Posts Tagged ‘Academy Awards’

82nd Oscar Telecast: Sgt. Angle’s Angles

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

Sgt. Angle Reporting for Duty!

The Oscar telecast is over, which means it’s time for people to remark freely on all things Hurt Locker and Avatar for the next few minutes, and hopefully a Basterd or two will appear.….

Got that out of your system? Good. As your Sgt., I feel it is my duty to brief you on the telecast. There’s so much to discuss, but I’ll break my report into two sections: 1) The Awards — the worthy and the shocking; 2) The production — the useless and the touching. Sometimes, they blend.

AWARDS:

(By the way, I turned out to be spot-on with my predictions, even with Cinematography(Avatar?) )

  • HURT LOCKER MADNESS: Not a lot of surprises in the main categories. The Hurt Locker picked up SIX awards out of nine nominations, a strong haul for a film that barely made it into 600 theaters in America and was made for 1/250th (give or take) the budget of Avatar. Best Picture, Director, Screenplay, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and Film Editing. I don’t have a problem with most of these awards, but the editing of the intertwined storytelling in District 9 should have emerged victorious, and Inglourious Basterds showcased better writing than any film in recent memory. The Hurt Locker had the momentum of winning nearly every major award this season, and the “David” angle in the “David vs. Goliath” scenario that Avatar created. Happy or not, like it or not, The Hurt Locker is the victor. (Screenplay?!)

(*Note: I’ve gone on and read some other pundits and reporters write-ups who say that Hurt Locker will be forgotten ten, twenty years from now, but that Avatar will be the one film remembered. To them I say…okay. When Annie Hall beat Star Wars in the 70s, people were saying the same thing; when Forrest Gump beat Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption, people, again, were saying the same thing. And look how well the “losers” have withstood the test of time. But we’re not talking about twenty years from now, we’re talking about NOW — or, to be more specific, last year.*)

On to other awards and items of interest…

All acting awards were predictable and mostly worthy. Kudos to Sandra Bullock, who won for a mediocre role in a less than mediocre movie, but who gains “classy points” because she picked up her Razzy Award the night before the Oscars (the Golden Razzies, for those uninitiated, are handed out every year for the “worst in film.”) It’s her sense of humor…that’s why they like her.

YouTube Preview Image

Fisher Stevens has an Oscar. Let that marinate.

Fisher’s Oscar: 20 years in the making.

Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire surprisingly beat Up in the Air for longest unnecessary title Best Screenplay. Also defeated:  District 9. I like how Geoffrey Fletcher’s reaction was honest-to-God shock. That’s how you accept an award.

YouTube Preview Image

Someone needs to explain, and I mean right now, how Avatar wins for Best Cinematography.…I’ll wait.

It’s a shame that District 9’s visual effects achievements got overshadowed by Avatar, but what can you do?

YouTube Preview Image

THE PRODUCTION:

  • Hosts: Twice the hosts, twice the fun. You’re producing the Oscars, you decide to have TWO hosts this year: Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin. What do you do? Give them a semi-comical monologue and then pull out the magician’s hat and make them disappear for the rest of the show. Seriously, were it not for an occasional quip by Martin when introducing a presenter, I wouldn’t have known the show had a host this year, let alone two of them.

(Watch their monologue here.)

Angle’s Angle: More screen time for any host, one or two!

  • CONSTANT CONTACT: Meryl Streep and George Clooney were the two major cutaways all evening, a fact recognized by Clooney when he waved the camera away at one point.

Angle’s Angle: I appreciate the cutaway to an audience member as much as the next person, but give us some variety, give us some change. I don’t want to see Clooney wave us away, but I also don’t want to watch him watching the show for three hours.

  • JOHN HUGHES TRIBUTE: The class of the simple introduction by Molly Ringwald and Matthew Broderick became lopsided and dull when, after the montage of Hughes’ classic scenes, members of the Brat Pack appeared on stage to say one thing each…and then walk away awkwardly like high school kids at a dance.

Angle’s Angle: Bring out the Pack first, then the clip reel. Move it right along.

  • VISUALS: Best Cinematography Award is presented…without images or clips of the nominees. Best Actor/Actress awards are presented as follows: a brief montage of all nominees’ performances, five other actors talk up each nominee for not only acting well but being great people, then the presenter comes out, the presenter lists the nominees, the winner comes up and gives a speech which absolutely obliterates the :45 second rule. Total time to present Best Actress: ten minutes. Total for Best Actor: ten minutes. Total time wasted: eight minutes.

Angle’s Angle: SHOW A PIECE OF THE FILM’S NOMINATED. In an awards show dedicated to the visual medium, WHERE WERE THE VISUALS?? The chat-party that was featured last night did many things, all of them negative: Wasted time, deflated the energy in the latter half of an already body-less show, disrespected actors in the supporting categories by not giving them the same treatment earlier, and disrespected the audience at home who tuned in to WATCH a show, not listen to people TALK about how great things were last year. Also disrespected Cinematographers, who GIVE US THE IMAGES that later become iconic.

  • BEST SONG: Perhaps one of the wisest decisions in this year’s Oscarcast, the show did away with live performances for each nominated song, instead crumbling the category into a simple presentation, featuring a ten-second clip of each song in the context of the movies they were in.

Angle’s Angle: Good choice.

  • BEST ORIGINAL SCORE: Nothing tops the appearance of Yo-Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman at the Academy Awards in 2001, playing themes from all nominees. Lasted five minutes, and was very moving. This year, as in a few years past, we got to sit through dancers interpreting all of the scores, no doubt from the mind of choreographer and co-producer of this year’s telecast Adam Shankman. Dances were okay, the music was moving.

Angle’s Angle: Shorten the dancing, lengthen the clips and celebrate the music. Itzhak returned four years ago for a solo run at this idea, but it wasn’t the same without Yo-Yo.…

YouTube Preview Image

That’s all for this year’s Oscar Telecast! Despite my disagreements with the way the producers produced, and the way the awards are awarded…I will still tune in next year, and the year after that, and I’ll continue to watch the films, the winners and the “happy just to be nominated.” Because that’s a Sgt.‘s duty.

Permission to speak freely in the comments below: Granted.

Sgt. Angle

http://www.oscars.org/video/watch/82aa_monologue.htmlWat

Academy Award Nominations — Brief thoughts

Thursday, February 4th, 2010

Sgt. Angle reporting for duty!

Oscar nominations were announced this past Tuesday at 5:38 AM PST. Yours Truly wakes up at the late hour of 4:30 every day, so with my morning routine already in the bank, I decided to watch the chuckly Anne Hathaway and the what’s-his-face President of the Academy spout out the nominees in “top categories” for the awards. What defines a top category, in this instance, is the showiest titles, the big cheeses of actors, the “most important, flashiest bits” of the movie — the actors, the writers, the directors, the pictures themselves, and the foreigners. What you need to understand is that the Academy members — or, more precisely, the folks in charge of the Oscar Telecast — are more interested in generating buzz and viewership for the telecast than they are for honoring the latest-greatest contributions to the art form.

YouTube Preview Image

I won’t ask you to forgive my foul-ish mood today regarding Oscars, and won’t even pretend to chalk it up to the fact that Mr. Wolff ate away at our regularly scheduled blog-time this week because of his timely chomp-up of the Grammy Awards. I can only ask you to read YUKI, the #3 BIRTH issue of MYTHOI, written by a fella named James Ninness, and worthy of every iris in the states to see and download.

Folks, lend me your ears, and your time, and I’ll tell you a little something about the missing piece of the Oscars, something that has left a void since 1952, and shall perhaps one day — through the genius and respect that is Martin Scorsese, or perhaps even from another writers’ strike — return to show us the way. I’m going to tell you about actual respect towards a craft, and how Television Killed the Triumph of Awards.

The Academy Awards are the oldest awards ceremony in the media. In 1929, the first Oscars were given to celebrate the excellence of film professionals in the years 1928 — 29. The awards show was conceived by Louis B. Mayer, head of MGM studios.  Key word there is “excellence” — not celebrate, but excellence. After the LA Times leaked the award winners in 1940, the names were thereafter sealed in an envelope and revealed only during the ceremony, which was first televised in 1953 with Bob Hope as Master of Ceremonies. It is perhaps the decision to televise the show which has brought the most criticisms to the awards themselves.

No longer are voters or Academy members interested in honoring timeless classics or films that will go on forever to be known as the greatest in the pantheon of the art of film in general. Tim Dirks, editor of AMC’s filmsite.org, has written of the Academy Awards, “Unfortunately, the critical worth, artistic vision, cultural influence, and innovative qualities of many films are not given the same voting weight. Especially since the 80s, moneymaking ‘formula-made’ blockbusters with glossy production values have often been crowd-pleasing titans (and Best Picture winners), but they haven’t necessarily been great films with depth or critical acclaim by any measure.”

Make no mistake about it, the Academy Awards are still the most prestigious award ever to win as a filmmaker. But you must be cautious when you win it, think about what you’ve done to deserve it. Should you be given the award as a gift because of your family relations (Sofia Coppola, “Lost in Translation” writer)? Or how about because the Academy forgot to honor you for a prior piece (Russell Crowe for “Gladiator” instead of “The Insider”)? What if you just had something important to say, despite your film being mediocre at best (“An Inconvenient Truth”)? The point is, because of the commercialization of the Oscars themselves, the awards and honors encapsulated by them have become less prestigious over the years, more about popularity or politics than actual excellence.

Twelve years ago, one of the best films of the 1990s (a fantastic decade for films, despite what anyone else says to you), “L.A. Confidential,” was virtually shut out at the Oscars by the Billion-Dollar-Baby “Titanic.” The monster that slipped on an iceberg offered smooth sailing into Awards History for James Cameron, and somehow captured hearts and minds of moviegoers across the US, and around the Globe — most notably, Academy members were swept up in the wave of apparent heaping praise for the film. And that became the problem. Advertising. Campaigning for an award that SHOULD be given on artistic merit and excellence in the craft, was instead doled out to those who could afford to buy it.

Enter Harvey Weinstein, Stage Right. In case you don’t recall, Weinstein was behind one of the greatest coups in Academy Awards history when he sold members on the idea that “Shakespeare in Love” offered a more historically and artistically brilliant film than “Saving Private Ryan” and “Life is Beautiful.” Even Spielberg stood backstage, holding his still warm Best Director Oscar, wondering how the mighty Miramax Man managed to flatten Ryan’s privates.

And lo, the Awards themselves were pushed back, from late March to late February, to hopefully collapse the campaign season and bring forth honorable films rather than wide wallet films. But that still wasn’t enough. Gone are they days when films released any time before May of the year (“Silence of the Lambs”) are even within radar of Academy members — or marketing wallets. This year, for instance, the only film to be nominated for Best Picture and released before June of 2009 was Disney-Pixar’s “Up.”

And that was released on May 29.

Look, I’ll still watch the Awards, and hey, if I could, I would go to them. But the thing about Awards is, once you start spreading them around, giving them to the moneybags rather than the talentbags, you start to lose sight of why they exist in the first place. You shouldn’t make movies to make money, and you shouldn’t make movies to win awards. You make movies to make a piece of Art, whether it’s a 3-hour character piece exploring the existence of love, or it’s a 3-hour action piece creating a new world, using new technology, and still somehow exploring the existence of love.

I’m as hard-assed as the next soldier, but when it comes to executing your job properly, I’m hoping you don’t spend the most money on the most expensive gun to hit the target; I want to see you hit that target with the cheapest man-made rifle you can find. That’s where real talent lies, and that’s where real inspiration comes from.

That’s just the type of soldier I wanna see on my set.

Let me know what your reactions are to this year’s awards nominations, and next week we’ll ramble on about celluloid history — the type that should disappear from history.

You are dismissed.

Sgt. Angle.