The Big Picture

Patrick Goldstein and James Rainey
on entertainment and media

« Previous Post | The Big Picture Home | Next Post »

The Oscars: Not exactly an enchanted evening

Hughjackman

I guess reinventing the Oscars is harder than it looks.

The academy gave the gig this year to producers Larry Mark and Bill Condon, two classy industry veterans who've been involved with all sorts of admirable films over the years. But after watching this year's Hugh Jackman-hosted awards, which were undermined by a pair of lackluster Jackman musical numbers, nearly three hours of earnestly dull, emotion-free acceptance speeches (of course excepting Kate Winslet, who's apparently been overflowing with emotion for the entire awards season) and hardly any surprises, I'm beginning to believe that saving the Oscars is a job for Iron Man or Hancock, a kick-ass superhero with the kind of unassailable powers that would allow them to radically overhaul what has become the year's stodgiest awardsfest.

From Jackman's strangely self-conscious low-rent opening musical number to Ben Stiller's very inside-the-Beltway spoof of Joaquin Phoenix's recent appearance on David Letterman's late-night show, the awards had a tone problem--they tried to be something for everyone, coming off like a movie script that had its edginess and guts airbrushed out by too many studio notes. It was hard to find any focused narrative for the awards, which were busy veering wildly from making fun of serious movies (mocking "The Reader," for example) to being entirely too reverential about the past, treating a banal montage of supporting actress "thank you" speeches as if they were lost outtakes from "Citizen Kane."

It's hard to blame the producers for some of the problems. It certainly wasn't their fault that "Slumdog Millionaire" swept the evening, robbing the proceedings of any real suspense--you know you've got a drama deficit when the biggest upset of the night came in the foreign language film category. New ideas were attempted but not always executed with success. It was a treat to see Queen Latifah crooning and Sophia Loren paying tribute to Meryl Streep. My 10-year-old son was especially impressed that all his favorite movies were represented in a nicely edited action film montage, although it reminded us only of how cloistered the Oscars have become, since virtually none of the films in the montage were nominated for any major awards (and the visual effects Oscar went to "Benjamin Button," the one non-action film in the bunch.

It also wasn't the producer's fault that the much antipated Judd Apatow comedy sketch, which featured his "Pineapple Express" costars, was so hit and miss that the best line in the whole bit came from Polish cinematographer Janus Kaminski, who waved his Oscars and, with perfect timing, apologized by saying, "They made me do it, Mr. Spielberg, [work is] really slow in town."

But you'd have to say that Jackman was a bust. The idea of having a song and dance man instead of a traditional comedian seemed like a step in the right direction. But Jackman never radiated any real heat. His shortcomings were especially obvious when Will Smith, someone with real star power, showed up to give out a bunch of technical awards. You wanted Will to stick around--he had real presence. Jackman disappeared for so many big chunks of the evening that I found myself shouting at the TV: "Who kidnapped Hugh Jackman?" (Of course, I also found myself shouting: "What does Philip Seymour Hoffman have on his head?)

I find it hard to quibble with anything "Slumdog" director Danny Boyle might have to say after making last year's most wonderful movie, but when he announced on stage that the show felt "bloody wonderful in the room," those of us at home, on the couch, begged to differ. After all, the Kodak Theatre crowd gave six standing ovations during the course of the evening, including one for Jackman just for showing up, but back at home, we were mostly sitting on our hands. Even Jerry Lewis, who was expected to bring some loose-cannon fireworks to the evening, was surprisingly restrained, giving a very pro-forma acceptance speech for his Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. And where was Jack Nicholson--at a Lakers game?

Jackman was supposed to earn his stripes with a knock-'em dead musical extravaganza created by Baz Luhrmann. But the much-vaunted, Busby Berkeley-style number felt like most of the rest of the show--awkward, listless and underwhelming, the opposite of what Luhrmann brought to his great Oscar-nominated film, "Moulin Rouge." It hardly felt like a surprise to see Jackman trading licks with Beyonce, who (memo to the academy) has been wildly overexposed lately, showing up everywhere, including at the inaugural ball.

What the awards sorely lacked--with rare exception--were the wonderful unexpected, unrehearsed moments that make live TV worth watching, one of the rare exceptions being Boyle's Tigger-like pogo bounce after he arrived to accept his director award. It was a joyous burst of spontaneity in an otherwise over-scripted evening that made Hollywood's oldest award show feel even older and more in need of reinvention than ever. 

(Photo courtesy Getty Images)

RELATED:

PHOTOS: Best & Worst: Oscars 2009

PHOTOS: Oscar arrivals

STORY: The Oscars show itself was puttin' on the fritz

STORY: 'Slumdog' strikes it rich

Complete Oscar scorecard

 
Comments () | Archives (305)

The comments to this entry are closed.

I am an awards show junkie and probably give them too much credit just because of how awed i am at the spectacle in general. Be that as it may, I have to say I really enjoyed the show. There were not too many surprises, but I thought the music numbers were solid (especially the main one), and that there were more than a few funny moments, particularly Ben Stiller as Joaquin. Kate Winslet brings the brand of excitement one would like to see when she accepts an award, and Sean Penn made the provocative speech you would expect him to make. The stage looked magnificent, the stars looked wonderful and I thought the class and gravity of the ceremony really came out on tv.

I beg to differ. I think that Jackman did a very respectable job, and better than most. I also think the idea of bringing past winners instead of just last year's with a clip was brilliant. It provided a sense of intimacy, reason, and fellowship lacking with the prior format. The problems were twofold -- with the interminable awards season, there are few surprises. And I was ALSO surprised that Penn won for best actor instead of Mickey...but also that the major winner was a contender more representative of Bollywood than Hollywood. Not that there's anything wrong with Bollywood, and I look forward to Bhollywood that is sure to follow, but without recognizable star power behind the best picture, some glitter was missing.

Also -- the audience was far more pumped for Milk than I would have expected, and perhaps the answer was in Sean Penn's acceptance speech. Why no mention in any of the reports of the 'hate' Penn mentioned? Perhaps next year the Times ought to send it's reporters to the event instead of paying them to sit and watch at home.

You don't begin to describe the horrible production decisions of these Oscars: the floor reflecting the heads of the actors, the tiny photos of the deceased that flew around the screen during their tribute, ridiculous intercutting of old films with with current best picture footage, no clips of best actor performances, doing medleys of the songs instead of doing complete songs, etc. Really
unfocused, annoying and un-entertaining. How rude to have Angelina/Brad on camera when Jennifer Aniston was on stage.

could not disagree more. this show was such a pleasure to watch and i have enjoyed the past oscars. but this production was great. i guess i should confess to living in Northern California.

I enjoyed the show. I liked the 5 recipients of past Oscars each addressing one of the current nominees. The set looked fantastic on TV. I don't think the host was a good choice either. I'll give you that.

totally disagree, this was the best oscar ceremony in absolutely years. I thought Jackman was hot, laid back, and energetic all at the same time. I loved the dance numbers, the montages, and especially the group presentations, using past winners to address current nominees directly for the four actor awards.

I am assuming that Patrick Goldstein and Mary McNamara were both at the Oscars.

Had they been at their television screens, surely they would have mentioned the downright appalling way the tribute to artists who passed away in 2008 was presented to us on our screens: in a Ken Burns-style collage effect featuring, mainly, the Kodak Theatre's multi-screen set design, where half the time it was impossible to even read the names on the screen as the images floated around like postage stamps. If you squinted you might have caught someone other than Paul Newman, who was the only one they allowed tv viewers to see in close-up. Ridiculous.

Some of your criticisms may be somewhat vallid, but you're WAY off base about Jackman's performance. Hugh was fantastic!!

This is a sour-puss review. The majority of international reviewers applauded the show and praised its execution. This is catty and completely pointless. You do not get 'Oscars a la Twitter' so grow up and respect the people who produce good quality live TV.

I disagree. I actually quite enjoyed Hugh Jackman and the entire program. True - there were no streakers, no hyperactive Italian actors climbing over seats, no fake Indians refusing Oscars - didn't miss it. One doesn't watch the Oscars for excitement do they? People outside the industry don't really take it too seriously - it's just fluff.

 
« | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 30 31 | »

Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Stay Connected:



About the Bloggers


Categories


Archives
 


Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: