The 81st Annual Academy Awards

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.

OK, I don't believe in the Oscar as the final stand or the most important cinematic award in the world. It's another award for movies, basically American ones, that was fair and unfair along the years. But sure when it comes to the "show" value, it's not like any other one. Through so many years, especially the 1980s and the 1990s, the night of the Annual Academy Awards used to be big, dazzling, esteeming the spirit of cinema passionately. There were performances and short clips that assured that highly. However, in the last couple of years, the things have never become the same.

Here, I didn't feel the word "ceremony" blazingly. (Hugh Jackman) is a decent host, who can dance well too, but let's face it; he isn't a comedian with witty lines (the word is too decent); undoubtedly the other presenters said a whole lot of funnier stuff than him: "I had to be a vampire to be loved, I had 3 fathers!". Yet, thank God that (Chris Rock) wasn't close this round!

Just one moment got my attention, being both the highest of what this night presented. One is when (Queen Latifah) sang "I'll be Seeing You", so perfect, as a tribute for all the artists who died in 2007; aside from its way of making remembering the late ones a something to remember, it was frankly the best performance for this song yet.

The clips to honoring (Jerry Lewis), or for the main nominated films' themes, were pathetic. The stage was poor; this is by all means not what the Oscars used to be. The academy stage in nights like this was always huge and solemn as the moment of winning itself. This time, the sets made it look like the Golden Globe's stage; smaller and not that stately. Even the camera's cadres were limited!

And when (Will Smith) had to hand in something like 4 awards in one row, it gets silly and boring already, particularly with idiot hasty material that was written for him. There is something totally missing in the writing for the Oscars this year, and just compare what you've been hearing here, "The editors effort" bit for instance, to any previous night to understand that clearly.

Speaking about boring things, I hated the most this piece of music that has been played whenever they have to cut to commercials, OH MY GOD, it was too ominous and so out of the mood, not to mention sickly repetitive. To tell you the truth, the whole music was away from being as rich as it always was. I found that playing (Lawrence of Arabia)'s main theme in specific more than once during the night was strange, ignoring many other themes as nostalgic as it.

The new tradition of some ex-winners actors talk about their fellows who got nominated is catchy and full of eminent deference. It seemed like (The Oscars) meets (Inside the Actors Studio) in a good way. But I think that allowing the winner to give a long, LONG, speech can be wearisome.

All in all, it wasn't that enjoyable night. I didn't feel "grand" inasmuch as "poor". Here goes the only reason I watch the Oscars for!

This year's Academy Awards ceremony was way better than last year's. Hugh Jackman did a tremendous job hosting, I thoroughly enjoyed Beyonce's and A R Rahman's performances, and Hugh Jackman's tribute to the movies.

The Pineapple Express short was also hilarious. The atmosphere was just dazzling, the stars were beautiful and the results were, for the most part, as expected, (although I was indeed rooting for Mickey Rourke.) Everything about it was unforgettable.

Kudos to directors producers and to everyone else involved in the making of this amazing awards show!

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

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