Post-Oscars Wrap-Up

So, how to sum up this year’s Oscar ceremony, the sixth year in a row that I have been watching, I believe (but possibly seventh). Well, “under-whelming” is one word that comes to mind. “Predictable” is another. “Boring” might fit. The thing is, I usually enjoy the Oscar telecast, but this year, the last hour in particular felt like a real drag. The show started out with a bang – A surprise musical number by Neil Patrick Harris, which was all kinds of awesome, and then a mildly amusing entrance and opening bit by Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin. It’s a shame that, aside from the occasional cynical quip and funny introduction later in the night, the two hosts, from whom I expected so much, were pretty useless overall. Previous recent hosts such as Ellen DeGeneres left more of an impression, I felt. And I had such high hopes from martin and Baldwin, but I guess I felt they were… wasted.

Other than that, the only two really memorable highlights from the show were Tina Fey and Robert Downey, Jr.’s introduction to the screenplay categories, and of course, Ben Stiller, who once again managed to single-handedly steal the show and be funnier than he is in any of his films. And what is up with the dancing? Haven’t they realized by now that the dancing routines consistently suck, no matter how “hip” or “contemporary” the dance is? And the break-dancing and popping was just inappropriate when matched with the Sherlock Holmes score, for example.

In all, the show itself was a bit of a letdown, and I hate that they stuck with the “actors telling amusing anecdotes about the best actor/actress nominees before giving out the prize” thing from last year. It’s a drag, it’s kind of boring, it takes WAY too long – I think it was 20 minutes altogether for both best actor/actress awards ALONE – and more so, it’s not fair for the best supporting actor/actress nominees, who are regulated to “normal” introductions!

So now, on to the awards:

Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Christoph Waltz, "Inglourious Basterds"
Should Have Won: Christoph Waltz, "Inglourious Basterds"

Totally deserved. Waltz was incredible in his role; it’s a performance for the ages, one of the most memorable aspects of the great film, and his speech was really classy. He just seems like an all-around great guy and it’s great to see him “initiated into the club” so to speak. The only downside to this category was that it was inescapably predictable.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role” Mo'Nique, "Precious"
Should Have Won: Anna Kendrick, "Up in the Air"

Although I personally felt that Anna Kendrick delivered the most memorable supporting performance of the year, it’s hard to argue with this win as well: Mo’Nique truly was incredible in her ferocious, visceral performance, and it’s even more impressive that it came from Mo'Nique of all people! I still can’t believe she’s an Academy Award winner now. Because we all know she’s just going to go back to starring in the likes of Phat Girlz 2: Even Phatter. And this category was, once again, predictable.

Best Animated Feature Film: "Up"
Should Have Won: "Up"

Another predictable category – in fact, almost all of the categories were about as predictable as they get, and there were no major surprises at all during the entire ceremony – at least not any good ones – so I’ll just stop mentioning it. Up kept great company in this category, and was surprisingly the only computer animated-film nominated, but it totally deserved the win, no question. I also absolutely loved the animated intros they created for the category. Of course, Up’s was the funniest. But the others were cute!

Best Art Direction: "Avatar"
Should Have Won: "Avatar"

I have to concede: The design work on this film was incredible, and it totally deserved this award, no question about it.

Best Cinematography: "Avatar"
Should Have Won: "Inglourious Basterds"

Okay, here’s where I start asking: What? I still have no idea how this film was even nominated in this category, seeing as only about half an hour of it was actually filmed on cameras, and maybe less – so what did Mauro Fiore win for exactly? Because he didn’t have anything to do with the computer-animated segments of the film, which make up most of its almost 3-hour runtime. So again I ask, what did he win for? For lighting the interior sets of the lab with fluorescent lights? Come on. Robert Richardson should have won for "Inglourious Basterds": this category was a total cop-out, a consolation prize for Avatar for not winning Best Picture. Hell, I would have preferred The Hurt Locker beat it in this category as well – at least that movie was shot on, you know, cameras. And I still have no idea how "Where the Wild Things Are" wasn’t nominated at least in this category.

Best Costume Design: "The Young Victoria"
Should Have Won: "The Young Victoria"

This film probably deserved the award, but what I liked the most about it was winner Sandy Powell’s shout-out to the costume designers on the “contemporary” films who are, as she so rightly said, unjustly and unfairly ignored time and time again by the Academy.

Best Documentary Feature: "The Cove"
Should Have Won: "The Cove" (not nominated: "Anvil! The Story of Anvil")

Although this wasn’t the best documentary of the year – that honor would go to “Anvil! The Story of Anvil", which was somehow not even nominated – but this follows closely behind that one as the second-best doc of the year, and certainly one of the most riveting and best made. It totally deserves the win, it sheds light on an important subject, and I’m happy it won.

Best Documentary Short: "Music by Prudence"
Should Have Won: "China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province"

What drama! The rivalry between the film’s director and producer reached a peak when she ran on stage to “beat him” to the award, only to snatch the microphone from him and start blabbering, despite the fact that she didn’t even win the award – the director did. According to her, his 87 year old mother tried to “block her ascent to the stage with her cane”. According to him, she “disowned the project and removed herself from it a year ago, and only recently has tried to shove her way back in, when the film picked up prestige”. Boo-hoo, I didn’t even see the movie. The only film I saw in this category was "China’s Unnatural Disaster", about the earthquake in Sichuan province, and that was some pretty powerful stuff that I was hoping would win.

Best Live Action Short: "The New Tenants"
Should Have Won: "Miracle Fish"

I only saw one film from this category, "Miracle Fish", and was hoping it would win. It didn't.

Best Animated Short: "Logorama"
Should Have Won: "Logorama"

Surprisingly, this is one of my most satisfying and favorite wins of the night, and I'm so proud of myself that I correctly predicted it! Everyone was predicting Wallace & Gromit, but anyone who had actually seen the films would know that A Matter of Loaf and Death was probably the weakest W&G short yet, while Logorama was an incredibly creative and unique experience. So glad it won - it totally deserves it!

Best Film Editing: “The Hurt Locker"
Should Have Won: "The Hurt Locker" / "District 9"

Again, it’s hard to argue with this category, because The Hurt Locker truly was one of the only nominated films to actually use its editing as part of a creative aspect of its atmosphere and narrative. It deserves the win – and yet, a part of me really wanted District 9 to win, since it utilizes editing in much a similar way as Hurt Locker and achieves a similar effect with it, and I would have been happy to see District 9 walk away with something. Still, Hurt Locker probably deserved this.

Best Foreign Language Film: "El Secreto de sus Ojos," Argentina
Should Have Won: "A Prophet", France

It’s official: Someone needs to change the rules on who watches and votes for these films, and fast. This is the I-don’t-know-what consecutive year in which the Academy ignores the more difficult, thought-provoking (and critically acclaimed) films of the year, and instead bestows this prestigious honor upon an undeserving, un-acclaimed film that only wins because it’s easier to digest than its more powerful alternatives. Everyone knew that "The White Ribbon" or "A Prophet" should have won – just like "Waltz With Bashir" should have won last year, and how a movie that wasn’t even nominated should have won in 2007 instead of "The Counterfeiters", and how "Pan’s Labyrinth" should have won instead of "The Lives of Others" in 2006, and it goes even further back. It’s just frustrating that the Academy consistently and continuously fails to honor the best foreign films of the year, instead going for the most “American”-like of the nominees. Something needs to change in this category; I don’t know what it is, but it needs to change, pronto.

Best Makeup: "Star Trek"
Should Have Won: "Star Trek"

Consolation prize or not, this was probably well-deserved: there were a surprisingly large amount of prosthetics in this film, and it used them very well, so it gets my vote.

Best Original Score: "Up"
Should Have Won: "Up" (not nominated: "Where the Wild Things Are")

I had vowed that if “Avatar” won this award, I would turn the telecast off. Thankfully, that didn’t happen, and the award went to the deserving – albeit predictable – winner. Once again, though, it’s a shame that the Academy failed to recognize Karen O and Carter Burwell’s incredible and memorable work on "Where the Wild Things Are".

Best Original Song: "Crazy Heart" from "Crazy Heart"
Should Have Won: "Crazy Heart" (not nominated: "All is Love" from "Where the Wild Things Are")

Another deserving – albeit predictable – win. Although the category itself really stank. I mean, who even heard of that Paris 36 film? And why was a song from Nine nominated? Isn’t that film based on a musical from the 80’s? So how are its songs in any way “original” exactly? And why weren’t Karen O or Sad Brad Smith nominated for their wonderful original songs for "Where the Wild Things Are" and "Up in the Air", respectively? Snub, snub, snub…

Best Sound Mixing: "The Hurt Locker"
Should Have Won: "The Hurt Locker"

Deserved. The use of sound in this film was genius. But I can’t say the same about the next category…

Best Sound Editing: "The Hurt Locker"
Should Have Won: "Star Trek"

The first thing I said to myself after watching Star Trek for the first time last summer was that it deserved to win this award. If anyone still isn’t sure of the difference, sound mixing is the integration of sounds into the film; sound editing is the creation of the sounds, and in that field, Star Trek excelled, with its original and imaginative sounds for spaceships, laser guns, creatures, and other effects that were both contemporary but also served as a throw-back to a more retro style. It should have won. But not enough people care about these categories to actually vote for the deserving films.

Best Visual Effects: "Avatar"
Should Have Won: "Avatar"

There’s no way around it: Avatar deserved this award, hands down. Its achievement was absolutely monumental in this field, there’s no doubt about it.

Best Writing (Original Screenplay): "The Hurt Locker"
Should Have Won: "Inglourious Basterds"

No, no, no! There are a lot of ways to describe "The Hurt Locker", but well-written isn’t one of them. Not that it isn't well-written; it’s just, it’s not as if the screenplay is exactly the most stand-out element of the film! It’s about atmosphere, tension; the directing and editing are what make this film, not the screenplay. Almost all of the other nominated screenplays were more interesting than Mark Boal’s script for Hurt Locker – all except "The Messenger" which, while I’m happy for Oren Moverman, who shares my heritage (and my name!) for getting nominated, didn’t deserve it over "(500) Days of Summer’"s brilliant screenplay. But despite the fact that both the "Up" and "A Serious Man" screenplays were more interesting than Hurt Locker’s, the real loser here is Quentin Tarantino and "Inglourious Basterds". It’s no coincidence that he looked so disappointed in his cut-away after they announced this win; this was supposed to be his award to lose. Everyone praises James Cameron for “creating a world” in "Avatar": Well, Tarantino also created a world in “Basterds”: a broad ensemble cast of memorable, incredibly well-written characters, all existing in this odd, alternate Tarantino-verse that had a unique and distinct and memorable touch exemplified through the character development and dialogue. The Hurt Locker took place in the Iraq war. I mean, how can you even compare?! Biggest and most disappointing snub of the evening, as far as I’m concerned. Well, that and…:

Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay): "Precious"
Should Have Won: "Up in the Air"

Seriously, what is wrong with the Academy voters this year? This was "Up in the Air"’s to lose, and rightfully so – I mean, it’s the best film of the year in my opinion, but was cheated out of all its other categories so at least it had this one to count on for a consolation prize. But they couldn’t even give it that. And it’s not like the screenplay for "Precious" is particularly bad – it was the directing that ruined the movie for me. But the script for "Up in the Air" is just so rich, so incredibly multi-layered, so unbelievably well written, both in terms of character and dialogue. I just can’t believe it didn’t win. The screenplay categories ended up being the most surprising categories of the night – but in the worst and most disappointing way possible. These are not the type of surprises I like to see at the Oscars!

Best Actor in a Lead Role: Jeff Bridges, "Crazy Heart"
Should Have Won: Colin Firth, "A Single Man

I personally preferred Colin Firth’s mesmerizing performance in “A Single Man”, but Bridges is a close second, and he definitely deserved the Oscar, especially since he hasn’t won one since his first nomination almost 40 years ago. So, as an epic career achievement award, this is certainly a well-deserved won. And his speech was all kinds of awesome. And Kate Winslet was drop-dead stunning.

Best Actress in a Lead Role: Sandra Bullock, "The Blind Side"
Should Have Won: Carrey Mulligan, "An Education"

 Simply put, I do not think that Bullock deserved this win. And it’s not that I don’t like her – in fact, I’ve always found her to be particularly likable and endearing, and she’s more than proven that during this awards season. In fact, her incredibly classy, funny-yet-touching speech almost made her win worthwhile. Almost. But I was more impressed by all four of the other lead performances – well, three, since I still haven’t seen Helen Mirren’s yet, but just judging by the trailers and clips her performance looks more interesting than Bullock’s. I seriously don’t know how the entire Academy got swept up in that hype, and I don’t understand what Meryl Streep needs to do to win an Oscar already – she’s a living legend, but she hasn’t won one in almost 3 decades, which is insane, especially considering the number of nominations.

Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker"
Should Have Won: Kathryn Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker"

She deserves it. Forget the gender thing, forget “Oscar history”, the first female director, and all that which is all fine and good and inspirational and incredible and great. "The Hurt Locker" was just a well-directed movie, hands down. It shows incredible prowess to balance everything that’s going on – the intensity, the frantic energy, the stylish-yet-gritty cinematography, the true-to-life performances, the constant feeling that something dreadful will happen, the location shoot in Jordan – it was not an easy film to direct, but Bigelow pulled it off and succeeded with flying colors. She deserves it, and it was great to see her so genuinely humbled and nervous while dedicating her award to the “troops risking their lives over the world”.

Best Picture: "The Hurt Locker"
Should Have Won: "Up in the Air"

So here’s the thing. This isn’t quite a "Slumdog Millionaire" situation, but I do feel that "The Hurt Locker"’s win was kind of a cop-out. It’s not quite like that other film – or "Crash", for example – because "The Hurt Locker" is a truly incredible movie and is definitely one of the best films of the year. But it’s not the best film of the year, and that’s my problem: This year's Oscar race has become so much about hype and positive momentum, that every year people neglect to remember that this is supposed to award the “best film” of a certain year. And while I liked the film, the only advantage of it winning as far as I’m concerned is that it means that "Avatar" didn't win. Which would have been much worse, because that movie really didn’t deserve it. This is also a triumph for independent filmmakers everywhere, and a great end to this David-and-Goliath story, in which the small indie film prevailed. But 10 years down the line, will "The Hurt Locker" really be more remembered, and looked back on fondly than "Up in the Air"? "Inglourious Basterds"? Or "Up"? I don’t think so. And that’s where this win feels like kind of a let-down for me. Because quite frankly, I have "The Hurt Locker" ranked at around 9th place on my top 10. It’s nowhere near being the best film of the year. And it’s a shame that the truly best film didn't get its due.

Once again, and probably even more so than last year, I am reminded why I don't like the Oscars. Yes, every year I get swept up in the fever just like everyone else, and I watch the ceremony fastidiously, hoping to be entertained and perhaps even surprised in a few categories, only to be completely let-down, again. But this year really feels like the last straw, and I think a change needs to be made. Because this is just no fun anymore. So here’s what I suggest:

Move the Oscars to the beginning of awards season. Who mandated that it comes at the end of it anyway, and that the Golden Globes lay claim to the first slot in the season? I say put the Oscars in mid-late December, immediately after the critics’ circle awards and before the Golden Globes and the guild awards. Perhaps that way, Academy members will have much less time to be swayed by hype and by elaborate Oscar campaigns, and actually focus on the films. The problem is, that this is dangerous because it doesn’t allow time for immediate hype to die down. Because if the Oscars would have been held in December 2009, "Avatar" probably would have won everything, simply because it was a novelty that people were just starting to see and that everyone was really excited about - excitement that slightly died down over the months leading up to the Oscars. So instead of that, I have an alternate, if slightly more controversial, suggestion:

Have the Oscars celebrate the film achievements from two years ago. Sure, it may seem more “irrelevant”, but it would also actually probably allow for a far more accurate and deserving awards show. Just imagine, if this year’s Oscars didn’t celebrate the best films of 2009, but rather, the best films of 2008. Does anyone even remember "Slumdog Millionaire" anymore? Or "The Reader"? While on the other hand, films like "Revolutionary Road" and "The Wrestler" have proven themselves to be far more memorable and leave far more lasting impressions than those two previously mentioned films. Would Kate Winslet have won her Best Actress Oscar for "Revolutionary Road", instead of the forgettable "The Reader"? I like to think so. Would "The Wrestler" have garnered Best Picture, Director and Screenplay nominations? Probably. The awards for best film achievements of 2009 would be given out in a ceremony next February, in 2011. "The Blind Side" hype would have worn off and people would have seen that Bullock’s performance wasn’t all that spectacular, and the award would have gone to Meryl Streep – or perhaps even to a more deserving actress, such as Carey Mulligan, who would have already become quite a commodity after starring in the likes of "Wall Street 2" and "Never Let Me Go". Bigelow would still win Best Director, but I have a feeling that "Inglourious Basterds" will prove itself to be the most memorable and long-lasting film of the nominees, and would have swept the awards a year from now.