sperbonzo

1. Final Thoughts on the Oscars


By Jason Apuzzo & Govindini Murty

Since over three hours of our lives were spent watching Sunday's Oscar ceremony - hours we will never get back - you'll forgive us if we spend only a little time reflecting on the event. So let's get right to the issues at hand:

Jon Stewart: Quite simply a disaster. Stewart looked like a deer in headlights; his delivery was stiff, he looked nervous, and his humor - as we predicted - was poorly suited to the Kodak Theatre audience. To no one's surprise Stewart poked a good deal of fun at Hollywood's liberalism and pomposity, and for that reason his jokes landed like anvils, with his audience of Tinseltown aristocracy none-too-amused. His humor - what little there was of it - basically hit too close to home. We've never seen an Oscar host have a worse rapport with his audience, and it would be shocking if the Academy asked him back.

Clooney: The narcissism of this guy is basically unmeasurable. Aside from implying that his receiving of an Oscar was in some vague way reminiscent of Hattie McDaniel winning in 1939 for "Gone With the Wind," what stunned us the most was that Clooney thanked no one in his otherwise obnoxious acceptance speech. Not Robert Baer, on whom his character in "Syriana" was based, or Stephen Gaghan, who wrote and directed the film. Not even his parents - no one! Clooney, you see, is so original as to be sui generis. And perhaps he is, actually ... (Clooney line of the evening: "I'm proud to be out-of-touch.")

The "Brokeback" slapdown: And yes, it was a slapdown. Here, basically, is what happened: a) "Brokeback" peaked too early, and was probably doomed by the three-week or so wait since the nominations; b) actors represent the largest voting-block in the Academy, and "Crash" featured a large, ensemble cast; c) "Brokeback's" cheerleaders have simply been pushing the film too much, mau-mauing people into believing that even the slightest hesitations about the film are indicative of latent homophobia. This strategy finally, thankfully, backfired - and we suspect there were a lot of damp hankies at BGLAD Oscar parties around the nation ...

The Big Picture: The Academy needs to completely re-think what it's doing. It won't, of course, for any number of reasons. But to no one's surprise the ratings on this telecast were down 11 percent even from last year, with no end to the spiral in sight. Why? Because of the films and the people the Academy has been honoring.

Basically what happened is that the Academy found itself honoring a series of left-leaning, niche films that no one had seen. At the last minute, perhaps recognizing they were about to award Best Picture to a film that's been mercilessly satirized by just about everyone at this point, they then veered into honoring an even more obscure film ("Crash") to get themselves out of a jam - and promptly put themselves in a new jam. "Crash" has got to be the least-known, least-discussed, least-debated, most invisible film ever
to win Best Picture. For goodness sake, it's a film about traffic accidents in Los Angeles! How insular and navel-gazing has this town become?

Now, some of you might counter that "Crash" made $53 million at the domestic box office. Unfortunately you'd be kidding yourself, because that $53 million places "Crash" exactly 50th on the box office charts for 2005, one of the industry's worst years in a long time.

And this, really, is the point. Nobody is seeing these films. Is this because all movies these days are "liberal"? Hardly. Liberalism never stopped anyone from watching "Easy Rider" or "All the President's Men" or "Apocalypse Now" - strong films that all did good box office in the past. So what's the problem today?

The problem is that today's films stink - and that the liberalism in Hollywood has reached its reductio ad absurdum. Politics now seems to rule everything in Hollywood. Is there any other way to explain George Clooney winning an Oscar, for example? Clooney gave a mediocre performance in a mediocre film this year that just happened to bash Bush and big oil - so Clooney got the bling. It's really that simple. It's a reward for political services rendered, and everybody knows it.

If the Academy wants anybody to care anymore, they will need to turn this situation around. But they won't. Why? Primarily because there will be no pressure within Hollywood's elite circles to do so. The conventional wisdom within these elite circles is that movies exist to enlighten and inform a benighted, ignorant public - and if that public doesn't show up to the movies, who cares? Just stick the bill to the studio's shareholders.

For example, there was a point during the Oscar ceremony when a producer - perhaps it was for "Crash" - ascended to the stage and informed us, in the most unctuous, serious tones, that the "purpose of art is to shine light on dark places." That's where Hollywood's head is right now. They're the "light," we're the "dark place."

So here, basically, is our simple thought for the Academy, as they do their post-show biopsy in their offices over on Wilshire Boulevard: The purpose of the movies is to entertain the public - and just occasionally, the public is actually right.

__________________
Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing

[email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/

ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperber

SilentKnight

Hollyweird is already too self-absorbed and self-important.

Spending time analyzing it only adds fuel to the fire and encourages them to reach more pompous and egotistical heights.

The entertainment industry stands alone for the sheer number of awards they feel compelled to bestow on each other to keep the massive egos stoked and to continue fooling themselves they are worthy of their large bank accounts and mansions.

My