The telecast has ended, and like so many years before I'm up late on a creative buzz. There's just something about the Oscars, year after year, especially for a guy like me who has had a camcorder slung over his shoulder for over a decade now.While part of the excitement is admittedly about the dream of perhaps receiving an Academy Award of my own one day, what really thrills me in the moment is the resounding amount of appreciation and love for cinema. It's a bit cheesy maybe, but it really overwhelms me.
This year marks the first time, despite very strong attempts in the past, that I was actually able to see all of the nominees in the acting, directing, editing, sound, costume, animation, art direction, cinematography, screenplay and best picture categories, including all 15 of the top nominated films for 2008. Of my 21 Oscar picks, which I based on my own feelings of who was deserving, I predicted 18 winners. To say the least, it made the telecast that much more exciting feeling so in-sync with how things were unfolding.
Organizers this year made several major changes to help improve the ratings of the Oscar broadcast, and in my humble view they succeeded immensely. Hugh Jackman brought tremendous energy as host, and his expected song-and-dance routines were funny, playfully merged both previous nominees and winners with modern fanfare, and hearkened back to Hollywood's golden age with a presence reminiscent of Gene Kelly.
The presentation of the technical awards - makeup, costume, art direction, etc. - were given out more rapidly than in years past and with the same presenter handing out multiple awards in those categories. This kept the show moving at a good pace, and as much as I appreciate the technical aspects, it allowed for a quicker turnover and more time for the big names.
Speaking of which, the presentation of the acting awards was (I dare say) the best I've ever seen on the Academy Awards. For each of the supporting and lead categories, 5 former Oscar winners entered the stage behind a video screen adorned with an image of themselves when they won. Each actor/actress then took a moment to talk individually about a one of the nominees in the category, providing what I felt were some of the most inspired moments in the show.
Specifically, the wins for Kate Winslet for Best Actress in The Reader and Sean Penn for Best Actor in Milk felt significant and naturally scripted for ideal soundbites in future telecasts.
The speeches across the board were generally strong and entertaining. I don't even remember anyone being played off the stage this year, which speaks to the quality and conciseness of the winners sentiments. There was a nice mix of genuine and honest shock mixed in with nostalgia, humour and originality. In many ways, the Oscars felt a lot more fresh and energetic than they have in the past with a real effort put towards entertaining the average movie goer.
Finally, Slumdog Millionaire was the big winner of the night earning 8 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Director, Editing and Adapted Screenplay. Of the 5 nominees for picture, to me it was the most uplifting and original of the pack, and based on the media response the win didn't come as much of a surprise.
Thus concludes the biggest night in show business, which in my case frees up time from watching movies to be shifted into making more of my own. The top winners of the evening can be viewed below, and for more on the 81st Academy Awards visit the official site at Oscar.com.
- Best Picture - Slumdog Millionaire
- Best Director - Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire)
- Best Actor - Sean Penn (Milk)
- Best Actress - Kate Winslet (The Reader)
- Best Supporting Actor - Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)
- Best Supporting Actress - Penelope Cruz (Vicky Cristina Barcelona)
- Original Screenplay - Milk
- Adapted Screenplay - Slumdog Millionaire
- Best Animated Feature - WALL-E
9 comments:
I loved how they did the Major Awards with the 5 actors/actresses! I thought it was pretty original.
I didn't watch, but heard that a bunch of Prop-8 type protestors rallied outside against gays over "Milk", and that Penn adequately carved the bigots in his acceptance speech.
That being said, if one of your films ever get nominated, be certain, I'm going to organize protests against it too! (even if it's about talking dogs) :)
I was fairly happy with most of the results from the show and I feel as though talent was awarded accordingly. However, I feel as though one major award was handed out not based on talent, but instead based on politics within The Academy. The award for best actor was something of a toss up between Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke. After seeing both films I feel as though Rourke's performance in "The Wrestler" outweighted that of Penn's in "Milk." It seems to me that Sean Penn winning the Oscar for Best Actor was The Academy making a statement concerning their views on gay rights. With gay marriage being banned in California I can't help but to feel as though voters from The Academy felt obligated to make a statement about gay rights and give Penn the award.
I agree with you Alex, although I think there was bias on both counts. Many who were voting for Rourke were doing so as validation for his comeback . . . I thought Penn was deserving still, and Rourke's career has undoubtedly been helped by his nomination anyway. Both strong films and performances in my book.
Quite possibly...at great expense to Rourke though, 'cause you're right, his performance was beaut'... so sad.
I never watch award shows they are sooo boring! Yet some how I find out who wins and am usually disappointed when I finally watch the movie. For example Titanic, enough said. How is it possible for Penn to be that good? I don't think I have ever liked anything he has done yet I think he has won several times its beyond me. Rourke had a performance? One of the few movies I have seen and I don't thin he had to do much, Washed up actor playing washed up wrestler it seems a no brainier as far as casting. The mirror of his career in the movie should have made things easy.
M,
So your claim is that Rourke performed masterfully in "The Wrestler" only because the story contained many elements existent in his own life and the niche he has claimed for himself throughout his career? This is nothing new in the world of film. Infact this is why most talented directors, writers, and actors succeed in Hollywood. Rourke's niche in "The Wrestler" was apparent. However, not all are. I'm sure Penn's character in "Milk" had something to do with his personality or previous experiences. What I'm essentially saying here is that every talent in Hollywood has a niche and because of that niche their job is made easier. It's just not just Rourke who was aided by playing a character that shared his experiences. Directors direct stories that are relevant to their experiences, opinions and feelings. Writers write the types of screenplays they do for the same exact reason.
Your review is a great read! You speak up what you think with deep emotions. I love reading the part where you wrote about the speeches... Although I was not able to see this program, I am thankful that there are bloggers around here like you who have the patience to tell what and how do you see it. ^^
I think you are so right about people have a deep love and appreciation for people who work in cinema who bring us such wonderful and unique movies.
I am sure one day that you will produce a wonderful movie that also will receive it full acclaim
Angie
Post a Comment