La 82e cérémonie des Oscars

Well, the world has changed. So did the people (specially the people). Not being American, i never shared the prime time family moment of watching the Oscars ceremony. I suppose that would have a symbolic impact in the lives of the Americans, at least until a couple decades ago.

Not today. I mean, people still value the prizes. The Oscar is still, like Fellini would put it, the highest prize in the mythology of cinema. People care about the prize, because it is invested of somewhat a mythical proportions. It's showbiz, and Hollywood has always known much about that, much about illusion. But today the Oscars-prizes, is a thing totally separated from the Oscars-ceremony. The first one still matters, despite its so celebrated unfairness, its so celebrated politics within, its so celebrated consideration that "the bigger the better" and that less risk in films equals higher entertainment and higher box office receipts. That's what ruled Citizen Kane or Taxi Driver out of the award. But hey, the thing is still hard-wired in the unconscious side of film goers. But not the ceremony. That one fades, increasingly. Television cannot be the only catalyzer of audiences, it just isn't possible, and the very idea of the gala, the party where famous people get together, with fancy dresses and fake smiles, and deliver and get awards, just isn't appealing anymore. Not as it used to be. So in a way, these Oscars TV shows do not work for us today for the same reason that, for instance, Elizabethan plays won't work in the same way: our minds are simply not immediately tuned to it, not anymore. We no longer immediately assume that a couple guys telling some jokes in front of lots of famous actors and directors is amusing. So, Unless the show is exceptionally well conceived, we just won't connect. That's why today we only care about The very best Elizabethan plays. The average and bad ones that were entertaining back than, simply aren't anymore. That's the thing with this ceremony.

This one was Not exceptionally well done, rather poor actually. So i didn't connect to it.

My opinion: 2/5

http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com

"The 82nd Annual Academy Awards" will mainly be remembered as important because a woman won Best Director for the first time, and a movie about the Iraq War won Best Picture. I should admit that I haven't seen most of the nominated movies. I'll now have to see "The Hurt Locker", "The Blind Side" and "Crazy Heart" (I think that I'll pass on "Avatar"). Mo'Nique definitely deserved her Oscar. Christoph Waltz, who made one nasty Nazi, must be the first person who won an Oscar for playing a guy who eventually gets a swastika carved into his forehead.

I really liked it when Ben Stiller appeared made up to look like a Na'vi. Silly, yes, but anything that elicits humor is fine by me.

But the most important thing is that a woman has finally won a directing Oscar. To be certain, by awarding it to Kathryn Bigelow, the Academy really stuck it to James Cameron.

All in all, I liked what I saw.

For me, "The 82nd Annual Academy Awards" will mostly remembered by because of two things; it was one of the ceremonies with the most predictable winners of all time and it was one of the worst Oscar shows ever televised.

I must say I'm really disappointed overall with the evening. I mean, this is the Oscar's, the biggest and most important movie award show of all time but however nothing about this evening felt big or important.

Because of the constant dropping number of viewers, the Academy once more decided on a different approach. This was most apparent with the fact that for the first time since 1944, 10 pictures got nominated for the best picture award. But also with the show itself they tried out some new things. Here is what they did; they got rid of of basically everything that was surrounding the actual handing out of the awards. No real musical intermezzo's and just one pathetic montage. Also the main host of the evening were given very little to do in between. They thought that in order to make the overall show better was by given it more pace, with basically trowing everything that made some the previous years shows so great to watch. It all felt extremely rushed, which also made it all very awkward and unpleasant to watch. In theory and on paper it of course all seemed like a good idea to get people involved who worked on faster paced and popular other award shows, also to connect more to the younger audiences. This only just seemed good in theory though.

To me it seemed like they had cut down the number of people being involved behind the screens of the show by halve. There is really no creativity with the show, also not with the writing. I'm sorry but the comical dialog for Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin, the main presenters of the evening, were lame beyond the extreme. There also was nothing edgy or controversial about the whole evening because of the lack of any political jokes and statements made this year. It was a very safe show. I have also never seen so many things go wrong, directing-wise. I'm not even talking about the breaking down of the auto-cue at the beginning but more about the constant fact that you saw people who were working behind the scenes of the show walking around in basically every shot.

It also all really gave me the feeling that the show got put together by a bunch of people who aren't even too involved with movies and just don't care much about it. All they seemed interested in was to keep the show going, without any real respect to the movies of this year and that out of the past. Only one montage is far too less for the most important evening for movies and those who love movies. The montage was one that was supposed to pay homage to the horror genre but the montage, was like the entire evening, such a predictable and safe one. It was as if they said to a kid; find out what the 20 best known horror pictures are and the most iconic scenes within them. So all we have is the usual line-up, without the classic movies that truly influenced and changed the genre.

And well about the actual winners of the evening, it was nothing surprising. The acting categories all went to the winner that were predicted and expected. Best picture could had either gone to "Avatar" or the "The Hurt Locker" and best director to either James Cameron or his ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow but either way it would had gone, it wouldn't had been a big surprise for anyone. I don't make a too big deal out of it that Bigelow is the first female to have won for best director and I also don't exactly see this as a turning point in cinematic history. Regardless of sex, political views, sexual preference or ethnicity, the best one should always win and in my opinion the Oscar's have always done this throughout the years.

Of course there were still some positive things, such as the king of B-movies, Roger Corman, receiving a lifetime Academy Award (though this got also REALLY pushed to the background) and the whole tribute part to John Hughes. In my opinion Hughes also really earned this, since he was one of the few, if not only directors, who could connect so well to teenagers and their real struggles with his movies and stories. One of the greatest and most underrated directors out of modern movie history and now that he is gone you start to actually realize this all the more.

So next year different presenters, different writers, a different director and some more creativity, humor and show element please. This year was quite bad and uninteresting not because as much because of its predictable wins but more because of the way the entire evening got presented as a rushed, disrespectful and not enjoyable or entertaining evening for the the overall movie industry itself and more importantly the lovers of it.

4/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

The 82nd Academy Awards will be remembered as the first time in many years that the Oscars featured ten Best Picture nominees and clips from all ten nominees were presented separately spread throughout the broadcast. However, let's face it, not much changed as only AVATAR and THE HURT LOCKER had a chance to win. Also, ever since the SAG Awards have been announced before the Oscars, the acting awards have become very predictable since the acting branch's votes naturally match the SAG votes nearly every time. This year's Oscars were also simplified for the public like most movies these days to a high concept pitch, in this case, it was billed as James Cameron vs. his ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow. Regardless of any changes to the Oscars this year, they were guaranteed to have a good ratings year because of the presence of AVATAR, the new all-time box office champion. It didn't matter that the Best Picture field was expanded to ten nominees or who produced or directed this year's show, it was guaranteed to do better than it has in recent years.

The biggest change I noticed was the remodeling of the not very old yet Kodak Theatre, the seating looked different and was changed from red to blue. My favorite change (and one I hope will remain this way) was dropping the performances of the Best Original Song nominees and putting that award much earlier in the show. For years, so much time has been devoted to this music award at a movie award show while in the past the Best Picture nominees (the biggest and most important award) would be lucky to get a 30 second clip each while each song would be performed in its entirety. My least favorite change was dropping the lifetime achievement Oscars and Thalberg award to a private ceremony simply because it was felt that the show was slowed down by lengthy tributes to old people - not my opinion by the way. I wouldn't mind the show going over three hours by paying homage to great contributors to cinema like Lauren Bacall, Roger Corman, and Gordon Willis. Besides, let's face facts, they will be remembered for impacting the history of film a lot longer than Oscar winners like Mo'Nique! Another big change I noticed was having the presenters say, "the winner is" rather than "the Oscar goes to" for the first time in years. At first, it seems less appropriate, but on second thought, considering how many awards have been virtually "won" (and purchased) by relentless campaigning, maybe saying "winner" is more accurate. I am glad that the In Memoriam tribute was kept and I loved the tribute to John Hughes whose body of work has endured and will not be forgotten. However, some things never change: the obviously written and read jokes by the hosts and presenters, lame song and dance numbers (Neil Patrick Harris' show opening song and the choreographed dances to the Best Original Score nominees highlighted by doing the robot to UP!), and the awesome awkward reaction shots of actors not laughing at jokes and of actors not having anything to do with the film that just won an award.

Other highlights for me were: *Elinor Burkett rudely cutting off fellow winner Roger Ross Williams (MUSIC FOR PRUDENCE) to steal the short speech time! *The nervous young actresses who either flubbed their lines on stage (Miley Cyrus & Zoe Saldana) or coughed really loud (Kristen Stewart) while presenting *The hurry to present Best Picture by Tom Hanks without naming the ten nominees again, possibly an attempt to end the show at exactly 9pm Pacific/Midnight Eastern or because by then everyone knew that THE HURT LOCKER was going to win? Maybe they shouldn't have let Ben Stiller hog so much airtime dressed as a Na'vi or they should have cut the endless butt-kissing introductions of the Best Actor and Best Actress nominees by fellow actors.

This has to have been the most boring Oscar show that I have ever seen and the least funny hosts that I can recall. It speaks volumes when Sandra Bullock's five minute acceptance speech got more laughs than everything before it. I hope that I am not becoming a stuff shirt but I don't recall finding hardly anything else funny and thought that the Jewish jokes were very poor taste to say the least.

I hope that, whoever presents the Oscars next year will make major changes next year, among them getting rid of the writers for this year's show and whoever thought of the improvisational dance and lack of set design that had no relation to the themes that were being played by the orchestra. Another major change would be a return to the solitary host but allow the host to improvise a little, albeit within some basic guidelines so, if the show does drag, at least it will not be as painfully boring. Some of the presenters should also be able to say non-scripted tidbits within the same guidelines. Even if many of the awards would be predictable, at least the element of surprise would be alive in the presentation.

My score - 3 - would have been lower without Sandra Bullock saving the day.