Post Oscar 2010

A few days have gone by and I’ve read quite a few articles about the recent Academy Awards ceremony that it warrants a quick recap.

Apparently I am not alone in thinking that the ceremony itself was just average.  Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin did an honorable job, but the night felt both rushed and slow at the same time, as well as aseptic.  Its ratings might have been much higher than they’ve been recently, but it wasn’t a night to remember.

Only afterwards did I realize that they did not award a career Oscar, or at least not at the ceremony itself.  Yes, I agree that the winner’s speech is oftentimes quite long winded, but with all the people involved in that business and only one of these awards handed out yearly, is it really wise and necessary to put it off, perhaps to shave 20 minutes from the telecast?  Robert Altman and Sidney Poitier are just two of the recent winners who would beg to differ.

Another thing of note missing was a tribute to the late Farrah Fawcett during the In Memoriam montage.  I hadn’t realized it until my dear friend Vittorio pointed it out, and it was all the more puzzling since I did remember them including Michael Jackson, who was more of a music icon then a movie star.  Then I read on Entertainment Weekly that the reason the producers gave for not including Fawcett was that “We can’t include all of the notable people who pass away,” which felt insulting even if I wasn’t a big Fawcett fan.  I clearly recall this year’s montage including a publicist among the “notables.”  Now, I don’t want to sound disrespectful to publicists, whose jobs are part of the Hollywood machinery as much as those of directors, writers, and actors, but if you had the time to include a publicist whose name no one outside of the Kodak auditorium ever heard, you should definitely include an iconic figure like Farrah Fawcett.  That omission was quite unforgivable.

That same article also mentioned the horror genre tribute, which I loved, but a friend of Ray told him how it came on quite early in the night, when his kids were still watching.  Our kids were in bed already, so I fully enjoyed the montage, but I would have freaked out too if they had been sitting by my side.  Perhaps the producers should have thought about timing a little more carefully, especially considering that it was only about 6.30 PM on the West Coast, which means that kids were all still wide awake (especially after seeing that montage…)

One last question that article answered was about the presenters pronouncing “and the winner is” rather than the customary “and the Oscar goes to.”  Apparently this is what the producers responded: “I always thought it was overly polite.  I wanted a sense of tension on the show.  We thought of [the Oscars] as the most well-dressed reality competition show in the world.”  Where to begin.  First off, what’s wrong with being polite?  Second, hearing the words “and the Oscar goes to” just before your name is announced as the winner must be the most invigorating and fulfilling feeling in the world.  Third, haven’t we had enough of reality competition shows?  Fourth, this is the fracking Oscars you’re handing out; they’re revered the world over for what they represent, the pinnacle of excellence; is it really necessary to reduce them to an overlong episode of The Bachelor?

Given the higher ratings and the fact that producing the Oscars is a rather ungrateful task (you are critiqued no matter what and you have to call in countless favors in order to set up a nice show), the current producers are likely to come back again next year, but from the few things I ratted off, I wouldn’t mind seeing some change.

As for the bitterest moment, when Meryl Streep was once again robbed of the most prestigious award in the acting profession, I feel less sanguine now.  Sandra Bullock did give her best performance ever in The Blind Side, and she certainly deserved her accolades.  She also happens to be a very likeable and bankable star who has a good sense of humor and navigated the Oscar campaign tactfully and with grace.  It is just unfortunate that the “let’s spread the wealth” mantra led so many to vote for who they liked to see win rather than for the woman who had indeed given the best performance of the year, a performance, frankly, unmatchable.  Let’s just hope Streep will be offered many more great roles and that soon enough she’ll be able to clutch Mr. Oscar once again.

Finally, a note on the top prize of the night.  I recently saw The Hurt Locker (but haven’t reviewed it yet) and I’d give it 8/10 on my grading scale.  That grade would put it below Avatar’s 9, its biggest competition for the Best Picture Oscar, but I’d like to point out that that 9 is swelled up by some of the best visual effect I’ve ever seen on screen.  In terms of pure cinematic art, The Hurt Locker runs circles around Avatar.  That is why I was glad to read this passage recently:

“The irony, of course, is that this time Cameron’s gigantic movie lost.  Even with 10 nominees this year, it was the small indie film with no stars and a plot about the Iraq war that ended up getting the gold.  Depending on how you look at it, that’s either depressing proof that the Academy is full of snobs totally out of touch with the tastes of ordinary moviegoers, or an encouraging sign that, even today, simple cinematic excellence can triumph over razzle-dazzle spectacle.”

I happen to believe, firmly and proudly, that the second statement wins out.  For all of Avatar’s razzle-dazzle spectacle, The Hurt Locker was more deserving in terms of pure cinematic excellence, and I’m pleased that it won, especially at a time when big and flashy blockbusters suck up the vast majority of investment dollars and quality movies are often left in the dust, or on some movie studio storage shelf.