Last weekend we watched the Oscars, hosted this
time around by Seth McFarlane, the handsome and charming yet sometimes nasty
creator of “The Family Guy”, “American Dad”, “The Cleveland Show”, and most
recently the live action film “Ted”. In fact, Ted himself showed up with
Mark Wahlberg, to present one of the awards. The Academy’s choice
of SM to host indicates a strong effort to attract younger viewers, who tend to
prefer SM’s more edgy and controversial humor. And he did much better
than James Franco and Anne Hathaway. Steve Martin and Billy Crystal might
as well be Johnny Carson, Milton Berle or Charlie Chaplin.
Nominally the Oscars should simply be a series
of presentations for awards, but the ceremonies add in a few extras.
Unlike the Grammies, where playing an entire song (short of “Freebird” or
“Echoes”) is feasible, the Oscars can’t really give us a whole movie. So
they give us some song and dance, “Chicago
It seemed to be a running battle between
“Argo”, ”Lincoln”, and “Life of Pie” for the top award; just when I thought
“Lincoln” would win, the award went to “Argo” or “Pie”. However, I was
surprised to see Christoph Waltz win yet another Oscar (supporting actor) for
“Django Unchained”, and then to see Tarantino himself win. Sometimes it
appears they belatedly hand out the gold statues for moviemakers (e.g. Peter
Jackson) who they’ve been trying to ignore all these years, only to finally
relent and say, “ok, we can’t really ignore you any longer.” The
Rock’n’Roll Hall of Fame seems to work the same way.
Popular music – as shown at the Grammys – seems
to be a celebration of mediocrity. The winners all fall within a very
narrow range of musical styles and add virtually nothing new to the mix.
They’re rewarded for an absence of substance rather than originality. The
Oscars, however, do seem to reward innovation and risk-taking. Giving
Jean DuJardin the Oscar for “The Artist” – borderline pretentious, but
ultimately very clever and charming movie, so I can applaud that choice.
The Academy has a particular weakness for artsy/pretentious films, which would
be like the Grammys awarding the Moody Blues or King Crimson. Any super impressive blockbuster which
knocks everyone off their feet – “Titanic”, “Ben Hur”, etc. – can expect to get
substantial recognition at the Oscars.
Very often the movies they reward are in fact some of the better ones,
and those insipid romantic comedies – the movie equivalent of Justin Bieber and
Nicki Minaj – are completely off the radar. Unfortunately, so
are regular comedies as well, no matter how edgy or original (e.g.
“Ted”). However, by letting “Ted” and Wahlberg present an award,
the Academy was giving them at least tacit recognition. “We feel bad
about not even nominating you – because we focus on dramas and won’t even
create a separate category for comedies – but we’ll throw you this bone.”
For the Grammys to do this, we’d have to see Dave Brock (Hawkwind) or Robert
Fripp (King Crimson) present an award. I’m not holding my breath.
But this is why I can’t stoke up the contempt I have for the Grammys, and
throw that mental monkey poo at the Oscars too. They’re not perfect, but
they do a MUCH better job.
Probably my favorite Oscar night was watching
“Saving Private Ryan” compete against “Shakespeare In Love”. You can
guess which film I was rooting for.
No comments:
Post a Comment