Cinematical Seven: Oscar Surprises That Would Warm My Heart
Filed under: Awards, Cinematical Seven
Once you realize that Academy Awards and quality correlate only sporadically, the only reason to watch is the hope of seeing something surprising or controversial. People slagged last year's weird Pilobolus shadow-puppet interludes, but what the hell: at least it was something I hadn't seen before. Seeing as how a lot of the substantive results seem like even more of a foregone conclusion than usual this year, there's even less motivation to watch. So here are seven pleasant surprises I'll watch for on Sunday in the hopes of keeping entertained.
1. The ceremony comes in at three hours or less. It hasn't happened in the modern era; the shortest ceremony since 1996 happened in 2005 -- the year of Million Dollar Baby -- and it ran three hours and fourteen minutes. Last year's festivities took 3:21. Look, I'm generally skeptical of accusations that the Oscars are "self-indulgent": it's an awards show put on by the industry for the industry. Of course they're self-indulgent. They're also boring, which seems to me the more relevant accusation. Ratings have been steadily declining, with last year an all time low. Shorter and snappier please. That they've offended Peter Gabriel by asking him to trim his nominated song performance to 65 seconds for the show seems, I hate to say it, like a step in the right direction.
2. Anne Hathaway wins Best Actress. By all accounts Kate Winslet has this locked up, albeit for a performance that is as clearly Supporting as any in the Supporting categories. I'm quixotically pulling for Hathaway, who has absolutely no chance -- not least because hers is the least Oscar-y of the nominated turns, unshowy and self-deprecating, a perfectly low-key performance for a perfectly low-key film. The performance itself was a surprise from an actress that not too many people held in high regard; a win here would be an even bigger, cooler one.
3. Hugh Jackman is half as entertaining as Ellen DeGeneres was. I take it that revamping the ceremony this year involves moving away from the jokey, industry-gadfly tone of the host. But I thought that the best host they've had in years was also the snarkiest: Ellen DeGeneres made the 2007 ceremony significantly easier to endure. I hope Jackman is at least permitted to take a couple quasi-mean-spirited cracks over the course of the evening.
4. No montages. Well, okay: the obligatory in memoriam slideshow is acceptable. But no more. This is sort of a corollary to #1. Yes, it's your show, but you're trying to get tens of millions of people to watch it. Some consideration please.
5. Josh Brolin Wins Best Supporting Actor. I have to start at least a little bit of trouble here. I do love the Joker, as much as the next guy. And I admit that it's the kind of atypical, genre film performance that the Academy rarely rewards, and that I wish would get recognized more often. But a) I have my doubts about posthumous awards; b) this is by far the most predictable category on the list; and c) I really do think that Brolin gave one of the most difficult, nuanced performances of the year, and richly deserves the Oscar.
6. No more battles between the winners and the orchestra. I really do hope they figure out some other way to keep the winners' acceptance speeches in line. The inevitable tap-dance wherein the winner starts looking nervously at the conductor and making hurried entreaties for him not to start playing the walk-off music gets really irritating after a while.
7. Bruce Springsteen Crashes the Show and Performs 'The Wrestler'. In its entirety. Hey, I didn't say the surprises would be remotely plausible -- or that my list would be internally consistent. But can't there be a way of rectifying the year's most infuriating snub? The possibility of seeing Bruce do this song live was a major reason to look forward to the Oscars this year. Maybe if I complain a lot on the internet...
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
2-17-2009 @ 10:49PM
Justin said...
number 5. I have so much love for Brolin, I wish he would win. He certainly deserves it. But, of course, it was the year of the Joker and unfortunately the year of a completely untimely death. I wish Ledger was out of contention, could get some sort of posthumous special oscar, so that Brolin would get his due. Oh well. Heath earned it, too.
Reply
2-18-2009 @ 12:59AM
odiin said...
Just remember that Josh Brolin is a brilliant and talented actor who will no doubt have numerous opportunities to win his own Oscar, but this is Heath's last chance. Give him his moment while they still can, it's not like he doesn't deserve it.
2-18-2009 @ 1:50AM
Justin said...
well, there isn't really a chance, anymore. Not to be crass, but that is just true. No one denies the impact and power of his performance, but he can't exactly accept the accolades now.
2-21-2009 @ 8:48AM
Jeff Cramer said...
Am I the only one who thought Brolin was even better playing George W. Bush than Dan White? Don't get me wrong, Milk is much a better film than W. But its harder to walk into the shoes of a figure everyone knows and give a performance that feels real and is not simply a impersonation.
2-17-2009 @ 11:11PM
doa766 said...
I'll tell you the winners right now and save you to watch the boring ceremony:
pic: slumdog
dir: boyle
actor: penn
actress: winslet
sup actor: ledger
sup: actress: cruz
orig screenplay: milk
adap screenplay: slumdog
Reply
2-20-2009 @ 1:08PM
Geo said...
What about Sound, Make-up, Editing, etc., Are you going to give the rest of the answers, so I don't have to watch?
2-21-2009 @ 8:45AM
Jeff Cramer said...
I don't think Penn is a sure thing, I won't count out Roukre yet. That doesn't mean Penn can't win, just saying I don't think Penn has a lock on it. Yes, Penn was excellent in his role, but so was Rourke too. Plus, if the Oscars is concerned about ratings this year, they better have Rourke give the acceptance speech (and this is one acceptance speech that I don't want to see shorten because Mickey will be 1000 times more entertaining than the average acceptance speech). Not saying accepting speech is a reason to give out an award, but how many times has the Oscars given out awards for small petty things here instead of revelant stuff as quality and what was really the best?
2-18-2009 @ 12:53AM
Ryan said...
I never got why people would want to make the ceremony shorter. It's not the length of the show that's the problem. It's the content. I mean the Super Bowl is like an all-day event and no one is complaining at how long that is.
And no, making the songs shorter is NOT the answer. That's like one of the highlights I look forward to each year. God, could you just imagine how awful it would've been last year if they shortened "Falling Slowly" just to save time? I shudder the thought.
And corollary to this "time" issue, I get it. People want the show to end at a reasonable hour, but the last hour or so where the BIG AWARDS are given out, time should be more flexible for the winners. THESE are the winners that people have been waiting for the whole night and they are the ones that are usually maligned the most of a trigger happy orchestra. Shameful.
As for Brolin winning, could you just imagine the huge (and completely undeserved) backlash that would fall upon him if he steals Ledger's Oscar? Yikes. I like him too much to put him through that.
Reply
2-18-2009 @ 3:14AM
Fraser said...
I would add Fincher for best Director. He deserves it, and it would be a great moment for the show.
Here is a guy who bucks the system and has never made a bad film. No other director could have made "Button" as good as it was.
Reply
2-18-2009 @ 7:51AM
Robin said...
I'm not considering Winslet in the bag until I see her accept. I hope, hope she wins.
I agree about Ledger and some sort of posthumous award so that the category would open back up but I personally would love to see RDJ or PSH win. (Why is PSH up for supporting rather than lead, btw?)
Reply
2-18-2009 @ 9:09AM
ML said...
1. So how would you suggest they cut the most boring part, that is, announcing the names of the nominees, waiting for the winners, and enduring their (mostly) laundry-list acceptance speeches? Isn't that what awards ceremonies are all about? If they made it a completely bare-bones ceremony (list-winner, nothing else), it would be much shorter, but entertaining? I'd say no.
6. On a slightly related note, what would you suggest, a trap door? (with smoke effects, please ...)
Reply
2-18-2009 @ 11:55AM
Jonathan Kuhn said...
Bruce crashing the show would make my century.
Also, those shadow puppets things were two years ago, not last year. But I agree that they were interesting. I was worried they were going to be some sort of interpretive dance, but I enjoyed them.
Reply
2-19-2009 @ 10:20PM
Eric Melin said...
The Boss should crash the show and teabag the cameraman like he did at the Super Bowl. Love that song. Big omission.
Reply
2-20-2009 @ 4:39AM
Maggy said...
I basically disagree on every point (no offence). I don't want a shorter show: the Oscars are what they are and if they're boring when they're giving out some sound category award, it is only a nice way to keep up the suspense.
I love montages! I hope there's at least one more than the one they have to do. I mean, there have been some brilliant montages! Think of Billy Crystal's montage right at the beginning of the show a few years ago. That just made me happy!
Yes I know people keep saying they don't like posthumous awards and it does look like the academy would never give an oscar to Heath if he hadn't passed away, but the fact is that Josh Brolin IS still alive: he IS going to get other chances, because he IS a good actor. Heath, unfortunately, won't get another chance.
I do agree, though, that Ellen was a wonderful host. She knows what she does very well. I have confidence about Hugh Jackman. It might be a different sort of humour, but as long as it's entertaining I'm happy.
And as to somebody else's comment: I do think that the main categories get to have a longer acceptance speech anyway, but I'm not sure...
Reply
2-22-2009 @ 12:31AM
snowballa said...
So, Heath Ledger should get the award NOT because he gave the best supporter actor performance (which in my opinion he did not, it should go to Brolin or Downey Jr.) but because he doesn't have the chance to win it again? O'RLY? This is what has always wrong with the Oscars, giving awards to people who don't deserve it out of "won't be here again" sympathy (i.e. Scorcese for "The Departed", Pacino for "Scent of a Woman", Freeman for "Million Dollar Baby", etc.) or nominating movies based on box office (The Dark Knight is not one of the top 5 movies of the year. The editing in the first act was choppy, it was too long and the third act was muddled. Besides, how can the best movie of the year have such an uninteresting lead character?!)
Also, the reason why the Oscars are truly suffering is that the allure and shine that movie stars once had are destroyed by TMZ, Perez Hilton, tabloids and the millions of blogs out there that takes away the mystery of the actors. Also, there are SO many awards that by time the Oscars roll around, you already know who is going to win save for maybe an upset or two every year. Erase the blogs and get rid of most of the useless awards shows and maybe, MAYBE, people will start watching again.
2-20-2009 @ 6:08AM
Jade said...
5. I would really love to see that one happen, Brolin was great in Milk. Not a hope of course, it's a wonder they haven't sent the Oscar to Ledger's family already.
I don't mean to take anything away from the Joker performance, but it seems obvious that the category wouldn't be that locked up if it wasn't for Ledger's untimely passing. Some sort of special award would make more sense to me.
That said, Ryan has a point. Poor Brolin or any other winner would get bashed for stealing Heath's Oscar anyway and none of the other contenders deserve that.
Reply
2-20-2009 @ 6:09AM
alex said...
What an awesome list. I couldn't agree more. Whenever I very calmly and respectfully say that I don't think Ledger gave the best performance, I get my head bitten off. Brolin was fantastic, as was Robert Downey Jr. (Talk about a genre that isn't rewarded enough).
The only qualm I have is your Ellen comment. I have never been on board with her. I don't find her funny or entertaining. I seem to remember a bit where she went around just taking digital pictures with the audience member and telling Clint Eastwood to myspace her. Really? Is that comedy?
Reply
2-20-2009 @ 7:08AM
hansi said...
Who cares, Oscarmovies are crap.
Reply
2-23-2009 @ 12:17AM
Peter D. said...
Brolin can't win. You see, he's still alive. Being alive is almost as much of a handicap as not playing a retarded person or starring in a movie that isn't about the Holocaust. Alive, non-retarded roles and roles in movies that have nothing to do with Jews dying just don't stand a chance at winning any awards. Sorry.
Anne Hathaway shouldn't win either. That wedding movie was 2 hours of torture and she was the cherry on top of the torture sundae. God, what an awful movie. The "let's create a tense situation because that's what's real and interesting" independent movies are such a cliche, as is the plot device of bringing a disfunctional family together around a big event. Oh, and so is having "wedding" in the title.
I agree with your other points though.
Reply
2-21-2009 @ 8:43AM
Jeff Cramer said...
If it wasn't for a few scenes between Anne Hathaway and Debra Winger, Rachel Getting Married would easily be one of the worst films I saw this year. God what awful pretentious scenes!! How many musical numbers do I need to see? How many wedding toasts? And don't get me start on the piling the dishwasher scene. Worse is the arrogance that the filmmakers think they're making great art cause its "real life you know" when any filmmaker with a lesser pedigree than Jonathan Demme would be boiled alive by angry critics and filmgoers for showing such crap.
No, the woman I want to win is Melissa Leo of Frozen River. From the first scene of her face with tears in her eyes, smoking a cigarette, you know that Leo has nailed this character cold.
Winslet was good but let's face it she's winning for not having won it before.