2010 Oscars

[Winston Legthigh]

Anyone want to name how many movies he was in...

The omission of Farrah was definitely a snub.

 

As for MJ, he might not have been in many movies as an actor, but his songs have appeared in many many films.

[isadorah]

The omission of Farrah was definitely a snub.

 

As for MJ, he might not have been in many movies as an actor, but his songs have appeared in many many films.

 

 

i find it interesting that her death was trumped by his death and the oscars included him in their tribute and not her.

[Guest Runaway Jim]

One thought I just had - Does the Academy only recognize Academy members? Is it possible she was not an Academy member and MJ was?

[The Inside of Outside]

One thought I just had - Does the Academy only recognize Academy members? Is it possible she was not an Academy member and MJ was?

 

 

I had the same thought last night during the show. From reports I have read today, looks like Farrah was considered but then left out of the tribute. Interesting that Bea Arthur was left out, too, but this is generating less buzz. Might be because Bea's swimsuit poster sold fewer copies in the 1970s.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

One thought I just had - Does the Academy only recognize Academy members? Is it possible she was not an Academy member and MJ was?

 

Farrah was an academy member for 40 years (according to Ryan O'Neal). The academy's reasoning...not enought time or space.

 

Nice.

[tugmoose]

Well, what were they gonna cut? Doogie Howser's song and dance?

[Guest Runaway Jim]

Well, what were they gonna cut? Doogie Howser's song and dance?

 

That was pretty lame.

[jakobnicholas]

I had this on, but was in and out of watching it.

 

The John Hughes tribute was the highlight for me. Tina Fey and Robert Downey Jr. arguing the merits of writer vs. actor was genius...very funny. The animated intros to animated movies were good...especially Up's intro with Dug the dog licking the camera.

 

Martin and Baldwin weren't very good. Occassionally funny lines, but Martin seemed old and Baldwin seemed tight.

[Edie]

 

Martin and Baldwin weren't very good. Occassionally funny lines, but Martin seemed old and Baldwin seemed tight.

 

Do you mean his jokes seemed old, or he seemed old?

[Guest Runaway Jim]

I thought they were hilarious together.

[u2roolz]

These are the thoughts and opinions of myself:

 

I wanted to post this yesterday, but I woke up feeling severely depressed. Was it because I saw Avatar 2 nights before or was it because I was at an Oscar Party and it was more of a social event and I didn't really get to listen to the speeches etc.? It may be a bit of both. I wish I DVRed the damn show though. Or maybe my parallel universe self had a bad breakup?

 

I was surprised by some of the awards. I really felt this year was about "Making Everyone Happy" aka spread the awards evenly. That really didn't happen like I thought that it would.

 

Before I continue I should state that I saw all 10 Best Picture nominees except Precious which I will rent today for free thanks to Redbox and losing my power 2 weekends ago.

 

Color Me Surprised: The Screenplay Awards

Original Screenplay: The Hurt Locker?! Wait a minute! This was supposed to go to Quentin as a consolation prize.

Adapted Screenplay: Precious?! Wait a minute! This was supposed to go to Jason Reitman as a consolation prize. Maybe voters saw through the "Adapted" part and realized that they (Reitman & the other dude) changed the book dramatically.

 

Best Foreign Film: Really surprised that The White Ribbon didn't win. I can't even recall what did win. Hold on, let me get my geeked out newspaper Oscar guide. Ah yes! The Secret In Their Eyes.

 

Best Sound Mixing & Best Sound Editing: Yeah even I get confused as to the intricate differences and similarities between both categories. Really surprised that Hurt Locker won both of these and not Avatar. I could feel the giant middle finger being erected early on in the night.

 

I'm happy with all of the Acting winners except for maybe Sandra Bullock. Even though I really liked the film and her in it before I read how the book was also changed dramatically. Well, I still feel that Mulligan and Sidibe really made the best out of being offered 2 great, yet very different ( but similar in a growing up sense) type of roles for young women. I'll agree that Bullock took the Razzie with great stride and humility and made a nice speech for her win at the Oscars, but that still can't help put out the stuff I heard about her from various sources about her being a bi%^h. But by that same token, everyone in this business always comes off like that at some point or another.

 

Best Documentary Short: I don't know if anyone posted about the "Kanye" moment? I knew that something was wrong by how she got up there last minute to talk and take away the microphone.

 

Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow. Nice. Just as I expected. Give her the trophy to make some news and history (rightfully so I might add) and reward Cameron for Avatar bringing in $720 million to this industry, so that movie studios can make little films that won't make money but yet get critical acclaim and win awards so that people can go and watch them.

 

Best Picture: The FOOT Locker? I really thought that Avatar would win as I keep saying above for those reasons. I mean I don't want The Hurt Locker to be remembered as that film that beat Avatar.

I really wanted Inglourious Basterds to win, but that seemed like a stretch by the Academy. What was with Tom Hanks and the way he announced the winner? It seemed so quick. And while we're on presenters was I the only one who knew that Bigelow would win as soon as Barbra Streisand came out to present for Best Director? Seemed pretty obvious to me.

 

The Best Line Of The Night (besides the Martin joke about "The Jew Hunter" Landa in this building): Colin Farrell: Jeremy Renner and I worked on S.W.A.T.

They couldn't get anyone from The Assassination Of Jesse James like Casey Affleck or even Brad Pitt?

 

Back to Best Picture: Yeah, it seemed like the Academy was ready to go back and award a populist film, but I should add that I am very happy that it is The Hurt Locker. So that's 3 years in a row that a small film has won. The last populist film was The Departed.

 

*A bit of trivia to impress your friends, unless of course they are Cinematographers: The Hurt Locker is (ok, it may be the 1st in awhile) the 1st Best Picture winner to be shot on 16mm film stock as opposed to 35mm. I think Slumdog Millionaire last year was a mix of HD & 35mm. So that's interesting too.

 

Ok. Bye.

 

Epilogue:

The Curious Case Of Tatum O'Neal: I was in a dead tie with some woman for Oscar winners in our party pool amongst 15 people. I wanted to announce that I voted for who I thought would win as opposed to who I thought should win. So anyways the tiebreaker question was "Who is the youngest female Academy Award Winner"? I put down Anna Paquin. And needless to say I lost. That's what I get for my love/hate relationship with the industry.

[bleedorange]

What does the adaptation of the book have to do with Sandra Bullock's performance in the film?

 

After seeing The Hurt Locker, I'm really surprised it won the screenplay award. I thought that was its weakest element by far.

[Guest Jules]

After seeing The Hurt Locker, I'm really surprised it won the screenplay award. I thought that was its weakest element by far.

yep

[u2roolz]

What does the adaptation of the book have to do with Sandra Bullock's performance in the film?

 

 

Well, a lot considering in "real life" Michael Oher knew how to play football and didn't need to be coached as in the film. A lot of the sass in the film came from her brining him to the football tryouts and standing on the sidelines patting people on their asses.

 

It was more of a commentary actually on how different the film might have been received if it was 100% the same as the book. I just hope that people are aware of that and don't think that that's what actually happened in real life in the film.

 

Edit: So in summation one could argue that by adapting it the way that they did it allowed Sandra Bullock the chance to do the role that we ended up seeing on the screen. Furthermore, if they changed some of the conflicts/resolutions in Michael's life in the film to have Bullock react to it differently etc. then this helps Bullock act off of something. Especially, when you consider the book to be really about Michael Oher moreso than Jesebel Tuhoy (?).

Another Edit For More Color: In regards to Adapting: Up In The Air (the screenplay) had Anna Kendrick & Vera Farmiga's characters in them and not in the book. I'm not obviously giving the writers 100% credit for the actor's performance, but there is an obvious symbiotic relationship there. The actors just don't show up and make up words. They use the screenplay in some cases as a blueprint.

[bleedorange]

Well, a lot considering in "real life" Michael Oher knew how to play football and didn't need to be coached as in the film. A lot of the sass in the film came from her brining him to the football tryouts and standing on the sidelines patting people on their asses.

 

It was more of a commentary actually on how different the film might have been received if it was 100% the same as the book. I just hope that people are aware of that and don't think that that's what actually happened in real life in the film.

 

Edit: So in summation one could argue that by adapting it the way that they did it allowed Sandra Bullock the chance to do the role that we ended up seeing on the screen. Furthermore, if they changed some of the conflicts/resolutions in Michael's life in the film to have Bullock react to it differently etc. then this helps Bullock act off of something. Especially, when you consider the book to be really about Michael Oher moreso than Jesebel Tuhoy (?).

Another Edit For More Color: In regards to Adapting: Up In The Air (the screenplay) had Anna Kendrick & Vera Farmiga's characters in them and not in the book. I'm not obviously giving the writers 100% credit for the actor's performance, but there is an obvious symbiotic relationship there. The actors just don't show up and make up words. They use the screenplay in some cases as a blueprint.

 

Still not sure how that has anything to do with her actual performance on the screen, nor why anyone who is critically watching her performance should particularly care about the particulars of the adaptation of the book. I haven't seen nor read The Blind Side, but you seem to have some deep-seeded animosity towards the film and Leigh Anne Tuohy (Jesebel Tuhoy? Is this a joke in the movie or something?).

[u2roolz]

Still not sure how that has anything to do with her actual performance on the screen, nor why anyone who is critically watching her performance should particularly care about the particulars of the adaptation of the book. I haven't seen nor read The Blind Side, but you seem to have some deep-seeded animosity towards the film and Leigh Anne Tuohy (Jesebel Tuhoy? Is this a joke in the movie or something?).

 

There is no deep seeded animosity from me regarding this film. I'm merely making an observation about the difference from adapting the novel to the screen which ultimately had 2 side effects (either planned or just happened) 1) Made $250 million 2) It won Bullock an Oscar.

 

So take what I wrote above and let me add to this again. Would you go around making a statement like "What does this recipe for ______ have to do with Chef _____?" Who takes the credit? The person who created the recipe? Or the Chef who implements it?

 

Ok. Back to the adaptation example. I'm not really sure why I'm wasting my time doing this, since you haven't seen the movie or read the book.

 

OK. I've got it! Let me give you an example of something from the book and the movie. And then tell me how it can NOT matter.

 

A) book: Michael knows how to play football, thus Leigh Anne doesn't need to show up to his practices. She's not even in this part of the book. So this is really about Michael.

B film: Michael doesn't know the logistics of football and Leigh Anne makes it her main priority to make sure that he's there and gets to act all sassy and loving towards him to make him reach his end goal.

 

B comes off really well in a film for Bullock because you see how much she cares for Michael and it lends her a playing field to play within and make you like her.

So if B never really happened in real life and it was simply a "trick" used to manipulate viewers into feeling this way for Bullock and then getting her an Oscar it has a lot to do with the adaptation.

 

RE: Jesebel. I merely forget her character name from the film. AND there's no animosity towards her only an observation about the differences between the real woman and the one that we see on screen who has changed due to changing Michael's conflicts/resolutions. I guess my main gripe is changing the story around to serve Leigh Anne and have Michael take a back seat.

 

So in conclusion I'm going to steal something that applies to what I'm writing: Wesley Morris from the Boston Globe: "Enjoying the Blind Side depends on how "blind" the viewer wants to be." Meaning it obviously works as a film, but if you start doing some research on the book and the actual people it starts to sour on you.

[Winston Legthigh]

But you're criticizing the adaptation itself, not her portrayal of the role, which is what she was rewarded for.

[u2roolz]

But you're criticizing the adaptation itself, not her portrayal of the role, which is what she was rewarded for.

 

I realize that. I'm trying to shed light on the fact that through the adaptation it allowed her to do the role which she was awarded for.

[Dick Ctionary]

deep–seat·ed

Pronunciation: \ˈdēp-ˈsē-təd\

Function: adjective

Date: 1741

1 : situated far below the surface

2 : firmly established

[bleedorange]

deep–seat·ed

Pronunciation: \ˈdēp-ˈsē-təd\

Function: adjective

Date: 1741

1 : situated far below the surface

2 : firmly established

 

gracias

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I realize that. I'm trying to shed light on the fact that through the adaptation it allowed her to do the role which she was awarded for.

 

And just what exactly is wrong with that?

[bleedorange]

I realize that. I'm trying to shed light on the fact that through the adaptation it allowed her to do the role which she was awarded for.

 

Ok. So what? The category is not "Best Performance by an Actress Playing a Real-Life Character That is as Faithful to That Person's Life as Humanly Possible."

 

Aren't you creating some kind of double standard between actors playing real people versus fictional people?

[u2roolz]

That's not my point!

 

If you had read what I posted and went to great lengths at trying to get you to see my point you wouldn't be asking me again.

 

I'm speaking about this PARTICULAR film. (And in a little bit the effect that it had on certain people & critics)

 

Let me give you one more example. And then I'll tread down a road that I don't want to, since that may open up the flood gates on that particular topic.

 

Think of the SOURCE MATERIAL as a balance that you see in courts. And it is just that: balanced. (obviously not true but let's play with it, so that I can use this as a point)

Now when the screenwriter sets out to adapt they can keep that balance or change it to suit a particular performance.

They took away from Michael (including the BIGGEST THING - the guy knows how to play football. He said this on 60 Minutes and was upset that this was CHANGED for the movie.) and

ADDED to Leigh Anne's character to make her seem like the Savior to Michael. By changing this so dramatically it seems a bit unfair to the REAL Michael Oher for the benefit of making white people feel good about helping a poor "helpless" black kid from the ghetto become a sports star in a spectator sport. And by doing this here are some reviews that responded to this criticism of the film.

 

Claims of racism

The film has been subject to claims of supporting racism. Mark Blankenship of The Huffington Post wrote of the trailer, "[it] begs us to feel sorry for black people and feel grateful that there are white people in the world who can take [care] of them."

Melissa Anderson of the Dallas Observer said the film "peddles the most insidious kind of racism, one in which whiteys are virtuous saviors, coming to the rescue of blacks who become superfluous in narratives that are supposed to be about them... The filmmakers would like to lull you to sleep with this milk of amnesia, hiding behind the fact that this bewilderingly condescending movie is based on an actual person—but one who you end up knowing almost nothing about."

 

Now take that and then think of the little seen Precious and what that was about. It was kind of a similar story, but it didn't catch on like The Blind Side did. I'm saying there may be some truth in the above statements as to why it did so well at the box office. If it was more of an honest adaptation, I wonder how well it would have been received.

 

This is my overall thought on the film from a previous post by me: "I guess my main gripe is changing the story around to serve Leigh Anne and have Michael take a back seat."

[JessieOK]

That's not my point!

 

If you had read what I posted and went to great lengths at trying to get you to see my point you wouldn't be asking me again.

 

I'm speaking about this PARTICULAR film. (And in a little bit the effect that it had on certain people & critics)

 

Let me give you one more example. And then I'll tread down a road that I don't want to, since that may open up the flood gates on that particular topic.

 

Think of the SOURCE MATERIAL as a balance that you see in courts. And it is just that: balanced. (obviously not true but let's play with it, so that I can use this as a point)

Now when the screenwriter sets out to adapt they can keep that balance or change it to suit a particular performance.

They took away from Michael (including the BIGGEST THING - the guy knows how to play football. He said this on 60 Minutes and was upset that this was CHANGED for the movie.) and

ADDED to Leigh Anne's character to make her seem like the Savior to Michael. By changing this so dramatically it seems a bit unfair to the REAL Michael Oher for the benefit of making white people feel good about helping a poor "helpless" black kid from the ghetto become a sports star in a spectator sport. And by doing this here are some reviews that responded to this criticism of the film.

 

Claims of racism

The film has been subject to claims of supporting racism. Mark Blankenship of The Huffington Post wrote of the trailer, "[it] begs us to feel sorry for black people and feel grateful that there are white people in the world who can take [care] of them."

Melissa Anderson of the Dallas Observer said the film "peddles the most insidious kind of racism, one in which whiteys are virtuous saviors, coming to the rescue of blacks who become superfluous in narratives that are supposed to be about them... The filmmakers would like to lull you to sleep with this milk of amnesia, hiding behind the fact that this bewilderingly condescending movie is based on an actual person—but one who you end up knowing almost nothing about."

 

Now take that and then think of the little seen Precious and what that was about. It was kind of a similar story, but it didn't catch on like The Blind Side did. I'm saying there may be some truth in the above statements as to why it did so well at the box office. If it was more of an honest adaptation, I wonder how well it would have been received.

 

This is my overall thought on the film from a previous post by me: "I guess my main gripe is changing the story around to serve Leigh Anne and have Michael take a back seat."

 

Have to say, I kind of agree with your logic. To me, that's one of the downfalls of watching films that have been adapted from real life stories, or that have been adapted from books that I have read before a screenplay was ever even dreamed of. If I liked the story, felt empathy for the protagonist, then I'm automatically emotionally invested in that character, whether real or created. With that emotional investment comes loyalty, and on the day that character is brought to life on the big screen, I want to see that character as I already know him. To take that character and strip away what he his to bolster another, more commercially viable character is a disservice to the actual story that ought to be told, and as you said, it becomes a different story altogether, playing to a completely different demographic. Did Sandra Bullock earn her accolades? Absolutely. I don't blame her. But it's easy for me to see how she might not have gotten that opportunity if the story hadn't been altered in the way that it had.

[bleedorange]

Well, you've missed my point.

 

Those are all fair criticisms of the film itself (I assume, anyway, I haven't seen it). I've read many of those same points you just made.

 

Still has nothing to do with Sandra Bullock's actual performance in the film.

 

 

EDIT: Any great performance owes a large debt of gratitude to the screenplay. So saying her performance is marred by the screenplay that was tailored towards her character rings pretty shallow. All great lead roles come from screenwriters that have written juicy roles for them. Her performance should simply be judged by her performance. Any other issues regarding the adaptation are separate and have nothing to do with it.