93rd Oscars: Ceremony Discussion

For the films of 2020
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: 93rd Oscars: Ceremony Discussion

Post by Big Magilla »

The 1947 show was a lot like this year's.

Hosts: Dick Powell and Agnes Moorehead

Awards and Presenters in order:
Motion Picture Story and Original Screenplay - George Murphy
Scientific and Technical Awards - Robert Montgomery
Short Subjects and Documentary Awards - Shirley Temple
Special Effects, Musical Scoring, and Sound Recording - Larry Parks
Supporting Actress - Donald Crisp
Director and Actor - Olivia de Havilland
Song - Dinah Shore
Art Direction - Dick Powell
Special Awards to Bill and Coo, Shoeshine, and four individuals - Jean Hersholt
Special Award to James Baskette - Ingrid Bergman
Cinematography - Agnes Moorehead
Supporting Actor, Screenplay, and Film Editing - Anne Baxter
Picture and Actress - Fredric March
HarryGoldfarb
Adjunct
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Colombia
Contact:

Re: 93rd Oscars: Ceremony Discussion

Post by HarryGoldfarb »

Mister Tee wrote:In the end, Nomadland won film/actress/director, the first time that particular haul was the best picture's profile. The closest was Gentleman's Agreement, which won film/supporting actress/director. (Gentleman's Agreement was also, as Damien's book let us know, the last time a best picture was followed by an acting award. That one ended in an upset over a sure thing, as well. Seems like it's tempting karma.)
I did not know this, thanks for the trivia fact... Had to look it up, and found out this very illustrative entry in a blog (do not know if anyone here is familiar with this website):

http://thefilmexperience.net/blog/2020/ ... s-win.html

There's just one thing that's not crystal clear to me: was only Best Actress left to be announced after Best Picture, or were both leading acting categories?

Anyway, a nice read...
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: 93rd Oscars: Ceremony Discussion

Post by Mister Tee »

So, I spent most of the season saying we shouldn't have Oscars this year, and...I can't say I retract that position.

Soderbergh (I know, he's only one of three producers, but he was the guy doing most of the talking) said he was aiming to make the show like a movie, but, if he did, it was an Eric Rohmer movie -- way more talk and fewer visuals (and less visual variety) than any Oscars I can recall. And that talk was so uninteresting. To the extent we care about production designers or sound folk, it's for the contributions they made to the films we care about -- not what odd-jobs they worked early in life, or what film they saw when they were 6. Bill Condon's 2008 show was built around life-tributes to the acting nominees, and there was difference of opinion about how well it worked. But I don't think anyone said, it was great, but I want to do the same for the make-up people.

The evening was also just a dreary one. The absence of music by-and-large was one element in that, but there was also, by leagues, less humor than ever. A friend/party attender said he missed presenters coming out in pairs, which of course we understood was a social distancing thing. But the usual paired presenters at least injected comedy into the evening -- sometimes labored and groan-worthy comedy, but at least some percentage of the time genuine wit. And the absence of a host meant we had no one really making jokes. You're in trouble when Youn Yu-jung (in the best speech of the night) gets as many laughs as the rest of the evening combined.

Of course, the exception to this is the alleged comedic variation on Name That Tune I referenced in my late-night post below. I'm seeing some people say this was a great bit, and I can only gape at them in disbelief. It was, to begin with, a ludicrous time of the evening to stop for a routine -- 2 1/2 hours-plus into the evening, with only the top three awards remaining. It was also 10 minutes or more on a premise ("White folks don't get black music") that's the hipster version of a Dad joke. And it was all apparently designed for the punch line of Glenn Close doing Da Butt, a shtik obviously scripted from the moment Glenn opened her mouth (she was clearly "in character" from the get-go). As I noted last night, my brother texted me "This is cringeworthy". If people actually saw that as some highlight, we're in worse shape than I thought.

All the re-arranging -- screenplays leading off (that's been done two or three times before; I've never liked it), best director ludicrously early, best picture placed ahead of leading acting, best actor and actress presenters reversed for no reason -- seemed to be different-for-the-sake-of-being-different. It reminded me of the long-ago 1968 presentations, which Gower Champion produced (for his one and only time). He shook things up in a big way -- creating Friends of Oscar who gave out all the statuettes (which didn't include any of the previous year's recipients), moving best actor at least an hour earlier in the show than usual (something done a few times subsequently, another something I've never liked), and including a costume design presentation that had people in Romeo and Juliet costumes doing the frug. That year should have been an all-timer for those of us who love Oscar surprises -- the film/director upset over the DGA, Cliff Robertson from seemingly nowhere, the impossible tie -- and it no doubt reads that way to those of you who only learn about it from history. But my main memory was what a ghastly show it was.

Same last night. This was one of the most surprising shows, at the top, we've ever seen. McDormand was clearly in the race for best actress, but I think most would have put her in 3rd/4th position. And the Hopkins upset, while certainly perceived as possible, was in Daniel Day-Lewis/My Left Foot territory -- a case where the most widely admired performance seemed likely to lose to a more sentimentally appealing scenario. Even the Nomadland win, when it came, was suspenseful, the film having only won the sole award, for directing, at that point in the evening. This pop-pop-pop that should have closed the evening ended up instead an awkward disaster because of how the producers designed the show. (Don't know if everyone's seen it, but someone tweeted they could picture the producers announcing this schedule, and the PwC guys thinking "Are you SURE you want to do it that way?")

Let's wind back to start. Regina King actually did a pretty good job opening the evening, speaking eloquently and settling everyone in. As time went on, I got tired of the "presenter appears solo, talks to the audience, gives out two awards, departs" structure, but it worked okay to start. (The only one who really varied the pattern was Harrison Ford, and I was insanely grateful to him.)

I thought it was a huge mistake, suspense-wise, to lead with screenplays: if Nomadland had won, the best picture race would have been over on the spot. Fortunately, it went otherwise. Both screenplays accept-ers gave perfectly decent speeches. (Zeller doing all the talking let us know there was going to be only one speaker per win this year, which left a lot of people out in the cold.)

Daniel Kaluuya went on a bit long, but he was fun to listen to, and his most memorable bits came near the end, so, okay. (Soderbergh specifically said he was letting speeches go longer, and the absence of an orchestra meant there was no way to cut people off, so too-lengthy acceptances were unavoidable. I remember watching the Drama Desk Awards on local TV years ago, where they similarly let people ramble on, and I remember thinking, all those who complain about the Oscars pushing people off may not realize the alternative can be worse.)

The Another Round guy Vinterberg abused the privilege even worse. I also felt he hovered over the line from honoring to exploiting his family tragedy. But I'm not trustworthy on this topic, since I so resent his film beating the far superior Quo Vadis, Aida?

My mistake in betting this year was figuring voters would be more selective/less hive-mind in below-the-line categories while sticking to favorites in the higher-profile group. Turned out it was mostly the opposite, as Ma Rainey, while losing its glamour award, took two prizes for which its credentials were weak at best. Ann Roth once again tops Emma. (And her non-appearance was a foreshadowing of the show's ignominious finale.)

I really don't get having actors give out awards for which their films are heavily competitive. Which is to say, Riz Ahmed should not have given out the sound Oscar.

Purely parochial matter: At a certain point in the first hour, I need a 5-10 minute window to whip up whipped cream for dessert, and I usually count on a musical number to provide the time. This year deprived me of that -- so I'm grateful to the Motion Picture Relief Home guy for going on at such extraordinary length. (Tyler Perry's later speech was quite good.)

Weird that the first film clips we saw all night were for peripheral categories, Animated Feature and Documentary Feature.

The less said about Doc Feature the better. My one deepest groan of the night. And I agree with Uri: it was ridiculous to have Marlee Matlin as presenter, when the clips were shown with voice-over, meaning we were hearing her interpreter and not even seeing her till she read out the winner. (And I guess I can do a little lip-reading, because I could make out that she said "octopus" before the interpreter took over.)

I had a similar issue when Bong was intro-ing best director. Rather than have him, via subtitles, relay what directors had said in response to his question, couldn't we have shown them, in English, saying them? The way it was done created double-distancing.

Chloe Zhao being such an overwhelming favorite meant the super-early directing award did no structural harm. But let's never do it again. Zhao's speech was perfectly lovely.

It turned out I was right about Mank being roughly the Bugsy of this year, though it's second win beyond production design was cinematography rather than costumes. I'm kind of gobsmacked that two of the awards I entered April thinking were rock-solid -- actor and cinematography -- each went another way.

When Nomadland biffed cinematography, supporters must have been panicking about its best picture prospects. But, by my cinematography/no screenplay theory, its chances were actually enhanced by the loss. Mank saves Nomadland's bacon!

The hive-mind nailed two of the three shorts categories, but struck out on Colette, which a bare few of us predicted. It's comforting to know that, with all the changes we've endured, the Holocaust still rules in minor categories.

Film editing was one of the most competitive of the night -- among the 40 or so people/critics I surveyed, Sound of Metal prevailed by only 4 votes. It does seem to help to have a sound nomination alongside it. The main significance of the outcome was sending Trial of the Chicago 7 home empty-handed.

Someone tweeted, can you imagine telling a Nine Inch Nails fan in the late 90s that they'd some day win their second Oscar working with the Toy Story guys? Nice, heartfelt, but too long speech by Jon Batiste.

Until the final triptych, best song seemed like the biggest upset of the night -- most seemed to have Fight for You ranked 4th or 5th in likelihood. It does underline the importance of being associated with a competitive film, and Black Messiah turned out the strongest of those.

When Rita Moreno (delightful) announced Nomadland, I was thisclose to announcing to the room that Nomadland would be the first movie since You Can't Take It With You to win best picture/director with no other awards. (And third overall, including All Quiet on the Western Front.) But I stopped myself, thinking, you know, I wonder if this means Frances wins best actress, which of course turned out so. It's funny: normally, we use awards given out earlier to handicap best picture, but here it worked the opposite direction.

In the end, Nomadland won film/actress/director, the first time that particular haul was the best picture's profile. The closest was Gentleman's Agreement, which won film/supporting actress/director. (Gentleman's Agreement was also, as Damien's book let us know, the last time a best picture was followed by an acting award. That one ended in an upset over a sure thing, as well. Seems like it's tempting karma.)

The one nice thing I'll say about this year's producers: When they finally showed clips, for best picture, it was actual scenes from the films, not the trailers, which have been a horrible feature of most recent years.

Which brings us to the finale, which I already dissected last night. I think Hopkins unequivocally deserved to win, but I never thought voters would be able to get past the possible controversies arising from bypassing Boseman. The way it was done only made it worse, and the fact that Hopkins wasn't even there 1) deprived us of the catharsis of seeing Hopkins applauded for this great performance and 2) ended the night on as flat a note as possible. Just a disaster, far worse than the La La Land/Moonlight thing, which had the advantage of being purely accidental, where this was the result of design.

And, oh yeah: Hopkins wasn't there because of COVID. Which brings me back to my first premise, that this show -- this entire awards season -- was a stubborn adherence to schedule that would have done better to wait for normal times. But, we got what we got.
HarryGoldfarb
Adjunct
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Colombia
Contact:

Re: 93rd Oscars: Ceremony Discussion

Post by HarryGoldfarb »

Sabin wrote:For anyone who knows what an NFT is... this is BEYOND cringe.

https://twitter.com/EW/status/1386443683780722690
Weird, indeed...

But Rosy Cordero, the writer of the article, REALLY needs to get her facts straight:

"Boseman earned a posthumous Oscar nomination for Best Actor in a Leading role for his portrayal of trumpeter Levee Green in Netflix's Ma Rainey's Black Bottom. Others competing in the same category include Riz Ahmed, Mads Mikkelsen, Tahar Rahim, and Adarsh Gourav."

What?
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: 93rd Oscars: Ceremony Discussion

Post by Sabin »

For anyone who knows what an NFT is... this is BEYOND cringe.

https://twitter.com/EW/status/1386443683780722690
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: 93rd Oscars: Ceremony Discussion

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Big Magilla wrote:Had Hopkins actually been there to give a speech, it would have ended better than it did. They should have anticipated a possible win for him and switched Best Actor and Actress to guarantee that the last winner of the night would be there.
Hopkins gave his speech via Instagram in case anyone was curious:
https://www.instagram.com/p/COHpbqpHcqY/
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: 93rd Oscars: Ceremony Discussion

Post by Sabin »

If anyone wants to know my thoughts on the show itself...

My favorite thing I've read about the 93rd Academy Awards was this headline: "Glenn Close's viral Da Butt dance at 2021 Oscars was scripted, report." Really? You don't say?

I'll be more charitable than most. There were some good ideas. Using Union Station as a set was a really nice change of pace. I wouldn't be opposed to having it there again. It's a fun vibe. We were also spared needless thematic montages. In fact, we were spared all montages. There has never been an Academy Awards that was less about the movies and more about the industry than these Oscars. Ditching the cutoff music was the biggest mistake of the night. The night may have been shorter but it felt so much longer. Look, I know these Oscars were always going to be weird due to COVID restrictions, but they didn't have to be so inside baseball. I realize I'm saying this as a white person but the 93rd Academy Awards didn't seem like a party that everyone at home was even invited to. It felt socially distanced from the viewer -- and the movielover.

The two key quotes of the night came from the winner of Best Live Action Short ("Every five minutes, a black man is killed by a police officer" /"I WANNA THANK NETFLIX!") and Riz Ahmed asking if anyone has worked on a short film only to remark "I guess everyone here started out at the top." I think a lot of us could relate to Riz in that moment. Before the Best Picture was given out by Rita Moreno, for a brief moment I wondered if Judas and the Black Messiah was going to end up winning. It won a surprise Best Original Song Oscar right before and it certainly captured the vibe of the show: revolution, empowerment, but studio-sanctioned. But those weren't exactly all the movies they honored. Sure, they honored some of them. But was a creeping conservative vibe to the winners as the night moved onward that felt in conflict with the rest of the show. Chloe Zhao's win is a triumph for diversity for sure and Nomadland deserves to be remembered as the first Best Picture directed by a woman ABOUT a woman. Movies ABOUT women rarely win. Chloe Zhao didn't mention any of that and instead gave a plea to find the kindness within. Same with Tyler Perry's speech. Zhao's co-producer Frances McDormand and Best Actress winner discussed a desire to work. And of course, when faced with documentaries about the fight for disabled rights, prison abolition, and government corruption, they’d rather go with an octopus documentary that’s about *THEIR* search for meaning in life as well. Some of these wins revealed an Academy that likes to talk but when push comes to shove they’re going to assume that everyone else is voting for Chadwick Boseman so they can cast their vote for Anthony Hopkins. Just like when Bart ran for Class President: "One for Martin, Two for Martin..."

Which brings us to the historic Best Actor fuck-up. I think it’s worse than the La La Land screwup. Well, maybe not for the La La Land people. The La La Land/Moonlight screw up was a mesmerizing cultural moment we all got to be a part of. But this was the opposite. It was a depressing tease. Instead of honoring a dead, black superstar who was just coming into his own they gave it to his opposite (an old, white industry vet) at the last minute, but they did so in a way that was completely devoid of context. It wasn't just Chadwick Boseman that got robbed -- we were.  And you’d never know they made the right choice in honoring Anthony Hopkins as the oldest acting winner ever. This ceremony revealed an Academy that seemed surprised to be shown their own taste.

Calling it right now: next year's ceremony theme will be "A Return to Glamor," a meaningless phrase that they doll out whenever they hit a wall. The host will be Billy Crystal, same sentiment. 
"How's the despair?"
ksrymy
Adjunct
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Contact:

Re: 93rd Oscars: Ceremony Discussion

Post by ksrymy »

Just popping in to say that not having clips for acting categories is always a horrible decision. The average viewer at home has likely not seen all the nominees.

I thought they wouldn’t do it again after the awful 12-minute segments from 2009 where former winners described the roles of each nominee before announcing the winners, but I guess I was wrong.

I like that they tried to humanize everyone and show how they got their start, but I’ll take clips every time.
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: 93rd Oscars: Ceremony Discussion

Post by Big Magilla »

Uri wrote:Hello people. I just felt the need to briefly say that this may have been my all-time favorite Oscar show. Not perfect, but visually great looking, swift, and elegantly, as if offhandedly, adapting to current restrictions, or rather relishing in the opportunity to blow up old, pompous traditions these restrictions bring. And the final two awards were particularly joyous (haven’t seen Day, but out of the four I saw, this was the right outcome) and the big, fat letdown at the end was just perfect. Yes – my favorite film quote is “Isn't life disappointing?” (And I felt Boseman’s turn was simply not worthy of an award).

(The Nadir of the show for me – why bother bringing Marlee Matlin to present an award only to disown her of her voice by not actually showing her presenting the nominees?)

See you next year.
Uri, I agreed with your take on the show to a point., but what they did with the In Memoriam reel was disgusting. That song guessing game was almost as tacky as the hillbilly tourists brought in from the street a couple of years back and could have been cut to make room for a decent Memoriam segment.

I wasn't bothered by the shakeup of having Best Picture before Actor and Actress, but as I've said, they should have known that Hopkins could win Best Actor and wouldn't be there to accept if he did, which would and did close the show with a dud. It would have been much better to close with Best Actress as both Tee and I have said.

Not sure what you mean about Marlee Matlin. I thought speaking through her interpreter was her choice even though she can speak when she wants to.

And, next year starts today in Oscar world, so stick around. That goes for everyone else who only come around once a year on Oscar night like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
taki15
Assistant
Posts: 541
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:29 am

Re: 93rd Oscars: Ceremony Discussion

Post by taki15 »

I said from the beginning that there shouldn't have been an Oscar ceremony this year. They were literally challenging their fate.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: 93rd Oscars: Ceremony Discussion

Post by Mister Tee »

Big Magilla wrote:To be fair, I don't think they banked on Boseman winning so much as they knew a large portion of the audience cared more about the two top acting awards than Best Picture and might turn the show off after they were given out.
But they could have ended on best actress, which -- going in -- was the FAR more suspenseful race. Any producer who understood structure would have known to do it that way, The ONLY reason to climax with best actor was because they thought Boseman had it nailed and it was going to be as tearful as "This is Mrs. Norman Maine". It was a colossal miscalculation.

I'm too tired from my party to do a full autopsy, but I'll 1) echo danfrank and say how good it is to hear from Uri, yet 2) disagree with his take on the show. Our whole (smaller this year) crowd thought it was the worst show ever. You had an ending with double-barreled excitement -- when last have so many people go tboth best actor and best actress wrong? -- yet it landed with an absolute thud because of producer ineptitude. (Not to mention it followed a cringeworthy -- the word my brother texted me -- session of Name That Tune, apparently designed to make Glenn Close look like a buffoon, which took up 10 endless minutes at a point in the show when everyone wanted to just cut to the chase.)

More fully spewed bile tomorrow.
danfrank
Assistant
Posts: 908
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Fair Play, CA

Re: 93rd Oscars: Ceremony Discussion

Post by danfrank »

Uri wrote:See you next year.
I hope it won’t be a year until we hear from you again. I’ve missed your voice.
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: 93rd Oscars: Ceremony Discussion

Post by Uri »

Hello people. I just felt the need to briefly say that this may have been my all-time favorite Oscar show. Not perfect, but visually great looking, swift, and elegantly, as if offhandedly, adapting to current restrictions, or rather relishing in the opportunity to blow up old, pompous traditions these restrictions bring. And the final two awards were particularly joyous (haven’t seen Day, but out of the four I saw, this was the right outcome) and the big, fat letdown at the end was just perfect. Yes – my favorite film quote is “Isn't life disappointing?” (And I felt Boseman’s turn was simply not worthy of an award).

(The Nadir of the show for me – why bother bringing Marlee Matlin to present an award only to disown her of her voice by not actually showing her presenting the nominees?)

See you next year.
Franz Ferdinand
Adjunct
Posts: 1457
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: 93rd Oscars: Ceremony Discussion

Post by Franz Ferdinand »

Big Magilla wrote:Had Hopkins actually been there to give a speech, it would have ended better than it did. They should have anticipated a possible win for him and switched Best Actor and Actress to guarantee that the last winner of the night would be there.
Just imagine Frances's speech capping off the evening (which in essence it did, I suppose).
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: 93rd Oscars: Ceremony Discussion

Post by anonymous1980 »

Big Magilla wrote:To be fair, I don't think they banked on Boseman winning so much as they knew a large portion of the audience cared more about the two top acting awards than Best Picture and might turn the show off after they were given out.
Filipino awards shows have done this before and for this very reason. I was surprised that the Oscars did it. I've only seen it done in Filipino awards shows.

As for the show itself, I don't think it was that bad. I think they made a show that's inaccessible to anyone who isn't already a fan or is invested in it already. I can see casual viewers being bored by this.
Post Reply

Return to “93rd Academy Awards”