So let’s talk the Oscars, shall we?
The thing I always find interesting about them has
less to do with the awards themselves than with everything surrounding them.
The most obvious of these is the way in which they’ve
become the ne plus ultra of awards shows. In my youth, it was one of the
few shows – other than sports or news – that was shown live on the west coast.
To this day, almost every show is delayed three hours after it’s been seen in
the east. In the last few years, we’ve gotten the Emmys and Golden Globe live –
followed by a rebroadcast, but almost everything else that isn’t sports is old.
(This was particularly egregious during the Olympics, when the prime time events
were almost 24 hours old.)
But there must be something about the oversize
nature of the movies – from budgets to personalities to screen size – that inflates
their importance in our minds.
Now, as I mentioned the other night with the list
of worst best picture thing, these lists and awards are, for me, completely
subjective. Awards shows might have a bit more credibility in that they’re
voted on by a group – although even that group’s standards are arguable (hence
the list the other night). The Academy’s awards and assessments really aren’t
going to affect my own feelings. If I think “Network” is a better movie than “Rocky,”
the latter’s Oscar isn’t going to color my opinion.
I watch the Oscars as I watch all of these shows –
with a grain of salt. If someone or something I like wins, it’s nice. If not,
well, it’s like Thomas Jefferson’s quote about religion: “But it does me no
injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks
my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
In
years past, I used to get really wrapped up and involved in who won things; the
Oscars, World Series, Super Bowls, etc., until one year – I think it was 1979 –
when I realized I had no real stake in any of it, and I thought, “why the hell
am I so invested in this?” I still have rooting interests in most sports
championships, and when a team I have an active rooting interest in (the LA
Kings, USC, and especially, my Dodgers) wins, it’s great. And I get depressed
when a team I actively dislike wins, but it doesn’t overwhelm me like it used
to.
So,
like most of us, I can watch the Oscars as the overblown and overly
self-important spectacle that it is, but pretends not to be. By that, I mean
that, in spite of the gowns (and just what is
the fascination with the red carpet? I’ve never gotten that one) and the tuxes
and the spectacle of millionaires awarding each other the world’s most prestigious
bowling trophy, everyone plays this game of “Aw, we’re just folks.” I think
that’s one of the reasons they chose Ellen to host; that she gives off an air
of casual normalcy that should contrast nicely with the overall pomposity. (The
broadcast really did tip its hand, though, with both the Jimmy Kimmel segment
on the pre-game show and the pizza bit on the broadcast itself. Kimmel attacked
people like me who sit at home and snark at the proceedings, but rather than
showing reasonably normal people like you and I, he attacked poorly-dressed
freaks. There’s plenty of fodder for mockery that you don’t need to resort to
cheap shots. And the pizza thing – which I thought should have paid off with
Ron Jeremy making the delivery and Ellen “not knowing” how to pay for it – was just
a time-waster without a payoff – almost literally, as she went through the
audience gathering cash. Spacey stole that bit, easily, I thought.)
Unfortunately,
her niceness came off to me as more bland than anything. And, again, I can
understand why the Academy would have wanted that after the controversy over
last year’s host. It really is a no-win job, though. When a successful host
comes back, they get nailed for being tired and passe (see “Crystal, Billy’). When
someone is too edgy, they’re disrespectful or resort to bad taste. When someone
is too respectful, they can come off as bland.
The
biggest problem with the broadcast, I think, is the bloat of things like clip
packages. This year we highlighted “heroes” (which was novel; I mean, you never
see those in movies …). They came off as unnecessary time-killers in a
broadcast that didn’t need them. And while I appreciated the grouping of Best
Picture clips, they were (I think, rightly) slammed for being little more than
trailers that didn’t give a real sense of the movies themselves.
The
musical numbers were, for once, not too bad – Idina Menzel excluded. I don’t
know if she was thrown off by how badly Travolta botched her name (and how long
are we going to be subjected to that
meme?) or if it was just her natural tendencies, but I thought she was just overwrought
and screechy – and I think she knew it, based on her expression at the end of
the number. The other loser was the number from “Her,” which reeked of every
lousy singer-songwriter who ever sat in on a coffee house open mic night.
The
acceptance speeches were generally good and sincere – no real upsets, so the
winners seemed prepared for the inevitable – and I appreciated that no one got
played off. If nothing else, it allowed McConaughey to
fully express his unique phraseology.
To continue yesterday’s theme, did I hate
watch? Yes, in a sense. I mean, I didn’t actively dislike it; it was just a
little too bland to really work up any feelings about. I’m grateful that it
gave me opportunity to snark, but I can pretty much work myself up for that
with anything. Did I enjoy it? In parts. But, as I said, it was too bland to
really have positive feelings toward, either. It was just kinda there.
What would I do differently, were I in
charge? An all-new host – either Kevin Spacey or Benedict Cumberbatch – both of
whom seem to have a sense of subversive respectfulness. (Tina Fey would be
good, but she doesn’t seem to have enough gravitas.) Fewer clip packages. New writers
who’ll cut back on the stupid banter – which never works.
Or just go back to the original concept. Hold
a small banquet at the Hollywood Roosevelt and give them out over the course of
a couple of hours.
Or follow the example of the Golden Globes
and get them all liquored up.
Back to something you said on Facebook, I saw a lot of Letterman influence on Ellen's hosting. Quite a bit of irreverent humor and awkward silence but, like you said, she won't be crucified for it because she's nice and he's cynical.
ReplyDeleteI kinda liked the pizza bit. It was a nice reminder how truly unimportant these events really are.
I think it's funny how they honor "heroes" when 98% of the hero movies they showed never stood a chance of Oscar credit.
My problem with the pizza bit wasn't that it was there, it was that there was no payoff. It was as though one of the writers said, "Hey, you know what would be funny? Ordering pizza," and it ended there. The New Yorker compared it something Andy Kaufman would have done, and I can see that, but Kaufman would have made some bigger point.
ReplyDelete