Oscars 2008

[August1991]

I didn't watch the ceremony because I rarely watch TV and I think they should have just cancelled this year's event: all the Best Pictures nominated this year are lousy.

Steyn's web site gave a link to a remarkable video of women in film.

On first viewing, I identified about 20 - all the way back to the It Girl herself.

[jdobbin]

I didn't watch the ceremony because I rarely watch TV and I think they should have just cancelled this year's event: all the Best Pictures nominated this year are lousy.

Steyn's web site gave a link to a remarkable video of women in film.

On first viewing, I identified about 20 - all the way back to the It Girl herself.

How many of the films did you see?

A very interesting video. Not too many non-white faces in Hollywood.

[kimmy]

That was a neat video, August. I think I recognized about twenty as well, thought probably not the same twenty as you did.

I have not seen any of this year's best picture nominees; I'd heard that some of them were excellent, though. This must be a better crop of films than the previous couple. I did watch some of tonight's festivities, mostly to see if 21 year old Ellen Page of Halifax won best actress (she did not.)

I enjoyed seeing Daniel Day Lewis "knighted" by Helen Mirren (who of course was "The Queen" in last year's eponymous film) in what looked like a completely spur of the moment idea. Daniel Day Lewis seems like such a refined and delicate man when he is not in character that it is unbelievable that he can portray these powerhouse characters. As "Bill the Butcher" in Gangs of New York he seemed like he could break most men in half with his bare hands, and from the clips I have seen his performance in There Will Be Blood looks equally imposing, completely opposite to the slim and mild-mannered gentleman on stage tonight. It's difficult to believe it was the same person.

As I watched, I thought back on our earlier chat where you made reference to Oscar winners of previous years by way of arguing a point. And it seems to me using the Academy Awards as a measure of artistic merit is pretty doubtful to start with. Looking back on all the clips of past winners was a reminder of how some types of movies just aren't considered. There are excellent action movies, excellent comedies, excellent science fiction and fantasy films, excellent thrillers, but with rare exceptions they're not treated as "serious" cinema by the people who decide this sort of thing. They're given some minor awards (visual effects, sound effects, and so on) as a token acknowledgment (how many minor awards did The Bourne Ultimatum receive tonight? 3 or 4 while I was watching...) while being excluded from the big prizes that are reserved for certain types of movies that the Academy considers "serious" films. As well, I was reminded that the awards seem to be based as much on politics as on merit. Let's vote for this guy because he deserved it last time but we had to vote for the old guy last time because he didn't have an Oscar and was going to die soon. Let's give the award to Halle Berry because even though she sucks, the press has been giving us a hard time about not giving awards to minorities. Let's vote for the AIDS guy movie, because AIDS is, like, the totally hot cause this year.

-k

[August1991]

How many of the films did you see?

I'll be honest. I only saw La Vie en Rose.

I have a deep aversion to PT Anderson movies. I found Magnolia offensive and Punch Drunk Love just bad. Anderson is greatly overrated.

While I like the Coen Brothers, and I may rent No Country for Old Men, I'm not a great fan of violent splatter movies. I find these kind of movies are pretentious and thoroughly unrealistic. Violence isn't like that at all. Juno? That's like an Ivan Reitman Mini-Me production? Sorry, teen pregnancy movies are at most a rental for me.

I happened to like Hairspray and thought it might at least get nominated. But the Academy doesn't like musicals any more - unless they're somehow connected to Bob Fosse.

As I watched, I thought back on our earlier chat where you made reference to Oscar winners of previous years by way of arguing a point. And it seems to me using the Academy Awards as a measure of artistic merit is pretty doubtful to start with. Looking back on all the clips of past winners was a reminder of how some types of movies just aren't considered.

It's a curious system and it has its failings. (I was watching a movie recently with Peter O'Toole - Venus. He's been nominated 7 or 8 times and he's never won. He lost to Gregory Peck in 1963.)

Academy members get to nominate and then they get to vote for the winner. There's always talk of money changing hands, and no doubt lobbying occurs but I reckon to get Hollywood people to stick together is like herding cats. It must happen sometimes though. How else to explain John Wayne's Oscar?

Or how about 1950 when Judy Holliday beat Gloria Swanson and Bette Davis. (Holliday overacted and had a truly irritating voice.)

I think the biggest complaint is in the nomination process, not the final voting. There are also arcane rules about foreign films, screenplay adaptation and music from other media.

Looking back, if there was an exceptionally good movie made, it was probably nominated and often wins. There are exceptions. Marty was a popular film in 1955 but now it's just cute and has a good script. (1955 was a weak year.) The African Queen and Sophie's Choice were not nominated. The Academy tends to give out an award for good directors once and then ignores them. Hitchcock won for Rebecca and Woody Allen for Annie Hall. And that was more or less it for both. For some reason though, Oliver Stone won twice. Ugh.

There are excellent action movies, excellent comedies, excellent science fiction and fantasy films, excellent thrillers, but with rare exceptions they're not treated as "serious" cinema by the people who decide this sort of thing. They're given some minor awards (visual effects, sound effects, and so on) as a token acknowledgment (how many minor awards did The Bourne Ultimatum receive tonight? 3 or 4 while I was watching...) while being excluded from the big prizes that are reserved for certain types of movies that the Academy considers "serious" films.

The Bourne movies are good action movies (I guess) but otherwise they're lousy. Only the people working in these specialized fields get to vote and they know what is good work. I have more faith in these selections than in the acting categories - if you care about sound editing, for example. Edited February 25, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

I'll be honest. I only saw La Vie en Rose.

I have a deep aversion to PT Anderson movies. I found Magnolia offensive and Punch Drunk Love just bad. Anderson is greatly overrated.

While I like the Coen Brothers, and I may rent No Country for Old Men, I'm not a great fan of violent splatter movies. I find these kind of movies are pretentious and thoroughly unrealistic. Violence isn't like that at all. Juno? That's like an Ivan Reitman Mini-Me production? Sorry, teen pregnancy movies are at most a rental for me.

I haven't seen La Vie en Rose. I might take it in on DVD.

I haven't seen any of the PT Anderson movies.

No Country for Old Men I did see and it isn't for everyone but it was very well done with a serious menace to it the entire film. I saw Michael Clayton and it rose above its slim premise with exceptional acting from people like Tilda Swinton.

I haven't seen Juno but I did see Jason Rietman's previous outing Thank for you for Smoking. The writing in that was incredible. If Juno is even close to that type of intelligence, it is probably worth watching.

I expect that movie snobbery affects a lot of people. As you said, musicals are not likely to make the top picks. They even had to find a category for feature length animated movies because too many of them (which take years to make) were being overlooked in every category except song. And that was a smack to a part of the motion picture business that has built empires for the studios. It was also a smack at the audiences who loves those films.

It may be worth it in future years to split the Oscars into best dramatic and best comedy/musical categories in both acting, directing, writing and producing. However, they are already scared of the beast they created that takes four hours to present.

To do what I suggest would probably mean removing film editing, sound, cinematography, special effects, etc off the big night.

[Carinthia]

George Clooney was nominated for "Michael Clayton". I watched it yesterday on PPV. It was one of the most boring films I've ever seen. I am mystified by this nomination.

[M.Dancer]

The only movie I saw which had a nomination was Enchanted.

.....it was enchanting

[BubberMiley]

It may be worth it in future years to split the Oscars into best dramatic and best comedy/musical categories in both acting, directing, writing and producing. However, they are already scared of the beast they created that takes four hours to present.

To do what I suggest would probably mean removing film editing, sound, cinematography, special effects, etc off the big night.

They could enter the 21st century and get rid of the Actress categories. There's no logical reason to distinguish by gender. If so, why not have a Best Male Cinematographer?

Best Director is kind of redundant too. It's rare when that category isn't a tell of what will win Best Picture. If a person was best director in a given year, he must have made the best film.

[jdobbin]

They could enter the 21st century and get rid of the Actress categories. There's no logical reason to distinguish by gender. If so, why not have a Best Male Cinematographer?

Best Director is kind of redundant too. It's rare when that category isn't a tell of what will win Best Picture. If a person was best director in a given year, he must have made the best film.

I tend to agree on combining the acting categories but it will never happen. The Academy and probably the fans would never stand for it.

Edited February 25, 2008 by jdobbin

[Carinthia]

I tend to agree on combining the acting categories but it will never happen. The Academy and probably the fans would never stand for it.

Nope, don't change it! Each gender should be recognized for their own uniqueness.

I suppose now this will spark a debate on feminism...sigh.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Carinthia

[BubberMiley]

Nope, don't change it! Each gender should be recognized for their own uniqueness.

People have all kinds of unique characteristics. Why not Best Black Actor or Best Acting by a Child?

Gender isn't even the most rigid of human characteristics for a versatile actor to overcome. Morgan Freeman would have a hard time playing a white boy, but John Travolta was great in Hairspray.

[Carinthia]

People have all kinds of unique characteristics. Why not Best Black Actor or Best Acting by a Child?

Gender isn't even the most rigid of human characteristics for a versatile actor to overcome. Morgan Freeman would have a hard time playing a white boy, but John Travolta was great in Hairspray.

Streisand was good in Yentle too. Having an award for each facet of human uniqueness would be good but there may be a wee bit of a time constraint with that though. At least just covering female and male actors separately, covers all races and nationalities. Having one award for both would narrow down the entertainment value. Perhaps all other facets should create their own awards ceremony. Gee, we could have one every night then...

[Brain Candy]

I thought No Country For Old Men made this year good for movies. Javier Bardem as death incarnate and the anecdote in the last scene were both incredible

[bvans]

I thought No Country For Old Men made this year good for movies. Javier Bardem as death incarnate and the anecdote in the last scene were both incredible

Totally. I'm glad he won for best supporting actor. He was bone chilling!!