Jai Ho! Cheers for Oscar 81!

I'm going to join in the chorus of voices clamoring to discuss last night's Oscar Ceremony not because I have anything particularly original to say, but because, for myself, I want to remember last night in the years to come.

I firmly believe last night's Oscars were the best I had ever seen. Now, I can't speak to the first, oh, approximately 70 years of ceremonies, but I've been watching for a few years now, and nothing even compares. I'll break it down, but overall, bravo!

Overall, this was a particularly exciting year for me because I had seen so many of the nominated films - I had seen all of the Best Picture noms, most of the acting nominees, a great deal of the technical categories' films, one of the documentaries, and even some of the short and animate short films. So, not only could I root for the films I liked, I could do so with conviction and my own personal opinions backing it up.

92,000! The Ceremony Itself:
Some Oscar Ceremonies have just not worked. Take, for example, the year when they thought they'd try moving some of the awards around - putting some of the smaller categories back in the audience, and so forth. That didn't work. Some years have been simply blah... They drag on, go way over the 3 1/2 hour marker, or just don't stand out in particular. Some years have had outstanding moments - Will Ferrel and Jack Black singing the "You're Boring" song particularly stays in my head... but I don't think I've ever seen a year like this one, where everything just worked.

Let me start with the stage, the set, the host - the basics of the show. Few stages will stay in my mind - from the Oscars, or any other show, for that matter - like this one. Check out the design art:I could see some crazy internet Blogger banging away on their keyboard right now, screaming overdone! boring! too glitzy! But, you know what, they're wrong. The 92,000 Swarovski crystals employed to glisten away all night long were absolutely stunning. The patterned floor which changed lighting with the lights hung above was beautiful. The inspiring ideas of moving the orchestra out of the pit, and sticking the audience up nice and close was brilliant.

And then there was Hugh. At first, I admit, I was slightly disappointed to hear there wouldn't be a funny man ala Jon Stewart, Billy Crystal hosting the Oscars. All the shows I can remember have had comedians (Whoopi Goldberg, Robin Williams, Billy Crystal x2, Chris Rock, Ellen DeGeneres, Jon Stewart x2), so when I heard Sexiest Man Alive/ Wolverine/Cowboy Hugh Jackman was hosting, there was a "huh?" moment. But, he redeemed himself fully, proved himself completely, and wowed totally last night.

It was refreshing not to have some man (or woman) in a tux scrambling out from backstage to crack jokes at every scene change; it was great to not have to worry if you were supposed to laugh or feel bad for the victim of a not-so-great joke; and it was great to have someone who was really an entertainer, not a comic, as a host.

Now, scrolling back through my twitter timeline shows quite a few people of my acquaintance not so thrilled with the night's musical numbers - which numbered two total on the part of Hugh Jackman, assisted by Anne Hathaway, then later Beyonce, Amanda Seyfried/ Dominic Cooper, and Vanessa Hudgens/Zac Efron. Now, sure, these were a bit flamboyant as far as Oscar acts go, but may I respectfully point out that, well, we're talking about frikkin Hollywood!?! And, Jackman is right - the musical is back, and it's darn well very entertaining! I thought both numbers were great.

Fa-fa-fa-fassssshion!
Okay, I gotta do it, I gotta talk about those gorgeous leading ladies. The fashion this year was very interesting... and I have to say, I was most impressed by some of Hollywood's younger stars, more than the older ones. Take a look:
(Fyi, that's Natalie Portman and Kate Winslet )
I couldn't find or photos of all my favorites - Slumdog's Freida Pinto, Anne Hathaway, and Jennifer Aniston also made my list - but for the most part, I was very much in awe this year. One thing that struck me was that everyone dressed in character - Kate was elegant, she looks like an actress from the 30s; Angelina Jolie was black and brooding, with that gorgeous jewelry; Amy Adams stood out with a statement; and Sarah Jessica Parker, Miley Cyrus, and Vanessa Hudgens (who I'm not crazy about) were either blah or ick. (I'm sorry, Miley, but your dress looked like it was a barnacle scraped off the bottom of a boat. Also, why were you at the Oscars?)

And the Oscar goes to...
Okay, the awards themselves. First of all, let me go back to the ceremony again - the format of the awards.
1. I loved the way the acting awards were presented, with five previous winners talking directly to the nominees. It was so personal, so touching, and just flat out sweet. I hope they keep this up next year.
2. The Oscars themself "told a story." Yes, we were taunted by that quote a few days before the ceremony, but I see what they mean... The presentation of the awards in the order of making a movie was brilliant. It made the whole show flow very nicely, and it was interesting to this young soon-to-be film student!
3. The presenters were great. Except for Sarah Jessica Parker and Daniel Craig, which was an odd pair, I really liked the presenters. Tina Fey and Steve Martin were hilarious ("Oh, Steve, they don't want to hear about the secret religion which we made up."); Jack Black and Jennifer Aniston were cute together; and Natalie Portman and Joaquin Pheonix - I mean Ben Stiller were mean, yes, but very funny. As for the solo acts, let me just say that Will Smith rocks.
4. They didn't play people off! For once, they didn't rudely music people off the stage, interrupting one of the biggest moments of their lives. I'm pretty sure only one pair/person got music-ed off, and I can live with that.

Okay, and now for the actual awards. While I know Oscar predictions are no longer interesting after the fact, can I just say that I did pretty darn well predicting who would win? I was so pleased to see Slumdog do so well (if you haven't see that film, shame on you!)... and I was very glad for all the acting categores - Heath's family's speech definitely made me tear up, and I was happy Sean Penn beat out Mickey Rourke. Also, while it was a bit sad that only 3 songs were nominated (they cut it down from five), I thought they did a great job with the Slumdog songs, even thought it was a bit weird to throw the Wall-E one right in the middle.

So there you have it, my blow by blow. I've probably ranted on it long enough, so, in short, I thought it was great. Can't wait for next year! =P

Hollywood Insider

So, for a while now, I've been regularly following several of the Blogs and sections of the Entertainment Weekly website (EW.com). One of the sections I follow is called the Hollywood Insider, and it covers various parts of Hollywood - movies, TV, awards, actor/actress deals, etc. A recent article was about the Director's Guild Awards which just took place. While the big news of the evening was Slumdog Millionaire's win (a DGA win is usually a very sure sign of an Oscar win), another important part was the award of Honorary Lifetime Membership to film critic Roger Ebert. Part of the article was so sweet, and the sentiments by Ebert, then later Danny Boyle, were so resonant for me, that I just want to save them. And where's a better place to keep then accessible than this archived blog. So, without any further ado, here it is:

The highlight of the evening, meanwhile, came when DGA president Michael Apted bestowed Roger Ebert with an Honorary Lifetime Membership in the guild. The irony of filmmakers making a critic one of their own was not lost on anyone: The presentation opened with clips of Ebert's positive TV review for Apted's 1994 film Nell...and then his excoriating review for Apted's 2002 film Enough. Then Apted cued up a film of directors Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese, Clint Eastwood and Patty Jenkins (Ebert named her film Monster the best movie of 2003) talking about why Ebert's criticism has meant so much to cinema. "When he reviews [my films] negatively," joked Eastwood, "I feel he's slipping a little."

When Ebert took to the stage, the crowd immediately took to their feet. It was a bittersweet moment, to be sure; complications from cancer surgery in 2006 left Ebert with a damaged lower jaw and the inability to speak, so after a brief message using the computerized voice that's been speaking for Ebert since, his wife Chaz read an eloquent prepared speech from her husband. "The movies come closer than any other art form in giving us the experience of walking in someone else's shoes," it concluded. "They expand us, they improve us, and sometimes they ennoble us. They also thrill us and make us laugh and cry, and for that gift, and for this honor tonight, I am very grateful." The audience broke into another standing ovation.

When it came time for 2007 DGA winners Joel and Ethan Coen to announce director Danny Boyle's win, it seemed like Ebert's words were still ringing in the ears of the man who had transported audiences into the shoes of a Mumbai slumdog. "For those of you who haven't made a film," said Boyle, "dream kind, and dream hard."

That quote by Ebert really summarizes why I love movies, and why I think they're important. They're not just a couch potato pastime for me, as is clear to anyone who knows me, they're a vital part of connecting to the larger world. And, as far as Boyle's words go, all I can say is... I am dreaming. I really hope Boyle and Slumdog win Oscars because, heck, they sure deserve it.

Going 'Bananas' in 'Barcelona'!

<--Who gave this guy a camera? Seriously!?

I recently saw two distinctly different Woody Allen films. The first, entitled Bananas, is one of his older projects (cerca 1971), and one which he wrote, directed, and starred in. The second was Vicky Christina Barcelona, which was just released on DVD, currently has a pending Oscar nomination, and was written and direct by Allen. Now, these are two VERY different films, but I wanted to spend a moment reflecting on each of them, and on the pictured man himself.

Bananas:
This film was shown in my history class on Wednesday for basically no reason whatsoever. It really has no educational value and only marginally relates to the subject we're currently studying (Latin American-US relations in the 20th Century)... but that doesn't matter, I found out. I suppose this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to second-semester-senior pastimes. Bananas is paraphrased wonderfully by IMDb, much more succinctly than I could manage:

When a bumbling New Yorker is dumped by his activist girlfriend, he travels to a tiny Latin American nation and becomes involved in its latest rebellion.

But, see, that doesn't even really cover it. The film is in Allen's classical "What did I just see?" style. It's funny, to be sure, but in a way that makes you wonder if Candid Cameras are filming you as you watch. Case in point: amidst a classically set up court room scene, the camera pans across the jury, passing normal suited men and women, only to glance over one man who happens to be drinking out of a fishbowl. Waa-huh? Weird, right?

Other than a few not-so-hidden message about the US government and some wonderfully dysfunctional relationship scenes (SO hilarious, by the way), the film is entertaining, but not much more. Still, it was a fun way to spend an entire block period at school! Overall, I thought it was a classic example of Allen's quirky and off-the-beaten-path style, one which I recognized from other films of his, such as Annie Hall.

Vicky Christina Barcelona:
As this film shows, Allen has really mellowed out in the last thirty years. This film, like other more recent projects (such as Match Point, Scoop, Cassandra's Dream) still has its funny moments, but is more focused on the drama. Perhaps it's because Allen is no longer starring in his own films as much (can he not get anyone to be as silly as him on camera? O.o), or perhaps he's simply found a more serious edge with age - the guy is over 70!

Vicky Christina Barcelona tells the story of two friends (named Vicky and Christina, whatddyaknow?) who travel to, you guessed it, Barcelona. There, they become - ahem - involved with a man named Juan Antonio. I'll just let IMDb explain it, because I'm already feeling myself getting wordy with a synopsis:

Two girlfriends on a summer holiday in Spain become enamored with the same painter, unaware that his ex-wife, with whom he has a tempestuous relationship, is about to re-enter the picture.

Okay, that sounds like a fine and dandy plot, but it's the actors who really made it come to life. Picture Rebecca Hall, Scarlett Johansson, Javier Bardem, and Penelope Cruz all being equal parts charming and neurotic. Now that's entertainment.

As I was sitting down under the impression that I was about to watch a charming film about people in Spain (not knowing or forgetting that it was a Woody Allen project), I was jarringly surprised as it begun. As with all his films, Allen takes the casual filmmaker, and shakes him/her awake. The film is narrated by a nasal-y bland male voice, more like an audiobook than anything else. At first, my mind was saying "wtf?" - it's not at all what I was used to in a film. But as I let myself go, telling myself, "Dude, it's Woody Allen, just see where it goes," I began to enjoy the film more and more.

The dialogue was extremely interesting. It was an odd mix of extremely fakey and a little too real. Something about the way characters would keep talking or say a bit too much was, first of all, not at all like a typical screenplay, and second, possibly more like we talk in real life? Whichever, Woody Allen seemed to be taking the age old addage "Show, don't tell," and shoving his middle finger in its face. Almost everything happened through dialogue, and the settings - despite being absolutely beautiful shots of Spain - became mere backdrops.

And then there's the content. The tagline for the film is "Life is the ultimate work of art," which, aside from being something I really like, gives you an idea of Allen's next iconic influence. It was filmed with musings and attempts to definte life, love, happiness, relationships, and any other "big idea" ideas he could possibly come up with. Unlike Bananas, this felt like a film that had a lot more in it than I could grasp in one viewing.

So, there you have it, very different films, which brings me to a few thoughts on the man himself...

Mister Woody Allen: (born as Allan Stewart Konigsberg, I just found out. *strokes beard* that's interesting...)
Though many of his films are not only "love 'em or hate 'em" but rather "Um, wtf?" I really admire Allen as a filmmaker. (Not so much as a person - the guy married his adopted daughter; that's just messed up). He's not afraid to have his own very distinct voice, and to constantly let it permeate absolutely everything he does. You never walk out of a Woody Allen film wondering who directed it. And that drive to let your true voice shows through takes gumption. So, hats off to you, sir - keep making those uniquely interesting/funny/strange/dramatic films of yours.

P.S. It's a new month - the second of the not-so-new year! I blogged 13 times in January. While that's good, I hope to keep it up and even find time for more! Thanks for reading!