*** Official 2004 Academy Awards Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Haggai]

Maybe the Oscars were a little better in previous years about focusing on this or that aspect of cinema, but I really don't think the show was ever primarily about that. It was always an industry-centered spectacle.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

That damn red carpet!

~Edwin

 

[Haggai]

Heh, the red carpet, invented and pioneered by...Joan Rivers? Hmmm...not so much.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

No, the red carpet just gets longer and longer each year, while the show gets shorter.

~Edwin

 

[Jay E]

That's true, but the real aim of the awards should be to get people excited about film, the artistry it exhibits and the enchantment it creates...which in turn gets more people's butts into the theater and renting/buying DVDs!

You would never have known that by Sunday's telecast.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

It may not be but as a little kid I saw those clips of older movies the show played each year and previous films they honor including the true icons of the film industry. Some of the films were in black and white.

That is what shaped my film appreciation today including those that followed over the years as I seek them out. Somehow, I don't feel that the industry (especially on Sunday's show) was promoting itself in such a manner that it did years ago.

~Edwin

 

[Quentin]

I also agree with Jay, and said so in my previous post umpteen million pages ago...

I enjoy the celebration of hair/makeup/jewelry/fashion. It's funny and fun. I enjoy the kowtowing to the industry and self-promotion. It's to be expected.

But, what I missed this year more than anything, was a feeling of reverence and celebration of film and film history. There was no theme...nothing being celebrated or honored. It was just another awards show where they hand out statues...and, that above all else, diminishes the pomp and circumstance usually associated with the Oscars.

I WANT a long show. I want a bunch of film clip montages to music and/or narration. I want a host who knows the industry and has a ton of inside jokes/jabs. I want a tribute to one of the greatest actors of his generation. I want a theme (the year of women in film, or comedy, it's more than just laughs). While I'm at it, I want to eliminate "best song" (lame award), and institute readings of scenes from best screenplay noms by talent other than the ones who starred in the films.

 

[Quentin]

BTW...I don't know if there is any bias against Scorsese, but while he has gone 0 for 5 in the Oscars and DGA, Thelma has gone 2 for 4 in the Oscars and 3 for 5 in the Eddies.

 

[Tino]

Count me in as another who likes long Oscar telecasts. Tons of clips, long speeches, gawdy musical numbers. That's what made the Oscars great and I loved every minute of it.

I didn't care much for the shortened length of this years show. Bring back the four and a half hour telecasts!:b

 

[Haggai]

Yeah, clips and tributes are good. Unfortunately, my guess is that most TV viewers would tend to specify those things as being the "boring" parts of the show. I guess that relates to one of the things some of you guys were saying, that it's more about ratings now. In that sense, perhaps it is.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Certainly Brando deserved more of a tribute.

Yeah, but then you start getting into a thorny issue with insulting the memories of others who died this year. Why is Brando more worthy of a tribute than Jerry Goldsmith? Or Frank Thomas? Or Ossie Davis or Paul Winfield, for that matter? How do we decide whose contribution was more valuabale? Brando for popularizing method acting in the 50's? Jerry Goldsmith for a lifetime of exceptional music? Frank Thomas for bringing to life some of the most indelible film characters in American culture (Bambi, Pinocchio, Baloo, Captain Hook, the Tramp)? Ossie Davis for his great career of dignified performances, Paul Winfield for his great career of eclectic character roles?

I hate the clapping during the "In Memoriam" segment. Seriously, I hate it. It turns the sequence into a "Showtime at the Apollo" popularity contest.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Sorry, LOTR is the greatest epic ever filmed.

Lawrence of Arabia
Napoleon
Ran
Intolerance
2001: A Space Odyssey

 

[Holadem]

Well, Brando is the only household name on that list. Right up there with Ronald Reagan

--
H

 

[Bill Huelbig]

Relating to what Jay E said, one of the biggest thrills of Oscar night back when I was a kid was the Visual Effects category. For the 1963 awards, they showed not just a fleeting excerpt of an effects scene like they do today, but an entire 1 or 1 1/2 minutes of the movie - no narration, no making-of footage, just the unedited scene itself. I can still remember what I saw that night, after 41 years: the murder of Caesar from CLEOPATRA and the "fire drill" from THE BIRDS. CLEOPATRA went on to win the award, one of those times when Oscar got it wrong. Anyway, if I were producing the show, I'd put the clips demonstrating the various arts and sciences back in, full force.

 

[Marvin Richardson]

Sorry, I think LotR is better than any of those. The only that's close is Lawrence of Arabia.
Of course, what do I know, Fight Club is my all-time favorite movie.

 

[Jay E]

Ernest, Brando was the most influential actor in the history of film, all actors today owe a huge debt to him. I think it's a no-brainer to have at least the same amount of time devoted to him as they did Johnny Carson and I don't think anyone would complain about others being short-shifted.

But I guess it was more important for the show to be 3 minutes shorter.

 

[Malcolm R]

Given Brando's treatment of the Oscars and the Academy when they tried to reward him in the past, why should they try and "make nice" now?

 

[Shawn_McD]

I agree, I love Lawrence of Arabia (Loved Peter in Troy as well).

But most people who in the 30+ crowd (Which I am approaching) often suffer the old stigma where the new stuff is never as good or "classy" as the old stuff. You will find in 20 years LOTR will be looked upon very favorably as nothing will be able to touch it.


So I'm being pre-emptive in saying that LOTR is indeed the #1 classic OF ALL TIME.

 

[Jay E]

That is probably the most childish & petty reason not to honor him. I'm hoping that wasn't going through the minds of the Academy in their decision.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Ernest, Brando was the most influential actor in the history of film.

Well, here we go again. "Most influential" is a relative term. Most influential to who?

He popularized method acting and made it trendy in the 50s - 70's. Clearly James Dean took several pages from his book. But Brando didn't invent method acting. He was neither the first "method" actor, nor the last, and he ultimately abandoned the method, trading in character analysis for an earpiece and an off-screen assistant feeding him his dialogue. His ultimate disdain for the craft of acting in the late 70's, 80's and 90's rubbed my generation of actors the wrong way. I respect his work, right up until Apocalypse Now, and starting with that and everything after is a joke to me.

You want to know who I think is the most influential actor working right now? Johnny Depp. Easily. Most inspiring? Jeff Bridges. Other influential actors from the past? Henry Fonda. Jimmy Stewart. Charlie Chaplin. Dustin Hoffman. Humphrey Bogart. Paul Newman. Al Pacino. George C. Scott. Jack Nicholson. Sidney Poitier. Michael Caine. John Malkovich. Anthony Hopkins. Morgan Freeman. Gregory Peck. Lawrence Harvey. Sean Penn. Val Kilmer. Brad Pitt. Robert Duvall. Tommy Lee Jones. Eli Wallach. Jeff Goldblum. Christopher Walken. Robert De Niro. The list goes on and on and on, hundereds of names could be added to this list.

Brando is more influential than any one of these?

Not for me, he wasn't.