Oscar Night: A Review

I return from my week and a half vacation to bring you a review of last night's Academy Awards. It was a night full over very few surprises: Slumdog Millionaire took home Best Picture and Director, Heath Ledger got Best Supporting Actor, Kate Winslet finally got her Oscar, and Wall-E walked away with Best Animated Feature. The only bone I have to pick with the awards themselves is that Wall-E should have received an award in at least one of the sound categories; the first half of the film has almost no dialogue, and the robots have a unique language of whistles and boops that was impressively brought to life, and Wall-E should have been recognized for that.

But what of the show itself? Like the winners, there were few surprises, and overall, it was a lackluster performance. Hugh Jackman did what he could to keep the night moving, dancing and singing the night away, an experience I would have enjoyed more if I didn't feel that it was utterly pointless. The opening number was to be expected, to help people get into the mood and welcome viewers to the Oscars, but was there a real need for the tribute to the musicals routine? Likewise, the montages of animated features, romances, comedies, and action flicks felt pointless, particularly the animated feature montage, as there were no more than five films to take clips from. Such things should be done away with, as it only serves to drag on the show, not heighten any excitement. The one montage I feel they should keep is "In Memoriam" which I always find a touching tribute to those in the profession who have passed away, from cinematographers to actors to screenwriters.

I did like the concept of arranging the awards in the order they come in the production of a film. I honestly can't remember if this just happens to be the way they are always handed out, but even if that is so, attention was drawn to the fact this year, and it was a neat way to help the audience connect with the movie-making process. The idea of having five actresses/actors present the acting awards, however, was an idea that may have looked good on paper but didn't seem to work on screen. Having someone stand on stage and give a lengthy speech about why you should care about a particular performance was not very interesting or inspiring and again lengthened the show more than necessary.

All in all, the Oscars were particularly lackluster, despite attempts to shake things up. Unimaginative montages and slow pacing are sure to have driven many to reach for their remotes, especially since there were few big name films to keep them interested. Ratings were up, however, which indicates that there were those who were interested to see how the Oscars had changed, or perhaps that last year's record lows had more to do with the writer's strike than the programming. The Oscars still have a way to go to connect with audiences, and there's a long road ahead.

Oscar Watch: Doubt

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

Today's review deals with multiple-Oscar-hopeful Doubt, an intriguing drama about a nun who is steadfast in her belief that the priest at her church has committed a dreadful sin and must be brought to justice, even if no one else believes her. Starring a strong cast of Meryl Streep, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams and Viola Davis, the film has had every one of its top-billed performers nominated for acting Oscar: Streep for Best Actress and the rest of the cast in the supporting acting categories. The film has also been nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay.

The thing that I loved about this film is its ambiguity. There is no clear cut black and white in this film; the audience mainly has to rely on hearsay to piece together what might have happened, and in the end, you are not really sure who was right and who has wrong. It's designed to make the audience think: only by thinking can you get any satsifaction from the film. Is it right to stand fast in your conviction if there is no evidence? How far should one go to bring a person to "justice"? Who decides what "justice" is? Is a tiny suspicion enough of a reason to accuse someone of a crime? The big questions come in the last minute of the film, when Streep breaks down to Adams and says (I'm paraphrasing) "Sometimes you have to go away from God to catch wrong-doers. But there is a price to pay. Sister James, I have such doubts!" What are these doubts? Does she fear that perhaps she was wrong about Hoffman's priest? Or by straying from God, has she opened her eyes to things that have shaken her beliefs? Doubt is an open-ended text that can be debated 'round in circles without ever getting to a resolution, short of asking the writer himself for a straightforward answer. That's what the film is about: based on what little you know, can you really make decide Hoffman's fate?

The film is an adapted stage play, and it shows in the pacing of film, which is roughly broken down into several long scenes between two or three actors. This does not detract from the film; indeed, it allows the actors a good chance to get into the material and lets the audience sit back and watch some of the best in the trade do what they excel at. Will this translate to Oscar success? Kate Winslet and Meryl Streep have been fighting back and forth for Best Actress in several different critic pools and other awards, and there is a good probability that the award will go to one of these two fine ladies. Hoffman is unfortunately competing against Heath Ledger for Supporting Actor, so his chances of winning are not particularly good at the moment, though he did give a fine performance. Adams and Davis will go head to head against each other in the Supporting Actress category. This category I'm the least certain about; in my mind it really could go anyway. For outside opinion, Gold Derby blogger Tom O'Neil has an interesting analysis of Adams's chances that is worth a read.

Doubt's Oscar chances may be slim, but that does nothing to detract from a solid film which will have you ruminating as you leave the theatre.

Revolutionary Road: The Oscar Performance that Wasn't

When the Oscar nominees came out, there was a great deal of shock at the snubbing of The Dark Knight which failed to edge its way into the race for Best Picture or Director. But among all the hubbub, there was another film that failed to make the list in a category it should have: Revolutionary Road should have gotten Kate Winslet nominated for Best Actress. This is old news by now, but as I have just had a chance to see the film, I wanted to throw in my two cents. Now, I know that Winslet did get a Best Actress nod this year for her film The Reader. From what I hear, however, her performance was at the most, a supporting one, and while still good, not as good as her role in Road. After seeing the film, I'm still stunned that the Academy did not follow suit with the Golden Globes and nominate Winslet for Best Actress in Road and Supporting Actress in Reader. Her performance as trapped housewife April was heart-breaking. In the last fifteen minutes of the film, you can see that she has become emotionally broken, that the life has snuffed out of her. All her glow and vibrancy is gone. It takes skill to portray an empty character that isn't over the top; anyone can stare blankly around, but a real actress can make her character go through the motions of normality and convey that beneath the calm, banal exterior, something is dreadfully wrong.

While Kate Winslet's performance was Oscar-worthy, the rest of the film was lacking, explaining its inability to nab a Best Picture nomination. The transition between naive young lovers and a suppressed young couple in the American dream was literally split second; there was no watching Di Caprio (who also makes a fine performance as a man struggling to choose between a life of comfort and a life of adventure) and Winslet evolve into the people they vowed they never be. The contrast was too abrupt for me to be able to get my bearings with any ease, and I kept feeling like I had missed a scene somewhere along the way. A smaller detail that made things feel a bit off was the continuing absence of the children in the film. Although introduced early on as part of the kit and kaboodle of the American Dream, they only minorly figured into the plot and were conviently never around during the parents multiple arguments. They were there more as props then as characters.

Revolutionary Road is definitely a film worth seeing, even if it is a bit rough. Kate Winslet may not have gotten the Oscar nod she deserves, but hopefully she will at least walk away with a long overdue statue at the upcoming Academy Awards.

Can Oscars Pull it Together Without Household Names?

An interesting column was posted on Variety's Award Central on Friday about the potential ratings success or failure of the upcoming Academy Awards broadcast. Last year saw ratings hit an all time low (see my last post on the Oscars) and there is considerable worry that this year's ratings may plunge even lower. It's sure that the execs responsible for the show were beating their heads when they discovered that The Dark Knight was snubbed in the top categories, as popular opinion agreed that the film was guaranteed to have viewers turning in to see if the movie could walk away with some of the more prestigious awards. People may still watch to see if Heath Ledger can win posthumously, but with Best Picture restricted nearly exclusively to less well-known titles, there is considerably less interest in who wins.

Producers Bill Condon and Laurence Mark are doing their best to put some spice into the show, starting off with hiring Hugh Jackman to host the Oscars. Now rumors are coming around that they are finding new ways to present the categories and trying to shake up the formula of what is announced when, in order to create some new interest. I'll admit my interest is certainly piqued, and as I've watched the past Oscars on tape-delay with my hand continuously hovering over the fast-forward button, I am intrigued to see if this supposedly new format can hold my attention longer. Admittedly, last year's show was hampered by the writer's strike, but that airing may have negatively affected the public's opinion of an already overlong extravaganza. The film gurus are desperately trying to save a sinking ship and even if they don't succeed, it should be entertaining to watch them try.

Oscar Watch: Slumdog Millionaire Review

Last week I began my quest to track down and watch Oscar nominated pictures that I had not gotten around to seeing, in order to be more fully informed in my Oscar commentary. On Sunday I took a step forward and watched Slumdog Millionaire, the odds-down favorite to win Best Picture this year. The film is being touted on posters as "The feel-good movie of the year," a phrase I initially took issue with in the first few hours after seeing the picture. In order to get to the "feel-good" part of the plot, one has to sit through scene after scene of depressing trials and tribulations. But the more I recounted the plot, the more I remembered little moments that had made me chuckle. Slumdog is like watching the sun trying to peak through the clouds: fort he most part, it's dark and unfriendly, but the longer you wait, the brighter the rays get. And as the film is about life in the slums of India, I perhaps should have braced myself a little more for the brutality that awaited me.

What of its Oscar chances? Very good. According to IMDb, the film currently has 42 wins and 36 nominations from other awards handed out around the world. Most notably, Slumdog won Best Motion Picture- Drama at the recent Golden Globes. That doesn't make a Best Picture Oscar a done deal however; last year Atonement won at the Globes while No Country for Old Men walked away with the Academy Award. But given how well Slumdog is doing racking up awards, there should be little problem (then again, The Dark Knight seemed like a forgone conclusion for a Best Picture nod, and we all know how that turned out).

Awards aside, Slumdog seems to have the right ingredients for Best Picture. The camera work is certainly not run of the mill, using hand-held movement and rapid cutting to capture the confusion of slum life, which at times was a bit too disorienting for me. The film exposes societal problems in India which are sure to pull at the conscientious heart strings of Academy voters (but has caused a backlash of criticism by people who say the film is exploiting the impoverished setting in order to make some easy dough). The structuring of the film becomes a bit dull after a while, however. The flashbacks are structured around hero Jamal explaining how he knows the answer to a particular "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" question; once the novelty of looking for the answer in the flashback wears off, you are left with the repetition of waiting for the next inevitable clue to pop up in the plot.

To conclude, Slumdog Millionaire has all the signs of this year's Best Picture winner. Although perhaps a tad overrated, the film is still quite good and shows innovativeness that the Academy is sure to reward.

And for some interesting casting news about Dev Patel, check out this recent post at the Vault.

Oscar Watch: Frost/Nixon Review

With the Oscar nominees announced late last week, it has become apparent that I am sadly behind on my movie watching, something I hope to correct over the next few weeks. Last weekend, I took a step forward by seeing Best Picture-hopeful Frost/Nixon. The film currently has five Oscar nominations: Best Director (Ron Howard), Best Actor (Frank Langella as Richard Nixon), Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Achievement in Film Editing. The film was also nominated for five Golden Globes: Best Director, Best Actor (Frank Langella), Best Screenply, Best Picture-Drama, and Best Original Score. It failed to come home with any however, and I feel that might be the case in the upcoming Academy Awards.

Frost/Nixon is a solid film. It has great acting, particularly from Frank Langella, who rightly deserves his nomination for Best Actor for his performance of the conflicted Richard Nixon, who is convinced that his actions were right and feels unrightly persecuted, yet at the same time also seems to be struggling with guilt that he has let down the country. Whether Langella can recover from losing at the Golden Globes to Mickey Rourke's performance in The Wrestler remains to be seen, but I feel he has a fair shot. Michael Sheen is also quite capable as David Frost, the TV personality and novice-journalist who takes on the enormous task of getting Nixon to admit he was wrong on national television. The directing is fine, using a unique style of intercutting "interviews" with the characters on the events that transpire in the film, giving it a pseudo-documentary style. Since the non-interview parts are done in what can be overgeneralized as "normal" cinema style, the interviews themselves are a bit jarring as they don't quite fit in. Overall, Frost/Nixon is a fine film, commendable for a job-well done.

But is it the breath-taking wonder that stands up and screams "I am the Best Picture of 2008," the film that leaves you shaking your head in wonder at how so many elements could so perfectly align? That, I'm afraid, it is not. Aside from Frank Langella's performance which I noted earlier, the film does not seem to have the momentum to overcome the favorite in the Best Picture race, Slumdog Millionaire, a film I hope to see later this week. It is definitely worth watching, but it will probably not be raking in the gold come the awards ceremony.

High Brow Nominees to Equal Low Ratings?

Ever since the nominees for the 81st Academy Awards were announced yesterday, there has been no shortage of reading material. One article that has caught my eye is a post by Steve Mason at Big Hollywood, who predicts that the lack of The Dark Knight and other popular names on the nominee roster will send Oscar Night ratings plunging down to new depths. His reasoning is that since so few of those in the race are household names, the interest level among the general public is minimal at best. To back up his argument, Mason has compiled statistics for the last ten years of Oscar Broadcasts and compares the combined box office receipts for the five contenders for Best Picture to the number of people who tuned in to see the winner announced. The results are enlightening. While the numbers don't fit perfectly into the pattern, the general trend is the higher the revenue of the nominees, the more people who watch the Academy Awards. The most obvious example is the year when Titanic was in the running; an astronomical 57.2 million people watched the film carry off 11 awards, 10.7 million more people then watched the second highest watched broadcast of the set, when American Beauty beat out The Green Mile, The Sixth Sense, The Insider, and The Cider House Rules. Titanic, incidentally was going up against L.A. Confidential, The Full Monty, Good Will Hunting, and As Good as it Gets, a sizable competition.

Recent years have seen a decline in Oscar viewership; while ten years ago around 45 million people watched the ceremony, that number is down to close to 30 million. What attributes for the decline? Over all, I'm inclined to agree with Mason that since no one knows who is nominated, no one cares who wins. But that doesn't help explain the Oscars of 2002, when Chicago beat out Gangs of New York, The Hours, the Pianist, and Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers for Best Picture, but only gathered together 33 million people, a small wrinkle in the box office vs ratings theory. What else could explain the nosedive? There is something to be said for the overlong duration of the show, as well as the recent straying from a family-friendly format. While I remember very little about the Oscars of ten years ago, I do remember that it was something my family had turned on and watched with some interest. It seems to me at least that in recent years, the Oscars have become edgier, with more risque jokes and language; throw in the performance of Best Song nominee "It's Hard Out Here For a Pimp" and one might be on to at least one reason viewers are fleeing for the hills.

The Academy is hoping to turn things around this year. Bill Condon and Larry Mark, newly engaged by the Academy to produce the show, revealed in December that they were hiring actor Hugh Jackman to play host. It was a surprising leap from the usual comedian that handles the job, but Condon and Mark pointed out that Jackman won an Emmy for hosting the Tony awards, a fact that certainly counts in his favor. But whether the new producers have a huge task ahead of them if they're to repair the reputation of the Oscars, particularly in light of the facts discussed above.

To conclude these thoughts, I leave you with a U.S.A. Today article from only a few days ago that predicted that The Dark Knight would save the Oscars from a ratings nightmare. Obviously, there's a tiny flaw in their plan.

What happened to the "Pop Oscars"?: Oscar Nominees Announced

Back in October, I wrote a post responding to a New York Times article which stated "Welcome to the pop Oscars." It fussed over the Wall-E, Iron Man, and a little known film called The Dark Knight, and said that big box office is threatening to dominate the Academy Awards. I now have in my virtual hand the list of the 2009 Oscar Nominees and I now ask the New York Times: What on earth were you worried about? The Dark Knight did not receive a nomination for Best Picture OR Best Director, and although Heath Ledger did get his nod for Best Supporting Actor, the rest of the film's nominations were for the most part in the less media friendly technical categories, such as sound-mixing and editing. Wall-E, which the NYT feared was going to encroach on Best Picture territory, was kept firmly in its place in the Best Animated Feature Category. The rest of the acting, directing, and Best Picture fare went for the most part to the traditional end-of-the-year releases, such as Frost-Nixon and Golden Globe favorite Slumdog Millionaire. The only "pop-ish" nominee I could find apart from Heath Ledger's much deserved acknowledgement was Robert Downey Jr.'s Best Supporting Actor nomination for Tropic Thunder (Though I haven't seen the film, I've heard high praise for his performance).

Another analysis from across the web: Tom O'Neil of Gold Derby at the Los Angeles Times writes an article of some of the suprising snubs in the nominee list. He, too, was surprised by The Dark Knight's lack of appearence among the top two categories, but perhaps more suprised by the fact that Kate Winslet was only nominated once. Brad Brevet at Rope of Silicon is more satisfied with the nominations and makes some interesting predictions about who will win Best Picture based on who was nominated in other categories. Brevet is concerned, however, that Dark Knight lackluster showing in the top categories puts Heath Ledger's chances for a win on shakier ground. Over at Slash Film, David Chen is much more outraged with the results of the nominations. Interesting side note:, a common thread running through these articles is a suprise that Bruce Springsteen's song "The Wrestler" did not get a Best Original Song nomination. Last but not least, In Contention, which makes its living doing Oscar predictions, is completely dismayed with the nomination list, especially Dark Knight's abandoment, and the raising up of The Reader, which they see as a flash in the pan that will be forgotten in a few years.

And what of Brook Barnes who, together with co-worker Michael Cieply, was the harbringer of doom-and-gloom by announcing the coming of the "pop Oscars?" They are quietly parsing the nominee list, expressing how wonderful it is that the Oscars "have the power to catapult a niche film into the mainstream and rewrite Hollywood's pecking order." And what of Tropic Thunder's acting nomination? No mention. Wall-E's confinement to Best Animated Feature? Not a word about the category at all. And of The Dark Knight's snubs and Ledger's nomination? Very little to say at all. In fact, in the entire 1017-word article, this is the only mention of the Caped Crusader's film: "Christopher Nolan failed to gain attention for his direction of The Dark Knight." Thirteen words to sum up that perhaps the New York Times read the pulse of Hollywood wrong when they eyed The Dark Knight with such apprehension as a comic film that would dare tread on the Holy Ground of the Academy Awards.

To be fair, most pundits--including the humble writer here at the post--thought The Dark Knight was a lock for at least Best Director, if not Best Picture. But as I predicted here last year, the Academy voters aren't going to change their ways anytime soon. For now, the Oscars will remain the domain of the loftier December releases that often provoke the daring statement when mentioned to a member of the common public: "I've never heard of it."

Pop Oscars: Do Box Office Winners Deserve a Chance at the Academy Awards?

After taking a look at the growing interest in three-dimensional movies, it is time for The Vault once again to train its eyes on the vigorous debates that surround the Academy Awards. A stone was recently thrown into the pond when the New York Times ran an article by Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes about a trend they are calling the "pop Oscars." The term refers to the apparent recent dominance of big box office movies in the award race, as The Dark Knight, Wall-E, Tropic Thunder, and even Iron Man are increasing their bids for nominations. As a result, Cieply and Barnes argue that there is a shift in studio focus from quieter films such as No Country For Old Men which are "critic-friendly but [have a] limited audience" to blockbusters with mass appeal. Indeed, the reporters characterize the move as "pushing" these big-budget movies into the limelight. Quite a bit of discussion has been generated around the blogosphere by the derogatory tone the article takes towards the idea of letting any of these films anywhere near a golden statue. Deciding to get involved in the ongoing dialogue, I first commented at Monkey See, a blog by Linda Holmes on the website of NPR. Her post "Beware the Pop Oscars! (Whoops, Hang On: False Alarm)" rightly points out the ludicrousness of eliminating a film from award consideration simply because it was popular. Similarly, Brad Brevet of RopeofSilicon.com critiques the article from another angle, analyzing the logic used by the writers, as well as details they gloss over or ignore. My comment to his post "Oscar Update: Blockbuster vs. Contender...Setting the Record Straight" as well as my comment at the blog Monkey See have been posted below for easy access.

"Beware the Pop Oscars! (Whoops, Hang On: False Alarm)" by Linda Holmes
Comment:
Thank you, Ms. Holmes, for your extremely well-written critique of the New York Times article on the supposed phenomenon of the "pop Oscars." I particularly liked your use of humor to point out how the fears of Cieply and Barnes are largely ridiculous. Their harsh reaction to the bids of these prominent films probably has quite a bit to do with their worry that the chances of independent movies to secure an award will be diminished as a result. There are, after all, only five nomination spots, and every one that is taken by a multimillion-dollar grossing film is one that a small-budget film cannot fill. But while there are certainly many lesser-known pictures that should gain attention, they should not automatically take precedence over the "Popular Movies." Success should not be penalized. It is unfortunate that, as you point out "Good Movies" and "Popular Movies" are today regarded as mutually exclusive categories. I believe that it is possible for a "Good Movie" to speak to themes that are important to everyone and to do so in a way that appeals to a mass audience. Wall-E was well-reviewed, dealt with materialism and environmentalism and was both genuinely funny and touching; all of those elements just happened to appeal to movie viewers enough to make it one of the best box office grossers of 2008. Why should all the merits of Wall-E be discredited simply because it happens to be well-known? The fact that it managed to entertain millions of people with its message should only be a tick in its favor. On another note, do you think that a film necessarily has to deal with weighty issues to be worthy of Best Picture? To me, that category implies that those involved in making the movie took all the elements of cinema and united them better than anyone else did in Hollywood that year. If a comedy (which you point out is widely shunned by Academy voters) can accomplish this as well as any drama, it should at least be considered for an Oscar.

"Oscar Update: Blockbuster vs. Contender...Setting the Record Straight" by Brad Brevet
Comment:
Mr. Brevet, thank you for a wonderful post on the flaws of the "pop Oscars" article in the New York Times. I think it particularly enlightening that Cieply and Barnes fail to adequately mention how both Wall-E and The Dark Knight were extremely well-reviewed. While they do mention the attention Wall-E got for some of its more innovative cinematic techniques, there is no mention of The Dark Knight's critical success. What is more, the writers obviously think that popularity tarnishes a movie's reputation, regardless of how much praise is heaped on it by critics across the country. The fact that it appealed not just to movie commentators, but to the public at large, should only enhance its status, not degrade it. You also rightly ridicule the idea that the Warner Bros. suddenly "decided" to campaign for a nomination for The Dark Knight, as if they looked only at box office receipts and not the dozens of reviews that hailed it as a seminal piece of work. Any studio that possesses a film as lauded as The Dark Knight would be looked at incredulously if it did not attempt to ride the momentum to the Academy Awards. On the other hand, do you think there is any validity to the worry that big-budget movies could overwhelm smaller independent films in the Oscar race? Given how many pictures in the competition over the last few years have been relative unknowns, I do not believe the trend will reverse overnight. After all, only three or four of the films in the running for the major categories are what the Times would label "pop"; the vast majority are in the same vein as contenders from past Oscar ceremonies. I was also as baffled as you were about the notion that Academy voters were unaware they could nominate a film for both Best Picture and Best Animated Feature. I would certainly hope that voters would have the wherewithal to double-check the regulations before they submit their ballots. It seems that the New York Times is merely trying to predict the doom of Wall-E before the votes are even cast.

Hollywood Insight Roundup: A Look at Useful Websites and Blogs

It is no secret that the internet is abounding with a plethora of websites and blogs to provide any and all information a person could want to know. But the sheer amount of data can make it difficult to find quality resources to use. This week the Vault, using Webby and IMSA criteria, will point readers in the direction of a variety of online sites that are useful in perusing the goings-on in Hollywood. The most basic of these, of course, are those that are a vast repository of film knowledge that provide visitors a quick stop to find basic facts regarding movies. One of the most popular of these is the Internet Movie Database (also known as IMDb.com). Its main strength lies in the ability to connect one to an incredible amount of information in a matter of seconds, with a nicely laid-out front page and easy-to-use search engine. Navigation becomes tricky beyond the front page, however, as the number of links in tiny print becomes overwhelming. Contrasting with this is the more user-friendly Hollywood.com, which focuses on current and upcoming releases in both film and television. It encourages interactivity among its guests by giving them a space on the site to create their own personal fan page. Hollywood.com is hamstrung by a few faulty features, such as a theatre locator which only sporadically works. For those looking for the latest box office tallies, look no further than the helpful Box Office Mojo. The shoddy visual design hides a treasure trove of data that can be delved into through the use of logical links that allow the guest to progressively narrow the scope of the figures provided.

Several websites are useful for a daily perusal of stories, including Cinema Blend (left). Its layout makes navigating a simple task, but is literally overshadowed by film advertising pop-ups that take over the screen until they have completed playing. EW.com, companion site to the magazine Entertainment Weekly, is hampered by a tabloid-like layout that makes it a bit difficult to take seriously, though the "Today's Most Popular" sidebar allows quick access to hot stories. The Video Network found on The Hollywood Reporter offers a change of pace in stories done in video fashion. Text stories, on the other hand, are difficult to search through as they are lumped on the pages in tiny print, making the Reporter middling at best. The New York Times: Movies section employs a diversity of media in a much better way that provides amazing features such as DVD-like commentaries on movie sequences by directors; detracting from this well-done content are film reviews that contain barbed political comments that are irrelevant to the reviews themselves. Another good mainstream source of Hollywood stories is Variety which makes maneuvering easy through a navigation bar that uses dropdown menus to break its news and resources into concise categories to allow readers to find exactly what they need, though the slow loading of its pages on some computers can discourage extensive browsing. For a look at Hollywood from outside the U.S., look at British Times Online: Arts and Entertainment. An outdated Oscar section mars an otherwise decent website that does a good job of providing a variety of content that is sometimes arranged in unique categories, such as "Countdown to the New 007." Combining a look back at the classics with a look at new releases is film critic Leonard Maltin's Movie Crazy which easily allows readers to purchase recommended movies through well-placed links to Amazon, but whose visual design causes entries to blur together, making Movie Crazy a bit disappointing. First Showing, a website focusing on upcoming releases, is well-designed, including a marquee that slowly flashes featured articles to examine, though some pages are not kept current, which keeps First Showing from being polished. To truly stay up-to-date with Hollywood, turn to the MTV Movies Blog, which provides the latest news and interviews to its readers in a concise manner. Its functionality and versatility is exemplified in the video footage that is placed directly in stories for effortless use, but a lack of an archive feature means that looking for a past story involves backtracking page by page. Another good blog is The Big Picture by Patrick Goldstein. It contains a timely, critical look at the intersection of entertainment and pop culture, with multiple posts a day; the blog could be improved with more links inside the posts to point its readers in the direction of other or complementary views to his own.

There are also a host of sites dedicated to official organizations within Hollywood. The National Film Preservation Foundation, a solid site that has clips from some of the footage it has restored available to view online, allowing the guest to get a feel for the work of the NFPF. It does not allow much other interactivity, however, which gives it a static feel. The American Film Institute, on the other hand, is full of things to do in its well-designed website, complete with video, podcasts, and movie quizzes that provide a variety of media to enjoy. Its lack of a forum or other discussion area is one of the few things that stops it from being truly interactive. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has a pleasing layout that unfortunately turns austere when one realizes that this is an informational website that allows no interactivity at all. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the official website for the Golden Globes, does a wonderful job of employing video footage by providing a navigable video gallery of acceptance speeches and interviews from the last awards show, though lack of updating when the Globes are not ongoing makes the pages a bit stagnant.

For Academy Award discussion, one should turn to In Contention, a site devoted to every bit of minutia related to the Oscar awards coverage. The ability to comment on every article or post made on In Contention, as well as daily round-ups of links to relevant news stories, makes it a great springboard for discussion among those who have a passion for the Oscars. Unfortunately, the poorly organized posts make it difficult to sift through stories. The Envelope (right), the Los Angeles Times's self-professed "Awards Insider," does a good job of making news stories easily accessible with links arranged into categories, but sometimes provides outdated links that can lead to details for previous award years, instead of current information. Within The Envelope lies a rather good blog entitled Gold Derby, written by film critic Tom O'Neil. O'Neil combines his analysis with comments from other critics, complete with links to the original source, that allows easy access to a host of opinions. There is no permanent section of links to sites outside of the Los Angeles Times, however, which does not provide the reader resources to further his exploration of other Hollywood news. But the Vault does provide a linkroll, and it is my hope that it will provide guests with many venues to delve into the world of Tinsel Town.

Oscars, Oscars: Comments on Award Hype and the Status of the Awards Show

Last time at The Vault, I posed the idea that current Oscar hype is unnecessarily overwhelming. Given 24-hour news services, we are inundated with constant updates on the smallest tidbit of information that could affect who is in the lead in the race to secure an Oscar nomination. These updates are often superficial, sometimes including analysis of movies that have not even come out yet. But, as reader Teddy Riley points out in his comment on that post, not all Oscar coverage is necessarily bad. Looking at promising upcoming films is a good way to alert movie audiences of films that might otherwise slip under the radar. There is a fine line, however, between critically parsing a film's components to look for Oscar worthiness and bestowing an Oscar crown just because the plot and the lead actor sound like they fit the Oscar formula. I went out into the world wide web in hopes of finding Oscar predictions that can be examples of the better ways to handle our innate desire to choose the winner of any competition--even if the contest is still five months off. I found what I was looking for at Cinemablend.com, where Katey Rich recently wrote her thoughts about current contenders for the Oscar race in her post "Oscar Prediction Mania 09: Let the Games Begin!" What sounds like another superficial post based on little more than hype is actually a thoughtful, well-put-together look at films who may be Oscar contenders, based on word from previews at film festivals and Ms. Rich's own viewing of films that have actually been released. On top of looking for decent analysis of the Oscar race, I also looked at responses to the recent announcement of who will produce the upcoming 2009 Oscars, namely Laurence Mark (right side of picture) and Bill Condon (left side), who respectively produced and directed Dreamgirls. This announcement has created a flurry of debate in the blogosphere and elsewhere on the state of the Academy Awards Ceremony itself, comments that are summed up nicely in a post entitled "Can the Oscars Be Saved?" by Patrick Goldstein of The Big Picture, a blog that is featured on the Los Angeles Times's website. For ease, I have posted my comments down below, as well as the links where you can find the original article and comment.

"Oscar Prediction Mania 09: Let the Games Begin!" by Katey Rich
Comment:
Ms. Rich, thank you for your detailed thoughts about the Oscar race! I particularly like that you have managed to separate yourself from the superficial hype that many pundits engage in when covering the Academy Awards and instead ground yourself in films that have already been released, either in film festivals or to the general public. After all, if the film has not been released yet (or as you mention, even completed yet!) how can one make a genuine claim about its Oscar chances? On that note, you mentioned that with so many Oscar potential films being released in December, some are bound to "get lost in the shuffle." Do you think that this will lead to a new look at marketing strategies as films try to stand out among the myriad of Oscar hopefuls? For instance, the marketing department at Warner Bros. seems to be pulling out all the stops in their attempts to get The Dark Knight recognized, re-releasing it in January and offering free Blu-ray copies of the film to Academy voters. Do you think other studios will start looking at employing similar tactics, or is this something they are already doing? On a similar note, I'm interested in your prediction that The Dark Knight will increase Oscar viewership during the upcoming Awards ceremony. Do you think there is a chance that the lengthy coverage of Heath Ledger's Oscar chances will burn out potential audience members by the time the Academy Awards rolls around in February 2009? While I agree that people are attracted to rooting for films they've actually seen, there may be a chance that some people will be numb to Ledger Oscar talk since it has been on everyone's minds since his untimely death. It will be interesting to see if The Dark Knight does indeed have the effect you predict. Given how the Oscars have become such a slow, dragged-out affair, I remain doubtful that even The Dark Knight can pull its ratings out of the mire. Many of those who root for its success may be satisfied finding updates online instead of wading through the ceremony itself.

"Can the Oscars Be Saved?" by Patrick Goldstein
Comment:
This is an excellent look at the reactions to the appointment of Mr. Mark and Mr. Condon! It is helpful to have a compilation of the various views on the state of the Academy Awards so that they can be compared easily. You also have some interesting ideas about how to fix the Oscars. I am intrigued about your suggestion to split the technical awards off from the main awards ceremony. This would certainly have the benefit of shortening the main broadcast, as well as reducing it to the awards that viewers care the most about, such as Best Picture and the various Best Acting categories. But conversely, since the technical categories are the ones that people are the least interested in, is there any guarantee that anyone will watch them if they have their own awards show? True, the younger generation may be more attracted to categories having to do with special effects and the like. And, as you suggest, it might be a good place to experiment with new, more effective ways of handling the ceremony. I feel, however, that such an awards ceremony will be much less of a draw than the current incarnation of the Academy Awards and would not be a successful endeavor. Indeed, I am not sure that there is any real way to fix the Oscars. It is already a dragged-out affair. The skits, musical numbers and tributes do serve to break up the monotony from the slew of presenters handing out the awards. Unfortunately, this also lengthens the proceedings, creating the need for more distracting gimmicks, creating a vicious circle in an attempt to balance length with entertainment. The shortest way to handle the affair would be to cut the films down to just handing out the awards, but this obviously would be an extreme solution. Other than splitting the technical awards off from the show, do you have other suggestions for how to improve the Academy Awards? What changes should be made for the 2009 ceremony? Besides better-staged musical numbers, is there anything else you hope that Mr. Mark and Mr. Condon will bring to the show?

Buzzed Out: The Overdone Coverage of the Oscar Race

In a world of mass media, pundits predict award winners like they pick derby winners, while business gurus sit back and rake in the profit. Sound like a bad movie plot? You would not be far off. While the above may be a bit of an exaggeration, it is what the coverage of the Academy Awards has become. Commonly known as the Oscars, these awards are a way to recognize excellence in film. But while this remains true, the mass media has turned the Awards into a race blown out of proportion, something to be tracked and commentated on avidly, where predicting the correct winner is a cold calculation that has little to do with the individual merits of a film. Silently encouraging this disproportionate enthusiasm are the movie studios, who know that Oscar talk is a golden ticket to bigger profits.

The main culprit responsible for this inundation of awards coverage is none other than the mass media itself. With the rise of 24-hour news mediums, entertainment news outlets are pressed to fill their minutes and hours with any story they can find. And what better provides material than a long, extended race? This formula has already proven itself for political news media in the shape of the 2008 presidential election. For months, America has had daily reports, like this one by CNN, on the latest election polls, with analysis of every minute shift in the percentages. With a new poll every day, pundits are guaranteed to have at least one thing to talk about in their columns and television broadcasts. Entertainment news mediums unsurprisingly have duplicated this approach when handling the road to the Academy Awards. Everything from trailers to interviews is game to be analyzed for Oscar potential.

The handling of the coverage of The Dark Knight is one of the biggest examples of awards buzz gone wild. Rumors began as early as March that Heath Ledger was in the running for a posthumous Oscar for his portrayal of the Joker in The Dark Knight; as the film's release date approached, the number of articles seemed to increase exponentially. Now Warner Bros. has announced a re-release of the film in January, the time when Oscar nominations are made and votes are cast, undoubtedly in a last push to garner awards. If Ledger is successfully nominated for Best Actor, America will have had a full year of speculation and debate about the likelihood of his winning an Oscar. Undoubtedly, speculation about Ledger's prospects increased in part because of his death and in part because of his genuinely impressive performance. But the year-long coverage of his prospects is an overload and just one symptom of a culture dominated by mass media.

The biggest sign of how out of hand the Oscar coverage has come to be is not the daily columns dedicated to the subject, but the websites tracking probabilities of nominations and wins like bookies calculating the spread on a football game. A prime example is the website In Contention which takes Oscar tracking to an extreme. In Contention features a detailed set of predictions about the final composition of the nominations list. These predictions are not limited to the usual categories of Best Picture or Best Actor, but extend to such obscure categories as Sound Mixing and Art Direction. The vast majority of these films have not even been released yet. The image to the left shows their predictions for Art Direction, containing only one film that has shown in theatres. How anyone can claim to know that the sound mixing for Defiance is Oscar worthy before seeing (and hearing) the film seems to defy comprehension. Those who run this website have an idea of what kind of superficial components an award-winning film should have and seem to make their predictions on that basis alone. If predictions are to be made at all about who will win an Oscar, it should be made after a film is released and viewed, not before. For those who think that In Contention is merely an unusual case in the vast consortium that is the Internet, I invite them to take a look at Buzzmeter, a feature to be found in the Los Angeles Times's website. Like In Contention, this site tracks "who's hot and who's not in key awards races." This description is not the language of a website that is looking at the merits of a film, but of a website that is keeping a popularity poll.

But the media alone is not responsible for the continuous Oscar talk. The movie studios themselves have a vested interest in keeping the "buzz" alive, driven by what every corporation at heart is driven by: the need to make money. It is doubtful that a studio is troubled that people who have yet to see their picture are predicting it will be nominated for an Academy Award. And being nominated for, let alone winning, one of the more prestigious Oscars is a sure way to increase the profit margin.

Box Office Mojo, run by movie analyst Brandon Gray, provides the data to validate this claim. Michael Clayton, nominated for Best Picture of 2007, earned $55,000 the weekend before its nomination (Jan. 18-21) and over two million dollars the weekend following its nomination (Jan. 25-27), as we can see in the data table to the right. All Best Picture nominees for the 2007 Oscars show similar, if not as drastic, boosts in their weekend grosses following their nominations. Audiences are drawn to Oscar-nominated films because they want to see what all the fuss is about. With this monetary incentive, one can easily see why studios would like to bolster any discussion of their film's chances for an Oscar, even if it is only July.

The coverage of the Academy Awards has grown into a unwieldy creature that detracts from the value of the films that are under consideration. Admittedly, much of the coverage of any aspect of the entertainment world is somewhat superficial, focusing on the glitz and the glamor of a world that revolves around publicity. But many of the films that are nominated for an Academy Award have real merits which should be considered as the voting for the coveted Oscar commences. Quite a bit, though not all, of the media's analysis of Oscar films focuses on if the films fit the model of what an Oscar winner is, rather than an actual critical analysis of the components of a film. Unfortunately, this trend is not likely to end anytime soon. Our culture is one that thrives on the latest gossip and rumors swirling around Tinsel Town, and the latest whispered aside on a film's chances for the golden statue is just one more tidbit that people are ready to jump on. In the meantime, we will have to continue living through this rather bad movie plot until someone comes up with a better script.