Sourpusses

email this story
read comments (18)
post a comment

Every year comes the post-Oscar sourpuss reviews. But it didn't feel boring or torturous to me. You sit there and watch the damn thing and absorb the win-lose drama for just over three and a half hours, and then it's over and you figure who got the best scores and won the most money. I don't see the problem. Eat the chips and the dip and down a few beers.

Columnists always bitch about this and that. This presumably leads to a certain sharpening and honing, and perhaps a slightly better show next year. But last night's was far from painful. That Errol Morris nominee-interview reel was pretty good; so was the Michael Mann montage that tried to show how America portrays itself in its films. I liked the Dreamgirls musical number, even.

Yeah, it was clunky or oddly edited or poorly paced here and there. It was flat or cornball or unsuccessful in this and that fashion. But it's the Oscars...what do the sourpusses expect? And what's so long about three hours and change?

I didn't have a big issue with host Ellen DeGeneres. She seemed relaxed within her talk-show host skin -- confident, bright, quick, chatty. I would have preferred someone nervier and willing to use a sharper scalpel, but DeGeneres simply isn't that person. The patter on the Oscar show is never that brilliant or urbane or off-the-cuffy (except for the occasional zinger like George Clooney's remark about Jack Nicholson and Al Gore drinking backstage), but it never grated.

The people who produce the Oscar show are seemingly hired for their industry relationships as much as their vision about how the show might play. The producers (Laura Ziskin, Gil Cates) are always in their upper 50s or 60s or beyond. I hate ageism, but if the people doing the hiring wanted to really spunk things up, they'd have to hire someone younger and a bit hipper....but it never happens.

I don't think the Oscars are supposed to be that all that brilliant or dazzling -- they're meant to be slick and eye-poppy and just hip enough so that no demo- graphic feels terribly burned. I think that more or less happened last night with Ziskin's show. No one at the party I attended seemed all that repelled by it. I wasn't, I can tell you.

Not with Murphy to the end<< previous | next >>Hammmond on Oscar results

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 26, 2007 at 1:55 PM

comment #1

wayne76 says ...

As much as I love Chris Rock and Jon Stewart, those guys kind of seemed out of place when they hosted. Ellen was perfect. She excels at award shows. I thought she was outstanding. Sure, a bit vanilla and toothless, but she's easy to like, and she's got timing to burn. I don't need satire, just steer the ship, and make me laugh occassionally.

Posted by wayne76 at February 26, 2007 2:05 PM

comment #2

Mike Schaefer says ...

"3 hours and change"? On my clock it was nearly 4 hours, actually. And it doesn't need to be THAT long.

I though DeGeneres was fine. Celine Dion was unnecessary (was that song written for "Once Upon a Time in America" and then not used?). What I don't get, year after year, is the need to pad the show with "clever" montages (no matter who creates them) and then yank the winners off in mid-speech in the interest of saving 30 seconds. If they really want a 3-hour show, don't overload it with trivia. Show the montages on the website, it's the 21st century, folks.

Posted by Mike Schaefer at February 26, 2007 2:09 PM

comment #3

Craig Kennedy says ...

Who actually sits glued to the TV from minute one until the credits roll anyway? If you don't like the montages (I do, sue me) then get up and go to the bathroom or feed the dog or make love to your spouse. Something. Anything. It's not like there's going to be a test at the end of the broadcast.

Same thing for any other part someone doesn't like: tech awards, songs, skits etc. Everyone hates something and something is always hated by someone. You can't please everyone.

I thought Ellen was perfect. She didn't reinvent the comedy wheel but that shouldn't be her job. Just keep it moving and keep it light. She was great.

I think some of these people like Shales had their Oscar snipe pieces pre-prepared and they just filled in the blanks. He's being all populist because of the perception that most people didn't see most of the nominated films.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at February 26, 2007 2:18 PM

comment #4

thatrader says ...

I'm going to agree with wayne76 here. If the montages come at the expense of seeing the actors nominated getting no more than a single sentence out in their clips and getting their speeches truncated, they should be the first thing to go, not what we are actually watching the Academy Awards for.

Posted by thatrader at February 26, 2007 2:34 PM

comment #5

Fudge Ripple says ...

Is there more time devoted to montages because the Academy is trying to sell "the movies," and, with so much now available on DVD, is trying to entice viewers to rent or buy the classics? As thatrader pointed out, I really notice how short the nominee clips have become -- you get no sense at all of the work if you haven't seen the film already.

Posted by Fudge Ripple at February 26, 2007 2:48 PM

comment #6

MarkVH says ...

Best postmortem column line of the day came from Cintra Wilson at Salon:

"Best actress winner Helen Mirren was regal, splendid and inspiringly fuckable without even a "for her age" qualifier."

Too right.

Posted by MarkVH at February 26, 2007 2:51 PM

comment #7

christian says ...

there's nothing worse than the oscar whiners.

i heard the sad pathetic nikki finke on a right wing station calling it "hell."

o what a tiny world.

and i love the montages.

cut out the songs and commercials.

Posted by christian at February 26, 2007 3:04 PM

comment #8

Craig Kennedy says ...

As I've said elsewhere, let the speeches be longer. Limiting them ensures any opportunity for spontaneity or genuine human emotion will be quashed and really how much time are you saving? Plus, it sucks when there is more than one recipient and the 2nd guy to the microphone gets played off before he can open his mouth.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at February 26, 2007 3:08 PM

comment #9

JD says ...

"Columnists always bitch about this and that."

Nobody knows this better than Jeff.

And the Michael Mann montage only really showed how Michael Mann (and his friends) portray America in movies. I'm a big Michael Mann fann, but he's not enough of a movie expert to put together one of those montages. And who picked Nancy Meyers to put together a tribute on writers, not to mention reuniting the cast of Something's Gotta Give to present best picture.

In general, I'm fairly positive about Oscar shows -- even when I'm disappointed by the results -- but last night's show didn't do much for me. Ellen's jokes were laborious and not worth all the effort (what was with the vacuuming bit?) and the montages/tributes had no emotional resonance. Compare last year's Altman tribute to this year's Morricone tribute. I love Morricone, but whoever put that tribute together clearly does not know his work very well.

Posted by JD at February 26, 2007 3:16 PM

comment #10

erniesouchak says ...

The ceremony went down smoothly, though I could have seriously done without the baffling Michael Mann montage. WTF???? These seem like nothing more than time-wasters. I'd rather see them give the winners 30 seconds more per speech; it's just embarrassing how they play them off the stage.

The Black-Ferrell-Reilly number was the highlight.

Posted by erniesouchak at February 26, 2007 3:16 PM

comment #11

T. S. Idiot says ...

I worship Mann, but his the clips in his montage seemed random, few having anything to do with the stated theme. Since Morricone was giving a prepared speech for a pre-announced award, why not use subtitles? The hostess was not as bad as I expected, but too often she simply seemed to be saying, "Look at me. Aren't I pleasant?" Where does it say that only comedians can host the Oscars anyway? What about Clooney or Downey?

Posted by T. S. Idiot at February 26, 2007 3:25 PM

comment #12

dobbsy says ...

I was in the Kodak and I loved the show. I dreaded the idea of Ellen hosting and I thought she was better than anybody since Steve Martin. I'd love for her to come back. I queried about 20 people today who saw it on TV. They all loved the show. Here's the secret: you have to love movies to love the show!

Agree, Mann was lame, but I liked the writers montage and LOVED the foreign film montage. And the comedy trio singing was terrific. The silhouette troupe was terrific. The set was elegant and beautiful. The two kid presenters were wonderful. Yes, let the speeches run and cut somewhere else, like SO MANY FRIGGIN' COMMERCIALS!!!!!

But all in all, a warm, friendly, smart show made for movie fans of all stripes, sophisticated and mainstream, foreign and domestic.

The whiners like the Finkster have nothing around the house to reach for but axes. They think that's their job. THEY are the ones who are boring.

Good job, Academy and of course it didn't hurt that I LOVED the results!

Just sorry Mel Gibson didn't have the cojones to show up and annoy everyone...

The three best films of the year were LIVES, PAN'S and APOCALYPTO. Two out of three ain't bad...(isn't that what Meat Loaf said?)

Posted by dobbsy at February 26, 2007 3:43 PM

comment #13

Craig Kennedy says ...

You see there Dobbsy? Once in awhile we agree on something. The Foreign Film montage was superb. And it IS all about loving movies, isn't it? The dog and pony show is just gift wrapping.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at February 26, 2007 4:07 PM

comment #14

vulgar71 says ...

I liked it. And I don't know why people complain about the show being long. It's always long! Every major award show is long. That's their nature.

Posted by vulgar71 at February 26, 2007 4:28 PM

comment #15

Sean says ...

The reason it felt long was that there were several times when there was only one award given out between commercials. The thing is, they consider montages, random speeches, extended clips from Best Picture, and shadow puppets, all to be distinct things, when really, to me, they're all "not Oscars". So, a lot of times, you're waiting for them to get to an award, then they go to a commercial...

Posted by Sean at February 26, 2007 5:36 PM

comment #16

christian says ...

just let the winners fucking speak!

Posted by christian at February 27, 2007 9:50 AM

comment #17

KamikazeCamelV2.0 says ...

Yeah, it was annoying that they did so many montages and bits and bobs yet people got ushered off stage after a measly, what? 45 seconds? And the clips? Especially for Supporting, they were insulting. Barely anything. Abi Breslin's clip was a scream. And even that was cut off so they could cut to her smiling in the audience.

Posted by KamikazeCamelV2.0 at February 27, 2007 8:15 PM

comment #18