No, Young Padawan, The 90th Oscars Was No "Turd Show"

I was disheartened and somewhat disappointed to open my Facebook page Monday to see a post from a nephew headed "Oscars - What A Turd Show!"   What prompted such a harsh judgment? There was little elaboration other than it "sucked" and "was too long" - but reading assorted critiques around the net one quickly concludes one of three reasons: 1) The show is long - this time running 4 hours and "trying even the patience of hard core movie lovers"  according to one WSJ piece, 2) too much politics and activism on display, or 3) the films receiving awards weren't the big box superhero or other flicks the hoi polloi wanted to win.

Fair enough, but I'd argue none of these warrants calling the Oscars "a turd show".. What is a real turd show is any Trump presser or photo op in the White House  like with the DACA gathering or the recent one on guns- when we know the guy is just going to lie and play everyone in his typical con game.

According to a WSJ piece yesterday ('Oscars Hit Sour Note With Viewers', p. B1,  Business & Finance) the viewing audience fell by 19 percent from last year's which drew 32.4 million. The previous low was 32 million in 2008. We also learned (ibid.):

"There was no shortage of social commentary during the broadcast, as the issues of sexual harassment and equal opportunities for women took center stage. ...Many on social media pointed to performers using their platform to espouse political and social views as  factor in viewers tuning out."

Another lame excuse given for the drop in viewers was from Brandwidth which "attributed the decline to the pandemonium on social media last year when the wrong movie  La La Land  was accidentally announced as Best Picture winner instead of the rightful winner, Moonlight."

Of course, the very reason that snafu occurred was because a genius from Price Waterhouse Cooper  -which controlled the award envelopes  - was too enmeshed in social media texting to attend to delivering the correct envelope to the presenters (Faye Dunaway and  Warren Beatty).  For people now -  mainly social media addicts - to tune out because it might occur again is total bollocks. It also doesn't say much about their average IQ.

But I submit that the preceding reasons may only account for perhaps 5 percent of the dropouts at most. After all, as any intelligent person  -viewer knows, such politicizing has always been part of the Academy Awards, certainly in the past two decades. We also know the movies don't exist themselves in a bubble - detached from the greater society. Especially now in the age of Trump where every thing the bastard does or says grabs air space and headlines. So why the hell wouldn't a reaction to it?

For example, the latest blockbuster superhero movie, 'The Black Panther', was described in a recent TIME article as "an act of resistance by its very existence."  Indeed, the latest issue asserts that as recently as five years ago it likely couldn't have been made  - a spectacle film with nearly all black cast and black super hero to boot. We saw it with our friend Muriel two weeks ago and loved it.  And for sure the power projected by the  black citizens of the fictional African nation of Wakanda would make any white nationalist or Trumpie racist tremble in his boots.  As would the "Black Panther" himself:


In a similar vein the Best Picture winner,  The Shape of Water, was about diversity and breaking down the barriers that divide us. Personally, after watching it twice at the cinema, it ought to be required viewing for every Trumpie. That, and The Black Panther.

This brings us to what is more likely the main reason for a drop in  Oscar viewers (ibid.):

"The sheer number of entertainment choices is causing an industry wide decline in rating across all TV programming. Live performance had, at least for a while, been the exception to the broader declines, as audiences recorded shows or turned to on-demand streaming services."

This condition is what author  Alvin Toffler in his 1970 book, Future Shock" referred to  as "over choice ".   Too many choices, especially in media, diluting any collective attention to one thing, one show, one event.  From Wikipedia we have:

"The phenomenon of overchoice occurs when many equivalent choices are available.^[Making a decision becomes overwhelming due to the many potential outcomes and risks that may result from making the wrong choice"

In terms of entertainment media in the current era, there is inevitably no "equivalence" in  viewing choices because of  consumer driven preference  creeping in. Thus, there is now the preference for "cord cutting" and streaming movies and such instead of watching the latter in actual theaters. This is particularly so among the younger set.  Hence, we now see a kind of "regression to the mean" which often translates to the most comfortable choice  for many viewers.   Take my nephew, for instance. If he is a frequent Netflix user, or even more inclined to play video games  - and is then confronted by a choice between these and watching the  entire 90th Oscars on network TV,  he will almost certainly go for one or other of the former.  He will skip over the Oscars - or ditch it quickly  - because it doesn't deliver the mode of entertainment he wants.  (But to call the Oscars a "turd show" because they're not his cup of tea, is going a bit too far imho.)

This phenomenon of consumer preference is not so critical in terms of entertainment but becomes a real danger to our democracy when we have balkanized news media    - including one  (FOX News) which lies and distorts as a kind of  agenda to pander to its viewers.

 In October of 1962 all 100 million of us watched the same Walter Cronkite on CBS as he spelled out the latest news on the Cuban Missile Crisis. There wasn't some "channel X" that half the citizens tuned to which told them  "we repeat again-  this whole Cuban Missile crisis is a hoax, this is a big nothing burger."

We watched and enjoyed the Academy Awards as we do every year because we are hard core movie lovers  seeing on average 16-20 movies a year, by which I mean actually showing up to buy tickets, get cokes etc. and recline in the new D-Box seats.  By contrast, the typical American sees only four films a year at the cinema  - according to another WSJ piece. (Mar. 5).  Given this difference, I would conjecture people like us are much more likely to tune into the Academy Awards and pay attention to the awards for 'sound mixing', 'best animated feature'  and 'best musical score' as well as 'Best picture'.

It is true, as the WSJ piece notes,  that "most of the nominees and winners  came from films that weren't box office hits",   and this could also explain part of the lack of  U.S. viewer interest.  But on the other hand, the Oscars ceremony and fanfare on a global stage, enables the opportunity to highlight little known,  quality movies that  -  while not "block busters"  -  are well worth seeing.  Not every great film has to be about super heroes, or be  a super hero sequel.  Finally, bear in mind while the U.S. audience may have dwindled, there's still a global audience that dwarfs it.  While it's not "a billion" - as frequently cited, e.g. by Oscar hosts-   it is in the high nine figures and from 30 to 40 times the U.S. viewership in any given year. So if 26.5 m U.S. viewers watched this year, do the math and you find at least 795 million would have watched this year, globally. Not too shabby!

Maybe one day my young Padawan nephew will appreciate that and also be more inclined to move out of his entertainment -viewing comfort zone.

"Best Picture" Oscar Should Go To 'HIDDEN FiGURES' - But Likely Won't

African-American NASA women compute orbital elements for John Glenn's mission in 'Hidden Figures'. It should win 'Best Picture' if Hollywood's navel grazers don't choose "La La Land"


"Self-regarding movies about the greatness and craziness and triumph and tragedy of those who make movies have become the new Oscar norm."  -   Andrew O'Herhir, Salon.com, February 2015

Let us concede that in a sane world - which is emphatically not the one we inhabit right now- the superb 2016 film "Hidden Figures" would come away with most Academy Awards, including 'Best Picture'. The film had wide appeal across all demographics, and featured the little known but critical role of African -Americans in the NASA Manned Space Program. The movie basically highlights a little known facet that a team of African-American women - trained in high level 'rocket science' math- actually did the computations that put astronaut  John Glenn into successful orbit in February, 1962.  The women  (Katherine G. Johnson, Mary Jackson, Dorothy Vaughan) were referred to as "human computers" within NASA.

Not only was the film the best math-based movie to come along since "Good Will Hunting" and "A Beautiful Mind", but it also touched on the civil rights struggles of the 1960s - in conjunction with  the aspirations of talented African Americans. (A trenchant moment in the film occurs when one of the NASA women informs her boss (played by Kevin Costner): "There are no colored bathrooms in this building or any building outside the west campus - which is half a mile away. Did you know that? I have to walk to Timbuktu just to relieve myself'.)

Alas, competing for attention will be the vacuous Hollywood navel gazing confection called "La La Land" which one critic in LA Magazine described as a ho-hum musical with a basically plug and play role for Emma Stone ( "Mia" )  who yields most of the actual lines to her dancing mate "Sebastian"  played by Ryan Gosling. But as others noted, neither really hits the mark so one wonders what all the fuss is about.  Well, more LA -based navel grazing where the movie makers and actors, members of the Academy are more entranced by their own art than wonderful films of more general appeal.

The UK Guardian ('La La Land's Inevitable Oscar's Win Is A Disaster For Hollywood And For Us')basically summarizes my own view. And you'd think that with box office numbers tanking the past several years the Hollywood cognoscenti would get a clue and cease the navel gazing with their awards. But it doesn't seem so.

According to the Guardian:

"Rarely have the Oscars seen such a dead cert. If you fancy La La Land for best picture, the most attractive odds you will get are 9-2 on. The film is also nominated in another 13 categories, tying with Titanic and All About Eve for most ever nods. It has already snagged a record-breaking seven Golden Globes, and five Baftas.

Critics have been equally charmed. In Britain, the coveted five stars have been bestowed not just by the Sun, the Mirror and Metro, but also by the Guardian, the Times and the Telegraph. Audiences have followed suit. The film has taken more than 10 times its $30m (£24m) budget at the box office.
In such circumstances, you would expect a bit of a backlash, and a La La Land insurgency has duly kicked off.

The male lead, Ryan Gosling’s Sebastian, has been indicted for boorishness and insensitivity. When he is not whitesplaining jazz, he is mansplaining it to Emma Stone’s Mia. Both characters have been thought shallow, and chemistry between them has been found lacking. Technique has also been faulted. Gosling and Stone are no Fred and Ginger in the hoofing stakes, and their “reedy voices” have disappointed. For some, the narrative sags and the plot fails to convince"

That extended indictment ought to be enough to sink most films, but with too many airheads too smitten - probably just by the title - there may be little chance of  'Hidden Figures'  overtaking it.  Thus, I'd compare a win to the 2012 Best Picture Oscar that (seriously)went to the back and white, SILENT French film, "The Artist".   Another film endowed with more hype than genuine quality, imho.  As I wrote in my Feb. 19, 2012 post:

Here's the deal: as movie prices are now jacked up to the point that movie attendance has dropped off precipitously, and one must expect to shell out at least $25 for two, for the film plus just a diet coke and small popcorn, why would you pump and hump a silent black and white movie? Oh wait! I got it! To entice the elites to drool all over themselves at their impeccable "artistic" taste and refined perceptions ....which vastly exceed ....by light years...the Philistine tastes of the hoi polloi, otherwise known as the "masses".

The Guardian goes on, again I concur totally:

"La La Land has been branded feeble, dull, flat, humorless, bloodless and unengaging. It has been called “disappointingly mediocre”.  In fact, these reactions can be traced to a deeper deficiency: the Oscar favorite is a fake movie.  Poke your finger through the sugary icing and you find no cake beneath – no heart, no soul, no joy, no warmth, no wonder.

To create the illusion of charm, the film relies not on intrinsic strengths but on external trappings"

SO, in a real way the film is kind of like the Trump presidency, all about trappings and no substance. No heft.   The there is the copycat of atmosphere aspect, i.e.:

"When Gosling hangs from a lamp-post, it is to tell you this is Singing in the Rain. West Side Story, Funny Face, The Young Girls of Rochefort, Shall We Dance, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg and plenty of others are similarly appropriated. La La Land wants you to believe that it shares the joy, humour, tragedy and humanity of such celluloid treasures. It doesn’t."

And:

"Mia is a cipher because she is just the prisoner of ambition. Seb sees himself as a heroic champion of art, but he is more of a nerd than a musician. For him, jazz is mainly fodder for his vanity and pomposity."

And lastly the biggest knockdown, reinforcing this pathetic flick is one for the Trump era of bigots, braggarts and narcissists:

"La La Land is a film for our time. With our self-nurturing, self-promotion, clicktivism, Twitterstorms, sexts and selfies, we are all narcissists now. This being so, many of us would kill to get into Seb or Mia’s shoes. .... Nonetheless, our descent into solipsism still carries with it lingering disquiet. La La Land helps us put this aside by spangling self-love with stardust.

It is easy to see why the Academy’s voters have embraced La La Land. Many of them will have followed a path all too similar to Seb and Mia’s. Seeing their life-choices vindicated by the witchcraft of their trade must have been something of a comfort. All the same, the best picture winners that stick in the memory, such as Schindler’s List, Gandhi, Chariots of Fire and Titanic, tend to extol humanity’s better nature, not its shortcomings."

Indeed. And if a genuinely worthy Best Picture candidate is available that extols humanity it is "Hidden Figures".  Sadly, the Hollywood navel gazers will be more focused on awarding the Oscar to a  mediocre musical that vaguely reflects their own acting paths. In where else? LA LA Land!

But some of these La La land people will never get it. Tom Hanks, who once planned a 13- part HBO series to vindicate the Warren Commission,  announced not long ago (Denver Post, p. 3E): "If people don't go out and embrace this wonderful film, we are all doomed!"  Seriously, Tom?  Personally, I think you're better served sticking to your Warren Commission Follies.

A Cynical Brit Film Critic (David Thomson) Misfires On The Oscars

David Thomson, who wrote the WSJ piece 'The Oscar Farce',   thinks  the Oscars'  time has passed.

It was kind of amusing, but also infuriating, reading David Thomson's takedown of the Academy Awards in the Weekend WSJ. (Feb. 27-28, p. C3)  Amazingly, after reading the first several paragraphs, I initially thought it was some angry young black guy trying to draw attention and gain notoriety. Imagine my surprise on learning he was a British film critic, older than I am, and a white guy to boot!

On mentioning going to an Oscar party tonight he cited, for example, his friends' AARP membership and they're considering boycotting the show, over the lack of black nominees, writing:

"It's charming that people so old and wise will take Oscar that seriously but I may have to explain how the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences was always a self-serving sham'>

Hmmm.....written like a true film critic. What was it director Federico Fellini once said about them?

"Eighty percent of film criticism comes from illiterates and deficient mentalities"

Then there's this choice chestnut from Brendan Behan:

"A critic at a performance is like a eunuch at a harem: He sees it performed nightly but can't do it himself".

This guy then questions whether Oscar will still be around in 2036 (he will) and writes:

"Can we agree the Academy is a ridiculous, archaic, and retrogressive club?"

Uh, no,  we can't. It isn't any of those because thankfully most members are actual doers and performers of the movie art, not jaundiced critics. They earned their membership by paying their dues, making or producing actual movies (many of them over decades) as opposed to just panning them, and writing crap op-eds to attempt to render the whole ceremony moot and its supporting organization passe.

Thomson does appear to have a thing for movies like "The Revenant"  which he believes is "the most beautiful and audacious film of the year". Why? Well, because "of its faith in action and heroism and its sense of the cruel beauty of nature, for the natural light...and the extended traveling shots"

He loves it, in other words, because it "harks back to an original cinematic duty- to go out to the real places and the real things."

Which is rank balderdash because not every film can or SHOULD be "Call of the Wild" or "Grizzly Man" (where the star actually ended up being eaten). I mean, that's just plain bollocks. Look at Spotlight, for example, A terrific film - of substantial heft- but not shot in bear country or high country! It's as if the action and adventure theme to Thomson is the only one with  genuine cinematic validity. To accept that premise would be too disavow or reject films like '2001 -  A Space Odyssey', 'Silent Running' or indeed, any of the great science fiction fare of the past 40 years (like the 3D  'Avatar') mostly filmed in specialized sound and special effects studios.

The biggest howler from Thomson is when he whines that:

"There's too much to see now. the avalanche of YouTube and all the other diversions of the Internet are an attention killer".

Thereby implying that in this cornucopia of mostly bullshit (99% of it is), one's appreciation for good films must suffer. Not at all! Most of what's on YouTube is twaddle that in decades past would appeal only to kindergartners. I mean kittens boxing puppies and other such crap?  Farcical performances by wannabe hotshots - magic vanishing tricks,  kid superheroes,  or making gastronomic atrocities? All wastes of time.

For the discriminating mind there is not "too much to see" but rather too little of quality to see. For more on this read Chris Hedges' 'The Empire of Illusion'.

The precise problem today which Thomson touched on but didn't fully explore is that there is simply a surfeit of plain old garbage flooding not only the media airwaves but the web too. Everyone wants to be some kind of somebody - starboy or stargirl - so adds to the total mass of dreck which they misjudge as quality. The end result is an excess of juvenile merde which creates a paradox of choice for too many minds too immature to separate wheat from chaff.

If more disciplined minds existed, as opposed to uncritical, undiscerning ones, then people would more clearly see and appreciate what an achievement most of the Academy Awards represent. Then the notion of the Oscars as "old hat rubbish" that Thomson trots out would be seen for the bunkum it is.

The Motion Picture Academy of Arts & Sciences Has Totally Gone into the Ozone!

The speculation has grown, one could say - metastasized- for years, that the Motion Picture Academy of Arts & Sciences has slowly been losing its way, evolving into an ever more isolated enclave of elitist "insider" tastes. Now, the buzz is mounting that they have really jumped the shark, and are prepared to award this year's "Best Picture" Oscar to....get this, a back and white, SILENT French film, "The Artist". Are you effing kidding me?

This is the year 2012, not 1912! We do not, I repeat do not, award Oscars for Best Picture to gimmicky black and white silent movies!

Here's the deal: as movie prices are now jacked up to the point that movie attendance has dropped off precipitously, and one must expect to shell out at least $25 for two, for the film plus just a diet coke and small popcorn, why would you pump and hump a silent black and white movie? Oh wait! I got it! To entice the elites to drool all over themselves at their impeccable "artistic" taste and refined perceptions ....which vastly exceed ....by light years...the Philistine tastes of the hoi polloi, otherwise known as the "masses".

In other words, just another example of exalted tastes in which to rub the noses of the not so well off . We already beheld, after all, in an earlier blog "Lex" and his take on the grandiose tastes of the elites, e.g

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/02/hey-poor-white-folks-learn-morals-from.html

Quoting "Lex" therein:

"A cultural gap separates the Elite from other Americans. They seldom watch 'Oprah' or Judge Judy', in fact they do not watch much television at all. They eat in restaurants but not at Applebee's, Denny's or Waffle House...chains that cater to the common taste. They read The Economist and the New York Times, or Wall Street Journal, and they drink wine and boutique beers.....but only in moderation and never smoke cigarettes."

Now we can add:

They opt to see refined French black and white movies like "The Artist" as opposed to degenerate common fare like "The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo" or...."War Horse"

But in fact, the last two films beat any modern silent black and white film twice on Sundays and any given day of the week. (I do not rule out ever seeing b&w silent fare, since the 1927 German flick 'Metropolis" is one of my favorites, as well as "Nosferatu"- but there is no sound basis for such in 2012!) Not only is "Girl" - with Rooney Mara in the star role as an iconoclast hacker - a terrific flick, but Mara deserve the "Best Actress" for her peformance. It is certainly worth paying out $25 for, and not regretting it ten minutes later! Same with "War Horse", a spell binding film which definitely hasn't received the credit it's due.

Anyway, we shall see come next Sunday night.

We will see if the Academy selects a film with appeal to only a very tiny subset of the population, the monied Elites who can afford to piss away $25 or even $50 on a black and white silent film, or respect the tastes of the hard working 99 percent. My bet is they will go with the elites.

Maybe the time really has come for two separate sets of Oscars. One for the movies with mass appeal and terrific entertainment value, like "War Horse", and the other for the toffy-nosed brie and wine crowd who fancy themselves - with their special "adjustable" - toilet seat warming and spray-drier commodes - above the rest of us!