Critic's Notebook: The nation divides on the Oscars, and a critic hears from everyone

Anyone worried that people don’t care about the Oscars can rest assured: People care, all right. They care deeply.

We have received a welter of response to our coverage of Sunday night’s event. For those who missed it, I myself was less than thrilled by Hugh Jackman’s opening song-'n'-dance and the big musical number in the middle of the show. Many people, including my colleague Patrick Goldstein, agreed.

But many people most emphatically Did Not. Many people loved, Loved, LOVED the show and do not appreciate what they consider my sour and snarky attitude. I’m always happy when people write me no matter what they say, though for the record, I am actually none of these things: post-menopausal, single, under 20 or in possession of a cat. (Though why people consider these things synonymous with bitter I do not know.) I actually love Broadway musicals, the movies and the Oscars. I also find Hugh Jackman handsome and charming.

I just didn’t like the show, which actually seemed to go out of its way to diss the films it was purportedly celebrating.

How else to explain the many digs at the nominees? Jackman’s warbling about how he tried to see “The Reader” but the throngs for “Iron Man” kept him away, Will Smith’s crack about the nominees versus those movies with fans, that we saw clips of “Horton Hears a Who” and “Quantam of Solace” but none of the nominated performances, which was really too bad for first-timers, like Richard Jenkins in “The Visitor” or Melissa Leo in “Frozen River.” No, there was no deadpan comedian making wisecracks about Hollywood, but it often felt like the show was if not openly apologizing for the boutique nature of the nominees, then at least trying to distract from them.

Still, when I see a mailbox filled to the brim with subject lines that alternate, literally, from “Poor critique … disgusting” to “Such a great review, you nailed it,” I am struck once again by the blessed vagaries of taste and the strange job of being a critic.

See, I don’t think there’s any right or wrong about these things. I think the role of the critic is to get the conversational ball rolling, and after we’ve all kicked it around for a while, we’ll see where we are.

I was certainly prepared to be labeled “a hater” by the die-hard Jackman fans, but I must admit I did not anticipate that so many of you would consider this the best Oscars ever. Of course in hindsight, this makes perfect sense. The producers of the Oscars always promise big changes, but Laurence Mark and Bill Condon actually delivered. The show was nothing if not over-the-top, and over-the-top tends to divide people into loud, passionate and highly opinionated groups.

Which is marvelous. I would much rather our flatscreens be filled with discussion-worthy shows than their opposite, and the poor Oscar telecast has been such an overly whipped horse for so long, it’s nice to see people rallying to its defense. If nothing else, the 81st version proved that the Oscars are important after all, that in this digitally splintered world where everyone can find something better to do every single second of the day, there remain media and entertainment experiences we long to share with one another.

Even if we are left looking across the room and saying: “You thought what ? Are you crazy?”

-- Mary McNamara

Photo Credit: Mark Boster/Los Angeles Times

Comments

[CJ Lais]

Wow. Do you actually watch the show, or hear it, I should say? If you listened,
you would have been able to tell that it was Seth Rogen's voice reading the
nominees during the award and that he pronounced the title of the German film.
What he was laughing at was James Franco's mangling of the title. Minor thing, I
know. But it just seems like you critics are so anxious to rip on anything and
everything you come off like petty children.

[Michael Curry]

I am sorry, but I must disagree. I have never written in to the LA Times, so you can see this meant a lot to me.

I thought this was a great way to change-up the awards. It was getting old having comedian’s year-after-year try to turn the Academy Awards into Night at the Improv. If I wanted that, I would go to my local comedy club, The Ice House.

I thought the awards got us back to the original show-style theme it once was. So Hugh isn’t a comedian, but he is a great entertainer, and isn’t Hollywood all about entertainment?

I talked to about 15 people after the awards, and all of them thought it was better than years past.

I think there were a lot of things to like about the 81st Academy Awards. It was very well designed – stage, orchestra, , Hugh, and previous winners announcing.

This is America and you are entitled to your opinion, but you may also want to see what the majority thought before putting out your review? That’s my opinion.

[Z]

Is it so bad that the Oscars be able to poke fun at its own expense? Maybe, they're just trying to show that they're not taking themselves too seriously unlike some people do? It's not like the Academy is unaware of its growing infamy for favoring "artistic" films rather than blockbusters. And, even if there were some jokes, they certainly balanced it off by giving proper recognition to the nominated actors. I thought that even if Anne Hathaway, for example, didn't win, she looked just absolutely grateful for the recognition of a peer. So they took what they needed to take seriously, except for themselves.

People have a sense of humor. What a concept. That sense of humor doesn't require mean-spirited, off-color commentary. Surprising. The Oscars viewership increased this year even if the critics hated it. Unbelievable.

I guess, if someone's job is to nitpick, they'll always find a way to do it well.

[S.D. Christensen]

Thank you for confirming what I have been lead to believe. Critics are just frustrated and bitter people. Everyone I have spoken with today agreed that the 2009 Oscars show was by far the best in years. It was entertaining from beginning to end and the new formatting was well received.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion - I am just amazed that you get paid for yours.

[Jacki]

Mary - you were never going to like Hugh in this role - you've been complaining about his choice ever since it was announced. Unfortunately, the quality of your criticism gives away the fact that your mind was made up before Jackman set foot on the stage.

I, for one, was relieved to see Hoolywood stop taking itself so seriously for a change and yet show proper respect for ALL nominees and the people behind the scenes instead of over-hyping the "winners" and ignoring everyone else. Loved Jackman, Hathaway and Beyonce. Not so thrilled with Luhrmans arrangement in the mid-way performance but the cast pulled it off wonderfully and what an amazing all-round entertainer Jackman has turned out to be. Also impresed with Sean Penn's comments - I never used to like him but I think I've misjudged him in the past.

[Carrie]

Wow, now the critics are the news? The truth is in the data, not your shaking heads of disbelief or email subject headers. The ratings for this year were up, simple as that and no amount of generous interpretations of alternating Pro/Con email/comments will dispute the way America spoke. And by generous, I'd say public opinion on the LA Times appears to be 80/20 and not in you and your colleagues favor.

My contributory opinion? I thought it was very endearing to include in the ceremony a look through the movies that were successful but weren't nominated. The Academy acknowledged the red-headed step sister and I never thought it was snarky (by prior Snark Standards). If you think about this reasonably, it was a big change in format and it was a debut. Yeah, they got things wrong and messed up. So how was your first published article O Great Critics? It's an interesting thought given how your work in the past day has been.

That's all bollocks though really, only my opinions. So I'll repeat it once more because I enjoy saying it: the ratings were up and the truth is in the data, not in our mutual opinions.

[Jake]

I was very disappointed Barack Obama didn't win for best actor of the year. The name of the movie you ask ? Entitlement

[Diane Steiner]

There certainly should be more of a meaning to the term critic than simply "one who is always critical". But in the real world it does not seem to be that way. It's as if writing something poitive is too easy, or not challenging, or does not show off any literary mastery. It's just so much mightier to use the proverbial pen to destroy. How terribly sad for you.

Furthermore, we who go to the movies really do know why the Oscars program continues to lose viewers. It's simply because the industry has lost touch with the viewership.

To wit: the audience enjoys musicals with their encumbant singing and dancing. The critics hate it. Audiences flock to comedies. Audiences enjoy romance. Audiences make thrillers and action movies blockbusters. But these films receive no critical acclaim, no recognition nor anything but modest acceptance from the medial "experts". And at award time, they are summarily overlooked. Only, and this is strange, you all want a comedian to run the show. Awards, recognition, honor, and glory appear to be meted out based on high 1) torture quotient and 2) twisted relationships and 3) dark depths of human nature.

If the moviegoer could identify with the awars given, perhaps they would be more interested in watching the show. And when they do tune it, it would be so nice if they could feel free to enjoy what they saw, instead of being told how really miserable a time they had.

Oh, and how about those songs, hey?

[Philip]

Some television critics despise much of the Oscars telecast. So what's new?

Many of these same folks kill forests of trees -- and spend far too much of their TV-watching time and critical energies -- endlessly hyping lame-o "reality" contests like "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars" and "The Biggest Loser" and "The Bachelor." Meanwhile, they ignore programming that's much more intelligent and much more significant.

Perhaps their abilities to distinguish worthwhile television viewing from the junk is a tad askew?

Just asking.

[Mark Smith]

It is a sad day indeed when facile pablum about a group of script readers and other sundry and affiliated wastrels patting themselves on the back in an "awards" ceremony is posted on the front page of the LA Times rather than being consigned to the rubbish "entertainment" section where such belongs. With all of the actual news going on in the world today, is there not an actual factual report of something of import that could have replaced this crapola on the entry page to the LA Times? Let the celebritard idolaters, with nothing of value in their own existence who consequently have to live vicariously through the existence of the vapid, have their own section, but please don't subject the rest of us to seeing such nonsense.

[James Brown]

Nice explanation, Mary. I still think you are an idiot. So do all of my friends and their friends.

[Dew]

I read your review yesterday and wondered if we saw the same show. What I ultimately realized that the Oscars were stale year after year to appease older Academy members who refuse to get with the times. While I have no idea if you're of the elderly set, the problem with the Oscars, from my point of view, is that these people are in the entertainment business but the very show that is their postcard to the world doesn't entertain.

If you hated the opening number, fine... however, I think you are failing to look at the "idea" behind the opening number. The jest of the sequence is that it was low budget... i.e. no set designer or writers. If anything, it reminded the actors, and the audience at home, what we used to do as kids staging our own song and dance pieces. Was it ridiculous - YES! However, that was the whole point!

I thought Hugh Jackman did a great job... it was genius in fact because why not have a top name who opens movies host the show? Only Jackman could pull this off because he IS more than just Wolverine, he's a throwback to old Hollywood when actors did sing, dance and act! He was a breathe of fresh air... and mark my words, if he host next year, the ratings will be even bigger.

[Paul]

How sad that even when you write a terrible article and get called on it, you still won't admit it was in poor taste.

[David Westling]

I think I caught about three seconds of the show about halfway through while switching channels. Love or hate? There's a third way.

[Tony Boychenko]

I'm one who wrote you yesterday refuting your opinion of the Oscars show. I do give you credit, however for a fine rebuttal.

[craigers]

Just to address one thing - the Oscars have always been boutique awards meant for drama and movies that comment on humanity and/or society. But that ignores the fact that >70% of movies are either comedy or action that are almost completely ignored by the Oscars. I think it's a good thing the industry and the Oscars are able to admit that fact and even make a little fun of itself. Nothing celebrates itself quite like Hollywood - so occassionally being a bit self deprecating is a welcome thing. A leason some critics could learn.

[stu]

I guess the Academy could go back to Chris Rock, Whoopi Goldberg and their tired stale humor. This Oscar night was the best in recent memory - so what if a joke or two doesn't work, I will take Hugh Jackman and Beyonce performing a wonderful tasteful well executed song and dance number over Billy Crystal any day.

[SanFrann]

I am an Oscar junkie. There's my disclaimer. But, I doth protest your review. I was quite entertained by these Oscars - best in several years, at the very least. If we all are in recession-ville, let us be entertained whether it looked more like a Broadway production or not - it was lively! It was unpredictable! It was...dare I say...DIFFERENT!
and vive la difference! Snarky comments are always taken as such - it seemed to me that those in the audience were thoroughly enjoying the less-lofty stage and intimate setting, along with the glitz factor of the theater itself with the curtain of Svarovski baubles and color-changing chandeliers...it was all Hollywood, which is why we watch.

[david c.]

the show was one hour two long
all the song and dance numbers were cheesy and uninteresting
all i want to know are:
best actor/best director/best picture
best actress/best supporting actor/best supporting actress
spare me all the rest
and shrink the show to two hours
and have a funny, witty host
dcc

[Mondo]

You have to admit it, you critics got it all wrong!
The bankers got it all wrong!
Even Tropicana Orange Juice got it all wrong!!

We the public are fed up with critics whining and your
non-constructive bitter comments and you trying to tell me
what to like or dislike, what trend to follow, etc.

Suggestion. In this harsh recession. LA TIMES should shut down
the entertainment section (critics not needed) and allocate that
money to something else like reporting real news thank you very much.