The 81st Annual Academy Awards

"The 81st Annual Academy Awards" was certainly one of the first Oscars that was done in a different style and direction. Unlike some of the past ones the show was more a performance style than a laugh fest. As evidenced by the host, as in the past when we laughed to the jokes and skits of Billy Crystal, Steve Martin, Ellen, or John Stewart well this year the academy went a different route. A performer hosted that being actor Hugh Jackman and he displayed his talent very well mostly in the form of singing and performing well done skits and displays of the nominated films. Jackman not only a talented actor, but a stage performer you can tell his talent rubbed off well as his voice lit up the Oscar stage well. Also the awards categories when presented were handed out by at least five previous winners from the past of that particular category a first that I saw. The most moving and touching moment was the win of the late Heath Ledger as best supporting actor for his wicked performance of the Joker in the "Dark Knight" as his family mother, father, and sister accepting the award brought tears to everyone. And finally long overdue was the win of Kate Winslet for best actress the streak is over as her performance in the "Reader" broke her losing streak. And in the hot contested race of best actor Sean Penn's lifelike performance of gay politician Harvey Milk edged out the comeback kid Mickey Rourke as Mickey's turn in "The Wrestler" had all of us hoping for an underdog win. As in the best picture race as expected Hollywood loves a fairy tale as expected the rags to riches tale "Slumdog Millionaire" took best picture and it scooped up a total of eight wins. Overall one of the more recent better Oscars as with the hosting the show was less funny yet the talent and performance display was moving even though the shows pace ran a little bit over. Yet this 81st edition is most memorable for having one of the best and closest best actor races in years and it shows Hollywood always has a big heart for a rags to riches picture and as Kate proves just keep trying. But most of all history was made with Ledger's win as he became the first posthumous Oscar winner since Peter Finch who won for 1976's "Network". So overall one of the better award shows in recent years. Yet one last question where was Jack Nicholson?

I can't really say I cared much for any of the winners or movies of this (2008) year but the whole show around it made this one of the best Annual Academy Awards ceremonies of the last couple of years.

They definitely made some big changes this year. I liked it's look and the way it brought the audience close to the stage. It was not just like one big room but segmentations were made in the crowd, with the biggest acting nominees sitting in front and the rest of the cast and crew of a particular movie all together in one segment. Even though it was divided, it all still felt more like one, as if everyone in Hollywood forms one big family. It also helped that it didn't feature too many random close-ups of well known actors responses and laughter. Instead it more focused purely on the ceremony alone.

The pacing overall was done incredibly well. The show wasn't dragging at any points and it wasn't ever too long or too short during any of its categories. Even the normally slow point of the ceremony, the special honorary award Oscar, was this year over in just a few minutes. Because of this it was a very pleasant watch and it didn't feel like 3 hours at all. It constantly kept going and it also didn't feature presenter Hugh Jackman constantly after an Oscar had been handed out. Also the persons handing out the Oscar's at some occasions handed them out for more than one categories, which again added to the pace.

The acting categories had gone to the biggest change, with former winners all presenting the awards, by having a small say about the particular actor and the role he/she played. All of the nominees were obviously touched by this but most people at home still prefer to see a small clip of the particular actor within the movie. Perhaps next year we will see a combination of both these ideas?

I think it was a right choice to let a non-comedian host the Oscar's this time. After all, the night shouldn't be just purely featured around the host but the host should be a person who fills in the blanks and tights the night together. Hugh Jackman did this well. He didn't seemed like the most logic person to host the ceremony this year but I think he surprised a lot of people. And just because he's no comedian doesn't mean he didn't had any funny moments and lines of course.

A big problem always was that the acceptance speeches took far too long and the music often suddenly kicked in right in the middle of an acceptance speech, in order to cut the winners off. This year it didn't looked like there was a time limit and this worked out well, for non of the acceptance speeches dragged on. It was also pleasant that there were no politics involved in any of the acceptance speeches, unless you count in the call for more gay right, from the winners that were involved with the movie "Milk".

The evening itself didn't feature too many surprises when it came down to its winners. It can be perhaps said that the presenters this year were more interesting than the winners. "Slumdog Millionaire" and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" were the two big favorites but I don't think it surprised many people that it was eventually "Slumdog Millionaire" who took home the most awards and also the ones in the most important categories, including best picture. I also can't really say I cared much for any of the nominated movies this year, which could only mean that 2008 hadn't been a too spectacular year for movies. With all of the current troubles in the world it also can be said that movies and the whole showbiz world have become less interesting for people. Also the writers strike of last year didn't helped to produce many brilliant and Oscar worthy movies. It could be me but it also seems to me that movies, especially big potential Oscar material, got less advertised and hyped. "Slumdog Millionaire", "Milk", "The Wrestler", "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" were all movies that were just suddenly there and got nominated.

Perhaps the biggest surprise was Sean Penn winning out to Mickey Rourke, who almost seemed certain to take home to award for best acting performance. Of course it's not a shame to loose out to Sean Penn though but it was just that Rourke seemed to have lived his entire life to play this particular role in the movie "The Wrestler". Normally I'm not a too big fan of the person Sean Penn but I must say he surprised me this evening. He seemed very self aware and he was actually looking like he was enjoying the evening. He also had a nice say about gay-rights, which felt honest and sincere from him. Kate Winslet winning and of course Heath Ledger, were all no big surprises and Ledger's win got all of respect from the crowd it deserved. The most toughened persons were brought to tears within the crowd and no doubt also at home, when his family accepted the award on stage.

Of course not all of the changes were for the best tough. Although I like the fact that the show featured more musical numbers and also small film segments, not all of the segments really added up to the ceremony. Paying a tribute to 2008's action movies and comedies? Don't quite see the purpose of it. I like it more when they pay tribute to every movie and actor, from any time, from any genre. Also the life singing during the 'in memoriam' segment seemed out of place. I'm sure the conductor of the evening Michael Giacchino could had provided something better and more suiting for it.

Well done show!

8/10

I'm interested in these awards, not because of who wins or why. Sure we all have our favorites, but the more we celebrate when someone we value is recognized, the more we endorse this notion of a competition. A competition in the arts?

No, I'm interested because I study introspection in film, and there is no more obvious and consistent event than this show about shows, this story about storymaking and the people involved. The entrance of the players has become a sort of performance in itself, only the actual awards seem to have escaped as we must suffer through each recipient's list of people they are obligated to mention. Its a puzzling phenomenon why this occurs: the persons judged by the world as the most able to convey stories that matter — and we end up with such dreary speeches, mostly.

But its the show, right? Well, this show really was something unusual. As Jackman said is more "Show" than "Business." I'm sure he was parroting a decision made by the Academy based on their plummeting ratings. Regardless of the reason, the retread was welcome by me.

There were three notable elements, four if you count the pretty wonderful Busby Berkeley inspired production number that Jackman led. Two of them had to do with the stage, the physical stage itself. Since spending time in the Globe and discovering the magic of stage geometry all over again, I appreciated these and am a bit in wonder at the sophistication of the designer, who I understand is Joe Celli.

He designed a massive halo curtain of glittering crystals. I have no idea what something like this costs and what happens to the crystals. It must have been really impressive in the physical space because of the multispectral quality of refracted light. Elsewhere, I've written of the quality of snow and early theater screens. They have this presentation of scintillating colors that appears white but has an inner life, an inner texture. I would have traveled to LA just to experience this, which probably was better without the celebrities.

The other thing they did spatially was to design a stage that repurposes the performance geometry on which the Globe theater was based, the "Globe" of religious performance that Michelangelo created in Saint Peter's Square (where the Pope does his celebrity performance — in fact this is also the origin of the red carpet).

There's a yet to be appreciated pentagonal quasicrystral structure there, something that is tied deeply to notions of presence and being. I'm certain that they did not integrate this design into other elements of the show except as mentioned below. But its a pretty extraordinary statement.

Where they did integrate this five-fold symmetry was in the most extraordinary design change in the actual award presentations. For each of the five nominees for important statues, they presented five previous winners, each of whom "presented" the nominee. They were placed on this floor-stage design in ALMOST a significant way. I think perhaps the designer had them where it mattered. But they were relocated so that the five large screens behind them could be captured better in the focal frame of the three sailing cameras. Something of shame. But the intent is amazingly, wonderfully, intelligently clear.

Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Australians! What else is there?

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

The 2009 Oscars was incredible!!! I loved it even more since Hugh Jackman was host, who, by the way did it excellently, he performed and sang with Beyonce and it was very entertaining!!It looked like he put a lot of effort into it. And of course he was going to be the host since he is People Magazine's SEXIEST MAN ALIVE!! I loved the performances and the singing I didn't miss a single second of it. It was just so cool. And was good at hosting because it wasn't the first time he hosted an award show. Plus he's funny, charisimatic,charming and THE SEXIEST MAN ALIVE!! I hope he starts hosting more often and I will be watching it if he's hosting for the 2010 Oscars! Excellent10/10!And tastefully done

Thanks to Sky yet again, I didn't have access to the full show this year (although they managed to provide 90 minutes of dull red carpet footage on Sky 1 before moving over to the movie channels. The highlights show the next night was what I had to work off with the exception of Hugh Jackman's opening material because apparently Sky didn't have room for that as they filled the start of the highlights with far too much of more red carpet celeb spotting. This in itself goes on for too long but is made even worse by the presentation by Fern Cotton – who we are suppose to like I guess but personally is just so bland as to be almost a pencil outline of herself.

Getting into the ceremony it is obvious they have had a bit of a rejig generally because suddenly the stage seems very low and the audience (or, well, the "important" audience) is very much part of the stage almost. I quite liked this although the downside is that in some shots the audience feels really small (like a small comedy club) and then at other times it looks like the audience has been totally divided into those "in" and those "out", which isn't a nice look no matter how true it is. Another change is that the actors awards are presented by former winners who talk about/to a different nominee each. At times I really liked this but at other times I didn't. When the lines seemed natural and not too corny then it seemed to be a great idea, however it is right on the knife's edge and the odd time it really clunks badly, either by unnatural delivery or by some terrible lines. Adrian Brody's lines to Richard Jenkins was close to disrespectful and it showed on Jenkins' face. Mostly though it is a good idea – just a bit of a dangerous one.

The ceremony was generally quite good although it is always hard to judge on the highlights show given how much is missing. There are the usual awkward comedy moments that aren't as funny as they should be and so on. The one moment that made me angry was the In Memoriam section. OK, liked the idea of having a singer but the direction was awful, all the names and faces moving around on screen all the time meant that many were hard to read, even on a good sized TV. It was an awful moment but happily one of the few as the majority seemed OK. The winners were mostly as expected and I was glad that Slumdog won so much as it deserved all the awards it got and I'm glad the balance with Benjamin Button didn't occur. BB got many technical awards as predicted and that was fine. The acting awards were good. I was surprised that The Wrestler got a shutout in the way it did but everyone who won was good and there wasn't really any of the usual "politics" to the extent there can be.

Overall these 81st awards were a reasonably good show that tried some new things to mostly positive effect. There was only one awful moment and a hatful of weak moments but it comes with the territory I guess. Jackman was a good host and did a good job for someone who was not a comedian but instead did an all-round entertainers job to good effect.