"CliffB" wrote in message
news:6b03bb60-6c62-4e86-ae6d-fddbc8a1ae4f@z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 9, 12:47 pm, "JonesieCat" wrote:
> "Nancy2" wrote in message
>
> news:f733c642-a725-4b4f-9207-af4b3c86b507@b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 8, 6:21 pm, CliffB wrote:
>
> > Or just the usual sentimental nods and pet cause feel-good picks?
>
> > Hurt Locker manic euphoria; Bullocks actually a "best actress" this
> > year? Jeff Bridges may have deserved it for something, but was this
> > it? (he for instance imo wasn't as good this year as Mickey Rourke was
>
> > Maybe the over-all snubbing of Jim Cameron provided some kind of
> > actual pleasure to the event........
>
> In my view, it was all alright. "Hurt Locker" had more depth and
> relativity than a bunch of blue-faced avatars enmeshed in FX
> wonderland. Walz's comments about the Oscar being "uber bingo" was
> fresh - you missed that, I guess.
No, I heard it. That was cute. Then his whole carefully constructed
and performed boatride analogy or whatever. The shtick was good enough
for the various previous awards shows (GG, Bafta, ISA, etc) but it was
definitely getting staler and more labored by Oscar night. At least
that's the last of the season perhaps. Don't get me wrong, it was a
great acting performance, he deserved a win, and I enjoyed the
earlier speeches, but enough's enough. even he's maybe had enough of
being feted and awarded, and extolling and romanticizing etc......
> If Bullock and Bridges didn't earn
> their Oscars for this year's efforts, there is precedence to give them
> Oscars anyway - remember Liz Taylor getting one for "Butterfield 8?"
> That was more a body-of-work award than one for that movie.
Right, that's what it seemed to be. Does it make it right? Bullock
even wondered whether this was for wearing her audience down over the
years. Great acting? I don't know, didn't actually see the film. Does
she deserve it for her body of work, if that's what it was for? That's
quite doubtful. Maybe this turn was a step above her usual trademark
Bullock performance - why she also self-deprecated that she figured
this was a once-in-a-lifetime thing. Maybe it will let her grow as an
actress, which would be salutary.
>
> There were too many introductions of major award nominees, and Neil
> Patrick Harris plus that stupid dance number should have been 86'd,
> but other than that, I liked it all.
>
> N.
> ===
> ITA. (And there are many other body-of-work Oscars than ET's B-8 example.
> Maybe they should have a "random" category for just that ("Body of Work
> Deserving of Recognition This Year So That This Doesn't Taint Voting for
> the
> Regular Categories") (oh, but would Meryl be the winner each time?)?
>
> Why in Gawd's name they open with NPHarris?
>
> jc
Cause he successfully emceed some other awards shows and they wanted
to open with a showpiece. They ended up squandering Steve Martin's
song (less so) and dance (more so) abilities though by giving the turn
to Harris, who has that Broadway musical thing down pat.
===
Neil Patrick Harris is no Hugh Jackman.
And. They oughtta give OTHER just-for-tonight awards in between the real
Oscars: best dressed for the evening, most puzzlingly dressed (SJ Parker -
and I don't care it was Chanel couture), most noteworth, longest sleb
union/marriage in the Kodak audience - that sort of thing. All less
orchestrated and more ad lib. For gawd's sake, it's TELEVISION.
jc
|