web counter
 

The Oscars: They Could Have Been Worse

By Courtney Enlow | Posted Under Celebrities Are Better than You | Comments (53)

james-franco-anne-hathaway-oscar-hosts.jpg

When the tiny multi-ethnic children have stopped singing and Gwneth Paltrow has arrived home, blissfully unaware of her complete lack of dignity, you know another Oscar night has come and gone. And now, two days later and in a blatantly desperate effort to not write about Charlie Sheen, I have my thoughts.

Monday Oscar talk tends to come in three tiers: those who deride the Oscars as meaningless or bad, those who deride those who deride the Oscars as meaningless or bad, and those who deride those who deride those who deride the Oscars as meaningless or bad. It’s very complicated. I don’t think the Oscars was any better or worse than it has been before. Complaining about the Oscars is like complaining about SNL. It’s hackneyed, fruitless, and with a cloudy, misguided hindsight bias. They’re always long, they’re always dull, and the movies that win were never as good as the movies you think should win. We get it.

One thing was abundantly clear: Hathaway carried Franco on her back like a dead soldier. Whether or not she was successful is moot. The guy gave her nothing, and I am 95% sure this was another “performance art piece” for him.

However you felt about the Oscars, just know this - if not by the grace of a higher power and the gods of time, it could have been way worse.

That’s not a parody. That’s not anything. That’s just singing the song from the movie and saying “host” a bunch of times. Jesus, Vilanch.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← Frontier Of The Unspoken: How the Internet Changed the Way We Socialize | Gentlemen May Prefer Blondes, But I Always Preferred You, Jane Russell →









Comments

It must be noted that Hathaway is smoking hot in that Bad Sandy outfit.

Posted by: jthomas666 at March 1, 2011 12:36 PM

I don't know what the fuck that clip was all about, but by the time it was over, I had punched my monitor and emptied my entire stapler into my face.

Posted by: Skitz at March 1, 2011 12:37 PM

Seriously! I speak as a movie devotee who LOVES the Oscars and all of these boring award shows and I was beyond disappointed in the Oscars this year. They were just charmless and directionless. Why so many references and clips to random old movies? Why??? There was absolutely no relevance to most of what went on and worst of all no real resonance or connection to any of the movies nominated. I think this is what is most disappointing of all. The Oscars should be a genuine celebration of the nominated movies, a time to mull them over with thoughtful descriptions and well chosen clips. What we got was bad jokes, bad songs, and a weird Back to the Future clip.

Posted by: valerie at March 1, 2011 12:43 PM

That just means it's lunchtime, Skitz.

Posted by: Wednesday at March 1, 2011 12:44 PM

I was one of those in the first camp, then I was in the third camp. But at this point, I think I'd have been better off camping.

I do wonder though what purpose do the Oscars serve at this point in time (ironically I think the same of SNL).

Is it to be an profile enhancer for small movies that may be lost in the studio shuffle?

Is it to be a pageant where Hollywood can dazzle the world?

Is it a way to prove they're more than just making shit like Transformers and Cats and Dogs 2?

Or is it a vestigial tradition of a time that doesn't exist any more and, like the old studio system or the silent era stars, should be consigned to the dustbins or history?

This I do know: most of these movies will end up in the $5 bin at Wal-Mart in 5 years time and the only thing people will remember is James Franco stoned out of his mind.

Posted by: Fredo at March 1, 2011 12:46 PM

I agree with valerie. The show is always bad, but this year was definitely worse than most. Completely directionless.

Posted by: jimbob at March 1, 2011 12:47 PM

That was painful but at least Hathaway looked damn hot and my, could she sing!

Franco, not so much.

Posted by: yocean at March 1, 2011 12:47 PM

I didn't think the Oscar ceremony was bad until we were ninety minutes in and that awful autotune the films joke came on. Let's just say I never thought I'd see the day where I was hoping Billy Crystal would do a comedic musical montage.

And I'll add a new category: best picture bias. I swear, if Jennifer Lawrence and John Hawkes weren't nominated, I don't think I would have realized the film was up for any awards. It was barely shown in the montages (and each clip was a massive spoiler) and glossed over very quickly in Adapted Screenplay. For a film with many striking visual images, it's just ridiculous that no one thought to edit it in. The Kids Are All Right got similar treatment, but the mostly upbeat tone made for better montage footage I guess.

I get it. The Academy is criticized for being out of touch with film-goers. You can't change that by ignoring the films you nominate. If anything, the tiny little indie films have to be pushed harder to justify their presence. They made a bad mistake eliminating the individual Best Picture packages. They couldn't spare 10 minutes of crap for a minute on each nominee (including presenter entrance and applause)? Bull.

Posted by: Robert at March 1, 2011 12:51 PM

Mr. Julien has pointed out that every year, anyone other than the actors gets increasingly marginalized and their categories relegated elsewhere. ONLY the actors got the sycophantic ego stroking of individual odes delivered by the presenter -

Natalie - Since your first appearance on the razor's edge of sexual predator appeal role in The Professional to your object of inappropriate affection relationship with an adult in Beautiful Girls to that time you showed Clive Owen your snatch in Closer, we have watched you blossom from jailbait to stripper with breathless anticipation. This year, you topped it all off with a raw and startling performance as a tortured ballerina who, despite her increasing fragmentation, finds time to pleasure herself and get it on with another chick on film. Bravo!

Annette - You announced your presence in Grifters ...

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at March 1, 2011 1:00 PM

The Academy is criticized for being out of touch with film-goers.

I don't know that this was the criticism. If anything, it seemed like the show in question had little to do with the movies nominated or receiving awards.

They made a bad mistake eliminating the individual Best Picture packages.

That's now 10 movies so that means 100 minutes (1 hr and 40 minutes). Not happening. Not in lieu of more dance sequences.

Posted by: Fredo at March 1, 2011 1:00 PM

so that means 100 minutes (1 hr and 40 minutes).

Disregard this. My mind went to 2 places at once.

Posted by: Fredo at March 1, 2011 1:01 PM

Hathaway came off as a theater kid. The end when she was all like "OH MY GOD KIDS HIGH FIVE YOU ARE AMAZING," just added to the whole theme of "isn't it cute that we are hosting the oscars."

Look, Ms. Hathaway, I would probably have sex with you (multiple times if you smell nice), but drop the phony theater kid enthusiasm. Being nice does not make up for not having jokes. That is why people like Letterman. Comedy > being nice

Posted by: maka at March 1, 2011 1:02 PM

maka, I'm not sure she wrote her own material. I mean, we could speculate that she tried and failed, but Ockham's razor and all that.

Posted by: Brenton at March 1, 2011 1:09 PM

Monday Oscar talk tends to come in three tiers: those who deride the Oscars as meaningless or bad, those who deride those who deride the Oscars as meaningless or bad, and those who deride those who deride those who deride the Oscars as meaningless or bad.

And below that is limbo... at Crispin Glover's house...

BWWUUUAAAAAAMMMMMM!

Posted by: branded at March 1, 2011 1:09 PM

I thought it was boring mainly because I had a really good idea of who/which nominees would win the major prizes that night.

I thought Franco did fine. I don't think I would have been more amused by Franco and Hathaway doing what they thought Billy Crystal would have been doing. Maybe it didn't bother me because I was multitasking during the broadcast.

Posted by: sars at March 1, 2011 1:10 PM

maka I thought she was being showbizzy at the mother of all showbiz events. She was also trying to compensate for the 160 pound carbunkle attached to her right side.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at March 1, 2011 1:12 PM

I was multitasking during the broadcast.

Whaddaya think drunken Pajiba chatroom is for?

Posted by: Jay at March 1, 2011 1:13 PM

There's a drunken Pajiba chatroom? I feel like an outsider. And not the Sodapop kind.

Posted by: Brenton at March 1, 2011 1:15 PM

The intro spoof clips and Melissa Leo's acceptance were my favorite parts. Everything else was meh at best, and nothing compared to insane signing Hugh Jackman from a few years ago.

I'M WOOOOLVEEEERIIIIIIIIIIIINEEEEEEE!!!!!

Posted by: Markus at March 1, 2011 1:15 PM

They have got to go back to 5 Best pic nominees. It's just a bad idea to have that many. We know going in that 7 of those movies don't have a hope in hell. Toy Story 3? Come on! And I think by having that many choices they are really splitting the field. Personally, I think Inception should have won. There is just no reason to give Best Picture to a movie like The King's Speech that is essentially the same movie they give the award to every other year. I'm not saying it's a bad movie, I'm sure it's quite great. But they have got to start rewarding movies for pushing film forward, not sitting in neutral. And that is absolutely what that telecast was about. It was disjointed, it was boring, it was weird, and it was predictable.

Also, they should give Hathaway a bonus and refuse to pay Franco.

Posted by: TylerDFC at March 1, 2011 1:18 PM

One good thing came out of the Oscars: I am now firmly Team Hathaway. Anyone who dares besmirch her awesomeness shall have to deal with me. And I am scary.

Posted by: figgy at March 1, 2011 1:25 PM

I feel like the ultimate hipster douchebag when these awards come around. As one who thinks these people are basically the court jesters in the court of life (which makes us, the audience, the kings, queens,lords and ladies...which means my husband is right, I am his queen after all), I am betting that this was no better or worse than any other ceremony. And really how bad does it have to be for BILLY CRYSTAL to be the best thing about it? That's just pathetic and sad.

Bunch of egomaniacs throwing flowers at each other. Natalie Portman is a best actress? Was she up against Jessica Alba and Jessica Beil? In what universe?

There. I established myself as in the First camp.

Also, Brenton, I love you. I did not know about the drunken chat room wither. AND props for the SE Hinton joke-ish.

Also,

Posted by: klingonfree at March 1, 2011 1:34 PM

Also...hahaha. Hathaway looks like a weird marionette.

Posted by: klingonfree at March 1, 2011 1:35 PM

Franco was an epic embarrassment. I wanted to choke him on stage. He shouldn't have taken the job if he wasn't gonna give a shit. I've lost all respect. Hope he uses this for another failure of a "performance art" piece. He's a joke.

Posted by: Marla Singer at March 1, 2011 1:41 PM

Holy crapfest. And to think I was waiting all night for that; someone made a good decision.

Posted by: Cindy at March 1, 2011 1:42 PM

Sorry figs...besmirch. Ms Hathaway just does not do it for me.
Am I the only one who didn't hate James Franco? I think I saw a lonely commenter up there who's with me on that...I think we might be it, though.

Posted by: Whorish Mouth at March 1, 2011 1:50 PM

Now just what the hell is wrong with Billy Crystal?

I'm not chatting with you.

Posted by: Jay at March 1, 2011 1:58 PM

I attended a screening of the documentary of Instrument and met one of my heroes, Guy Picciotto from Fugazi.

As Ian McKaye said so eloquently, "Punk rock movie beat the effin' Oscars".

James Franco's live tweets were cool I guess. (and I was happy to see Bale and Firth win).

Posted by: grace b at March 1, 2011 1:59 PM

I would also like to point out the "paleness" of the entire show. With the exception of Jennifer Hudson and Halle Berry were there any black people or other people of color there?

Posted by: blacksred at March 1, 2011 2:01 PM

*glares*

Posted by: figgy at March 1, 2011 2:02 PM

They said it best on Red Eye last night: It's time to pat Bruce Vilanch on the back, thank him for his many years of service, give him a gold watch, and send him on his way.

Posted by: gbeenie at March 1, 2011 2:03 PM

blacksred, I pointed out the exact same thing to my friends afterward. Jennifer Hudson and Halle Berry were the only presenters (that's one and a half minorities), Morgan Freeman was in the intro, and I saw Louis Gossett, Jr. (!) in the crowd. That's about it. 2011, everyone!

Posted by: Abe Froman at March 1, 2011 2:15 PM

I'm pretty sure Gwyneth was aware of her lack of dignity. Her discomfort was all over her face as she sang, and it looked like she practically rolled her eyes at the end. Made me wonder if her earpiece wasn't working. Either way, I was super unimpressed with both the song and her performance of it.

Posted by: Sara Tonin at March 1, 2011 2:15 PM

After watching them try and host the Oscars together, I came to the realization that they probably despise each other to such an extent that I'm wondering why in hell they agreed to do this together even (I guess the money was that good or something). James was beyond stoned, or just didn't give a rat's ass either way. Why bother going to the Oscars if you don't even want to be there in the first damn place? It's not like he even looked that good or had a chance in hell to win an Oscar for 127 Hours. Anne was probably on uppers most of the time and pretty much carried the show. She didn't do half bad a job, but still, that was pretty unfair of Franco to just act like he was too cool for school and this was a performance piece. Get over yourself dude!
Hours.

Posted by: Gina at March 1, 2011 2:24 PM

Whorish Mouth (great name by the way) -- I posted on another thread that anyone expecting Franco to be different hasn't seen him in interviews. That's his personality. He's totally his Freaks and Geeks character in real life. I don't think he didn't give a shit. I think that's just his face. His facial expressions and dry delivery got more laughs out of me than Anne Hathaway did. I was actually surprised to see how vehemently people hated him the next day.

Posted by: Melissa at March 1, 2011 2:35 PM

I'm fairly certain only six(6) people knew that they were even there... (Hathaway, Downey Jr., Timberlake, Spacey, Douglas, and Crystal)

Fairly certain they slipped something into the punch.

Posted by: The Unabeefer at March 1, 2011 2:35 PM

Was anyone else baffled by the huge "Aragon and Arwen" projection behind Cate Blanchett during the entire costume and makeup awards? Huh? A series she was barely in, that came out years ago? I didn't get it.

Posted by: AM at March 1, 2011 3:04 PM

100% cringeworthy, but jesus christ. anne hathaway. the girl gets it.

Posted by: matty blue at March 1, 2011 3:15 PM

"Hathaway carried Franco on her back like a dead soldier."

That sounds like a great TV series.
Hathaway dragging Franco across a different battle field every episode.

Posted by: OldSchool60 at March 1, 2011 3:19 PM

Melissa, I'm totally with you. I saw your post on that other thread and definitely agree. I was entertained by him...more so than Ms Hathaway.
*ducks Figgy's eye daggers*

Posted by: Whorish Mouth at March 1, 2011 3:24 PM

I read other comments on other sites about the lack of major minority roles this Oscar season. Not trying to start shit, but (not sarcastic at all) what were the major film roles with blacks, latinos and asians were there this year? I pretty much only saw True Grit, King's Speech and Black Swan on bootleg, so I'm drawing a blank on the other movies this year. Anybody else think they should include new categories (Best Stunt) and completely remove categories for that year if nothing was of note? For Best Makeup and Best Animated Feature they each had two nominees!!! What was the point?!

Posted by: scorzi at March 1, 2011 3:35 PM

maka, per my acquaintance who was at the rehearsals, Hathaway's theater kid enthusiasm is anything but phony. Apparently she's super happy, super bubbly, and super "GeeI'msohappytobehereisn'tthisGREAT?!", 24/7.

Posted by: Angeleno Ewok at March 1, 2011 3:39 PM

Yeah, it could have been worse. They could have given Julia Roberts an award.

Posted by: MRod at March 1, 2011 3:45 PM

My biggest beef with the show was many clips of Inception, but not one with Tom Hardy! (I think it won the one it deserved, btw)

And the nonsensical connection between the past and the present - for one thing, it made the present look stupid. And boring. Just look pretty, be witty, and give out the Oscar - why's that so difficult to do? Oscar and Emmy telecasts should be exempt from winning Emmys. Maybe they wouldn't try so hard to impress the viewers with trivia, and cut the time down to a reasonable limit.

Posted by: Chickaboom at March 1, 2011 3:57 PM

blacksred, Hailee Steinfeld is mixed.

But your point stays true: the whiteyness of the ceremony was really embarassing... much like us white people in general.

Posted by: seed at March 1, 2011 4:21 PM

...which reminds me. Where the hell were the Pinkett-Smiths?!

(And Brangelina for that matter? Or Scorcese? The lack of star-power was striking)

Posted by: seed at March 1, 2011 4:25 PM

RE "I speak as a movie devotee who LOVES the Oscars and all of these boring award shows and I was beyond disappointed in the Oscars this year. They were just charmless and directionless. Why so many references and clips to random old movies? Why??? There was absolutely no relevance to most of what went on and worst of all no real resonance or connection to any of the movies nominated."

To pad the total running time. ABC supposedly got $1.7 million per 30-second spot, for a total of $80 million. That's why they locked it in for the next 9 years. And why it's not getting any shorter, though it should.

And they got that even though viewership this year went down, again (just slightly, but still). Their "court the youth demo" strategy didn't work. Lots of people checked out of the broadcast until the very end, when they announced the big awards.

Posted by: Slash at March 1, 2011 4:54 PM

Says the person who was rooting for The King's Speech

Posted by: ChristianH at March 1, 2011 5:00 PM

Says the person who was rooting for The King's Speech

Your point?

Posted by: Jay at March 1, 2011 5:57 PM

Slash

You should have identified Valerie in that "RE" to her comment at 12:43, since she made the most salient points about the content of the actual Awards show. Considering they've dragged out virtually every 'classic' (see: ancient) film clip way too many times on way too many recent Oscar shows already, they just showed their complete dearth of original thought by trotting them out again, and the 'explanation' you offer Valerie is about ABC padding the running time for commercially financial gain- that's obvious, but it hardly explains why the show itself is so pathetic, does it?

Most viewer lamentations regarding the actual program itself are valid, constructve & have lotsa sense-making: three qualities the producers/writers/directors of the Oscar telecasts have steadfastly ignored for decades now, excepting the few ceremonies where they actually stumbled upon a wonderful host and/or the Oscar race is especially tight due to quality nominees.

Unfortunately, this is more often serendipity than actual predetermination by those clueless idiots in charge who continually fuck up the event. Seriously, I read in some entertainment magazine that preparations and preproduction for the Academy Awards ceremony begin THE DAY AFTER THE OTHER HAS ENDED- these "brilliant talents" have an entire YEAR to get this shit right, and dey ain't no hidin' how badly this last one sucked.

The Acadamey Awards should be just as entertaining and rewarding to movie lovers as the Super Bowl or World Series is to sports fans. A three-hour running time (or more) would be just fine with most of us, commercials and all, if there were some actual original entertainment, like, say -- oooh, I don't know...
CELEBRATING THE FUCKING NOMINATED MOVIES?!?

Whaddaya think about these revolutionary, never-before-conceived of ideas?

1) DROP looong opening segments (unless you have a Billy Crystal or other actor/comedian who can pull off a good one- Tina Fey would've been superb) and just bring out the damn host, for cripes' sake;

2) NO musical or dancing segments, i.e., 'theme interpretations' by foreign "visual art" dance groups or 'film tribute/parodies' by by washed-up actors with tuxedoed girls in short shorts, stockings & heels - they're always lame and embarrass both the performer and the audience-the 'Best Song' performances and kitschy orchestra intros are more than enough soundtrack to cover an awards show for MOVIES, 'kay?

(there's this other shitty awards show called the Grammys if you want the music stuff)

3) DROP televised awards for documentary short, live or animated short & sound editing/mixing - very few people will ever see these shorts unless they seek them out, and sound editing & mixing should just be meshed into 'Best Sound', if incuded at all. SOO, (generously) figuring 3 ½ minutes bringing on the presenters, announcing the nominees, gettin' the winner's asses up there & sputtering out a “thank you” before the orchestra cuts you off for commercial breaks, you’ve dropped off a good 17 minutes or more of agonizing boredom;

4) ONLY FUNNY PRESENTERS ALLOWED TO JOKE - all others: smile, read the nominees off the teleprompter, announce the winner & GET dafuckouttahea;

5) SHOW MORE, LONGER FILM CLIPS!! We're celebrating/acknowledging the goddam MOVIES, right?!? And these movies HAVE BEEN RELEASED, for quite awhile, for everyone to see them, am I correct? But we haven't seen 'em ALL, have we? Wouldn't it help just a bit if we could actually get an idea of maybe why they're also nominated?? They don't have to give away any surprises or major plot twist, but, let's say 'Best Supporting Actress/Actor', for instance - how the hell does a 15-20 second 'clip' of a Performance that's up for ANY award give the film-going audience the slightest idea of who's performance deserves to be named 'BEST'?!? Personally, I'd WATCH a 3-hour Movie Awards show if they showed more of the actual %@!#!@*!!! MOVIES they were patting each other's Armani-covered backs about!

So, for anyone stll reading this, I'll end it with a tip to all the participants that I hope will be the most simple, logical idea to save you time, audience discomfort, and embarrassment over totally blanking out when you step up to accept your award, you vaccuous idiots who couldn't recite the alphabet without a script in front of you:

6) Require ALL Nominees to submit the names of every single person they want to thank if they win, which will then be put on a 'crawl' TV screen bottom while the winning actor is gushing and convulsing with tears while saying "oh-my-gawd!' repeatedly and slowly waltzing their fucked-up egos to the podium. Give 'em a minute to compose themselves, focus on their 'special thank-you' to whomever they want to toss out the most word salad to and REMOVE. YOUR. ASS!!!

We have very short attention spans in this digital/i-phone/texting/porn site-browsing age. Think maybe they could manage one or two more good awards shows before movie theaters become extinct anyways ?

Posted by: Tony at March 1, 2011 10:52 PM

Posted by: grace b at March 1, 2011 1:59 PM
---
I love Fugazi, and I tried to watch "Instrument," and I can't remember if I made it to the end. All I know is that is seemed like it was about 47 hours long. How can such a great band make such a fucking boring movie?

Posted by: , at March 2, 2011 11:02 AM

As for the Oscars, does no one realize this is a three-hour-plus commercial you're watching? Or does that go without saying?

Posted by: , at March 2, 2011 11:06 AM

They may not have "ruined" the Ocasrs, but Francoway def just ruined Grease.

Posted by: ash at March 2, 2011 5:43 PM