Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:04 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition" 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3167
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
Click here to read topic.


Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:02 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
I think the reason the Oscars did those "addresses" is because sometimes the actors/actresses have shown emotion for being praised like that. But at the same time, those "addresses" make the telecast stilted and long-winded.

One thing to get rid of - those damn montages. Waste. Of. Time. It felt weird seeing "Twilight" join the company of classics like "Jaws", "The Exorcist", "E.T.", "Apocalypse Now", etc.

I'm glad the musical performances were cut out this year. Those were always tedious and a waste of time. We've heard the song over the past year and don't need a refresher on them.

They really should get rid of the awards that quite frankly nobody gives a shit about (you know what they are). Like James said, have these given out at an earlier time or have some kind of separate ceremony done that gives them out.

I thought Crystal did a good job overall and kept the evening flowing. Yeah, he was a safe and predictable choice, but sometimes safe and predictable is what you need. You know he was hired as damage control for the Franco/Hathaway fiasco. I do wonder what it would have been like if Eddie Murphy had stayed as the original hosting choice.


Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:58 pm
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
A couple of thoughts:

JB is dead on about The Artist. I haven't seen it yet, and I certainly want to, but its win is the biggest indicator yet of how nothing "popular" wins Best Picture anymore. The disconnect may be greater than ever when it comes to what makes money at the box office versus what wins awards. Having both is incredibly rare.

The "addresses" to the lead acting nominees also come across as an unintentional slap in the face to the "supporting" nominees. Their contributions are often just as huge and in some cases are more remembered.

There is such a thing as being too skinny to be attractive. Angelina Jolie has unfortunately crossed the line.

Even though more improvements are needed, let's not forget the telecast clocked in at a respectable 3 hrs 5 mins. We've come a long way since those 4 1/2 hour shows of 10+ years ago.


Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:02 am
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
KRoss wrote:
A couple of thoughts:

JB is dead on about The Artist. I haven't seen it yet, and I certainly want to, but its win is the biggest indicator yet of how nothing "popular" wins Best Picture anymore. The disconnect may be greater than ever when it comes to what makes money at the box office versus what wins awards. Having both is incredibly rare.

The "addresses" to the lead acting nominees also come across as an unintentional slap in the face to the "supporting" nominees. Their contributions are often just as huge and in some cases are more remembered.

There is such a thing as being too skinny to be attractive. Angelina Jolie has unfortunately crossed the line.

Even though more improvements are needed, let's not forget the telecast clocked in at a respectable 3 hrs 5 mins. We've come a long way since those 4 1/2 hour shows of 10+ years ago.


I remember the Oscars when Heath Ledger won and that year the supporting actors and actresses got "addresses" just like the lead actors and actresses. A different actor/actresses addressed each nominee.

Also, a lot of people were focused on Jolie's leg as much as they were her weight.


Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:05 am
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
I like Mark Kermode's explanation for the 3D in Hugo, which is that it was an alienation device to remind you of the technology of cinema. And in that sense, it fits right in with the ideas in the movie. Hugo celebrates gimmicky cinema which works in spite of itself.

So it's still possible the Academy might consistently dislike 3D.


Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:07 am
Gaffer

Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:54 am
Posts: 25
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
I didn't care to watch the Academy Awards ceremony. I have reached a point in my life where I just want to know who won.
Sort of like when you reach a point where you don't care to watch the game, you just want to read the box score the next morning.

******

However, if I could get a video of the ceremony with just the clips of Billy Crystal and his jokes I would probably enjoy watching that.


Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:31 am
Profile
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
The Academy may be losing viewers for more reasons than boredom. Interest in the movies themselves matters a lot. So does people's ability to stomach the sight of an entire industry wanking itself for three hours and broadcasting it in all its self-importance.

Billy Crystal is the best Oscar host because he resides in the goldilocks zone of being just funny enough to keep the show moving, but unfunny enough that the stodgy, sensitive fogeys who run this show won't be offended. He has just the right length of leash.

In this day and age, I think a win for best visual effects is probably incompatible with a win for best cinematography. But nobody knows what cinematography is anymore. As much as I enjoyed Hugo, the whole thing has that smeared, sepia, computer-treated look that affects a lot of "storybook" films, and probably guarantees that what we see is very little like what the lens originally captured. (Unlike, say, The Artist.)

A final thought: I did not watch the telecast, out of utter disinterest. The only coverage I've bothered to read is JB's, because history indicates that he's right there with me and essentially doing this again out of duty.

P.S. What happened with Douglas Trumbull?


Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:33 am
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:55 pm
Posts: 87
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
Quote:
James said:

Time for the shorts - these should be given out before the main awards. In general, no one cares except the nominees and their relatives. It may only take up about five minutes, but those are five minutes that could be used for something else. If the Academy wants to continue to honor shorts, it should be done in a pre-Oscars ceremony.


But James, without the shorts category, how will the world be made aware of the awe and majesty of Wallace and Gromit?


Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:50 am
Profile
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
I too thoroughly enjoyed The Artist--but, as James says, an Oscar? THE best picture? I believe it won in large part because of escapism and nostalgia. there's only so much political absurdity, economic scandal, and social decay that many people can tolerate. Soonafter enjoying The Artist, I saw The Descendants,and I felt it did not have a chance at best picture--a disfunctional family of privilege where the dieing mother has been cheating on the distant father and the extended family is torn over a multi-million dolar land deal. The contrast between The Artist and The Descendants should raise interesting questions about judging movies: After all the technical competence and the fine acting, how important is social commentary? How important "realism"?


Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:58 am
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
The short answer is that all films are artificial, and all films absorb seepage from the real world circumstances that they come from whether they want to or not.

If you're asking how important it is that films fight against the former and are conscious of the latter, the short answer is: not very.


Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:07 am
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1746
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
The two things I remembered about the ceremony: Angelina Jolie's skeletal appearance and how much Billy Crystal sucked. Seriously, Chris Rock was funnier in his short presentation bit than Crystal was during the whole show. So yeah, the ceremony was boring. But there was nothing else on TV.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:21 am
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:17 pm
Posts: 529
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
James wrote:
The choice of The Artist as Best Picture wasn't a surprise, but it remains a curiosity. Why? Don't misunderstand - I love the film. But an Oscar winner? This is as obvious a "statement award" as the Academy can make. They're expressing admiration for what the movie represents. They think it's cool to give out a statue to the Little Engine That Could. They fell for the gimmick. I'm not going to get drawn into the debate about whether The Artist deserved to win, but this will no doubt reinforce the belief of mainstream America that the Academy always chooses "artsy fartsy" movies rather than something they would like to see.


This may have been a statement award, but all I know is what I personally thought of each movie nominated. In the two weeks before the awards, I sat down and watched all of them and formed opinions independent of the reviews and the hype. You can check out my ratings of each in the Oscars forum. But I didn't put The Artist at the top because I thought it would win, I put it at the top because it was the only film that has recreated "movie magic" for me in quite some time. As cliche as it is, it's the truth. As far as 2011 goes, Hugo was a noble effort, but the other films worth mentioning focused on a sort of brutal realism - a trend that has been constant for several years now. This has been the case since 2005. Best picture winners since then include Million Dollar Baby, Crash, The Departed, No Country for Old Men, Slumdog Millionaire, The Hurt Locker, and The King's Speech. Apart from the maybe the last of that list, brutal realism has really been the focus. I'm not saying that none of those films deserved to win (that's the topic of a different post), I'm saying that The Artist is the first captivating film to win this award in seven years. You saw the montages of actors and their movie nostalgia; maybe that's a sign. If this trend had continued, we would have seen The Descendents win best picture, no doubt. Or Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, God forbid.

Now, I don't know anything about the politics of the Weinstein Company, but I have to ask, what about this movie made it gimmicky? Yes, obviously its silent, but it doesn't feel that way. I can see it being the underdog, but I can't see it winning for that reason. I understand that a lot of people refuse to watch silent movies (hell, I live with some of them), but why should The Artist winning cement the Oscars into hipsterdom? Theoretically, these awards are transcendental of things like "revenue" anyways.

If we're placing blame on what alienates people from the Oscars, I think we should all agree that it has nothing to do with what actually wins. The only reason why people watch in the first place is to see if their favored artist/movie wins anything. This assumes that there are movies worth watching and rooting for. If Hollywood wanted 80 million people watching the Oscars, it would either make higher quality mainstream movies or it would drastically alter what gets nominated. And since I really don't want to have a conversation about what Transformers could have been like if it had been directed by David Fincher, I think we can agree that the Oscars are not mainstream. Pretending they are is a misunderstanding of modern Hollywood.

If you want to argue my last point, ask yourself why The Hurt Locker beat Avatar. If you still think I'm wrong, then you must really hate the Oscars.


Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:15 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1318
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
Then on the opposite end of the spectrum you've got the Grammys, which seemingly honors nothing but the mainstream... and which you couldn't pay me to watch. :? Bottom line, the average person views entertainment as just that: a disposable time-killer of little consequence, and care nothing about the more artistic aspect behind any of it. I certainly hope those people feel passionate about other things in life, because otherwise what's the point if you're just going through motions? :|


Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:34 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3167
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
Ken wrote:
P.S. What happened with Douglas Trumbull?


He was awarded with an Oscar at the science & tech ceremony. Well-deserved.


Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:43 am
Profile WWW
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
My biggest problem with the show, thinking back after a few days, is that it gave me no idea what the movies up for Best Picture were like. You could watch the show and have no idea what 2011 was like for movies. I suppose "unmemorable" might be a popular answer, in which case... maybe ignoring them completely was the way to go? Still, it would have been so easy to work those "remembering the magic of the movies" in with the theme of so many of the Best Picture nominees and yet... they didn't.

This year, somehow, I'd managed to see 7 of the 9 Best Picture nominees. If I hadn't, I would have left the show having no idea which of the nominated movies I wanted to see. In year's past, at least the show has made me think things like "OK I need to give this Slumdog movie a shot." Not even an attempt at anything like that this time.


Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:15 am
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
I've never been one for awards shows, as they just bore me to death for the most part(though i'd certainly prefer watching the Grammy's over the Oscars, at least the musical performances might keep me awake) I watched the 2004 Emmy awards out of curiosity and that turned out to be a big waste of time, so since then i've completely ignored any and all awards shows(especially the Razzies, seriously, what's the point of them? Except for the rare occasion that an actor shows up in person pick up an award like Tom Green or Halle Berry, there's nothing at all interesting about the show) and I don't feel like i'm missing anything at all.


Last edited by Vexer on Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:30 pm
Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 4:13 am
Posts: 330
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
Quote:
They fell for the gimmick. I'm not going to get drawn into the debate about whether The Artist deserved to win, but this will no doubt reinforce the belief of mainstream America that the Academy always chooses "artsy fartsy" movies rather than something they would like to see.


The experience of watching "The Artist" is more entertaining than, for example, "Tree of Life." The Academy almost never nominates for arty, oblique movies in the best picture categories. (None of Godard's films have been nominated in the best foreign film category).


Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:25 pm
Profile
Gaffer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 26
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
I'm in total agreement with JB regarding the "addresses" as the whole night is already dedicated to slathering syrup on each other so adding a heaping portion of saccharine at the end just makes it sickening. Though I will add that if I must see someone give psychological hummers on live tv that Ms. Portman's beautiful presence helps.

Billy Crystal was competently serviceable as host but as his comedy has always been more physical than Hope's or Carson's I just kept feeling he has past his prime in the role, and this is coming from a geezer. It probably didn't help that my local paper had run a recent picture of him sans makeup in a column over the weekend. He can now play Miracle Max without said makeup. The sound mix guy didn't do him any favors on the BP song and dance either as the orchestra nearly drowned out the lyrics during his declining attempts at singing. His mostly barb-less zingers were fine but the prepared lines stayed vanilla.

This touches on my biggest turn off in the whole affair, well, short of my favorites not winning :D . The writing or presentment of that writing mainly by the presenters is excruciating. I like both Downey Jr. and Emma Stone immensely but those prepared shticks were at best tedious. I read all of the live discussion on here regarding prospective hosts and it set me to thinking what it was that made Hope and Carson so good. They were both masters of swapping from limelight to accompanist, back again and throwing in a true ad hoc zinger regardless of how the bit played. I am at a loss for a current personality to fit that role and I guess so are the producers. Given that, are they only paying scale to the writers? I know film stars don't always translate to stage but without material everyone looks bad.

I found one help in viewing was to start an hour late and FF but I still caught up live long before the biggies so it wasn't quite as tedious this year. Much like JB and the rest of you I'm past much caring on the election results given that the "winners" seldom affect my viewing habits anyway. Unlike a lot of previous years I had seen all of the BP nominees prior to the show and am still not swayed from my opinion that it wasn't a vintage year. Not a bad year, just not anything I would personally champion as a Best Picture. I also enjoyed The Artist but found its story too derivative to merit BP but I really wasn't that worked up on the other ones either so meh. Though now that I think about it, I'm with Pedro on the editing award. My main take on it after walking out of the theater was that Fincher must now have attained final cut status because it damn sure needed some cutting. Then it wins Oscar for best editing? Oh well, for my 10 bucks I get to criticize and the Oscars didn't cost me a dime, que sera.


Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:43 pm
Profile
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
James Berardinelli wrote:
Ken wrote:
P.S. What happened with Douglas Trumbull?


He was awarded with an Oscar at the science & tech ceremony. Well-deserved.

That's fantastic. His resume is basically a list of legendary science fiction movies, so it's most definitely well-deserved.

I'm interested in seeing how his idea for shooting with 120 fps cameras turns out. It's a big shakeup of tradition... but this is the guy who ought to be listened to.

jadedmoviegoer wrote:
Quote:
They fell for the gimmick. I'm not going to get drawn into the debate about whether The Artist deserved to win, but this will no doubt reinforce the belief of mainstream America that the Academy always chooses "artsy fartsy" movies rather than something they would like to see.


The experience of watching "The Artist" is more entertaining than, for example, "Tree of Life." The Academy almost never nominates for arty, oblique movies in the best picture categories. (None of Godard's films have been nominated in the best foreign film category).

I wonder about this, too. Not only does the Academy rarely nominate anything that's really out there, but of the movies that do get nommed, the winner is almost guaranteed to be one of the more conventional choices. Consider The King's Speech, which wasn't a bad film by any means, but was still very middle-of-the-road. There's nothing challenging about it, unless the viewer is 12 or under.

The only bold thing about picking The Artist (incidentally, a great movie) is that it's mostly silent, in 1.33:1, and black and white, which only sounds artsy-fartsy if you haven't seen it.


Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:32 pm
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
ck100 wrote:
I think the reason the Oscars did those "addresses" is because sometimes the actors/actresses have shown emotion for being praised like that. But at the same time, those "addresses" make the telecast stilted and long-winded.

One thing to get rid of - those damn montages. Waste. Of. Time. It felt weird seeing "Twilight" join the company of classics like "Jaws", "The Exorcist", "E.T.", "Apocalypse Now", etc.

I'm glad the musical performances were cut out this year. Those were always tedious and a waste of time. We've heard the song over the past year and don't need a refresher on them.

They really should get rid of the awards that quite frankly nobody gives a shit about (you know what they are). Like James said, have these given out at an earlier time or have some kind of separate ceremony done that gives them out.

I thought Crystal did a good job overall and kept the evening flowing. Yeah, he was a safe and predictable choice, but sometimes safe and predictable is what you need. You know he was hired as damage control for the Franco/Hathaway fiasco. I do wonder what it would have been like if Eddie Murphy had stayed as the original hosting choice.


I'm not sure I do know which ones you mean :P how many people give a shit about Cinematography? As Ken pointed out, not many people really know what that is anyway, but it does still mean something to some people (means the world to me personally).


Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:08 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr