Comment on the Oscars
Tue, 26 Mar 2002, 06:05 pmAmanda Chesterton10 posts in thread
Comment on the Oscars
Tue, 26 Mar 2002, 06:05 pmLast night at the Oscars in the 'Hooray for Hollywood' documentary-cum-minor-celebrity-vox-pop which preceded the actual awards, the following comment was made:
'I would rather see a mediocre movie than a good play.'
Am I the only person to find this comment ignorant, offensive to the craft (of both stage and screen) and extremely irritating? Furthermore, I thought it was an ill-advised inclusion, considering the British theatre royalty present in the crowd that night.
And yes, I'm sure Hollywood is dislocating its collective shoulder patting itself on the back after giving Halle & Denzel the Oscars. But why has Hattie McDaniel been forgotten so quickly (1939 - Best Supporting Actress for Gone With the Wind)? Surely her recognition, albeit for the supporting role, in a time when the KKK was still an openly active, government-supported organisation was a far greater achievement, than cross-racial accolades in a time when being PC is not only compulsory but very trendy? Had they come out of left field and given an openly gay or lesbian actor an Oscar (for lead or supporting) *then* I would have been impressed... but somehow I think we're going to have to wait a much, much longer time for that. (I'm sorry, but giving Tom Hanks the Oscar for playing gay don't count...)
Amanda Chesterton
'I would rather see a mediocre movie than a good play.'
Am I the only person to find this comment ignorant, offensive to the craft (of both stage and screen) and extremely irritating? Furthermore, I thought it was an ill-advised inclusion, considering the British theatre royalty present in the crowd that night.
And yes, I'm sure Hollywood is dislocating its collective shoulder patting itself on the back after giving Halle & Denzel the Oscars. But why has Hattie McDaniel been forgotten so quickly (1939 - Best Supporting Actress for Gone With the Wind)? Surely her recognition, albeit for the supporting role, in a time when the KKK was still an openly active, government-supported organisation was a far greater achievement, than cross-racial accolades in a time when being PC is not only compulsory but very trendy? Had they come out of left field and given an openly gay or lesbian actor an Oscar (for lead or supporting) *then* I would have been impressed... but somehow I think we're going to have to wait a much, much longer time for that. (I'm sorry, but giving Tom Hanks the Oscar for playing gay don't count...)
Amanda Chesterton
Amanda ChestertonTue, 26 Mar 2002, 06:05 pm
Last night at the Oscars in the 'Hooray for Hollywood' documentary-cum-minor-celebrity-vox-pop which preceded the actual awards, the following comment was made:
'I would rather see a mediocre movie than a good play.'
Am I the only person to find this comment ignorant, offensive to the craft (of both stage and screen) and extremely irritating? Furthermore, I thought it was an ill-advised inclusion, considering the British theatre royalty present in the crowd that night.
And yes, I'm sure Hollywood is dislocating its collective shoulder patting itself on the back after giving Halle & Denzel the Oscars. But why has Hattie McDaniel been forgotten so quickly (1939 - Best Supporting Actress for Gone With the Wind)? Surely her recognition, albeit for the supporting role, in a time when the KKK was still an openly active, government-supported organisation was a far greater achievement, than cross-racial accolades in a time when being PC is not only compulsory but very trendy? Had they come out of left field and given an openly gay or lesbian actor an Oscar (for lead or supporting) *then* I would have been impressed... but somehow I think we're going to have to wait a much, much longer time for that. (I'm sorry, but giving Tom Hanks the Oscar for playing gay don't count...)
Amanda Chesterton
'I would rather see a mediocre movie than a good play.'
Am I the only person to find this comment ignorant, offensive to the craft (of both stage and screen) and extremely irritating? Furthermore, I thought it was an ill-advised inclusion, considering the British theatre royalty present in the crowd that night.
And yes, I'm sure Hollywood is dislocating its collective shoulder patting itself on the back after giving Halle & Denzel the Oscars. But why has Hattie McDaniel been forgotten so quickly (1939 - Best Supporting Actress for Gone With the Wind)? Surely her recognition, albeit for the supporting role, in a time when the KKK was still an openly active, government-supported organisation was a far greater achievement, than cross-racial accolades in a time when being PC is not only compulsory but very trendy? Had they come out of left field and given an openly gay or lesbian actor an Oscar (for lead or supporting) *then* I would have been impressed... but somehow I think we're going to have to wait a much, much longer time for that. (I'm sorry, but giving Tom Hanks the Oscar for playing gay don't count...)
Amanda Chesterton
Walter PlingeWed, 27 Mar 2002, 09:31 am
RE: Comment on the Oscars
Amanda Chesterton wrote:
-------------------------------
Last night at the Oscars in the 'Hooray for Hollywood' documentary-cum-minor-celebrity-vox-pop which preceded the actual awards, the following comment was made:
'I would rather see a mediocre movie than a good play.'
Am I the only person to find this comment ignorant, offensive to the craft (of both stage and screen) and extremely irritating?
>> No you aren't, Amanda. I agree completely, but then, we were hardly listening to a reliable or accredited source. I mean, "The American Public"? One billion people saw this and I was embarrassed for them.
And yes, I'm sure Hollywood is dislocating its collective shoulder patting itself on the back after giving Halle & Denzel the Oscars. But why has Hattie McDaniel been forgotten so quickly (1939 - Best Supporting Actress for Gone With the Wind)?
>> I don't think she had been forgotten, any more than had Louis Gossett Jr, Whoopi and Denzel - all previous recipients of SUPPORTING awards. I think the point they were making is that, apart from Sidney Poitier, no African American - and certainly not a, a.... woman - had ever won for a LEADING role.
JB
angeWed, 27 Mar 2002, 11:16 am
RE: Comment on the Oscars
Tell you what though; I was extremely happy to see Denzel win over Russ. Having watched both films, I think Denzel's performance in 'Training Day' is far more impressive. And after all his nominations, it's about time the poor bastard actually won!!
However, I don't think anyone was surprised to hear the 'mediocre film over good play' comment. It just adds to our understanding of the American public! But I think it's more pitiful than insulting; how can someone be so uncultured? They obviously don't realise that about 1/4 of the films they watch are based on stage plays anyway. Or maybe they think Baz Luhrman wrote 'Romeo and Juliet' himself...
Ange.
However, I don't think anyone was surprised to hear the 'mediocre film over good play' comment. It just adds to our understanding of the American public! But I think it's more pitiful than insulting; how can someone be so uncultured? They obviously don't realise that about 1/4 of the films they watch are based on stage plays anyway. Or maybe they think Baz Luhrman wrote 'Romeo and Juliet' himself...
Ange.
Walter PlingeWed, 27 Mar 2002, 12:13 pm
RE: Comment on the Oscars
Angela T-Webb wrote:
-------------------------------
...American public...so uncultured...They obviously don't realise that about 1/4 of the films they watch are based on stage plays anyway. Or maybe they think Baz Luhrman wrote 'Romeo and Juliet' himself...
-------------------------------
LOL! I planned not to watch the Oscars, but apparently my remote-finger wasn't listening. I too noted the comment, and I wonder how relevant it is to Perth?!
The highlight of the show for me, were the projected montage's - one of the msot underused and underrated devices of theatre.
And the ultimately breathtaking performance of Cirque Du Soleil, which Triple J morning host (don't remember her name) commented was "a group of clowns putting a bunch of idiots to shame". Oh alright, that wasn't the exact comment, but I'm sure someone can clarify.
Alan!
Walter PlingeWed, 27 Mar 2002, 01:30 pm
RE: Comment on the Oscars
Forget the acting - what about Randy Newman FINALLY being acknowledged for his music, with his 16th nomination? Yep, 15 times of turning up and quite often being beaten by the latest Disney factory ditty churned out by little bald men in shiny tuxedos who probably use computer software to "compose" (which is why the tunes all sound the same). Yay Randy!!!
crgwllmsWed, 27 Mar 2002, 03:25 pm
RE: Oscar (the) grouch
I agree that Denzel's performance was very powerful in Training Day, but it didn't strike me as anything that really STRETCHED his capabilities as an actor; whereas Russel's portrayal in A Beautiful Mind really WAS a beautiful, masterful performance, which I believe was the better performance.
BUT - the Academy's have been noted for often giving the top awards to the right actors for the wrong movies....and really, what was so stunning about Russell's performance in Gladiator the year before? I loved that movie, but in that instance, not a big stretch for him, or a hugely surprising performance.
So really, it kind of balances. Denzel was deserving of the award if you take previous efforts into account, rather than simply comparing the two movies.
But what I found unfortunate was the way Whoopi turned the whole night into such a shameless campaign and bitch session about the poor history of black nominations.
Making a few pointed statements (no black servants in Gosford Park, etc) might have been acceptable (apart from the historical absurdity that this film was set in England, not the USA), but she kept at it until it became tedious and really spoilt the impact of her humour.
And then, after the Sidney Poitier tribute, and Halle Berry's tearful triumph, the political aspect of the awards seemed to bespoil Denzel from enjoying the full credit of his achievement.
If Whoopi hadn't carried such a huge chip on her shoulder, it would have been wonderful to witness the two lead Oscars going to their respective winners...as it turned out, it felt like the political agenda took the credit, rather than letting Denzel win it due to his own accomplishment. The papers all scream "Black actor wins" rather than "Denzel wins". It rather seems to perpetuate the racist aspect they were trying so hard to avoid.
...just the impression I got. I shouldn't really be so surprised, awards for the arts are always contentious and somewhat arbitary.
And what the hell was that thing with Glenn Close and Donald Sutherland? A poor impression of Entertainment This Week? Poor Donald seemed like he felt as eggy as it looked.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/====/--------
BUT - the Academy's have been noted for often giving the top awards to the right actors for the wrong movies....and really, what was so stunning about Russell's performance in Gladiator the year before? I loved that movie, but in that instance, not a big stretch for him, or a hugely surprising performance.
So really, it kind of balances. Denzel was deserving of the award if you take previous efforts into account, rather than simply comparing the two movies.
But what I found unfortunate was the way Whoopi turned the whole night into such a shameless campaign and bitch session about the poor history of black nominations.
Making a few pointed statements (no black servants in Gosford Park, etc) might have been acceptable (apart from the historical absurdity that this film was set in England, not the USA), but she kept at it until it became tedious and really spoilt the impact of her humour.
And then, after the Sidney Poitier tribute, and Halle Berry's tearful triumph, the political aspect of the awards seemed to bespoil Denzel from enjoying the full credit of his achievement.
If Whoopi hadn't carried such a huge chip on her shoulder, it would have been wonderful to witness the two lead Oscars going to their respective winners...as it turned out, it felt like the political agenda took the credit, rather than letting Denzel win it due to his own accomplishment. The papers all scream "Black actor wins" rather than "Denzel wins". It rather seems to perpetuate the racist aspect they were trying so hard to avoid.
...just the impression I got. I shouldn't really be so surprised, awards for the arts are always contentious and somewhat arbitary.
And what the hell was that thing with Glenn Close and Donald Sutherland? A poor impression of Entertainment This Week? Poor Donald seemed like he felt as eggy as it looked.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/====/--------
Walter PlingeWed, 27 Mar 2002, 04:34 pm
RE: Comment on the Oscars
And Kevin Spacey, whose speech proved once again, how hard it is for American culture to differentiate between the simulation of a film and actual reality. A politcal event cannot take place it would seem, without its components being broken down into categories of good and evil, hero and villian, categories we are intimately familar with thanks to the great American Blockbuster.
Long live the happy ending!!
Ben Sorgiovanni
Long live the happy ending!!
Ben Sorgiovanni
michaelWed, 27 Mar 2002, 05:13 pm
RE: Comment on the Oscars
Stepping back, my perception of the Oscars from the word go was as another of the USA 'feelgood' events since Sept 11th.
From Whoopie through the endless 'black' jokes, Sydney Poitier, Halle and Denzel.
Kevin's 'quiet' moment paid tribute to the American Heroes rather than those souls from many differnet countries who lost their lives on Sept 11th.
All the performances of the individual Oscar nominations were excellent, was it a coincidence that the winners were Halle and Denzel alongside Sydney?
In the face of difficult decisions, it beats tossing a coin and acheives so much for the american public.
Cynical perhaps and I'm open to criticism but if you do, please make it about the whole feel that I am putting across here being the sum of everything.
Too many times sentences and even words been extracted from items on this site and assessed quite out of context and losing all the original reasoning applied.
From Whoopie through the endless 'black' jokes, Sydney Poitier, Halle and Denzel.
Kevin's 'quiet' moment paid tribute to the American Heroes rather than those souls from many differnet countries who lost their lives on Sept 11th.
All the performances of the individual Oscar nominations were excellent, was it a coincidence that the winners were Halle and Denzel alongside Sydney?
In the face of difficult decisions, it beats tossing a coin and acheives so much for the american public.
Cynical perhaps and I'm open to criticism but if you do, please make it about the whole feel that I am putting across here being the sum of everything.
Too many times sentences and even words been extracted from items on this site and assessed quite out of context and losing all the original reasoning applied.
Walter PlingeWed, 27 Mar 2002, 06:08 pm
RE: Comment on the Oscars
But Siobhan, all of Randy's songs sound exactly the same, too. And the film he finally won for was a Disney film!
JB
Thou saucy clay-brained foot-licker!
JB
Thou saucy clay-brained foot-licker!
crgwllmsThu, 28 Mar 2002, 10:32 pm
RE: Comment on
Michael wrote:
-------------------------------
Too many sentences and words quite out of all reasoning.
Why, whatever do you mean?
~<8>-/=====/---------------
-------------------------------
Too many sentences and words quite out of all reasoning.
Why, whatever do you mean?
~<8>-/=====/---------------