The Oscars

RedShoes · Post by **RedShoes** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:24 am

What, no Oscars talk?

What did everyone think? No big shockers, except perhaps that Crash beat Brokeback.

I was happy to see Wallace & Gromit win, and though I was rooting for Felicity Huffman, Reese Witherspoon was amazing as well - so no complaints.

The pre-show stuff, however? I've got lots of complaints there.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:45 pm

Crash winning wasn't surprising at all. I think it's a good, but deeply flawed film, but it's exactly the kind of film the Academy likes to award. It's got pathos-a-plenty, it (sort of) tackles a hard issue that everyone in Hollywood agrees about (just in case you didn't know, racism is actually bad), and it has really great performances by really well-liked actors and is directed expertly. The screenplay was in many ways ridiculous, and my only big gripe of the night was that The Squid and the Whale was a much better script. But giving the Award to Crash gave the Academy the ability to reward a film about the need for tolerance for all people, without having to reward a film about tolerance for gay people specifically. Brokeback might have been a better film (I haven't seen it yet), and Capote certainly was (as was Munich and GN,AGL). But when has that ever stopped the Academy before? I mean, Do the Right Thing wasn't even nominated the year Driving Miss Daisy won. In spite of all the conventional wisdom, the only big surprise would have been if Brokeback Mountain had actually won.

Tim(e) · Post by **Tim(e)** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:32 pm

I think the Oscars have almost managed to erode away their own credibility over the years and that they will soon be a thing of the past. It seems to me that events such as Sundance, Cannes, and the Venice Film Festival are becoming more representative of what is really going on in the world of film making - well. probably always have been, but now people are starting to realise just that. My opinion only.

Having said that, the only award that I was interested in was the animated feature, and although I was hoping for another Miyazaki win with Howl's Moving Castle, I was happy with the result... in fact, the three features nominated (Howl's, W&G and Corpse Bride) were all very worthy contenders.

LittleFoole · Post by **LittleFoole** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:39 pm

It's all a crock o' crap....I hate celebrities. I hate Hollywood (especially).....who cares ??? It's all meaningless, truly... (hmmm, perhaps I need another pint...LOL)

Post by **BlueChair** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:45 pm

If anything, I think the Oscars have gotten more credible in recent years. Crash may not have been my first choice for Best Picture, but it's by all accounts a very indie-styled film. Loaded with celebrities, certainly, but many of whom worked for way less than they usually do (you can thank Don Cheadle for that). We've also seen films like Sideways , Lost In Translation, and Hotel Rwanda get nominated... hardly the blockbusters that Titanic or Forrest Gump were, but well-written, well-directed, and well-acted pictures.

Look no further than the list of nominated actors as another example, most of them aren't A-list celebrities, save maybe George Clooney who actually has talent and makes some good film choices these days. And they finally give Philip Seymour Hoffman, one of America's most talented actors, his due.

mood swung · Post by **mood swung** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:54 pm

but let's talk about the important stuff: have you EVER seen so many brown dresses in your life? and an appalling lack of lipstick. color, people! you're on tv! you need some color!!!!

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:30 pm

BlueChair wrote:If anything, I think the Oscars have gotten more credible in recent years. Crash may not have been my first choice for Best Picture, but it's by all accounts a very indie-styled film. Loaded with celebrities, certainly, but many of whom worked for way less than they usually do (you can thank Don Cheadle for that). We've also seen films like Sideways , Lost In Translation, and Hotel Rwanda get nominated... hardly the blockbusters that Titanic or Forrest Gump were, but well-written, well-directed, and well-acted pictures.

Look no further than the list of nominated actors as another example, most of them aren't A-list celebrities, save maybe George Clooney who actually has talent and makes some good film choices these days. And they finally give Philip Seymour Hoffman, one of America's most talented actors, his due.

What Blue said, I agree. I mean, I dont think Crash was the best film--(I wouldn't even have nominated it), but it was an indie outsider with solid acting and really good direction (and a dumb script). And the fact that t won and wa up against a bunch of low-budget indie outsiders and fiercely political films makes me really happy.

Otis Westinghouse · Post by **Otis Westinghouse** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:54 pm

Ain't seen Crash but did hear David Puttnam saying words to the effect that 'it's films like that that prove cinema still has a part to play in the world'. I love PSH, very pleased to see him win.

Keira Knightley's dress was nice, even if she is annoying, and all that dark make-up did little for her. Rachel Weisz looked nice. Charleeze (or whatever) Theron's shoulder bow looked silly. The one in yellow with the nice cleavage who was up for supporting actress was nice. What do you think of my assessment, Mood? And Gorgeous George looked lovely.

Tim(e) · Post by **Tim(e)** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:24 pm

noiseradio wrote:
BlueChair wrote:If anything, I think the Oscars have gotten more credible in recent years. Crash may not have been my first choice for Best Picture, but it's by all accounts a very indie-styled film. Loaded with celebrities, certainly, but many of whom worked for way less than they usually do (you can thank Don Cheadle for that). We've also seen films like Sideways , Lost In Translation, and Hotel Rwanda get nominated... hardly the blockbusters that Titanic or Forrest Gump were, but well-written, well-directed, and well-acted pictures.

Look no further than the list of nominated actors as another example, most of them aren't A-list celebrities, save maybe George Clooney who actually has talent and makes some good film choices these days. And they finally give Philip Seymour Hoffman, one of America's most talented actors, his due.
What Blue said, I agree. I mean, I dont think Crash was the best film--(I wouldn't even have nominated it), but it was an indie outsider with solid acting and really good direction (and a dumb script). And the fact that t won and wa up against a bunch of low-budget indie outsiders and fiercely political films makes me really happy.

Yes, I agree that what Blue said does ring true to a point... but lets just see what gets thrown in there next year before we start showering the Academy with praise.

I seem to recall the 1990 Oscars were supposed to be a turning point with films such as Sex, Lies and Videotape, My Left Foot, Do the Right Thing all getting nominations in various categories and everybody saying that at last the awards were starting to look meaningful... that didn't last too long - the following year it was business as usual with blockbusters such as Ghost, Dances with Wolves, and the Godfather Part 3.

verbal gymnastics · Post by **verbal gymnastics** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:31 am

mood swung wrote:but let's talk about the important stuff: have you EVER seen so many brown dresses in your life? and an appalling lack of lipstick. color, people! you're on tv! you need some color!!!!

At least Diane Keaton made an effort.

mood swung · Post by **mood swung** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:00 am

This one Otis? I like the dress, but the lipstick is the wrong shade. Of course, she had Heath Ledger with her, so that would make sweatpants look fab.

alexv · Post by **alexv** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:14 pm

Why is the lipstick the wrong shade, Mood? Beautiful lips and red lipstick just go together, color clash be damned. To me, she looked gorgeous. Oh, and on the minor topic of whether the Oscars have gotten better, I would not say they've gotten better, rather that because the quality of American movies has gone down, more of them are fitting nicely into the Oscar Academy's middle brow standards.

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:34 pm

Witherspoon is graceful as ever. Nicole Kidman needs to get some sun. Eric Bana breathed deep and kept very in control next to Jessica Alba. He is getting big in movies, about as big as Crowe and Ledger. It's been funny to see him doing American accents as he's been getting bigger and bigger roles (Black Hawk Down, The Hulk), just the sort of thing he'd send up in his local comedy skits a few years ago besides Australians (he is wickedly funny). I'd like to see him do an ambitious funny role at some stage, he'd be good at it.

mood swung · Post by **mood swung** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:01 pm

alexv, it is just a tiny bit too orange. and I am just a tiny bit green with envy. really, I have to say the more I look at that picture, the better she looks.

dammit.

'boo - nicole needs to stay out of the sun. what she needs to do is quit pretending to be blonde. and have a sandwich!

Jennifer Garner was my girl out there - good post-baby dress, dimples, almost falling down...

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:24 pm

mood swung said wrote:'boo - nicole needs to stay out of the sun.

JLo could help her out, not only with dietary tips but with some fashion tips. She's the new Zsa Zsa Gabor stunning them with her glamour at the Oscars year by year. She's good for getting the right pooey green.

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:47 pm

Those glary, uncomfortable-looking dresses she wraps on year by year, you'd think someone would give her a clue. For the record: I don't think the Zsa Zsa image becomes her, but she tries sooo hard (only not as seductively). Her fashion sense... I detest the false sexiness of it, it's an insult to my powers of discrimination about what is sexy or not. She packages her goods up like a present for fortunate eyes as if the whole world thinks she's especially hot. I think I'm ranting.

I cuckled when that dude went "gaaawwd.. I'm SO nervous!!". He should have spazzed right out right there and then, good publicity stunt.

Otis Westinghouse · Post by **Otis Westinghouse** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:35 pm

mood swung wrote:This one Otis? I like the dress, but the lipstick is the wrong shade.

That's the one. What's her name today?

pophead2k · Post by **pophead2k** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:11 pm

Let's get to the real Oscar talk- how did everyone find Jon Stewart as host? I liked him, but I liked him before. Anyone out there not familiar with him? How did you feel he performed?

Mr. Average · Post by **Mr. Average** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:58 pm

Clearly, Jon Stewart is a major talent. Initially an equal-opportunity lampooner, he has certainly drifted to the left in the last few years, but so has much of hs audience, so it is difficult to determine whether it is his politics or his sense of showmanship that has resulted in the liberal slant. Regardless of his politics, he is a comedic icon who is really just getting started. I loved his comment three lines in particular:

1. Addressing the Hollywood elite: "For many of you, this will be the first time in a long, long time that you have voted for a winner..."

2. The comment addressing the irony that he, as "the fourth male lead in 'Death to Smoochie" was hosting the Academy Awards, and;

3. When introducing the Owen and LukeWilson, he referred to them as "two incredibly talented actors who happen to be brothers", then after a pause, reflected that "come to think of it, that is also an apt description of the Baldwin family" which I thought was hilarious.

But to his greatest credit, he was able to set an apolitical tone from the opening sequence, and thus, the awards show was enjoyable to watch, cringe factor to a minimum. Sans George Clooney, who was going to use the podiun to further his agenda no matter what, the overall reaction was to make this show about performances in film, and not a lot more. I credit Jon Stewart with that, and I think that he will be back because of it. I have a lot more respect for him today because of the approach he took. His professional stock just skyrocketed, I think. And the faux political ads suggesting backroom maneuvering and cutthroat tactics on the part of various nominee's to win the award were extremely well done, and very funny.

"Charles Theron"...resulting to that same old, tired tactic to win the award.."Hagging it up" (reference to her brilliant, chilling portrayal or Eilene Wourmos and her character in North Country). Funny stuff. And for what it is worth, the fact that Ms. Theron can ever be credible as a "hag" is a real testimony to her acting talent. She is drop-dead gorgeous in my opinion, and the prettiest, most alluring actress alive today. Or mayby Catherine. No...Nicole. Wait, it's Charles..

Stewart was very good. I hope we see him next year.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:29 pm

You know what, though? That Clooney speech was the classiest political speech I've maybe ever heard at the Oscars. He made his point without being obnoxious, and I was really proud of him.

I think Stewart seems more lefty when the Bush administration is in power. But when he got the gig, he went after Clinton nightly. You aim at whoever is in power. Or in Cheney's case, whoever the beer makes yout think is a bird.

Post by **BlueChair** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:17 am

Charles?

pophead2k · Post by **pophead2k** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 am

noiseradio wrote:Or in Cheney's case, whoever the beer makes yout think is a bird.

Ha! Thanks that made me laugh!

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:49 am

pophead2k wrote:Let's get to the real Oscar talk- how did everyone find Jon Stewart as host? I liked him, but I liked him before. Anyone out there not familiar with him? How did you feel he performed?

Had never heard of him. I have an aversion to super-rehearsed funny man routines in general but thought the part when he joked about the musicians down in the pit was funny.

Post by **BlueChair** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:53 am

Stewart has more depth than the average funnyman. He definitely toned it down for the Oscars.

Here's some of his best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VxEM9Vs ... %20stewart

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShL8TjaL ... %20stewart

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:22 am

He did alright. It wouldn't be hard to be funny under those circumstances, with such a ridiculous amount of attention on you in that situation. You'd know exactly what you're going to say and you'd know there are always enough people in the audience who will laugh at anything you say. It makes it look like your jokes always work and you are so funny. Just about anything a bit odd you say is received with waves of laughter, and if you happen to be spontaneous with a well timed line additionally, whoaaa... you look like a genius. No doubt Stewart has earned his right to be there though.