Not the Usual Post-Oscar Rant

I have an idea. I think we should cancel the Oscars. Forever. And no, not because it's Hollywood's chance to indulge the already inflated egos of stars, and not because I'm sick of extended ego masturbation in the form of productions, red carpet preening, political speeches, and snarky winners (Coen brothers, anyone?). I was watching two categories with real interest last night: best supporting actor and actress. Seriously, how do you pick a winner in those two categories? I saw three of the five in both categories, and I thought it was just stupid to hand a trophy to one of them and leave the other four as losers. Art shouldn't be competitive. How do you decide who was better: Javier Bardem, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Casey Affleck, Tom Wilkinson? They were brilliant. Some of the best acting I've ever seen. Why hand out a trophy when any acknowledgment of one over the others is simply arbitrary? How do you decide who was better? What are the criteria? There are years when a film or performance is so much better than the rest of the field that a trophy seems warranted, but this year? I just don't see it. What makes No Country for Old Men better than There Will Be Blood? Or Juno? What made Tilda Swinton better than Ruby Dee or Amy Ryan?

I enjoyed the show last night, especially the trimmed down format and the reserved tone (probably due to the fresh wounds of the writers' strike), but I was at a loss as to how to feel about trophies being handed out to one person in a field of outstanding performances. One exception: God bless the Academy for its choice of song of the year. And bringing Irglova back out to give her acceptance speech was one of the genuinely nice things I've seen in Oscar history. Jon Stewart, not the least cynical guy in the world, was perfect for a night when Hansard, Irglova, and Diablo Cody earned awards for the less cynical among us (and I'm not counting myself).

Comments

[dorsey]

I had a batch of beer that required bottling, so I didn't see it.

You're spot on regarding art and competition. It should be noted that there is a serious amount of politicking involved in the process as well. I remember the bitter taste when I first discovered that nominees hire PR firms and take out ads in trade publications begging members for their votes. Art is not objective to begin with. The current system renders it even less so.

Good thoughts, Greg.

[j-fo]

Not sure why, but I had previously thought that "Falling Slowly" was a nice but probably forgettable song ... until Hansard/Irglova performed it last night. I honestly felt like a more hopeful person after they were done. And then they go and win the award, and then she comes back on stage, and then I ate the rest of my popcorn and chocolate chips, smiled, and enjoyed the ending to a superb weekend (thank god Kentucky has remembered how to win basketball games).

[cheek]

The other side of competition in art, though, is that it allows for a standard desperately needed in an era with too much junk production. It might be easier to see the value of setting the bar in an industry like publishing, where the existence of prizes like the Pulitzer points a path toward quality for readers like me who are fairly daunted by the insane number of garbage books rolling into Barnes and Noble every month.

[greg]

Cheek,

I agree, but the regularity with which the National Book Award picks pieces of crap (Cold Mountain, The Corrections) leads me to believe that even that system doesn't work. And let's not forget the academy has actually awarded Michael Moore an Oscar for a "documentary" that was as much fiction as fact.

[Amanda Fortney]

Yea for Jon Stewart and Hansard and Irglova! Watching them alone made it worth it.

[dorsey]

"...as much fiction as fact."

Don't forget Al Gore.

[cheek]

Not sure what you're implying, dorsey.

[greg]

Dorsey,

Neither am I. Whether or not someone actually believes in global warming is up to the individual, but Gore presented information he absolutely believes to be true. Contrast that with Moore's film, wherein he knowingly presents false information, juxtaposes images that lead to a false impression, lies about timelines, and when confronted about it, says, with a smile, "Guilty." And then the audience cheered. You really should watch Manufactured Dissent. It's a doc about Moore from a former fan who became less of a fan as she made the film.

[Tim Sean]

I've thought this for years. One award? Perhaps they should make the nomination the actual focus of the ceremony, a few outstanding performances recognized.

[Joe]

I thought Oscars were okay. Jon Stewart did amazing hosting. It was good but I had some frustrations before the show began especially with the nominations. I thought Eddie Vedder getting snubbed in the song category was a shame. His music from Into the Wild was/is amazing.

But I did like the Ireland duo as well. But three songs for Enchanted. Seriously?

[greg]

Joe,

The Enchanted songs were fucking horrible. I was amazed. I just kept thinking it must have been a bad year. As for snubs, what about Greenwood (Radiohead member) for the score from TWBB?

[cheek]

I didn't realize he'd done the TWBB score. It was incredible. Actually, the score was the only part of the movie that I was in love with. I thought the rest of the film (especially the performances) was over-hyped.

[dorsey]

I can't find the resource, but I read a direct quote from Gore in which he admitted to resorting to hyperbole in his film in order make his points more dramatically.

I don't disbelieve in global warming. But neither do I have the time to sift through every one of his claims and determine which are presented accurately and which have been exaggerated. The case can be made on its own merits. Mr. Gore can trust me to comprehend it. Treat me like an adult, for Pete's sake. It certainly doesn't rise to the level of Moore's dishonesty, but it leaves a bad taste nevertheless.

[cheek]

I haven't been able to find any quote from Gore that approaches what you claim here, although in trying I have read a couple of dozen right-wing ideologues' attempts to make the claim for him.

From what I can tell, the only real concerns from the broader scientific community came over the use of certain images (like the hockey-stick diagram of warming over time and the shrinking of Lake Chad) that have the effect of suggesting an oversimplified version of the science. Hardly an unforgivable rhetorical trick when the jist of his arguments is well within the conclusions the consensus of world scientists.

[greg]

And hyperbole is certainly allowable as a rhetorical device, as long as it's understood to be hyperbole. Moore's lies were not the hyperbolic type, but the intentionally deceptive variety.

[Leighton]

Inaccuracies are a necessary evil in the popularization of science. You can't even speak truthfully about math to people without years of formal training, or they'd lose all hope and/or interest. It's too much of an investment for too little yield unless you're using it in some capacity to make a living. Hence the rhetoric, faulty analogies and goofy charts that make professionals squirm but actually have some hope of capturing non-specialists' attention.

[Joe]

Hmmm...didn't realize he did the score for TWBB either. I haven't seen that movie yet, but it's on our queue.

As for the Enchanted shit, absolutely agree, I think Disney had some thing in the water for people to nominate it. All the time the songs were going, I was wanting to cut out my heart with a spoon.

Perhaps that's what I'll make stupid people like Ingrid listen to instead of Celine Dion. :)