![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oscar Post-Mortem
Mar. 8th, 2010 07:56 pmI didn't watch the Oscars. Why? The Academy Awards show is reliably long, boring, and smug. It looks like expanding the Best Picture category to include popular films (only one missing was "Transformers 2: Revenge Of The Fallen"), nominating popular actors, bringing in celebrities popular with young people, the drama over whether a woman will finally win an Oscar for directing (over her ex-husband), and the stars more or less behaving themselves paid off in the ratings.
But it was still a 3.5-hour show, 90% of which is filler. I don't have any patience for that stuff, especially if I'm not really emotionally-invested in who wins. I hate the business with people coming out to gush about the awesomeness of the nominated actors. That's so stupid. The interpretive dances? Barf. You can always catch the gowns before the show or during Joan Rivers' post-mortem. During the show everybody is sitting down.
In case you're wondering why "Avatar" didn't win Best Picture, I'll tell you. "The Hurt Locker" had the momentum; usually the BAFTAs and SAGs are better indicators of which will win than the Golden Globules. Maybe Nikki Finke was right about everyone in Hollywood hating James Cameron, but there were other factors. I haven't seen "Avatar," but based on what I've heard/read, it impressed mostly on a technical level and that's not good enough to win much more beyond the usual technical awards. Cameron already had his box office 'n trophy victory lap with "Titanic," where he gave perhaps the most memorably douchey acceptance speech in Academy Awards history. Moreover, the Oscar voting occurred when Hollywood was in the grip of "Titanic" mania. If you remember 1998 well, as I do, all everyone talked about was Leo, Leo, Leo and Celine Dion was on the frickin' radio 100 times a day for months. "Avatar" was a victim of how blockbuster movies make their money these days...insanely fast (there's also the boring breakdown of how many tickets it actually sold, especially when you consider that many 3D and IMAX screens charged a lot more than regular ticket prices for this flick, and inflation, but you don't care). The mania, such as it was for this day and age, was over in the blink of an eye. Then there was having "District 9" compete in the Best Picture category. Genre fans love "District 9." Since people tend to compare similar genres, it's a certainty that "District 9" siphoned votes from "Avatar," just as I'm sure "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" siphoned votes from ANH. Finally, Oscar voters never shy from the opportunity to "make history," this time by giving the first Oscar to a female director. But it wouldn't be fair to say Katheryn Bigelow won only because she's a woman. Bigelow was a sorely underrated talent who paid her dues over two decades. I liked "The Hurt Locker" overall.
But if you ask me, I would have gone with "Up" for Best Picture.
But it was still a 3.5-hour show, 90% of which is filler. I don't have any patience for that stuff, especially if I'm not really emotionally-invested in who wins. I hate the business with people coming out to gush about the awesomeness of the nominated actors. That's so stupid. The interpretive dances? Barf. You can always catch the gowns before the show or during Joan Rivers' post-mortem. During the show everybody is sitting down.
In case you're wondering why "Avatar" didn't win Best Picture, I'll tell you. "The Hurt Locker" had the momentum; usually the BAFTAs and SAGs are better indicators of which will win than the Golden Globules. Maybe Nikki Finke was right about everyone in Hollywood hating James Cameron, but there were other factors. I haven't seen "Avatar," but based on what I've heard/read, it impressed mostly on a technical level and that's not good enough to win much more beyond the usual technical awards. Cameron already had his box office 'n trophy victory lap with "Titanic," where he gave perhaps the most memorably douchey acceptance speech in Academy Awards history. Moreover, the Oscar voting occurred when Hollywood was in the grip of "Titanic" mania. If you remember 1998 well, as I do, all everyone talked about was Leo, Leo, Leo and Celine Dion was on the frickin' radio 100 times a day for months. "Avatar" was a victim of how blockbuster movies make their money these days...insanely fast (there's also the boring breakdown of how many tickets it actually sold, especially when you consider that many 3D and IMAX screens charged a lot more than regular ticket prices for this flick, and inflation, but you don't care). The mania, such as it was for this day and age, was over in the blink of an eye. Then there was having "District 9" compete in the Best Picture category. Genre fans love "District 9." Since people tend to compare similar genres, it's a certainty that "District 9" siphoned votes from "Avatar," just as I'm sure "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" siphoned votes from ANH. Finally, Oscar voters never shy from the opportunity to "make history," this time by giving the first Oscar to a female director. But it wouldn't be fair to say Katheryn Bigelow won only because she's a woman. Bigelow was a sorely underrated talent who paid her dues over two decades. I liked "The Hurt Locker" overall.
But if you ask me, I would have gone with "Up" for Best Picture.
