No, I'm not literally hungover, but you can bet those who went to the after-party sure are. If anything, it's my fingers that are a little tired from so much live-tweeting (@KWRossman) during the telecast. Many thanks to those who followed along. It gave me something to do during those dead spots where the Oscars forgot it was a show about movies and temporarily morphed into the Grammys.
And that, of course, brings me to the main complaint, as it is every year with this ceremony: the length. Every time the show's producers cut one time-wasting item from years past (this time around: shorter acceptance speeches, no personal tributes to the Lead Actor and Actress nominees), something equally superfluous replaces it. I understand the desire to honor 50 years of James Bond by having Dame Shirley Bassey belt out "Goldfinger," but other than that, song performances need to be thrown out entirely; this isn't a concert. The Short categories take up less time, but still, these are movies that greater than 99% of America have not seen and don't care about (excepting Paperman, which was shown before screenings of Wreck it Ralph). Bottom line: this show needs to clock in under 3 hours; having the host repeatedly poke fun of the length isn't enough.
Speaking of the hose, some will cry foul over some of host Seth McFarlane's more offensive jokes, but really, anyone even remotely familiar with the man's work realizes that this is who he is. Ask any Family Guy fan and he/she will tell you that McFarlane has always pushed the envelope. Besides, he beat all his critics to the punch with the way he structured his opening numbers. Having William Shatner appear in Captain Kirk getup and explain how McFarlane's tasteless stunts (including the "we saw your boobs" musical number) result in bad reviews before actually showing them was a stroke of genius. McFarlane takes shots at everyone, but he leaves plenty in the tank for himself, making poor reviews almost redundant. Personally, I don't mind a little off-color in these telecasts to liven up the evening. Too often the Oscars are like weddings; everything is perfectly planned to a fault and anything spontaneous is frowned upon.
My grand total was 14/21, or 66%. Decent, but not nearly enough to win any contests. But just because I guessed wrong on a few major categories doesn't qualify any of these wins as "shockers." Best Supporting Actor was a tossup category from the outset all the way to the moment before Christoph Waltz's name was announced. So much for the theory that winning "too recently" counts against you. Kudos to those who picked Ang Lee as Best Director; there were rumblings that he was a close second to Speilberg and had a shot at passing him. I also whiffed on both Screenplay categories as well as Animated Film. Picking these winners is a lot like filling out a March Madness bracket. You want a good mix of solid favorites and brave upsets, but oftentimes you end up crossing the wires.
Argo was my No. 5 movie of the year, so I can't complain. Although it's set during an important historical event and has plenty of elements that excite the Academy, it also doesn't scream "artsy fartsy" at the top of its lungs. (No disrespect to the previous year's winner, The Artist, which I love, but Argo has much more mainstream appeal). Some will argue that the Best Director snub for Ben Affleck propelled the film's momentum, but it's still one of 2012's best movies with or without the assist. Also, on a night where long-winded speakers were quickly and rightfully yanked by the orchestra's rendition of the Jaws theme, letting the "big winners" (actors and directors) take more time to express emotion was a nice gesture.
So that's it. Comments? Hit me up here or on Facebook. Time to move on to March, where my blog entries will gravitate toward sports until the summer blockbusters roll around.
No comments:
Post a Comment