2017/2018 Key Dates
Film Critics: Today, December 11, winners from TorontoFCA, BostonSFC. Nominations from ChicagoFCA.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

2007 Academy Awards


I have been thinking and thinking if I should write (or not) about the Oscars telecast, the winners, and the host. My too much thinking is because my net-net take away is that I did not enjoy the 2007 Oscar’s show.

First lets talk about the telecast. It was way too long and dull/plain/flat and boring. The main awards where all near the end of the show… so, if you really wanted to know the winners “live” you where forced to watch the entire show. Obviously, this was done for ratings purposes, but I am sure it will backfire next year with fewer viewers… unless, there is something really interesting to watch!

Let me elaborate on this. I do not need to be forced to watch all the show, I do it because I like movies and of course, I like the “mother” of all awards, which I think is the only show that really shows the intrinsic glamour of this industry. No one expects the Golden Globes to be glamorous, but the Oscars have-to-be glamorous. This telecast was not.

In past telecasts, I really loved the movie clips which gave me a feel good feeling because I’ve seen most of the movies … and I even wanted more! This telecast had too many interruptions, with too many movie clips (I got want I always wanted and I hate it!!). But, the problem was that the themes make no sense within the flow of the show… or that they were simply boring.

Then, the show really started 30 minutes after the hour; the first half hour of red carpet was absolutely unnecessary. Usually they have an “official” one-hour red carpet show before 8pm, which works just fine as you have the choice to watch it or not. This year they forced you to watch it.

This is an awards show. Seems someone had to request to make it more entertaining and it end-up trying to be a “regular” entertainment show. But actually, it end-up being a dull magazine show with too many things. Okay, I liked the shadow performers, but they had no place there. I always liked the presentation of the nominations for original songs and best movie, but this year unless you know who is performing the song or that it was a best movie nomination, you were kept wondering who is that and what is that. Who knows James Taylor (is that his name?) besides Americans and maybe some Brits and Aussies?

I can go on and on about this terrible telecast, but I will stop with one last comment, the one I consider the most important flaw. The rhythm. Any good show, film, book has to have a good rhythm… could start slow/fast for the build up, then rise, relax, another rise to climax, a climax and sometimes, relax again; or any combination of those elements. This is what keeps your attention and interest. This show was flat, flat, one tease after like almost two hours (the supporting actress award), flat, flat, another tease with some climax (Eddie Murphy did not win the supporting actor award) or was before the Pan’s Labyrinth not winning?? I do not recall. But my point is that the show rhythm was always flat, some teasing and very little climaxes and this was due to the decision to place all the main awards later on the show and to have way too many distractions from the main event, the awards.

Second, lets talk about the winners. There were too many sure winners and most of them just did the expected, Helen Mirren, Forrest Whitaker, Jennifer Hudson and Martin Scorcese won their first Oscar. Upsets? Foreign film and support actor. There was some heat about the best film, but The Departed winning??? I could not care less; there was not one nomination I really think it deserved to win. Well, maybe with the exception of Letters of Iwo Jima, which I have not seen yet, so I give it a chance. So, there was not much suspense about the winners, there could have been suspense about the acceptance speech, the presenters jokes, the original song performers and/or the glamour of the show. The later brings us back to the third paragraph of this … lament!!!

Third, lets talk about the host. Yes, I like Ellen Degeneres … I guess I am a fan. I like her rambling comedy. I liked her ABC show and was very disappointed when was cancelled. I like her current daytime show with her dancing, her easy-going attitude, her unusual entertaining gimmicks (like the viewers videos, shows from viewers houses, etc) and even her serious moments. I even like her visibility as a lesbian. So, no surprise, my expectations where high for her performance at the Oscar's.

I cannot say I was disappointed as Ellen was Ellen in the Oscar’s show and she was great being Ellen. But, Ellen, this Ellen did not belong to the Oscar’s, it belonged to her daytime show. I do not understand what happened because when hosting the two Emmy telecasts she was a great host, witty, funny and definitively, not the daytime Ellen.

Okay, she had good moments, but you have to be extremely familiar with American events/ways and if you are not, like millions of international viewers, it just was boring and disrespectful. Well, the crowd loved her and they showed their love during the broadcast and even after the show; but, us millions of viewers around the world where left with a bitter taste that just completed the total perception of an awful, terrible, boring, glamour less Oscar’s telecast.

I do not blame Ellen (he he); I blame the director and producers of the show. Many bad changes and decisions make bad results. The woman director should have stayed directing her film (which is almost ready) Spider Man III, instead of venturing into this most sacred show.

One little (or big?) thing I liked. This broadcast will be the most gay … no, the most lesbian Oscar’s, or any other special event show, ever!!! (Ellen, Portia, Melissa winning, Tammy, Jodie, Queen Latifah, so many others not that visible and those who simply choose to be in-the-closet). But, I regret that this happened within an unworthy to remember telecast.

Well, there is always next year!

No comments yet