March 6th, 2006
The Oscars
Thank goodness my brother has Sky Movies 1. He duly taped the Oscars and dropped the tape in this morning. That way, I got to see the show before it’s edited to shreds and fast forward through the boring bits. If I’m honest, I think this was actually one of the most tedious Oscars. One factor is the length of the show and oodles of filler - as Johnny Carson said in 1979 when he presented the show, “Welcome to the Academy Awards, a glittering two hours of entertainment, spread out over four hours.”
Jon Stewart was funny but decidedly uncontroversial but after Chris Rock last year anyone would have sparkled. There seemed to be an unfeasibly large portion of time given over to montages and inserts. By two hours in, we’d barely gotten to any of the big categories, but I really liked Steve Carrel andWill Ferrell’s approach to presenting the award for Best Make-Up.
The winners were the usual mix of runaway favourites (Philip Seymour Hoffman for Best Actor and Reese Witherspoon for Best Actress) and some surprises. Brokeback Mountain,which had the most nominations and was tipped to sweep the boards only won three Oscars, including Best Director for Ang Lee. The controversial Palestinian film Paradise Now lost out to South African film Tsotsi for Best Foreign Language Film. Unsurprisingly, Nick Park bagged another Oscar for Wallace and Gromit and March of the Penguins was named Best Documentary. As a big Robert Altman fan, his Honorary Oscar was hugely deserved.
Delighted to an Irish win, with Martin McDonagh picking up a gong for Best Live Action Short Film for Six Shooter but does anyone know why Rúaidhrà Conroy wasn’t allowed into the country?
But here’s my big beef - Crash winning best film. Without doubt it was the weakest film in the category. It highjacked the formula of Magnolia but relied on clumsy concidence and far-fetched examples of fate. It’s overwrought and predictable with an ensemble cast who were competent but unremarkable. Am I missing something? Maybe. But I thought Crash was outshone by ever other film it was nominated with.
Watching the curtailed speeches, I had a thought: Has Damien employed an orchestra to play loudly over any Blog Award winners who ramble on this Saturday?
March 6th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
You know I was thinking the same thing about Damien and the awards, not to mention the fact that now that microsoft are sponsoring - what time does the free bar run out on the evening?
March 6th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Don’t watch the Oscars anymore. I may half watch parts tonight on RTE, but since Sky Movies nabbed the live version it’s no fun.
Haven’t seen Crash, but have heard a lot of people saying similar things.
March 6th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Phew I am not the only one that thought crash was weak. The oscars are about politics now a days not film quality
March 6th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
I think that Conroy had overstayed a visa for a few days in 1998 or something…there was something about it on the radio this morning. I imagine that’s what stopped him going.
I had also heard that Crash was weak - patronising, confused, quasi-plagiaristic, weak character development etc… but some loved it because it “finally” signified a willingness on Hollywood’s part to challenge racism. Even a film-useless-er like me knows that it’s not the first time - or is it?
March 6th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
From this side of the pond, I have to agree the Oscars were very tedious. The entire effort dragged on and on and on. We’d gone over to our neighbors who’d organized a party and halfway through everyone had lost interst. And so boring, politically. Another high point was Dolly belting out her song.
March 6th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Who needs an orchestra when you have a drunken audience with rotten fruit. Or is it a rotten audience with drunken fruit. I forget.
March 6th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
There’s been better films on racism than Crash. One of these was on last night - Fiona, you might want to add it to your list - American History X. Very powerful, but also a grim and very ugly film about neo-Nazism that exposes racism (and the neo-Nazi) movement for what they are - empty and poisonous. It was nominated for Oscars, but was overlooked - Ed Norton was robbed.
Crash I did like, but it’s a bit too obvious for my tastes, as though the directory is crying out “Ooh, look, we’re doing a movie about racial tension and the clash of different cultures! Aren’t we just great!”…
March 6th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Phew, it wasn’t just me then.
Totally agree Tom, I just found the whole film clumsy and the way it presented a valid message was the equivalent of waving your arms in the air. I only saw American History X last night (I looked away for the infamous curb scene)
Damien - Dolly should have won for best song
Does anyone think that Brokeback Mountain might have been snubbed?
March 6th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Boring as it was, Hoffman’s award was thoroughly deserved. Capote was fantastic, and I suspect it was largely down to him.
March 7th, 2006 at 2:08 am
Crash is a racist film about racism, or Forrest Gump-like treatment of the issue. Forrest Gump won the Oscar in its day. Hence Crash’s Oscar win is just more of the same.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:22 am
It’s probably a blessing, but the feed RTE showed last night was cut to shreds. From what I could tell, all the speeches were all considerably chopped. Even Dustin Hoffman’s funny gaffe in introducing Best Adapted Screenplay was scrapped. Did they show Jennifer Garner nearly falling over and Morgan Freeman fluffing his words?
Worse, was the fact that we didn’t get to see Martin McDonagh’s speech - he was included that condescending round-up of ‘Other Oscards presented tonight went to’, as was Robert Altman. I don’t understand why someone in receipt of a lifetime achievement is omitted from the main broadcast. His speech was one of the few that was well worth hearing.
If you’d like to read transcripts of all the acceptance speeches, you can do so at the Oscars site.
March 7th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Crash is a over-simplified, jarringly derivative movie that will be forgotten in a week. I hated it. It wasn’t even the best film on it’s week of release here, let alone the best movie of the year.
And pardon me if I won’t listen to a lecture on racism and discrimination from a rich white guy. What did he do? Crank up a few old Public Enemy cd’s and talk to his housekeeper about how crappy her neighbourhood is?
I suspect it won simply because it’s a washed-up actors movie - Sandra Bullock, Brendan Fraser, Tony Danza, William Fitcher, Matt Dillon, Ryan Phillippe. All faded stars, barely hanging on. The Academy has 5,500 odd members, of which 3,300 are actors, more than half of which again are out of work at any one time. You do the maths. It’s about the constituency.
March 7th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
Phew, ok, at least people are still talking about the Blog Awards so I’m surmising they’re still on then! I have the fear of turning up at the Alexander Hotel on Saturday dressed up to the fives (I’m not really good looking enough for the nines) to find an empty room and not a whiff of another blogger in sight!
Screw the Oscars, RTE should be editing US to fuck!
March 8th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
I totally disagree about _Crash_. I think it is a well-crafted film that deserves the Oscar. In particular I think that John’s comments about Paul Haggis are out of order. By that line of thinking no writer can write anything except within his/her own race or class.
I respect that other people didn’t enjoy the film on the level that I did, as _Crash_ has divided people in their reactions to it, but I think that making speculative, and racist, comments about the writer/director is rather rich coming from somone who condemns the film for supposedly doing the same thing.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Maura isn’t the first to disagree with my take on Crash. Although I’m in danger of repeating myself, I thought Haggis’ script lacked any originality, in concept, form or language. The performances were mixed, more bad than good. The dialogue is ocasionally clunky, at times puzzlingly uncertain. Crucially, I left with the impression I had seen it all before and that more stereotypes were reinforced than not. It looks and feels like a made for TV movie, and to me, is disgustingly ‘worthy’ and callously opportune, and that’s the level I enjoyed it at.
Haggis is free to write about whomever and whatever he likes. I am likewise, free to like it or not. My point is, there are plenty of black/asian filmmakers willing and able to relate their own experiences of life in America. Why Haggis?
I couldn’t care less about the Oscars, but this film’s singular awards success (as opposed to audience success) brings with it the danger that Hollywood will think the issue of modern, urban racial and cultural alienation has been dealt with and it has not.
For the record, I am no racist and I’d ask Maura to think twice before using that word so carelessly, if she does, as she claims, have respect for other peoples opinions. That’s all they are, matters of opinion. Not hate crimes.
March 9th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
The issue you raise about giving blacks/hispanics their own voice in American cinema is an entirely valid and very important issue, but that does not diminish Haggis’s attempt to look at the matter. Equal access to film-making is a big problem in the industry, both here and in America. For instance, note the dearth of women writers/directors in both countries.
I look forward to the day when we’ll see more people of colour and women writing and making films about their experience of the world. We’ll be a lot richer for it.
If you think my label of racist was rather strong, then I withdraw that. However, re-read what you wrote about Paul Haggis in relation to what you say about matter of opinion, or in this case matters of fact. What do you know about him and his lifestyle?
I doubt that _Crash_ winning the Oscars means that Hollywood thinks it has dealt with racial matters. Hollywood had little to do with the making of the movie. Both _Brokeback_ and _Crash_ were independently funded and produced. The industry only climbed onto the wagon after they were successful. Hollywood is an industry first and foremost. If it can make a buck from a movie then it will promote the hell out of it no matter what the topic.
For instance, I doubt anyone would think that the gay issue has been dealt with even thought the topic was covered variously in _Capote_, _Brokeback_ and _Transamerica_ this year. There are many ways to tackle issues, and I expect we’ll see both race and sexuality examined again in new cinematic stories.
Ultimately, Hollywood is after two things that it hopes are interrelated: a good story that will make a lot of money.
I disagree entirely with you about the merits of _Crash_, but film taste is subjective.
March 13th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
last word on the irish Oscar anyone !!!
is there to be any respite from the tedious theme in recent Irish drama of the “gobshite as hero!” …..”Six Shooter” rehashed it and compounded this lazy approach with the casting of the “CLINIC” couple , wilmot and o’sullivan, as the distraught train couple ……..one word AWFUL …the emporor has no clothes .
March 31st, 2006 at 4:44 am
Hey I was just surfing around and decided to post a short comment here. I run a movie review message board and am looking for people to write reviews and contribute at my forum. You can even post a link to your blog on your signature file at my forum. It’s all good! Take care.