Monday, March 8, 2010

It's Finally Over: How to Save the Oscar Telecast

Every March I anticipate the most relevant film night of the year and aside from maybe one or two instances, I've ended Sunday disappointed. I'm not even talking about the results, always open for debate. For what it's worth my biggest gripes came involved the writing categories (both Inglourious Basterds & Up in the Air were upset in the original & adapted screenplay groups) and the unexpected domination of The Hurt Locker, a solid, respectable, sometimes exciting film that defeated a handful of better ones. No, I'm here to save the actual telecast, which should be fun but ultimately bores even the most enthusiastic of film buffs. They tried to make things move faster this year, but it still clocked in around 3.5 hours. So here are 5 suggestions that would not only shorten the award fiasco, but make for a smoother, more entertaining show as well.

1) GET RID OF ALL UNNECESSARY PRESENTERS: The most resisted idea on my list is also the most important. Random presenters add almost nothing to the show, serving only to pad the running time by at least 30-45 minutes I'm guessing. "And here to introduce sound mixing is Sigourney Weaver . . ." Who cares? Another problem with the endless introductions, poor quips, and slow walks to the stage is that they limit our enjoyment of the hosts who were hired presumably for a reason. Steve Martin couldn't have been onstage more than 15 minutes last night, but I laugh aloud at least a dozen times when he was. Alec Baldwin looked far less sure of himself, but he improved as the night went on and they had good chemistry. Their exchanges were sharp and well-written and their delivery excellent. Why not simply keep them near the stage all night? They can announce categories much quicker and might even entertain us a little in the process. It seems like a simple idea and I know old school Hollywood types believe it to be a night about the stars, but isn't that what all the red carpet crap is for anyway? At the very least this should be an experiment next year just to see how the show runs. Thus we are left with only the chosen host(s) and specifically chosen presenters who serve some actual purpose, such as the 80s stars who presented the John Hughes tribute.

2) SHORTEN THE ACTING AWARDS: Last year for the first time they had 5 previous Oscar winning actors announce the new winners, filled with lengthy reactions to the nominees' performance and careers. It was nice thought, but it really padded the running time. This year was even worse. The press has already filled hundreds of magazine pages and websites with stories surrounding Jeff Bridges and Sandra Bullock. It must've taken 25 minutes to get through best actor/actress last night which is insane, and leaves the producers short on time and audiences falling asleep. The anti-climactic nature of the best picture announcement with Tom Hanks taking maybe 12 seconds total was ridiculous. Time to return to the old format in which they show a scene from each actor's film and move on.

3) NO MORE SONG AND DANCE NUMBERS: Not everyone will agree with this, but I say leave the singing and dancing to the Grammy's and Tony's. They got this 1/2 right last night, eliminating live performances of the best song nominees, but then contradicted themselves by having strange dancers act out certain films. Their first instinct was correct. And James Taylor's performance was about as out of place as that sort of thing can be. This brings up a huge pet peeve . . .

4) STOP DESTROYING THE MEMORIAL TRIBUTE: How this is hard is beyond me. In almost all previous years, they have an edited tribute up onscreen representing actors/directors/writers/producers, etc. the academy had lost in each respective year with a carefully chosen piece of music (usually from a film) to accompany it. In back-to-back years now, someone idiotically thought it'd be smart to feature a live performance, a bad idea both in principle and execution. For starters the cameraman never seems to know whether to focus on the musician (WRONG) or the slideshow (DING DING DING), leaving the audience struggling to see parts of the segment. We at home (about 99.999999999999% of the viewers) missed the first 30 seconds or so as well as the end. Furthermore, it confuses the audience response for those actually there in person (when to clap, when not to, etc.) and cheapens the whole experience. And if they act on my earlier ideas from this blog, they wouldn't even have to cut out the dozens of performers (Zelda Rubenstein, Bea Arthur, Farrah Fawcett, etc...) who get ignored due to time constraints. I hardly think the memorial tribute is the point of the show to cut seconds or even minutes.

5) BACK TO 5 NOMINEES: Ultimately as predicted, having 10 really did nothing except cheapen the actual victory for the night's winner. It's easy to see where the line was drawn (the 5 nominees would've been The Hurt Locker, Avatar, Precious, Up in the Air, & Inglourious Basterds). By the way, was it really necessary to mention the full name and adaptation for Precious every time it came up last night? Boom, there's another 5 minutes saved. I'm a genius. From an advertising standpoint, I understood the 10 nominees, but that's about it. Up was winning animated feature regardless and Bullock won anyway for The Blind Side, so no reason for either in the best picture category when there was no shot for either. And I'm certain A Serious Man, An Education, and District 9 did little to boost ratings.

Maybe I will print this blog and send it to The Academy of Motion Picture & Sciences in Hollywood, signed a concerned movie fan. Maybe an intern with a single brain cell will look up from his morning coffee and proclaim "Hey, this kid's right! These changes will trim the show by a full hour!" Maybe a higher-up will eventually get around to reading it. Maybe I will receive public credit for single-handedly saving the Oscar ceremony. And maybe years down the road when I'm old and gray, they can mess up a special tribute to me by having it presented by Miley Cyrus' daughter. Or better yet, they can forget all about me in the memorial segment, leaving me slapping my forehead from heaven.

Monday, March 1, 2010

Oscars 2010: What Will, Should, and Should've Won

With less than a week remaining before the big show, it's time to distinguish the contenders from the pretenders. This year's Oscar telecast has promised some changes, first and foremost the expansion of the best picture category to ten nominees in hopes of including more popular hits as a way to increase viewership. This theory, combined with the unexpected runaway success of Avatar, seems to have paid off. People outside the industry are talking about the awards for the first time in years. Whether or not doubling the field of nominees damages the prestige of winning best picture is another matter (I say it does to an extent). I am looking forward to co-hosts Steven Martin and Alec Baldwin, two of the funniest actors in the world, to provide some wit and improvisation for a show that will undoubtedly run too long. I am also anticipating the tribute to John Hughes, whose loss this year is immeasurable to all movie fans who came of age during the 1980s (my personal memorial tribute to 2009 will be posted shortly). But on to the business at hand. Last year I correctly picked 19 of 24 categories, but this year is tougher save for the acting categories. I'm hoping to get about 17 right this time around. In addition to predicting which film will win, I offer which film would be my pick (in major categories), as well as an alternate nominee that was ignored by the academy in most categories.

Briefly, I'll predict the 5 categories in which I've never seen any of the nominated films. These are the categories that killed me last year, so let’s go to the officials for the coin toss . . .

Best Foreign Language Film - The White Ribbon
Best Documentary Feature - The Cove
Best Documentary (Short Subject) - Rabbit a la Berlin
Best Short Film (Live Action) - The New Tenants
Best Short Film (Animated) - French Roast


Five more categories that sometimes prove problematic are the unpredictable best song category (didn't see any of the nominees), art direction (which I have only a vague understanding of), and cinematography, sound editing, and sound mixing (in which the criteria seem to change from year to year).

Best Original Song - 'The Weary Kind,' Crazy Heart
Best Art Direction - Avatar
Best Cinematography - The Hurt Locker
Best Sound Editing - Avatar
Best Sound Mixing - Avatar

Quick Note: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is actually nominated for best sound mixing, immediately rendering Michael Bay's fiasco the worst film EVER nominated for an Oscar. This spot should've gone to Michael Mann's highly stylized depression-era gangster flick, Public Enemies.


The next six categories are easier to judge both due to simpler measures and the fact that I've seen enough films to judge adequately. I'll also offer a snub in all remaining categories . . .

Best Animated Feature Film - Up: One of the night's easier picks, I'd vote for it for the 15 minute opening montage alone, one of the best sequences ever committed to an animated feature. Fantastic Mr. Fox is the only possible spoiler here. Actually, this category seems more or less correct, though I did have a soft spot for Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (also the year's goofiest title).

Best Costume Design - The Young Victoria: This seems to have all the prerequisites of a winner in this category; Over-the-top dresses (check). British film (check). Hot chick on the film poster (Emily Blunt, double-check).
SNUB: Where the Wild Things Are, which somehow managed the impossible task of recreating the wild monsters from the children's classic down to every minor detail, satisfying the childhood memories of all viewers. I'd pick this to win as well.

Best Makeup - Star Trek: This is probably the film's best shot at a technical win, earned on the basis of Zachary Quinto's Spock and Eric Bana's Nero.
SNUB: District 9, an impressive achievement in its depiction of the slow species transformation of our hero. But I’d still vote Star Trek.

Best Visual Effects - Avatar: Actually this may be the single easiest pick of the night. Avatar not only showcased astonishing visuals, but the immersive experience was like nothing we've seen before, especially in 3D
SNUB: 2012, which was more believable in it's depiction of ocean disaster than all but a few films in history. The film's action centerpiece, an apocalyptic destruction of California, was simply awesome. In any other recent year, this would've been my pick, but Avatar deserves all the technical awards that are coming.

Best Film Editing - The Hurt Locker: One of the night's tougher races. I could see either Avatar or Inglourious Basterds stealing this one (and the latter would be my pick), but expect a win for Kathryn Bigelow's taut tale of bomb diffusing soldiers. I'd be ok with it.
SNUB(s): Taken, which used the Bourne formula to create some of the most excitingly choreographed fights in years. Crossing Over, the little seen L.A. set drama of interlocking racial stories also warranted recognition.

Best Original Score - Up: A very nice score, though perhaps not up to the best of Disney/Pixar. Avatar could play the role of spoiler, but the nomination for The Hurt Locker is ridiculous here.
SNUB(s): Star Trek is the only 2009 score that I remembered vividly weeks after seeing the film. Its absence invalidates the category. Public Enemies featured a dynamic score while the theme to Where the Wild Things Are perhaps best matched its visuals.


Finally, we've arrived at the night's "Big 8." On to the writers . . .

Best Original Screenplay - Inglourious Basterds: 2009's most audacious, original script by far and since it's unlikely to earn Oscars for the film or its director, this would seem an appropriate place to reward it. However, the growing momentum of The Hurt Locker could steal this one, which would be a shame. Everything I remember about that film involved the dramatic tension and the visual experience. It wouldn't have made a list of my 10 favorite 2009 scripts though. The Messenger, Up, and the Coen Brothers' A Serious Man (consistently interesting, but lacking the vivid characterizations of their best works) round out the group. All should probably be happy just to be nominated.
SNUB(s): (500) Days of Summer & Adventureland, both wonderful romantic comedies filled with wit and 3-dimensional characters. The former used an unorthodox chronological structure to find its emotional core within its main character (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt), while the latter balanced humor with a pronounced sense of time and place. Greg Motolla (Superbad) also deserves credit for convincing me that Kristen Stewart is actually a fine actress with the right material.

Best Adapted Screenplay - Up in the Air: I'd probably be more irritated with a different choice here than in any other category. The script was the film's single greatest asset and provided complex material that not only had something important to say, but gave its three lead actors a number of rich scenes with which to make their mark. I didn't really get In the Loop (maybe it's a British thing, although I loved last year's In Bruges) and District 9's allegorical story was topical, if unspectacular. Nick Hornby always writes well so I assume An Education was strong, while the haunting tale of Precious is probably the runner-up, though still a long shot to Up in the Air's topical story of corporate downsizing.
SNUB: State of Play, which was screwed by an early release date last spring. Probably 2009's best adult thriller, the film was adapted from a complex British miniseries to an intelligent two hour offering with strong characters and few, if any, plot holes.

Best Supporting Actress - Mo'nique, Precious: The comedian has swept every major critic's prize so far, giving me no reason to predict a win for anyone else. She was horrifying as the kind of mother most of us will never have to know, but this wasn't merely a caricature and the film's final scene was a powerhouse. Maggie Gyllenhaal, a surprise nominee for Crazy Heart, and Penelope Cruz are fill-in names because there has to be five nominations (nobody seemed all that thrilled with Nine). Still, Cruz's nomination is impressive considering she won in this same category last year. Both Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick were terrific in Up in the Air, but they will likely split any votes, eliminating the possibility of an upset. Kendrick is the more likely spoiler, though Farmiga would be my personal pick here.
SNUB(s): Zoe Saldana (Avatar), whose performance becomes difficult to judge without knowing exactly where the actor's job ends and the visual component begins. But as are our fiery guide into a dazzling world, Saldana brought energy and intensity to a film that needed both. And as Inglourious Basterds tough, bilingual heroine Shosanna, Melanie Laurent carried much of the film's 2nd half as a Jewish theater owner plotting her own survival in Nazi-occupied France.

Best Supporting Actor - Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds: "That's a Bingo!" As unbeatable as Mo'nique, Waltz performance was arguably the most impressive of 2009. Alternately menacing and goofy, speaking in multiple dialects, he instantly created my favorite complex movie villain in several years. His competition includes the constantly overlooked Matt Damon (Invictus), veteran great Christopher Plummer (with his first career nom. for The Last Station), and Stanley Tucci, one of the few constant positives in Peter Jackson's messy adaptation of The Lovely Bones. (Tucci was equally impressive opposite Meryl Streep in Julie & Julia). Then there's Woody Harrelson, who enjoyed a career resurgence in 2009, offering memorable supporting work in The Messenger (nominated here), 2012, and most notably Zombieland. As a monster hunting, Twinkie craving, Bill Murray fan, Harrelson's performance in the latter will stand the test of time. It's arguably the funniest thing he's ever done. But Waltz is the easy and deserving pick.
SNUB(s): 2009 featured a surprising number of strong comedic ensembles, from which three performers stood out; I Love You, Man's Jason Segel achieved 3-dimensionality as needy potential best man Sydney Fife; World's Greatest Dad's obnoxious teenager Daryl Sabara managed to steal several scenes away from Robin Williams (also good), & The Hangover's Zach Galifianakis turned heads with his turn as the strangest bachelor buddy in the year's runaway comedy smash. His pre-evening toast and subsequent blood oath was one of 2009's best onscreen moments.

Best Actress - Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side: By most accounts, a strong, solid performance against type for the actress best known for romantic comedies (shades of Julia Roberts' win a decade ago for Erin Brockovich, also based on a true story/character). Momentum seems to be in her corner, the biggest obstacle being the most nominated actor (male or female) of all-time. Meryl Streep submitted another stellar year (also noteworthy for It's Complicated) and seemed to effortlessly become famed chef Julia Child right before our eyes. And yet, I've been more slightly impressed with other roles by Streep in recent years (Adaptation, The Devil Wears Prada, etc...) that didn't win. I suspect she'll eventually win a third Oscar. The other nominees include The Last Station's Helen Mirren (who won this category for The Queen in 2006), An Education's 24 year-old Carey Mulligan, and Precious' abused title character, Gabourey Sidibe. Sidibe's work was heartbreaking and will likely leave the longest lasting impression (and would be my pick). But despite the strong field, this is a two-horse race. Factor in the popularity of last summer's The Proposal (this stuff matters) and it's Bullock's to lose, though should Streep win I wouldn't complain.
SNUB: Maya Rudolph, Away We Go, who for my money gave both the best and more unexpected female performance of 2009. Best known for her work since 2000 on Saturday Night Live, Rudolph brought depth and warmth to her role as Verona, a pregnant illustrator searching for a new home with her significant other Burt (John Krasinski, better than ever) whom she refuses to marry. The pair had great chemistry in the year's most underrated film.

Best Actor - Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart: 'The Dude' is due. A few months ago nobody even knew what Crazy Heart was, so the late surge was unexpected in a race previously led by George Clooney for Up in the Air. But all momentum points to Bridges, the respected veteran, whose versatile work over the years has now led to five Oscar nominations. I really need to see this film. Until then my personal pick is Clooney, who gave the best performance of his career and put to rest once and for all any detractors who see him only as a movie star. Unfortunately, he won a supporting Oscar just four years ago for Syriana, so it's going to be a while before he earns another. But on the basis of Michael Clayton and now this, he's heading in the right direction. Morgan Freeman has been one of the best actors alive for decades, but few saw his turn as Nelson Mandela. Colin Firth is supposedly terrific in A Single Man, but fewer people saw that than Invictus. The Hurt Locker's Jeremy Renner is the final nominee and there are whispers he could upset Bridges. A win for Renner would be shocking and disappointing. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing bad about his lead work in the no-nonsense war drama. I just didn't find it the least bit memorable and in fact thought the film's better performance was given by costar Anthony Mackie. But "The Dude abides."
SNUB(s): Two names stand out for different reasons. A Serious Man's Michael Stuhlbarg gave one the year's most unique performances as an uptight, socially awkward Jewish professor looking for life's meaning in the Midwest circa 1970. I've never seen a character quite like Stuhlbarg's Larry Gopnik and given the surprising support for the film, he seemed like a possibility. Then there's Robert De Niro, who quietly submitted his best performance in nearly a decade in Everybody's Fine. There seems to be an inescapable stigma surrounding De Niro these days that's he's lost whatever ability he once possessed. Though he's made some questionable script choices in recent years, this wasn't one of them. I can't help thinking had his role as a traveling widower and father of four been played by the likes of Jack Nicholson, audiences would've taken notice. Most critics praised his work, but the film's abysmal box-office obliterated any chance of a nomination.

Best Director - Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker: History is in the air. A win for Bigelow (James Cameron's ex and incidentally much too good looking for him) would represent the first time a female director has ever taken this category. The Hurt Locker was intelligent and intense, two qualities which often don't go together. It also avoided driving a message down the audience's throats, which may be Bigelow's ace-in-the-hole. If she loses it will be to Cameron, who managed to surpass enormous expectations for his epic Avatar, a sound story encompassed by enough technical razzle-dazzle to match a dozen summer event films. A backlash has already begun (as befalls any film that succeeds to this degree), though I can't recall a single person giving negative feedback after experiencing this film on the big screen. Whether Cameron wins or loses (he already has a directing win for Titanic), I have no doubt that Avatar will inspire a following long after Bigelow's film has faded from memory. Jason Reitman (Up in the Air), Lee Daniels (Precious), and Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds) round out one of the most impressive directing fields in years, with the 'Basterds' auteur delivered his most satisfying entertainment since Pulp Fiction. I wouldn't argue with supporters of any of the five, but my vote would ultimately go to Cameron.
SNUB: J.J. Abrams, Star Trek, though I'm reaching here since the directing nominations were about as on target as they could've been. But Abrams did a hell of a job rebooting the iconic franchise, appeasing older fans while creating an entertainment fast-paced enough for newcomers. It's the only 2009 movie I've seen three times and with each subsequent viewing I become more convinced it's one of the decade's best blockbusters. I've heard directors claim that if they cast a film right they're half-way home. Bull's-eye!

Best Picture - Avatar: Let’s get one thing straight right away. There aren't really ten nominees that can win this award. There are five and they match the nominees in the previous category. The five bonus picks were A Serious Man, Up, The Blind Side, An Education, & District 9. The only one I could see stealing a relevant number of votes is Up, but since that will be rewarded in the animated category, it's no real threat. Precious is a perfectly respectable drama with moments of real power, but it doesn't have nearly enough support to challenge for the top prize. Neither does Inglourious Basterds, which for every ardent supporter who claims it the year's best, there is another who completely dismisses it on the basis of its over-the-top violence and enthusiasm for fictionalizing history. Up in the Air stands the best chance of making this is three-way competition, a throwback to older Hollywood entertainments that depended most on writing and acting. But there's also a widespread belief that an entertainment this breezy is too light for the top prize (see Jerry Maguire, Good Will Hunting, Little Miss Sunshine, etc). This leaves us again with the heavy hitters. I suspect this could be one those rare years where the best picture winner does not match best director. Hollywood loves to reward commerce and large-than-life epics. Avatar happens to be both. It also boasts a "wow" factor unseen in years. Sure, we occasionally marvel at a scene in a movie and ask "How did they do that?" But Avatar sustained that audience response for nearly three hours. The Hurt Locker may win and many are predicting it will. It's a good film, but there are better ones in this category. Should The Hurt Locker take best picture I suspect it will eventually be regarded more in the realm of a Crash or Chicago, films that resonated for a short time and eventually prompted 2nd guessing. I'm actually not sure how I'd vote if given the opportunity. For me Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, and Up in the Air stood apart from everything else released in 2009, but I suppose it's a cheat to conclude this endless post without a prediction in the top category. So I'll go with the only one to inspire (as of March 5th) a 2nd viewing; Inglourious Basterds
SNUB: Away We Go, my favorite small film released in 2009. It's harder to find a big omission with ten nominees, which promised something animated (check), a big studio hit or two (check), and a couple of quirky independent films (check). But I did believe the academy would lean towards humor with so much wiggle room. Sam Mendes' truthful dramedy is my favorite film yet from the man behind American Beauty & Road to Perdition.

Now go out there and win your Oscar pool.