Notes On the 82nd Oscars

Yes, I should have posted this on Monday (when it was written), back when everybody actually cared. But I didn't. And, lo, you're stuck reading ramblings about the 82nd Academy Awards a few days after they mattered. Or you've already quit reading by this point, and aren't stuck at all.

Unlike most of the press, I personally think the opening number to the 82nd Academy Awards was lame. Since when do the Oscars have to riff on the Emmys? Neil Patrick Harris was a delight hosting last year's television awards, but he was off... way off... at the Oscars. Seemed overly nervous, too.

Question: If Best Picture goes to the producers, how come Best Animated Film goes to the directors?

Advice to Miley Cyrus: Pick better dresses and learn to stand up straight. You look like Lurch.

Crazy Heart won Best Music (Original Song). Even with the presence of Disney's obligatory nominations, this one was really no contest. In fact, out of all the categories, this was the only no-brainer.

Experimenting with a return to ten Best Picture nominations was both a success and a failure. It was a success in that it undoubtedly provided much-needed exposure to films that would not have otherwise garnered that exposure (and allowed Up to be nominated!), but it was a failure in that it provided nothing to help the telecast's ratings. Sure, you'll point out the overnights, but wait a few years. Ratings will drop. Again.

Gotta love that Kanye-moment for the winner of Best Documentary Short. It's even better if you know that the two recipients are suing each other.

So... The Hurt Locker: 6; Avatar: 3. Something tells me this will go over like Gandhi winning over E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial.

Best acceptance speech: Sandra Bullock. A close second was Geoffrey Fletcher (Adapted Screenplay).

Can someone tell me what the Hell was wrong with George Clooney?

Yes, I'm upset that The Hurt Locker won Best Picture. I was rooting for Inglourious Basterds, but it never had a chance. Other than that, I have no issue with the other five Oscars The Hurt Locker took home (I take that back... I have an issue with Best Original Screenplay).

And that, my friends, is that.

A Better Oscars Telecast

So, the nominations for the 82nd Academy Awards have been announced, and I'm a bit intrigued. Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin are slated to share hosting duties, and the Academy will get to find out that their idea of 10 Best Picture nominations is redundant, anti-elitist, and will have none of the desired effect that the Academy hopes it has (drawing in more casual viewers).

Seriously, how did they come to the conclusion that adding five more films a "casual viewer" is supposed to care about is going to make more "casual viewers" tune in? And, keep in mind, this is after they came to the conclusion that the Oscars telecast is "too long" (a notion that I disagree with, but whatever).

And, with all apologies to Kathryn Bigelow (who is my favorite female director of all time), I am wholly opposing The Hurt Locker's run at Best Picture. I just can't support that film. I don't care if it wins any of the other awards it's been nominated for (Actor in a Leading Role, Cinematography, Directing, Film Editing, Original Score, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Original Screenplay) ... but I'm hoping beyond all hope that it doesn't win Best Picture. It is a dishonest film and unworthy of the honor.

Anyway... on to the issue at hand: the lengthy telecast.

The solution, if the Academy truly is concerned with the television audience, is simple. In fact, it's already in place. You know how all of those other channels air their "red carpet" specials that lead up to the actual Oscars, essentially making everyone watch bad hosts ask stupid questions on E! or TV Guide channel, right before you switch to ABC to watch the actual show?

Well, yeah... that.

As much as I'm loathe to admit it, there are - quite simply - categories of Oscars that the general public simply doesn't care about. As in, really: who the Hell cares? Now, I care, and I like watching all of the categories... I even like catching the sci-tech Oscars. The again, I only watch one awards show per year, and the Oscars is it.

Sorry... back on track.

Oscar categories that the general public simply doesn't care about. Air those on another cable channel leading up to the "Oscar categories that the general public DOES care about." Give us pre-Oscar counter-programming to those banal red carpet shows. Give your viewership OPTIONS. Let's face it, options always help.

If the Academy really does want to control telecast length, this is the way to do it. Move the two documentary awards to this lead-up show on Bravo network. Move the two short film awards over. And move the two sound and one visual effects award (I REALLY hate that notion, but whatever works).

Seriously, that's really the only way it's going to work. Of course, it's a bit un-Politically Correct as far as Hollywood is concerned, but come on. The irony here is that with the additional telecast time inherent to having what is essentially two shows, the Academy would be more inclined to add new awards (such as Best Stunts), and it would become even feasible to have an entire Oscars dedicated to documentary and short film (can you imagine a Best Director or Best Cinematography award JUST for documentaries? That would rock!)

Simply put, though the Academy Awards are designed as self-serving elitist awards (and I seriously don't mean that in a negative fashion), the producers of the Oscar telecast feel the need to tailor to the viewing audience. The problem is... finding a middle ground simply for broadcast purposes is going to be far more difficult than even the imagination factory of Hollywood can handle. Pick a target (either the industry or the public), and fit your show to that. Just do it; then quit complaining about it.

Personally, I like the Oscars show as it's been for the past 20 years, but that's me.

The Oscars: Best Picture is Best Director

We are into Award Season for the various entertainment industries; Hollywood in particular. And, since I'm who I am, I figure I'd preempt the Academy Awards by, well, criticizing them a bit.

Don't get me wrong: I am a fan of the Academy Awards. And while the "casual fan" doesn't want to sit through more than three hours of award show, I'm totally fine with it. That stated...

It's long not made sense to me that "Best Picture" is awarded solely to producers. Yes, unlike most, I understand the role of the producer and why they are the ultimate "boss" for a given film production. But film is collaboration, is it not? And the entirety of a "picture" requires so much more than just the hands of its producers.

So I propose one of two solutions. The first solution, being the simplest, is to give producers some sort of "Best Producer/Producing/Production" award to recognize their value to the industry. And then award "Best Picture" to a conglomerate of sorts... the producers, the directors, etc. (maybe even the executive producers and/or the studio responsible for the film). Unfortunately, this would add an award and a few minutes to the telecast.

The second solution, somewhat related, is to get rid of the "Best Director" award and simply add a film's director as a recipient of the "Best Picture" award. I mean, why not? This would eliminate an award (which usually goes to the same film anyway) and shorten the telecast.

Some Background:

Since 1962, when the name of the award was changed from "Best Motion Picture" to "Best Picture," there have been only 8 instances (out of 47 award years) when the Best Picture and Best Director awards were given to separate movies:

• 1967 - Best Picture: In the Heat of the Night; Best Director: Mike Nichols, The Graduate
• 1972 - Best Picture: The Godfather; Best Director: Bob Fosse, Cabaret
• 1981 - Best Picture: Chariots of Fire; Best Director: Warren Beatty, Reds
• 1989 - Best Picture: Driving Miss Daisy; Best Director: Oliver Stone, Born on the Fourth of July
• 1998 - Best Picture: Shakespeare in Love; Best Director: Steven Spielberg, Saving Private Ryan
• 2000 - Best Picture: Gladiator; Best Director: Steven Soderbergh, Traffic
• 2002 - Best Picture: Chicago; Best Director: Roman Polanski, The Pianist
• 2005 - Best Picture: Crash; Best Director: Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain

Going back to 1944, when the award switched to "Best Motion Picture" from "Outstanding Motion Picture" and the number of nominees dropped from ten to five, there have only been a further 5 discrepancies (out of 18 award years):

• 1948 - Best Motion Picture: Hamlet; Best Director: John Huston, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
• 1949 - Best Motion Picture: All the King's Men; Best Director: Joseph L. Mankiewicz, A Letter to Three Wives
• 1951 - Best Motion Picture: An American in Paris; Best Director: George Stevens, A Place in the Sun
• 1952 - Best Motion Picture: The Greatest Show on Earth; Best Director: John Ford, The Quiet Man
• 1956 - Best Motion Picture: Around the World in 80 Days; Best Director: George Stevens, Giant

Including 1944 to 1961, the percentage of films winning both awards is 80%. If you start from 1962, the percentage is just under 83%. And until the aberrant run of four discrepancies in eight years (beginning with Shakespeare in Love), the percentage had increased to nearly 89% (or over 83% if including '44 to '61).

It's not a lock for a film to take home both awards, to be sure, but is an 11% to 20% occurrence rate enough to warrant separate awards?

More Oscar Musings

There should be an Academy Award for Best Stunts. Yes, there should be. Don't argue with me about this.

There should also be an Academy Award for Best Casting. Now, unlike in television, the directors of film like to take credit for most of a film's casting (and rightfully so), which is the primary argument as to why there is no award for Best Casting. However, I propose that (like the Best Picture idea above) both the film director and casting director receive this award. Why not? Oh, wait... telecast.

You wanna shorten the telecast? Get rid of the musical numbers. Keep the opening act, yes, but ditch the five songs throughout. Just play snippets of them when it's time for the category to be announced... you know, like all the other categories do it?

I'm willing to bet that increasing the Best Picture field back to 10 will have no positive effect on the ratings for the Oscars telecast. Whoever came up with that idea is, well... hmm... let's just say that it wasn't thought through.

I have a solution that might work, regarding award presentations and telecast length and ratings... but that can wait for another day.

Random Hollywood Musings in January, 2008

By now everyone is aware that Heath Ledger is dead. Seriously, when are young stars going to realize that sleeping pills are bad mojo?

We're at Ledger and Renfro so far... In keeping with the "Hollywood in Threes" legend, anyone want to take a guess on who's next? My money's on Britney Spears. Well, okay, not really, but she should be next.

Yes, even I think that was irresponsibly and ridiculously mean of me.

The WGA has finally backed off of their demand to represent animation and reality writers. About fucking time. Assholes. Now we can get somewhere.

Speaking of the WGA. I've said all along that this strike wasn't about money, but about power. The proof? The WGA has threatened to boycott the Academy Awards if an agreement isn't reached by then. Why? Exactly what do the Academy Awards, an industry-wide event honoring all aspects of cinema, have to do with contract negotiations?

The DGA deal seemed to have been reached quickly, and the SAG deal looks like it's going to be a no-brainer. So exactly what is the WGA's problem? And why does the WGA feel the need to call on SAG to support them? If writers and actors need to support each other, why not just form a new union?

I think AFTRA should stick it up SAG's ass and start acting completely independent of their sister guild. Competition would do the unions some good.

Have yet to see a movie in theaters this year. I'm having withdrawals... again.

If anyone tells me anything about Cloverfield before I see it, I will hunt you down and bury you where I find you.

A Profoundness in Film

Prior to September 11th, 2001, there was always that occasional film that critics would proclaim as an insight into the world, into humanity. Usually, these films would be nominated for an Academy Award or twelve, and they would fade away into the obscurity of a small box office followed by a resurrection of sorts into curricula the world over for film students. But, at least for the moments that belonged to them, those films would make an impact. Maybe lasting, maybe not. Regardless, someone would probably shout out that this film would change the world. Ultimately, however, it wouldn't, but its lingering frames of celluloid relevant vision would remain in the thoughts and imaginations of the next generation of filmmakers, resulting in yet another "temporarily profound" film venture.

After that infamous date, however, it seems that more and more of these films are making their way into the consciousness of the various pop cultures of the world, and, for better or worse, staying there. It has long been held by the intellectual elite of this world that we are mortal. We live, we die, and with the exception of a few great or heinous people, we are forgotten. Lately, though, this mortal perspective has been passed on to our entire planet, our very species. We are dying as an element of the universe; we are killing ourselves.

Terrorism and the environment lead our headlines. We are in a constant situation of, no matter what we do as individuals, our fates lie in the hands of others. As a result, our art, specifically our film, is beginning to reflect that reluctant nihilism that we are all a part of. We can be killed walking down our own streets, working in our own offices. Indeed, we will be killed walking down streets of foreign lands; breathing the air and drinking the water of our future. Our existence is coming to a head and, for whatever reason, be it profit or a genuine sense of love, Hollywood is trying to warn us.

Take a mere slice of the recent films that have graced the silver screen: Babel, Children of Men, even Al Gore's foray into film, An Inconvenient Truth. Warnings all. They make no effort to disguise their intents. We need to change, and change now, or we're all fucked.

It's almost irony that in a world where people are living longer, our lives can change in less time than ever before. In one second, a building can fall. In one second, a species can be erased from history. In one second, a life can begin and end.

Art has long held the key with which people react to their environments. Almost anybody with half an education can name a painting whose inspiration was death and destruction. Monkeys can probably spout the titles of no less than a dozen so-called war songs. Even the theatre has lent its hand, withered hand it is. But politics? How many people know the history of politics? The great decisions in the last century that led us to where we are today? Not many. Pop culture, it seems, is far more important to most citizens, especially of this country, than any other subject. And finally, Hollywood has taken notice.

There was once a time that supposedly incendiary films were squashed, or relegated to the art house circuit. It wasn't too long ago that the original Manchurian Candidate was finally released after being hidden from public view since JFK's assassination. It wasn't too long ago that the filmmakers behind movies such as Brokeback Mountain would have been admonished. But now, there is an overwhelming sense that humanity is running out of time, and every topic the world over is being brought to the forefront, perhaps in vain attempts at vanity, but perhaps due to the necessity that we need to figure out what's really important right now.

We truly are in a strange new world. China is once again, after centuries of absence, a world power. America is no longer the moral leader and savior of the world. The Middle East, thanks to the proliferation of nuclear technology, is no longer a footprint in Imperial plans. Make no mistake, the power struggle for tomorrow's world is more volatile than it has ever been before. Unfortunately, the average yahoo on the street isn't capable of understanding the minutiae involved in running societies, despite the fact that every yahoo has a definitive opinion, however uneducated, of how such actions should be done.

Which leaves us with film. The ultimate art form. No other art form in the world has the ability to be as affective, nor as pervasive, as film. And, thankfully, we're starting to use it as such. A few years ago, nobody, save naturalists, probably even gave a damn about penguins, then March of the Penguins arrives. The drug trade was seen as black and white, then Traffic. Even television shows like Battlestar Galactica are joining the fray, portraying several sides of several arguments in dramatic ways that laymen can comprehend.

I usually hate it when Hollywood decides to rear its head into the political world, primarily because there was always an overt agenda. But, now I see the necessity of it all. The powerful will continue to maintain and gain power; the stupid will continue to become even more stupid. Hollywood can educate, should it want to. And I think it finally wants to.

Let's hope for the best. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of time.

Musings on the 79th Academy Awards

Another year, another round of awards, and next year to prepare for. The 79th Academy Awards are over and, I must say, I was pleasantly surprised. It was a good telecast, one of the best in recent memory, and well-hosted by Ellen DeGeneres. I'm not a huge Ellen fan, but she is definitely one of the higher-caliber Oscar hosts. A huge improvement over Steve Martin, David Letterman, Chris Rock, and Whoopi Goldberg. If Billy Crystal decides never to come back, I think she and Jon Stewart should take turns hosting.

Anyway, some musings...

Congratulations to Martin Scorsese. It's about time, dude. I remember watching Spielberg finally getting his due with Schindler's List, and while that moment was long in coming, Scorsese's was longer, and arguably more significant.

I had no clue that Clint Eastwood spoke Italian, although I should've guessed by all of those "Spaghetti Westerns" that he was in. Once again, I think I'm going to write him in for President.

Kudos to Al Gore for resisting the urge to be overtly political in his various speeches. I wouldn't vote for the guy, but I respect his movie and his inspiration for it. It also doesn't hurt that he's right.

Is it just me, or is Helen Mirren one of the sexiest women in the universe?

Was anybody else not surprised that Dreamgirls didn't win the Oscar for Best Song? Um, when you split your own vote three ways, you're going to lose. Duh.

Although it was really neat (I love that word, "neat"), those human silhouettes really should've been done all at once, and not spread throughout the show. Quite awkward, in my opinion.

When are the Oscar producers going to come to their senses and fire Chris Connelly? He sucked on MTV; he's even worse on the Academy Awards.

My favorite part of every Oscars telecast has always been the "In Memoriam" segment. Always has been, always will be. It's seemingly the only time Hollywood actually truly pays its respects.

For those keeping score:
Babel - 1
The Departed - 4
Dreamgirls - 2
Happy Feet - 1
An Inconvenient Truth - 2
The Last King of Scotland - 1
Letters from Iwo Jima - 1
Little Miss Sunshine - 2
Marie Antoinette - 1
El Laberinto Del Fauno (Pan's Labrynth) - 3
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - 1
The Queen - 1

Until next year...