Awards Season 2012

[dx23]

I'm surprised how much I enjoyed the show in general and McFarlane's hosting. I think he will probably be invited again at some point.

[flyonthewall2983]

I agree. I didn't think he was as terrible as some people are saying he was. I skipped some of it, but was oddly engaged by the end. I've only seen one of the 9 Best Pic nominees, and it was Argo. It really didn't scream Oscar bait to me, so it's a somewhat pleasant surprise that it won. I really liked Ben and DDL's speeches.

[dx23]

By the way, besides Andy Griffith, the In Memoriam guys forgot Ben Gazzara, Richard Dawson, Gore Vidal, Sylvia Kristel, and Alex Karras.

Also, Heslov should have shortened his speech and let Affleck talk a little more.

[flyonthewall2983]

OutlawVern pointed out the irony of Tarantino being played out to the music from Gone With The Wind.

[PfR73]

They also left out Levon Helm.

[Black Hat]

Ben Gazarra was included last year. Leaving out Andy Griffith is hard to believe. Can they really be this incompetent? Must be a reason.

[Noiradelic]

I've only seen one of the 9 Best Pic nominees, and it was Argo. It really didn't scream Oscar bait to me, so it's a somewhat pleasant surprise that it won. I really liked Ben and DDL's speeches.

Argo was the favorite going in, and continues the tradition of the movie-star directed movie winning.

[HelenLawson]

By the way, besides Andy Griffith, the In Memoriam guys forgot Ben Gazzara, Richard Dawson, Gore Vidal, Sylvia Kristel, and Alex Karras.

Add Susan Tyrell.

[Feego]

By the way, besides Andy Griffith, the In Memoriam guys forgot Ben Gazzara, Richard Dawson, Gore Vidal, Sylvia Kristel, and Alex Karras.

Add Susan Tyrell.

Not really surprised that most of those people were left out, save for Griffith and (Oscar nominee) Tyrell. They also left out Larry Hagman, Harry Carey Jr., and two-time nominee Joyce Redman.

Kudos, though, for remembering Erland Josephson, Andrew Sarris, and Chris Marker. Which foreign actors and directors they'll include is always unpredictable, and film critics/scholars are rarely included. I was actually very surprised by the inclusion of Ray Bradbury. While his work has inspired numerous films, I don't think he himself ever wrote a screenplay. And at least they corrected last year's exclusion of Eiko Ishioka (though I wonder if she still would have been MIA had she not been nominated this year).

Edit: And as Black Hat said above, Gazzara made it last year.

[MichaelB]

They also left out Levon Helm.

And Michael Winner - who directed more Hollywood films than most British directors of his generation. Although admittedly his chances of an Oscar were always somewhat slim.

[Feego]

Winner's chances at the Oscars probably are slim, but it appears they didn't include anyone who passed away in 2013 anyway. Perhaps they are going to start including only people who died in the year being celebrated?

[knives]

Kudos, though, for remembering Erland Josephson, Andrew Sarris, and Chris Marker. Which foreign actors and directors they'll include is always unpredictable, and film critics/scholars are rarely included. I was actually very surprised by the inclusion of Ray Bradbury. While his work has inspired numerous films, I don't think he himself ever wrote a screenplay. And at least they corrected last year's exclusion of Eiko Ishioka (though I wonder if she still would have been MIA had she not been nominated this year).

Edit: And as Black Hat said above, Gazzara made it last year.

In addition to his television work Bradbury also wrote the script to Huston's Moby Dick.

[Feego]

I see. I only took a quick gander at his IMDb page and missed that.

[inneyp]

I'd be curious to hear other people's opinions here concerning the allegations of sexism. On the one hand I agree that Seth MacFarlane has a distinctly fratty brand of humor, and that certain comments (eg Zero Dark Thirty being about 'a woman's inability to let go', chris brown and rihanna's date night) were in poor and tired taste, but when I read things like this -http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... night.html - I just can't take them seriously. That article in particular puts a conspiratorial slant on the proceedings.

On the "We Saw Your Boobs" song, essentially the centerpiece of her argument, the author writes

You girls think you’re making art, the Academy, through MacFarlane, seemed to say, but all we—and the “we” was resolutely male—really see is that we got you to undress. The joke’s on you.

... And who knows what the Los Angeles Gay Men’s Chorus thought that it was doing by serving as MacFarlane’s backup singers, but it’s hard not to wonder what the rhetorical point was meant to be. We saw your boobs, but that’s not even what we find attractive, so you exerted no power in doing so—all you did was humiliate yourself?

It's juvenile humor to be sure, but as the author admits herself in the next sentence

Maybe that’s reading too much into it.

[knives]

Worse yet the joke of the boobs song was that MacFarlane would have to be the worst host of all time to go through with it. The outrage at some of the jokes including that one seems rather humourless to me especially since he made several similar jokes to other groups which aren't wielding metaphorical pitchforks. Obviously sexism in the industry is a serious issue, but focusing in on this distracts from and belittles the real issues.

[matrixschmatrix]

I don't really see where the thin pretense of irony lessens the unpleasantness of the whole thing- there's enough creepy objectification going on in Hollywood generally, but it seems like adding insult to injury to do it at the Oscars, where the trade off for all the pomposity is meant to be some modicum of class. The 'oh this is so awful' wrapping is unhelpful because the point isn't to invert the joke and turn it on the teller, it's to give the teller an excuse to objectify the shit out of some people.

[flyonthewall2983]

I read one article that asked in it's title if the Academy owes an apology to Brett Ratner. Say what you will about Seth's humor, but he's never said them in a serious context like the guy they fired for making pretty blatant sexist and homophobic remarks.

[Mr Sausage]

With all due respect to matrixschmatrix's (as usual) astute points, saying inappropriate things is one of the fundamental bases of comedy, and I don't think Mcfarlane's routine was meant to be more than the humorous shock of saying inappropriate things. That's kind of his trademark, and the 'ironic' tone is not a deflection but a cheeky admittance of the joke. This kind of humour depends on the comic letting you know that he also knows he's being inappropriate, and that that's where the fun is supposed to be (if he didn't know, then there'd be a problem).

I'm with knives, here.

[Grand Illusion]

His best joke was about DDL being the first to get inside Lincoln's head since John Wilkes Booth. That's just a classic comedy club structure of a punchline, and it had me rolling. The rest of his set was hit and miss for me.

[dx23]

With all due respect to matrixschmatrix's (as usual) astute points, saying inappropriate things is one of the fundamental bases of comedy, and I don't think Mcfarlane's routine was meant to be more than the humorous shock of saying inappropriate things. That's kind of his trademark, and the 'ironic' tone is not a deflection but a cheeky admittance of the joke. This kind of humour depends on the comic letting you know that he also knows he's being inappropriate, and that that's where the fun is supposed to be (if he didn't know, then there'd be a problem).

I'm with knives, here.

Exactly. And the Seth is the same person who created Family Guy and Ted and his schtick was well known and accepted by many before the Oscars. Did he say some inappropriate things? Yes, but that is his comedy style, similar to guys like Daniel Tosh, Jeff Ross and other modern comedians who have taken the "roasting" style to the mainstream. People have complained for years that the show had become boring, most likely, because it had depended on people who have an old style of comedy (Billy Crystal) or on those who comedy (or at least stand up) isn't in their repertoire (Anne Hathaway and James Franco). When Eddie Murphy was mentioned as hosting the show, people where complaining that he was going to be too safe and not the Eddie of SNL days who made fun of Stevie Wonder, black people and frankly, relied on being inappropriate (which I don't have a problem by the way).

I realized years ago that hosting duties at the Oscars have become a no win situation as the current social media is never going to be satisfied and they rely on memories of past hosts like Johnny Carson and Bob Hope like Republicans remember Ronald Reagan. People are going to complain of whoever is selected as being too boring, too crude, not funny enough, not engaging enough, etc. Like I've mentioned before, I'm not a fan of McFarlane's stuff but enjoyed his hosting duties. If people today get offended by the Wilkes Booth/Lincoln joke, then they have serious problems.

[matrixschmatrix]

I don't really see where the fact that MacFarlane is a known quantity enters into the question of whether the show was misogynistic or not- absolutely this isn't the first time he's acted like an ass, but that certainly doesn't seem like evidence that he wasn't doing that at the Oscars. And it's not a question of being inappropriate, it's a question where the jokes turn- I think Daniel Tosh is an appropriate comparison, in that both of them rely on humor where one says an enormous number of nasty things where the joke turns always on 'it's awful but it's true! I'm glad someone's saying it!' rather than 'it's funny because people actually believe that shit', or alternately 'it's funny because it's the opposite of anything believable.'

I mean, compare MacFarlane's joke about how Zero Dark Thirty is about how women can't let things go with The Onion's article wherein Daniel Day-Lewis says he thinks Lincoln deserved to die- the latter is obviously infinitely more inappropriate, but it's fine because it doesn't require that you actually think that Lincoln did deserve to die. MacFarlane's, as far as I can tell, is based on reinforcing the prejudice it's bringing up.

[Dansu Dansu Dansu]

I'm with matrix on this one. I hated every moment of his routine. MacFarlane panders to undercurrents in the dominant ideology while trying to make those who notice feel stupid if they don't laugh. Jokes on Family Guy are often violently misogynistic and racist while mocking the idea of gender and race relations as overblown political correctness. So, either I'm quietly uncomfortable/disgusted or I'm that guy who makes too big of deal about it? And that this is planned doesn't make it any better, just more calculated and insincere. MacFarlane's smarmy, self-aggrandizing bro humor doesn't even have the sincerity to admit what it is because it no longer can, hence the pretense. Sure, the delivery is there, which is why people laugh, only to abruptly stop after what he said consciously clicks.

On the upside for the evening, he made Hollywood look better by creating a contrast. Did anyone else notice how much the audience and presenters hated him? I mean, hated him? Steve Martin is perfect for the Oscars. He toys with egos through a self-mocking dignified persona, and arguably offers actual wit to boot.

[Murdoch]

You guys still watch the Oscars?

[Brian C]

Did anyone else notice how much the audience and presenters hated him? I mean, hated him?

No.

[Mr Sausage]

The Zero Dark Thirty joke seems pretty innocuous. It's pairing the movie against a seemingly unrelated stereotype to highlight an amusing, reductionist aspect of the movie: that's it's all about a girl chasing a guy. No one, joke teller included, actually believes this is an accurate description of the movie. It's absurd. It's a skewed and comic perspective from which to view the movie. Irony is a simultaneous presence and absence. For the joke to work you have to see how the comparison is simultaneously true and untrue.

This joke does not require that you think Zero Dark Thirty is about how girls can't let go, or that you believe that that's actually true about girls. It's about getting you to see see the absurd comparison between two seemingly unrelated things. That's the point, the unexpected conjunction of two concepts, not whether either one is strictly accurate. No real belief need apply. Seems like you'd have to want to take offense at that to think it turns on reinforcing prejudice.