Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Oscars better this year...mostly.

In 2005, Ang Lee was robbed when "Crash" instead of "Brokeback Mountain" won best picture. Many speculate it was because academy members were uncomfortable with its subject matter. Two academy members refused to even view it. It's almost unheard of for a "best director" and "best picture" not be awarded to the same film. While Phillip Seymore Hoffman was truly great in "Capote," Heath Ledger was not even nominated for what was arguably the most convincing role of his career as Ennis. (Joaquin Phoenix who was nominated for "Walk the Line" was not nearly so subtle or moving.)

The 2008 awards seem to be making amends for the travesty. Yes, Truman Capote was gay, but the story was about his work as an author on "In Cold Blood," his finesse with his subjects, his friendship with Harper Lee. So even though some have dubbed (I think unkindly) 2005 the "gay" Oscars, it is more true that in 2005 they avoided the subject when dealt with more directly. This year, awarding it to Sean Penn for Harvey Milk somewhat redeems the slight and to Heath Ledger for The Joker, almost compensates for his. Ennis was a much better written and performed role.

It is astonishing to me that Kate Winslet has not won an Oscar before. I haven't seen "the Reader" yet, but some of her earliest roles have been astounding. She performed "Heavenly Creatures," at 17 years old "Sense & Sensibility" at18 "Hamlet" at 21. "The Titanic" was pure dreck.

I liked the format in which veteran actors, or new very talented ones, said something appreciative to each nominee. They sounded very sincere and as though they had written the sentiments themselves. This tone is vastly to be preferred over previous Oscars during which the comedian host thought it appropriate to remark on female presenters' anatomy and refer to the whole thing in mocking tones. There are good jokes and bad jokes and I'm against the bad ones.

Snark Central:

We had to hit the "mute" button during the "hooray for hollywood" hoopla. Though for some reason, I always ball when the Peter Gabriel song from Wall-E was played - during the movie itself when I saw it and again when it was performed. It didn't win, however, it went the very groovy and now popular dance number from Slumdog Millionaire, which I also haven't seen, but plan to after the lines subside a bit.

One thing I'll never understand: every year the fashion critics will say of someone that her dress is too plain. That someone is almost always a presenter and not a nominee. Or the spouse of a nominee. Haven't they noticed the tradition yet that presenters, and spouses do not upstage the nominees with their outfits? Nominees are the peacocks-esp. lead actress. Everybody else is scenery. Got it?

Several critics were disappointed that "The Dark Knight" didn't get more nominations. I have a lot of respect for Christopher Nolan and I've had some interesting philosophical discussions after viewing "The Dark Knight." So why didn't it get more attention? My hunch is Maggie Gyllenhaal just didn't pull off the Rachel character. I want to like Maggie. She's a Harvard educated English major. Her looks are a little eccentric. But, she didn't or wasn't allowed to reinvent the role that Katie Holmes created. Katie Holmes is cute and only barely convinced me she worked for the D.A.'s office, but Maggie playing Katie playing Rachel was just painful to watch. Heath Ledger's untimely death also most likely made the final editing more difficult, choppy and unsatisfying.


No comments: