Oscars

Lim misses the point.

k84 — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:56:02 GMT

"Is it a) a portrait of the real India, b) a Bollywood-style melodrama, c) a fairy tale, or d) a stylishly shot collection of clichés?"

The film is, in fact, e) all of the above. Not only are the slums, the poverty, and the riots featured in the film all a part of the "real" India, but the story line pulls from Bollywood melodramas (particularly those from the 70s) about poverty and populist heroes, as well as capitalizes on cliches and Western stereotypes about India, and also has an element of the fantastical, the improbable to it. However, it is not necessarily the narrative itself that Indians take issue with. It is the fact that this sort of "poverty porn" is the ONLY narrative the Western world gets about India, when India is in truth a very diverse country with many, many stories to tell.

If Westerners had a greater variety of images and stories to associate with India -- if we saw as much of the wealth, success and growth that is also part of India as we did of the poverty and exploitation -- I think the Indian reception would be very different. I think most Indians resent NOT that this is a bad movie because it relies stereotypes, but rather Indians resent it because the West never goes for any stories other than those that perpetuate the myth of India and Indians as Other. If Indians aren't poor, or worshiping strange gods, or living in a long-ago exotic history, they don't make it into Western conscious. I think that's a source of great frustration for Indians.

Consider this year the Indian submission for the Oscars. Taare Zameen Par is about a middle class family with a son who struggles in school because he has dyslexia. It is an excellent film, well-made, well-acted, and a story about the challenges of modern India. It didn't make it into the foreign film category, and it has received none of the attention or popularity of Slumdog. Why? The only two Indian movies in the history of the Academy to receive a nod are Mother India--a story about a dirt poor woman who is forced to raise her three children alone and on no money at all, who spends most of the story fighting off the advances of a rich overlord, preferring poverty, starvation and even death to rape--and Lagaan, a film set in colonial India about a bunch of poor, uneducated villagers defeating the occupying British soldiers in a game of cricket. These are among the very limited stories of India that have made it into the Western cultural imaginaire. It would be frustrating for Indians when there are no shortage of stories about India, about a great and diverse India, that are ignored in favor of the same stories that have become popular about India since Satyajit Ray's Pather Panchali.

I think the cold shoulder for Slumdog is not so much about the film itself. If the film had been made by an Indian, for Indian audiences, I think the film would have had much better reception. I think, rather, Indians resent the fact that it seems like only the stories of their poverty ever make it into Western cultural milieu, over those stories of India which would give the country a more accurate, a more complete, and a more positive depiction.

Penn versus Rourke

LadyMacbeth — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:23:43 GMT

Going into the Oscars the husband and I had some heated discussions on who should win best actor. We both knew it had to be either Rourke or Penn. I was rooting for Penn, he was rooting for Rourke.

Now I can see why Rourke deserved an Oscar, his portrayal was brutally and painfully honest, but Penn as Harvey Milk to me was a performance in which Penn actually transcended his annoying self (I really, really, really don't like any of hiis performances) and became a charismatic and joyfull human being.

What say you?

First...and Last Impressions

DirtyBird — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:21:03 GMT

What a bunch of egotistical, self-absorbed shallow a$$holes! They're all choked up over everything that's PC. Did you notice anyone, any one, say one damn word about our military? Wish them luck, say a prayer for them? NOT a damn word. They can all go to hell and they won't be missed by anyone of any substance.

I enjoy some movies but generally I can't stand the people who are in them. Like sports stars they think that because they are famous their ideas and attitudes are worth more than then others. IMO, they are generally brain damaged idiots with a view of the world that is so twisted and slanted that their views, while they are entitled to them, aren't worth spit.

One of the best Oscar shows in memory but marred by blackout

ClayBlasdel — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:59:15 GMT

This show was the best Oscars since the Billy Crystal years. Hugh Jackman seemed comfortable and in command. The big numbers were a pleasure. The writing was unusually good - no lame jokes, no phoney appeals. Thank god the orchestra didn't keep pushing the winners off. The actor award presentation by former Oscar winners set a new standard for excellence. It gave the impression that every nominee was a winner - something that a generation of Oscar show could not achieve.

Unfortuntately the entire broadcast sound and video was scrambled for a few minutes before going black for several minutes. This happened twice in the beginning during a Jackman number. My local ABC affiliate, WKBW in Buffalo said it was caused by the ABC network satellite feed, but I haven't seen any headlines about a network blackout, so now I'm not sure.

Great show but marred by blackouts.

my bologna has a first name

kuruman — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:51:20 GMT

Hugh Jackman - pretty good, although a little too Broadway - Who is next...Nathan Lane?

The classical interpretation of the movie music was one of the most mind-numbingly dull things I have ever watched.

I continue to hate the undulating clapometer of in memoriam. They really should tell people not to clap. "Oh, I've heard of this one....yay!"

Having five previous winners announce the nominees in the various actor categories was absolutely fantastic. I agree with others, though, that they were very hit and miss. Robert DeNiro was great, as was Sir Ben Kingsley. But the Jerry Maguire dude ( I forget his name) was pathetic. And what's his name from The Deer Hunter, who I love, but who was just terrible. I certainly hope they keep this, though, and if the presenters are supposed to do their own writing, they might be offered help.

Will Smith...he was excellent. I would say he could host without a problem, although my dream host would be Larry David.

I like Bill Maher a lot, but his faith-based rationale for Religilous not being nominated was sadly ironic.

Kate Winslet makes me gag. The hyperventilating she did at EVERY award ceremony this year was incredibly annoying. The Reader did give rise to the best part of Jackman's opening number though. That was absolutely hilarious.

Seth Rogan and the other dude (my memory sucks) were superb...as was Ben Stiller. I liked Natalie Portman's Hasidic meth lab quip too, but it got lost in the moment.

Overall I enjoyed the show much more than usual. But who cares?

Rourke has never impressed me

robotfog — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:56:08 GMT

I don't get it. People go gaga over some of Mickey Rourke's work, but I haven't seen anything that impressed me. I sense it's because if someone like the character in 'Diner' approached me in real life, I would sense that I should be alert in order to avoid being taken in.

I'm thinking 'Sin City' might be good, though. But I won't know until I see it.

The stock market is crashing...

acptulsa — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:11:20 GMT

...and the White House wants to nationalize the banks and the auto industry.

Yes, by all means, let's talk Oscars and internet schemes and fashion photography. God forbid our news organizations give us news.

Ugh. Not Hugh.

Parana — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:19:39 GMT

The basic critique is easy. Jackman, a potentially winning host, turned the venerable Oscars into a bad Tonys. His opening musical number was professional, in a bad way, with none of Billy Crystal's charm except for Ms. Hathaway, who seemingly can do little wrong. Indeed, with the exception of Ms. Anne, all music in the show was dreadful and poorly produced, from that strange Baz/Beyonce interlude to the Dana Owens tribute to dead people on various screens to the odd moment when Hollywood turned Bollywoord boring. I liked when they trotted out the past winner to personally congratulate the noms, but some were noticely better written and kinder than others (once again, Anne got the best nod of the night, and Nicole Kidman looked terrified to be speaking to Jolie). But the "storyline" of the proverbial movie motif flunked because the supporting actor award fit nowhere in the tale, and for some reason, director proceeded the leading actor awards. Ugh.

There were pieces of ideas to draw on. Why wasn't the whole cast of Mama Mia up there doing a number in full costume? Why weren't the Slumdog leads doing their closing credits number? Why, for example, wasn't Frost/Nixon or the Doubt cast doing a scene from the plays they filmed? Having Jackman flout about IS the right idea. Make stars sweat it out in front of their peers on live tv. Put em to WORK. Let em earn it. If Stiller can do five minutes of Phoenix, get Kate in a tub, or Tomei on the pole or get Cruz and Johansson kissing (ok, or something...). My point is, let the performers perform.

Finally, I believe the whole world would have exploded if Jen Aniston, standing mere inches from her former husband and his wife, had merely nodded in their direction and said, "Brad, Angie," or, even better, had borrowed Letterman's Uma-Oprah thing. They could have brought Jen out with an elephant (no Jack Black joke, I mean a real proverbial elephant in the room). Can you imagine? Boom! That's all anyone would have been talking about in the charred ruins of humanity.

In Memoriam

thebin — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:19:29 GMT

Does anyone know why Heath Ledger was not included in the In Mermoriam section? If it is because there was tribute already played to him, doesn't that let the cat out of the bag that his win was pre-ordained as well as know to more than the Price Waterhouse accountants? They don't edit films in the middle of the broadcast.

Worst Oscar Telecast of All-Time

verlaine — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:36:59 GMT

Having Hugh Jackman host the Oscars was one of the dumbest ideas in the history of dumb ideas. Jcakman's performance was breathtakingly dreadful.

This Oscar telecast was the worst kind of enhanced interrogation ever conceived.

The Oscars need to be hosted by a comedian!! No more Hugh Jackman. Next year, the Oscars should be hosted by either Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien, Bill Maher, Jerry Seinfeld, Denis Leary, Ray Romano, Garry Shandling, or Stephen Colbert.

This year's acting nominations were truly nauseating

Kate Winslet looks great naked, but can't act her way out of a paper bag. The Reader is an abomination and an obscenity. It's a crime that it received any nominations or positive reviews.

Mickey Rourke's performance in the Wrestler was one of the most overrated performances of the past 30 years. Rourke is a real life loser playing a loser on screen. That is not acting.

Heath Ledger's performance was a classic one note performance with no nuance, subtlety, or shades of gray. He won the award because of the sympathy factor surrounding his death.

Marisa Tomei, like Kate Winslet, has a dynamite body but her performance was breathtakingly worthless and forgettable.

The only good thing about this year's awards were the wins by Sean Penn and Penelope Cruz.

Regarding Scarlett Johansson "actress"

foobar — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:41:27 GMT

Scarlett Johansson "actress"actually is a clone from original person,who has nothing with acting career.Clone was created illegally using stolen biomaterial.Original Scarlett Galabekian last name is nice, CHRISTIAN young lady.Original family didn't authorize any activity with stolen biomaterials,no matter what form it was created in,it's all need to be back to original family control in Cedars-Sinai MedicalCenter in LA.Controlling clones is US military operation.Original Scarlett never was engaged,by the way

Slumdog Millionaire oppresses Milk

Island Muffin — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:21:45 GMT

Because Hollywood is a communist victim-loving sycophant, leftwing ideology triumphs over art; because to the Left “Milk” has great “social meaning.” Next leftwing ideologues will give Penn an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for this movie, which could have used a Dixie Chick soundtrack to make the period movie more “politically correctly” authentic. Wasn’t it terribly how “W’ oppressed the gays in SF, shot Milk (who was oppressed by an orange juice vendor) and then went on to attack the Chicks, who were bravely ashamed that Bush was from Texas? Give the Chicks 13 Grammys and give Penn hot gay love and the Oscar!

Milk was okay, like a biographical documentary memorializing the right to undermine society with IN-YOUR-FACE cross-dressing Gay Pride parades and proving his cross-cultural credentials by obtaining union votes! Moreover, “Milk” could have used a gay Bollywood style lip-synched dance scene so we normal humans could enjoy Milk’s overcoming oppression and being shot by “W’ for not keeping promises movie too. Because of the leftwing vibe on this thread, a feel-good heterosexual and truly great love story like “Slumdog Millionaire” is overlooked. Progressives have a psychotic need to always sanction the Marxist victim. And Milk was a gay victim, who got union votes. Can you imagine that: some unions supported Milk?!

After seeing “Milk,” I am convinced that Penn is more than a leftwing radical; He is someone who is actually sexually attracted to men, not that there is anything wrong with liking kielbasas more than tacos, but I could never become such a great method actor.

Kate bashing

frances.sato — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:22:54 GMT

I'm hearing a lot of it lately, especially from this site. I'll be brief. In my opinion, she's a wonderful actress who has done, and probably will continue to do amazing things during her career (Little Children, anyone?). I find it refreshing she full on admits she covets an Oscar, rather than listen to yet another actor ramble on about how it's just a thrill to be nominated. After all, Tracy Flick may have been a campaigning Type A neurotic, but damn if I wasn't rooting for her to win in the end. But that's just me.

Best line written in a Slate article in a long time

trapdoor — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:58:15 GMT

"The effect was that of tuning the radio in a dictatorship run by Tin Pan Alley strongmen."

This is both funny -- and a terrific description of the musical "medley" it described.

takes off gloves

screwjack2008 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:31:07 GMT

The Dark Knight was just o.k. The screenplay was terrible (how much exposition can one person stand, and why would a force of chaos be so self aware as to need to not only explain to everyone that he was a force of chaos, but also explain his own function in the larger narrative? that's not how you make a scary bad guy), and it's popularity was mostly based on mass-hysteria and herd mentality. Heath was pretty good, but not amazing. It was shot very well.

Alright, who wants some?

;-)

"The Wrestler" was not his comeback film...

tkondaks — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:34:34 GMT

...Sin City was.

Rouke's "Marv" was the best thing in that movie.

poverty can be photogenic and miserable at the same time

older — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:15:28 GMT

I did love the movie, and I loved it in particular for the way it used the medium fully, combining visuals and music to put you both in the moment and in the mood of the moment, using the camera for intimacy and expansiveness. I don't buy the idea of poverty porn at all. 1) Poverty is often photogenic, whether you like it or not. Urban poverty in particular tends to be colorful, surprising, and often warmly human, and it doesn't take a photographic genius to find that. Doesn't make it any less miserable for people who are living in it. 2) Most of what is filmed is upper-middle class porn, or straight-up rich porn -- 90210? most TV and movies are about the pleasure of the gaze and how much we enjoy looking at glossy things and people. Songs play in the background to indicate how cool they are. Settings are gilded to make them look better. I don't see why this suddenly becomes wrong when it's focused on the poor, especially since 3) The poor people in this film did actually look poor. The kids were actually dirty. and the poverty looked pretty miserable. Funny as the jumping in the latrine scene was, I don't think it was actually "gleeful" and I don't think it could make anyone revise upward their thoughts on the misery of poverty. And as for the times it didn't look miserable, 4) sure, there were some happy moments in that childhood, but to suggest that slum dwellers are never happy and always miserable is both inaccurate and a pernicious form of victimization.
This attacks on the cinematography of poverty bother me so much because what I loved most about the moview as the way it framed the interaction between poverty and riches, mainstream life and the margins. For me the love story, such as it was, was incidental, and the movie was actually about the play between those two words (slumdog, millionaire) and the multiple interstices where those two worlds meet and interact. This is most clearly exemplified in the scene in the unfinished construction project replacing the slums, but it is continuous and multilayered, from the boys bumping up against the gangster's car to the theft of the police commissioner's bicycle to the chaiwalla working in the call center with the educated, rising middle class. The game show is one gateway between the two worlds, but a subtler message is that even if it is not so easy to move completely from one to the other, the line between them is fluid and they are constantly in exchange. I love seeing a movie that accepts and so exuberantly depicts the complicated mix that (particularly in cities) we are bumping up against all the time.
As my exhilaration from the skilled magic of the film faded though, I realized that there was dissatisfaction somewhere. I found the love story somewhat unconvincing because I had no idea who Latika was. I can't find anything in her character to get a grip on. After the chili episode, she doesn't have a single act of agency in the movie -- she does nothing except what she is told to do (and that, she doesn't do very well). This can be explained as the result of childhood abuse and conditioning, but even so the movie gives us no hint of a personality below it.
The duality of the brothers was also interesting. They were so neatly opposed, I can almost imagine an alternative reading, like the revised narrative without the tiger offered at the end of Life of Pi, in which they are actually two sides of the same person.

wtf?

lungta — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:07:08 GMT

Who is Dana Steven? icky? Is she 5 years old?

Oscars are for Corporate Enterprise more than Art

Usama3 — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:17:34 GMT

Perhaps I am reflecting the egalitarian teaching of some former art teacher, or the philosophy of Joyce Cary in Art and Reality, but I cringe at the notion that aesthetic beauty can be ranked, like those in a race. Even if you revel in awards and the competition, one must agree that aesthetic value is immeasurable and universal- hence beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A single individual can at one point detest a piece of art, but years later find it incapsulating and beautiful.

Ultimately, there may be a valued purpose for awards ceremonies. In the case of the Oscar, I suspect the value lies most in the capitalist business side. Production companies, marketting firms, media conglomerates all seek Oscars because it has a market value. Likewise actors and directors.

If you ever sat for a long time examining and 'soaking in' a painting or sculpture, or watched a sunset or revelled at a panoramic view, did you say to yourself: that deserves an award? Or did you say: that's beautiful? The point is the latter is what comes natural. The former has emerged for ulterior reasons.

Did anyone....

benhon3 — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:34:31 GMT

actually waste their time, let alone run up their electric bill, watching this self-absorbed faux 'comedy'? I did watch the TV show awards - Grammys was it?- a few weeks ago and was incensed that 30 Something beat out The Office by 2 where the later actually has a story to it and some good off the cuff acting. I guess Alec Baldwin bullied his way to the pulpit, arrogant twit.

Would it have been funnier

Seriously — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:18:55 GMT

(Nice—but would it have been funnier yet if he'd said Micronesia?)

No.

Robert Pattinson spelling

Obelia — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:04:10 GMT

OK, in the grand scheme of things I know it's not a big deal that Pattinson has two n's.

But it's my name too, and everyone misspells it "Pattison"....so I'm secretly hoping that Robert Pattinson gets mega-mega-famous so that more people spell my name right!

Presto

jeneria — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:15:45 GMT

I seriously think Wall-E is horribly overrated. I love Pixar movies, in general, but Wall-E left me cold. The message was so over the top without actually explaining anything and the robots were cute, but that was about it. I just never felt like there was a connection between the audience and the cool shit on the screen. I guess clinical is the word.

Presto, however, I have watched over and over and over. That has to be one of the funniest and sweetest animated shorts I've seen in a while. It's sweet while not being saccharine. It's just good fun.

And the rabbit is adorable!

BARFLY!

djfakt — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:32:32 GMT

Um, why are you forgetting Barfly?! THAT is one of Mickey's finest performances...Go peep it.

Why I like The Reader

Woody — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:16:00 GMT

I don't understand why everyone is hating on The Reader. As someone normally finds Holocaust movies kind of irritating (and I'm Jewish), I actually liked this one. It avoids the two traps that most Holocaust movies fall into:

1) Fetishizing the suffering of the Jews

2) Suggesting that life in a concentration camp teaches important lessons. (Lesson from Life is Beautiful: If you find yourself in a Nazi death camp, look at the bright side.)

In the case of the Reader, they avoid the first trap by not directly portraying the suffering at all. (Maybe a cop out, but an effective one.) The second trap they actually approach head-on, having a Holocaust survivor say that no, there was nothing morally uplifting about living in a concentration camp. If the movie had a single message, it would be, "Evil doesn't serve any purpose. It just is."

One thing that people criticize The Reader for is supposedly condemning Micheal for his relationship with Hanna. This may just be a different of perception, but I didn't see that at all. Michael's problem was that he fell in love with someone and then discovered that they were an entirely different person. Then he still loved her anyway. He apparently spent the rest of his life struggling with this paradox.