All Oscared out
In brief (although little about the Oscars is ever brief): it was a long-winded self-congratulatory bore. But that’s what I’ve come to expect. I watch the Oscars for the fashions. That’s just how shallow a person I am.
Oscar observations:
Pale pinkish-ivory dresses on pale white women make the wearers resemble wraiths. (Say that five times fast and I’ll give you a gold star.)
Necklaces are out, although strapless gowns are in. That leaves a very large, undecorated, and lonely-looking expanse of flesh between head and gown.
Whatever happened to long gloves? They were nice.
Middle-aged women with long black hair should not wear floor-length black dresses. Makes them look like witches. Although, if that’s the look you’re aiming for—
Miley Cyrus has terrible posture.
Barbara Walters (glimpsed briefly by me at the end of the pre-game show) has finally crossed a line into much too much cosmetic surgery. Something extraordinarily weird has happened to her eyes as a result.
I heart Jeff Bridges.
“Avatar” got dissed—perhaps because it turns out that director James Cameron might just be the most hated man in Hollywood.
There was a blessed absence of political remarks. It seems even the Hollywood crowd is tired of hope and change and blaming Bush for everything.
…it was a long-winded self-congratulatory bore. But that’s what I’ve come to expect.
Some people, such as Roger Simon, are saying that The Hurt Locker’s victory marks a sea change at Hollywood. Mebbe so.
I think that liberals, even Hollywood liberals, feel a chill wind since Obama’s invulnerability crumbled.
However, I figured that The Hurt Locker would win over Avatar because it offers Hollywood types more bragging rights for being serious, thoughtful people.
And yes, Cameron has made more than his share of enemies.
You forgot to mention the very unclassy comment of Monique. If her win was the triumph of talent over politics, did she mean, conversely, that none of her competition was as talented as she was?
What a graceless jerk.
Costner already got all the Oscars for the Avatar plot.
I am even more shallow than you are, because I don’t watch the show at all — I just wait until the next day and look at pictures of the dresses. (What I want to know is, why do they even bother with pictures of the men? They are all wearing exactly the same tux — not interesting at all. Now if they were wearing dresses, THAT would be interesting.) This year, I think Sandra Bullock won the Oscar for Best Dress.
I watch the Oscars because my Mother loved them and it was a tradition in my house growing up to gather round and watch any awards show that happened to be airing. Old habits die hard. I had resolved to forgo the ritual this year but even though I had not seen one, not one, of the movies mentioned in any category, there I was, curled up on the couch, avidly hanging on every dress, every speech, every audience shot. Why? But along with you Neo, I love to see the fashions and thought Jennifer lopez’s dress was stunning.
“it was a long-winded self-congratulatory bore. ”
Insert obvious political observation here.
Mrs Whatsit: me too!
Long time ago I noticed a strange thing – that women who can afford all kinds of sophisticated care, expensive clothing, shoes and accessories, and whose profession depend on it (be it actresses or socialite) often look positively awful.
Look at this caricature, f.i.
Another observation to Neo’s collection: jewelry has an effect of bringing into focus the body part it dresses. Like S.J. Parker’s bracelets, for instance…
agree totally on Hannah Montana….
I watched because I had actually seen three of the nominated movies, UP, JULIE and JULIA, and THE HURT LOCKER. UP was a charming fanatsy with a message for oldsters like me. (Don’t keep putting off your dreams!) J
Shallow? Everything about the Oscars has always seemed shallow to me. I’ve always kind of thought along the Woody Allen lines on the Oscars. “They give nothing but awards in this town. Best Fascist Dictator: Adolph Hitler”.
Haven’t watched it in 30 years. I must admit to being intrigued however by the Best Pic win to Kathryn Bigelow for the Hurt Locker. Particularly since she was married to antiwar James Cameron. One wonders if their divorce was partly due to politcal differences.
Drat, the uncompleted comment got posted before I was through. To continue: JULIE and JULIA was good story telling and very well acted by the inimitable Meryl Steep as Julia Childs.
THE HURT LOCKER was what blew me away. I watched it while trying to kill time on a 16 hour flight to Hong Kong. It is a masterful war film. So good at displaying the tension, fear, stress, and chaos of war, it unearthed many old feelings in me that I had believed were long ago buried. It is not anti-American, it is anti-war. The hero, or anti-hero as some may characterize him, is depicted as addicted to the adrenaline rush of facing death.
Such men exist, (I’ve known a couple.) but they are not the norm. More common are the no nonsense, do it by the book, don’t take crazy risks men that the hero’s second in command demonstrated.
There are many minor flaws (wrong cami uniforms, a EOD unit operating alone, improper insignias, etc.) that might have been avoided by using more/better technical advisers on the film. Also the dramatic license of showing the hero going into Baghdad alone, at night, essentially AWOL and some of the other cinematic techniques useed to heighten the sense of danger and drama, did not detract from the message that war is an ugly thing.
It depicted the Iraqi citizens, allied soldiers, and the terrorists as all being stirred in a crucible of danger and death that no one would want to experience if they had a choice. The movie demonstrates how cunning, cowardly, barbaric, and determined the Islamic terrorists are, without any pointedly anti-Islamic dialogue. Daily acts of courage are commonplace in war, but they are magnified by this movie, though not to the point of glamorizing heroism, IMO.
I was gratified to see the movie win as Best Picture and the director, Kathryn Bigelow as Best Dirctor. (And who would have guessed that Ms Bigelow, at 59, would be one of the more attractive women to grace the Oscar stage?) I was even more gratified when Kathryn Bigelow gave thanks to all our Armed Forces for the job they are doing today. One small step for Hollywood, one giant leap for our Armed Forces.
Next year I expect “Alice in Wonderland” to sweep up some awards. I saw it with my kids in 3D over the weekend, it was gorgeous!
Some very auspicious people weren’t impressed with The Hurt Locker, and I understood their rationale, though I thought it was quite good, accepting it at face value. Having not seen Avatar, it was no doubt a very creative effort, though from things I was reading early on, it was obvious that it was pandering to the latest liberal-left craze, aiming for the all mighty dollar, and a great success in that regard; so as someone above suggested, this year some semblance of depth won over the pop-left crowd. It was so great to not have the lame left introjecting their smug, self-righteous agenda into the show this year. Though I can’t say I disagree with much of people’s critical remarks here, I still love the Awards, cinema creativity contributes incredibly to our culture and lives, even when it’s just adolescent fun. What great fun (from my point of view) it would be to be smart enough to win an Oscar for writing a smashingly successful, professionally respected story and screenplay… The Last Station and the short animations were great, but I didn’t think that Logorama (though technically excellent) was the best of the short animations, which I saw on Saturday, and which were brilliant.
Also, it’s facinating to see how the Hollywood crowd ages and sometimes matures over the years ….
I’m still trying to figure out how the headlines for Bullock’s dress said she was “emulating the Oscar figurine”.
I mean, REALLY?
It was metallic, that’s it.
SILVER metallic.
***Not gold, silver.***
Beyond that, she didn’t even vaguely resemble an “Oscar”. Not in the least.
> Another observation to Neo’s collection: jewelry has an effect of bringing into focus the body part it dresses. Like S.J. Parker’s bracelets, for instance…
This generation (and I mean, more, “all the people paying attention this generation”, rather than the actual age group) doesn’t seem to grasp that jewelry is supposed to be used as an accent to some feature you think worthy of attention. To them, it’s just something to put on.
Hence you see giant noses with rings or diamond studs, grossly fat bellies with navel piercings, ugly feet with toe rings.
“Hey, look at this!” to which the only rational response could possibly be “WTF? Why ???”
Unfortunately, too many are too polite and/or timid to do exactly that, and just don’t say anything… so the Emperor continues prancing…
J.J. —
An antiwar picture wins the BP Oscar?
Wow!! Whodathunkit?!?!?
:-/
.
It might be good as an antiwar picture, but what we need today are not pictures that are antiwar, but ones which show the need for war without glamorizing it.
“You do it because it needs to be done. Sometimes, violence IS the answer.”
I think we luckily have had a couple generations who do grasp this despite all the antiwar crap that’s come out in the last 50 years. Some people are raising their kids right, even if the libtards are desperately trying to stop them.
…. some of the other cinematic techniques useed to heighten the sense of danger and drama, did not detract from the message that war is an ugly thing.
War is an ugly thing? What a revelation! How does Hollywood discover such unique truths?
I don’t think there has ever been a movie made about that! How did a movie with such an unpopular message win an Oscar?
Hollywood supports the kill-crazy, adrenaline-junkie troops.
Really, I can’t believe they made a movie with the message “war is ugly” after Vietnam.
(I don’t give a shit. I’m not going to see it. When the US Army pulled their support for that turd, they pulled mine too.)
> Haven’t watched it in 30 years.
I have to say it goes in cycles with me. After getting ticked off at the winners so many years (Dangerous Liasons SO got ripped off!), I didn’t care as much about them until the 90s, when the Oscars were actually pretty good, got awarded fairly well, and actually WERE the best pictures — or at least, the widest general appealing “best” pictures (1996 was the worst year — Fargo probably should have won, I’ll grant — but The English Patient WAS a well-done picture from very difficult material).
The obvious example of that “best winner of the lot” was 1994, where you had three obvious contenders of merit — Pulp Fiction, The Shawshank Redemption, and Forrest Gump.
Forrest won because it had the wider appeal of those mainly on technical brilliance, though PF was more cinematically brilliant (the memes alone it’s added to the culture is a sign of that — “Royale w/Cheese”, “Go Medieval on your ass”, and so forth), and SR was, I’d argue the longest lasting and most rewatchable of the three (though not by that much over PF)
It peaked in 1998, when pretty much every notable award got handed out to the p/a/a/d, etc., which most merited them. Benigni, Paltrow, Spielberg, Coburn, Dench, Shakespeare In Love — while one can always argue a bit that there might have been a better performance in the crowd, it was very hard to say that any of them positively did not deserve their award, or that some other picture/actor/actress/director inarguably deserved it more.
1999 (American Beauty) was, I think, the last really good year for the Oscars. I haven’t cared that much about them since then, to the point where, the last two years, instead of trying to see all the nominees these days, I don’t even watch the show.
There was a blessed absence of political remarks. It seems even the Hollywood crowd is tired of hope and change and blaming Bush for everything.
When even Matt Damon had managed to make his presentation without one snarky cheap shot at Bush, I wondered if I had fallen into The Twilight Zone.
–
Obloodyhell,
It is anti-war in that it doesn’t glorify it or make it seem “cool,” which many war movies do. War is ugly and devastating to those who must fight. It does not mean war is unthinkable. We must always remember the words of John Stuart Mill. “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” When we forget this, we will no longer be fit to live in a free nation. However, human nature being what it is, war will be with us. We must not delude ourselves that it is anything but as ugly and awful as it is.
P.S., Dangerous Liasons. (Fume! Snarl!).
One of the best damned pictures ever made, and the only two awards it gets are Best Costume Design and Best Writing. Yeesh.
The thing was fantastically acted, fantastically directed, incredibly well scripted, historically interesting, personally interesting, and just generally all around DAMNED GOOD.
I’ll grant that Hoffman beat out Malkovich for “Rainman”, but that’s it. It should have won BP, BD, BA (Close), BSA (Pfeiffer). It didn’t even get nom’ed for BD and BA (Malkovitch), which is just ludicrous.
There are very few films which I would say had not one single solitary thing wrong with them, and DL is one (American Beauty and Amadeus are the only other two which come to mind, not to say there aren’t others).
J.J., the problem is that there are any number of antiwar pictures made — some of them are even fairly good, I grant.
But when was the last time you saw a picture which even operated from the same kind of place as your Mill quote? Five decades?
It is anti-war in that it doesn’t glorify it or make it seem “cool,” which many war movies do.
Really? Like which ones?
OK, one recent, modern exception — Braveheart. But that’s it as far as I can recall.
One of the best damned pictures ever made, and the only two awards it gets are Best Costume Design and Best Writing. Yeesh.
I know how you feel. The last time I watched the Oscars was 1977. Star Wars lost to Annie Hall.
I was 9.
Then Woody Allen became a step-daughter porking old weirdo and George Lucas’ and his neck-fat raped the Star Wars legacy, the space program got cancelled, planes with lasers got cancelled and Jar Jar Binks got elected President.
OK, one recent, modern exception – Braveheart. But that’s it as far as I can recall.
That’s because the Scottish are the Na’vi of white people.
Gray,
Ever see a John Wayne war flick? I was raised on them during WWII. Made war seem damned glorious. They were, of course, recruiting films to keep people’s morale up. A lot of us who were in Vietnam and were raised on those got a dose of reality. Just saying.
I like that you are honest about your interest in an otherwise shallow and culturally empty event. I have parallel weird fascinations. it helps keep us sane. I haven’t watched the oscars in years. In an enterprise that already is shamelessly self-promoting, it’s one more excess of self-absorbed narcissism. “Let’s watch each other watch ourselves and then watch each other get awards for the same.” Yuck! How about awards for the real workers? George Clooney’s stand-in, for example. While George is sitting in his trailer making sure he still is the sexiest man alive, his stand-in holds his place so that the cameras will be sure to forgive whatever flaws are creeping into that grizzled face.
Or maybe an award called “Best Achievement in Gaffing.” Or gripping. And will someone please explain: who or what is a “Best boy” and what the hell does he do? And why isn’t Babs all pissed off that there isn’t a best girl?
Ever see a John Wayne war flick? I was raised on them during WWII.
That’s what I thought. Nothing within my lifetime.
No, I have never seen a movie in a theater that ‘glorifies’ war in any way. They quit making those before I was born.
And I wish they’d stop making those “Society” pictures of all those rich people dancing around fountains while we are standing in bread line and working for WPA digging holes!
# Gray Says:
March 9th, 2010 at 12:01 am
…
That’s because the Scottish are the Na’vi of white people.
“The trouble with Scotland, is, it’s full of Scots!”
~The absolutely magnificent Patrick McGoohan as King Edward the first (“Longshanks”) in Braveheart.
–
Obloodyhell,
“But when was the last time you saw a picture which even operated from the same kind of place as your Mill quote? Five decades.”
The lasty one would be “The Green Berets” with John Wayne back in the 60s. (40+ years.) I quit going to movies war movies in the 70s because they all became anti-American as well as anti-war. I would not have watched “The Hurt locker’ except I was trapped on an airplane for 16 hours. It took me competely by surprise as I expected it to be another anti-American screed. It also tapped memories I had from Vietnam that I thought were buried in my past. Maybe my reaction to the movie was unusual, but the fact that the rather liberal people who make up the Academy voted it Best Picture may indicate that my reaction was not unusual. (Or am I just getting sentimental in my old age?)
Most people who saw the picture would not think it anti-American, but it was not in your face jingoistic pro-America either. That said, most people would, IMO, come away with a sense of appreciation for what our men and women are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan unless they were bitterly opposed to the wars. (Which you would think most Academy members are.) Is Hollywood tilting right? It’s somewhat of a mystery to me.