I watched the beginning and the end of the Oscars last night mainly because the funWife likes to watch. I found Chris Rock lame, although in his defense I have to say that he wasn't the right guy for the job. Oh, he got some mercy laughs, he got some political laughs, and he got some nervous shock laughs when he said a naughty word (it reminded me of watching Richard Pryor's Live on the Sunset Strip and hearing people laugh whenever Richard said F**K, which he said a lot). But as my wife said, why can't they keep Billy Crystal as host. I only enjoyed his bit about Russell Crowe and his short film interviewing movie goers (Albert Brooks was priceless). But the thought behind they should only make movies if a top star is in them -- has he lost his mind? Yeah, no Jude Law and people will flock back to movies.
The real problem though isn't the emcee, despite the best efforts of the producers to get people who shouldn't be. It's the whole concept and system. First off, there are only 6 awards people care about: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best supporting Actor, and Best Supporting Actress. Other than that, who cares? So why take 3+ hours to hand out six awards.
We only care about them because of Hollywood's star system though, which was on clear display last night. Four castes were segregated last night -- the stars, who got to remain in their seats while the presenters read off the winner; the mere mortals, who had to stand on stage; the lesser mortals, who sat in their seats; and the untouchables, who were presented their awards at a completely different ceremony. I love how the technical people, the ones who are really responsible for the film going experience, are kept separate and how the academy always picks some young starlet to be the emcee for those awards.
The only point of the Oscars is marketing, yet they are wrapped in the mantle of Art. Who is a great actor? Well, guys like Harrison Ford and Mel Gibson have made very popular movies (and some unpopular and lousy ones) and can open a movie, yet how many times have you seen them at the Oscars? Hillary Swank now has two Oscars, and I have to honestly say I've never seen her in a movie. Sure, there are movies like Lord of the Rings which are both big money makers and Art in every sense of the word, but they don't come around often enough.
And that leads me to my last point -- Hollywood will make a glittering corpse, and soon. Here is an industry that has a hard time making a good product, and when they do, it often isn't recognized as such by the industry itself. No, this isn't an appeal for White Chicks to win an award. But it is an appeal for Hollywood to take itself less seriously and make better movies -- more like Sideways, fewer like Oceans 12. I like movies, but I don't see that many good ones anymore. The really disappointing thing is that the technology has really broadened the horizons of what's possible, but Hollywood seems capable of only turning out at most one superior movie a year -- mostly through sheer determination on the filmmakers part, which indicates it's despite the system, not because of it.
Hollywood - you're leaving a lot of money on the table.
