WHEW! THANK GOD THAT'S OVER -- OSCAR ROUNDUP 2005

I don't have much time today, but I wanted to just post a few thoughts on each of the awards that I previewed just before they occurred over the weekend. If I have time later today, I'll come back to the Sideways-dominated Spirit Awards, and the Razzies which, in my book, deserve a Razzie themselves. For now though, let's talk about Big Poppa Oscar:

• OK, so my little dysfunctional Oscar theory was dysfunctional in itself, but that's not really a surprise. I thought there was more of a chance of Million Dollar Baby winning both awards than the other way around, or even than Scorsese winning director and MDB taking home picture. It's sad actually. I wish Scorsese had won the director prize, not because I think he deserved it so much more than Eastwood (I actually think Eastwood's direction was excellent), but because then Marty would stop trying to win an Oscar. Even if he doesn't consciously think that's what he's doing, films like Gangs of New York and The Aviator reek of "give me a statue!" When Scorsese isn't trying to shard to do what the Academy supposedly is looking for, he's much better. With that said, I have huge hopes for The Departed, his soon-to-shoot American remake of the great Hong Kong actioner Infernal Affairs. It should be film less epic in scope, and in a way, far more intimate, and hopefully that will benefit Scorsese … and us, and maybe in two years, he'll finally get one of those little gold men.

• Chris Rock as host? I thought he was alright. I liked that he said "ass" with his third word: "Sit your ass down!" I think the Oscars do something to funny people, and the very nature of the event (and its black-tie stuffiness) makes them a little less funny. With that said, I think Rock did as good a job as should have been expected even if some of us who love him had hoped for a little more. He seemed to disappear later in the show, but the earlier bits -- his monologue, the sequence at the Magic Johnson Theater (hello Albert Brooks! Where the hell have you been? We miss you!), some of his one-liners and even the bit with Adam Sandler, which was a great meta-joke an bad awards banter -- were funny.

• Along a similar line, while I thought the new methods of handing out some of the less-popular awards -- beauty pageant style onstage and from the audience -- looked very awkward and was downright mean to those non-winners who had to stand onstage, you've got to give Gil Cates credit: the show ran three hours-and-11 minutes long. Does anyone remember the last time an Oscar telecast was less than three-and-a-half hours? I sure as hell don't. One thing that helped was eliminating the clips of the "Best Picture" nominees. That alone probably cut about 10 minutes. The next thing to cut? The performances of the "Best Song" nominees. There is absolutely no need to see Beyonce sing three times in one evening, nor to have Antonio Banderas sing at all, especially when the original artist of the song could have done it better (as he proved when he won). The idea is that big stars will bring more viewers, but that's bullshit. I don't believe anybody watched one minute of the Oscars for those "Best Song" performances. And to make it all worse, they were all boring as hell. If you needed a bathroom break, those were the five times to do so. You cut those segments, this show would actually come in on time, if not early!

• The Johnny Carson tribute was very tastefully done, but why did they only interview Whoopi Goldberg? Where were Billy Crystal and Steve Martin? Most importantly, where was David Letterman? I know Letterman doesn't really like to look back on the show he hosted, but I can't believe that he wouldn't participate in any tribute to Carson, anywhere, at any time.

• Did anyone else notice that the main theme music for the entire show (especially running through the end credits) was the main theme from The Terminator, or at least Terminator 2: Judgment Day. (Not sure if they were the same.) I don't know, that kind of freaked me out for some reason.

• Also, was anyone else bothered that the two awards for sound were presented by Penelope Cruz and Salma Hayek, who both were stunning looking, but who also could have used some sound editing to make their English more intelligible?

• Sidney Lumet certainly deserved his lifetime achievement award. Anyone who has ever read this site knows that I think Network is one of the best films ever made. But I've also been saddened by the last decade or two of his career because it's almost as if he's forgotten how to make great movies. (And if you watched the montage of his films, WOW, is he responsible for some amazing titles. Although Sharon Stone must have paid off someone to have Gloria included there.) But one thing about that tribute really disturbed me. Well, two related things, actually. At the end, they showed Lumet on the set of his new picture, Find Me Guilty. Who's the star of this next entry in the Lumet-oevre? Vin Diesel?!?!?!!? What the hell? (The second disturbing element was, did you see the hair they put on Vin? It was frightening to look at!)

• The show was relatively predictable. I did pretty well (not perfect, though) with my picks. Sadly, in many cases, that means cynicism won out. I really can't understand how if people who voted for "Best Foreign Film" had to watch all five films at special screenings that anyone could actually think that The Sea Inside was the best. Although, isn't it interesting that a certain controversial issue that plagued the "Best Picture" winner Million Dollar Baby was also the subject of the "Best Foreign Language Film" winner. Congratulations, though, to Born Into Brothels, which along with The Sea Inside managed to win its award at both the Oscars and Independent Spirit Awards.

• Best win: Definitely Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind winning "Best Original Screenplay." Nothing made me happier, and Charlie Kaufman's nervous speech was perfect.

• Biggest surprise: There wasn't really one for me. If I had to pick, I'd say the "Best Song" award going to "Al Otro Lado Del Rio" from The Motorcycle Diaries because a) the song is in Spanish, b) not too many people saw the movie, and c) usually this award goes to the most well-known/popular song regardless of how well it integrates into the film, and this song was basically unknown. The other surprise, although not really, would be The Aviator winning "Best Cinematographer," but only because there were some truly beautifully-shot films in this category. However, it's not really a surprise because what happened here was that all those people who chose MDB in the more popular categories decided to throw all the artistic ones to The Aviator.

• Most deserving person to not win an award: I've said it before, I'll say it again: Imelda Staunton for Vera Drake. Hands down. No contest.

• Last but not least, I still don't get the Before Sunset nomination in the "Best Adapted Screenplay" category. They seemed to indicate that the film was "based on characters" created by Richard Linklater and Kim Krizan for the film Before Sunrise. But that just makes it a sequel. Are sequels always in the "Best Adapted" category? Maybe. I'm trying to think of other sequels that have received Oscar nominations, but now thinking back on it, the only sequels I can think of were follow-ups to films that were themselves adapted from different source material, i.e., The Godfather and The Godfather, Part II. Does anyone know if there has ever been a sequel nominated for an Oscar where the original film was an original script?

Comments

[Filmbrain]

I don't think I have to begin mentioning how disgusted I am at MDB taking best director/picture. But for Swank to win an Oscar AGAIN is truly criminal. As her acceptance speech proved, she wasn't acting in MDB -- just playing her white-trash self. (Did she have to mention that she grew up in a trailer?) All of the other nominees in that category did an excellent job. Though VD was a letdown for me, Ms. Staunton did deserve the award.

Nice coverage. I couldn't agree more about the song thing -- god they were lame this year! (Much worse than usual!) Counting Crows?!?

[Charlie Chan]

1. According to Bookslut (linked below) the full name of Adapted Screenplay used to be "Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published," which would seem to cover all sequels. The award's name officially became "Adapted Screenplay" in 2002, but there are no official criteria that a movie has to satisfy to be eligible for this category (hence borderline noms for "O Brother Where Art Thou" and "Adaptation" have gone unchallenged.)

2. Spurious counterexample: "Broadway Melody of 1936" was nominated for what was then "Original Story", but this was a sequel to the original "Broadway Melody" in name only.

[Aaron]

Charlie Chan: Thanks for the info. I knew that "Adapted" meant more than simply adapted from a book and referred to something based on any other kind of source material, but I hadn't thought that would really mean a sequel. I have a feeling the question may not have really been tested much. I'm pretty sure no Star Wars, Indiana Jones or Lethal Weapon sequel received screenplay honors, and all the "sequels" that may have were to films that were already based on other material.

Filmbrain: I'm not going to start a whole MDB argument again here. I don't love it as much as those who do, but I definitely don't think it's a bad film either, and I don't even have that much of a problem with Clint winning director. While it may be in that great tradition of films that won the Oscar without deserving it (unlike Eastwood's last film to win, Unforgiven which did deserve it over a decade ago!), I'll still take its win this year over Driving Miss Daisy, Rain Man or Dances With Wolves.

I think you're being a bit overly harsh and even unfairly personally attacking Swank though. Calling her "white trash" is a bit much whether she grew-up in a trailer or not. She gave a great performance in MDB, and while I'm the first to say (and have repeatedly) that it should have been Staunton, the only other person I would have given it to over Swank would have been Kate Winslet. I'd watch MDB any day rather than have to sit through Being Julia again (as well as certain other movies we won't bring up right now ... oh yes, you know what I'm talking about!), and while Catalina Sandino Moreno was great in Maria Full of Grace, I don't think she outshined Swank. I'd probably put the two of them even, actually.

[phyrephox]

Your comments about Richardson's oscar win make it seem like you didn't see that film. It was fantastically photographed, and the (arbitrary, I know) use of two-strip Technicolor was spectacular. Richardson is one of the best working DPs and it is nice to see him finally get another win, he certainly deserved something for his work in the two Kill Bills.

[Aaron]

Phyrephox: I wasn't trying to demean Richardson at all, nor did I. My "surprise" should not be equated with disappointment or anger. The Aviator was a beautifully shot film, but I guarantee you if you did a poll of Oscar voters and they honestly told you why they voted for him, it was because the film was The Aviator. Kill Bill was not nominated, he won for The Aviator, and that's fine. But did you see A Very Long Engagement or The Passion of the Christ? I don't even like Gibson's film, but Caleb Deschanel's work in it was remarkable. The one shot of the tear falling from the sky through the camera was worth an Oscar all by itself. And what Bruno Delbonnel did with light and color and perspective and depth-of-field in A Very Long Engagement was simply jaw-dropping. I thought House of Flying Daggers would get it because more people saw that film while many probably didn't feel comfortable voting for The Passion for anything, and all anyone ever talks about with the two Zhang Yimou martial arts films is their visuals. For that matter, Tom Stern's work -- his use of shadow and light and creating frames within the frame, especially in the gym -- in Million Dollar Baby was one of the major strengths of that film, and he didn't even get nominated. So my surprise, as it were, at Richardson's win has nothing to do with the beautiful quality of his work, nor does it indicate that I haven't seen the film. If anything, it indicates that I've seen all the other nominees as well and was probably thinking artistically more than many Oscar voters.

[phyrephox]

Actually I thought the photography in both The Passion and A Very Long Engagement were nothing special, but that is another discussion. I misunderstood you, I thought you meant they were giving him the award simply because it was for The Aviator, and undeserved. I would be hard pressed to decide between his work on that film and House of Flying Daggers, but I thought the photography in those two films far surpassed the competitors.

[joshtuban]

You say that you would find it hard to believe that someone would pick The Sea Inside over the rest of the foreign film competition. Can you really make a statement like that when whether you like a movie better than another is subjective? It's very possible that someone can choose The Sea Inside over the other nominated movies and as a matter of fact, people did because The Sea Inside won. I liked The Sea Inside much better than Downfall and Yesterday, but that is just my opinion and I understand people may have differing ones. You can't make declarative statements when it comes to stating an opinion. You have to preface those statements with "I think". The best win for you was Charlie Kaufman, right? It may not have been the best win for someone else. I am of the opinion that Kaufman's earlier work for "Adaptation" and "Malkovich" were far superior to "Eternal Sunshine" - but that is just my opinion - so his winning was not the Best Win for me.

[Aaron]

First of all, I'm utterly confused as to why people can't seem to post comments to the post they're commenting on.

JoshTuban, I'm talking to you, because while I recognize that you were talking about its Oscar win since you mentioned Downfall, the statement I made about not being able to believe anyone could like it more was in my Spirit Awards post and referenced that contest. I woudln't say The Sea Inside was the worst Academy nominated film because I didn't see two of the films in that category.

But more importantly, you are 100% incorrect in the entire basis of your comment. This is my site. Nobody else writes on it. I do not pretend to write unbiased journalism. Everything on here is my opinion, so really, there is no reason for me to prelude any statement with "I think." That's implied.

And me saying, "I can't believe ..." What's wrong with that. I can't BELIEVE that someone would like it more. Me saying "believe" is no statement of fact; that is again my opinion and what I believe. I did not say, "It is impossible that anybody could like this film so much. It is outside the realm of reality. You can't like it." I never said that. I personally find it hard to believe that anyone with critical good taste can like The Sea Inside better than Yesterday. (I never said I liked Downfall more; in fact, I didn't, because I didn't like Downfall much at all.)

You're right that what I called the best win may not have been true for someone else. But this isn't someone else's site. It's mine. The opinions on this site are mine, and I never said you nor anyone else can't disagree with them. But the fact that they are my opinions sort of implies that if you do disagree, I will think you're wrong, just as you apparently think I'm wrong.

I would suggest that rather than feel so personally attacked because I forcefully state my opinions which I believe in wholeheartedly, you simply stick to yours, and if you want to disagree, feel free and comment. That's your perogative. Just please have something intelligent to say.

Thanks,
The Management

[Aaron]

About the sequel thing... I was thinking that last year Denys Arcand's really cool film Les Invasions Barbares was nominated for original screenplay and was (similarly to Before Sunset) based on characters from an older movie.
So the Linklater/Krizan thing is weird.