Mixed Media Junkie

… me, for my role as “Dutiful Employee” in today’s production of “Trying to Look Busy at Work on a Monday Morning.” 

 As this is purportedly a media-centric blog, I suppose I’m expected to offer my two cents on last night’s Academy Awards show.  It is the second-most watched television event of the year after all, lagging behind only the Super Bowl.  The problem I have with most awards shows, however, is that the shows are never as interesting as what they’re actually honoring.  The Academy at least had the good sense of choosing Jon Stewart to host its Oscar telecast.  I’ve heard/read some critics lament that the Daily Show host was neither warm enough nor “in awe” enough of the event to properly give it the respect and direction it deserved.  Bah, I say.  The producers of the show themselves set a smug, self-congratulatory tone with their endless self-referential montages, as if trying to convince the TV viewing audience that all other media were inferior.  One got the sense that if the Oscars could’ve been broadcast live in movie theaters instead, the Academy would’ve just died in giddy exaltation.  But Jon Stewart displayed a cool wit, never hesitating to deflate a potentially pompous moment; to me, he was a perfect bridge to the viewers at home, who, let’s face it, mostly cannot relate to all that glitz and glamour Hollywood was intent on displaying.  I’m not going to recount his witticisms here, but kudos to Mr. Stewart for handling the hosting duties with aplomb.  (Double kudos for sneaking in some Daily Show-style Oscar campaign ads featuring Stephen Colbert’s voice.)

As for my thoughts on the Oscar winners, losers, and other minutiae:

• Is there a cooler motherfucker in the business than George Clooney?  (Cool motherfucker used to be a term associated with Samuel L., but I think he lost that status by vacillating between roles in movies like Pulp Fiction with duds like S.W.A.T. and The Man.)  Clooney just seems to have it all – looks, talent, money, clout, a newly-won Oscar, and a rather dry wit: here’s his comment on his fellow Best Director nominees – “To be honest, I don’t like any of ‘em.  Ang Lee, I just don’t like that guy.  I think he’s a Communist.”
• Comics make the best presenters, especially those trained in improv.  See: Ben Stiller, Will Ferrell, Steve Carrell.
• Runner-up for best unintentionally hilarious moment: the interpretive “dance” during the performances for Best Song nominees for “In the Deep” and “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp.”  “Dance” in the loosest sense of the word.
• I thoroughly agree with Jon Stewart’s assessment that more Oscar winners should be as visibly and audibly enthused as the Three Six Mafia, censors be damned.  If Martin Scorsese ever wins an Oscar, he should sport a diamond-encrusted grill and bring a posse to the stage during his acceptance speech.
• I was glad to see Rachel Weisz win the Best Supporting Actress award for The Constant Gardener.  I really thought that film would garner more accolades as it was a powerful exploration of difficult themes and was a showcase of great acting.  I had never warmed to any of Ralph Fiennes’s previous performances and was surprised and moved by his role as a wooden, by-the-book diplomat whose eventual emotional breakdown highlights the unconventional love story set within the politico-social commentary of the movie.  Rachel Weisz plays the diplomat’s wife with equal parts passion, zealous determination, and tenderness; obviously an Oscar-worthy performance.
• And the winner for Best Unintentionally Hilarious Moment during last night’s telecast:  nestled among the various clips shown during the “Films That Tackle Important Social Issues” montage was one for The Day After Tomorrow.  Yes, the disaster movie.  I shouldn’t have been surprised; worldwide catastrophes are the mother of all social issues we face.
• The wins for original and adapted screenplays (for Crash and Brokeback Mountain, respectively) set up the expected head-to-head battle for the Best Picture award, so here’s as good a place as any to chime in on these two movies.
• Crash seemed to be carrying the populist vote rounding into Oscar season, and for good reason:  Lions’ Gate supposedly sent out an unprecedented 100,000 DVD screeners to the entire voting body of the Academy.  This, coupled with the mega-influential Oprah’s backing, seemed to boost its status as the people’s choice for Best Picture and fuel its chances for an upset over critical favorite Brokeback.  I’ve read various descriptions of Crash and its impact (pun completely unintentional!) on viewers and critics as “divisive” and “polarizing,” meaning it’s a movie one either loves or hates.  Call me a non-conformist, but I neither loved nor hated it.  I liked certain parts of it, and certain performances within it, but thoroughly disliked the ham-handed, and frankly, manipulative way it locks in on the combustive issue of race in America, and specifically in Los Angeles.  That it inverts some traditional stereotypes (the tattooed Latino is actually a loving father; the affluent black couple is victimized by a white man, who, of course is a cop; the politician’s racist wife, etc.) does not give the movie automatic cachet as a Socially Important film; it merely proves the filmmakers are smart enough to prey on the audience’s old prejudices and use it against them.  I don’t mean to belittle the film totally; I think it’s a good movie with high aspirations, ones I don’t think it quite reaches.  One can almost feel the movie straining for importance, clamoring to be heard; but when you start connecting the dots between the multiple characters, it still somehow falls short and feels sadly lacking.  Maybe that was the point of the movie after all; these interwoven stories eventually amount to nothing much and you come away feeling rather empty.
• Brokeback Mountain, while similarly tackling a challenging subject, opted for a quieter, more intimate way to bring forth its story.  Whereas Crash can be interpreted as a story of how people remain disconnected in a sprawling metropolis, Brokeback focuses on the immediate, but lasting connection of two souls under wide open skies, on the possibility of love flourishing in the face of so much space and solitude.  While even the filmmakers point to it as a universal love story, Brokeback Mountain is, indeed, a quintessential gay love story.  Yes, its themes of yearning and oppression recalls classic “forbidden love” stories, but Brokeback also illuminates hardships and difficulties uniquely associated with gay love.  (Here’s an article expressing this opinion more eloquently than I could – thanks once again to Phil for the assist.)  Call me a romantic, but I related more to this small story of love than I did with a big story of disconnection.

Whew.  That’s a lot of post to digest.  The Oscars weren’t even the TV highlight of the weekend for me, but I’ll save that for later.