Worst.Oscar.Show.Ever?

[bostonman]

If MacFarlane had really been "edgy" it might have made for an interesting show but...would it have been the Oscars?

 

Good point. Frankly, the venerable old awards like the Oscars feel like they really come from a more conservative place somehow - not in the bad sense. Maybe instead of "conservative" I mean classy. It's hard to find the exact feel I'm looking for here. But in any case, not "edgy." And I don't think having an edgy host automatically makes the show itself edgy.

 

And I agree that MacFarlane isn't edgy at all. As I said before, to me he's one of the "I won't grow up" comedians like Kimmel or Sandler (or, I hate to say it, but Anderson Cooper) - humor that's smutty and adolescent and sometimes downright immature for the sake of being immature. Nothing wrong with that kind of humor if you like it (I tend to put old-time comedians like Jerry Lewis in the same boat, though I don't really think of him as smutty, just annoyingly boy-like), but to me that's not the image that the Oscars seem to want to project. I don't know who these days would be the equivalent of a very edgy ADULT comic like Lenny Bruce or Sam Kinison, (Maybe Lewis Black would come closest, for someone alive and working today?) but THAT would be my definition of edgy. But, I'm not sure they would have been a good fit for the Oscars either, lol.

 

But, hey, if this is the kind of show the producers wanted, well, so be it. Funny, though - when I was a teen, starting to get into musical theatre and Sondheim in particular, the name Craig Zadan was a big, important one for me - he wrote the wonderful book Sondheim And Co., which was, I believe, the first book to really take an in-depth look at Sondheim's shows up to that point in time. But funny how, with only a few exceptions, I haven't liked most of his work as a producer with Meron - most of the TV musical adaptations they've done have been either lacking or just terrible - and yes, they produced the Oscars this year. Zadan, what the hell happened to you?

[Rod Hagen]

Yes, I agree, Fey and Poehler would be much better ...

 

...and would also be parroting the golden globes.

 

Bottom line: The bottom line. Viewing numbers were up, and therefore next year the oscars can command larger advertising fees, which suggests to me not much will change.

[Rod Hagen]

to me he's one of the "I won't grow up" comedians like Kimmel or Sandler

 

Unfortunately, this is the way we live now: Tosh.O, sophomoric humor concentrate, pulls in more viewers than Stewart and Colbert...combined.

[Rod Hagen]

Adele is a goddess. Period. Amour did win Best Picture ... Best Foreign Picture

Which is not best picture. It's 10 times better than any other movie that came out 2012 (I see all of them. ALL of them.) Best movie of the last 5 years actually, with exception of Tree Of Life.

 

If Adele sings that awful song from that awful Bond movie, then I think her voice comes across as bloated, but I am not at all familiar with her so she may, otherwise, be a divinity. I wouldn't know.

[operalover21]

Which is not best picture. It's 10 times better than any other movie that came out 2012 (I see all of them. ALL of them.) Best movie of the last 5 years actually, with exception of Tree Of Life.

 

If Adele sings that awful song from that awful Bond movie, then I think her voice comes across as bloated, but I am not at all familiar with her so she may, otherwise, be a divinity. I wouldn't know.

 

Amour was a great movie, to say it was TEN times better than anything else is ridiculous. It wasn't better than Life of Pie or Argo or Silver Linings Playbook. It also doesn't utilize the best of what film has to offer as it takes place entirely in one apartment. As Hitchcock said, "I have no interest in making movies that are photographs of people talking." Amen.

 

That said, I loved the film and I thought Riva deserved Best Actress.

[operalover21]

But of course, "And I Am Telling You" is not BY Hudson - it's from Dreamgirls by Henry Krieger and Tom Eyen, and if you want to hear the definitive take on the song, listen to Jennifer Holliday do it.

 

IMO Hudson's take on the song isn't bad at all, but Holliday's performance is, and will always be, the iconic one.

 

This isn't politically correct but ... I think that Jennifer Hudson's version of that song is the "white" version. It doesn't have that raw emotion and nakedness that Jennifer Holliday brought/brings to it. It's rather pale and vanilla. Made for middle America.

[operalover21]

like that we all have different opinions for themost part. good conversation here

 

Benjamin Nicholas gave his thoughts on the show. Don't agree with everything, but was a fun read

 

http://15minutesmore.com/blog/2013/02/27

 

Like him or not (I happen to adore him), Ben is always an interesting writer.

[Rod Hagen]

O mi god. Did you just say that Life Of Pi (pie) Argo and Silver Linings Playbook are as good as Amour?

 

Argo, mildly amusing and totally (except for first 5 minutes) lets the US of the hook for it's part in rise/rule of evil Shah.

 

Life Of Pi, beautiful, stunning actually, but the most shallow/hollow of the bunch.

 

Silver Linings was quite good and true...until the end. Then it was basically dirty dancing. The message: your mental illness, your girlfriend's mental illness, and even your father's mental illness can all be quelled just by "winning" a competition. WTF??

 

Consider for a second what kind of brilliant filmmaking is required to make such as an amazing film in just one room. Breakfast Club this wasn't. But of course, that is not what makes Amour the best film of the last five years/10 times better than the others.

 

The best of film, the films that grab your soul and butt-fucks it, and live on your desktop for years and years afterward (presuming it wasn't something you saw as a child, childhood movies imprint differently) are movies that 100% nail the human condition. Brokeback Mountain por ejemplo. Silver Linings tried and failed to do this. What happened in Amour is universal.

 

A movie doesn't HAVE to be Universal to be fantastic of course, but it does help.

 

And, since we are on the subject of Oscars and you brought him up to prove me wrong: Hitchcock won only one best picture and 60% of that film took place in one house, where people basically just talked. And I LOVE that film.

[operalover21]

O mi god. Did you just say that Life Of Pi (pie) Argo and Silver Linings Playbook are as good as Amour?

 

Argo, mildly amusing and totally (except for first 5 minutes) lets the US of the hook for it's part in rise/rule of evil Shah.

 

Life Of Pi, beautiful, stunning actually, but the most shallow/hollow of the bunch.

 

Silver Linings was quite good and true...until the end. Then it was basically dirty dancing. The message: your mental illness, your girlfriend's mental illness, and even your father's mental illness can all be quelled just by "winning" a competition. WTF??

 

Consider for a second what kind of brilliant filmmaking is required to make such as an amazing film in just one room. Breakfast Club this wasn't. But of course, that is not what makes Amour the best film of the last five years/10 times better than the others.

 

The best of film, the films that grab your soul and butt-fucks it, and live on your desktop for years and years afterward (presuming it wasn't something you saw as a child, childhood movies imprint differently) are movies that 100% nail the human condition. Brokeback Mountain por ejemplo. Silver Linings tried and failed to do this. What happened in Amour is universal.

 

A movie doesn't HAVE to be Universal to be fantastic of course, but it does help.

 

And, since we are on the subject of Oscars and you brought him up to prove me wrong: Hitchcock won only one best picture and 60% of that film took place in one house, where people basically just talked. And I LOVE that film.

 

It's hard to respond to such twaddle so I won't even try to respond to your first few comments.

 

Hitchcock, along with John Ford, is one of the two greatest American film directors of all time. Greatness is not measured by the number of Best Picture Oscars that you win but by the test of time. Hitchcock has stood the test of time.

 

REBECCA took place in a variety of settings with a variety of characters (the sea, London, a boat, the house, the cabin, etc.) and utilized wonderful visuals in addition to a great script and great acting to tell its story. AMOUR is set in an apartment. It doesn't utilize the best of what film can do unlike almost any Hitchcock film. It's basically a staged play. I'll repeat this again for the 4th time ... it's a film that I love and greatly admire for it's acting. But there just isn't much more to it, in terms of film.

 

Plus, it's a foreign film and got what it deserved at the American Academy Awards. Why would one expect more? At least the Oscars allow foreign films to compete in the main categories. Something the Cesars -- in France -- which showered Amour with awards -- doesn't permit. NO American films can be nominated there.

 

There were a lot of wonderful films in 2012. Amour was among them. It wasn't the only one. Period.

[Rod Hagen]

It's hard to respond to such twaddle so I won't even try to respond to your first few comments.

 

Hitchcock, along with John Ford, is one of the two greatest American film directors of all time. Greatness is not measured by the number of Best Picture Oscars that you win but by the test of time. Hitchcock has stood the test of time.

 

REBECCA took place in a variety of settings with a variety of characters (the sea, London, a boat, the house, the cabin, etc.) and utilized wonderful visuals in addition to a great script and great acting to tell its story. AMOUR is set in an apartment. It doesn't utilize the best of what film can do unlike almost any Hitchcock film. It's basically a staged play. I'll repeat this again for the 4th time ... it's a film that I love and greatly admire for it's acting. But there just isn't much more to it, in terms of film.

 

Plus, it's a foreign film and got what it deserved at the American Academy Awards. Why would one expect more? At least the Oscars allow foreign films to compete in the main categories. Something the Cesars -- in France -- which showered Amour with awards -- doesn't permit. NO American films can be nominated there.

 

There were a lot of wonderful films in 2012. Amour was among them. It wasn't the only one. Period.

 

It's not twaddle. Life of Pi is airport literature writ large on the big screen.

 

I had a lot of good things to say about Silver, it's just that the ending of the movie is so entirely inconsistent with the honesty of what came before it, it nearly negates the entire film.

 

Argo, please.

 

Absolutely agree that a filmmaker/actor/writer does not need lots of awards, or even one, to be great. Lots of examples of this. But you quoted Hitchcock in this Oscar thread in order to reveal and clarify your criticism of Amour, chiefly that it's geographic limitation make it a filmed play. And so my fact-checking you, as it were, was not a diminishing of Hitchock, who we all love for a variety of reasons one of which is he and Ozu and people like them basically invented film, but an example that even a master can do master work in one small area/house/room.

 

How many rooms did Rope take place in?

 

How many rooms did Rear Window take place in?

 

Both brilliant movies from a master that do not utilize the best of what film can do, whatever that means.

 

Prometheus and Inception push the limits of what film can do (if that's what you mean), and they suck.

 

I'm pretty sure no Foreign movie has ever won best picture, not even Last Tango. I Find this odd. I find it odd that they are nominated, but never winning.

 

There were lots of amazing movies in 2012, but apart from Amour and, to a lesser degree, Zero and Lincoln, none of them were nominated for best picture. Some of those nominated for best picture were at best "good".

 

And, not to turn this into a war, but I just read the lyrics** for Adele's "Skyfall" and you have got to be kidding me. A deity????

 

 

**"Let the sky fall/When it crumbles/We will stand tall/Face it all together/At skyfall/That skyfall"

[+ WilliamM]

 

Absolutely agree that a filmmaker/actor/writer does not need lots of awards, or even one, to be great. Lots of examples of this. But you quoted Hitchcock in this Oscar thread in order to reveal and clarify your criticism of Amour, chiefly that it's geographic limitation make it a filmed play. And so my fact-checking you, as it were, was not a diminishing of Hitchock, who we all love for a variety of reasons one of which is he and Ozu and people like them basically invented film, but an example that even a master can do master work in one small area/house/room.

 

How many rooms did Rope take place in?

 

How many rooms did Rear Window take place in?

 

Both brilliant movies from a master that do not utilize the best of what film can do, whatever that means.

 

 

You are exactly correct about Hitchcock with evidence in Rope and Rear Window to back it up. If the Best Film was the one that made use of the full range of possibilities the medium offers, many films from the past would not have won Best Picture.

 

I enjoy all the comments in this threads, but, as a wrote several pages ago, it is easy to dislike the Oscars. I do not mean to knock operalover, but have to ask what he was expecting---the Oscars seldom make for a great evening on TV or in person.

[JT Brooklyn]

To those who have asked ..MacFarlane definitely has said he will not do it again! I'm sure he has a few reasons!

[operalover21]

It's not twaddle. Life of Pi is airport literature writ large on the big screen.

 

I had a lot of good things to say about Silver, it's just that the ending of the movie is so entirely inconsistent with the honesty of what came before it, it nearly negates the entire film.

 

Argo, please.

 

Absolutely agree that a filmmaker/actor/writer does not need lots of awards, or even one, to be great. Lots of examples of this. But you quoted Hitchcock in this Oscar thread in order to reveal and clarify your criticism of Amour, chiefly that it's geographic limitation make it a filmed play. And so my fact-checking you, as it were, was not a diminishing of Hitchock, who we all love for a variety of reasons one of which is he and Ozu and people like them basically invented film, but an example that even a master can do master work in one small area/house/room.

 

How many rooms did Rope take place in?

 

How many rooms did Rear Window take place in?

 

Both brilliant movies from a master that do not utilize the best of what film can do, whatever that means.

 

Prometheus and Inception push the limits of what film can do (if that's what you mean), and they suck.

 

I'm pretty sure no Foreign movie has ever won best picture, not even Last Tango. I Find this odd. I find it odd that they are nominated, but never winning.

 

There were lots of amazing movies in 2012, but apart from Amour and, to a lesser degree, Zero and Lincoln, none of them were nominated for best picture. Some of those nominated for best picture were at best "good".

 

And, not to turn this into a war, but I just read the lyrics** for Adele's "Skyfall" and you have got to be kidding me. A deity????

 

 

**"Let the sky fall/When it crumbles/We will stand tall/Face it all together/At skyfall/That skyfall"

 

You lost me when you said that Lincoln was one of the great movies of the year. Next.

[operalover21]

You are exactly correct about Hitchcock with evidence in Rope and Rear Window to back it up. If the Best Film was the one that made use of the full range of possibilities the medium offers, many films from the past would not have won Best Picture.

 

I enjoy all the comments in this threads, but, as a wrote several pages ago, it is easy to dislike the Oscars. I do not mean to knock operalover, but have to ask what he was expecting---the Oscars seldom make for a great evening on TV or in person.

 

Hitchcock made over 50 movies. To use 1 (Rope) as evidence to back up your theory is about as ridiculous as it gets. As for Rear Window ... anyone who thinks that that movie takes place in one room and doesn't include the full use of great visuals either hasn't seen that film or has no idea what they're talking about.

 

Amour is a great example of acting that touches on so many aspects of humanity. But it is filmed as if it is a stage play. It's a photograph of a wonderful stage play. It is not a great film, it has almost nothing to do with film. Accepted on that level, it's wonderful. But it's not in the same league as films that take full advantage of what the great medium has to offer. It's like comparing a great oil painting to charcoal sketch.

[+ WilliamM]

Hitchcock made over 50 movies. To use 1 (Rope) as evidence to back up your theory is about as ridiculous as it gets. As for Rear Window ... anyone who thinks that that movie takes place in one room and doesn't include the full use of great visuals either hasn't seen that film or has no idea what they're talking about.

 

 

Hitchcock sets boundaries for himself in Rope and Rear Window. For Rope, it was a series of 10-15 minutes uncut filming segments, which required detailed technical knowledge of camera movement, sound, etc. For "Rear Window," Hitchcock uses a confined space, which included Jimmy Stewart's room and the apartments across the court yard. Again, the filming required detailed technical knowledge. Few other directors would have attempted those films in the 1940s and 1950s.

 

Amour does not have the techical brillance of the two Hitchcoch films. But, Hitchcock sets the boundaries in Rope and Rear Windows to see if it could be done & to keep himself engaged. Both films may have been just as good filmed the same way as Amour. Amour has a compelling story and superb actors. That all you need for a great film.

[Rod Hagen]

You lost me when you said that Lincoln was one of the great movies of the year. Next.

 

Of the bunch NOMINATED I think it's one of the better ones (Argo, silly entertainment; Beasts, wretched; Pi, Gorgeous drivel, Silver, Absolutely an admirable film, until the end). But no, Lincoln isn't great. I guess "To A Lesser Degree" did not downplay it enough.

 

Amour, The Turin Horse, Certified Copy, Michael, off the top of my head these were the Great movies of 2012.

[+ Cash4Trash]

Rod - make sure to check out Oslo, August 31st. I liked Moonrise Kingdom a good deal as well.

[operalover21]

Of the bunch NOMINATED I think it's one of the better ones (Argo, silly entertainment; Beasts, wretched; Pi, Gorgeous drivel, Silver, Absolutely an admirable film, until the end). But no, Lincoln isn't great. I guess "To A Lesser Degree" did not downplay it enough.

 

Amour, The Turin Horse, Certified Copy, Michael, off the top of my head these were the Great movies of 2012.

 

I agree with you about Beasts. That was AWFUL. Can't agree with you about anything else. Sorry. Turin Horse, Certified Copy, Michael ... that's what you call DRIVEL.

 

Both THE IMPOSSIBLE and LIFE OF PI were superior films to anything you've mentioned.

 

LINCOLN was mediocre ... as usual with Spielberg his opening and closing sequences were laughable.

[operalover21]

Rod - make sure to check out Oslo, August 31st. I liked Moonrise Kingdom a good deal as well.

 

Moonrise Kingdom and Django Unchained were the most overrated movies of the year.

[+ azdr0710]

gee, opera, I'm sorry you're so upset about this whole silly Oscars thing.....don't take it so seriously.....it's not that important....really!