Blogcritics: Comments on Oscar Ceremony Changes, and a Bit of Profundity

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:33:36 EST

thanks a million, dude

Comment by Temple Stark

Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:31:05 EST

Eric, It may seem late, but it's not. I put this up at Advance.net where hopefully millions of people will love and adore your every word. - Thank you. Temple

Comment by Matt

Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:07:53 EST

you and me both, Eric. If it ain't out on DVD, there's about a 99% chance I haven't seen it.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:15:17 EST

I actually enjoy being about a year behind at any given time, I can apprciate the Awards show with an abstract purity. The only one I've seen so far in any of the major categories is Eternal Sunshine, and the three animated nominees, of course - did just pick up Lost In Translation though! pretty jazzed about that.

Comment by dbcooper

Thu, 10 Feb 2005 07:30:05 EST

I think Foxx will win Best Actor fairly easily for multiple reasons making it a fairly safe bet. Emotionally, I hope to see Scorsese finally receive the Director's Award for The Aviator and I would hope Freeman wins Supporting Actor for Million Dollar Baby. I admire both of these talents and will be mainly watching for these two categories.

Comment by Matt Egan

Wed, 9 Feb 2005 19:49:38 EST

BTW---Don Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda is head and shoulders better than Jamie Foxx in Ray. No knock on Ray, but its just a good impersonation. Cheadle has the harder job.

Comment by Matt Egan

Wed, 9 Feb 2005 19:44:48 EST

I don't like the new format. Why screw with it?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:44:44 EST

but that's part of the beauty of it: you get significant snippets of the movies (especially those with multiple noms), music, various other performances. I think much could be learned by viewing even one broadcast from each decade, and certainly from viewing them all in aggregate. I agree he overstated his case, but that doesn't mean there isn't truth behind it.

Comment by Rodney Welch

Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:28:29 EST

Cates is just blowing smoke. I suppose you could discover a few things about American life by looking at, say, the 1962 Oscar telecast, but I doubt it would be anything you don't already know. I doubt it would offer much in the way of unique information. Individual movies, TV shows and popular songs would say much more.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 9 Feb 2005 08:58:39 EST

I agree Cates's statement is a bit hyperbolic, but I also think there is truth to it, especially if one compares Oscar broadcasts over the years, the changes and commonalities could be very instructive. And if the producer of 12 Oscar broadcasts can't name-drop, who can? DB, I agree nostalgia -- the long line from the excitement and glamor of a still-young industry to the stars of today -- is a big part of the appeal.

Comment by Shark

Wed, 9 Feb 2005 08:41:52 EST

re: "...anthropological scholars studying our civilization in the future will find no better way to determine the people we are and the society we live in..." Ron, I agree; the man's full of shit. My opinion -- TWO WORDS: Pez. Dispensers.

Comment by Shark

Wed, 9 Feb 2005 08:39:00 EST

"...Fellini, asked me why I would want to come back again and again. As we walked together across the Oscar rehearsal stage..." Shark Blogs his opinion of the Oscars:

When I was hanging out with Orson Welles, he asked me, "Shark, do you like watching the oscars?" I said, "Hang on, Orca, [our nickname for the Big One] I'm talking to Ingmar right now; he's sharing a story with me and Kurosawa." "Akira," I said, "pass me the teapot -- and Ingmar... please continue..."

Comment by dietdoc

Wed, 9 Feb 2005 08:33:12 EST

Eric Olsen writes: [Gil Cates says] "I believe that anthropological scholars studying our civilization in the future will find no better way to determine the people we are and the society we live in than by viewing the Annual Academy Awards broadcasts." Reply: I personally believe that statement is absurd. If the annual parade of Oscar awards says anything about our society it is that we are not very picky about who we chose to promote to "celebrity." But, again, that's just me. And, with further introspection, maybe it does say something about "the people we are." Cheers, Ron

Comment by dbcooper

Wed, 9 Feb 2005 06:58:30 EST

I'm not quite sure why I enjoy the Oscar's broadcast so much. It's sort of like the Super Bowl I suppose, complete with extra cheese and unexpected cameos. I grew up during the 1970s, and would religously watch the program as such great films as The Godfather, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Annie Hall received multiple awards. The last few years, the program has become rather stale. Unless the favored film is a huge blockbuster (Titanic), the ratings are mediocre these days. There are so many award programs diluting the bluster, but the Oscars to this day humbles such anti-Hollywood types as Sean Penn and Johnny Depp. Changing the format in such a radical matter is likely fueled by its declining ratings. I watch the Oscars program for nostalgic reasons. I will be curious to see how such a radical transformation will play.