Oscar's Living in the Past
Despite not having my usual Oscar party to attend and bet on, I did watch the entire broadcast last night, and even managed to not fall asleep. Not even Jon Stewart, who I think is one of the funniest guys around right now, could save this snoozer. If the overnight numbers hold up, this is going to go down in history as the second least-watched Oscar broadcast since they began to keep ratings. I'm sure the Bushies will be quick to call it "America's repudiation of Hollywood's gay agenda" and the Hollywood types will probably blame it on Stewart who, like Chris Rock before him, was funnier than your average Steve Martin or Whoopi Goldberg hosting slot but didn't have the innate sense of where the "line" was between parodying the Hollywood culture and insulting their fragile little personalities. In truth, it's neither of these things. No one who is worried about Hollywood's "gay agenda" has watched the Oscars since Gone With the Wind was nominated. And, if anything, Jon Stewart probably added a couple million of his Daily Show audience, not your typical Oscar viewers, at least until they discovered the real reason why this Oscar broadcast will go down as one of the least watched ever... No one cared about the movies.
With nothing to root for that anyone had seen (I'm not even sure all of the Best Picture nominees have screened in Nashville yet), no one had a horse in the race. People tuned in to see if Lord of the Rings would sweep. All those women who saw Titanic 32 times each tuned in to see if it would win Best Picture. But this year, the question wasn't "Who will win between Brokeback Mountain and Crash" it was "Why should we care?"
Unfortunately, if last night's constant preach-fest is any indicator, the obvious answer to this problem isn't going to occur. That answer being that they run the "Oscar year" from September to September, giving all of the nominated films a chance to release widely and more importantly, in what is apparently blasphemy to the AMPAS if you believe the whining from last night, giving at least some of the nominated films time to release on DVD. Hollywood's current trend of releasing most of the "Oscar contenders" in the last couple of months of the year will guarantee the continuation of low ratings for the awards broadcasts in years where no "blockbuster" is nominated.
I know, I know. The President of AMPAS (and about 22 other presenters it seemed) made sure you understand that you HAVE to see movies at the theater. You CAN'T watch them on video, or at least you can't until you've given them your first $10 before plunking down the second $20.
But let's face it, it's just not true. Yes, you need to see King Kong on the big screen. Yes, you need to see Harry Potter in IMAX to get the full effect. But do you really get any more from "Capote" in the theater than you do at home? Do you really HAVE to see Felicity Huffman playing a dude in full THX sound? Is Eugene McCarthy any more impressive in "Good Night and Good Luck" if he's 20 feet tall?
Not really... With the exception of Brokeback Mountain, which I haven't seen but which looks very much like "A River Runs Through It" in that its story is mostly secondary to the beautiful scenery and would probably be more impressive on a big screen, none of the nominated pictures have any reason to make people see them in the theater unless they just can't wait for dvd. People go to the theater to see spectacles. FX and stunning cinematography are what drives the big screen experience. People want to see larger-than-life dinosaurs, people fighting in spaceships, and magic-wielding children. Most of the technological advances that the drones on last night's broadcast lauded as reasons to go to the theater, were invented by Industrial Light and Magic, aka Lucasfilm, aka the people who brought you Star Wars. They were invented with those films in mind and they have been designed specifically to make ILM-and-THX-driven films look and sound pretty. Multi-speaker THX-certified surround sound isn't really needed to listen to Phillip Seymour Hoffman's effete mutterings or Edward R. Murrow's anti-McCarthy tirades.
So am I saying that Oscar should only nominate big-effects blockbusters? Not at all. I would have stopped watching altogether if FX-laden stinkers like Pearl Harbor or XXX: State of the Union had gotten nominated. But save me the holier-than-thou attitude, the talking-down-to, and the sermon. Quit acting like people who watch your films on dvd are some kind of hillbilly scum who are ruining your careers. And quit using the Oscar ceremony as a pulpit to preach about the evils of piracy. The people who are stealing your movies aren't watching the show and, even if they are, they aren't suddenly going to say "oh wow, George Clooney says I shouldn't download movies. I feel so guilty!" The Oscars are already 4 hours long. Keep the preaching to a minimum.
Now that I've gotten my rant out of the way for tonight, some other random Oscar thoughts:
Hooray for Wallace and Gromit, the best movie released in 2005, for winning Best Animated Feature. Corpse Bride was really good and, while I haven't seen Howl's Moving Castle, Miyazaki always delivers, but Wallace and Gromit made me laugh harder than I have at a movie in a long time.
What was up with those songs nominated this year? Travelin' Thru was bad (with the exception of waiting to see if the bust of Dolly Parton's gown was going to explode from the pressure of those things that they obviously took a shoe-horn to get inside it), that song from Crash was BORING, and "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" was indistinguishable from every other rap tune released this year. I guess it was time for Oscar to finally discover rap music, but it's a shame they couldn't do it when New Jack City was released since that movie had a track from Ice-T, who has more talent in his pinky than the Whatever-Mafia does between them.
I've already mentioned that I thought Jon Stewart did a much better job than he'll get credit for because he bruised some Hollywood egos. Specifically, the campaign-style ads were a nice touch and Stewart had the line of the night with "some of the women in this audience could barely afford enough fabric to cover their breasts..."
It's official... The most beautiful woman in history, Lauren Bacall, has gotten old enough to need to be kept off TV. The woman who played so many characters with perfect poise and cunning intelligence stumbled, fumbled, and bumbled her way through presenting a subject she was once an expert on (film-noir, having starred in many of the best of them). I was embarassed for her and it made me sad. We'll always have "The Big Sleep" Ms. Bacall...
I'm not a religious man but I do believe in a creator and Ziyi Zhang is my proof that he exists. Nothing that stunning could have been created by accident.
I know a lot of people hold animosity toward the Star Wars prequels (I've been known to wish for a few tomatoes to lob at Jar Jar Binks myself) but not nominating Revenge of the Sith for best Special Effects is a crime. The climactic scene on the lava planet alone was as good as all of the effects in Chronicles of Narnia combined. The only movie that was even in the same category was King Kong, with WETA Workshop proving once again that they've become a force that can match anything put out by ILM, the long-time best out there.
That's all I've got for today. A post this long should buy me another month before I'm expected to post again, right Kate?
With nothing to root for that anyone had seen (I'm not even sure all of the Best Picture nominees have screened in Nashville yet), no one had a horse in the race. People tuned in to see if Lord of the Rings would sweep. All those women who saw Titanic 32 times each tuned in to see if it would win Best Picture. But this year, the question wasn't "Who will win between Brokeback Mountain and Crash" it was "Why should we care?"
Unfortunately, if last night's constant preach-fest is any indicator, the obvious answer to this problem isn't going to occur. That answer being that they run the "Oscar year" from September to September, giving all of the nominated films a chance to release widely and more importantly, in what is apparently blasphemy to the AMPAS if you believe the whining from last night, giving at least some of the nominated films time to release on DVD. Hollywood's current trend of releasing most of the "Oscar contenders" in the last couple of months of the year will guarantee the continuation of low ratings for the awards broadcasts in years where no "blockbuster" is nominated.
I know, I know. The President of AMPAS (and about 22 other presenters it seemed) made sure you understand that you HAVE to see movies at the theater. You CAN'T watch them on video, or at least you can't until you've given them your first $10 before plunking down the second $20.
But let's face it, it's just not true. Yes, you need to see King Kong on the big screen. Yes, you need to see Harry Potter in IMAX to get the full effect. But do you really get any more from "Capote" in the theater than you do at home? Do you really HAVE to see Felicity Huffman playing a dude in full THX sound? Is Eugene McCarthy any more impressive in "Good Night and Good Luck" if he's 20 feet tall?
Not really... With the exception of Brokeback Mountain, which I haven't seen but which looks very much like "A River Runs Through It" in that its story is mostly secondary to the beautiful scenery and would probably be more impressive on a big screen, none of the nominated pictures have any reason to make people see them in the theater unless they just can't wait for dvd. People go to the theater to see spectacles. FX and stunning cinematography are what drives the big screen experience. People want to see larger-than-life dinosaurs, people fighting in spaceships, and magic-wielding children. Most of the technological advances that the drones on last night's broadcast lauded as reasons to go to the theater, were invented by Industrial Light and Magic, aka Lucasfilm, aka the people who brought you Star Wars. They were invented with those films in mind and they have been designed specifically to make ILM-and-THX-driven films look and sound pretty. Multi-speaker THX-certified surround sound isn't really needed to listen to Phillip Seymour Hoffman's effete mutterings or Edward R. Murrow's anti-McCarthy tirades.
So am I saying that Oscar should only nominate big-effects blockbusters? Not at all. I would have stopped watching altogether if FX-laden stinkers like Pearl Harbor or XXX: State of the Union had gotten nominated. But save me the holier-than-thou attitude, the talking-down-to, and the sermon. Quit acting like people who watch your films on dvd are some kind of hillbilly scum who are ruining your careers. And quit using the Oscar ceremony as a pulpit to preach about the evils of piracy. The people who are stealing your movies aren't watching the show and, even if they are, they aren't suddenly going to say "oh wow, George Clooney says I shouldn't download movies. I feel so guilty!" The Oscars are already 4 hours long. Keep the preaching to a minimum.
Now that I've gotten my rant out of the way for tonight, some other random Oscar thoughts:
Hooray for Wallace and Gromit, the best movie released in 2005, for winning Best Animated Feature. Corpse Bride was really good and, while I haven't seen Howl's Moving Castle, Miyazaki always delivers, but Wallace and Gromit made me laugh harder than I have at a movie in a long time.
What was up with those songs nominated this year? Travelin' Thru was bad (with the exception of waiting to see if the bust of Dolly Parton's gown was going to explode from the pressure of those things that they obviously took a shoe-horn to get inside it), that song from Crash was BORING, and "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" was indistinguishable from every other rap tune released this year. I guess it was time for Oscar to finally discover rap music, but it's a shame they couldn't do it when New Jack City was released since that movie had a track from Ice-T, who has more talent in his pinky than the Whatever-Mafia does between them.
I've already mentioned that I thought Jon Stewart did a much better job than he'll get credit for because he bruised some Hollywood egos. Specifically, the campaign-style ads were a nice touch and Stewart had the line of the night with "some of the women in this audience could barely afford enough fabric to cover their breasts..."
It's official... The most beautiful woman in history, Lauren Bacall, has gotten old enough to need to be kept off TV. The woman who played so many characters with perfect poise and cunning intelligence stumbled, fumbled, and bumbled her way through presenting a subject she was once an expert on (film-noir, having starred in many of the best of them). I was embarassed for her and it made me sad. We'll always have "The Big Sleep" Ms. Bacall...
I'm not a religious man but I do believe in a creator and Ziyi Zhang is my proof that he exists. Nothing that stunning could have been created by accident.
I know a lot of people hold animosity toward the Star Wars prequels (I've been known to wish for a few tomatoes to lob at Jar Jar Binks myself) but not nominating Revenge of the Sith for best Special Effects is a crime. The climactic scene on the lava planet alone was as good as all of the effects in Chronicles of Narnia combined. The only movie that was even in the same category was King Kong, with WETA Workshop proving once again that they've become a force that can match anything put out by ILM, the long-time best out there.
That's all I've got for today. A post this long should buy me another month before I'm expected to post again, right Kate?
posted by Gryphon at 8:51 PM
2 Comments:
I agree with you completely about the Oscars. I had no horse in that race at all- except "King Kong", which won, as it should have done, everything technical. Jon Stewart was disappointing; they need to stop asking "outsiders" to host the damn thing. And YOU need to post ONCE A WEEK.
I think they keep hoping that they'll find another Johnny Carson, who was the best host the show ever had. John Stewart's too political not to bruise all those fragile little actor egos. If they're going to go with TV people, they would probably have done better with Leno. Leno's not as funny as Stewart but he's been doing the Tonight Show gig long enough to know where that invisible line is to keep from offending.
Post a Comment
<< Home