The 80th Academy Awards

[Lzcutter]

Well, this morning you could peruse YouTube and watch clips posted of Sunday evening's show including the montages.

This evening many of them have been removed.

Don't know if they will be back at some later date. Many of the In Memoriams from previous years are posted on YouTube so maybe?

Thought it worth noting for all you YouTube fans out there.

[Ollie]

LZ, I have to laugh at the Academy's insistence at YouTube removal. I can understand why they'd want to eliminate all traces of popularity and publicity for this event. It shows their intelligence level quite well, and it's no wonder to later see "Ratings Bad For Oscar Show". I didn't tune in. Year 4 for me.

[jdb1]

John, you've articulated exactly, I think, why these award shows are so dull, and are losing favor with the public. How many darn award shows do we need to look at in one week? And how much more made-up and meaningless can these so-called "awards" get?

I am so tired of seeing these smug, vacuous, self-congratulatory spectacles. Like you, I loved watching the Oscars when I was young. But I stopped being a regular movie-goer, not just because of the inconvenience, but because I don't see very many films these days that are worth $10 or $12 dollars to sit through (and they don't even show a cartoon!). Since I don't know who's who and what's what until the films are shown on cable months later, I don't really care who gets what award.

I'm sure they do a good job, but I'm not interested in hearing some sound technician thank someone I've never heard of. The Academy is mistaken if they think we are willing to sit through hours of matters that should be industry-specific. If there were, say, an hour-long program of just what are considered the "main" awards, I might be interested to see it - but not an entire evening of self-absorbed mental midgets who have already had too much to drink by the time they get to the ceremony. And, frankly, the whole exercise is even less interesting without the obnoxious, but spot-on caustic comments of Joan Rivers.

[knitwit45]

John, I started a thread quite some time back, that asked what actor/actress will guarantee that you watch the movie, no matter what it is. Got some interesting answers, but there weren't too many current actors, mostly our old classic ones.

I agree with Judith that the awards are meaningless and to me, downright embarrassing to hear the incredibly stupid remarks made by hosts and recipients.

[Ollie]

JohnM's "no guarantee" suits me as well. There are some actors whose films I usually enjoy so I collect them, but frankly, I may have 600 or 800 films in my collection that I rate higher than any film I've seen produced in the last 6 years. I like seeing the big explosion action-pix on big screen, but last year, we had re-releases of HARD DAYS NIGHT and HELP here, and the crowds were huge for those two weekends. Everyone coming out of those films proclaimed those were the best films of 2007, and even though HELP is a bit lame in its second-half, it was still more fun watching it than any other 2007 film I saw on the big-screen.

[benwhowell]

I've always been a big fan of The Oscars. Several years ago I even took a (solo) vacation to Hollywood (from Memphis) during The Oscar weekend. It was the year "Platoon" won. I stayed at the Hollywood Holiday Inn (Hollywood Blvd/Franklin) and had to drive downtown to The Dorothy Chandler Pavillion and sit on pavement for hours until "the stars" arrived. The most fun was meeting Edy Williams. She had a limo parked nearby and made several costume changes as she paraded for the fans-on the arm of some young, handsome "escort." (I wonder if he ever made it in Hollywood.)
The only year I missed a telecast was the year "The Silence Of The Lambs" sweeped the top four categories.
I'm always hoping for something "cheesy" (Allen Carr) or controversial (Vanessa Redgrave.)
Maybe I wasn't in the best frame of mind, but The 80TH Oscars was pretty non-eventful and blah.
I'm a big Chuck Workman fan, but his stuff seemed un-inspired.
I did enjoy seeing clips of previous acting Oscar winners...always transfixed seeing Bette Davis in that bizarre, post-"Virgin Queen" headgear-presenting the award to Borgnine in "Marty."
The recollections of past Oscar winners was fun too.
The most exciting were the longshot actress winners. I was shocked and pleased that Tilda Swinton won for her first nomination. She really deserved nominations for her gender-bending role in "Orlando" and as the mother/protector in "The Deep End." Best acceptance speech.
I've only seen clips from "La Vie En Rose," but it looks like Marion Cotillard worked her derriere off transforming herself into the tempestuous diva, Edith Piaf.
(Although, I was rooting for Julie Christie.)
Also-The Academy really did Diablo Cody a "solid" giving her the award for her first screenplay, "Juno."
I wish one of Kimya Dawson's songs (from "Juno") won have been nominated. The movie should have received an honorary Oscar for the coolest soundtrack.
I just wanna add a coupla more performances from Brad Renfro to check out-"Bully" and "Ghost World."
In closing, I really miss Johnny Carson...

[mrsl]

I have to say, all of you folks are interesting to read and the fact is really, that you're all much more intelligent and knowledgeable about things than I am. All I can say is, if something exciting is going to, or does happen and the music gets louder or booms somewhat, to me that means the musical director is doing a right good job. Also, if I'm watching a lovely rolling hills type of scene like the Irish countryside in The Quiet Man, and it looks beautiful and makes me appreciate the scenario, the photographer is doing his job. On the other hand, like a football game, you don't just watch the ball, you know where that's going, so you watch all the other players teaming off against each other, so in a war movie, you see all the other actors fighting and rolling around, again the photography is going well.

The fact is I don't know cinematography from photography and I really don't need to know, I just want to enjoy the movie. Nor do I really know the various picks and pans of directors and how they work, or direct the camera. That too, to me is not necessary to know Wellman from Wyler. All I know is when I see certain names after "Directed by", I can be pretty sure it's going to be a good movie, just as "Starring" generally says the same thing.

I will say however, my main interest in the Oscar show the past 20 years or so has really been the women's clothing. I was elated to see figures and colors. All my life I've been a 36C and never could have worn one of those slinky little numbers that have no foundations. But the fact remains, I never wanted to look like a boy either. So I enjoy seeing women being women again, even if it is for only one or two seasons.

Anne

[jdb1]

Anne, have you been shopping for Spring things lately? I'm wondering what the stores have got for women in your area. Here in NYC I've been so happy to see beautiful Spring colors - pinks, greens, yellows - instead of the pervasive black, black, black of the last decade. And, wonder of wonders -- dresses! You should see the faces of the shoppers in the stores when the see the mannequins -- I think they may have forgotten how pretty dresses are, and how pretty you can look in them.

So call me old fashioned- I like to look pretty. After all, even a feminist can actually enjoy being a girl. (I thought that was the whole idea of feminism. To be happy to be a woman, and to revel in the differences, as well as the similarities, with men. The message got garbled somewhere, I guess. I admit it: I'd rather look like a glamorous movie star than like a coal miner.)

[klondike]

Also, I know I probably stepped on some toes earlier, and I apologize for that, but there are only a few things I still feel very strongly about, and drugs is one of those things. We seem to have been fighting a war with drugs for 100 years, and it seems like they should be more under control by now.


Anne

Anne, if you didn't hit this "nail" on its head, you at least shone a good, strong beam of light on it!
I feel pretty much en sympatico with you on this topic . . my only caveat is that so often folks wag a righteous finger at potentially lethal drug use among celebrities, while that cherished old bugaboo of severe alcohol abuse just waltzes off around the corner, whistling as it goes!
And in case anybody's still fibbing to themselves on the subject, it's way past time to get those blinders off - alcohol is every bit as broadly addictive as practically any illegal drug, and can be all the more seductive for its simple, legal, glamorized accessibility.
Furthermore, wherever one may be on the chronic imbibement scale, whether greenhorn rookie or bar-scarred veteran, it can be just as easy to kill one's self stone dead in one night of extreme booze intake, as it is to explode an aorta with a heroin hotshot or fry-out your brain's frontal lobe smoking crack or stop one's heart with a big, frosty blast of cocaine.
But there's that golden patina of poignant camaraderie when a cherished trouper drinks his/herself into eternity, isn't there? It's still the end result of excess and vice and self-involvement and moral disregard, isn't it? Is it the sense of communal respectability that the sport of drinking creates?
Likely, I'm a poor one to judge, as I've the luckiest situation; I possess a well-honed appetite for the fruit of the barley-malt, brewed or distilled, often in some markable quantity, but also the ability, with virtually no effort or fortitude, to abstain for a week, or a month or half a year even, from those noblest of nectars with no appreciable discomfort.
And that, from all I've ever seen or heard, is a very rare disposition.
But back on point - why are those among us who "OD" so much more the pariahs than those who choose self destruction by pickling? Is it the probability of the time it will take to traverse that hand-trembling, bloody-urined arc? Are twinkling eyes still warmly merry as they fade to yellow over the years? When it comes to our idols up on that big, silv'ry screen, are parched faces, trembling hands and a drunk's shredded memory more excusable, somehow, than the image of a sallow, sweaty, snoring druggie, "crashed" til noon, unable to keep a job, or read a whole newspaper article, or even digest most of his food?
OK, rant's done, hide that d**n soapbox in case I stop by after supper.
Just, you know, some things I think we don't think about often enough, or long enough.

[mrsl]

jdb:

I haven't looked at clothing stores yet, and anyway, my 'new' things come from the sports wear section of K Mart, WalMart and Target. After 25 years of wearing 3 piece suits and matching shoes and purses, my normal wardrobe now is a huge by large T shirt and stretch slacks or whatever they call pedal pushers nowadays.

Klondike:

When I talk about drugs, I usually mean cocaine, maryjane, and heroin, but actually booze is included. I know people who have been drinking booze for so long now that half their memories are gone. My husband was an alcoholic and thank goodness he went through the 'program' and stopped before it was too late for him, but the doctor explained to me that booze attacks the parts of the brain that maintain memories first and foremost. Bartenders used to marvel at our high capacity to liquor. After hours of drinking we still spoke clearly, and walked straight. You may think that is good, but it's not because you drink more than the average person. I simply realized one day I just didn't like the taste anymore, and quit which happened at the same time that he had to quit for heart and health. I have never missed it, I have as much fun as the guy or gal who's making a fool of him/herself.

Anne

[jdb1]

Klonny brings up a good point. I think the difference in attitude towards drunks vs. druggies is one that was formed by societal thought long ago.

A drunk can be "merry," or "lit," or "feeling no pain," and so on, and we as a society are able to find that funny, up to a point. Drinks are served at a party to relax inhibitions so that everyone can mingle and connect. But too much "relaxation," and you have crossed the line, and may be asked to leave. Nevertheless, alcohol is still more acceptable than are hard drugs.

A druggie (and I don't mean Cheech & Chong) is never funny to American society; and in days past our societal perceptions said that such a person was profligate, lost, depraved, etc. However, nowadays such addictions (to drugs and alcohol) are considered illnesses, and more and more health insurance companies will cover the treatment (but they still won't cover obesity treatments, 'cause if you're fat, society thinks you're a self-indulgent slob, and a waste of everyone's valuable time).

From what I've seen of Japanese TV (we get a lot of it in New York), the attitude toward drunkeness is very different: public drunkeness is not only tolerated, it seems to be encouraged. When you are drunk in Japan, you are excused from curbing your tongue, and you are allowed to speak your mind in a way that would be considered scandalous if you were sober. So far, in over 20 years of viewing, I've seen no mention at all on Japanese TV programming to drug use. Apparently they also put those two things in very different camps.

[mongoII]

I'm in the habit of taping the Oscar Awards (since 1978), and found the show mediocre, especially for an 80th anniversary event.
Some of the stars from the former winners Oscar show are still with us and should have been invited to participate to represent old Hollywood.
A glimpse of the amazing Mickey Rooney just wasn't enough.