Mo'Nique, with her supporting actress honors. Is the comedienne a candidate for Oscar host?
Who could disagree with esteemed Oscarologist Damien Bona, author of the indispensible Inside Oscar, that this year's Academy Awards show had to be one of the dreariest ever? Despite showcasing historic wins (Precious scenarist Geoffrey Fletcher is the first African-American to receive screenwriting honors and Hurt Locker filmmaker Kathryn Bigelow the first female to receive director laurels), the telecast was, entertainment-wise, the biggest loser. (In terms of ratings, it did OK, marking a 15 per cent uptick over last year.)
Who can fix the Oscar fix? Here's my two cents: 1) A show that celebrates movies should produce in the audience the exhilaration that great movies can. Hire a great editor -- Chuck Workman, say) to compile a montage of the Best Picture moments and a montage reel each for the acting categories. (The art direction, editing and costume categories could similarly best be showcased this way.) 2) Hire a producer who understands live television.
Your thoughts?
You want to edit interpretive dance to films like THE HURT LOCKER, Carrie? Where's Debbie Allen when you need her?! How about they just show clips of the nominees and hand out the award. I don't want any of the razzle-dazzle souped up stuff that is supposed to build suspense--because there rarely is any. Moreover, I'm in the John Hughes demographic and was stunned by the lengthy tribute to him. His work was never courted by Oscar, was it? Meanwhile, Lauren Bacall gets sidelined to a clip from a ceremony days prior? I understand catering to multiple demographics (Hello Miley!) I am still not crazy about the nominees getting tributes by prior nominees. But then again, I find them most interesting thing about the Oscars are the nominations. Once they are announced, I tune out.— garyk- Your suggestion # 2 is the crucial one. Without it # 1 wouldn't accomplish what you want. It's probably too late anyway. We're all the way down the slippery slope at this point.— ccjroberts
- What is sad is since it supposedly the highest rated in five years, they will learn nothing. They will continue to cater to teenyboppers, using people who barely have a film career as presenters, ignoring the history of the industry, removing all spontaneity from the broadcast and STILL running overtime. It's too bad that the show is merely a broadcast now put there to get the Academy its licensing fees and it's alienating all the true film fans who used to eat the show up as a result. It's the same mistake being made at nearly every newspaper across this country: sacrificing the audience they have for readers they will never get. It's Murphy's law: They rise to the heighth of their incompetence. It's a shame they don't use Academy historians to doublecheck scripts given the number of insane factual errors they aired.— edwardcopeland
- I think a lot of people must have tuned in to watch the ultimately disappointing performances of Steve and Alec. What kind of sedative are otherwise exciting performers given just before taking the stage to emcee the Oscars (with the obvious exception of Billy Crystal)?— John Brumfield
- One suggestion that hasn't been made. I actually enjoy the song category. The performances break up the monotony of giving out awards. If they make the rules less stringent for inclusion in the category this could liven things up.— BLKMD
- We must remember that both the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science and the Oscars themselves were created as a PR stunt - a desperate attempt at respectibility at a time when the film industry's morals and intentions were being seriously questioned. What an idea! Pay tribute to oneself as a way of proving one's worth. It's still a self-congratulatory exercise and a celebration of mediocrity. Miley? Give me a break! She isn't even cute anymore. (I know that sounds harsh and cad-ish, but so be it.) Of all the things that bugs me about the Oscars (and there are dozens), the one truly annoying thing is its seemingly willful inability to honor everyone - EVERYONE - who died during the preceding year. This year, they missed Farrah, Bea (Arthur) and Marilyn Chambers. (Carrie is the only one to note Chambers' passing in her end-of-year piece and bravo to her.) Meanwhile, Michael Jackson who made only one film to my knowledge - the execreable "The Wiz" - was included. Two years ago, they overlooked Adrienne Shelly whose murder made Big Headlines. Also Dennis Weaver and Brad Renfro. (In the meantime, James Doohan, known only for TV's "Star Trek," was honored two - count 'em - two years in a row.) How difficult is it to keep a list of who died when and then honor it? If that's too much trouble for the Academy, maybe it should license Turner Classic's In Memorium, which is always definitive. Bottom line: The Oscarcast is hopeless; there's no turning back. Long live the Golden Globes!— Pash
- It just this minute occurred to me what the Oscars most resemble: a trade show, a business convention. That is, a series of boring speakers standing behind a lectern, addressing a bored crowd, using uniformly self-congratulatory tones, no matter how bad a sales year it's been, with many bad attempts at humor mixed in. Is that not the Oscars, when you get right down to brass tacks? If I'm right, then there is no way to make the experience interesting, because it is by definition one of the pure acts of tedium ever invented by Modern Man. Only Robert Benchley's inspired burlesques of the thing has ever brought any genuine entertainment to the world. When you could easily substitute the word "plasterboard" for "movies" and present the exact same show (Best Plasterboard Mix! Best Layer of Plasterboard!), then there is no way to make it fun.— wwolfe
7 comments
- VIEWED
- Commented
Playing at a theater near you
Be the first in line! Find local theaters, view listings and purchase tickets.
Philly.com Promotions
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
Site Services:
Classifieds:
Partners:
Local Services:
