of it was hit and/or miss, as live television entertainment often is. But so what? Most of us watch the Oscars to see what the stars will wear and say, how they will react when someone pokes fun at them, and, finally, who will win. And if the show is occasionally retooled, all the better. I'm not sold on the Star Chamber approach to announcing/addressing the actor & actress nominees - to an extent, it was a reminder of the insular nature of Hollywood and the cult of celebrity. But it was also a kick to see those folks all together.
But for those of you who get agita from a free, star-studded show shown once a year - like our Nikki - for god's sake, go out and enjoy a candy apple or something. It's Hollywood's party, not ours. You're invited, but you don't have to go.
Many of my favorite moments have been brought up already...no need to repeat them. But how wonderful was it for De Niro to mention Spiccoli?
I watched the show broadcast live in a packed movie theatre. There were audible groans during the "tribute to musicals" bit.
I think it's important to point out that film-lovers are not necessarily theatre-lovers. To me, it's like displaying pottery at a celebration of architecture.
I can't agree with you here, Roger. I felt honestly the opposite of most of what you said. It was the WORST Oscar telecast I've seen, and I've seen a lot. To me, the show was boring and draggy and I was wishing for them to give Slumdog the award and get it over with. Not having Mickey Rourke onstage is almost as ridiculous an example of the Oscar producers shooting themselves in the foot as not nominating The Dark Knight. I thought the acting award-alums presentation was also terribly stilted and forced. I would've felt a lot better if I could've seen some clips. It was a bad telecast, in my opinion. A very bad one. Just incompetently done. I can count the moments I genuinely enjoyed on one hand. Bill Condon really dropped the ball, and something needs to change dramatically at the Academy very soon. Extremely glad the president is stepping down - he should, he's obviously not very good at his job.
Roger, I greatly respect your disagreement to my assertion that Sean Penn deserved to win the Best Actor Oscar (obviously you seem to favor Rourke), but your notion of "physical realities" seems disingenuious to me when considering that we are, after all, talking about acting. I'm assuming that your statement, "actor and and role made in heaven" means the synchronicity of two entities and/or realities coming together in a shared experience (that of the actor and the audiences' knowledge of his/her life and tribulations), but, for me, that metaphor is underwhelming (which, I hope, two Lefties, such as you and I, can agree to disagree upon). I should mention that I was shocked (and a little dismayed) when Penn was cast as Milk, because I believed that there was no heavenly chance that Penn could pull it off (in fact, I believed that he was miscast). Now I find it difficult envisioning anyone else playing Milk other than Penn, and, for me, that is a "physical reality" that is astonishing. Consequently, I still strongly believe that Penn could have given a heaven-sent performance in "The Wrestler", whereas, alas, I can not even remotely fathom Rourke playing Harvey Milk (stars aligned or not) which, for me, is the closer on the debate. Otherwise, we could discuss the possibilities of other casting choices for both of these roles, and people who could have filled the shoes of these two great actors (Penn and Rourke). For me Eric Roberts comes to mind, but it's too late for the intervention of the constellations, I'm afraid. On a different note, Roger, I love you and all your contributions to film theory, and look forward to seeing you at TIFF next year. If you and Pauline Kael were in attendance, that would truly be the coming-together of something made in Heaven.
Ebert: Rourke brought his muscles (helped by steroids, probably) and that ravaged face. I don't think Penn could have matched the sheer physical presence. He's a great actor, yes, but Rourke brought along a history. Sort of like John Wayne in his farewell, "The Shootist."
Thanks for the post, Roger!
From as far back as I can remember (I'm 29) my father and I make Oscar Night a tradition. We try to out-guess one another and comment on the lagging of the show, or the greatness of it all.
This year was in between. I enjoyed the lapse in Celebrity Roasting that Hosts-Of-Oscar-Past have chosen to follow and thought the opening number was nice. Wasn't great, but it was nice. I particularly liked 'The Reader' number, only because Hugh Jackman almost lost his stuff and started laughing mid-song.
I despised the Beyonce/Efron/Siegfried/Cooper/Hudgens/Jackman routine. I would have much preferred the Oscars take the time devoted to that slaughtering to the wonderful Bollywood/Gospel songs towards the end of the show. It was a shame that was cut short so Beyonce could again butcher classical movie songs.
I LOVE-LOVE-LOVED the presenting of the acting awards. What a wonderful, heartfelt way to showcase the true talent each actor brought forth this year. My only criticism here was Sophia Loren's newly-plumped lips distracting me from hearing her compliments for Miss Meryl. I stared open-mouthed through her close-ups wondering where her surgeon is, for there is a man who deserves to lose his license....
Since we had to start the Oscars a half hour late this year (my Dad failed to show up in time), our wonderful Dish cut off recording just as Kate Winslet was announced, so I missed Best Actor and Picture. I was so angry I couldn't think of anything but revenge on Dish Network all through Monday even. The alcohol last night finally took the edge off....
Perhaps Ms. Nikke Finke needs a reminder that this is a RECESSION we are in and the Oscars did a wonderful job in not shoving the mass amounts of money collected in that one room down the throats of those barely paying their electric bills at home. Just a suggestion for her.
I am torn on my feelings for the Joaquin Phoenix bit. Of course it deserved a chuckle. Beyond that it almost became uncomfortably cruel. The whole issue is still yet undecided (drugs, depression, Andy Kaufman) so I thought it was in poor taste to poke fun at someone who may or may not be actually suffering from something far serious than comedy. Plus, we have already lost one Phoenix WAY before we should have. I don't think I'm ready to lose another just yet.
There's my two cents....Domo Arigato, Mr. Roboto.
My biggest disappointment was the absence of Arthur C. Clarke from the In Memoriam film, thus the Academy blew their last chance to honor the co-creator of 2001: a Space Odyssey. Since he was nominated in '69 and presented Best Adapted screenplay in the year 2001, his omission is inexcusable.
The whole In Memoriam segment was badly executed this year: I'd question the wisdom of a live singer, since it distracts and diminishes from the point of the tribute. Naturally, having Queen Latifah onstage the director is tempted to cut away from the direct feed to shots of her in the foreground with the screen way in the background so the faces of the departed are barely visible, much less their names in small print and their profession in even tinier print. Even worse, the camera was constantly moving around like on American Idol, for maximum distracting effect. Worse still, the audience didn't know whether to applaud the names during the film or keep quiet for Latifah. Just a bad bad execution. When they had Yo Yo Ma perform live four years ago, they had the sense to keep to the direct feed recognizing the performer's proper place as that of background support for the film, instead of the other way around.
I also don't know about the lack of clips for the actors. They're useful for people who haven't seen the movies, and give them a taste of films they've never heard of. If they keep the five presenters they should still work the clips in somehow. The incorporation of classic film clips into the montage of Best Picture nominees was a very clever idea, but it could have been better edited.
Hi Roger. I really enjoyed the Oscar telecast this year and I thought the changes they made were wonderful. I'm glad you don't hate the Oscars like most of your peers. How come most film critics declare their hate for all things Oscar and how it doesn't mean anything yet year in and year out, they make predictions and even provide live commentary? A bit hypocritical in my opinion. I'm glad you don't think that liking and caring about the Oscars diminish your credibility in any way.
I have only three problems with these Oscars, and these problems all involve the "In Memoriam" segment. First, why did they camera have to zoom in and out, so for the audience watching at home they were unable to see the people and what their association with the movies were. Second, the lack of applause for Mr. Heston. I'm sorry, when Moses passes, people should make some noise. And finally, seeing he would win an Oscar, why wasn't Heath Ledger mentioned in the segment?
I also have a suggestion to quicken up the next Oscars. Get rid of the presentations for the awards NOBODY cares about. (Short Animated, Live Action Short, etc). Congrats to the nominees and such but give me a break. Just announcing these and making us sit through the acceptance is time wasted. Nobody has seen these clips (nobody in the industry, that is) and we never will. There are too many miscellaneous categories that are important to some in the Kodak Theater, but are useless to the majority of viewers.
Roger, over the course of 35 years of loving movies and loving your coverage of them, I can count on one hand (of thumbs-ups and thumbs-downs?..a hand of thumbs?) the number of times I have been in complete disagreement with you.
Your views on the Oscar show is one of those times.
I’m not a homophobe and I’m no Ugly American and I don’t suffer from Attention-Deficit Disorder.
But The Oscars were too long, too foreign and too gay.
Hear me out on this: This is the Super Bowl of entertainment. Therefore, like the Super Bowl itself, it needs to have mass appeal to work. In this Oscars show, for the 'average viewer, 'the nominated music was impossible to decipher. The obit tribute was impossible to see on screen at home. Hugh's funny lines weren't especially funny. The awards in obscure categories were. ... obscure.
Call what i would propose the 'dumbed-down' if you wish. But I disagree; there were 'dumb' things that were insulting enough (poor, simple, pretty Ryan Seacrest!) ... I prefer to call it 'mainstreaming.'
And the commenters on this blog and elsewhere prove it:
The answers to how to do it right are right here, in black and white. Smart people who love movies and who own TVs are saying:
*Get the dang dead people right.
*If the songs aren't worthy of drawing a crowd to the TV, don't put the songs on the TV.
*If Steve and Tina are funny but Will and Reese aren't funny, let the first two tell jokes and let the second two not tell jokes.
* If past winners are giving awards in four major inidividual awards, they should give them in the fifth.
*If we're showing movie clips, then let's show movie clips of the winners (in those vignettes, i saw a lot of Hulk and Indiana Jones and Space Chimps. What were they up for this year?)
*If Hugh is engaging and looks good in a tux, then that's what hugh should be allowed to do.
*if Paul Newman dies, you find an easily identifiable way (more dumbing-down?) for the random joe in the viewing audience to recognize that Paul Newman died.
if this were some experimental stage play at some dinner theater. ... or Monday night open-mike improv. ... then we let Anne sing and we accidentally crowd all the big awards into the final half-hour and queen somebody sings over the late honorees and we forget to include some meritous passings and we run overtime and we forgive 'entertainment journalists' who don't know that Sarah JP has a husband and that RDowney Jr has a wife and we let people try out tired drug jokes and zac efron gets to play with his hair combed back to see if he likes it and at the end, we play a very random clip of 'coming attractions' with no rhyme and for no reason.
I thought Penn's political speech was damn good and I thought Black's 'Milk' speech was moving. You can't please everybody and so a big chunk of Red State might not agree with me, but that's part of the deal with this things.
Those speeches, though, busted out of the 'mainstream' in a way that was not in the show's control. But the big, blowsy, flowsy musical numbers? Does the Academy not understand that there's a reason America doesn't watch the Tony Awards?
This IS art. But this ISN'T brain surgery; it's just TV. And the purpose of this show is, among other things, to spread to the unwashed the charm and beauty and power and fun and importance of movies. Rather surpisingly, Jerry Lewis is among the few performers who seemed to grasp that. Short and sweet and off the stage you go.
They have a YEAR to get it right.
If a Super Bowl telecast ever so poorly reached the mainstream audience, ever so poorly failed to connect with an audience, ever so poorly failed to control its 'machismo' (as the Oscars did its 'gayness'), failed to control its inside-lingo (as the Oscars did with the endless songs, unintelligble speeches and unviewable visuals) and failed to ever sound the game's final gun. ...
People would quit watching the Super Bowl.
Reply to: Ebert: In good times, we dress down. In bad times, we dress up. Should we expect a big-budget musical about ballroom dancing?
Yes, Absolutely. with Cole Porter songs.
A few years ago, Steven Spielberg and Andrew Lloyd Webber were honored at the Kennedy Center. During the medley of Mr. Webber's greatest hits (Phantom of the Opera, CATS, Superstar) by Josh Groban, Mr. Spielberg was mesmerized. DreamWorks pushed "Sweeney Todd" into production, with mixed results. Too much blood, not enough ballroom dancing.
Has anybody mentioned the Razzies? Did anyone notice that "The Love Guru" had the same theme as "Slumdog Millionaire"? ie, Bollywood. "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" won its category for "Worst Prequel, Sequel or Rip-Off." The thinking was, Lucas and Speilberg were ripping off a movie called "Raiders of the Lost Ark." With so much time to work on a new script, expectations were through the roof.
When I watched the Oscar pre-show, outside on the red carpet, I thought it was more relevant than the awards. Why? So many actresses competing for a handful of jobs, and this was a chance to see them side-by-side. Natalie Portman and Anne Hathaway and Penelope Cruz and Beyonce Knowles... are they really up for the same roles? Absolutely. There are hundreds of scripts out there in the "cast-contingent" category. Attaching a name like Liam Neeson can get a movie like "Taken" made. "Slumdog" didn't have any names, and it almost went straight to DVD.
Could that be why "Slumdog" won? Because the leads were the right age? Because they weren't actors playing a role? They were just playing themselves? If so, then why did so many professional actors vote for them? I thought the "Slumdog" ground swell would die down before the voting, but I was wrong. I guess because there weren't any other nominated pictures that caught the Academy's attention. If "The Dark Knight" had been on the ballot, would it have won?
The Academy loves pictures that tackle important topics, and make us feel good about ourselves in the process. That's why "Titanic" and "Casablanca" still rule. Poverty in India? That's good for one year. A big-budget musical about ballroom dancing? Only if you can tie it into a theme that makes it relevant, which can't be that difficult. "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" was set in the early Depression. Is there any way to tie ballroom dancing with the federal bail-out of automakers and banks? The war on terror? Genocide in Africa? Nuclear weapons in Iraq and North Korea?
Oh, yeah. Matthew Broderick. They asked his wife, "And can you introduce your date?" It's definitely a backlash over the lack of a sequel to "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." We don't recognize Matthew because we're still thinking "Ferris." We're not happy that so much time has passed, the only possible sequel will be set in an assisted-living facility on a morning when "Ferris Bueller Nods Off."
Re: Anthony's note above: Kate Winslet was actually paying Meryl Streep a compliment in her acceptance speech, noting that Ms. Streep is often self-deprecating about and a little embarrassed by the attention she gets during award season.
What Ms. Winslet actually said was, "And I want to acknowledge my fellow nominees, these goddesses. I think we all can’t believe we’re in a category with Meryl Streep at all. I’m sorry, Meryl, but you have to just suck that up!"
That said, I loved hearing two-time Oscar winner Janusz Kaminski say, "Suck it, Anthony Dod Mantle" to the newly minted Best Cinematographer of Slumdog during his appearance as Seth Rogen and James Franco's co-presenter.
I thought the Oscars was pretty good, but the Rourke clip above is way more entertaining than anything from the Oscar's show. Just seeing Philip Seymour Hoffman and the others crack up was pretty funny. Had Rourke won he might have toned it down to a PG-13 level and that would have been disappointing. Are we going to see Wrestler II with Eric Roberts coming out?
Couldn't disagree with Roger more, but it wouldn't be the first time. Yes, the seasick-cam during the tributes was awful, but worse was watching the cloying tributes to the nominees which went longer than the actual "thank you" speech itself.
And say, how about showing some of the FILMs, you know? It's the Oscars. I can see movie stars any day of the week anymore; the internet and tabloids run 24/7. Maybe once upon a time it was special to catch a glimpse of some big star, but is there any longer any movie celebrity who is so remote that I can't see her in any of 143 other dresses anyway?
Here's an idea: How about a program which shows some of the actual movies!?! Maybe a clip show for broadcast on Saturday night so the audience could see some of what's going to be awarded the next night, since so many folks don't go to movies anymore and since the Academy seems to like projects which don't go big box-office anyway. Such a project wouldn't cost much, would get licensing revenue from a network (which would be glad to have something to fill a Saturday night), and would promote awards show and the movies, many of which are still in theaters. And BEST OF ALL, we'd get to see some film clips, instead of the brief flashes which have had to make way for song-and-dance numbers and mumbling tributes by actors, uncomfortably standing on stage waiting their turn to speak.
Always a pleasure to read Roger Ebert's reviews, fair if always delightfully acerbic.
As for the Oscar show itself, I sensed desperation in Hollywood's voice, an industry slowly collapsing in on itself, and trying so hard to keep itself relevant. Certain moments of the show seemed not only forced but depressing, from the gratuitous Ben Stiller bit (is Phoenix's behavior really that big a deal?), to the melodramatic introductions of former Oscar winners to the best acting nominees, to even Hugh Jackman pleading with audiences to continue going to see movies.
What is most ironic is that the two films that really kept Hollywood in business for 2008, WALL-E and The Dark Knight, went home with small consolation prizes.
It's fitting that Slumdog Millionaire won, since it perfectly represents America's habit of outsourcing work to India. With the economy a wreck, and creative talents continuing to demand more money than is reasonable, Oscars 2010 and beyond may take on a much more somber tone.
Ebert: I'm not at all sure Penn could have played Randy the Ram. Despite all their versatility, actors are limited by their own physical realities. Sometimes there is a coming-together of actor and role that is made in heaven.
I agree that Penn might not have played Randy the Ram nearly as well, but I also wouldn't have predicted Penn would be able to disappear into the role of Milk the way he did. Penn, a solidly built and somewhat agressive presence, turned into the much more effete, almost elfin, Milk without affect or pretense. That's why he deserved the award. (To argue between Roarke and Penn in this case seems to be splitting hairs anyway. Both extraordinary performances. Neither choice clearly better than the other. A better question is how Peter Gabriel lost in best song.)
Is my memory fading, or were there absolutely no clips of nominated people or films that stood by themselves except for the shorts? I'd much rather have those in isolation than the mashed-up, meaningless montages of action/romcom/whatever films from the year, many of which didn't last long enough for me to identify.
I didn't mind the Star Chamber approach to the acting categories, but, Roger, don't you think that made them seem much more important than any of the other categories? They certainly are important, but a good case can also be made for similar treatment of the screenplay, cinematographer, editor, composer and director categories.
And, finally Roger, regarding Outgess Ebert: Why does your contest only include one screenplay category? And why not all categories anyway? Not as many would get them all right, for sure. (I was 17 of 24 this year, my best ever.)
Ebert: I predicted in both screenplay categories, and the contest was supposed to include both. Didn't it?
Why should anyone care about the Oscars? The world is ending. Peak oil, climate change, and the upcoming economic superdepression render all of this glitz and Hollywood schlock meaningless, a mere distraction before all of humanity is simply destroyed. Some people can't eat or get a job cleaning out the toilets at the local Wal-Mart, while zillion-dollar gowns are designed for empty-headed celebrities to spout generic self-serving pat-on-the-back sentiments. Think of all the oil that was burned up, think of all the pollution spewed into the air by the "liberal" Oscars. Humanity is insane and widespread.
Uh, Carol, did you miss Alan Arkin's paean to Seymour Phillip Hoffman and James Franco's mangling of Spielzeugland?
It was not the best Oscar show I've ever seen, I would say it was the best Oscar show I've seen in at least ten years. When the producers of The Academy Awards tell us in advance that the show will be "new" and "different" and "expect anything", I usually hark back to Alan Carr trainwreck about twenty years ago with the duet between Snow White and Rob Lowe.
Hugh Jackman did a wonderful job, he's a showman, he's fun, he kept a very long show moving. Yet I was a little puzzled by the opening number. Having seen a clip from the Tony awards on YouTube just an hour before the Oscars started, I was hoping for an sort-of encore of that. The movable cardboard sets were a little ungainly and the whole thing came off looking like a bad high school skit.
I was pleased with the presentation of the acting awards, finally everyone got honored with more than just a five second clip. Although I was robbed of the little contest I have every year to see which movie clip they would use. Yet, I liked the addition of having actors honor actors which is what this show is all about.
The most moving moment came from Heath Ledger's family, I thought, they were unrehearsed, they were not maudlin, it was very touching and I so admire them for not dragging Ledger's daughter up there.
Personally, I thought Ben Stiller was hilarious. That David Letterman appearence was silly and embarrassing and I laughed my head off when Stiller came out. That moment was funnier than his last five movies.
I'm sorry but the musical numbers were a head-scratcher. They were performed in a mashed-up dance number that had too many people on stage and to a television audience it looked confusing. To be honest, I wasn't crazy about any of the Song nominees this year. Where was Bruce Springsteen's title song from The Wrester?!?
Personally, I had mixed feelings about the Memorial montage, it was nice that it was accompanied by Queen Latifah singing "I'll Be Seeing You" but those weird angles were nausating.
Grand Kudos to the producers of the show for elminating those silly tributes - like a tribute to animal stars - and what remained were at least a tribute to the genres of the year, reminding us of a lot of films that the academy overlooked.
I know Jerry Lewis is in poor health but somehow I was expecting something more. I was happy to finally see him recognized by the academy for his efforts on behalf of MDA but somehow the moment seemed a little underwhelming.
I think historically, this will go down in history as one of the most memorable Oscar shows. It was hit and miss, but it was never dull. I felt that the producers really tried to put on a good show and I give them an A for effort. I hope this show is a work in progress and that in the years that follow they will build on what worked here and do away with what didn't.
Regarding the Leading Actor category, I'd go so far as to say Penn wasn't even nomination worthy. That's not to say he was outright bad (though in one moment of the film he was very close to it), but I think Colin Farrell's performance in "In Bruges" was a lot better and deserved the recognition more than Penn. And I think Rourke should've won.
I watched about half the show. I liked the opening number (very Be Kind Rewind), and loved the Seth Rogen-James Franco bit. I do have to say that the Baz Luhrman number was awful. Poorly conceived, took time that could have been used for doing a real performance of the Best Song nominees, and it continues my fears that Baz has passed his prime already. Wall-E got a bit short-changed (it should have at least gotten the sound effects awards given the movie's "acting" is mostly all sound effects), and unless Departures is amazing, the snub of Waltz With Bashir seems to be another mess-up from the Foreign Language category, but I can't complain too much about the winners.
Something to note: the broadcast of the Oscars in India censored out all references to Milk. And I thought America was homophobic...
Ebert: It wasn't even referred to? How did India handle Sean Penn's victory?
I love reading your articles because you always come through as such a good person. I may not always agree with your reviews (I loved Benjamin Button), but I always appreciate the sincerity, humanity and love of movies behind it.
I can't say the same for that Finke character whose Oscar liveblog trumped even her everyday cycnicism and nastiness.
Isn't it ironic that you, whose life has been dramatically altered by health challenges, can still view the world with an open heart, and someone who I assume is relatively healthy, cannot.
I certainly know which one has more love in his/her life.
My favorite thing about this year's Oscars is something I haven't seen commented on yet, that in only 1 instance did they "play someone off" the stage, for the rest the winners got to say what they wanted. Although I had to wonder if all the nominees had been sent to an acceptance speech boot camp, as they all seemed intent on keeping it relatively short and sweet. Living on the west coast, the telecast never passes from evening to morning, and length is less important to me than giving the winners their moment in the sun.
A couple of bits of gossip--1st that most of Hugh Jackman's funny lines in the opening were written by Ricky Gervaise, which is why there were really no funny lines later in the show, unlike say Jon Stewart, he couldn't improvise on the spot. (But I enjoyed his exuberant presence nonetheless). 2nd is that supposedly Mickey Rourke was treated like a rock star at the afterparties, not a substitute for winning, but probably nice to be back in the thick of things after so long. And after listening to his interview with BW, I think he's got his head on straight, and will be okay after a while with the loss. After all, he's now joined another select club -that of Oscar-worthy performers that didn't win the Oscar.
Gee, Fish, for claiming to not be a homophobe, you sure come off as an angry one in your post.
I completely disagree. I think the majority of the posters here who disliked this year's show are having a harder time accepting the changes that were presented. Why show the clips from the films the actors were in? Why not showcase their talent, from one of their own peers? Clips have been shown for a long time. Perhaps now a new era is due.
I find it strange that people who claim to love movies deem songs honoring them too 'gay' or 'foreign' for their enjoyment. Perhaps the speeches made by Penn and Black fell on deaf ears. It's disheartening to see so many lining up for segregation and hate over acceptance and love.
Ledger wasn't included because they included him in last year's memorial.
Ebert: Of course, since he died on Jan.22, 2008.
To the poster asserting that Penn couldve played Randy The Ram Robinson --
Thanks for the chuckle.
Yea. Coz he`s a good actor, and its all about acting. Right?
Hey, how bout Joe Pesci as The Wrestler, he`s a pretty decent actor. Man, why not Tom Cruise. Coz he`s a fairly good actor. Or! (albeit a younger) Dustin Hoffman....?
And David Niven couldve played Quinn`s part in Requiem For A Heavyweight, coz ol Nivs is/was a pretty good actor, and more versatile, plot couldve had a boxer trying to break into Broadway musicals....
Ok, Im done.
(is this an example of funny snark? im so new to all this)
On the whole, I'd say the telecast started out strong, then bogged down as the night wore on... but it was one of the better ones, on the whole.
As already mentioned, the In Memoriam segment was horribly bungled; I thought Queen Latifah's song worked well, but the camera angles made it almost impossible to properly see some of the clips, let alone read the names. And while the musical genre may have been reborn, it's safe to say that Baz Luhrmann's utter mess of a montage drove a stake back into its heart.
With that said, the single best feature of this year's telecast, without any question, is that nobody got played off the stage if their speech went on too long. It may have taken the producers decades to figure out how to treat the winners with common decency, but I'm glad they got the hang of it. I sincerely hope they retain that element next year.
Mr. Ebert, don't you think Slumdog Millionaire is getting a tad bit overrated? Even right when I left the theater, I thought it was the fourth best best picture nomination behind The Reader, Frost/ Nixon, and Milk. No elevation for me whatsoever. Were you at all disappointed that Milk didn't win? I know I was.
Roger,
I'm with you--I loved this year's telecast, which I viewed on a theatre screen at Tulsa's Circle Cinema during the annual Oscar Telecast party. Hugh Jackman was graceful, charming, delightful and energetic and once I got used to the fact that I wasn't going to be seeing a gazillion clips, I really loved the former winners saluting the new nominees. It made everyone a winner and reminded us all that being nominated really means something.
But I have to hand it to Sean Penn (whom I have not always liked for his behavior and attitudes)--his self-effacing comments, combined with his ability to make clear that art speaks to real topics (such as prejudice against gays) AND his lovely, gracious tribute to Mickey Rourke were a highlight of the evening for me. Well, that and Slumdog Millionaire. And Kate Winslet's acceptance speech.
There is one thing I miss that I believe was done twice: the gathering of all the former winners who would come. I mean, we got to see Luise Rainer, for Pete's sake! I wish the Oscars could pull that sort of great tribute off again and recognize the history of film. But maybe that's because while I rejoice at talented new actors and directors (and make-up artists and set designers, etc.), I really pity a generation that doesn't know who D. W. Griffiths, Lillain Gish, the Westmores, Billy Wilder and ... a whole legion of others who are the giants upon whose shoulders today's film industry stands. But yes, this year's Oscars--superb and refreshing!
I'm the guy who posted earlier, asking why the Oscars did not include Heath Ledger in the "In Memoriam" sequence. Thanks, Andi and Roger, for clearing it up; indeed, I smacked my forehead when I realized that the Academy would have paid tribute to him last year because he had died one month before that ceremony. If anything, I guess my question shows how vivid and fresh Ledger and his performances remain in our minds.
I am not sure what Rubi-kun meant when he/she said, "broadcast of the Oscars in India censored out all references to Milk". His speech was shown unedited, even the clips from movie which had some shots of kissing were shown unedited ( er.. it was live). Yes, there were no talk shows about Penn because India is right now in no mood to listen to anything but Rahman :-) ( by the way, I haven't read you mention him anywhere, what do you think about his music )
and dear Mr. Ebert, I really cant imagine what we movie lovers would have done without your profound wisdom and you really bring a lot of joy to me.
and finally to add to Indian movies that one of the guys suggested, may I also add this years' Indian entry to oscars " taare zameen par".
I'm so happy to read that someone enjoyed this year's Oscar telecast as much as I did. I loved that each acting nominee got their moment of appreciation, it really makes it less a rat race and more a celebration of every performance. It moved really fluidly, too, and as Nate R. notes on thefilmexperience.net, the move away from a comedian hosting really made the show about the films/the show rather than that comedian's specific brand of humor. I think it was the best yet, too.
I'm a bit familiar with Nikki Finke's caustic blogging (I began to read her a year ago mainly because she provided news on the writer's strike constantly) but she really has a tendency to be automatically negative - one wonders what nearly every actor, writer, director has done to deserve it. I found it particularly ironic that her descriptions of the ceremony as "gay" were followed by lines like "but I voted 'no' on Prop 8!" I sense that she meant it as a descriptor, like, "oh, this movie is gay, it contains traditionally 'gay' things," but since it always followed a gripe it really read as pejorative. "Oh, Queen Latifah is singing over the In Memoriam, how GAY."
Thanks for another great blog entry, Mr. Ebert. Your reviews and musings are a pleasure to read. I always look forward to your next.
The presentation of best adapted screenplay showed why Slumdog should not have been given such honors. For each nominated film, the words of the screenplay were superimposed over the selected corresponding scene. Each one revealed an interesting element of intricate direction. For example: Doubt. We were shown the moment we first see Meryl Streep's character. It's a very compact moment full of tension. When they sampled Slumdog, all we got was the main character shouting "Latika!" This compared to the rest of the nominees was laughable. While I liked Slumdog, I found the love story very thin and very forgettable. Latika was a symbol of innocence and beauty, not a real character. I also can't believe that the original draft of the screenplay included the focus group tested "memories" sequence at the end. There I said it. I am still happy that the film won because the sad reality is that it will challenge many Americans who will see it now that it's a winner. I like what the film represents much more than I liked the film.
It seems that within five years of every broadcast (at most), people start saying that the wrong film won. A lot of people loved "Dances With Wolves" in 1990. Now? Not so much. "Crash" was also loved. Today? Uhh, not really. Same goes with flicks like "American Beauty", "A Beautiful Mind", "Chicago" and "Forrest Gump."
I only saw "Slumdog" recently, and thought it was exceptional. But am I soon going to see it as some trivialized, Colonialist, simplistic view of Indian life and come to believe that "Milk" was robbed?
This is the second time that I have watched Sean Penn win the Best Actor Oscar, and the second time I almost threw something at the television.
Penn was excellent in Milk, but part of me feels that the Academy was awarding Penn for what Milk represented as much as for his actual acting performance. Even if that is not the case, and I am just being cynical, I still think Rourke was more deserving. Penn had something to mimic. Mickey created something new. If Penn had any sense, he would have done what Ving Rhames did for Jack Lemmon at the 1998 Golden Globes. Now that was courageous and classy.
At the 2004 Oscars, I badly wanted Bill Murray to win for Lost in Translation, only to see Sean Penn win for Mystic River. This angered me even more than Rourke losing, because Penn's performance in Mystic River was (to me) predictable and underwhelming. Bill Murray's performance was subtle, nuanced, and just brilliant. To do what Penn did in Mystic River is easy enough for an actor--to achieve what Bill Murray did is much more difficult.
At least Bill Murray was honest and genuine when he refused to plaster a fake smile across his face and engage in fake clapping when Penn won. And Mr. Murray lucidly summed up losing the award to Penn that year, and I will close with his quote:
"Even Charlie Chaplin knew it. Laughter and the lighter moments of life always seem easy to deliver. I don't expect those giving out the awards to understand."
~Bill Murray
The word FINK is defined as "someone who is disapproved of or held
..............in contempt," as I now feel about, and hold...
.....Ms. FINKE after reading her review, linked here, which states:
..............."WORST Academy Awards ever." and
.....Mr. FRINK's equivalent comments, posted here:
..............."WORST Oscar telecast." I came here to get away from
.....................the two...
.........FINKs in the Los Angeles Times whose equivalent reviews made me question my very sanity in believing this was one of the BEST: The incredibly talented and charming Hugh Jackman; the entertaining Queen Latifah, Beyonce Knowles, and even Anne Hathaway (she /has/ a way); the absence of acceptance speeches preempted, rightly, and especially wrongly, by musical gestapo; the chance for every acting nominee to be acknowledged for their talent, not just winners, by generous comments read by past winners; their star presence on stage an added bonus. With any luck, and a little more filmic tribute to the performances and the nominated films themselves, the show might be even better next year, and in years to come. I'm glad to find that Mr. Ebert - whose presence I miss from my television screen - as well as many of you, have appreciated this.
Roger, I think that we are not that far from agreement. I agree with you about Rourke's history informing his performance (as I said previously above when I asserted he was reliving his past in "The Wrestler"). Your allusion to Wayne in "The Shootist" clears up for me (I think) what you are ultimately implying: Iconography manifested (if the opportunity presents itself) is sublime. You clearly see Rourke's (as well as Wayne's) performances as iconic. Just as Penn's performances in "Dead Man Walking" and "Mystic River" were informed by his supposed tough-guy, persona-coloured past could be seen as a perfect match of reality invading fiction. However, my heart tells me that Penn's performance in "Milk" is still in the same league, even though his past is not informed by homosexuality. Thus, if Penn can embody someone with whom he has little in common (with or without lugging any personal past baggage), for me (personally) that is is just a god-damn miracle. Talk about heaven-sent!
Ebert: Yes, great actors can and often do embody characters wholly unlike themselves. But I felt Rourke was the physical embodiment of that character, and I'm not sure Penn would have been. Maybe so. He's a great one.
Ebert: If you've never read Dickens, you tend to think of him as a Classic or something. He is the most readable of authors. He isn't so popular because people read him out of duty. They [read him because they] love him.
I remember when I did pick up a Dickens book and there was a foreword by him saying something about he likes to digest a book whole and so I thought "when in rome..." I hope I'm ready to do that on some level now.
Ebert: I haven't found a Dickens novel that can be read at one sitting, if that's what he means. Not read and digest, certainly. Unless it's for a class, one should never read a book out of duty, only out of pleasure. That is as true of Henry James as for Mark Twain.
Having five previous acting winners give the award to a new recipient was reminiscent of a sorority pledge ceremony, or the moment at The Masters where the older golfers give the new guy his green jacket. It turned a simple award presentation into a celebratory welcoming into the club. It was also the first time when the cliche that "it's an honor just to be nominated" proved to be literally true.
Ebert: A nice analogy, Sean.
Readers: Sean is the gifted film critic of the Salt Lake at Tribune, whose blog can be clicked on above.
I'm starting to see (as in hammered-in-the-head) that many people (Roger included) disagree with my contentment/appreciation in regards to Sean Penn's win for "Milk". I relent, give-up, and whatever else (except bleed). The lark for me, ultimately, is that when I consider my favorite films of 2008, "Milk" would not even be included in my top 10 (those for instance would be:
Rachel Getting Married
Silent Light
Les chansons d'amour (Love Songs)
The Edge of Heaven
La graine et le mulet (The Secrect of the Grain)
Une vieille maitresse (the Last Mistress)
Entre les murs (The Class)
Wendy and Lucy
Let the Right One In
Frozen River
Gomorrah
Sorry, I'm Canadian (and fancophone) so perhaps I should not even be commenting here. I just wanted, initially, to express my delight in Sean Penn's win (even though I thought that the movie was average van Sant). ce la vie!
Ebert: Why in the world should a Canadian and francophone not be commenting here? Even one who left the "r" out? :)
Ebert: Inquiring minds want to know: How did you score the tickets?
An old friend took me for my 50th Birthday. It was a gift I can never repay. We've been friends for over 27 years, and her love of film is unmatched, with the possible exception of you, Mr. Ebert. Like movies, you can only go to the Oscars for the first time once, and this was probably the only time, but what a magical night. I can really see why people are so overwhelmed when they win an Oscar; I was just watching and the emotions were (and are) very strong indeed.
I too was disappointed with Sean Penn's win. As I really didn't enjoy Milk that much.
Having said that, Mickey was not over looked this year. He won the Golden Globe, British Academy Award, and the Spirit Award. I don't think Mickey really expected to win the Oscar, because as he put it, "he had pissed off a lot of people in Hollywood". In his interview with Charlie Rose on February 12th, Mickey said if Sean won he would cheer him on and that Sean was "his brother'. Mickey also said he would be back there 'next year or the year after'.
So maybe this loss will keep him moving forward, and on to bigger and better things.
Sometime losing is a benefit. The bottom line is, Mickey's back!
Thank you thank you thank you for being a real person and not a showbiz snob! I loved the show and was almost embarrassed to admit after all the trash talk about it in other publications since Sunday. But I'm gratified to know that the person whose opinion counts most for me in the movie world agrees with me. I found there were moments of genuine emotion and fun that made it stand out from past Oscar telecasts. Hugh Jackman just enjoyed himself so damn much that I don't know how anyone could not enjoy watching him! I smiled through tears at the big finish of his opening musical number because he had such an honestly joyful expression on his face that I wanted to hug him and cheer. (Plus, he looks really dreamy in a tux, but that's another story.) I had the same "elevation" feeling when Kate Winslet searched the crowd for her dad, when Philippe Petit did his magic tricks, during the "Milk" writer's speech, anytime "Slumdog" won an award (especially the final one, when the whole cast got their moment of glory onstage), when Heath Ledger's family accepted his award and the camera showed reaction shots of several actors actually crying, and a few times when the former Oscar winners came out and gave the little speeches about the nominees. I thought that was a wonderful touch. If I were nominated for an award, a moment like that would be worth far more than the statuette. Just hearing a colleague I respected say those nice things about me (scripted or not) would be reward enough. I thought the show as a whole was wonderful. I loved the set and the musical numbers and the video montages and all (even if they did push the show a half hour over time). Yes, we are in a recession, but just like people wanted big, showy epics during the Depression, I crave escapist spectacle now, and this year's Oscars delivered that beautifully.
I think that Kate Winslet's performance in The Reader was overrated. I feel like the powerful way in which the makeup aged her and the powerful backdrop of the Holocaust (can the Holocaust ever be a backdrop?)were confused with her performance. I do realize that she played a woman who wasn't very smart, and that's rare for lead characters and quite difficult to play I imagine. But what does the fact that I'm still thinking about her performance say?
I am a huge admirer of Meryl Streep, but initially I had problems with her performance in Doubt. I kept thinking, "Why is she playing this so over-the-top? Why so unflappable? Why so sure?" Then I saw the ending scene and nodded in amazement. She played the entire rest of the movie that way so that she would get the biggest possible payoff in the end. I'll never forget my college music professor saying, "In order to get loud, you have to start soft." Meryl did the opposite. It was very brave.
“These days a lot of TV people routinely drop the f-bomb and are bleeped, and everyone knows what has been bleeped. So, WTF?” – Roger Ebert
Exactly. So why bleep a word in the first place, eh? Why do it if it’s pointless?
Unless it’s not and in truth, limits and thus controls what ultimately gets heard. Which I feel isn’t the surface of someone’s words but rather “what” they actually express; their individuality. And ergo, why censorship of the spoken word bugs me so much. A part of me always screams “take your hands off his brush! Let him paint what he wants to!”
Now it’s true that you control profanity in your blog but that’s because you don’t want to see it deteriorate into what amounts to a public urinal; and it would. For it then being open to those who abuse words as opposed to using them for a reason. But an “ignorant-minded” sensibility is not what you find in attendance at the Oscars. Anymore than it was present at the Golden Globes or the recent IFC Spirit Awards. Quite the opposite; it’s a room full of artists. And what do they do?
They hold a thing up and ask you to look at it; to think about it. They mock and tease and poke and prod in an effort to inspire you to, and at times are akin to the fool who laughs at the high and the mighty and often by hoisting them from their own petards…
The “Christian Bale and Joaquin Phoenix Parody” at the IFC Spirit Awards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPLs6v_52GQ
The Spirit Awards didn’t air on regular television of course, but pay cable. And since not everyone can afford the privilege of watching uncensored programming, why so much these days ends-up shared via the Internet; like what partly gave rise to that parody: Christian Bale’s rant on the set of the new Terminator movie…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnlKBDRPkzA&feature=related
NOTE: I understand why he was upset; he was in his zone, got pulled out of it and turned into Mr. Snarky Pants. So for me, the issue isn’t “why” Bale was yelling or that he cursed. Instead, it’s the disproportionate amount of anger vented at the film’s DP and what that revealed; namely, that he takes himself too seriously for being unable to separate himself from his work. And it wasn’t nice to make someone else suffer for it. And why I’m glad it was possible to hear Bale’s rant and to see an equally as uncensored parody of it.
For feeling the extent to which we can all LAUGH at Bale’s behavior and Joaquin’s bizarre appearance on Letterman, is a good thing! It’s a well-deserved reproach – dude, pull yourself out of your ass. But it’s not a vicious one; neither is being likened to Hitler. And I don’t dislike them for being human. I never thought they weren’t. Nor am I going to boycott their movies now. However it’s only possible to do that, see behavior for what it is, because I’ve been exposed to an uncensored version of reality – ie: the truth of who and what we are as people; flawed, imperfect, capable of acting weird or screwing-up. As opposed to thinking otherwise, which strikes me now as a “disconnect” from reality.
The Oscars supposedly celebrate the people who make Films. But what are Films, if not “pieces of truth” deemed too important not to share? And what makes them necessary to, if not the need to remind everyone that underneath our differences and chosen terms of expression, we’re all human beings. We all laugh and cry and feel pain and love. That message of humanity isn’t “bleeped” or edited inside the Movie Theater. So why then censor on TV what you supposedly value so much that you devote over 3 hrs of network time to honor it?
What’s the worst thing that could happen? Someone like Mickey Rourke had he won, would get up on stage and pick and choose HIS words and you’d hear them. Someone would come out and poke fun of Christian Bale and Joaquin Phoenix and quote the f-word in context; and it would be genuinely hilarious! Maybe you’d see a clip from a film that shows nudity or violence or human sexuality and again, in full context. And not to shock or offend. Not because the room is full of ignorant, poorly educated morons looking to pee on the Oscar, but simply to reflect a truth “honestly”.
Maybe if we could do that, instead of cleaning it up all the time, they wouldn’t have to make so many films designed to get people to take an honest look at themselves. Maybe we’d get passed our differences quicker now and learn to and tolerate them. And there wouldn’t be any Anti-Gay Picketers outside the Oscars.
Side note: it’s just that I have so many faults and failings, that I know it would be totally hypocritical of me not to grant others the same freedom to be equally as imperfect, too. :)
I actually found the show unwatchable. Everything I hate about the Oscars was made worse. Too many dance numbers, too many lame lectures about what a cinematographer does, and when I realized that the nominees for Best Supporting Actress had just been announced by FIVE previous winners...WITHOUT SHOWING A SINGLE CLIP OF THE PERFORMANCES THEMSELVES...my jaw dropped in shock.
Know what I'd like to see? An Oscar show that doesn't employ a single writer.
The In Memoriam clip has now been put up on YouTube the way it should have aired in the first place; full-screen, no camera tricks. This may mark the first time a YouTube clip is actually better quality than the televised version. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW5XT9cNgZk
Ebert: It is a beautifully-produced montage. This clip makes it dramatic how much we lost on the Oscarcast! Thank you.
Dear Mr. Ebert
I respectfully disagree with this being the best Oscars ceremony ever. The fact that deserving films did not get nominations or did not win overshadowed the ceremony. It was difficult to feel enthusiastic about the song and dance sequence when Bruce Springsteen's truly remarkable song wasnt even nominated. The Reader gets nominations galore but Dark Knight is ignored. The Wrestler and Revoloutionary Road are completely shunned. The montage of the people who passed away was apparantly all about Queen Latifah, and five past winners go all mushy about one nominee each. Then there was the fact that even though Sean Penn is a great actor, this was Mickey Rourke's award. And finally, a few years down the road, we will look back at this year's awards and say that while movies like Milk were nominated, Slumdog won.No disdain meant for anyone but.... another Forest Gump, another Shakespeare in Love, what?
I mentioned this in my previous post, but the continuing flood of comments makes me ask it again: Why is the "Roarke should have won" thing such a big deal? Taken in isolation, all five of the Best Actor nominees had Oscar-worthy performances. To me, the "weakest" was Brad Pitt, but the Academy would feel no shame if they had given the statue to him.
Roarke's performance was brilliant, to be sure. But to say he was more deserving for any reason seems odd praise, especially the odd notion that Roarke's performance was more of a "physical embodiment." Judging from all the press he got during awards season, Roarke just seems more like Randy the Ram in "real life" than Penn is like Milk. Perhaps that's more of a compliment to Penn.
They were all deserving.
And Roger, I tried to access your Oscar contest again to check my memory, but it is closed. I'm 99 percent sure that there was only one screenplay category. But the bigger question: You make predictions for all of the major awards, including the technical ones -- why not let your readers do the same in your contest?
Sean may be a gifted film critic, but he is lacking in the sports department. At The Masters, "older golfers" do not give "the new guy" his green jacket. The winner of The Masters in any given year is given his green jacket by the previous year's winner--regardless of age.
Roger,
I have been watching the Oscar telecasts for at least 20 years now (my Superbowl) and agree that this is the best show I can remember. Sure there have been better moments in others and better hosts, though Jackman was good and full of energy. But, beginning to end, no other telecast has kept my interest so well all throughout, wondering "what'll they do next?"
I read through Nicki Finke's "article" and it just goes to show there will be someone, somewhere displeased with anything. She raises a few valid observations, but her mean-spiritedness distorts and hurts her cause.
One thing that needs addressed soon (and this is from every Oscar show) is the handling of the In Memoriam. Its plain tacky. I'm not sure what the producers can do to stop the applause from happening but they need to do something. How does the family of the deceased feel when the applause stops for their beloved husband/wife, father/mother because they followed Richard Widmark (or someone more famous) in the video memorial?
I am beginning to think that the best source for Oscar predictions is (sorry Roger) Entertainment Weekly.
Every year I make up a ballot for myself and my party guests (yes, party guests) and we have a little contest. In previous years I've gone by gut instinct and my familiarity with how the academy voters think. Based on that system, I am usually right in about 60% of the time.
This year I through away that system and took advice from Entertainment Weekly. Out of 24 categories, I got 18 right. Even Deep Vote wasn't so accurate.
I can't wait until next year, I want to see if this is consistant or if EW just got lucky.
This guy? I thought it was just a lame attempt at humor, and he did add the bit about him returning to Broadway, although that could have been fed to him by ear. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocFMCtgcCOg
Roger,
I may have missed it, but did you announce who won your Outguess Ebert! contest? I got a perfect 10 and the tie breaker. How many others did the same?
Ebert: Congratulations! They're still tabulating the entries.
I'm excited today, Roger. Last night, I kicked off the viewing orgy that is the 15'th annual Sedona International Film Festival, which I have seen grow over the last seven years from barely controlled panic, into something just magical. Started with "Stars Fell on Henrietta" and "Revanche." Tonight, though, is what really excites me: Robert Osborne is presenting three classic films over the next three days, starting with "Singin' in the Rain," which I've never seen in its entirety, much less on the big screen. Friday's going to be just as good, with Hitchcock's "Notorious." This is an exciting week.
Roger,
Thanks for the link to the In Memoriam segment. I too think the Oscars botched the tribute. This is usually my favorite moment of the evening, a way for me to emotionally say goodby to film industry people who have meant so much to me. I just watched your link and had the good cry I didn't get to have. Shame on me I had forgotten all who had died...Abby Mann, Van Heflin, Roy Scheider, Nina Foch and then although I knew of these, to be reminded again that we had lost Paul Newman and Richard Widmark and so many others. I watched the SAG in Memoriam tribute and it was also wonderful.
I'm gonna go dry my eyes now. If youneed anything I'll be in the next room watching a double bill, The Hustler and Bad Day At Black Rock. I'll blend the popcorn and you can pour it down the tube cause that's the kind of host I am.
The Oscars did something similar with their In Memorium tribute four years ago.
Yo-Yo Ma, live, played a piece of classical music as the names were shown on a large screen.
However, we only heard Yo-Yo while the tribute was being shown. Those names did not have to compete with his performance and because it wasn't some complicated Christopher Chapman (look it up!) collage, they had time to pay tribute to more people.
2005:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLwCW4u7lrI
Uncle Vanya,
I am Canadian, though neither francophone or fancophone, and I am quite comfortable posting here. Maybe too much so.
Let's agree on one thing - it's not whether Sean Penn would have been a better or worse Wrestler, but he would have been a DIFFERENT one. That distinction, I find, is probably the only common ground that can be found in subjective arguments over artistic merits.
In fact, that is the contention that Oscar naysayers like George C. Scott and Woody Allen would make: a BEST anything implies a gradation or scale that, in matters of art, are completely irrelevant.
There's yet another old saw that says that the only way to pick the best actor of five roles would be for all to perform the same role. I'd argue that, even then, the differences would be matters of taste and interpretation, not measurable 'betterness'. Roger, think of every performance you've ever seen of Hamlet, and while you probably have a personal favorite, you are probably happier to have seen the many different approaches to the role.
And besides, you are all wrong. Richard Jenkins deserved the Oscar.
By Melissa on February 24, 2009 1:34 PM: "I also have a suggestion to quicken up the next Oscars. Get rid of the presentations for the awards NOBODY cares about. (Short Animated, Live Action Short, etc)."
Melissa, I guess my name is Nobody (inside joke?). And it's not true "we never will" see them: You can Netflix--or buy, if you want--DVDs that have all the nominated shorts, live and animated, 2005-'07 (I'm hoping last year's will be out soon). They're not all unforgettable masterpieces--but neither are all the winners (let alone nominees) in the "full-length" categories.
Where would we be without shorts? (There's a free straight line for you.) Our Gang, Three Stooges, Flexo, Bugs, the Mozart of Pickpockets? Movies you can hold in one hand.
Ebert: Why in the world should a Canadian and francophone not be commenting here? Even one who left the "r" out? :)
You're right Roger...I was getting tired (it was pretty late when I posted that last comment), and I said something stupid and irrelevant. Not to mention the "r" goof which leaves me red-faced. I will have to feign a Homer: "doh!"
Ebert: Move back to the head of the class.
Roger wrote: I guess my name is Nobody (inside joke?). And it's not true "we never will" see them: You can Netflix--or buy, if you want--DVDs that have all the nominated shorts, live and animated, 2005-'07 (I'm hoping last year's will be out soon).
Not only that, but a few multiplexes in my area (D.C.) screened them by category the week before the ceremony. That is in addition to some of the Smithsonian branches (I can't remember which ones) annually screen most of the nominees from "minor" categories (documentaries, foreign, and shorts) for FREE.
My thoughts on Oscar this year:
- Add my voice to the chorus regarding the botched In Memoriam segment. The camera work was ridiculous. The Queen of Latifah sang well though.
- Mickey Rourke is a weird bird. He knows it, too, and makes no apologies. Had he won, he would have been gracious, but I wonder if it really means anything to him at this point.
- The welcoming to the coven approach to award presentation was more than a little peculiar and cringe-worthy.
- I haven't seen Slumdog Millionaire yet. Having encountered the horrors of Mumbai street life firsthand, I had no desire to subject myself to it again, but I may relent.
- Tom Cruise still sucks. The year he wins is the dawn of the apocalypse.
I totally lost the Outguess Ebert contest. Ah well, perhaps someday I'll have the honor of meeting you.Where in the world can we view the short film nominees?
(Him again?) Just a couple of brief follw-ups: (1) I linked over to the corrected Memorial reel, and stayed to read the comments. I wasn't really surprised to learn that so few people are familiar with "I'll Be Seeing You" - our major failing as a nation is our lack of a sense of history, even in our ephemera. What really got to me was the vehemence with which the commenters lamented the omissions of their favorites. Sometimes I think that "In Memoriam" ought to be preceded by David Letterman's admonition, "Please, no wagering." If all the MIAs had been crammed in, the segment would have been twice as long as it was, and we might have had to lose Baz Luhrman's production number (hint). And even then, somebody would have remembered another face from the past who didn't appear. I'm a little abashed to admit that the Youtube commenters's sheer ferocity made me laugh - not out loud, more in the shaking-my-head mode. /*/*/ (1a) Digression: I suscribe to a publication called Classic Images, out of Muscatine, Iowa. Each month, A man named Harris Lentz compiles a detailed obituary feature covering the previous month, a feature I have come to dread, because I often learn of the passing of some favorite small-part actor who didn't get mentioned in the mainstream press. From the new issue, in yesterday's mail, I learned of the death of Brad Sullivan, a wonderful cahracter actor whose career was mostly on stage and TV. My favorite role of his was Father Leo on the short-lived TV series Nothing Sacred, which was smeared off the air by William Donohue, Brent Bozell, and their bogus National Catholic League for Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion. Despite rave notices from many Catholic critics, including Father Andrew Greeley, the Bozellies pevailed, and Nothing Sacred hasn't even gotten a DVD release. Anyway, back to Brad Sullivan: According to CI, he died on December 31. I can see his not getting into the Oscar show, but I looked at the Memorial reel from the Screen Actors Guild awards a few weeks earlier, and he didn't get in there either. Maybe they didn't know - I didn't until I got CI in the mail this week. I suppose it's just that there's always a pecking order, and nobody's above it... /*/*/ (2) Looking back, it's probably just as well that Sean Penn won; all it really meant at last was that the right-wingers had something usual to bitch about. Based on past experience, they probably had canned disapproval speeches ready for all the nominees, with the possible exception of Richard Jenkins - and who's to say they wouldn't have found something objectionable about him (they need only have tried)? /*/*/ (3) Being a civilian audience member, I admit to having no more knowledge of what constitutes "acting talent" than any ten guys you could pull in off the street. Therefore, I have no bet in the "Did A play X better than B played Y?" debate. Is the actor who plays "himself" less of an artist than the actor who is different every time? Is the stage-oriented declaimer better or worse than the close-up underplayer? Should you go "natural", "theatrical", or play it by ear? All of the above? None of the above? Looking at the lists of past award winners and nominees (not limited to the Oscars), I can find no answers - and I suspect nobobdy else can either. Mickey Rourke is on top now, but what about the future? Important films with A-list directors? Attempts at a quick cash-in with a crowd-pleasing blockbuster or two? Direct-to-DVD monster movies? OR maybe a detective series on TNT? (That last wouldn't be the worst fate; Holly Hunter and Timothy Hutton are doing well by theirs, and they won Oscars.) Of course, it's the roll of the dice... just as it always is.
Roger,
Do you think that Mickey Rourke didn't win the Oscar because of his controversial speeches he did at the other award shows. I could easily see the Oscars chickening out after seeing the speech Rourke did at the Spirit awards. Mickey has always been a loose canon.
Ebert: The votes were in well before the Spirit awards.
Being from Germany, for me watching the Oscars is like a glimpse to another planet. It is the Oscars, of course, but the gushing is, at times, a bit too much. While I enjoyed the show very much (performances, medley, montages, Hugh Jackman/Anne Hathaway), bringing out previous winners to praise current nominees was a bit too much - are they planning to do that every year? Won't they run out of laudators or get repetetive in the years to come? But, what struck me most this year was Sophia Loren coming on the stage: I have seen all her movies, grew up with them, really, and I remembered that old European legend of an Archbishop of the Catholic Church saying: "The Vatican opposses cloning, but we might make an exception in the case of Sophia Loren." That was the one thing that stayed with me the most that evening.
I was upset about Paul Newman and Charlton Heston not getting special tributes, but then I remembered that Marlon Brando didn't get a tribute either. Hepburn got a special mention before the In Memoriam, as did Peck. However they found time for special tributes to Frank Sinatra, Bob Hope, Johnny Carson, and Stanley Kubrick. Did Stewart get a special mention in '98? Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonini didn't get any special treatment either.
It makes me wonder who among the remaining screen legends could get a special tribute. Kirk Douglas? Sidney Poitier? Lauren Bacall? Shirley Temple? Elizabeth Taylor? Clint Eastwood probably.
First off, yeah, this was the best Oscar show I've seen yet, and I've been watching for about 30 years. Since at least Johnny Carson.
But I have to shanghai this thread to state something obvious to some members of this group (especially Big Dog, that's you Roger), but which was a whallop of a lonely Tuesday-night surprise to me: SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK is a masterpiece! Holy freaking cow! And I have not been a fan of Kaufman's work in the past at all, none of it... and yet this picture is clearly going to be discussed as one of the movies of the decade in a few years time.
I was lucky enough to borrow the pre-release Blu-ray from a dear friend of mine (so dear, of course, because he lets me borrow pre-release blu-rays, among many other less pertinent reasons)
Socko! What a movie! Depressing, sure. Sad and lonely, yes. But so HUMAN!!!
What's it about? I think it's about one's "Lifetime Piling Up" (to steal a Talking Heads song title); it's about Kaufman wanting to make Annie Hall 2.0; it's about the ways art is and is not like life.
Anyway, I'm totally shamed by my earlier dismissal. This is one of the best pictues of the year, and it reminds of A.I. and INLAND EMPIRE in its intricacy, and in it's ability to shine somehow new light on the human condition, a condition that can seem ever-modern while remaining by-its-nature unchanging.
What. A. Movie.
Oh, also in the "What a movie" category: WATCHMEN, which Roger may or may not give four stars to, but I'll be surprised if he goes below 3.5. It's really something.
Ebert: Don't tell me you've got a Blu-ray on that one...
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/the-real-roots-of-the-slumdog-protests/?ex=1251003600&en=23dcf76fa0f19672&ei=5087&WT.mc_id=OP-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M083-ROS-0209-HDR&WT.mc_ev=click
The Times featured an interesting discussion about Slumdog backlash in India, which I thought you and others might find informative. It certainly gave me pause, particularly the contrast of the beautifully dressed child stars taking in the ritz & glitz of Oscar night while living in conditions we cannot imagine back in their homeland, and paid so little. (I was glad to see each child named in Slumdog's delightful credit sequence, though- it struck me as unusual.) It's a short piece, don't worry.
The contributors share knowledgable and composed insights.
The article did not diminish my sheer elation over the movie and its wins; it just got me thinking about the culture it represents, and the frame of reference that we Westerners find so hard to shake.
Just another facet to the gem.
Ebert: When I was in Calcutta, the nephew of a friend took me to the bank of the Hooghly River and pointed across. "Two million people live over there," he said, "without a single sewer." I saw poverty beyond imagination. I believe the children in the movie deserve a share of its rewards, and I believe Danny Boyle when he says they will get one, and that attention has been given to their schooling and living conditions. It was noticeable that unlike most child stars, they were not accompanied to the Oscars by their parents, perhaps because they were abandoned. There is something off about protesting a movie because of the alleged treatment of those children, when there are millions and millions more--so many, India is essentially powerless to "solve" this problem.
Was anyone else distracted by the presence of "Kung Fu Panda" during every award? When the clip was shown there was a background montage of this year's nominees and right below the screen was the same clip of "Kung Fu Panda".
It provided a nice running gag for my party.
Too many flashy gadgets, the oscars are the night we all get to see clips of movies we haven't seen and decide whether to go see them. I missed the clips and the oscar shows of the late 50's and 60's...Hugh Jackman you're no Bob Hope. And I liked the snarky review of them by the way!
If the awards were not presented in the pretext of a competition, who, besides professionals and mothers, would tune in? The hook is that something is at stake. Something vital (hehe). The product being sold is that `your favourite` is up for nomination - that you have a stake. You get to second guess the judges; everybodys past-time.
There are those, like me, who have never bothered to watch an awards show before in their lives, tuning in because a certain artist might `win` (in this case it was to watch Rourke win). The idea likely is that I will, for whatever reason, make Oscars viewing a habit; since I watched this year I will more likely watch next year. Its manipulation. And it works. Maybe your thing is the clothes, the stars, the speeches, the nominees etc. But you come back, for whatever reason. To watch, and participate in, something bogus.
This is not to say that artists are not competitive. But I think even artists would admit that the point of competition with other artists is to produce more inspired work, not a statue. Perhaps recognition. And certainly money.
The snubbers are on to something no doubt. But its harder to make a show around them.
As entertaining as this Oscar ceremony was,,for me,the highlight,other than the Best picture winner, was the Best Music award to A.R.Rahman..Amongst the enormous multitude of his music's aficionados all over the world,the consensus is that 'SDM' is a minor work in his oeuvre...Nevertheless,the "better late than never" axiom applies to his Hollywood story now.
In your archives "Taal" is the only film I could find featuring the Maestro's magic..Note James Berardinelli's effusive praise of Rahman's work in the movie-'Bombay"...Andrew Lloyd Weber recognized his genius and introduced him to the London Stage and although Rahman did well to deliver the goods,a variety of other reasons(which i cant fully explain here without taking up a lot of space)constrained the full potential of the whole effort.Suffice to say that Ozu might not have done as well if asked to bring a western dimension to one of his films!(his movies' universality notwithstanding)..Last,but not the least,a respected commentator like you should desist from calling Indian films "Bollywood"..What many Indians themselves do not realize,,you may drive home..Its nice to know that you felt some other Indian film should have merited wider release in U.S,rather than the trash which got blown around not so long ago...It can be called,encumbrances et al,the "Indian Film Industry" till a snazzier name comes up...
I enjoyed Hugh Jackman's performance, and I applaud the show for trying new things, although I must say that I genuinely missed the snippets of the nominated films that usually play before each category is awarded. I would rather have been reminded of each of the nominee's performances by seeing them, rather than by hearing other actors and actresses talk about them. I think that would have been a more fitting homage.
Worse, though, was the intercutting of previous Oscar winners with snippets of the Best Picture nominees. The audience I was with could not stop laughing at each new shot and how out-of-place it felt -- "The Best Years of Our Lives" intercut with one of the nominees, and why? It was a distraction from the films themselves, and I could not help but wonder how my parents back home, who had not seen any of the films, would react to this odd montage. Would it make them want to see the movies, or would it just leave them puzzled?
Ebert: When I was in Calcutta, the nephew of a friend took me to the bank of the Hooghly River and pointed across. "Two million people live over there," he said, "without a single sewer." I saw poverty beyond imagination. I believe the children in the movie deserve a share of its rewards, and I believe Danny Boyle when he says they will get one, and that attention has been given to their schooling and living conditions. It was noticeable that unlike most child stars, they were not accompanied to the Oscars by their parents, perhaps because they were abandoned. There is something off about protesting a movie because of the alleged treatment of those children, when there are millions and millions more--so many, India is essentially powerless to "solve" this problem.
I agree with you Ebert.
From what I've read in the news, the producers of Slumdog are doing a lot to provide for the kids. They will be moved into apartments worth about 20,000 pounds each, as well as having their education paid for. Trust funds have been set up for the two kids who are from the slums, which they have access to once they reach 18 yrs old. In addition, the producers are working with an NGO to hire a social worker to ensure the kids' well being over the next few years.
Link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1154667/Boyle-takes-Slumdog-children--film-bosses-pledge-buy-poverty-stricken-families-new-homes.html
I agree with most comments I saw that this was a great Oscars show. I didn't like how the five past winners presented the acting nominees. I think the personal touch was cool, but I still like the clips. Plus, it felt awkward at times. If they reworked it though, I bet it could work better. The "In Memory" section was a joke. It's not about Queen Latifa, or anyone else, for that matter. It's about the people on the screen, and most of them weren't even visible. Quite a shame.
I think Mickey Rourke should have won, but I was happy with the other acting awards. I think if Heath Ledger hadn't died, though, I would have to argue that Michael Shannon should have won the award. His performance was phenomenal, and probably would have won about any other year. If I may end with a comment on Penn, I'll go back into hiding. While I admire him as an actor, I think he was wrong in saying those opposed to gay marriage should be ashamed. Also, worth mentioning is the irony that he called Obama an elegant man (or was it eloquent...), even though he has stated himself that he would have voted in favor of Prop 8 in CA. But anyways, fun read, and here's to hoping we can find a few great movies like "Slumdog" in the festival circuit this year.
I just came back from seeing three films at my local festival. "Singin' in the Rain" was absolutely magical; I laughed so hard at the fiasco screening scene, that I cried. Robert Osborne, from TCM, presented the film and did a Q&A session afterward. His knowledge is encyclopedic! What a treat.
I also saw a wonderful documentary called "The Wrecking Crew," about the LA session musicians who played on almost all of the hit records that weren't put out by Motown in the sixties. It's directed by Denny Tedesco, the son of Tommy Tedesco, the legendary session guitarist. It's a work of love, with a fantastic soundtrack. It's a perfect companion piece to "Standing in the Shadows of Motown," because it sort of fills in the gap of what else was happening in American music of that generation. Now, all that remains is the perfect documentary of the British Invasion, and the rock 'n roll revolution will be perfectly captured.
http://www.wreckingcrew.tv/index2.html
Ebert: Move back to the head of the class.
Merci! :)
On a side note, I saw an early screening last night of Joaquin Phoenix's new film, "Two Lovers". It reminded, somewhat, of Willian Wyler's film, "The Heiress", and was, perhaps, just as devestating. So if anyone was on the fence about seeing it, I would strongly recommend you do so. And, I certainly hope this is not Phoenix's acting swansong!
This was the only Oscars I ever saw when I didn't actually know who was going to win (except for maybe one award-"Best Supporting Actor"). Mostly for two reasons: 1) The atmosphere of the awards prior to the show was so press-heavy and so speculative going in, that it seemed that no one nominee had advantage over the other. 2) The movies were so good this year that it seemed like anyone had a good chance at being selected.
I am glad "Slumdog Millionaire" has continued to get the recognition I feel it so greatly deserves. Partially because it's a true crowd-pleaser (despite what certain circles may think regarding its film making aesthetics and dramatic choices). Also, since it's probably the most entertaining and feel good movie of the year. The movie is also more complex than people have been giving it credit for. Upon multiple viewings, if one pays attention; they will begin to notice the sheer amount of great writing and attention to detail. The story of the actors and players involved is a Cinderella story in itself. The producers and film makers were able to bring over the "real" slum kids from the streets of Mumbai to the Oscar ceremony (who starred in the film). They were all natural actors (though not professional), and were instrumental in the film's success. Also, Dev Patel, Frida Pinto and Danny Boyle have now all become household names. I am happy for all of them getting this kind of exposure and pampering. I feel they truly deserve it.
Milk was likely the diplomatic and safe choice for the Academy in recognizing Sean Penn for his amazing chameleon-like work. However, like many, I would have liked to see Mickey win. Most of the other winners I more or less agreed with. The foreign film was a surprise, though its likely people quickly forgot about "Waltz with Bashir".
Kate Winslet may not have been the year’s best lead performance (though in my humble opinion it most certainly was). Nevertheless, she was way overdue to win. Having been nominated six times, and loved by movie fans for her beauty and allure, scary-good versatility and seemingly endless emotional reserve.
I will not go into how the Academy shunned "Australia"; a truly great film. I have already explained that many, many times. I will not do it again. If they must, folks can revisit my other blog responses.
If Heath Ledger had not won (which would have been highly unlikely), I would imagine the world might have spun off its axis.
If there was one way to honor "The Dark Knight", this was it.
I wanted to love this awards show, and weeks before I kept telling myself that Hugh Jackman would do a good job. That the show itself would become reinvented and have a new-found exhilaration not seen since Billy Crystal's days in the 90s. I was not wrong. Still, the Oscars have always been a subject of certain fascination. As one watches it, they can still become swept up in that good-old fashioned sense of Hollywood glamour. However, once it's over and done with, we all still have that feeling inside that tells us: "Geez... That was it?" No matter who the host, no matter what the year; it seems this feeling has never truly disappeared. I think it's a good thing. It keeps us wishing next year's will be even better.
Imagine if the Academy Awards was like a direct democracy, where the movie goers voted and decided which films were the best; instead of industry members. Boy that would be something. Who knows what kinds of films would be on display then? Sometimes I think we need the blokes to tell us what to like. It keeps things on an even keel, despite what we so-called ordinary people might believe. But in the end, we are pretty much all the same. Even someone like me knows about David O Selznik, La Dolce Vita, forgotten Oscar-winners like George Kennedy and La Strada.
Anyone else think we need a Best Comedic Performance Oscar categorie?
The "In Memorium" section was well done and always makes me think of the many number of great artists we loose each year. Among those greats was Paul Newman. Did any one else think Jerry Lewis' tribute seemed uncomfortably short?
As far as having the past five actor nods welcoming the new lad or gal into their little click, heck, they should always do it that way. I for one like it a lot better than simply having your name read aloud like a laundry list.
(...I've noticed that you haven't responded to these posts as much as others in the past. Perhaps that's because everyone more or less says the same thing; and you sure as heck can't agree with all of them.)
I've seen Slumdog about five times now... It's the only movie I've seen this year that seems to improve with each viewing, as opposed to the fact that when I see stuff like Changeling or The Reader, they just seem to get worse. Slumdog just has this timeless quality that the other films lack, even if it is aimed at younger people (The movie is actually Rated-R). Though I say it's the most upbeat film to ever carry the rating.
The awards this year was reminiscent of the recent election of our President. Perhaps that's stretching it a bit, but I believe the Oscars and awards in general are changing for the better. The studios and artists have realized they have to do away with the old ways by branching out into higher realms of cinematic language. I feel the best movies and days are still ahead of us. I look forward to 2009 and what great stories will come out of it. Both in the world of movies and at home.
My wife and I both enjoyed the Oscars this year. Although I had not watched the Oscars since 1999, I felt a strong desire to watch them this year, and I am glad I did. I thought the new set up, with the orchestra being on stage, was an improvement. I also really enjoyed seeing each nominee get individual recognition before the opening of the envelope, and yes, I even got a little teary eyed during some moments of the presentation. I hope the Academy sticks with this format, it was a welcome change.
First of all, be warned that English is not my native language, and I haven't lived in a English speaking country nor be forced to use the language for long periods of time. So, I apologize in advance if I write in English like Kunio Kato speaks it.
My wife and I enjoyed this Oscar show too, but we felt that the TV presentation of the In Memoriam montage was faulted by all the back and forth switching of the screens that showed the artists that were being remembered. Some of them couldn’t be seen clearly in TV.
And, the main question: Why Heath Ledger was not included in such memorial? I've read other articles about the Oscar night and nobody seems to have noticed. It was because he was nominated, and the Academy has some kind of rule or tradition about it?
Thanks for your reviews and information, they are always guiding and inspirational.
Ebert: Why is it that every comment I receive from someone apologizing for his or her English is written flawlessly?
Where the heck was Harvey Korman during the Tribute Montage?
Yesterday I was contemplating the idea of Oscar runner ups. The Olympic games always rate the top three in each competition, which is only fair and appropriate in my view. I would have liked to know just how close the other ‘losing’ film nominees were to claiming the golden statue. But as this information isn’t available to the pubic - and I think it should be - I decided to share with you my runner up list for this year’s Oscars (major categories only).
http://shacharpessis.com/2009/02/the-oscars-and-the-oscar-runner-up-is/
How lovely the In Memoriam version! Thanks!!!!
I did enjoy the hommages made by the previously nominated... It was joy...
I'd like to know what you think about the nominated for foreign movie. Have you seen "Departures" already? Was it fair?
Thanks for your review of "Man on wire". I bought, and enjoyed, the movie because of it... It was a pleasure to see it winning! i'd like your opinion about the others documentaries too...
Thanks! Take care
Ebert: Lisa Nesselson, the Paris-based film critic whose essay I recently posted about how France handles its movie awards, tells me she saw the Japanese film at a FRIPESCI screening and thought it very good indeed.
Her article is here: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090219/COMMENTARY/902199997
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090219/COMMENTARY/902199997
Let me just start saying that the oscars will probably never honor outright quality so much as apologizing for past mistakes by making more mistakes to fix said mistakes....did you understand any of that.
Before I ramble on... I haven't seen the wrestler, Milk, or slumdog. I have seen the dark knight, wall-e. They should'nt have been snubbed at all. First off, the Dark knight was clearly wrestling with deeper issues than a nazi sleeping with an underage boy, it simply put, was the best comic book movie ever made. WaLL-E topped it however as the best film of the year. Wall-E made me care so much for the title character that I never wanted anything bad to happen to him ever. The sound design should have won the oscar, the film should have been the outright favorite for best picture, but no, apparently there's a category for such films. Here's an idea, why not create a category for best dramatic film, that'll force the stupid oscar voters to regard more films for merit, other than dramas or indie films, come to think of it, they should make a category for best indie film as well. It's not that i'm disparaging the other films who were nominated, but Wall-E and the Dark Knight will represent this year in film in the hearts of movie lovers (just like Pulp Fiction triumphs over forest gump).
Now for the rant...This oscar season proved that politics will forever decide the oscar vote, think about it, even if you haven't seen the full film, there are certain performances in certain movies that just have a vibe about them, the energy is in the air. Mickey Rourke had that vibe, more than sean penn, who, despite the actual quality of his performance, only won because of the fact that the Oscars were only apologizing for the Brokeback fiasco a couple of years ago, that's the truth and you know it. More than anything this ceremony only proved the stigma that only certain films have the ability to carry the oscars. Benjamin button won in some technical categories that it didn't deserve to win in that it soon became apparent that it only won because it happened to be nominated for best picture and the academy only wanted to offer it condolances for the fact that it wasn't going to win.
The oscars have long been one of the worst deciders of the quality of movies in a given year. Examples: Films that never won best picture.Citizen Kane, Pulp Fiction,Star Wars,Double Indemnity, Singing In The Rain,Signs,Saving Private Ryan,Once, and finally Network.
I still have not seen "Dark Knight" because I didn't like the feeling that once I watch this film then - This is it. I have seen all of Heath Ledger's films!
This Oscars was unwatchable. I don't get the whole appeal of Hugh Jackman. The 'jazz hands' style of entertaiment is dated and passe. Let's focus on the screen and not the stage please.
[Tuesday a.m.: Having now read some 130 comments, I can conclude there is one thing everyone agrees with about the TV presentation: The In Memoriam montage was utterly botched. The weird and swooping camera angles made it impossible to identify many of those remembered. They seemed chosen to center on the performance, and were treated visually as a sidebar. As one reader observed, the applause at the end for Queen Latifah (who sang wonderfully) sounded strangely like applause for the honorees having died.]
Just wanted to add my two cents and say that you and your readers, Roger, have hit upon definitely something I felt strongly during the Oscar broadcast - which was itself hit and miss to me (I definitely liked the new presentation of acting awards, I had issues mainly with the musicals are back montage): What the hell went wrong with the In Memoriam montage?!? I too could not see any of the people I truly was either remiss to suddenly remember having passed on this year, or saddened by their deaths still, or stunned to find out about some of them due to lack of previous information. And also: I know the Ledger family gave a wonderful tribute when he won (inevitably, predictably, utterly deservedly) for THE DARK KNIGHT as Best Supporting Actor, so -- why did they leave him out of the In Memoriam montage? Time? Overlooked? Or was his win enough, leading me to wonder if it was done because they KNEW Ledger was the winner...
Ebert: It has been widely reported that Ledger was included in last year's montage.
What about George Carlin, I mean he was in Jersey Girl!
I was very pleased with the show overall, especially that opening number and the Pineapple Express parody. However, as far as the actual awards are concerned, it seemed a bit underwhelming. With the exception of Best Foreign Language, there weren't really any surprises. Waltz with Bashir seemed sort of like a done deal, especially with all the publicity it received compared to the other nominees, so I was kind of taken aback when this relatively unknown Japanese film took it. But overall, no real surprises. I think most of us anticipated Slumdog would steal the show. At least last year you had some genuine competition going between No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood. I tend to prefer those years when I can't predict a majority of the results off the bat.
But yeah, it was good for a laugh.
I didn't care one bit for the previous winners speaking to the nominees. I want to see clips from their films. Most of this years nominees weren't seen by me (or, probably, most viewers). Last year's clip of Daniel Day Louis in There Will Be Blood made me want to see the movie. Lip service of greatness doesn't inspire me to see a movie I've never heard of, especially in Hollywood where everyone kisses each others' behinds so prolifically. Show me the movie so I can see why (or why not) they deserve the nod.
Very good show! The one additional thing I would have liked to have seen: Hugh Jackman, instead of saying he had nothing funny to say about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, should have -- after a little banter -- said to Angelina "So, you're married to the third-most sexiest man alive?" (or whatever Pitt's fallen to now that Jackman's number one) "Well, I suppose that's not too bad." And then Angelina raises an eyebrow and strokes her chin in thought; Brad Pitt gives an angry fist wave; and Hugh Jackman strolls away .... Continuing to stroll, on over to Jennifer Anniston, who from a change purse pulls out a few bills, hands them to Jackman, and mouths "Thank you."
Okay, not that the three of them would have agreed to it. They would have had to have been tremendous sports. But it would have been pretty funny, and may have even diffused this whole ridiculous fascination with the Brad/Jen/Brangelina thing. Not that I care, and I don't know why I thought of this .... but once I did I couldn't let it go.
Ebert: Hmmm. I don't think they're quite ready for that yet...
Ebert: I haven't found a Dickens novel that can be read at one sitting, if that's what he means. Not read and digest, certainly. Unless it's for a class, one should never read a book out of duty, only out of pleasure. That is as true of Henry James as for Mark Twain.
The oxford dictionary defines digest as "understand and assimilate mentally" and I think that is what he meant (if it was Dickens: I read it around ten years ago. Yes, I've been putting it off for ten years).
You know in a recent blog about "touching bases" where you said you sometimes dream of being anonymous and traveling. Well, back in high school that is the kind of dream I used to have (and still kind of have) and that for some reason that was the only time to read the classics and such. I don't know what I was thinking. I can read them anytime. But also aside from that understanding increases enjoyment. I wanted to get a grasp on the big meaning of life question to help the understanding and hopefully, assimilating. In short, I wanted to feel like some equal or on the same field level with the genius...--bring my A game. But anyway, I decided to go the library and check out "For Whom The Bell Tolls", by Hemingway since he was the first "classic" author I started reading. You said there was some professor who said he'd give anything to be able to read "Romeo and Juliet" for the first time. I take that as very serious advice--to bring as much of my mind to the table as I can fathom, so no regrets.
Beautiful show all around. Was very pleased with the results of the winners as I was certainly not dissapointed by any single nomination. Penn's performance was great. I was however hoping for Mickey for the simple reason that I cannot remember a character who I cared for so deeply. He made me concerned for him as if he were my own father, brother, best friend, whatever. He was a living, breathing human I could expect to walk off the screen. The almost documentary style of The Wrestler was made even more profound by the actors who populated the screen. I don't think a single uttered line seemed scripted or rehearsed. Glad to see Penn win but Mickey certainly needs to know, as a Golden Globe helps clarify, that he is an A-list talent. Let's hope it's not merely a spark.
Dear Mr. Ebert,
While I was not nearly as enthusiastic about the telecast as you were, I do have to say that I was less conscious of the program's duration than in years past. The Oscars have always been my "Superbowl" but I have also been long critical of a program that truly suffers due to the amount of superfluous material as well as its sluggish and at times, lifless pace. I still wish that they handled their show more like the Golden Globes, where that show zooms along and the actors are allowed to eat and of course, drink!
That said, I thought Hugh Jackman did a fine job, I loved Ben Stiller, Tina Fey & Steve Martin and Judd Apatow's short film was a great treat. Yet, there was much trouble with that awful, awful, awful, awful mid-show dance number, the dreadful in memoriam section and I have to say that I am still very unsure as to the effectiveness of having past winners address the nominated actors. I could obviously see the thrill it was for the nominated actors to have screen legends make the nominations personal. But, it did look awkward and let'e be real...these people are ACTORS. Were the sentiments real? It all felt somewhat forced and then, once the nominated actor became a winner, it was strange to have this tribunal of people looming just out of the frame as they made their speech. And yes...I really missed seeing the clips of the work.
But, Oscar got everything so right with its embrace of "Slumdog Millionaire," which was far and away the very best film I saw in 2008. For the first time in a long time, I actually saw all five of the nominated films and despite my disappointment that "The Dark Knight" was not one of them (and should have been), there was not one film I would have thought to replace. 2008 was an unusually strong film year and I hope that 2009 will equal it. Maybe it was the high quality of the work that helped to make the show better than usual.
Very sincerely,
Scott Collins
I wrote a letter to you, the Answer Man, about the problems I had with the Oscars: the de-emphasis and sometimes absence of clips; the use of cameras capturing monitors instead of direct video feeds, which was devastating to the In Memoriam montage; the combining of the musical performances into one brief medley; the blue frames; and I had one other thing. Indeed I wish I had submitted it here, for then it would have been more likely to get a reply.
Ebert: Why is it that every comment I receive from someone apologizing for his or her English is written flawlessly?
I've had the same experience when I ran a website years ago. I supposed at the time it was because either non-native English speakers were either taught very well or made the effort to self-educate to a higher degree. After corresponding with some of the folks who wrote to me I discovered that very often they simply took the both the time to reflect on what they were trying to say and pride in communicating well so as to make the effort to ensure what they'd written was a flawless as they could make it.
Conversely, I can't tell you how many emails or posting I received from native English speakers that showed little deliberation or pride. This is an excerpt from one: I thot that movee wuz realy kewl!!!!!! I wil prolly see it a bilon times!!!!!!!!!! i'm big fan r u to? (And no, it wasn't a text message written by a tweener.)
Everyone make writing mistakes; I've made some grand and embarrassing ones. But at least I knew to BE embarrassed once it was pointed out. We have evolved into a faster-is-better-than-right society and now even our simple communications reflect this. It's not about being smart, it's about being aware. I've always thought there should be a 5-minute delay before the "send" or "post" button works!
But I have digressed. The actual point of this was to say that I was out of town and only now had the opportunity to watch the Oscars on my DVR. Having read your review ahead of time, I enjoyed it all the more. Thank you, once again.
I really enjoyed the Oscars this year. However, I thought that Charleton Heston should have received the top spot (last slide) during the Tribute section, or at least the slide before Newman who was last. And I definitely don't understand why Eartha Kitt was not included.
Ebert: Why is it that every comment I receive from someone apologizing for his or her English is written flawlessly?
Because education is actually still a priority in many foreign countries. Plus, I'm guessing the fact that foreigners to the US learn and speak English mostly in an academic setting. My Spanish is probably better than many native speakers, if only because I have less experience hearing the subtleties, slangs, abbreviations, etc., of Spanish speakers and more time hearing my educators drone on and on about how to conjugate verbs correctly. It's too easy, especially on the Internet, to forget how to actually speak a language correctly.
Mr. Ebert, I completely agree with you. Not only was this my favorite Oscars in all my years of watching, but this telecast actually got my mother to sit down and watch the entire thing. She hates sitting for hours on end, but she absolutely loved this program. I thought Hugh Jackman was wonderful, the speeches made me cry at times, and the group of actors presenting the awards was truly touching. I'll give you the fact that the In Memoriam was really disappointing - with the horrible camerawork, I felt like I was on "Soaring Over California" at Disneyland. All in all, I give it a 95%.
Sorry, I thought the Oscars sucked. Jackman was trying too hard; Aniston looked like she was going to start bawling upon spotting Brangelina; Stiller's shtick disrespectfully drew attention away from the nominees' big mo; nothing, I mean nothing, was funny (Martin and Fey included); Rourke didn't win; Penn's speech was juvenile; Sophia Loren appeared to be demon-possessed (sad, 'cause I've always loved her); Daniel Craig was barely awake; Jack Black seemed nervous; Harvey Korman was forgotten; "In Memoriam" was a mess, even without the Korman snub; Springsteen was shut out; Jerry Lewis was short-changed; Jack Nicholson was nowhere to be found; and Adrien Brody was plain stupid. There! Now I feel better! PS..On the other hand, the room looked great, Beyonce' looked spectacular, and Winslet won.
Hi Roger,
As routinized as the Oscar ritual has become in my life, so has the following: the morning (now, thanks to the expansion of blog sites, minutes)-after bashing of the show by conservatives who - in harvest moon fashion - whine on about how terribly librul Hollywood is, how the speeches are treasonous, how the show and its accoutriments (the parties and so on are an obscene waste of money). Dear people, if you hate libruls, and you hate the Oscar show, then for Heaven's sake, why do you watch it every year, only to then vent your disgust?
Because, I am afraid, we humans have fun with our friends, and for these people, hate is their best friend, so watching the show and steaming about it is actually a source of fun. This is sad.
But funny as well, especially the hypocrisy part, as we listen to various and sundry upbraidings of celebrities for putting on shows and parties that cost "obscene" amounts of money (kind of reminds me with what the folks at AIG did! But of course, that's not considered obscene. That's considered a business strategy. And as for the cries of "treason," "Sean Penn hates America," and so forth, it seems that many people really do pine for the good old days of the blacklist, and are still mourning its death-especially the ones who, curiously, were not alive when the blacklist was in force. What a bunch of party poopers. As you remind us, Godard said, "The best way to criticize a movie is to make another movie." So why don't all of these hot and bothered types get together each year and make their own anti-Oscar telecast: categories can include: "Most sanctimonious actor," "most treasonous best supporting actress," "best conservative documentary" (tough to find entrants for that one,") and "most patriotic movie of the year (this year, a real gem, the strident "American Carol," could have been nominated. John Bolton can present the Anti-Humanitarian Award. Someone - not Queen Latifah, I hope, can get up and sing the applause for the singler won't SOUND strangely like applause for the honorees having died - it will BE applause for the honorees having died.
Yet, back to the fantasy world I prefer (and to the show that people actually would rather watch): I think this year's show had an element of theatrical zest that has been missing from any Oscar telecast I've seen (I've seen all since the telecast for film year 1991). Each telecast from that year until that year's were a grab bag of insider jokes, laughter where not appropriate, solemnity where not necessary, sometimes incomprehensible musical numbers (remember the interpretive dance routine for the 1998 Best Picture nominees, including for "Saving Private Ryan" and "The Thin Red Line?"), awkward means of presentation (like in 2005, when Chris Rock noted that some of the technical awards were being delivered like hamburgers at a McDonalds drive-thru), awkward orchestra yankings, etc. etc. Rarely did I feel that any of these telecasts were celebrating "the magic of movies." (Some of the telecasts were celebrating what in fact the industry had failed to achieve, such as was the case with the 1993 telecast, whose theme was "The Year of the Woman." I could barely sit with a straight face as Barbra Streisand presented the Best Director prize (as she noted, "The Academy didn't pick a winner along gender lines for this prize; it picked the best) after reading off the nominations for.... five men.
This year's show was different. First, no boring speech by the President of the Academy, which always feels like a tryout for a robot to act as Mr. Rourke in a new version of Fantasy Island. The show had a narrative (beginning with the writing of a film, adding the costume, then the score, and so forth), and awards were distributed in the order of this narrative. And the presentation of each nominee by someone who actually had won that award was so elegant in its simplicity, in its ability to lay forth the notion that the past, present and future of movies breathe as one, that I couldn't care less that the show ran slightly over 3 1/2 hours. As far as the song-and-dance routines, what is wrong, exactly with "off-off-Broadway?" We've suffered through Allan Carr's tackiness, Debbie Allen's overchoreography, and some pitiful renditions of humdrum best nominee songs too numerous to count (naturally, in a year when there were at least four great songs, including Springsteen's or "The Wrestler," the Academy decides to nominate only three songs. They will never get some things right).
All in all, one of the best shows in the past twenty years. I'd love to go some day. Do you know, by the way, how (once the tickets for the nominees and their parties have been distributed) the resulting "lottery" works? (i.e. is it open to any Academy member, who will win if his name happens to be picked out of the fishbowl? If it's that how it works, this year notwithstanding, I'd want Jack Nicholson to be at my poker table).
Great piece as always.
Thank you Roger for posting the In Memoriam montage with Queen Latifah's song, with no cut away shots or clapping (sigh). It has always been my pet peeve at these awards shows (Ex: Oscars, Emmys, SAGs . . . etc.) that when the "death reel" plays people start clapping for the dearly departed turning the entire affair into some kind of popularity contest for the dead. Ugh! I really wish that the host or presenter for this segment would tell folks to hold their applause until the end if they really feel the compulsion to clap. When Queen Latifah started singing I was crossing my fingers and toes that maybe, just maybe folks would not start applauding . . . but alas it was not to be. The montage is just so much more moving if watched in contemplative silence.
I have had an Oscar Party every year for over a decade now. All in all the show was very entertaining and Hugh Jackman was a great host . . . and easy on the eyes too. (wink) Having watched him host the Tony's several times I knew he'd be great and I knew he'd be singing and dancing through the night. And anyone who didn't know that Anne Hathaway could sing should rent Ella Enchanted, a really fun and entertaining family fantasy film.
Top Three Moments: Dustin Lance Black's acceptance speech for Best Original Screenplay for Milk (made me cry), The Best Song Nominee Medley (made me sing along), and Philippe Petit getting called on to the stage by the winners of Best Documentary Feature and then balancing their Oscar on his nose (made me laugh).
Worst Three Moments: The painfully awkward and inexplicably song and dance tribute to movie musicals, the clip montages to romance . . . etc. (pointless time wasters), and the cutaways and clapping during the In Memorium segment.
Ideas That Eventually Won Me Over: Past acting winners saying a little something about each nominee. At first I was like . . . how long do they want these Oscars to be?!?!? Then as I saw the tears well in the actors eyes and the looks of pride in their faces I thought heck why not. Even if you don't win, you just had another acting great pay you an amazing tribute. It truly is an honour to be a nominee!
Ebert: I'm with you all the way on "Ella Enchanted."
I completely disagree with anyone & everyone that thought Ben Stillers performance was not hilarious. Ben Stiller is one of the funniest people alive today. If you do not understand a true comic genius at work then I can not help you understand. But it was brilliant.
Culprit found! Jess Cagle, the Managing Editor of EW(!), is the guy who admittedly (EW #1037, p. 4, "EW at the Oscars) screwed up when interviewing SJP the first time, presumably about Broderick. Just ran across this in the new Slumdog-covered issue, and thought you might have missed the brief Editor's note therein.
Ebert: Good gravy! That's the mag where I learn who all the celebrities are. But I woulda known Matthew Broderick on my own.
Oscar's been truly loving Penn's work the last couple of years. Hopefully, he'll continue to direct his unique brand of films. Oh, wouldn't it be great if he directed Rourke (who could be in the lead)in one of his movies. Or, I dunno, maybe that's wishful thinkin'.
A guy can dream, can't he?
I know this is quite a few days late, but did anyone notice that George Carlin wasn't listed 'In Memoriam'? Perhaps the best standup comic of all time with more than a few movie credits, he deserved a mention more than most.
Roger, I have to agree with you, they were better than most this year. However, I always loved Bob Hope as emcee and Johnny Carson, Billy Crystal and Whopee Goldberg were also quite good. The problem seems to be when the emcee lets his (or her) ego insinuate itself too far. Being a contemporary of yours, I also felt the memorial was given too artsy a treatment and caused me to miss some of the subjects. Although Penn has proven to be very talented, I felt Rourke displayed remarkable ability, especially as he demonstrated in the ad used on TV so often.
Hey, Mr Ebert!
I am an Indian teenage boy, and I must say I am a huge fan! I love reading your reviews, and actually find myself chuckling at your sacrcasm. 'Jack Frost'! Classic review! With you all the way! And most of the time, I find myself strongly agreeing with your reviews too.
Now seeing that you enjoyed Slumdog Millionaire, as did most US critics, I strongly suggest you watch 'Taare Zameen Par' and 'Swades' (Vikas has suggested Swades above).
Ebert: Recommendation noted.
-Krishna Shenoi
I agree that this show was one of the bests and i look forward to them inproving upon the new format. However, how come know one has mentioned or caught on to the fact that Heath Ledger was not included in the memoriam montage? I know that he won an award and was acknowledged that way, but, he still should have been in the montage. One last thing they need to simplify the red carpet (or do something different), so that those of us who have abandoned that part of the experience will be willing to watch again.
By the Way Roger, you and your show are sorely missed.
Ebert: He died in early 2008 and was in last year's montage.