The 81st Annual Academy Awards

[Sun Tzu]

Reactions?

I'm a little dissapointed that Mickey Rourke didn't win the best actor award, but Sean Penn is my favorite actor, and Penn did mention Rourke's performance in his acceptance speech...so I guess that's better than a swift kick to the nuts.

[Eaglesfan27]

You are in Vegas and you took the time to watch the Academy Awards?

[Sun Tzu]

Nope...though it was on every tv in every casino. I woke up and watched the Heath Ledger, and Sean Penn acceptance speeches this morning.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I watched it last night. I started about an hould and a half into the show. A great way to watch program. You get to skip all the commericals and if any speech or segment (e.g., the Beyonce dance number) look boring and long, you can skip right past those too.

I liked Jackman's opening number.

I was fine with the winners. I actually saw all the animated and live action shorts a few weeks ago. I really felt like the animated short that one was by far the best of the bunch. The live shorts were less distinguishable, but I figured the one that won would have done so. It wsa pretty good and the Academy loves holocaust-themed films.

I liked when Will Smith fumbled over his words and threw in a "boom goes the dynomite" before starting over.

Other than that... It was ok.

[ISiddiqui]

As I said in the last movie thread, I thought this was the best Oscar performance I've seen in years. Everything from the way the stage was set up, to the musical numbers, to the shifting scenes for the awards as we move through the making of a movie, to Jackman, was brilliance.

[digamma]

Also cheers to the guy who won for one of the documentaries or short films who threw in a "Domo arigato Mr. Roboto" at the end.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by digamma

Also cheers to the guy who won for one of the documentaries or short films who threw in a "Domo arigato Mr. Roboto" at the end.

Yes, my favorite moment of the night besides looking at Penelope Cruz. Will Smith's recovery was also good.

[Raiders Army]

I was thinking this morning about the differences between the Grammys and the Oscars. On the one hand, you have extremely popular songs and albums that win awards. On the other hand, you have little-watched artsy movies win awards (not all the time, but probably more than their fair share).

There are certainly differences between the two genres such as hearing music for free over the radio and having to pay to see every movie that comes out; however, the similarity in music and movies is the entertainment value. If a movie has a plot but makes no sense and is a fun popcorn Summer blockbuster, why does it get no consideration for Best Picture? I can see not possibly not giving the lead Best Actor, but if it's intent is to entertain and it does, why is it not considered?

I think the Grammys do awards well. The Academy awards, on the other hand, do not reward entertaining movies; instead they reward supposedly "good" movies.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

You are in Vegas and you took the time to watch the Academy Awards?

Carrot Top was sold out.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I was thinking this morning about the differences between the Grammys and the Oscars. On the one hand, you have extremely popular songs and albums that win awards. On the other hand, you have little-watched artsy movies win awards (not all the time, but probably more than their fair share).

There are certainly differences between the two genres such as hearing music for free over the radio and having to pay to see every movie that comes out; however, the similarity in music and movies is the entertainment value. If a movie has a plot but makes no sense and is a fun popcorn Summer blockbuster, why does it get no consideration for Best Picture? I can see not possibly not giving the lead Best Actor, but if it's intent is to entertain and it does, why is it not considered?

I think the Grammys do awards well. The Academy awards, on the other hand, do not reward entertaining movies; instead they reward supposedly "good" movies.

The Academy Awards reward good art. The Grammys also do so as well. After all, when did the Backstreet Boys get their Best Album Grammys? If you wanted to reward popularity, there is the People's Choice. But people don't care about that one. There is a reason.

[Samdari]

I hated the "former winners present the nominees with personal messages" crap. Have last year's cross gender winner present goddammit.

And, not being a fan of musicals, I thought Jackman doing the show was terrible.

I thought it was the worst viewing experience ever.

[ISiddiqui]

And on the contrary, I disagree with everything Samdari just posted.

[rowech]

Movies are not art...they are entertainment. Just like music. People involved in movies and music are just a little too big on themselves. The Oscars are the people in movies coming together to honor the people in movies and that's fine. Perfectly acceptable for them to do such. Just understand when people don't care to tune in.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by rowech

Movies are not art...they are entertainment. Just like music. People involved in movies and music are just a little too big on themselves. The Oscars are the people in movies coming together to honor the people in movies and that's fine. Perfectly acceptable for them to do such. Just understand when people don't care to tune in.

I'm pretty sure that the Oscars are among the most watched TV shows, so I don't understand your last sentence at all.

[ISiddiqui]

Art can be entertainment.

One may in that vein argue that paintings and sculpture aren't art, they are entertainment.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I'm pretty sure that the Oscars are among the most watched TV shows, so I don't understand your last sentence at all.

They've lost more and more viewers every year.

[albionmoonlight]

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The Academy Awards reward good art. The Grammys also do so as well. After all, when did the Backstreet Boys get their Best Album Grammys? If you wanted to reward popularity, there is the People's Choice. But people don't care about that one. There is a reason.

Good art is all in the eye of the beholder. In the Academy Awards' case, the beholder isn't quite in touch with the average person. Isn't an action movie good art? Have you ever left an action movie and felt like you wanted to kick somebody's ass? Have you ever watched a horror movie and been so scared that you left the light on?

My point is that the Academy rewards selective performances and movies which usually deal with dramatic themes such as homosexuality and death.

Edit--to be more clear, I believe that an artistic movie or performance evokes emotion from you...just like music and paintings. Just because it isn't a drama doesn't mean it's not art too.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Good art is all in the eye of the beholder. In the Academy Awards' case, the beholder isn't quite in touch with the average person. Isn't an action movie good art? Have you ever left an action movie and felt like you wanted to kick somebody's ass? Have you ever watched a horror movie and been so scared that you left the light on?

My point is that the Academy rewards selective performances and movies which usually deal with dramatic themes such as homosexuality and death.

Edit--to be more clear, I believe that an artistic movie or performance evokes emotion from you...just like music and paintings. Just because it isn't a drama doesn't mean it's not art too.

One may also claim that Thomas Kincade being a better work of art than Jackson Pollock is also in the eye of the beholder. That doesn't mean that opinion will naturally hold water amongst those are knowledgable about art.

The Acadamy looks at movies though an art lens and through a greater knowledge of the medium (think about how many more movies they watch than the average moviegoer - one of the reasons that action movies typically don't get rated higher is because most of them are so similar and nothing stands out).

They try to judge on the artistic merits and it seems that dramas tend to attempt new things, or add different craft elements, more often. I mean "Slumdog Millionaire" was far more daring than "The Dark Knight", even though I do love both movies.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by rowech

Movies are not art...they are entertainment. Just like music.

That's just asinine

People involved in movies and music are just a little too big on themselves.

That I agree with.


So all in all I think you're half wingnut and half genius.

[Karlifornia]

Oh, and I just can never get into musical numbers. I have never, in 25 years, seen one that I liked. They all seem hokey and belong in some crumbling theater in Branson, Missouri.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And on the contrary, I disagree with everything Samdari just posted.

I can understand liking the show if you like the song and dance numbers that Hugh Jackman obviously so loves. I do not - I like the hosts to be funny, and I did not think Hugh was funny.

After watching last night, if Billy Crystal won't host, give me Will Smith.

But did you really like the way the actor nominees were presented? It felt like either the presenters were saying something personal to the nominee, in which case I felt I was intruding, or they did not know them at all, and it was "here is something someone else wrote about you" and fake, which was worse. Plus, I like tradition, so I really hated the replacement of a good tradition, with a terrible new idea.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

One may also claim that Thomas Kincade being a better work of art than Jackson Pollock is also in the eye of the beholder. That doesn't mean that opinion will naturally hold water amongst those are knowledgable about art.

Is it just because they see more movies that makes them more knowledgeable about art? When's the last time you sat down and said, "Man, I haven't seen The English Patient in a long time. I gotta watch that movie." Or No Country For Old Men. I'd be willing to bet that most people will forget about Slumdog Millionaire five years from now.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They try to judge on the artistic merits and it seems that dramas tend to attempt new things, or add different craft elements, more often. I mean "Slumdog Millionaire" was far more daring than "The Dark Knight", even though I do love both movies.

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not certain where dramas try new things. What new things did Frost/Nixon do? What new things did Milk do? They're both Biopics. Two nominations for the same "category"?

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Samdari

But did you really like the way the actor nominees were presented? It felt like either the presenters were saying something personal to the nominee, in which case I felt I was intruding, or they did not know them at all, and it was "here is something someone else wrote about you" and fake, which was worse. Plus, I like tradition, so I really hated the replacement of a good tradition, with a terrible new idea.

I liked that feature very much. The way that Adrien Brody described Richard Jenkins in The Visitor made me interested in checking out a movie I would have otherwise ignored.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I liked that feature very much. The way that Adrien Brody described Richard Jenkins in The Visitor made me interested in checking out a movie I would have otherwise ignored.

But this way, you would lose out on the 'Adrien Brody attacking Halle Barry' moment - one of the best I have ever seen on the Oscars.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Samdari

But did you really like the way the actor nominees were presented? It felt like either the presenters were saying something personal to the nominee, in which case I felt I was intruding, or they did not know them at all, and it was "here is something someone else wrote about you" and fake, which was worse. Plus, I like tradition, so I really hated the replacement of a good tradition, with a terrible new idea.

I absolutely loved it. I thought it was utter brilliance and want them to do it this was for eternity. Tell us why they deserved it rather than a small clip of their performance which probably didn't even begin to encapsulate the role.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Is it just because they see more movies that makes them more knowledgeable about art? When's the last time you sat down and said, "Man, I haven't seen The English Patient in a long time. I gotta watch that movie." Or No Country For Old Men. I'd be willing to bet that most people will forget about Slumdog Millionaire five years from now.

Wow. I disagree 100% with that. I loved Slumdog Millionaire and am sure I will see it again.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Is it just because they see more movies that makes them more knowledgeable about art? When's the last time you sat down and said, "Man, I haven't seen The English Patient in a long time. I gotta watch that movie." Or No Country For Old Men. I'd be willing to bet that most people will forget about Slumdog Millionaire five years from now.

I think it's a mixed bag. I love No Country For Old Men. I thought Slumdog was decent. I certainly didn't think it was the best movie of 2008. Will I forget it in 5 years? Maybe. Looking at the list of recent oscar winners, I see three that I would consider in my list of favorites (No Country For Old Med, The Departed, Million Dollar Baby), three that I consider decent, but negligible (Slumdog, Crash, A Beautiful Mind), one that I've never seen (Chicago), and two that I would never ever watch again (Gladiator, LOTR: Return Of the King)

Now, you ask three other people to group them as I did, and you get three different lists.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Is it just because they see more movies that makes them more knowledgeable about art? When's the last time you sat down and said, "Man, I haven't seen The English Patient in a long time. I gotta watch that movie." Or No Country For Old Men. I'd be willing to bet that most people will forget about Slumdog Millionaire five years from now.

Have you never been pointed out something that you didn't even think of before and then every time you watched a movie, you saw it? Things tend to pop out when you become aware of them.

I think seeing all those movies allow one to really seperate the greats from the merely goods.

I think you are crazy if you think people will forget about "Slumdog Millionaire". Perhaps it doesn't hold up as some of the really amazing movies of recent years (like "No Country For Old Men"), but I believe it'll be highly influential, especially in Americans looking at Bollywood in the future.

I think that influence, though, is one of the reasons it won as many awards as it did (not that it wasn't a very good movie).

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not certain where dramas try new things. What new things did Frost/Nixon do? What new things did Milk do? They're both Biopics. Two nominations for the same "category"?

"Milk", while being a biopic, was a mainstream movie that showed homosexual relationships in a normal setting. It pushed the envelope, even further than "Brokeback Mountain" did.

And Sean Penn's acting was just brilliant in it. He became the character and that's something that is just amazing to see... and of course, acting does matter. Very rarely does an action star subsume his personality into the creation. Heath Ledger did it in "The Dark Knight", but usually with big action stars you are aware of who the actor is rather than him completely becoming the character.

I didn't see "Frost/Nixon", so I can't speculate, but I heard that Langella's Nixon was incredible... and he become Nixon and left Langella at the door.

Perhaps that subsuming of an actor into a character isn't "new", but it is very rare.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I think it's a mixed bag. I love No Country For Old Men. I thought Slumdog was decent. I certainly didn't think it was the best movie of 2008. Will I forget it in 5 years? Maybe. Looking at the list of recent oscar winners, I see three that I would consider in my list of favorites (No Country For Old Med, The Departed, Million Dollar Baby), three that I consider decent, but negligible (Slumdog, Crash, A Beautiful Mind), one that I've never seen (Chicago), and two that I would never ever watch again (Gladiator, LOTR: Return Of the King)

Now, you ask three other people to group them as I did, and you get three different lists.

Yeah, I agree with you completely. I guess that's why they're critics.

Anyhow, I'm genuinely curious as to what new things Milk tried to warrant its inclusion to Best Picture. Same with Frost/Nixon.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Have you never been pointed out something that you didn't even think of before and then every time you watched a movie, you saw it? Things tend to pop out when you become aware of them.

I think seeing all those movies allow one to really seperate the greats from the merely goods.

I think you are crazy if you think people will forget about "Slumdog Millionaire". Perhaps it doesn't hold up as some of the really amazing movies of recent years (like "No Country For Old Men"), but I believe it'll be highly influential, especially in Americans looking at Bollywood in the future.

I think that influence, though, is one of the reasons it won as many awards as it did (not that it wasn't a very good movie).



"Milk", while being a biopic, was a mainstream movie that showed homosexual relationships in a normal setting. It pushed the envelope, even further than "Brokeback Mountain" did.

And Sean Penn's acting was just brilliant in it. He became the character and that's something that is just amazing to see... and of course, acting does matter. Very rarely does an action star subsume his personality into the creation. Heath Ledger did it in "The Dark Knight", but usually with big action stars you are aware of who the actor is rather than him completely becoming the character.

I didn't see "Frost/Nixon", so I can't speculate, but I heard that Langella's Nixon was incredible... and he become Nixon and left Langella at the door.

Perhaps that subsuming of an actor into a character isn't "new", but it is very rare.

Ah. Gotcha on all counts. Thanks!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Anyhow, I'm genuinely curious as to what new things Milk tried to warrant its inclusion to Best Picture.

It catered to the sensibilities of the left. Oh wait, that's not really anything new.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And on the contrary, I disagree with everything Samdari just posted.

+1

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

One may also claim that Thomas Kincade being a better work of art than Jackson Pollock is also in the eye of the beholder. That doesn't mean that opinion will naturally hold water amongst those are knowledgable about art.

The Acadamy looks at movies though an art lens and through a greater knowledge of the medium (think about how many more movies they watch than the average moviegoer - one of the reasons that action movies typically don't get rated higher is because most of them are so similar and nothing stands out).

They try to judge on the artistic merits and it seems that dramas tend to attempt new things, or add different craft elements, more often. I mean "Slumdog Millionaire" was far more daring than "The Dark Knight", even though I do love both movies.

What was daring about Slumdog Millionaire?

[21C]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I can understand liking the show if you like the song and dance numbers that Hugh Jackman obviously so loves. I do not - I like the hosts to be funny, and I did not think Hugh was funny.

I agree with you. I didn't dislike Hugh Jackman but I would prefer someone with a comedy background running the show.

I really enjoyed the presentations that Steve Martin and Tina Fey did. I would have preferred Martin as the host.

[AgustusM]

this is the kind of show that DVR was made for. I watched the whole three hour show in about an hour. got to see the parts I wanted and FF the dance numbers, commericals and other general dragging parts.

also has there ever been an award more guaranteed the Heath Ledger? not saying he didn't deserve it, he did - but as I am watching the other nominees and they all have the "there is no way I am winning this look"

[Raiders Army]

Was watching Entertainment Tonight and Steven "Cojo" was on giving his best and worst dressed. The question that came to mind was how could I trust the judgement of somebody who likes getting fucked up the ass.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Was watching Entertainment Tonight and Steven "Cojo" was on giving his best and worst dressed. The question that came to mind was how could I trust the judgement of somebody who likes getting fucked up the ass.

whoa.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Was watching Entertainment Tonight and Steven "Cojo" was on giving his best and worst dressed. The question that came to mind was how could I trust the judgement of somebody who likes getting fucked up the ass.

A bit crude, but generally "those" are the ones who tend to know fashion?

[Raiders Army]

Joke. See earlier comments in the thread about critics.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

What was daring about Slumdog Millionaire?

Are you serious?

The whole mix of Western and Bollywood movie styles didn't strike you as somewhat different?

I have a friend who thinks Slumdog is overrated because she thinks its basically a Bollywood movie in its plot without all the song & dance. And thinks the reason it gets all its praise is because most Westerners haven't seen any Bollywood movies. Of course, she does tend to ignore the whole showing the dark and seedy side of India (which did get a lot of Indians up in arms).

That, and the flashback style of storytelling based on each question asked was a rarely used style of storytelling and very well done.

There is a lot of melding of styles and cultures in Slumdog Millionaire.

[B & B]

Originally Posted by AgustusM

this is the kind of show that DVR was made for. I watched the whole three hour show in about an hour. got to see the parts I wanted and FF the dance numbers, commericals and other general dragging parts.

also has there ever been an award more guaranteed the Heath Ledger? not saying he didn't deserve it, he did - but as I am watching the other nominees and they all have the "there is no way I am winning this look"

Not to my memory.

Most places wont let you wager more than 1000 bucks per category and I can say this. If you max bet Ledger you would have got your money back and $25 profit. Generally, there were very very few upsets, especially if you dont count Penn over Rourke.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Or No Country For Old Men. I'd be willing to bet that most people will forget about Slumdog Millionaire five years from now.

really? you're going to dismiss No Country? I think it's going to do down as one of the top 5 movies of this entire decade - without question.

I've consciously sat down and watched it twice since first seeing it in the theater a year ago.

I understand your argument about the disparity between box office success and the Academy Awards, but it doesn't make what is nominated a bad movie.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Samdari

But did you really like the way the actor nominees were presented? It felt like either the presenters were saying something personal to the nominee, in which case I felt I was intruding, or they did not know them at all, and it was "here is something someone else wrote about you" and fake, which was worse. Plus, I like tradition, so I really hated the replacement of a good tradition, with a terrible new idea.

I'm with you all the way - hated the structure of the presentations. Was really uncomfortable to watch for some reason.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

really? you're going to dismiss No Country? I think it's going to do down as one of the top 5 movies of this entire decade - without question.

To underline how much I thought last year was an amazing year for movies, I think both No Country For Old Men and There Will be Blood will go down as 2 of the Top 5 movies of the decade.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

To underline how much I thought last year was an amazing year for movies, I think both No Country For Old Men and There Will be Blood will go down as 2 of the Top 5 movies of the decade.

I admit i did not like There Will Be Blood. Less than 5 years ago i regularly listed P.T. Anderson as my favorite active director as well.

In a lot of ways it feels good to be disappointed by a director once in a while. And a lot of my favorite directors are ones who miss the mark every bit as much as they hit it, usually because they are trying to hit hard targets.

I think Danny Boyle probably has made 3 good movies - Slumdog Millionaire being the first 'good' movie he's made since 1996's Trainspotting. Yet I've seen every single one of his movies. They've always been interesting even if the end result was less than I hoped for.


and off the top of my head, the absolute best moveis of this decade so far:

No Country For Old Men
The Departed
The Incredibles (yes, i'm dead fucking serious)
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind

[ISiddiqui]

Well, you know that Top 5/10 of the Decade lists will be more guided by critics .

And personally, I thought There Will Be Blood was better than No Country For Old Men (I think I gave TWBB 10/10 on the Last Movie thread).

As far as I think the critical consensus will be for Top 5:

The Departed
No Country For Old Men
There Will Be Blood
The Lord of Rings: Return of the King (as a stand in for the series)
Slumdog Millionaire (based on influence, if it leads to a greater future collaboration between Bollywood and Hollywood)

Then again, "Crouching Tiger" was seen as bringing Chinese cinema to the US, with a bunch of movies following in its wake ("House of the Flying Daggers", "Hero"), but now that seems to have failed.

If Slumdog doesn't have the influence I think it will, then "Million Dollar Baby" or "Letters from Iwo Jima" will take its spot (I'd rather see the later have it).

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And personally, I thought There Will Be Blood was better than No Country For Old Men

Same here. There Will be Blood is on my regular rotation of DVDs to watch/listen to, and would easily put it on a Top 5 list for the decade.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If Slumdog doesn't have the influence I think it will, then "Million Dollar Baby" or "Letters from Iwo Jima" will take its spot (I'd rather see the later have it).

I think I view the latter two you mention there as ultimately forgettable. The problem with doing annual awards is you simply have weak years in film. I'm certain there were years when 3-4 films are clearly better than the best film in the year before or after. Look at 1994 for example, 3 of the 5 best picture nominess were Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, and Shawshank Redemption.

Winners from this decade I don't think are likely to be watched in 2020 and beyond:

2001 - A Beautiful Mind
2002 - Chicago
2004 - Million Dollar Baby
2005 - Crash (honestly, this movie is terrible)


ABM just isn't up to Best Picture quality, Chicago really rode this belief that somehow musicals were back, Crash was the best of a terrible crop. Million Dollar Baby also succeeded in a fairly weak year.

So what i think will last:
2003 - Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King
2006 - The Departed
2007 - No Country For Old Men

The LOTR trilogy will obviously last. Personally i thought the movies were each worse than the preceding one, but it clearly won on cumulative effort. The Departed is a masterpiece with an excellent cast by a legendary director - the academy will never let us forget such a movie. No Country was unique, had steller performances, and again probably falls into 'legendary director' criteria.


to be determined:
2008 - Slumdog Millionaire

Really depends on the eventual impact of the movie. I thought it was good, but not really Best Pic. good, though I only saw Frost/Nixon of the other nominees and would definitely award it to Slumdog when pitting them head to head.

[kingnebwsu]

I TiVo-skipped through a lot of it, but there was one thing that was noticeably absent from the broadcast...interrupting the winners while they were speaking. I didn't see (hear) any of the music playing in the background 45 seconds into their speech and getting louder before completely cutting them off. I thought this was a great change. It's once a year, and I don't care if the broadcast runs until midnight (versus 11 PM). Let these people take an extra minute or two to talk...they've earned it.