The Oscars 2017

Before I get on to the finale of this year's ceremony which made headlines around the world -- far more than the usual puff pieces and to the Academy's great dismay and embarrassment -- let me make a few comments on the ever-so-long self-congratulatory parade leading up to that classic fiasco.

For a start let's consider the new host, Jimmy Kimmel, who is more or less an unknown quantity in Britain. I reckon he did a reasonable job, far better than some of the hosting disasters of recent years. I'm thinking of the likes of Seth McFarland, James Franco/Anne Hathaway, and little Dougie Hauser. There weren't many foot-in-the-mouth moments in between some sharp jabs at the presidency and Hollywood itself. He came across as a 'please-please-like-me' kind of chap and kept the evening moving, despite some unnecessary bits of business like parachuting snacks from the ceiling (once would have been enough), his phony feud with Matt Damon, and waylaying some civilians off a tour-bus to ogle at the gathered celebs. Michael, being the cynic that I love, suggested that these sightseers were straight out of central casting.

As for the awards themselves, up to the final hoo-hah, there was little in the way of surprises. All of the acting Oscars went exactly where the pundits predicted, although some upsets might have been fun. Not that she stood a dewdrop's chance in hell of winning, but it would have been great if Isabelle Huppert had managed to dethrone Emma Stone as best actress. I have absolutely nothing whatsoever against Stone and have generally enjoyed her various performances, but as I have made clear ever since I saw "La La Land" last October, the film is undeserving of its hysterical hype. As is, it was the evening's biggest winner with six Oscars out of its record 14 nominations. Fortunately other films got a deserved 'look-in' in the writing, editing, sound editing and sound mixing, costume, and best actor categories. It's healthy to spread the love!

A highpoint of the evening was Viola Davis' acceptance speech (fortunately not drowned out by the Academy Orchestra) saying with regret that the place where the greatest potential is gathered is the graveyard -- a fine metaphor for her race's long struggle. Mind you the Academy did seem to bend over backwards this year to resolve last year's Oscars-so-white controversy -- and please don't yell at me if I suggest that not all of the nominations were really among the five best in their category. I'll say no more.

Finally to the evening's denouement which couldn't have been scripted in anyone's wildest dream. Septuagenarians Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty were wheeled on to present the award for best picture; I am not suggesting for a moment that one or other of the pair is going gaga, but the debacle could have been better handled. Beatty was obviously aware that the card he'd been handed was incorrect and should probably have spoken up then. Instead he thrust it at Dunaway who in what must have been a 'senior moment' blurted out "La La Land". It took an unbelievable amount of time, during which three of that's film's producers managed to make thank-you speeches, for the mistake to be put right and for the "Moonlight" producers to take their rightful place on the stage. By then the shine had been taken off their victory. Beatty kept making excuses and Dunaway made herself very scarce. Hilarious in a way.

Anyhow I had my wish that "La La" not win best picture. I've not seen "Moonlight" yet but it sounds a deserving winner. Rather than honouring a film that looked back to glorify America's technicolour musical past, the Oscars have been dragged into the present with a gritty and timely movie -- and that can't be a bad thing. As for Kimmel promising not to return -- as if the evening's fiasco was somehow his fault and not a distracted accountant's busy posing for a selfie with Stone -- I for one would be happy to see him again. He just needs to improve his timekeeping.

   

86th Annual Academy Awards

Well, I was 100% correct when I wrote that "Nebraska" would not win an Oscar in any of the six categories for which it was nominated and I am not the least bit surprised. As an independent movie which didn't boast an A-list cast and which didn't benefit from loads of publicity and which didn't set the box-office alight, it never stood a chance. Then again, I read last weekend that the new Lego Movie grossed more in the preceding week than all nine of the Best Picture nominees combined and that 66% of Americans had not seen even one of the nine. So we're all in good company.

As I have written in previous years I myself have not yet viewed most of the contenders, but I have seen enough clips and blurbs to feel that I have. Therefore I have my own pre-formed prejudices sufficient to evaluate the final selections. "12 Years a Slave" may have won best picture (I can imagine the voters choosing not to be politically incorrect), but it was not really the big winner of the night, failing to win best director as well. It did win best adapted screenplay and best supporting actress, although I was a little surprised that popular girl of the moment Jennifer Lawrence did not stumble off with the award, as she did at the BAFTAs. Lupita Nyong'o (the new Red Carpet favourite) quite probably deserved the Oscar for her convincing on-screen suffering, but I'm afraid that will not make me look forward to finally seeing the film. The big winner of the night was "Gravity", taking best director, cinematography, editing, music, and a trio of technical awards. I'll tell you a secret: that's another movie I am not looking forward to seeing.

I'm sure that Matthew McConaughey, who is having a remarkable career renaissance, and Jared Leto richly deserved their awards for best actor and best supporting actor in "Dallas Buyers Club", especially since the Academy seems to look favourably at the physical discomfort of a role and losing vast amounts of weight always seems to do the trick. To be fair, they were probably both pretty good despite their emaciation, and McConaughey's acceptance speech was pitch perfect. As for Cate Blanchett winning best actress for "Blue Jasmine" which seemed to be the most sure-fire bet, I can't help feeling that it would have been lovely for Judi Dench to finally receive this accolade. I don't know whether Blanchett was actually as marvellous as people seem to think, since despite being a massive Woody Allen fan, I missed seeing this flick in the cinema because of my physical limitations during the period of its release. I just love the fact that she crowed that she was "exacerbated" to receive the award from Daniel Day-Lewis, which actually means to make bad things even worse! But at least she had the good grace to thank Woody Allen for writing and giving her the role, despite the current hoo-ha and attempts to brand him a paedophile (again!).

To cover the other awards briefly, "The Great Gatsby" (which I have seen) deserved its gongs for production design and costume design, since these were pretty spectacular, even if the film itself was decidedly overblown and lacking in so many ways. (I still prefer not the 1974 version with Robert Redford, but the 1949 version with Alan Ladd, which is virtually impossible to view nowadays -- although you could ask to see my copy!). It was good to see Spike Jonze winning for best original screenplay for "Her", a movie that I am hoping to catch up with soon. I've not yet seen any of the animated feature, although I understand that "Frozen" was enormously popular and did big, big business; it's just a shame that Hayao Miyasaki, a true giant of animation, was overlooked for what is reputed to be his last feature. As for best foreign language film, I'm sure "The Great Beauty" deserved its award, the most joyous of the five nominations, and the DVD awaits my attention even as we speak. I can't comment on the short subjects -- animated, live action, and documentary -- since I know nothing about any of them yet, but I can express my surprise that "The Act of Killing" (one of two of the nominees that I have seen) did not win best documentary feature, since it was quite extraordinary. However, having read a bit about "20 Feet from Stardom" (the winner), I can see why it was the popular choice.

As for the ceremony itself, I don't feel that Ellen DeGeneres did as brilliant a job as some would have it, although obviously she was a vast improvement on last year's host. She had only one really good joke (at Liza Minelli's expense), and her get-down-with-the audience antics were mildly jejune -- ordering pizza, taking a whip-round to tip the delivery boy, and posing for the much vaulted 'selfie'. It's amusing that one now knows that this was a paid-for bit of product placement by Samsung. That's really typical of Hollywood's ingrained commercialism. The montage clips, this year celebrating various 'heroes' were as always pleasingly nostalgic, even if they occasionally seemed a strange assortment. The homage to the 75th Anniversary of the "Wizard of Oz" was a timely inclusion, but the visuals played second fiddle to Pink's vocalizing. Finally, in a year with the loss of so many great talents, the 'In Memoriam' section was better done than some previous ones, giving each loss near enough the same exposure; and the whole tribute was capped by Bette Midler's beautiful rendition of 'The Wind Beneath my Wings'. Pretty moving stuff...

I understand the U.S. television audience for the show was an improvement on recent years, so that's good news for future years, even if the show is over-bloated and marred by too many commercial breaks. Never mind, I'll be amongst next year's viewers with my usual anticipation.

85th Annual Academy Awards

Here we go again with Hollywood's annual love-in: the Oscars! Much to my surprise I note that last year was the first time that I blogged about the ceremony, despite being a near religious viewer of the annual fun and games. So how was this year's? Good question!

For a start I wish that the powers that be would get their act together when choosing a host for the procedings, rather than opting for a flavor-of-the-month like we had in the form of Seth MacFarlane. While I know next to nothing about the man, never having seen any of his television shows nor yet seen his directorial effort "Ted" (although I must admit it sounds something of a hoot from the reviews I've read), my received impression was to expect a sharp and humourous intelligence. Wrong again! His shtick was a cringing example of bad taste and mis-timed attempts to raise laughs, exemplified by his song number "We've seen your boobs", highlighting well-known actresses who have bared all on screen. The look of disgust on the faces of some of his 'culprits' reflected the audience's unease, even if two of his victims had agreed in advance to react with pretend horror (Theron and Watts I've read). No need to pretend ladies, since his entire routine verged on the unwatchable with sexist, racist, and religious so-called jokes. When the 'god of good taste' William Shatner appeared to him as some sort of deus ex machina telling him to improve his hosting or risk disastrous reviews, we were treated to some clumpy musical numbers to make the opening more 'Oscarly', but which only made one think that what the ceremony really needs is a professional host who gets on with the business to hand. 

As usual I have only seen a minority of this year's contenders, although I know that I will catch up with them all in due course, having so far only seen "Life of Pi" and "Django Unchained" on their release. However that in no way stops my having my own biases and prejudices. Staying with these two films for the moment, I suppose Tarantino deserved his second screenwriting Oscar since he is a far better writer than director or god-help-us actor, and Christoph Waltz is a mesmeric screen presence. As for "Pi", it was surprisingly the evening's big winner, if you count receiving four awards as notable. As expected it had two well-deserved technical awards for visual effects and cinematography, a third for its rousing musical score, and I felt a very deserved acknowledgment of Ang Lee as best director. I think that pleased me more than anything else.

However his film did not go on to win best picture, an honour taken by the very popular "Argo", which brings me to the often commented upon anomaly of a best picture 'directing itself 'when its director is not himself nominated. In a way this is inevitable when the Academy decided to expand the list of nominated films to a maximum of ten, while limiting the directorial nominations to five -- although this conundrum existed even when the totals were five and five. If truth be known, I suspect that Lee might have lost the race had Ben Affleck been numbered amongst his opponents, although I think the absence of the other three missing directors would not have mattered. At any rate I'm pleased that "Lincoln" and Steven Spielberg did not win in either category.

Meanwhile Lincoln's star Daniel Day-Lewis went on to make Oscar history by being the first man to win three best actor Oscars. I don't have a lot of time for this infamous method actor, although there is no doubt that he pours himself into his roles, since he often comes across as humourless and holier-than-thou. However I did chuckle during his acceptance speech, after his win was announced by Meryl Streep -- herself no slouch when it comes to nominations and wins -- that he nearly didn't take the role since he was contracted to play Margaret Thatcher, leaving Streep as Speilberg's next choice as Lincoln. Now there are two never-to-be-seen films worth savouring!

As for the other acting kudos, one couldn't help feeling that the awards to Jennifer Lawrence and Anne Hathaway reflected their current popularity rather than necessarily being the best amongst the nominees. It would have been lovely to see octagenarian Emmanuelle Riva win best actress. as she did at the BAFTAs, but most of the voters probably don't know who the heck she is. As for Hathaway's Oscar, this probably annoys me more than any of the awards, not just because her screen time in "Les Miserables" was limited (this didn't stop Judi Dench's receiving the same award some years back for only eight mintues on screen), but because she becomes increasingly more and more full of herself and no doubt believed that she deserved this honour more than any of her fellow nominees. I should say in passing that I have resisted ever seeing the stage version of "Les Mis" despite its having run here for the last umpteen years and I can hardly say that I am looking forward to watching the three hour, totally live-sung musical film. It sounds to me like three hours of purgatory -- but that's probably just me.

Anything else? Well I am fed up with hearing winners say with mock humility that in any 'normal' year their competitors would have been the obvious winner; I think this has been said every year since the year dot. Secondly, while the theme of this year's ceremony was meant to be the celebration of screen musicals, this would have been far better accomplished with one of the compilations that have shone at previous ceremonies, rather than subjecting us to unnecessary re-enactments of the Oscar-winning "Chicago" and "Showgirls" and then giving the cast of "Les Mis" the chance to perform their nominated best song. You really can't mix tributes with nominations, and apart from Adele's winning performance of "Skyfall" the other three nominees were given little exposure. In an average year I normally record between five and eight parts of the evening's jollities to save for my future viewing pleasure, but this year there were only two: the rather well-done tribute to 50 years of James Bond with its crowd-pleasing performance of "Goldfinger" by Shirley Bassey, and the In Memoriam section honoring those now gone, which this year ended with a rare performance by Barbra Streisand. Both she and Bassey still 'have it' even if their voices are not quite what they were at their peak.

Well there's always next year for things to improve and perhaps I will have finally seen all of this years nominations by then -- even if this has to include "Les Mis".