95th Oscars General Ceremony Discussion

[Big Magilla]

I love musicals, but I don’t love My Fair Lady. It isn’t my favourite Lerner/Loewe musical (that would be Brigadoon and can listen to “I Loved You Once in Silence” from Camelot endlessly), nor my favourite stage musical of 1956 (Most Happy Fella), nor my favourite movie musical of 1964 (Mary Poppins or Umbrellas of Cherbourg). I find Cukor’s direction cinematically inert and think it’s three-hour runtime a slog to get through [yes, I’ve seen a restoration]. I don’t find any of the performances of that much attention. That said, I’ll also be honest and say I deliberately chose My Fair Lady for the reasons Reza and danfrank cite. The fact that it was an important stage production in New York/London is true but not relevant to film quality. The cast recording was a massive hit and the Broadway show became the longest running show at that time, but again, that’s not the film being a masterpiece (if the adaptation of shows that ran the longest on Broadway all won best picture, Hello Dolly! Wins in 1969; Fiddler on the Roof in 1971; Grease in 1978; A Chorus Line in 1985; Phantom of the Opera in 2004 and of course, Cats in 2019 – and I don’t think anyone of us would prefer that universe). The casting decisions took up oxygen and the film was hugely successful at the box office (2nd to Mary Poppins), of course. I know the stage show was such a massive success that it’s impossible to imagine another film winning best picture, but is it just historical context that makes it seem reasonable?

That's a good point. Life with Father was the longest running show on Broadway in the 1940s and the film version was, and to some extent still is, beloved, but I've never understood why. It's pretty dopey and neither William Powell, who won the NY Film Critics award and was Oscar nominated for it, nor Irene Dunne, who are among my favorite actors of the era, were anywhere near their best in it so I can understand people feeling the same way about My Fair Lady. To those who saw the show on stage, as I did in 1960, it was a glorious reconstruction, not a scene-by-scene retread. If you've never seen it on stage, it is just as you imagined it from listening to the cast recording which wasn't the biggest selling album of its day for nothing. 1964's film critics, though, preferred Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, which as many times as I've tried to appreciate it, always falls short for me.

Of the other musicals you mention, the film version of Fiddler on the Roof comes closest to being on the same level but had stronger competition at the Oscars from Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, Bogdanovich's The Last Picture Show, and the winner, Friedkin's The French Connection which aside from the chase scenes really wasn't all that great to begin with.

Hello, Dolly! doesn't work because of its leading lady who was much too young to bring it off. It would not have been nominated except for the big push Fox gave it in one of its last attempts at repeating its former glory. Grease, aside from its obviously too long in the tooth cast, suffers from the inability of most of its cast members to be able to dance, which is why you don't see their feet in most of the production numbers. A Chorus Line is ineptly directed by Richard Attenborough. The Phantom of the Opera was decent enough, but the reason it lasted so long on Broadway and probably in London as well, was because repeat audiences went for the chandelier. Cats was just plain dumb.

The original cast recording of Brigadoon is sublime but the studio bound film version is not, besides which they leave out some of the best songs from the score. The film version of Lerner and Loewe's Camelot is disappointing, but there is a DVD of the 1982 Broadway revival that was done for TV that is thrilling in the way that the film should have been. The film version of their Paint Your Wagon which destroys the concept of the stage show by making it about a ménage-a-trois instead of a father and daughter and her beau, works in spite of itself. Lee Marvin couldn't sing but with the Yale Men's Chorus helping him out he almost convinces you that he can, and Clint Eastwood, who couldn't sing either, almost makes you believe he can. Fortunately, they had Harve Presnell to sing "They Call the Wind Maria" the way it was supposed to be sung.

[OscarGuy]

I will certainly co-sign the don't-love-Guillermo's-Pinocchio stance. I found Puss in Boots much more enjoyable and even when it didn't work (the anime-esque fight sequences), I still found inherently more compelling than Pinocchio. And I think it's the music and songs from the film that really sour me on it. It's beautiful to look at, but those songs are terrible and the music is one of the worst things I've ever heard out of Desplat. I'm not surprised it wasn't cited by the Academy.

[Okri]

Obviously, we don’t all know it…

I love musicals, but I don’t love My Fair Lady. It isn’t my favourite Lerner/Loewe musical (that would be Brigadoon and can listen to “I Loved You Once in Silence” from Camelot endlessly), nor my favourite stage musical of 1956 (Most Happy Fella), nor my favourite movie musical of 1964 (Mary Poppins or Umbrellas of Cherbourg). I find Cukor’s direction cinematically inert and think it’s three-hour runtime a slog to get through [yes, I’ve seen a restoration]. I don’t find any of the performances of that much attention. That said, I’ll also be honest and say I deliberately chose My Fair Lady for the reasons Reza and danfrank cite. The fact that it was an important stage production in New York/London is true but not relevant to film quality. The cast recording was a massive hit and the Broadway show became the longest running show at that time, but again, that’s not the film being a masterpiece (if the adaptation of shows that ran the longest on Broadway all won best picture, Hello Dolly! Wins in 1969; Fiddler on the Roof in 1971; Grease in 1978; A Chorus Line in 1985; Phantom of the Opera in 2004 and of course, Cats in 2019 – and I don’t think anyone of us would prefer that universe). The casting decisions took up oxygen and the film was hugely successful at the box office (2nd to Mary Poppins), of course. I know the stage show was such a massive success that it’s impossible to imagine another film winning best picture, but is it just historical context that makes it seem reasonable?

Again, speaking as someone who rated Everything Everywhere All At once 7th of the ten best picture nominees, had All Quiet/Pinocchio fourth of the foreign/animated films and generally had a shit night with my personal picks.

[criddic3]

Stewart faced maybe the toughest competition in his best years: Donat (or Gable) with Mr. Smith, March with Wonderful Life, Jack Lemmon in the Anatomy year (the Academy made a truly indefensible choice there). That's how he ended up winning for one of his least distinguished nominations. (Though he's still pretty good in Philadelphia Story.)

I think the best defense of giving it to Heston was that he was part of the Ben-Hur sweep. The film was a monster success, and Heston received some of the best reviews of his career for that performance. He was also still fairly new on the scene, having only made his feature debut in 1950. Personally, I think he should have been at least nominated again once or twice in later years, but not everyone likes him as an actor. However, I would agree that if it hadn't been a sweep, Lemmon or Stewart would probably have won instead.

Dustin Hoffman - The Graduate

no, I think Steiger was much more deserving than Hoffman that year. Too bad Sidney Poitier wasn't nominated, as well.

[Reza]

It was not an innovative winner the way Midnight Cowboy would be just 5 years later, but those comfortable/comforting winners (see Coda just last year) have won far more often than the films that move cinema forward.

Well if one is being moved forward by the likes of EEAAO today then I's rather opt for the incredible static comfort of the old and very reliable My Fair Lady

[danfrank]

My Fair Lady hasn’t aged particularly well, but I agree with Reza that it’s important to look at it in historical context. My Fair Lady was enormously popular for years before the film came out. Throughout the second half of the 1950s the cast recording was a monster hit, becoming the best-selling album of all time up to that point. Millions of people knew the lyrics to those songs without ever having seen it on stage, so the anticipation for this film was through the roof. With the elements that both Reza and Magilla describe below and in an age when musicals reigned, its best picture credentials were never in doubt. It was not an innovative winner the way Midnight Cowboy would be just 5 years later, but those comfortable/comforting winners (see Coda just last year) have won far more often than the films that move cinema forward.

[Big Magilla]

People who only know My Fair Lady from the faded prints of old VHS tapes of forty years ago wondered what all the fuss was about, but the eye-popping restorations of the last ten years of so were supposed to have changed that.

Unless you're one of those people who doesn't like musicals in general, there is nothing boring about the cleverness of the songs or how they're used in the production. The costumes, the sets, the cast, including lovely Audrey, are all perfection.

[Reza]

(we all know that My Fair Lady is a lumbering bore of a film, right?)

Well yes, if you see it through the eyes of someone who totally omits historical context and ignores the importance of its stage production in NY and London and how those reflected on the film version, the casting decisions involved for the film - Grant vs Harrison & Andrews vs Hepburn, the importance of Cecil Beaton's contribution, the unforgettable score and the final product which is nothing but the camera capturing the play but done with an opulence missing on stage. All those factors played a huge part in the film's success back then. And remains so for many of us who grew up around it. The performances are pretty much flawless - even Hepburn is quite breathtaking in retrospect although she was unfavourably compared to Julie Andrews. Yes it plods but remains an important film adaptation of a legendary stage musical. And despite its 3-hour runtime it is never boring.

[Eenusch]

I want to say that a mid-March Oscar show is just right in terms of timing. I felt the pace of this awards season was good – not rushed or interminable.

I had time to see all the pictures that got nominated – important when there are 10 best pics.

AMPAS voters aren’t rushed to make quick judgments when deciding their selections which is important, especially for the nominations round.

The precursors are spread out evenly and anticipation has time to build.

An April Oscar show is too late but moving it up to mid February or even late January is not advisable, either.

[Okri]

Justin Chang wrote a fairly interesting article in the LA Times

I'm baffled why the producers would choose to distribute both supporting Oscars so early in the evening. There are only so many (metaphorical) face cards among the 23 awards, and dealing out 2 of them among the first 3 prizes made for a close to 3-hour gap between them and the next awards most care about. Is the idea that the inattentive need to be grabbed in those opening minutes, and this is the only way to do it? I get giving one of them really early on -- that's a long-standing tradition -- but both seems ridiculous scheduling.

Yeah, that was a really weird decision. The upside is that it dashed my hopes quite expertly as I didn't think Curtis was winning in anything other than a sweep (though she was my 5th to Bassett in fourth, so I couldn't even take that minor pleasure)

By the time we got to best actress, it seemed almost impossible for Michelle Yeoh to lose, and that proved out. I'm sorry I couldn't be as excited for her as her deepest fans are. I just can't overlook the fact that a legendary performance was passed over in favor of something that made people feel good. Last year, I'd have had no trouble enjoying her win.

You know, this might be a sign of just how "online" I am, but I probably wouldn't have been able to enjoy a Blanchett victory. The backlash would have been ferocious. The actual insults people threw at Michelle Williams for having the temerity to campaign lead (and get nominated) over Deadwyler/Davis was staggering to me and I think the vitriol of her beating Yeoh would have been daunting to wade through. Heck, even reading Entertainment Weekly’s anonymous ballots commenting on Blanchett was disheartening [and made me wonder why I’m an Oscar obsessive).

I know, I've had halfway complimentary things to say about Everything Everywhere, but I warned I could turn cranky if I felt it was over-rewarded. Sadly that came to pass. The whole thing makes me feel just a bit old. I get the feeling, for many younger/Internet folk, this film's victory is what Midnight Cowboy's was for my generation: a sign that we were storming the gates, pushing aside the fusty tastes of our predecessors. I'd like to be more enthusiastic, but I just can't muster it up for what I see as an ultimately trivial film.

And

I turned off the show feeling disappointed. There are far worse films than EEAAO to have won Best Picture, but it felt like none of the major winners were truly the best of the year. Reza is right that sentiment played a huge part in the selection of the acting winners. It’s as if the Academy is more interested in telling a story than in selecting the best of the year. I know this is nothing unusual when it comes to the Oscars, but it’s nevertheless disappointing.

I find it interesting Tee mentioned Midnight Cowboy, because that film crossed my mind when thinking about forebears to this win in terms of something just utterly different winning. The film/race this year reminds me of the most is the Slumdog Millionaire year, though. I don't think I've seen a film dominate the guilds the way it did (it won with literally every guild). Now, I love Slumdog Millionaire - I think I saw it five times in theatres - and was absolutely delighted by its success. That said, I've gotten less excited about sweeps or throwing yet another Oscar at the already minted (though there are exceptions). So even Cate Blanchett, who’s probably given my favourite performance of those nominated 6 out of 8 times (yeah, I know)… I’m at the point where I’d probably only vote for her if I could take away a previous win (I’ll give you Tar, but let’s give her win for The Aviator to Laura Linney or Virginia Madsen).

The thing is that EEAAO is so attuned to the zeitgeist it almost seems wrong for something else to win. Those victories rarely age that well and seem weird from a distance, but I think been anything else winning was unimaginable in context (we all know that My Fair Lady is a lumbering bore of a film, right?)

I've certainly been disappointed on that score many times over the years, but I don't know that the standard has ever felt further away than it has over these past few, post-Parasite years. It can come back, of course -- as a recovering Catholic, I'll always hold out hope of redemption. But keeping the faith requires flashes of reassurance. And this year's awards simply didn't provide me any.

I remember asking you and Big Magilla how you stuck with the Oscars for as long as you did. I think it was after the Green Book/Bohemian Rhapsody cloacae of a year (but it might have been after last year’s shit stain of a show). That said, I’ve found the 2016-2022 stretch to be quite exciting. In context where we see critics and cinephiles really examining the canon and what shapes it, some of the nominations and wins we’re seeing are gratifying.

[Mister Tee]

Stewart faced maybe the toughest competition in his best years: Donat (or Gable) with Mr. Smith, March with Wonderful Life, Jack Lemmon in the Anatomy year (the Academy made a truly indefensible choice there). That's how he ended up winning for one of his least distinguished nominations. (Though he's still pretty good in Philadelphia Story.)

[Greg]

Stewart, if he only won one as he did, should have won for It's a Wonderful Life, but he should have had a second for Anatomy of a Murder.

I think the Academy did make the right choice as, for me, Frederic March just edged out Jimmy Stewart that year. Although, having to choose between March and Stewart that year is kind of like having to choose between Gregory Peck and Peter O'Toole a decade-and-a-half later.

[Big Magilla]

Greatest performances and what they should have won for aren't necessarily the same thing. They might be if multiple awards were given sans ties, but they aren't.

In my opinion:

Hepburn's four should have been for The Philadelphia Story, Summertime, Long Day's Jurney into Night, and The Lion in Winter. They were also her greatest performances.

Davis's two should have been for Jezebel (not her best performance but the best of the competition) and All About Eve. Her greatest performances were in Now, Voyager and All About Eve.

Lemmon's two should have been for Mister Roberts and Glengarry Glen Ross but his greatest performances were in Some Like It Hot and The Apartment or if you want to differentiate between early and late performances then The Apartment and The China Syndrome.

Newman should have won for The Verdict and Nobody's Fool late in his career, The Verdict if only one. His greatest performance, though, was in Hud when he was up against Sidney Poitier whose narrative in addition to a very good performance rightfully overwhelmed the Oscars at that point.

Tracy should have won for San Francisco and The Last Hurrah. His greatest performances were in The Last Hurrah and Judgment at Nuremberg.

Nicholson did better than most by Oscar. He won for three of his best performances. He should have won for Chinatown, of course, but if he could only win for three, I would replace Terms of Endearment with that.

Pacino should have won for Serpico, although his greatest performance was in Godfather II.

Bergman should have won for The Bells of St. Mary's, Anastasia and Autumn Sonata if just three, but I love that she won for Murder on the Orient Express for which should have been the third for four. Her greatest performance, though, and the one that I've watched more than any other was in Notorious.

Hoffman should have won for Midnight Cowboy as well as the two for which he later won. His best performances were in Midnight Cowboy and Tootsie.

Stewart, if he only won one as he did, should have won for It's a Wonderful Life, but he should have had a second for Anatomy of a Murder. His greatest performances were too numerous to lower to just one or two. In addition to those mentioned, he was also perfect in Rear Window, Vertigo, and the underrated Shenandoah.

Henry Fonda, if just one, should have The Grapes of Wrath, but On Golden Pond should have gotten him a second one.

Jane Fonda for Klute if just one, The China Syndrome if given a second.

Moore for Far from Heaven, which was also her greatest role to date.

Blanchett should have won a third for Tár, but her first two should have been for Notes on a Scandal and Carol.

Lawence should not have won at all, but Winter's Bone was indeed her best performance to date.

Some winners such as Glenda Jackson, Kate Winslet, and Michelle Williams gave their greatest performances to date on television, Jackson in Elizabeth R, Winslet in Mare of Easttown, and Williams in Fosse/Verdon. Their greatest screen performances were in Sunday Bloody Sunday, The Reader, and Brokeback Mountain, respectively.

[Reza]

Shoulda won for instead of for the one they did:

Katharine Hepburn: Summertime but also deserving for The Lion in Winter
Clark Gable: Gone With the Wind
Spencer Tracy: Adam's Rib, Father of the Bride or The Last Hurrah
Bette Davis: All About Eve
James Stewart: Mr Smith Goes to Washington
Joan Fontaine: Rebecca
Ingrid Bergman: Autumn Sonata
Humphrey Bogart: Casablanca
Jack Lemmon: Some Like It Hot
Jack Nicholson: Also for Chinatown
Dustin Hoffman: The Graduate or Midnight Cowboy
Henry Fonda: The Grapes of Wrath
Paul Newman: The Hustler or Hud
Al Pacino: The Godfather but in the lead category
Jennifer Lawrence: Winter's Bone
Julianne Moore: Far From Heaven

[Mister Tee]

. . . but I don't think anyone thinks Bette Davis or Katharine Hepburn won in their finest hours.

I think Hepburn gave one of her best performances in The Lion In Winter. I haven't seen Davis' Jezebel.

I don't much like Lion in Winter, but, purely by default, it's clearly the best of Hepburn's four victories. I think most would gravitate toward Alice Adams, The Philadelphia Story, or Long Day's Journey. Summertime is also worth consideration.

As for Davis, Of Human Bondage or All About Eve would probably top most critics' lists, though I'd slip in Now, Voyager (despite how ridiculous the movie is). Jezebel is at least a credible credit; Dangerous, less so.