Barbara Walters last year said she would do no more hour-long specials before the Oscars saying, “I’m thrilled we have such great stars and have such a wonderful show, but to be honest, I feel like I’ve been there, done that.” I, too, share the same sentiment. Or, to put it more bluntly in Walters’ words, “I think I’m sick of them.”
The Oscars, for me, have become too predictable, like a lot of today’s movies. Every year it’s the same debate. Immediately following the nominations, we hear movies critics and entertainment television show reporters and magazine writers commenting about who got snubbed. I could tell you, for example, why actress Mila Kunis failed to land nomination playing the rival ballerina in “Black Swan” and why the documentary “Waiting for Superman” about the country’s failing education system did not make the cut. But I’m not going to. Chances are you’ve probably heard the reasons already if you really care.
I’m tired of reiterating the usual tired comment about how one doesn’t need to be a brain surgeon to figure out who is going to win. Hell, one doesn’t even have to see every single film nominated, All one has to do is read up on how many times the actor, actress or director has been passed over to narrow down who the winner will be. Or for that matter, determine which two films have the most nominations. At that point one can determine which will be the front runner for best picture.Of the 10 best films nominated for best picture this year, I have, so far, only seen six. Of those six, the only two I can justify seeing are “Toy Story 3, which would be to watch all three films together since I haven’t seen the first two in years, and “Inception,” because I did not exactly understand it the first time. (I fell asleep watching it).
I consider the other four I have seen, (“The Social Network”, “True Grit”, “The Fighter”, and “Black Swan”), to be one-hit wonders. Sure, they all made over (or are coming close to grossing over) $100 million. Let’s be honest; how many of you can justify seeing these movies again when they hit video-on-demand and pay-tv months from now? Of those four, I liked three of them, but that doesn’t mean I want to see them again (unless it’s to write a review).
That being said, despite my no longer wishing to make my usual predictions in the form of some boring long-winded article I get no compensation whatsoever for writing (don’t tell me you actually think I am getting paid to do this or that I’m doing this for my health), I will still take off work on Sunday Feb. 27 (until they move the telecast to Monday nights) to watch them, mainly because I still find them enjoyable.
The one thing that has always kept me drawn to the Oscars is how consistent the show has been in delivering at least one or two surprises that give viewers and the entertainment media something to talk about the next day. That alone makes sitting through the three-hour plus telecasts less painful.
Who can forget Ben Stiller’s imitation of Joaquin Phoenix’s talk show appearance on the “Late Show with David Letterman” at the 2009 Oscars? Watching last year’s Oscar telecast, I wondered why George Clooney was in a bad mood. What got everyone talking, even on the Internet as the telecast was still on the air, was how the Academy left late actress Farah Fawcett out of the tributes.
On that level, the Oscars are like the Super Bowl where the most memorable moments are usually the clever commercials, if not the halftime show. This year it was a kid in a mini-Darth Vader suit trying to use “The Force” and Christina Aguilera’s self-destructive rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner”.
If there is one thing I will find of interest with this year’s Oscar telecast, it will be to see how James Franco and Anne Hathaway fare as hosts. Rest assured, if the two fail miserably and ratings are down, as they have been in recent years viewers will likely be asking themselves one question.
“What were the producers thinking when they decided to ask them to host?”
©2/22/11
