It was a big, bloated bore. Martin and Baldwin had very little chemistry. The acceptance speeches, to a person, were uninteresting. The controversy--Big budget blockbuster gets beat by little indie also overblown, given the politics of the voting--easily explained by the desire to make history by selecting a woman director. And even if just choosing quality over b.o.--is that really so unprecedented? Even the clothes were uninteresting and the men have completely opted out of makling a fashion statement (too gay?), which is pretty sad (and that includes Downey (oooh, sneakers!) But Newsweek and other MSM will continue to hype this turgid turd so they can do their boring roundtable with the nominees, etc.What a waste of time.
SPONSORED BY:
Newsweek Rumblr: How Were The Oscars?
Our staff discusses the 82nd annual Academy Awards ceremony.
Mar 8, 2010
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
SPONSORED BY
At 82, Oscar is both long-winded and long in the tooth. The 210-minute Academy Awards ceremony droned on last night, but wasn't without highs and lows. Our culture and film staff discusses the ceremony on NEWSWEEK's Rumblr, a forum to debate the issues of the day using Tumblr. Excerpts are below. Some of the comments have been moved out of sequence for clarity and cohesion. Visit the original chat for the full transcript.
SUBSCRIBE
Ramin Setoodeh, articles editor: This was supposed to be the year the Oscars turned mainstream. Ten nominees—so movies like The Blind Side, District 9, and Up made the final cut. Two hosts, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin. But in the end, Academy voters pushed back on the impulse to make the show something targeted to middle America. They refused to give best picture to the most successful movie of all time, Avatar, and instead awarded it to the least commercial best-picture winner ever, The Hurt Locker.
Marc Peyser, culture editor: Speaking of how more isn't always better, I just can't get over the gangbang intro again for the best-actor nominees. By the time Vera Farmiga started her well-written spiel, it feels like some kind of monologue contest, like they're all auditioning for the same part or something. Also, the creeping closeup of the nominees themselves is, well, creepy. I feel like the camera is going to go up Colin Firth's nose. And why is Julianne Moore introducing Colin Firth if they only worked together for three days? Considering all the others, it makes it feel like poor Colin doesn't have a single friend in Hollywood. In which case—good for him. Outsiders rule the world, don't they?
Sarah Ball, reporter: But nobody ruled the Oscars this year—not even the hosts. Sorry, Marc, but I disagree that Alec and Steve were great. The Road-movie allusions in their opening reel vastly oversold their comedic power as a twosome. I laughed harder at the short-film director Nicholas Schmerkin's quip that he hopes to "be back with a feature-length film in 36 years" than I did at the Paranormal Activity spoof—roundly considered a highlight of their act. I'd rather see Ben Stiller host next year. His presentation was irreverent, topical, wry, confident—and the best use of ceremony makeup since Whoopi as Queen Elizabeth.
Jennie Yabroff, staff writer: Wonder how things would've gone if the producers had their first choice: Sasha Baron Cohen? Who would've made the best host, Borat, Bruno, or Ali G.? Yes, Ben was the funniest part of the show (and blue is a good look for him), but I wonder if the format would manage to make even him seem stiff and flat after three hours.
Ball: You're so right: the format of the Oscars ceremony is so turgid, so lavish, so ridiculously discursive, that it can basically make anyone look nervous and flat. Maybe they should just run with it and pick Ben Stein.
© 2010
Discuss