82nd Academy Awards -- The Show

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

Johnny Guitar wrote:Did anyone know if Michael Haneke was in attendance?
He was there, and I had my eyes on him when the Argentinian director rose from his seat. He turned to the person sitting on his left and made a gesture like "You see?".
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

Oh well, historically, you are right, definitely - but for example Homer or even the Romantics of the XIX century lived in a different context, so I was referring to contemporary artists, and to wars - like this one or Vietnam or others - which HAVE to be condemned by an artist. Maybe "war" is a generic term, maybe I should have said "invasion" - and I know perfectly well that during, say, II World War opposing Hitler was an important issue, and rightly so, for many artists in America and Europe, but that's not the kind of war I was referring to obviously. Yet another word would have a lesser meaning, and I think in this historical moment "war" is still the one we should use, and that speech was very offensive (and again - why did they all applaud?).
User avatar
Johnny Guitar
Assistant
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Post by Johnny Guitar »

I thought the awards show did not go well ... but the awkwardness made the evening enjoyable anyway. All the presenters associated with Twilight and other youth culture stuff just seemed out of place ... but that's the demographic they're going for at the Oscars, these days.

Best acceptance speech - Sandy Powell.

Best shot of the night - Samuel L. Jackson looking like he was about to whistle.

Funniest choice of awards presenters - there were too many, but Kathy Bates introducing Avatar and Jackson introducing Up seemed particularly inspired in their randomness.

Sad omission for the snarky viewer - no Brendan Frasier making hilarious clapping gestures.

Did anyone know if Michael Haneke was in attendance?




Edited By Johnny Guitar on 1268056490
User avatar
Johnny Guitar
Assistant
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Post by Johnny Guitar »

ITALIANO wrote:If you are a true artist - and especially , though this is a cliche, I admit - a woman artist, you can't, I repeat CAN'T, get an Oscar and talk about war, especially THIS war, without clearly condemning it; a politician, or a talk show host, can praise at length our soldiers-heros (responsible of massacres, humiliations, killings) in Afghanistan or Iraq, but an artist can't. An artist must have a wider vision of things, and point out what's wrong in our society - Italian society even (can you imagine an Italian artist saying the same things about our "innocent" armies in the Middle East? Impossible). I know, they voted THAT director for THAT movie exactlly for THOSE reasons - but that doesn't make it more acceptable, and I'm surprised that some applauded those words.

You don't think there were, and are, 'true artists' who support war, or are otherwise celebratory of its heroism? (Or what they see as its heroism?) Mind you I don't disagree with your precise sentiment with respect to Bigelow's speech - it just seems to me you're couching it in historically naive terms, which is unusual for you.
Cinemanolis
Adjunct
Posts: 1187
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 9:27 am
Location: Greece

Post by Cinemanolis »

ITALIANO wrote:If you are a true artist - and especially , though this is a cliche, I admit - a woman artist, you can't, I repeat CAN'T, get an Oscar and talk about war, especially THIS war, without clearly condemning it; a politician, or a talk show host, can praise at length our soldiers-heros (responsible of massacres, humiliations, killings) in Afghanistan or Iraq, but an artist can't. An artist must have a wider vision of things, and point out what's wrong in our society - Italian society even (can you imagine an Italian artist saying the same things about our "innocent" armies in the Middle East? Impossible). I know, they voted THAT director for THAT movie exactlly for THOSE reasons - but that doesn't make it more acceptable, and I'm surprised that some applauded those words.
Totally agree.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

Not a great show, but a good one, and though I don't know if others have pointed this out (I haven't read this thread yet) MUCH better than last year's.

As I predicted, the intros to Actor and Actress, done with former co-stars of the nominees, felt more honest, and were funnier. In the "applause contest" of one year ago nobody here except me said what was painfully obvious - we got twenty (TWENTY) endless speeches full of empty words, so banal that honestly I was ashamed for the writers (and for all those here who approved): "You are great, you are brilliant" etc. A bad moment - and I know that most of you now agree with me. It's not like this year we got Kierkegaard and Schopenauer, but with a few exceptions the quality was higher and - can I say one thing without being killed? - a bit less "American" (in the worst sense of the word - it was very American in the positive one: sense of show business, etc).

I've seen better Oscar nights of course. For example, I didn't know half of the presenters: cute faces without a name, could have been anyone, really. But this might me just my problem.

It was, of course, a terrible Oscar night for the outcomes, but then we knew most of them already, so it was less shocking. Even the speeches were for once mostly bearable, with one exception.

If you are a true artist - and especially , though this is a cliche, I admit - a woman artist, you can't, I repeat CAN'T, get an Oscar and talk about war, especially THIS war, without clearly condemning it; a politician, or a talk show host, can praise at length our soldiers-heros (responsible of massacres, humiliations, killings) in Afghanistan or Iraq, but an artist can't. An artist must have a wider vision of things, and point out what's wrong in our society - Italian society even (can you imagine an Italian artist saying the same things about our "innocent" armies in the Middle East? Impossible). I know, they voted THAT director for THAT movie exactlly for THOSE reasons - but that doesn't make it more acceptable, and I'm surprised that some applauded those words.
Hustler
Tenured
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires-Argentina

Post by Hustler »

The show was better than imagined.
The best actor/actress segment was even better than the previous one (I mean, last year) because they included the nominated performances on film. They could have done the same with the supporting perfromances.
The In Memoriam segment was incomplete.
Honorary Oscars should have been recognised on stage
Where were the Old Hollywood glories?
I liked the hosts. They were fresh and funny.
Hustler
Tenured
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires-Argentina

Post by Hustler »

Reza wrote:
anonymous wrote:- I'm glad they gave Lauren Bacall and Roger Corman a standing ovation.
They should have been brought on stage instead of being made to stand down below. Didn't seem right at all.
I couldn´t agree more! One of the big errors of the night.
mlrg
Associate
Posts: 1747
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by mlrg »

Didn't like the show. It was bland.

Best joke of the evening: The Christoph Waltz joke about hunting jews in the opening monologue.

Meryl Streep looked stunning and should be elevated to Goddess level

Can't stand Sandra Bullock

The John Hughes tribute was the most akward thing I hace ever seen since I watch the oscars live (since 1992)

Was it me or George Clooney looked pissed all night long?

The Secret in their Eyes winning made the night for me!




Edited By mlrg on 1268050754
Franz Ferdinand
Adjunct
Posts: 1457
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Post by Franz Ferdinand »

bettestreep2008 wrote:It was a fine show - but whether having Taylor and the coughing girl and Miley will bring in the younger fans - I don't know.
"The coughing girl" AHAHA too funny. Actually she was half good in Into The Wild.

But it was a cheap stunt, the teen starlets were inappropriate and tacky accessories to what should be a regal affair - people watch the Oscars to see Movie Stars, glitz and glamour and unapproachability, not passing teen flavors. What poor taste to include them based on no merit at all.
Franz Ferdinand
Adjunct
Posts: 1457
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Post by Franz Ferdinand »

anonymous wrote:- I'm glad they gave Lauren Bacall and Roger Corman a standing ovation.

- I think Alec and Steve were fine as hosts. The Paranormal Activity gag was kind of funny.
- That standing ovation felt really awkward, like a third of the audience decided to stand, and the rest meekly followed, with very polite applause. I am sure Miley Cyrus was confused as all hell as to who these people are.

- It was, and the cut to them on the couch in Snuggies during Tyler Perry's editing intro was even better.

- Nobody has mentioned Tyler Perry's intro to editing. I laughed.
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

As a screenwriter friend of mine wrote on Facebook about the icky introductions of the lead performance nominees:

More testimonials as to their fine characters and intentions? What the hell does this have to do with achievement?
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10748
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

I'm lapsing into unconsciousness after two hot toddies and a head full of strep. I haven't read the other comments but here goes...

I was not expecting this to be a good show but it was. There are a few things I didn't like, but all in all everyone involved turned this into a solid cultural event that it skirted at being last year. No horrible musical numbers, more clips, Best Picture sequences interspliced...this was a broadcast of solid presentation choices. Every broadcast is always laden with little shames and quibbles, but this one has the fewest. It was a strong show. I hope next year they actually have their Honorary presentations there and they nix the tribunals.
"How's the despair?"
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Oh standing in one of the boxes, to be adored from below.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Post by Reza »

anonymous wrote:- I'm glad they gave Lauren Bacall and Roger Corman a standing ovation.
They should have been brought on stage instead of being made to stand down below. Didn't seem right at all.
Post Reply

Return to “82nd Nominations and Winners”