Oscars 2017 - Better Late Than Never Edition

[KevinEK]

A few thoughts.

The reason they have two envelopes for every award is not as a backup, as I understand it. The idea is that one sealed envelope is normally given to the presenters and the other one is given to the recipient afterward as part of their mementos in winning. It sounds like Emma Stone just took the envelope from DiCaprio and was not given the sealed memento envelope. So somehow that second envelope wound up being given to Beatty and he obviously had an epic fail in how he handled what happened. I agree with Andy that he should have simply asked for someone to check the envelope. They would have done so and given him the correct one. But he froze instead and we got a moment that will go down in Oscar infamy.

As a person whose brother works most nights in the operating rooms at UCLA medical, I was not offended by Viola Davis. I don't believe that she was trying to demean nurses, doctors, or anyone else. I do agree with Andy that she was very much performing the first part of her statement - it felt like a prepared piece about how she felt about how Fences and August Wilson portrayed the unsung dignity of the everyday person whose life is not celebrated. I can see how her statement could be taken as self-important and even over the top, but I just don't agree that this was intended as an insult.

I did think Kimmel was a really good host. I hope they have him do it again. Some of the bits went on a little long, but he was pretty comfortable up there, and his continuation of various bits from his regular show actually fit in pretty well here. Points to Damon for the extra extension of his leg into the aisle to trip Kimmel and then the "What? What?" expression afterward.

I'm not surprised that the ratings for the broadcast were low. There simply haven't been many movies getting people to really want to watch the awards. There's an appreciable difference between the movies that were submitted for awards back in the 80s and earlier, and the movies we've been seeing over the past decade. In earlier times, studios would regularly put out some larger awards movies in the fall - sometimes epics and sometimes just solidly budgeted dramas and comedies that would showcase this or that performance, or would be the latest offering from a Norman Jewison or a Sydney Pollack or a Milos Forman, etc. Nowadays, we still get those here and there, but they seem to regularly stumble badly. This year, we had Beatty's own Rules Don't Apply, as well as Ang Lee's Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk and even Passengers, as well as Live By Night. All got bad reviews and folded before they got anywhere near the Oscar ceremony. The other movies in the queue this year were almost universally very low budget independent movies that were picked up for distribution at the festivals. And this is the real trend - that most of the awards movies are made for extremely low budgets and only picked up if they get festival attention. We haven't seen a big epic wedding cake Oscar movie in some time - most are much more modestly budgeted. This year, Arrival, La La Land and Hacksaw Ridge had decent budgets but not epic ones. The other nominees were considerably lower on that front. And the subject matters at hand are not what would get an everyday moviegoer to run to the theater. Some were esoteric choices, others were outright downers. I wasn't particularly excited this year about the various choices. But I did enjoy Arrival as a tone poem. And I did enjoy La La Land for what it eventually said about choices in life and love - and I did like the music. Hidden Figures had a few nice moments with Kevin Costner. Manchester had a pair of really good performances in it, in spite of its unrelenting gloominess. Lion had wonderful cinematography but just didn't engage me. Moonlight similarly was executed well but didn't inspire much in me other than admiration for Naomie Harris' performance. Given this group of choices, it's not a mystery that most moviegoers and viewers said "Meh".

It is my hope that we're in a cyclical moment - that we'll see some more exciting choices in the coming years. I had had hopes in that area for Passengers and the Ang Lee film but those just didn't pan out. In recent years, we had some really nice ones - Life of Pi, Gravity and American Hustle are a few that come to mind. But most of what's been on the list have been what we would have only seen in the art houses in the 1980s. Nothing wrong with that, but it's still possible to make a solid mainstream movie that isn't based on a Marvel or DC property, or a remake of something we already saw in the 80s.

[AndyDursin]

I never said Davis intended that as an insult, but it did come off as being offensive. Things can be offensive even if they weren't intended to be so. My wife heard it live, shrugged and thought it was ridiculous. Either way, IMO she has an inflated value of her profession's worth and that's how it came off.

As someone who grew up here in RI we constantly hear, locally, about her story and struggles. I even went to elementary school on the campus of Rhode Island College at the same time she was there and finishing up her degree. She has overcome a lot and been an inspiring figure...but we also hear about it every single time she's interviewed or gives a speech, too. Someone should remind her that she is not curing cancer.

[KevinEK]

I think we agree she was over the top. People will likely differ in their reactions to it.

Oscar speeches and moments have been charged events throughout my life, including the infamous Sacheen Littlefeather bit and the Vanessa Redgrave bit, etc. but I don't think it's those moments that have caused the ratings to drop. I think it's more that the movies themselves aren't that interesting as a group. 40 years ago, the Best Picture nominees were Annie Hall, The Goodbye Girl, Julia, The Turning Point and Star Wars. Three of the five were warmly received films, two of those being solid commercial hits. Two were quieter but solid dramas. A good mix. Contrast that with what happens each year now. These days, we get much more obscure art house offerings made usually on reduced budgets or even micro budgets about extremely esoteric or depressing subjects. Again, I hope this is a cyclical thing.

[Edmund Kattak]

I think we agree she was over the top. People will likely differ in their reactions to it.

Oscar speeches and moments have been charged events throughout my life, including the infamous Sacheen Littlefeather bit and the Vanessa Redgrave bit, etc. but I don't think it's those moments that have caused the ratings to drop. I think it's more that the movies themselves aren't that interesting as a group. 40 years ago, the Best Picture nominees were Annie Hall, The Goodbye Girl, Julia, The Turning Point and Star Wars. Three of the five were warmly received films, two of those being solid commercial hits. Two were quieter but solid dramas. A good mix. Contrast that with what happens each year now. These days, we get much more obscure art house offerings made usually on reduced budgets or even micro budgets about extremely esoteric or depressing subjects. Again, I hope this is a cyclical thing.

One other point to consider. I know more people in my life who spent more money last year on Netflix and Amazon video purchases to follow series than going to the cinema. That does say a lot about the shift. In the 70's, 80's, and 90's, we didn't have this massive digital media spectrum competing with the movie. Home entertainment systems and infrastructures have been the major investments - from software to hardware.So I think part of this malaise is due to that competition. I suspect (or fear) that this will be the new norm, as the logistics of entertainment (from a consumer perspective) change.

What's next, watching Broadway plays for people at home who can pay a lower price if they use their own Virtual Reality appliances to experience the live performance? It sounds crazy, but somebody will try it.

[AndyDursin]

I suspect (or fear) that this will be the new norm, as the logistics of entertainment (from a consumer perspective) change.

That's the whole rub. What were once "Adult" movies and "mid" budgeted films are trending towards cable (HBO, FX, etc.) and Amazon/Netflix as features or longer form series. Movies are becoming more and more the home of massively budgeted "tentpoles" aimed at international audiences, so they lack things like humor and character development, and favor explosions, effects and super-heroes.

I don't see the paradigm shifting back myself. More and more people I know my age are going to the movies less, and as attendance falls, it will be harder to get them back into the theater.

Of course, now that they're all offering booze, maybe it'll shift back....lol

[KevinEK]

It's a very good point.

The same projects that used to be the mid-level movies are now the high line HBO and Netflix series. In some ways, that's not a bad thing, where you can have a full story told over multiple episodes rather than being crammed into a 2 hour structure that can't hold it. (I'm referring to the ones where there really is enough story, and not the ones where it's obvious they're just padding out a skimpy outline.) I just think there really can be room to have appealing movies that are not these high fructose dinosaurs like Batman v Superman but are more mainstream than Still Alice or Foxcatcher. I may well be proven wrong here, but I do hope there is some way to have a solid mainstream movie that is not based on a comic book, a franchise, or a movie we already saw in 1982.

And I remember well when HBO was the home of the quick cable movie of the week - like Afterburn or Last of His Tribe or Prisoner of Honor, and a few quirky original comedies to be aired between the big Hollywood premieres each weekend. How times have changed. Now the big draw in their schedule is the original programming, which many times is of a higher quality than the movies they air around it.

[AndyDursin]

I just think there really can be room to have appealing movies that are not these high fructose dinosaurs like Batman v Superman but are more mainstream than Still Alice or Foxcatcher.

That's would I'd like to see, and I certainly hope we do. Right now though, big studios are swinging for the fences with most titles and if they're not, they're churning out some dumb R-rated comedy filled with bodily fluid jokes made for cheap. CHIPS and BAYWATCH look so painful I couldn't imagine sitting through either one of them!

[Eric Paddon]

On the heels of that Bonnie and Clyde parody poster I came up with for the gaffe I have to get one more thought out of my system. Warren Beatty stars in "Oscar Can Wait!"

[Edmund Kattak]

Another example that comes to mind,I just think about Steven Soderbergh's effort to get BEHIND THE CANDELABRA produced for theatrical release. Nobody wanted to do it and ultimately HBO made it. While I liked the movie, it did not have that big screen feel to it. It may have been better suited for the television medium. Now, contrast that to his other recent movie SIDE EFFECTS which also had a similar feel to me, but was released theatrically and did not do that well. That movie too, might have been better suited for the smaller screen.

That style kind of reminds me of the early days of HBO movie productionwhen they were making movies like APOLOGY, THE PARK IS MINE, and and GULAG.