They're afraid of being "old." apparently, and that fear manifests itself in a defensive preemption against anyone who dare accuse them of that on the basis of...[gasp]...liking something "old."
OK, so I shouldn't make broad generalizations based on several comments by staffers of "Entertainment Weekly." I really shouldn't. But hey, I can at least point out the comments and complain about them!
Look at the recent double issue with Cuba "Juice" Gooding on the cover and an Oscars Preview section inside. The page with the masthead features selected "staff picks" in response to "My favorite Best Picture Oscar winner is...Go!"
Current lead film critic Chris Nashawaty picks "Casablanca," and of course, this IS the correct answer. It should have ended the conversation, not started it, but it's good to see the guy prove his credentials.
Then Leah Greenblatt says, "I know I sound like an old lady with too much TCM, but: 'All About Eve'..." Since when does praising a consensus classic from the Golden Age of Hollywood render one "an old lady with too much TCM?" Is some millennial going to look at this and go, "Ewww...1950? Hey, lady, tell it to your cat. TCM isn't marvy anymore, dig?" (I really don't know how millennials talk when dissing people with too much TCM)
Come to think of it, what IS too much TCM? I, for one, don't get nearly enough TCM. I don't get it in HD, I don't get as much of it On Demand as I would like, and I am never around when it shows the stuff I really want to see. I envy these mythical ladies with "too much TCM." In fact...at the risk of sounding ungallant, how can you pick out these ladies? I'd like to meet them. Does their skin have a vaguely sepia-tinted pallor? Do their speech patterns resemble Bobby Osbo? Do they...kind of look like Bobby Osbo? Because if they do, then actually count me out. I think.
No, this is one of the oddest references to The Greatest Cable Channel Known to Mankind (I have to use it every so often to preserve the copyright) ever made. It's almost as strange as if someone were to, say, create a TCM Wine Club.
Oh, wait. Never mind.
Anyway, the next two staffers go with "Titanic" and "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King," selections which make me wonder if they need to siphon some TCM from their colleague Leah Greenblatt. Next up is someone who picks "The Best Years of Our Lives" from 1946 and starts her explanation with, "I am not that old."
She's not that old, folks! No worries here. Good thing she reassures us, though, because of course the natural assumption is that anyone who likes something old must themselves BE old. It's the Transitive Playground Theorem of Liking Stuff and People.
What's with all the defensiveness about loving old movies? In fairness, the way the magazine business is, not to mention "Entertainment Weekly's" apparent demographic preference, some of the staffers may well be terrified they will get the axe, "Logan's Run" style, if they out themselves as being over 29.
And yes, I know "Logan's Run" came out in 1976. Don't worry, though. I'm not that old.
Showing posts with label Awards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Awards. Show all posts
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Monday, February 17, 2014
Oscar-nominated movies I actually want to see
I'd give you a full Academy Awards preview, but I don't really know what's going on and I haven't seen any of the movies. What I can do, though, is tell you which ones I actually want to see. Why I will do that is...uh, never mind the why. I just will.
NOTE: I took all films nominated for one of the major categories, including best picture and the acting groups but also things like sound editing, and divided them all into various categories.
MUST SEE
American Hustle
Gravity
Frozen
Her
The Wolf of Wall Street
WANT TO SEE
All is Lost
Nebraska
Prisoners
ALREADY SAW--HEY, HOW ABOUT THAT!
Star Trek: Into Darkness
Iron Man 3
WILL SEE SOON BECAUSE IT'S ON NETFLIX AND I'LL WATCH IT WITH MY KIDS
The Croods
HAVE TO SEE THE FIRST ONE FIRST
Despicable Me 2
AM NOT DYING TO SEE BUT WILL TRY TO SEE EVENTUALLY BECAUSE OF THE PEDIGREE AND/OR THE REVIEWS
Before Midnight
Dallas Buyers Club
Philomena
Captain Phillips
Blue Jasmine
Inside Llewyn Davis
The Wind Rises
Saving Mr. Banks
AM NOT DYING TO SEE BECAUSE, FRANKLY, IT SOUNDS INTENSE AND I CAN'T SEE MYSELF JUST RENTING IT ON A WHIM AT THE REDBOX KIOSK BUT AM AFRAID TO PUT IT ANOTHER CATEGORY BECAUSE IT MIGHT MAKE ME SEEM LIKE A BAD PERSON
12 Years a Slave
MAYBE AFTER I RE-READ THE BOOK
The Great Gatsby
DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS
Ernest and Celestine
The Grandmaster
WHAT THE HELL? IF IT COMES TO NETFLIX, SURE
The Lone Ranger
DON'T NEED TO SEE ANYTIME SOON
August: Osage County
The Book Thief
Lone Survivor
NOPE
Jackass Presents: Bad Grampa
The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug
NOTE: I took all films nominated for one of the major categories, including best picture and the acting groups but also things like sound editing, and divided them all into various categories.
MUST SEE
American Hustle
Gravity
Frozen
Her
The Wolf of Wall Street
WANT TO SEE
All is Lost
Nebraska
Prisoners
ALREADY SAW--HEY, HOW ABOUT THAT!
Star Trek: Into Darkness
Iron Man 3
WILL SEE SOON BECAUSE IT'S ON NETFLIX AND I'LL WATCH IT WITH MY KIDS
The Croods
HAVE TO SEE THE FIRST ONE FIRST
Despicable Me 2
AM NOT DYING TO SEE BUT WILL TRY TO SEE EVENTUALLY BECAUSE OF THE PEDIGREE AND/OR THE REVIEWS
Before Midnight
Dallas Buyers Club
Philomena
Captain Phillips
Blue Jasmine
Inside Llewyn Davis
The Wind Rises
Saving Mr. Banks
AM NOT DYING TO SEE BECAUSE, FRANKLY, IT SOUNDS INTENSE AND I CAN'T SEE MYSELF JUST RENTING IT ON A WHIM AT THE REDBOX KIOSK BUT AM AFRAID TO PUT IT ANOTHER CATEGORY BECAUSE IT MIGHT MAKE ME SEEM LIKE A BAD PERSON
12 Years a Slave
MAYBE AFTER I RE-READ THE BOOK
The Great Gatsby
DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS
Ernest and Celestine
The Grandmaster
WHAT THE HELL? IF IT COMES TO NETFLIX, SURE
The Lone Ranger
DON'T NEED TO SEE ANYTIME SOON
August: Osage County
The Book Thief
Lone Survivor
NOPE
Jackass Presents: Bad Grampa
The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Me writing about the Oscars pretty much just to write about the Oscars
OK, it's a few days after the fact, and maybe everyone has had their say already--darned Internet--but I figure maybe someone, somewhere is curious what I thought about the show. So here goes, and I'll keep it brief:
I did not enjoy the broadcast, but I don't blame Seth MacFarlane as much as I do the production team. To me, no joke the host told was as obnoxious as the self-promotion indulged in through the elevation of "Chicago" to some kind of Modern Classic and, maybe worse, the mid-show shout-out to themselves they scheduled on a show where they cut people's microphones and played winners off with the theme from "Jaws."
I did laugh at some of MacFarlane's jokes, but overall his material seemed stale, and his self-conscious persona didn't help. Part of me wishes the ceremony had a little more class, but then again part of me wonders if it would have been funnier if MacFarlane (and the producers) just said, "Hell with it," went all in, and totally let go. As it was, Seth was at least a hell of a lot more reverent and engaged than James Franco. I didn't particularly need to hear him doing his lounge singer thing, though.
Speaking of that, though, I give credit to Charlize Theron for doing that little dance number right off the bat like that. I'd think most celebrities just want to show up and not have to worry about doing stuff like that. At least they got to do it early and get it over with.
I feel asleep during the presentation of Best Actor and Best Actress, so maybe I missed the best parts of the show. I really had no rooting interest or disinterest in anything, so the show itself needed to come through for me to stay engaged the whole night, especially when I had an awesome "Columbo" episode to watch during commercials and/or musical numbers. When I can't get pumped up for a James Bond tribute, something's wrong.
Speaking of musical numbers, MacFarlane told us the night was a celebration of music in the movies. Isn't that every year? Seriously it feels like every time there is a theme, it is musicals. So they did it again, and yet they still don't perform all the Best Song nominees.
I wasn't offended, as some were, with the Babs Streisand salute to Marvin Hamlisch at the end of the In Memoriam segment so much as I was just irritated she was out there. It did sort of single Hamlisch out somewhat, but I'm sure it was more a case of the producers being all excited about a chance to get Babs to sing. You know what? Every year this segment ticks someone off, and every year they find a way to tinker with it and tick someone ELSE off. I seriously think they ought to just scrap it if they can't just run the names and pics with the orchestra playing a tasteful song underneath.
.Wouldn't it have been funny to see a conversation between Kristen Stewart and Quentin Tarantino that night?
I knew he was old, but I never thought William Shatner looked OLD until Sunday night. That really drained a lot of the potential humor out of that Captain Kirk bit. I was just sad.
It wasn't a disaster of a show, but let me put it this way: When I opened Hulu Monday morning and saw The Oscars was available for streaming, I thought it was a cool thing. After I considered it a few minutes, though, I realized there wasn't anything on the telecast I wanted or needed to see again.
I did not enjoy the broadcast, but I don't blame Seth MacFarlane as much as I do the production team. To me, no joke the host told was as obnoxious as the self-promotion indulged in through the elevation of "Chicago" to some kind of Modern Classic and, maybe worse, the mid-show shout-out to themselves they scheduled on a show where they cut people's microphones and played winners off with the theme from "Jaws."
I did laugh at some of MacFarlane's jokes, but overall his material seemed stale, and his self-conscious persona didn't help. Part of me wishes the ceremony had a little more class, but then again part of me wonders if it would have been funnier if MacFarlane (and the producers) just said, "Hell with it," went all in, and totally let go. As it was, Seth was at least a hell of a lot more reverent and engaged than James Franco. I didn't particularly need to hear him doing his lounge singer thing, though.
Speaking of that, though, I give credit to Charlize Theron for doing that little dance number right off the bat like that. I'd think most celebrities just want to show up and not have to worry about doing stuff like that. At least they got to do it early and get it over with.
I feel asleep during the presentation of Best Actor and Best Actress, so maybe I missed the best parts of the show. I really had no rooting interest or disinterest in anything, so the show itself needed to come through for me to stay engaged the whole night, especially when I had an awesome "Columbo" episode to watch during commercials and/or musical numbers. When I can't get pumped up for a James Bond tribute, something's wrong.
Speaking of musical numbers, MacFarlane told us the night was a celebration of music in the movies. Isn't that every year? Seriously it feels like every time there is a theme, it is musicals. So they did it again, and yet they still don't perform all the Best Song nominees.
I wasn't offended, as some were, with the Babs Streisand salute to Marvin Hamlisch at the end of the In Memoriam segment so much as I was just irritated she was out there. It did sort of single Hamlisch out somewhat, but I'm sure it was more a case of the producers being all excited about a chance to get Babs to sing. You know what? Every year this segment ticks someone off, and every year they find a way to tinker with it and tick someone ELSE off. I seriously think they ought to just scrap it if they can't just run the names and pics with the orchestra playing a tasteful song underneath.
.Wouldn't it have been funny to see a conversation between Kristen Stewart and Quentin Tarantino that night?
I knew he was old, but I never thought William Shatner looked OLD until Sunday night. That really drained a lot of the potential humor out of that Captain Kirk bit. I was just sad.
It wasn't a disaster of a show, but let me put it this way: When I opened Hulu Monday morning and saw The Oscars was available for streaming, I thought it was a cool thing. After I considered it a few minutes, though, I realized there wasn't anything on the telecast I wanted or needed to see again.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
5 Things I Learned Watching the Tonys
1) It's gay, folks: It's beyond trite to comment along the lines OF, "hucks, look at all the homer-sexuals at the Tony Awards," but allow me one observation. This is the first year I watched so much of the show so closely, and I was surprised not at how many presenters were gay, how many honorees were gay, how many performances were gay, but how many people I thought were straight appeared to be gay perhaps by virtue of being on this broadcast. Understand I don't mean "gay" in a pejorative sense here. It's just a very...gay awards show, period. And that's fine. But I had this sense even BEFORE the "It's Raining Men" number.
2) Neil Patrick Harris is awesome: OK, I knew this, but really the Tonys have a winner here in someone who is poised, charming, funny, and versatile enough to provide a useful presence throughout the whole show...and who actually loves Broadway enough to care about it. I assume he has the Oscar-esque Billy Crystal Standing Invitation by now. If he doesn't, who are the Tonys holding out for?
3) Having said that, Hugh Jackman is quite the man, too: And his "Any show you can host, I can host better" routine with Harris was a lot of fun. A dual host format (if not a dueling one) might work. I hope those guys are as self-effacing as they appear and not so egocentric to reject that kind of thing out of hand.
4) There may not be a lot of Broadway plays worth spending all the money on right now: I'm not a big Broadway guy, but my wife and I were talking about what shows we WOULD see if we had the opportunity right now. Part of it is the format of the Tonys, I'm sure, but I didn't see a lot that would make me want to go out and see any of the nominated plays and musicals. The musical numbers were OK, but nothing really grabbed me as a showcase scene that worked well on television to lure me into the theater. Like I said, I'm not a Broadway guy, and I'm not much of a Tonys guy, either, except of course for Tony Soprano, Tony Danza, and sometimes Tony the Tiger when he's not being so damned overbearing. Is this always the case, that the real spectacle just doesn't come across on the telecast?
5) The Tonys matter: When you're watching an awards shown you don't always watch, one celebrating a medium you don't really follow, it's nice to get a reminder that the honor really is meaningful to the recipients. Nikki Reed of "The Book of Mormon" gave a passionate, touching speech that involved a metaphor, heartfelt tributes to family both alive and not alive...and the orchestra playing her off in the middle of talking about a deceased loved one. Real classy! I believe something similar happened later in the show. It's nice to know that getting out in time for the local news is more important than letting the winners express themselves--and on the Tonys as well as on other awards shows.
2) Neil Patrick Harris is awesome: OK, I knew this, but really the Tonys have a winner here in someone who is poised, charming, funny, and versatile enough to provide a useful presence throughout the whole show...and who actually loves Broadway enough to care about it. I assume he has the Oscar-esque Billy Crystal Standing Invitation by now. If he doesn't, who are the Tonys holding out for?
3) Having said that, Hugh Jackman is quite the man, too: And his "Any show you can host, I can host better" routine with Harris was a lot of fun. A dual host format (if not a dueling one) might work. I hope those guys are as self-effacing as they appear and not so egocentric to reject that kind of thing out of hand.
4) There may not be a lot of Broadway plays worth spending all the money on right now: I'm not a big Broadway guy, but my wife and I were talking about what shows we WOULD see if we had the opportunity right now. Part of it is the format of the Tonys, I'm sure, but I didn't see a lot that would make me want to go out and see any of the nominated plays and musicals. The musical numbers were OK, but nothing really grabbed me as a showcase scene that worked well on television to lure me into the theater. Like I said, I'm not a Broadway guy, and I'm not much of a Tonys guy, either, except of course for Tony Soprano, Tony Danza, and sometimes Tony the Tiger when he's not being so damned overbearing. Is this always the case, that the real spectacle just doesn't come across on the telecast?
5) The Tonys matter: When you're watching an awards shown you don't always watch, one celebrating a medium you don't really follow, it's nice to get a reminder that the honor really is meaningful to the recipients. Nikki Reed of "The Book of Mormon" gave a passionate, touching speech that involved a metaphor, heartfelt tributes to family both alive and not alive...and the orchestra playing her off in the middle of talking about a deceased loved one. Real classy! I believe something similar happened later in the show. It's nice to know that getting out in time for the local news is more important than letting the winners express themselves--and on the Tonys as well as on other awards shows.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Aw, shucks
I am the proud recipient of a bona fide MAJOR AWARD, and unlike the one the Old Man got, this honor ain't fragile. I took special care when cutting-and-pasting the jpg, anyway, just to be on the safe side. After all, I don't get awards every day, you know.I must thank pal o' mine and Friend of the Site Ivan Shreve, proprietor of the essential Thrilling Days of Yesteryear, for bestowing this award and offering some much-too-kind words in the process. I am in a rush tonight and am probably violating the spirit, the letter of the law, and the whole darn raison d'etre (how's THAT for some stylish vocab?) by neither revealing more about myself, nor sharing the generous spirit by passing it on to other, undoubtedly more deserving blogs, but I felt it would be rude not to acknowledge Ivan's wonderful gesture. I believe that when a man extends such praise, it is unkind not to at least--aw, heck, who am I kidding, I just wanted to put the award up.
I hope that at some point in the not-too-distant future, possibly even before CBS finishes putting out "Sgt. Bilko" on DVD, I'll pay it forward and fulfill my duties. For now, I just want to say thanks, and welcome to anyone who was lured over to my corner of the web by attending the prestigious awards ceremony at TDOY.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
First Impulse: Emmy nominations
I can't get too worked up about the Emmys, both because I question the credibility of the awards process and because I seldom watch many of the current Emmy faves, so take my comments with a grain of whatever additive you prefer:
*There are some new nominees this year, sure, but overall it still feels like the same crop gets picked year in and year out. Sometimes I'm OK with that, but this year I'm really detached from many of the major choices. "30 Rock," "Monk," and some other shows mean nothing to me. And how does Julia Louis-Dreyfus get nominated every year while her show gets canned every other year?
*This "Glee" nonsense is way out of control. I mean, I said 3 months ago the "Glee" hype was out of control, and now the Emmy Academy (or whoever gives these things out) has given rags like "Entertainment Weekly" an excuse to fawn over this show when it's not even on the air.
*Amusing headlines the morning of the noms proclaimed: "Charlie Sheen Snubbed." OK, if we're talking awards for acting, can any exclusion of Charlie Sheen ever be a SNUB? His best work was in film, and, yes, I'm talking about the old ads he and Jon Cryer did for National Amusement Cinemas reminding us to pick up our trash as we left theaters. "That's a prop, Jake," delivered as he pointed out to the Half Man kid that the hot dog was a fake--ah, that line got me every time.
*Here's who I think should win:
Best Comedy: Modern Family (but I wish "Community" were nominated)
Best Drama: Breaking Bad
Best Actor, Drama: Bryan Cranston, "Breaking Bad"
Best Actress, Drama: Connie Britton, "Friday Night Lights" (I haven't seen this season, but I can't imagine anyone else in this category topping her)
Best Actor, Comedy: Larry David, "Curb"
Best Actress, Comedy: No opinion.
Outstanding Reality/Competition Program: I want to say "anything but Amazing Race" until I actually look at the nominees and realize I dislike every other program in the category.
Outstanding Variety, Music, or Comedy Series: "The Daily Show" ("Saturday Night Live" is the ultimate "legacy nomination")
*There are some new nominees this year, sure, but overall it still feels like the same crop gets picked year in and year out. Sometimes I'm OK with that, but this year I'm really detached from many of the major choices. "30 Rock," "Monk," and some other shows mean nothing to me. And how does Julia Louis-Dreyfus get nominated every year while her show gets canned every other year?
*This "Glee" nonsense is way out of control. I mean, I said 3 months ago the "Glee" hype was out of control, and now the Emmy Academy (or whoever gives these things out) has given rags like "Entertainment Weekly" an excuse to fawn over this show when it's not even on the air.
*Amusing headlines the morning of the noms proclaimed: "Charlie Sheen Snubbed." OK, if we're talking awards for acting, can any exclusion of Charlie Sheen ever be a SNUB? His best work was in film, and, yes, I'm talking about the old ads he and Jon Cryer did for National Amusement Cinemas reminding us to pick up our trash as we left theaters. "That's a prop, Jake," delivered as he pointed out to the Half Man kid that the hot dog was a fake--ah, that line got me every time.
*Here's who I think should win:
Best Comedy: Modern Family (but I wish "Community" were nominated)
Best Drama: Breaking Bad
Best Actor, Drama: Bryan Cranston, "Breaking Bad"
Best Actress, Drama: Connie Britton, "Friday Night Lights" (I haven't seen this season, but I can't imagine anyone else in this category topping her)
Best Actor, Comedy: Larry David, "Curb"
Best Actress, Comedy: No opinion.
Outstanding Reality/Competition Program: I want to say "anything but Amazing Race" until I actually look at the nominees and realize I dislike every other program in the category.
Outstanding Variety, Music, or Comedy Series: "The Daily Show" ("Saturday Night Live" is the ultimate "legacy nomination")
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
My annual rant against the TV Land Awards
TV Land stinks nowadays, blah, blah, blah.
The TV Land Awards are bogus, etc., etc., etc.
If TV Land is gonna give awards to shows like "Love Boat," it ought to actually SHOW some episodes of yada, yada, yada.
OK, I got that out of my system. Now let me contribute a positive comment about the show.
(I just can't get into the mindset to properly dissect the show-closing spectacle of luminaries like David Hasselhoff, Marilu Henner, and Richard Karn--yes, Richard Karn--singing Don't Stop Believin', so let's just forget about it, OK?)
That Tom Hanks showed up to this third-rate blend of nostalgia and blatant attempts to lure younger demos ("Glee" getting an award?) shows what a class act he is. Not only did he attend with castmates Peter Scolari, Holland Taylor, and Thelma Hopkins, he--I think--stuck around and acted like a "regular guy" while they made jokes about how much bigger a star he was. Hanks grabbed his trophy with good spirit and acted happy to be there.
I think that's pretty "Big" of him. Clearly he was the big dog in the room, but he didn't act like it, at least on camera. He did a lot better job of enjoying himself at the awards show than I did just watching it. So I give Tom Hanks an award of my own: The Cultureshark Lifetime Achievement Award for Outstanding Achievement in Livening Up Industry Events While Remaining an All-Around Good Sport. I'll bet if I asked him nicely, he'd visit this blog and accept it, making a gracious and witty speech as he did.
The TV Land Awards are bogus, etc., etc., etc.
If TV Land is gonna give awards to shows like "Love Boat," it ought to actually SHOW some episodes of yada, yada, yada.
OK, I got that out of my system. Now let me contribute a positive comment about the show.
(I just can't get into the mindset to properly dissect the show-closing spectacle of luminaries like David Hasselhoff, Marilu Henner, and Richard Karn--yes, Richard Karn--singing Don't Stop Believin', so let's just forget about it, OK?)
That Tom Hanks showed up to this third-rate blend of nostalgia and blatant attempts to lure younger demos ("Glee" getting an award?) shows what a class act he is. Not only did he attend with castmates Peter Scolari, Holland Taylor, and Thelma Hopkins, he--I think--stuck around and acted like a "regular guy" while they made jokes about how much bigger a star he was. Hanks grabbed his trophy with good spirit and acted happy to be there.
I think that's pretty "Big" of him. Clearly he was the big dog in the room, but he didn't act like it, at least on camera. He did a lot better job of enjoying himself at the awards show than I did just watching it. So I give Tom Hanks an award of my own: The Cultureshark Lifetime Achievement Award for Outstanding Achievement in Livening Up Industry Events While Remaining an All-Around Good Sport. I'll bet if I asked him nicely, he'd visit this blog and accept it, making a gracious and witty speech as he did.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
First Impulse: The Oscars
Whether it's because I don't go out and see the movies like I used to, because of the increasing sense of sameness I get from the telecast, or because I'm slowly turning into a bitter old crank, I get less joy out of the Academy Awards each year. I did see the whole broadcast this year, as always, but I had my laptop at the ready so that during the dull patches--and there were many--I could...uh, do things besides blogging, which I now realize I should have been doing.
There weren't a whole lot of embarrassing moments, but much of the show just didn't work for me. Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin were OK as hosts, but didn't seem to have much impact after the monologue. Is that good or bad? I don't think the host matters that much anymore unless he or she (by "she" I mean Whoopi, of course) is a disaster.
Instead of going through the show and the awards (I was neutral on most of the categories, but I was happy to see Sandra Bullock won and enjoyed her heartfelt speech), let me be semi-constructive and propose the Academy and whoever runs next year's show get rid of the following elements:
*Big opening production numbers: Don't feel you owe us one. We'll be fine if you just go into a monologue...or even break the tension by giving out an award really quick. Seriously, begin the show with a lightning-fast presentation like the one Tom Hanks gave for Best Picture (the guy hasn't moved so fast since he was staying at the Susan B. Anthony hotel and had to scramble into his pantyhose), then go into the hubbub. Why not?
*Interpretive dance numbers: So the producers get rid of the Best Song performances, which people often enjoy, but insist on presenting an interminable series of dance routines "interpreting" the nominated musical scores. Year after year, someone behind the scenes thinks the audience needs some kind of dance number. Year after year, the number is mocked. Here's an easy way to speed up the show--no dance! And if you want to stage a "Footloose"-like rebellion the next year, bring it on.
*Introductions/clips of the Best Picture nominees: Especially now that there are *10* of them, each of these segments brings the show to a crawl. I realize that in a sense the purpose of the Oscars is to sell movies, but by the time the show's on, I know everything I need to know about the Best Picture choices. I don't need an actor to tell me how great it was and then, worse, show a clip. Save the clips for the actual moment of handing out the trophy (not to mention all the bits we see throughout the night in the other categories). Judging from this year's roster, it's not like the show is bursting with huge stars that need places on the show.
*Tribute segments: Not to disparage John Hughes, but I was annoyed that the Lifetime Achievement awards got shoved off camera while this segment got, what, 10 minutes? And please, enough with the "Salute to Horror" type montages. The history of the movies can be celebrated by giving out the lifetime awards again. And I hate to say this, but the In Memoriam feature may not be worth doing at this point if nobody can do it right.
*Actors and actresses kissing each other's asses: The whole "actors introduce the nominees" thing was nice last year as a fresh twist, but this year it seemed bogus. There just isn't a need to do this each year, and it gets awkward seeing all of the presenters pile it on so thick. Then it gets even more awkward when they don't, like Colin Farrell introducing Jeremy Renner: "I met Jeremy on a movie called SWAT. It was cool. It's about fookin' time he got a good part." Let's retire this.
*Barbra Streisand: Why not bump HER off camera and let her host the technical awards or something? At least don't give her a high-profile slot like presenting Best Director, thereby giving her a chance to act like she's some kind of big-shot director herself.
Removing these elements would be a great start toward making a better, crisper, and yes, shorter telecast. With the exception of maybe the ass-kissing presentation gimmick, I don't know too many people who would bemoan the loss of anything on this list.
There weren't a whole lot of embarrassing moments, but much of the show just didn't work for me. Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin were OK as hosts, but didn't seem to have much impact after the monologue. Is that good or bad? I don't think the host matters that much anymore unless he or she (by "she" I mean Whoopi, of course) is a disaster.
Instead of going through the show and the awards (I was neutral on most of the categories, but I was happy to see Sandra Bullock won and enjoyed her heartfelt speech), let me be semi-constructive and propose the Academy and whoever runs next year's show get rid of the following elements:
*Big opening production numbers: Don't feel you owe us one. We'll be fine if you just go into a monologue...or even break the tension by giving out an award really quick. Seriously, begin the show with a lightning-fast presentation like the one Tom Hanks gave for Best Picture (the guy hasn't moved so fast since he was staying at the Susan B. Anthony hotel and had to scramble into his pantyhose), then go into the hubbub. Why not?
*Interpretive dance numbers: So the producers get rid of the Best Song performances, which people often enjoy, but insist on presenting an interminable series of dance routines "interpreting" the nominated musical scores. Year after year, someone behind the scenes thinks the audience needs some kind of dance number. Year after year, the number is mocked. Here's an easy way to speed up the show--no dance! And if you want to stage a "Footloose"-like rebellion the next year, bring it on.
*Introductions/clips of the Best Picture nominees: Especially now that there are *10* of them, each of these segments brings the show to a crawl. I realize that in a sense the purpose of the Oscars is to sell movies, but by the time the show's on, I know everything I need to know about the Best Picture choices. I don't need an actor to tell me how great it was and then, worse, show a clip. Save the clips for the actual moment of handing out the trophy (not to mention all the bits we see throughout the night in the other categories). Judging from this year's roster, it's not like the show is bursting with huge stars that need places on the show.
*Tribute segments: Not to disparage John Hughes, but I was annoyed that the Lifetime Achievement awards got shoved off camera while this segment got, what, 10 minutes? And please, enough with the "Salute to Horror" type montages. The history of the movies can be celebrated by giving out the lifetime awards again. And I hate to say this, but the In Memoriam feature may not be worth doing at this point if nobody can do it right.
*Actors and actresses kissing each other's asses: The whole "actors introduce the nominees" thing was nice last year as a fresh twist, but this year it seemed bogus. There just isn't a need to do this each year, and it gets awkward seeing all of the presenters pile it on so thick. Then it gets even more awkward when they don't, like Colin Farrell introducing Jeremy Renner: "I met Jeremy on a movie called SWAT. It was cool. It's about fookin' time he got a good part." Let's retire this.
*Barbra Streisand: Why not bump HER off camera and let her host the technical awards or something? At least don't give her a high-profile slot like presenting Best Director, thereby giving her a chance to act like she's some kind of big-shot director herself.
Removing these elements would be a great start toward making a better, crisper, and yes, shorter telecast. With the exception of maybe the ass-kissing presentation gimmick, I don't know too many people who would bemoan the loss of anything on this list.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Things to look forward to this weekend
*The return of "24": I'm looking forward to the show's return, but I have to say I can't believe we'll get another season as entertaining as the last one. I think "24" has been pushing its luck for years now, and it can't possibly top last year's delightful over-the-top fun fest, can it? Plus there's the whole 2-night, 4-hour PREMIERE EVENT phenomenon. The Jack Bauer Power Hour is much more well suited for hourlong chunks, and 4 hours over two nights gets a little wearying. And they always have to do this when there's a ton of other stuff on, too, such as...
*Captain Video and his Video Rangers: THIS JUST IN! My good friends in the U.S. Postal Service just added another item to the agenda by delivering the Alpha Video disc collecting 4 episodes of this seminal ("seminal" mans primitive, juvenile, and stagy, right?) 50s kiddie sci-fi show--with original commercials, no less! All I need is a space helmet and I can enjoy this like Ed Norton. I might have to settle for my daughter's giraffe mask. Close enough.
*The Golden Globes: In a previous blogging incarnation, I felt a self-imposed obligation to watch events like this, if not write about them. Not so much anymore, particularly second-rate affairs like the Globes. Still, Ricky Gervais is host is almost enough to keep me watching. I think I'll likely be more dipping in and out of the thing, but his shtick could be an interesting fit for the ceremony.
*NFL Playoffs: Since the Steelers are out (in the sense of never having been in), I can just "enjoy the games." Except when the games stink, as most of them did last weekend. I'm rooting for the Colts, but other than that, I have too many "root againsts" and not enough "root fors" to get all worked up or anything about football right now. So I just hope for an entertaining quarter or two.
*Criminal by Ed Brubaker and Sean Phillips: My pal Mike (he's an even better friend than the U.S. Postal Service) loaned me another issue of this great comic book the other day, and this weekend, it's readin' time! In a culture that overuses the words "gritty" and "noir" to comic results, "Criminal" stands out as the real deal.
*Captain Video and his Video Rangers: THIS JUST IN! My good friends in the U.S. Postal Service just added another item to the agenda by delivering the Alpha Video disc collecting 4 episodes of this seminal ("seminal" mans primitive, juvenile, and stagy, right?) 50s kiddie sci-fi show--with original commercials, no less! All I need is a space helmet and I can enjoy this like Ed Norton. I might have to settle for my daughter's giraffe mask. Close enough.
*The Golden Globes: In a previous blogging incarnation, I felt a self-imposed obligation to watch events like this, if not write about them. Not so much anymore, particularly second-rate affairs like the Globes. Still, Ricky Gervais is host is almost enough to keep me watching. I think I'll likely be more dipping in and out of the thing, but his shtick could be an interesting fit for the ceremony.
*NFL Playoffs: Since the Steelers are out (in the sense of never having been in), I can just "enjoy the games." Except when the games stink, as most of them did last weekend. I'm rooting for the Colts, but other than that, I have too many "root againsts" and not enough "root fors" to get all worked up or anything about football right now. So I just hope for an entertaining quarter or two.
*Criminal by Ed Brubaker and Sean Phillips: My pal Mike (he's an even better friend than the U.S. Postal Service) loaned me another issue of this great comic book the other day, and this weekend, it's readin' time! In a culture that overuses the words "gritty" and "noir" to comic results, "Criminal" stands out as the real deal.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Maybe my final live blogging post of the day
In retrospect, yeah, lots of folks live-blogged the Academy Awards, and, yeah, I might have had a unique idea in waiting till today to do it, but go figure: There just isn't as much to cover two days after a big awards show.
SIGH.
Anyone want to know what I had for lunch today?
SIGH.
Anyone want to know what I had for lunch today?
More live blogging...
Well, there hasn't been any big Oscar stuff going on outside MY window.
Hey, while we're waiting for something, let me say I thought the show was pretty good. I wasn't into the movies this year, so I felt a certain distance from everything, but Jackman was a fine host and the presentation was solid.
There were a few things that bothered me, but nothing that outraged me. Overall, a fine effort with some new ideas. The show is still too long, but it always will be. My advice: Either DVR it or multitask while it's on live.
But that's old news, the day OF the Oscars. I'm covering the Tuesday AFTER the Academy Awards today. Just think, you can keep it right here throughout the day for commentary on all the happenings.
You know, I really didn't think this through.
Hey, while we're waiting for something, let me say I thought the show was pretty good. I wasn't into the movies this year, so I felt a certain distance from everything, but Jackman was a fine host and the presentation was solid.
There were a few things that bothered me, but nothing that outraged me. Overall, a fine effort with some new ideas. The show is still too long, but it always will be. My advice: Either DVR it or multitask while it's on live.
But that's old news, the day OF the Oscars. I'm covering the Tuesday AFTER the Academy Awards today. Just think, you can keep it right here throughout the day for commentary on all the happenings.
You know, I really didn't think this through.
More live blogging the day after the day after the Oscars
So...not much happening right now, at least not that I can tell.
Of course, I AM thousands of miles away from L.A.
Hey, I'll bet some of the big winners from Sunday night are getting up right about now. After all that partying they did, I'd think--wait, this is Tuesday, not Monday. Actually, a lot of them probably got a good night's sleep.
More to come! Keep checking in. I'll be live-blogging this exciting day all, uh, day.
Of course, I AM thousands of miles away from L.A.
Hey, I'll bet some of the big winners from Sunday night are getting up right about now. After all that partying they did, I'd think--wait, this is Tuesday, not Monday. Actually, a lot of them probably got a good night's sleep.
More to come! Keep checking in. I'll be live-blogging this exciting day all, uh, day.
Live Blogging the day after the day after the Oscars
Yeah, I COULD have live-blogged the actual Academy Awards, but I suspected a lot of people were. I wanted to do something different.
Then I was gonna live-blog the day AFTER the Academy Awards, but, uh, I was busy with work and an appointment.
So now today I am in the unique position of live-blogging the day AFTER the day after the Academy Awards. Sure, the show MIGHT be over, but what if it isn't? I'll be right here all day commenting on...
Well, like, if they give out any extra awards, I'll be here.
Just think of all the traditional Tuesday-after-the-Oscars hype and how traditional media is always sleeping on it. Don't worry. I got you covered!
So keep it right here for periodic updates!
Then I was gonna live-blog the day AFTER the Academy Awards, but, uh, I was busy with work and an appointment.
So now today I am in the unique position of live-blogging the day AFTER the day after the Academy Awards. Sure, the show MIGHT be over, but what if it isn't? I'll be right here all day commenting on...
Well, like, if they give out any extra awards, I'll be here.
Just think of all the traditional Tuesday-after-the-Oscars hype and how traditional media is always sleeping on it. Don't worry. I got you covered!
So keep it right here for periodic updates!
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Recall the Article!
"Entertainment Weekly" ran a "special" story a few weeks ago titled "And the Oscar Should Have Gone To..." as part of its "Recall the Gold" project. Given it's mention on the cover (though you can only see the promo text if you can avert your eyes from the amiable YET INTENSE gaze of departing "CSI" guy William Peterson) and the fact that the mag has done this before, I expected it to be a big deal.
It's a fun idea: Ask a bunch of people to go back 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 years ago and "re-vote" in the major Academy Awards categories. This kind of thing goes on all the time in the Internet, and it can lead to spirited discussion and heightened awareness of a wide range of films and performances. "EW" stuck to the nominees that were given, which limited the scope of the exercise, but they surveyed "Hollywood," that is, "agents, producers, directors, actors, and other film professionals." That slant should have given this project some oomph. Each year, when "EW" publishes the ballots of several anonymous Hollywood big shots, the resulting article is one of the most entertaining and insightful pieces you'll see in the magazine all year; the voters really share some unique opinions, and the story gives them adequate space to explain their choices.
I guess I wanted something similar here, but as John Belushi (not nominated for "Animal House" in 1978) would say, "But nooooooooooooooo!"
The whole piece devotes one page to each year of re-voting, and most of each page is taken up by big photos. There's usually a nice, big full-page ad flanking each year, too. There are no comments from the voters and little analysis of any kind. Only one result gets any kind of accompanying written context, and that's merely a few sentences.
Now, at first I saw this as just the latest indication of the recent editorial approach of "Entertainment Weekly," which can be summed up as, "More pictures, less of those pesky words." Sure, the Oscars aren't the most serious enterprise in the world, but still, this kind of concept merited a bit more substance.
When I read the article, though, I quickly discovered another possible reason for the flimsy presentation: Hollywood voted again, and not much changed!
OK, so Geoffrey Rush beats James Coburn this time. Whoopee. Take 5 years times 6 major categories, and you get 30 total awards. Of those 30 re-votes, only 6 1/2 resulted in a different winner--hardly the shocking turnaround suggested by the phrase "Recall the Vote!" (I count 6 1/2 because one re-vote, the 1983 Best Supporting Actress, ended in a tie, with real winner Linda Hunt for "The Year of Living Dangerously" now sharing the honor with Cher for "Silkwood.")
Oh, yes, "EW" also "empowered" its readers by letting them vote online and publishing the winners in teeny print below the results from the Insiders. Maybe here we'd see a fascianting disconnect between the insular Hollywood community and the devoted fans. Uh, no, we wouldn't. Out of 30 winners of the re-vote, the online readers disagreed with 3--not that the story bothered to point that out.
So the whole exercise seems pointless, doesn't it? The vote accomplished nothing, and perhaps because of that lack of change, the article added nothing, and all we ultimately get is another reminder that "Shakespeare in Love" shouldn't have beaten "Saving Private Ryan" in 1998.
And now I'm continuing the cycle of pointlessness by contributing little with this post. But at least it does give me the chance to rip on the "Lord of the Rings" movies by writing that they are overlong bores and that the original voters, the re-voters, and the EW.COM readers are all nuts for picking "Return of the King" over "Mystic River."
If just one key grip had said something like that in this article, it might have been worthwhile reading.
It's a fun idea: Ask a bunch of people to go back 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 years ago and "re-vote" in the major Academy Awards categories. This kind of thing goes on all the time in the Internet, and it can lead to spirited discussion and heightened awareness of a wide range of films and performances. "EW" stuck to the nominees that were given, which limited the scope of the exercise, but they surveyed "Hollywood," that is, "agents, producers, directors, actors, and other film professionals." That slant should have given this project some oomph. Each year, when "EW" publishes the ballots of several anonymous Hollywood big shots, the resulting article is one of the most entertaining and insightful pieces you'll see in the magazine all year; the voters really share some unique opinions, and the story gives them adequate space to explain their choices.
I guess I wanted something similar here, but as John Belushi (not nominated for "Animal House" in 1978) would say, "But nooooooooooooooo!"
The whole piece devotes one page to each year of re-voting, and most of each page is taken up by big photos. There's usually a nice, big full-page ad flanking each year, too. There are no comments from the voters and little analysis of any kind. Only one result gets any kind of accompanying written context, and that's merely a few sentences.
Now, at first I saw this as just the latest indication of the recent editorial approach of "Entertainment Weekly," which can be summed up as, "More pictures, less of those pesky words." Sure, the Oscars aren't the most serious enterprise in the world, but still, this kind of concept merited a bit more substance.
When I read the article, though, I quickly discovered another possible reason for the flimsy presentation: Hollywood voted again, and not much changed!
OK, so Geoffrey Rush beats James Coburn this time. Whoopee. Take 5 years times 6 major categories, and you get 30 total awards. Of those 30 re-votes, only 6 1/2 resulted in a different winner--hardly the shocking turnaround suggested by the phrase "Recall the Vote!" (I count 6 1/2 because one re-vote, the 1983 Best Supporting Actress, ended in a tie, with real winner Linda Hunt for "The Year of Living Dangerously" now sharing the honor with Cher for "Silkwood.")
Oh, yes, "EW" also "empowered" its readers by letting them vote online and publishing the winners in teeny print below the results from the Insiders. Maybe here we'd see a fascianting disconnect between the insular Hollywood community and the devoted fans. Uh, no, we wouldn't. Out of 30 winners of the re-vote, the online readers disagreed with 3--not that the story bothered to point that out.
So the whole exercise seems pointless, doesn't it? The vote accomplished nothing, and perhaps because of that lack of change, the article added nothing, and all we ultimately get is another reminder that "Shakespeare in Love" shouldn't have beaten "Saving Private Ryan" in 1998.
And now I'm continuing the cycle of pointlessness by contributing little with this post. But at least it does give me the chance to rip on the "Lord of the Rings" movies by writing that they are overlong bores and that the original voters, the re-voters, and the EW.COM readers are all nuts for picking "Return of the King" over "Mystic River."
If just one key grip had said something like that in this article, it might have been worthwhile reading.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
First Impulse: Oscar Nominations
Unlike in past years, I haven't seen most of the nominated films, so my reactions aren't so much about who I think should win as about who I might be rooting for or how the nominations affect my desire to see them. I'll admit that, yes, the lure of the Academy Awards does make me more likely to see movies that are recognized--at least for a while. Eventually, it doesn't really matter. I mean, I never did get around to seeing 20004's "Vera Drake," but I'm OK with that.
For many reasons, it's a shame that the big storyline is going to be the late Heath Ledger's all-but-certain win for Best Supporting Actor. I watched "Showbiz Tonight" on Headline News Thursday just to see some Oscar Talk (Don't I have a channel that's supposed to be all about movies? Oh, yes, it's called Reelz Channel, but it canceled its news show a few months ago), and it felt like 85% of the discussion was Ledger talk. I understand that's gonna look like the best angle, especially with a series of "races" that look like foregone conclusions. But it's a disservice to the other films and performers to overlook their work.
Overall, it looks like an uninteresting ceremony, and I think poor Hugh Jackman is walking into a perceived ratings bomb. Maybe I would feel differently had I seen more of these movies.
BEST PIC: Its surprise entry in this category notwithstanding, I still have little if any interest in seeing "The Reader." "Milk" is one of those movies that only interests me because of its rapturous critical acclaim, so I'll eventually see it for that, not necessarily for any awards. "Benjamin Button" might be interesting, but it's so damn long...The only two in this category I may really make an effort to see before the ceremony are "Frost/Nixon," which I really wanted to see, anyway, and "Slumdog Millionaire,' which should be the big winner of the night.
BEST DIRECTOR: No backdoor surprises here, as all 5 Best Picture directors get the spots here.
BEST ACTRESS: I was interested in seeing Angelina Jolie in "Changeling," but did that movie actually even come out yet? Meryl Streep gets nominated for everything. I'll say this: "Doubt" is the kind of movie for which all the acting nominations does pique my interest. I like Anne Hathaway and Kate Winslet, and I know at least one diehard "Homicide" fan who has to be happy for Melissa Leo.
BEST ACTOR: I'm rooting for Mickey Rourke just because he plays a professional wrestler. I really need to see "The Wrestler." I'm sure Frank Langella does a fine job, but whenever I see a notable thespian "do" Richard Nixon, my first reaction is laughter. It's no exception when I see those commercials for "Frost/Nixon."
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Is there any way Ledger doesn't win? Not that I'm complaining; it was a memorable performance that will endure. I haven't seen "Tropic Thunder" yet, but the Robert Downey Jr. nod sure seems like a "We're happy to see your umpteenth comeback" thing and a choice more strictly sentimental than Ledger's.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: No strong opinions here, but I love Amy Adams, I'm glad to see Marisa Tomei follow "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" with another strong role, and I need to see Cruz in "Vicky Christina Barcelona," and not just because she kisses Scarlett Johansson.
For many reasons, it's a shame that the big storyline is going to be the late Heath Ledger's all-but-certain win for Best Supporting Actor. I watched "Showbiz Tonight" on Headline News Thursday just to see some Oscar Talk (Don't I have a channel that's supposed to be all about movies? Oh, yes, it's called Reelz Channel, but it canceled its news show a few months ago), and it felt like 85% of the discussion was Ledger talk. I understand that's gonna look like the best angle, especially with a series of "races" that look like foregone conclusions. But it's a disservice to the other films and performers to overlook their work.
Overall, it looks like an uninteresting ceremony, and I think poor Hugh Jackman is walking into a perceived ratings bomb. Maybe I would feel differently had I seen more of these movies.
BEST PIC: Its surprise entry in this category notwithstanding, I still have little if any interest in seeing "The Reader." "Milk" is one of those movies that only interests me because of its rapturous critical acclaim, so I'll eventually see it for that, not necessarily for any awards. "Benjamin Button" might be interesting, but it's so damn long...The only two in this category I may really make an effort to see before the ceremony are "Frost/Nixon," which I really wanted to see, anyway, and "Slumdog Millionaire,' which should be the big winner of the night.
BEST DIRECTOR: No backdoor surprises here, as all 5 Best Picture directors get the spots here.
BEST ACTRESS: I was interested in seeing Angelina Jolie in "Changeling," but did that movie actually even come out yet? Meryl Streep gets nominated for everything. I'll say this: "Doubt" is the kind of movie for which all the acting nominations does pique my interest. I like Anne Hathaway and Kate Winslet, and I know at least one diehard "Homicide" fan who has to be happy for Melissa Leo.
BEST ACTOR: I'm rooting for Mickey Rourke just because he plays a professional wrestler. I really need to see "The Wrestler." I'm sure Frank Langella does a fine job, but whenever I see a notable thespian "do" Richard Nixon, my first reaction is laughter. It's no exception when I see those commercials for "Frost/Nixon."
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Is there any way Ledger doesn't win? Not that I'm complaining; it was a memorable performance that will endure. I haven't seen "Tropic Thunder" yet, but the Robert Downey Jr. nod sure seems like a "We're happy to see your umpteenth comeback" thing and a choice more strictly sentimental than Ledger's.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: No strong opinions here, but I love Amy Adams, I'm glad to see Marisa Tomei follow "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" with another strong role, and I need to see Cruz in "Vicky Christina Barcelona," and not just because she kisses Scarlett Johansson.
Friday, September 26, 2008
First Impulse: The Emmys
This year, I was out of town during The Emmys and didn't even bother setting the DVR. So I can't comment on the telecast and the ceremony.
Oh, of course I can: The telecast and the ceremony were dull and unappealing, and I feel comfortable saying so even without watching the show.
As for the awards--well, part of the reason I'm uninterested in the broadcast is that the Academy is in a rut of rewarding a lot of shows for which I don't care. Actually, I just plain dislike many of those shows, and unlike the Oscars, the Emmys don't have the kind of overall appeal that make me want to tune in even to see stuff I don't like get shiny trophies.
I'm happy to see the recognition for "John Adams," and Bryan Cranston's win for his entertaining work in "Breaking Bad" is a welcome surprise. Otherwise, many of the big winners leave me cold:
*"30 Rock"--Sorry, not feeling it, and why exactly does the media insist on pushing this when so much of the public has pretty clearly not embraced it? I loved "Arrested Development," but I admitted people weren't watching it. I guess I now know what everyone who didn't watch that show felt.
*"Mad Men"--Possibly worth the hype, but I just haven't seen enough to make the call.
*"Damages"--Nope, not feeling this one.
*"Entourage" and "Samantha Who?"--I just don't find these shows funny.
It's not that I can work up much outrage over these wins, though, because I didn't care for most of the other nominees, either. The fact is, when something as outstanding as "The Wire" gets snubbed each year (Sorry, non-"Wire" watchers, but I gotta say it; maybe THIS is my "30 Rock equivalent"), it lessens the credibility of the process.
Does TV just stink these days? Well, there's a lot of junk, but there's good stuff, too. The problem as I see it is that the Emmys are in a rut of picking favorites early on and then--despite vaunted "changes" in the procedures designed to prevent this--recognizing them over and over again. I bores me, and bringing in 5 reality show hosts to run the ceremony certainly isn't going to inspire me to watch.
Oh, of course I can: The telecast and the ceremony were dull and unappealing, and I feel comfortable saying so even without watching the show.
As for the awards--well, part of the reason I'm uninterested in the broadcast is that the Academy is in a rut of rewarding a lot of shows for which I don't care. Actually, I just plain dislike many of those shows, and unlike the Oscars, the Emmys don't have the kind of overall appeal that make me want to tune in even to see stuff I don't like get shiny trophies.
I'm happy to see the recognition for "John Adams," and Bryan Cranston's win for his entertaining work in "Breaking Bad" is a welcome surprise. Otherwise, many of the big winners leave me cold:
*"30 Rock"--Sorry, not feeling it, and why exactly does the media insist on pushing this when so much of the public has pretty clearly not embraced it? I loved "Arrested Development," but I admitted people weren't watching it. I guess I now know what everyone who didn't watch that show felt.
*"Mad Men"--Possibly worth the hype, but I just haven't seen enough to make the call.
*"Damages"--Nope, not feeling this one.
*"Entourage" and "Samantha Who?"--I just don't find these shows funny.
It's not that I can work up much outrage over these wins, though, because I didn't care for most of the other nominees, either. The fact is, when something as outstanding as "The Wire" gets snubbed each year (Sorry, non-"Wire" watchers, but I gotta say it; maybe THIS is my "30 Rock equivalent"), it lessens the credibility of the process.
Does TV just stink these days? Well, there's a lot of junk, but there's good stuff, too. The problem as I see it is that the Emmys are in a rut of picking favorites early on and then--despite vaunted "changes" in the procedures designed to prevent this--recognizing them over and over again. I bores me, and bringing in 5 reality show hosts to run the ceremony certainly isn't going to inspire me to watch.
Monday, February 25, 2008
First Impulse: Oscar Night Winners and Losers
Instead of just presenting my early unfiltered thoughts on last night's Oscars in a series of rambling bullet points, I'm giving you a rambling list of winners and losers.
WINNER: The Coen Brothers
--Well, duh. But still. They grabbed the biggest awards and provided likable acceptance speeches. It's the ultimate "Screw you" to everyone who hated the ending of "No Country." They've got a few big awards that say they did it just fine.
LOSERS: Cate Blanchett, Alan Menken and Howard Ashman
--"It's an honor just to be nominated." Sure, but it still must bite if you're nominated 3 times in the same category and still lose, a la Menken and Ashman for their "Enchanted" tunes. And while we all think Cate Blanchett is an incredible talent, she still lost twice last night.
WINNER: Those who had to get up for work this morning
--Anytime this broadcast ends by midnight (about 11:47 by my clock), it's a victory for the working stiffs who can't hit all those Oscar parties because, you know, they have to get up and make a living. This year's show was trimmed by the welcome exclusion of useless features like dance segments, multiple montages, and the redundant extended clips of the Best Picture nominees.
LOSERS: The telecast's producers
--Yeah, the show was only minimally over (and realistically not over at all), but let's not give the creative team too much credit. It was still a bland, uninspired evening.
LOSER: Jon Stewart
--Stewart wasn't offensive or anything, but he just wasn't very funny, and he must shoulder some of the blame for the lackluster ceremony. His habit of making postmodern little explanations on his own jokes seems out of place at the Oscars and weakened even his best lines. His political stuff wasn't even that good. The Gaylord Titler joke, though it seemed to get a good response in the auditorium, could have been written 6 months ago--and maybe it was.
LOSER: Ellen DeGeneres
--Seeing even one small clip of her vacuuming during a ceremony reminded me how unwelcome her shtick is. The effect was to make me think, "They invited HER to do this gig?"
WINNER: Chevy Chase
--Strangely, seeing several shots of Chevy hosting kind of elevated him. Oh, sure, the effect is to make one think, "They invited HIM to do this gig?" But it also kind of reminds you that, yeah, he used to be a big deal.
WINNER: Owen Wilson
--Not to sound melodramatic, but just the fact that he was on stage, looking like he belonged, and not in the "In Memoriam" segment is a victory.
WINNERS: Everyone involved with "Get Smart"
--To my eye, Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway looked like a winning comic team up at the podium. That movie could be big.
WINNERS: Everyone involved with "Once"
--Especially "The Guy" and "The Girl" (as they are called in the film's credits), whose performance reminded everyone who saw "Once" why they loved it. Their acceptance speeches, particularly hers, had to have charmed everyone who HADN'T yet seen the movie.
LOSER: Abstinence
--After all, there were a lot of pregnant celebrities there looking pretty good.
LOSERS: Documentaries you've heard of
--Doesn't it seem like in this and the Foreign Film category, every year, there are a handful of well-known contenders, and most of them don't get nominated, and none of them win?
WINNER: Daniel Day Lewis
--For a guy that sometimes sounds like a real pain in the ass to deal with, he sure was humble, and his playful kneeling to be "knighted" by Helen Mirren came off as spontaneous (even if it wasn't) and just irreverent enough to be funny but not at all disrespectful or goofy.
WINNER: The Coen Brothers
--Well, duh. But still. They grabbed the biggest awards and provided likable acceptance speeches. It's the ultimate "Screw you" to everyone who hated the ending of "No Country." They've got a few big awards that say they did it just fine.
LOSERS: Cate Blanchett, Alan Menken and Howard Ashman
--"It's an honor just to be nominated." Sure, but it still must bite if you're nominated 3 times in the same category and still lose, a la Menken and Ashman for their "Enchanted" tunes. And while we all think Cate Blanchett is an incredible talent, she still lost twice last night.
WINNER: Those who had to get up for work this morning
--Anytime this broadcast ends by midnight (about 11:47 by my clock), it's a victory for the working stiffs who can't hit all those Oscar parties because, you know, they have to get up and make a living. This year's show was trimmed by the welcome exclusion of useless features like dance segments, multiple montages, and the redundant extended clips of the Best Picture nominees.
LOSERS: The telecast's producers
--Yeah, the show was only minimally over (and realistically not over at all), but let's not give the creative team too much credit. It was still a bland, uninspired evening.
LOSER: Jon Stewart
--Stewart wasn't offensive or anything, but he just wasn't very funny, and he must shoulder some of the blame for the lackluster ceremony. His habit of making postmodern little explanations on his own jokes seems out of place at the Oscars and weakened even his best lines. His political stuff wasn't even that good. The Gaylord Titler joke, though it seemed to get a good response in the auditorium, could have been written 6 months ago--and maybe it was.
LOSER: Ellen DeGeneres
--Seeing even one small clip of her vacuuming during a ceremony reminded me how unwelcome her shtick is. The effect was to make me think, "They invited HER to do this gig?"
WINNER: Chevy Chase
--Strangely, seeing several shots of Chevy hosting kind of elevated him. Oh, sure, the effect is to make one think, "They invited HIM to do this gig?" But it also kind of reminds you that, yeah, he used to be a big deal.
WINNER: Owen Wilson
--Not to sound melodramatic, but just the fact that he was on stage, looking like he belonged, and not in the "In Memoriam" segment is a victory.
WINNERS: Everyone involved with "Get Smart"
--To my eye, Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway looked like a winning comic team up at the podium. That movie could be big.
WINNERS: Everyone involved with "Once"
--Especially "The Guy" and "The Girl" (as they are called in the film's credits), whose performance reminded everyone who saw "Once" why they loved it. Their acceptance speeches, particularly hers, had to have charmed everyone who HADN'T yet seen the movie.
LOSER: Abstinence
--After all, there were a lot of pregnant celebrities there looking pretty good.
LOSERS: Documentaries you've heard of
--Doesn't it seem like in this and the Foreign Film category, every year, there are a handful of well-known contenders, and most of them don't get nominated, and none of them win?
WINNER: Daniel Day Lewis
--For a guy that sometimes sounds like a real pain in the ass to deal with, he sure was humble, and his playful kneeling to be "knighted" by Helen Mirren came off as spontaneous (even if it wasn't) and just irreverent enough to be funny but not at all disrespectful or goofy.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Academy Awards '08: Who I'd Vote For
Sorry to strike a sour note, folks, but this is the dullest pre-Oscar season I can remember. I'm just not passionate about many of these films, and it's hard to embrace the whole horse race aspect of it this year. Nevertheless, I've tried to do my homework, and I've seen many--though a lower percentage than in recent years--of the nominated films, and here, then, is my personal ballot. It's who I'd vote for, NOT who I think will win. Here goes:
Best Picture: I still feel ashamed for not seeing There Will Be Blood. I think that people who were disappointed by the conclusion to No Country for Old Men have a right to feel that way and not be sneered at by the sophisticates. I still think it's a fine film and easily my favorite of those nominated. Liked Juno more than I thought I would, wanted to love Michael Clayton but didn't. No Country gets the vote.
Best Director: The Coens. I loved the directorial work Tony Gilroy did on Michael Clayton, helping a movie whose biggest problems were, I felt, on the screenplay level. Only thing is, Gilroy wrote the screenplay.
Best Actress: I think Laura Linney is a tremendous actress who always gets the job done. But Julie Christie made the most lasting impression as an Alzheimer's patient. Sure, it seems like one of those traditional Oscar bait roles, but so what? Christie was fantastic in a bummer of a movie.
Best Actor: I saw 3 of the 5 performances (sorry, Tommy Lee and Daniel Day), and I loved all 3. I can't vote for something I didn't see, so I'd go with Viggo in a squeaker. I think his performance was the most complex, though that is not a knock on Depp or Clooney at all.
Best Supporting Actor: I thought Tommy Lee Jones, not Javier Bardem, was the real standout in No Country. But I'd vote for Bardem, who created a character that will linger for years.
Best Supporting Actress: Got to go with Amy Ryan for the underrated Gone Baby Gone. I knew her from HBO's The Wire but not much else, which made her turn the only one of all the nominated actors in all categories that made me go, "Wow, that was unbelievable."
Original Screenplay: Ratatouille. Accomplished so much while remaining entertaining.
Adapted Screenplay: This is a tough one both because of my own ignorance and because the Coens lifted most of the movie directly from the Cormac McCarthy novel. But you know what? That's still adaptation. Not ALL of the novel made it in, after all. I vote for the Coens.
Other awards I'm rooting for: "Falling Slowly" from Once to win Best Original Song, Ratatouille to win animated feature. And two documentaries I loved, The King of Kong and In the Shadow of the Moon, didn't make it to the big dance. So I root against all 5 that did. Pbbt!
Best Picture: I still feel ashamed for not seeing There Will Be Blood. I think that people who were disappointed by the conclusion to No Country for Old Men have a right to feel that way and not be sneered at by the sophisticates. I still think it's a fine film and easily my favorite of those nominated. Liked Juno more than I thought I would, wanted to love Michael Clayton but didn't. No Country gets the vote.
Best Director: The Coens. I loved the directorial work Tony Gilroy did on Michael Clayton, helping a movie whose biggest problems were, I felt, on the screenplay level. Only thing is, Gilroy wrote the screenplay.
Best Actress: I think Laura Linney is a tremendous actress who always gets the job done. But Julie Christie made the most lasting impression as an Alzheimer's patient. Sure, it seems like one of those traditional Oscar bait roles, but so what? Christie was fantastic in a bummer of a movie.
Best Actor: I saw 3 of the 5 performances (sorry, Tommy Lee and Daniel Day), and I loved all 3. I can't vote for something I didn't see, so I'd go with Viggo in a squeaker. I think his performance was the most complex, though that is not a knock on Depp or Clooney at all.
Best Supporting Actor: I thought Tommy Lee Jones, not Javier Bardem, was the real standout in No Country. But I'd vote for Bardem, who created a character that will linger for years.
Best Supporting Actress: Got to go with Amy Ryan for the underrated Gone Baby Gone. I knew her from HBO's The Wire but not much else, which made her turn the only one of all the nominated actors in all categories that made me go, "Wow, that was unbelievable."
Original Screenplay: Ratatouille. Accomplished so much while remaining entertaining.
Adapted Screenplay: This is a tough one both because of my own ignorance and because the Coens lifted most of the movie directly from the Cormac McCarthy novel. But you know what? That's still adaptation. Not ALL of the novel made it in, after all. I vote for the Coens.
Other awards I'm rooting for: "Falling Slowly" from Once to win Best Original Song, Ratatouille to win animated feature. And two documentaries I loved, The King of Kong and In the Shadow of the Moon, didn't make it to the big dance. So I root against all 5 that did. Pbbt!
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
First Impulse: 2008 Oscar Nominations
*First thought: I have some homework to do, including seeing "Atonement" and "There Will Be Blood." And maybe "Transformers," too (hey, it did get 3 nods).
*I don't want to bust on "Michael Clayton," a film I admire, but if there could only be one "smart" thriller in the Best Picture race, I would have liked to have seen "Breach" in there. "Breach" is an underrated, superlative movie that came out last winter and was soon forgotten.
*I wonder if it's possible that nominators figured, "Well, we might not even have a ceremony this year, so we don't feel obligated to pick Angelina for A Mighty Heart just to get her to the show."
*I don't have a lot of strong favorites this year, but several I do have a rooting interest in are: Once for Best Original Song and Ratatouille for Best Animated Feature. I would love to see Amy Ryan win for "Gone Baby Gone." After all, she's a vet of "The Wire," and it's nice to see the movie get some pub.
*It really says something about Phillip Seymour Hoffman's year when he is nominated for Gust in "Charlie Wilson's War," an entertaining turn that may well be his least impressive performance of 2007.
*Speaking of that, my biggest "outrage" would be the total lack of recognition for Sidney Lumet's "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead."
*So far, I don't see too many films that make me think, "THAT doesn't belong anywhere near this list." I don't think Juno is worthy of all the hype, but it's a solid movie and a hell of a lot better than "Little Miss Sunshine."
*Is Cate Blanchett going to be a pretty-much-automatic pick every year from now on?
*I didn't see "In the Valley of Elah," (save the first 3 minutes I saw when a projectionist screwed up and started it at the wrong time) which scooted out of my area in a few weeks, but I can't believe Tommy Lee Jones was any better in that than he was in "No Country for Old Men."
*Congratulations, "Norbit," for your nomination (for Makeup).
*I don't want to bust on "Michael Clayton," a film I admire, but if there could only be one "smart" thriller in the Best Picture race, I would have liked to have seen "Breach" in there. "Breach" is an underrated, superlative movie that came out last winter and was soon forgotten.
*I wonder if it's possible that nominators figured, "Well, we might not even have a ceremony this year, so we don't feel obligated to pick Angelina for A Mighty Heart just to get her to the show."
*I don't have a lot of strong favorites this year, but several I do have a rooting interest in are: Once for Best Original Song and Ratatouille for Best Animated Feature. I would love to see Amy Ryan win for "Gone Baby Gone." After all, she's a vet of "The Wire," and it's nice to see the movie get some pub.
*It really says something about Phillip Seymour Hoffman's year when he is nominated for Gust in "Charlie Wilson's War," an entertaining turn that may well be his least impressive performance of 2007.
*Speaking of that, my biggest "outrage" would be the total lack of recognition for Sidney Lumet's "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead."
*So far, I don't see too many films that make me think, "THAT doesn't belong anywhere near this list." I don't think Juno is worthy of all the hype, but it's a solid movie and a hell of a lot better than "Little Miss Sunshine."
*Is Cate Blanchett going to be a pretty-much-automatic pick every year from now on?
*I didn't see "In the Valley of Elah," (save the first 3 minutes I saw when a projectionist screwed up and started it at the wrong time) which scooted out of my area in a few weeks, but I can't believe Tommy Lee Jones was any better in that than he was in "No Country for Old Men."
*Congratulations, "Norbit," for your nomination (for Makeup).
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
First Impulse: The Golden Globes
*I'm sure many were disappointed by the cancellation of the big ol' ceremony thing, but I actually thought the Oscars might benefit from a break like this. Have the red carpet thing for an hour or two so everyone gets to see the fashions and the stars, then just have people announce the winners at breakneck speed.
*Only don't let those people be Nancy O'Dell and Billy Bush. Oh, how I sometimes rue the day the NBC empire created "Access Hollywood." O'Dell was OK and made a few interesting comments, but Bush added nothing apart from his distracting habit of referring to tv shows as movies.
*My reaction to Atonement's win was pretty much the same as when I heard it was nominated: "Aw, do I have to go see this now?" It may well be a terrific film, but it just seems like a chore. There, I said it.
*Similarly, I'd normally love to see 'There Will Be Blood," and the viewing doesn't seem daunting, but finding the time does. From what I understand, this one is, what, 8 hours long? Kind of hard to squeeze that one in between trips to Target and the grocery store.
*I loved how NBC hyped up an Ellen Page vs. Nikki Blonsky battle for Best Supporting Actress (Comedy/Musical), the one "storyline" they really pursued…only to announce the winner was Marion Cotillard!
*My most pleasant surprise was seeing Extras beat out the dreaded Entourage, though Jeremy Piven did get a win for that overrated hype magnet.
*David Duchovny? The TV categories were full of head scratchers. Maybe Duchovny delivered a nuanced portrayal of a complex character over the course of the season; all I know is I bailed after the first episode, unable to tolerate either him or the show.
*Overall, it was a pretty cheap-looking spectacle, but at least NBC milked something out of the Globes this year.
*Only don't let those people be Nancy O'Dell and Billy Bush. Oh, how I sometimes rue the day the NBC empire created "Access Hollywood." O'Dell was OK and made a few interesting comments, but Bush added nothing apart from his distracting habit of referring to tv shows as movies.
*My reaction to Atonement's win was pretty much the same as when I heard it was nominated: "Aw, do I have to go see this now?" It may well be a terrific film, but it just seems like a chore. There, I said it.
*Similarly, I'd normally love to see 'There Will Be Blood," and the viewing doesn't seem daunting, but finding the time does. From what I understand, this one is, what, 8 hours long? Kind of hard to squeeze that one in between trips to Target and the grocery store.
*I loved how NBC hyped up an Ellen Page vs. Nikki Blonsky battle for Best Supporting Actress (Comedy/Musical), the one "storyline" they really pursued…only to announce the winner was Marion Cotillard!
*My most pleasant surprise was seeing Extras beat out the dreaded Entourage, though Jeremy Piven did get a win for that overrated hype magnet.
*David Duchovny? The TV categories were full of head scratchers. Maybe Duchovny delivered a nuanced portrayal of a complex character over the course of the season; all I know is I bailed after the first episode, unable to tolerate either him or the show.
*Overall, it was a pretty cheap-looking spectacle, but at least NBC milked something out of the Globes this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
