I guess it's my time to chime in with my toughts on this year's Oscars. Well, let's start with the hose. John Stewart was a good choice. Unfortunately the politically controversial humor we love him for had to be toned way down in order to appease the strictly inoffensive stance television producers try to hold. This turned our boy Stewart into an only average host, despite slipping in a few slights against the government here and there.
The show itself was its usual drawn out pageant in honor of itself. While some of the pieces are always touching or amusing, see "In Memoriam," the entire show could be cut way down and made much more interesting. And just get rid of the musical acts altogether. Even in my living room, thousands of miles from the Kodak theater, I felt uncomfortable during the performance of the rap song a few hours into the broadcast. It's nice to see the Academy trying to appease a younger demographic, but there has to be a different, less awkward way. But it's the flaws that make this awards show what it is. If you've seen one Academy Awards you've seen them all, and for most the show highlights and wrap-ups that will be sure to air on morning talk shows tomorrow will probably be enough.
On to the awards themselves. I think it may be overkill to discuss all of them in any sort of detail so I'll focus my attention on the big 5; picture, director, actor, actress, screenplay. The first of these to be presented went to best actor in a leading role. Philip Seymour Hoffman won for his role in
Capote, which I didn't see, so it's not my place to agree or disagree with his victory. I can offer my personal preference for Mr. Hoffman. I've liked him for a long time and always found his roles compelling and well played. Of the actors I did see I was sure that Heath Ledger was going to get the Oscar for his role in
Brokeback Mountain, the last chance for a performance Oscar for the movie. Joaquin Pheonix also was impressive in
Walk the Line. Overall it was a good year for this category and I have no complaints.
Actress was a bit of a surprise in what is obviously one of the weaker classes we've seen in recent years. I'm not saying Reese Witherspoon didn't deserve the win. There were no real standouts in 2005. I saw all nominated actresses perform in their respective films and it was really a five-sided coin toss. Kudos to all the nominees and Reese in a solid performance and what had to be a closely voted win.
Let's talk history. If it has taught us anything it's that more often than not screenplay, director, and picture are all very closely linked.
Brokeback Mountain and
Crash split the adapted and original screenplay awards leaving the direction award to sway the thinking on what would win best picture. But before that let me just say that I felt
Brokeback was a magnificent film and screenplay is one of my favorite categories. This one was a no brainer. A no brainer, in a difference sense of the word, was
Crash taking original screenplay. Now, I've said my peace on Crash and, despite my unfavorable review of the film, I did give it its kudos, so there's no need to recount that. But there were three movies,
Syriana,
The Squid and the Whale, and
Good Night, and Good Luck, that were easily finer screenplays than
Crash.
As far as direction goes perennial nominee Spielberg was up for it again, but
Munich, while solid, is not as good as some of his other efforts that he lost for, so he's out. Again, I didn't see
Capote, but the vibe I get from it was that of a movie supported by it's acting and not directing so much. I could be wrong and I'll let you know if I am in the future.
Crash? Well, yeah.. no. That leaves George Clooney in his freshman directing effort and favorite Ang Lee with
Brokeback. There really was no way Clooney was going to overtake the big boys with his first effort. Ang Lee won, and deserved to win.
Alright, here we are. The best picture category is a generally accepted and some times controversial award. In recent history we can remember a lot of people being upset with
Shakespeare In Love's win over
Saving Private Ryan, and film buffs often cringe when
Return of the King won despite being a weaker single film than the other nominees that year. The Oscars, like every awards show, should be taken with a grain of salt. Judging art, something some people think is wrong, is not an exact science. It really is hard to single a film out as better than all the rest for the year. If you agree with it then saying it won best picture is part of your argument for why it is good. If not then the academy is stupid.
Crash won. Why? I don't know, and again I won't get into it here, but it is my personal belief that the fan favorite beat out the real winner in
Borkeback Mountain this year. Shit happens, let's move on.
The Oscars have a long standing tradition of exalting the cream of the cinematic crop for the previous year. Some films, performances, and achievements slip through every year and some are given more credit than they probably deserve. What makes movie watching great though is in the end it doesn't really matter. Watch what you like, try not to always like what you watch, and remember that winning or losing an award doesn't change the film in the end - just the advertising of it.
The title screams "children's animated feature, " but the subject matter is far from it. This is a tale about divorce and its ugly, emotional reprocussions. The film is a bit stranger than most as there is no central character. Each of the four main characters is portrayed in their own way, each with their quirks and flaws. In fact, none of the subjects are particularly likeable. It makes for a tense 80 minutes of cinema as we see these people writhe and make loathsome statements about each other and their perdicament. The entire this is done with an heir of dignity, though, making this a good, solid film. There have been other divorce movies, and while this may not have the staying power of the "Karmer v. Kramer"s of the world, it still stands as a well made film.
