Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 91st Academy Awards reactions

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » 91st Academy Awards reactions (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: 91st Academy Awards reactions

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-26-2019 12:56 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
Plus, it's not voted on by the public at large -- it's voted by Academy members. Maybe that's the reason for all the butt-hurt... certain people feel that EVERYONE should feel the same way they do, and when it turns out that some don't, they react almost violently, as if it couldn't possibly be true that everyone doesn't fit their own particular mind-set.

Hemingway famously said, "write what you know."

It's a pretty common thing for white people to act like they're experts on the situations, experiences and feelings of everyone else when we're often very painfully out of touch. I've been in a long term relationship with a black woman. But my closeness to her, her family and friends does not in any way make me any sort of expert on the "black experience." There's no way I can truly know the perspective of being black. It's impossible for someone to truly know it unless they've lived it.

Green Book is somewhat a victim of really bad timing. A story involving racism in the Jim Crow South told through a white lens isn't going to go over with everybody in light of current events. It seems like the county is sliding backwards in regard to race relations, the treatment of women and treatment of others based on their religion or sexual orientation. The truth is injustice has been happening all along. The difference is people in those groups have more of a voice today than they did in the past.

quote: Pravin Ratnam
And I agree about Ermey. Oscars do not have a clue how watchable the In Memorium segment really is. To leave out faces most people recognize in favor of more air time for stupid banter or another time wasting montage is ridiculous.

The In Memoriam segment is kind of a lose-lose situation for the Academy and Oscars telecast. Even if the segment was 30 minutes long someone important would still manage to be left out of the credit roll. Still, if the telecast is going to omit names in favor of unfunny moments (like Letterman doing the Oprah-Uma joke long ago) it's a pretty bad deal of unbalanced priorities.

By the way, I thought the Oscars telecast moved at what seemed like a pretty brisk pace without a "host" eating up lots of air time with attempts at a stand-up routine.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-26-2019 02:52 PM

I'm surprised the host-free thing is getting such commentary. In recent years the host only did very much at the beginning...once that initial hooplah was done, the host mostly introduced presenters.

They've also fallen into the trap of picking a host not because he or she is a good host, but because they're the "flavor of the moment." The Oscars is not Saturday Night Live. If they're going to have a host they should find somebody who knows what he/she is doing. Somebody who's hosted something before.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 02-26-2019 04:02 PM

The best OSCARS were those with great standup comedians as hosts. They could really shake the tree. When they went with the more politically correct types, it turned to a flat ritual.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 02-27-2019 10:28 AM

The "In Memoriam" segment is usually one of the best moments of the award ceremony, but this year, it felt rushed. Not enough time to properly honor those that were part of the legacy of making movies.

Not having a host worked pretty well, IMO. The intro by Randolph, Fey, and Poehler was OK, but it was a good demonstration that random banter isn't necessary to why everyone was there. Maybe it can be done with a skilled host, but the skilled hosts are outnumbered by the others.

I saw a graphic compiled by the Wall Street Journal about the time devoted to certain activities during the Oscars. Quite a bit of time was for "walking" -- presenters walking up to the mic, winners walking up to the mic, people walking away from the mic...

I would love to see what a good editor could do with that broadcast. If it were time-delayed by 30-60 minutes, could the footage be whittled down to have less walking and more of the important stuff? Or is the walking a necessary transition time so the proceedings don't feel rushed?

Overall, though, the show didn't drag like some in the past have. Getting done in 3.25 hours is quite a feat!

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.