Cheers and boos for the Oscars show
Apparently, leading Oscarologists did not all see the same kudocast. Opinions of the Oscars ceremony are sharply — and heatedly — divided: wild huzzahs and boos.
Count me among the huzzahs. This was one of those magnificent Oscarcasts — a grand, wowing, entertainment — the kind that should be held up as a model to future stagings. Finally, the academy stopped hauling in those rented clowns from New York like Chris Rock, David Letterman and Jon Stewart to do a few minutes of comic riffing before passing off to a dull presentation of 24 awards. This Oscars show started out by taking Billy Crystal's old comedic riffs on top contenders, tossing out the film clips and replacing them with a full-blown song-and-dance stage production full of wit, warmth, dazzle, fun, naughtiness, shrewd observations, fast footwork and expert musicality. Thereafter, it added a crowning touch that must remain part of all Oscars shows ahead: having five past winners emerge on stage to address the five nominees in the acting categories before revealing the winner.
First-time producers Bill Condon and Laurence Mark promised a reinvention of the show and delivered a sparkling gem. And first-time host Hugh Jackman may well win a second Emmy Award to keep company with the one he won for hosting the 2004 Tony Awards.
Below are views of many top pundits. Let's start with the positive.
Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times cheered the show as 'the most entertaining and innovative Oscarcast I’ve seen, which put the orchestra upstage, moved the front rows close and did it all under a glittering arch inspired by the old Coconut Grove, where the first Oscars were held. Host Hugh Jackman joked, sang and danced through his emcee duties and moved up several levels in global stardom."
Ray Richmond of the Hollywood Reporter: "Producers Bill Condon and Laurence Mark weren't kidding when they promised to reinvent the Academy Awards ceremony and thereby mend a broken and repetitive show that very much needed fixing. On Sunday night, they did just that, pulling off a heartfelt, elegant and stylish affair that played with uncommon flair."
Robert Bianco of USA Today: "A year that saw most of the Oscars go to little-seen films finally produced an Oscars worth seeing."
Pete Hammond of The Envelope: "If the goal was trying to add a touch of class back into the Oscarcast, Condon and Mark succeeded beyond our greatest hopes."
Sasha Stone of AwardsDaily.com observed: "It was quick and lovely, and no one was played off stage. I thought the nominees being named by previous actors didn’t work. Hugh Jackman did work. I would have to declare it a winning show."
New York magazine's Vulture blog exclaims, "Hugh Jackman saves the Oscars!"
Kris Tapley of InContention.com: "This is the best Oscar telecast I’ve ever seen." Guy Lodge of InContention.com called it: "a muted, largely tasteful, faintly insular ceremony."
Mary McNamara of the Los Angeles Times: "Somewhere in New York, a huge weight has been lifted from David Letterman's shoulders. As Sunday night's Academy Awards began, Hugh Jackman's opening number (pardon me, but did he sing the words 'pubic hair'? At the Oscars?) has surely obliterated all memory of the Uma-Oprah thing."
Alessandra Stanley of the New York Times said, "It was fun for a while, but then it just started to seem long. Although the three best-original-song nominees were downsized to a medley, not even a recession could cut back certain traditions, like front-loading the evening with technical awards that slowed down the evening and tried the patience of even the most ardent movie buffs. 'Less is more' is one lesson that Hollywood never learns."
Not surprisingly, the curmudgeonly Tom Shales of the Washington Post thought, "hodgepodgery was very much the order of the night, as the ceremonies were once more bogged down in montage after montage of clips, clips and more clips."
Frazier Moore of the AP, "Along with Jackman presiding, this year's Oscarcast was supposed to be stylistically new and invigorated. In a year when Oscar winners seemed more predictable than usual, the night's suspense for many viewers had been diverted to wondering whether the broadcast itself would successfully deliver a few welcome surprises. But what passed for surprises was an overformatted style that seemed to turn the night into a Learning Annex short course in how movies are made."
Brian Lowry of Variety: "The presenter banter felt slightly sharper than usual, and the show yielded sporadic highlights. Yet for all the promise of a bold new approach that required shrouding the event in secrecy, the 81st Academy Awards mostly demonstrated the humongous difficulty — given the obligatory elements — to reinvent the wheel . . . . Even if you admired the effort — and I generally did — there was a strong sense this played significantly better in the room, judging by all those standing ovations. The bottom line, ultimately, is that Condon and Mark's wrinkles seem unlikely to expunge the Oscars' age lines or chart a new direction for the telecast.
Lowry's Variety colleague Tim Gray disagreed while penning a review from Kodak Theatre: "Others can decide how Sunday's event looked on TV, but for the 3,000-plus attendees Sunday night, it was terrific. As Danny Boyle said in his acceptance speech, 'I don't know what (this show) looks like on television, but in the room it's bloody wonderful.' It was a high-energy party fueled by frequent surprises, a socko host stint by Hugh Jackman and some memorable acceptance speeches. First-time Oscarcast producer Laurence Mark and exec producer Bill Condon sustained the sense of revelry with twists to the format, while Jackman kept the momentum going by entertaining the aud with jokes, songs and anecdotes during commercial breaks."
Jeff Wells of Hollywood-Elsewhere.com: "For me tonight's Oscar show was defined by an agreeably classy vibe, nice but less than historic production numbers, and a couple of big shockers — the defeat of 'The Wrestler's' Mickey Rourke by 'Milk's' Sean Penn in the Best Actor race, and Departure's defeat of Waltz With Bashir and 'The Class' to take the Best Foreign Language Oscar. And the utter predictability of just about everything else. The best innovation by producers Bill Condon and Larry Mark was having five Oscar-winning actors of the past come out as a group and praise each of the five nominees. Nice tough — classy, gracious, communal. Keep it. "
RELATED POSTS:
Sean Penn is the ninth actor to win two lead Oscars
Will Oscar winners return to the race next year?
Oscars TV ratings bounce back with Hugh Jackman as host
'Slumdog Millionaire' wins Oscars' triple crown like half of the last 20 best pix
Oscar winners were predicted by guild awards
Can Hugh Jackman continue the Oscars' love affair with Emmys?
Will Miley Cyrus, Beyonce, Zac Efron and Rob Pattinson wow Oscars' viewers?
Oscars are the Emmys' biggest winner
Some Oscars TV ads still for sale — only $1.4 million a pop!
Sneak Peek: See Hugh Jackman warming up his Oscar act
Get Gold Derby on Twitter. Join the Gold Derby Group at Facebook. Become friends with Tom O'Neil on Facebook. Get Gold Derby RSS feed via Facebook. RSS Feedburner. RSS Atom.
i agree with will. in a year when many giants died, the in memoriam was terrible, and left out way too many people. and don lafontaine probably sold more tickets than most of the nominees.
Posted by: uncle joe mccarthy | February 25, 2009 at 10:35 PM
At least they learned to make the stage lower and put the front row closer, so it doesn't take 5 minutes for each winner to get to the podium -- I remember one high, stair-riddled stage in particular: They started the stopwatch as the winner was announced. By the time the winner got to the microphone, the stage manager brought out the hook. Let's hope this year's set-up remains (why do they keep trying to re-invent the wheel?)
Now all they have to do is make the thing so it goes two hours and not a minute longer and cut-down on the number of commercial breaks. It's annoying at home, it must be painful if you're in the Kodak Theater, (unless the clowns come out during the breaks, which isn't a bad idea). There's got to be about 4 awards they could move to the technical presentation and cut down the musical numbers and comedy bits. The past winners' bits didn't do anything for me except slow things down. I remember another show where we had to watch presenters walk a mile to get to the podium. Let's not do that again either nor have presenters try to hit a cue announcing nominees between overly long film clips. I admit, I didn't watch the whole thing (I just can't commit 3 hours to this venture, much less stay up until some indefinite end time), but from the bits I did see -- the presenters seemed like they could actually read the teleprompter and seemed less drunk than some past years. It's almost like the producer or director insisted that they become familiar with their lines before they took the stage. No matter what you think of the Wolverine's song and dance numbers, getting away from being some kind of "roast" with a snarky comedian host is probably a good move.
Posted by: Robinson | February 25, 2009 at 11:14 AM
I thought the obituaries were horribly done. I kept trying to figure out who they were showing while they moved on to the next.
Posted by: Emil | February 25, 2009 at 02:36 AM
Oscars~the night Hollyweird died
Media~already dead
Ebert~confused of the masses
Posted by: thiaCyn | February 24, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Mr Goldstein,
Your "Academy Awards call the wrong number article" dialed a big fat zero with me
I turned to my husband Sunday night and said “That was the best Academy Award show I’ve ever seen.” I don’t take that back. I am sorry to see that you and a few other columnists, mostly bicoastal, found the very things I saw as refreshing and enjoyable as boring and flat out “misses”. Hugh Jackman hosted his heart out…. I break this response into two parts……
The Academy Nominated and Award winning movies:
One thing I do agree with you on is that the films included in consideration should maybe start to reflect the times… I think that many of the best movies of the year were not included, as they never are. That would be my best next suggested really badly needed overhaul….. Jack Black had a point. Who is watching these films????…. not me, never even half the ones that get nominated… and I do make a concerted effort to see them eventfully and dutifully as a self proclaimed movie buff…. but it brings to mind the question,” If there was as much effort put into quality in the movies that the public actually wants to see just what exactly how successful would movies be anyway???” It would probably blow your mind.
Why is it that nominated films by this and all award shows committees seem to be picked via some ~probably old school and truly tired~ selection process? Much of the edge in movies reflecting today’s world (aside from violence, killing each other in ever increasing numbers seems to be perfectly ok, but references to drug use is verboten? Action hero’s cause a rash because they are not classy enough? ) is curtailed in an effort to sanitize what we reward…is that it? You called it cloistered, I dare say mummified.. Open up some windows let some fresh air in!!! Start looking at what America wants to see, what they go to the box-office looking for….!! Yes the standard “cookie cutter” criteria should be kept, but perhaps for just a SECTION of the movies selected. Why not open the Oscar up to more more, more,…. action, horror, comedy, why must it unfailing sink into the mire and dusk of serious movie material only? All that said, remember this comes from a 53 year old woman…. If I think it’s this stale, how much more so does someone in their mid 20’s…. ?????
Good for Slumdog. And so on, and so forth, for Benjamin Button, and Doubt, and Reader and Frost/Nixon (Yawn) I’m sure there all good movies, with excellent meaty roles well acted…. but would I waste my hard earned money on them at the Theater?
NO! I’ll wait til it’s free on cable. Or maybe at best rent it… So what if it’s a few months from now? I clamor for more big picture films!! The extravaganza the WOW factor!!! The breathtaking beauty of splendors we can only dream of seeing…..What happened to understanding the excitement of the big screen?
What did I rush to see the first day they came out in 2008???? In no particular order…… on opening day these were the movies I hoped I would love, some were awesome and some not so much…..I saw Clint Eastwoods’ FABULOUS movie Gran Torino… Easily “Best Picture” Best Director” and “Best Actor” caliber performance. I will own this movie…. Ironman!!! and I had a thrilling movie experience…. Special effects and a great overall achievement WAY better role than in Tropic Thunder for Robert Downey Jr. Pineapple Express was hysterical. I will buy this DVD….Burn after Reading… you got it…. I own it….what the heck how does that not get considered???? That was so well done, and so funny, and dark, and such a well turned tale it could not have missed being noticed….BOND Quantum of Solace…. LOVE the new Bond LOVE LOVE LOVE it!!! The Incredible Hulk WOW!! Loved that action, bought the DVD too. The Dark Knight…. And yes Heath was awesome but so was Christian Bale…. What….. you had to die to get an action movie in the winner’s circle? Was I there for Indian Jones? You bet your bippy. I was there for these too…. In the hopes of a great film… sometimes ok sometimes not so ok… The Happening-. Get Smart +. Wanted+. The Strangers-. Mirrors-. American Ganster+.The Spirit (because I LOVED Sin City – which you might note marked a very worthy comeback performance by Mickey Rourke) So it leads me to wonder is the Academy Awards a pay to play game, or is it just so popular to be “politically correct” in Hollywood that they have forgotten that the movies are made for the audiences not the actors?
The Academy Award Presentation:
Hugh Jackman hosted his heart out… I loved that he entertained us, he was talented exciting energetic and just wonderful!!! The audience in the theater enjoyed it as well…. I don’t know where you were sitting but you totally missed the heart that was clearly beating in this show!!!! You make some honest points, about production, the homage to musicals could have been better choreographed, and A LOT shorter. it’s detraction was the “We are the world” inclusion of a smattering of people unnecessary to the show, which seemed to miss the mark by drifting off into High School musical territory…. I missed Peter Gabriel. Only bitter naysayers would slam this presentation as a whole, it was MILES above the usual BORING trite “awards show” rut, and if they keep up the good work maybe the ratings will climb again….. Sure there was a missed Curtin cue…. I thought along with your son that the fabulous montages were awesome! The musical numbers were glamorous. Like Hollywood used to be…. what’s so wrong with that? I didn’t feel they were flat at all, in fact they added a real showy feeling to the awards, and the crystals framing the stage were fabulous. It had a cabaret quality instead of the big chilly vault of echoing aloofness so many other Academy shows have aspired to. BTW~ A lot of us schleps outside of Hollywood….got the Joaquin Phoenix reference, and we giggled at it too. You know “inside the belt” refers to Washington DC and not the very public and well documented celebrity tell all culture of movies and TV…. I dare say Phoenix’s letterman appearance may have dwarfed his critical acclaim as an actor in the week or so since it aired.
Having the Orchestra on stage was a cool. The best part however was the warmth….. Having some honest entertainment and seeing genuine emotion from ALL the nominees was AWESOME. I loved having 5 past winners introducing the nominees… it was Hollywood at its finest. I don’t see how they can EVER go back to the poorly written, never funny, downright idiotic banter past presenters have been obviously forced to read. I loved the things they said to the nominees…. It made each seem a regal worthwhile award when introduced by such a glittering crew!! It felt confidential, and unrehearsed and a very personal congratulation highlighting each introduction, the Academy will step backwards if they don’t keep this format in the future… It was a refreshing change. I have NEVER seen a better presentation of the minor awards who have never been given the interest by the show for the importance of contribution to the overall success of the films. The progress of film development was genius and very enjoyable. What was not to like there?
Respectfully
KatrinaRadia
Posted by: Katrina Radia | February 24, 2009 at 05:56 PM
I loved the musical charts and seeing the musicians onstage. It was the best production in 10 years. Eva Marie Saint was a class act. However, I must admit that we turned it off half-way through, anticipating the liberal balderdash to come. I am glad we turned it off, as my husband would have popped a blood vessel in his brain after Sean Penn's speech.
Posted by: JCT | February 24, 2009 at 03:39 PM
Add me to the list of cheers. I thought this was by far the best Oscar telecast in decades. And please, keep the previous winner acknowledgment. It brought class and perspective to the wins.
Posted by: Nicholas | February 24, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Note to Mr. Ebert:
It is time to retire!
Posted by: Calirai | February 24, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Of course it's all a matter of opinion, but I bet some of them wrote their reviews before Oscar telecast, or we were watching different show. It was a HUGE improvement from last years. Was it perfect? Far from it.
BEST
Hugh Jackman is a Man - what a talent!
I love the idea of tributes to each acting nominee - very touching.
Jackman and Beyonce musical montage, but Efron and co. were horrible and unnecessary.
Steve Martin, Tina Fey and Will Smith - guys and gal knows how to entertain.
Jerry Lewis finally getting his due.
No The Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus
WORST
Some weird presenters (Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon presenting best director - How about Oliver Stone, James L. Brooks, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Joel Coen and Ethan Coen instead of her?)
Romance, Animation and Action montage - I've seen better clips on YouTube.
No Honorary Oscar recipient.
Lack of Jackman.
Showing Angelina Jolie while Jennifer Aniston was on stage presenting an award to catch her reaction- it's the Oscars not TMZ. How about some class?
And most importantly, how could they forgot to include silent screen Legend Anita Page (1910-2008) In Memoriam tribute?
Not only she was one of the biggest stars of the 20s-30s, but she was also the last living attendee of the very first Academy Awards in 1929 and the stat of The Broadway Melody (1929) - the first sound film to win Oscar Best Picture.
Outrages omissions: Mel Ferrer, Eartha Kitt, Beverly Garland, Edie Adams, Ann Savage, George Carlin, Robert Prosky, Patrick MacGoohan, Estelle Getty and Harvey Korman - and that only from acting brunch. They even forgot Don LaFontaine and he was the announcer of The 79th Annual Academy Awards (2007)!
Nothing against Queen Latifah, I felt she was singing from her heart, but the cinematography was horrible. How I supposed to be moved when I couldn't see a thing with the camera kept moving so fast that I couldn't see the names of who were remembered? Whoever was in charge - shame on you! If can't get it right just borrow the montage from TCM.
Posted by: Will | February 24, 2009 at 05:13 AM