Monday, March 05, 2018

Last night's Oscars

As is my tradition, I reviewed last night's Oscars.  So where is my snarky bitchy report?  Like last year, I recorded it for my podcast.   If you look right below the masthead you'll see it.  Just click the big gold arrow.  Also, there should be a separate blogpost where again, you just click on the arrow.  Or you could just click here.

Why am I doing it this way?   As always, I'll be honest with you.  I'm trying to build an audience for my podcast.  The Oscar review is the podcast equivalent of stunt casting.  Hopefully I'll attract some new listeners who decide to stick around and become regulars.   I used the Oscar review to do the same thing during the early years of the blog.

I know, however, there are some loyal readers who are hearing impaired, or never listen to podcasts, or read my blog on their devices and can't easily access the big gold arrow, or just prefer to read it.   So for them, I will post it here on Wednesday.

But if you want to hear it while the ceremony is still fresh in your mind (assuming the show didn't put you into a coma), please check out HOLLYWOOD & LEVINE.  One of the reasons I prefer doing it as a podcast is that by delivering the material myself you really hear the jokes as I intended them.

So thanks for your support.  And hopefully subscription.


Snark subjects include Ryan Seacrest, Kobe Bryant, THE PHANTOM THREAD, bad singers, Carmine Caridi, "Dreamers," Roseanne, and standing ovations.  


DwWashburn said...

"Inclusion rider" = Quota. In other words, Don't hire me because of my skills, hire me because you are forced to because of my sex, race, religion, etc.

Stuart said...

Thank you VERY much for posting it, even if it's a day or two after. I'm one of those hearing-impaired you mentioned, so Podcasts don't work for me. But I look forward to your Oscar review, so thanks for making it available.

Unknown said...

The whole show ran (?) three hours and fifty minutes, give or take.
That means that anybody who DVR'd the show lost the last almost-hour.
Obviously, Jimmy Kimmel's field trip should not have happened, but that would only have saved about 15 minutes, tops.
What else can you lose from what a friend called "the Dolby Death March"?
Sorry about this, but "In Memoriam" should be next to go.
This year, there about fifty names, and by my count more than half of them were behind-the-camera folks who the home viewers wouldn't have known anyway.
On other sites, sturdier souls than I have compiled lists of the MIAs from the Dead Guys Medley that were at least as long as the Unknown Soldiers who did get in.

You know, types like
Dorothy Malone
John Hillerman
Bradford Dillman
Peggy Cummins
Clifton James
Richard Anderson
Baby Rose Marie
Anne Jeffreys
Dick Gregory
Dahlia Lavi
Elsa Martinelli
Red West
Skip Homeier
Stephen Furst
Roger Smith
Michael Parks
Elena Verdugo
Dina Merrill Movie Star!
Don Gordon
Alec McCowen
... and whoever else I forgot ...

Oh, and anyone who wants to make the argument that many of these folks were "mainly TV stars" - I assure you that no one with a better-than-double-digit IQ still observes that mythical Wall between the media. (And hasn't for at least fifty years.)

The Bumble Bee Pendant said...

Let's not forget that John Ratzenberger has a chance for an Oscar every time there's a PIXAR movie.
He'll be the Underminer in The Incredibles 2.

Black Panther will probably win the Oscar next year. It'll definitely be nominated.

Mike Bloodworth said...

Thang-Q for the re-view. As previously stated, I would listen to the podcast if I had Wi-Fi. But, as it is it used up too much data on my phone. However, since I can read, I WILL read.

The Bumble Bee Pendant said...

you are right. it's a quota. Not just for the Cast but also for the Crew.
Does it matter if the Costume Designer or the Sound mixer is gay, straight, trans, white, black, Latino, Latina...etc?
I guess it does.

When it comes to casting unless a part is written for a certain "TYPE" of person, then it shouldn't matter what they look like.

The biggest issue with Hollywood is that they don't make films for everyone.
That's why lots of the best storytellers are headed to the internet or TV.

Rita said...

Emma was the worst presenter. By throwing a shade at men, she conveniently forgot that a Black man and a Mexican were nominated too.

Shame on her.

Some were praising, but many are now starting to lampoon her white women feminism.

Rita said...

This lady did the same stunt last year too. Even after being explained that her movie didn't win, she kept saying that she had the envelope in her hand and something strange was happening. This despite being told of the back up envelope confusion.

Yes, strange Emma strange.... black people movie won an Oscar.

i could be a bob said...

THR / Marc Freeman added to the MASH columns with a piece on David Ogden Stiers.

MikeN said...

Kobe wasn't just charged with rape. He made a statement that he thinks the woman believed she did not give consent. In other words Kobe thinks the woman honestly believes she was raped.

Jenny said...

Which celebrities didn't come to the Oscars?

Gwyneth Paltrow? She came or stayed at home to avoid being associated with Harvey Weinstein?

It like 20 years since Harvey bought her the Oscar.

I'm Outraged! said...

I don't go to the movies and couldn't care less about the Oscars, the opinions of self-important actors or who wins what, but I still enjoyed listening to that, thanks.

Gary said...

I think the "In Memoriam" segment should remain, but (though it may sound callous) it should be changed to include performers only.

Over the years this segment has evolved into featuring all sorts of behind-the-scenes people, who are likely known only within the industry. It's nice for the family and friends to see these folks included, but honestly their names mean nothing to 99.9% of the viewing audience. Given the time constraints, the performers-only approach would allow them to feature many more actors and actresses.

(Of course one exception could be made for any writer who worked on M*A*S*H, Cheers, Frasier and Big Wave Dave's...)

Peter said...

Next year's Oscars monologue will be dominated by jokes about the Republicans having been completely wiped out at the midterm elections.

And whilst it's far too early to even talk about it, I'd like to see Conan O'Brien host.

Peter said...

I was very disappointed that Tobe Hooper wasn't included in the In Memoriam.

ScarletNumber said...

@Mike Doran

I can't believe that ABC only allotted 3 hours to the broadcast.

I think the In Memoriam segment should be limited to behinds the scenes people that everyone has heard of.


That doesn't mean Kobe was guilty.

Peter said...

Carmine Caridi has reacted to being mentioned in the monologue.

YEKIMI said...

Wonder if Oprah has hired some hit men yet to take out Kimmel and the rest of the stars who interrupted the "Wrinkle In Time" movie while her mug was on-screen.

Anonymous said...

I remember Carmine Caridi from a sitcom in the 70's. Rhoda or Phyllis? Also, Dorothy Malone was an Academy Award winning actress. Janice B.

Scott said...

One of my favorite baseball sites, The Hardball Times, had an article on Baseball's Connection to MASH. It goes far further than Klinger's love of the Toledo Mud Hens.

Ken is mentioned, including his misspelling of Tony Solaita's name. How did you keep your job after a blunder like that?

E. Yarber said...

Are the animation short subjects voted on by the general Academy or just cartoon professionals? It might be possible that the Basketball entry won because it was actually made by Glen Keane, a longtime Disney animator who could have been a favorite son within the trade.

CarolMR said...

Last night's Oscars were the lowest rated in history.

Anonymous said...

@mike Doran:
Glen Campbell
Adam West
Tobe Hooper
Brian Brown
Powers Boothe
Joe Bologna

Myles said...

"Inclusion" and "diversity" doesn't mean find anyone off the streets and give them a job. It's extremely annoying and honestly insulting for people to keep saying this. If you work in Hollywood you'd know being "qualified" is very subjective and talent/skills is only a small portion of the reason you get hired. It's a game of who you like and who you know. The thing is... If women and people of color never get looked at they can never be known, never join the inner circles, and can't get hired. Nobody complains when unqualified neighbors of execs or stars get jobs because their kids grew up together or because a friend knows someone is a "good kid." Do you honestly think white men are just that much more talented than EVERYONE else and that's why they have the vast majority of jobs in this town (among others)? Or maybe they started at a time when they were the ONLY ones who could get the job. It was whites only and women couldn't work. Then, even when others could technically work they would hire people who look like them, remind them of themselves or their kids, have similar backgrounds, etc. It's deeper than you are making it. Also, the people who would benefit from the inclusion rider are just as talented if not more. They are possibly hungrier for the work as they've had to fight just to be seen and heard. Nothing is a handout. How many stories of lazy, unqualified women and people of color have you heard? How many stories of unqualified people who had been given jobs because of their mother, brother, neighborhood, etc. have you heard and seen in your own life. Watch this clip and maybe some of it may sink in.

Mike Barer said...

It's eventually going to be picked up by E or broadcast online. I don't know anything that would enhance the ratings.

Wendy M. Grossman said...

What really struck me was how poorly some of the settings were designed for non-white actors. Of course the effect was enhanced by the ultra-hot-pink shininess of the dress, but Viola Davis looked like a dress standing by itself. While that iteration of the set was pretty, something a lot less busy and offering better contrast to a wider spectrum of skin would have been a much better choice.

Rather than cutting off people's speeches at a big moment in their lives, they could cut a lot of time by shortening the walk onstage for the presenters and tooting their own horn with so many historical clips that it feels like watching an infomercial (which of course it is...but do they have to make it so obvious?).

Speaking of length, I'm amazed that you thought THE BIG SICK was too long but made no comment about the 2:20 length of MOLLY'S GAME. The first one felt fine to me; the second felt like it really needed to lose at least 20 minutes.


By Ken Levine said...

MOLLY'S GAME was too long. No question.

TimWarp said...

What Miles Warden said!

Stubblejumpers Cafe said...

I agree with Myles Warden and am glad he spoke up. Too many people don't understand what affirmative action is and why it's necessary. A little deeper look is required. Until the reins of power are held by a diverse group of people -- which affirmative action brings about -- then too many people of talent are never given the opportunity to show their stuff. -Kate

PS I like a pretty dress as much as the next gal, but I don't "get" the trip-and-fall-on-your-face length. Why? I say. Why?

Gary M said...

Agree completely with Myles Warden.

What I don't like so much are the condescending remarks made towards white people generically (as opposed to specific white people) like that of Kumail Nanjiani. I think there are 4 key rust belt-ish states, all overwhelmingly white, where Trump won by less than 1%. Why be patronizing to a viewer who a) Might be in the undecided camp and in a position to free us all and b) Might have already liked and supported your work just fine and c) Might be in a far less prosperous life than your own (i.e.: you think you're punching up, but you're really punching down). I hope he enjoyed the high fives and the big laugh, because in the aggregate these jabs are costly.

Liggie said...

My cable company has an "auto extend" feature for sporting events. If a game goes past the scheduled stop time, your DVR will automatically keep recording the program until the next half-hour mark after the game's end. You don't have to do anything yourself. I don't see why the technology can't be transferred to other live events like the Oscars, the State of the Union address, a parade, etc.

Liggie said...

Not necessarily. I thought "Wonder Woman" would get nominations this year for Gal Gadot, Patty Jenkins or just its popular female empowerment ethos, but it got shut out of any nods. You never can tell.

Liggie said...

I didn't see the Oscars and haven't heard the podcast yet (I was DVRing and watching the Winter Olympics so much, my podcast feed is backed up), so I can't join in on the snark fest yet. I did have a couple of thoughts about the recent direction of the show, though.

- I wonder how much of the problem with the hosting isn't with the hosts themselves, but the writers. Neil Patrick Harris won broad acclaim when he hosted the Tonys, and yet when he hosted the Oscars he got no help from the material and struggled. I recall several times when he had to say a bad joke, and then trying hard not to wince. Maybe they should get the Tonys writers to L.A. next year and see what they could do?

- If they decide to keep talk show hosts as emcees (nod to Johnny Carson's legacy), why not give James Corden or Jimmy Fallon a try? They both have comedy and performing experience (they'd be natural for production nunbers), their reluctance to get political on their shows can broaden the TV audience, and they have a good-natured image that would appeal more than the harder-edged Kimmel (and even Colbert and Oliver, if you wanted to consider them). I'd be inclined also to try out Drew Carey; his stand-up and "Price is Right" background make him a natural for hosting gigs, he's generally well-liked in Hollywood, and though he's no Trump fan he's decidedly not a progressive (he's a libertarian), so that could gain traction for views wanting a change from the alleged Hollywood left.

The Bumble Bee Pendant said...

Myles, while I appreciated your comment, it seems that Hollywood is replacing “Personal politics” and “it’s who you know”, with “personal politics” and “it’s who you know”.

To be fair. That’s been the case most times in life.
I wish “inclusivity” meant “we are going to be more open minded and more inclusive” instead of “to get more inclusion we want to exclude others”. That’s just my opinion.

The Bumble Bee Pendant said...

Liggie, I really thought Pattie Jenkins would also get a nomination.
She showed how to make a movie work. And if people thought it was easy to make a superhero feature then they should’ve seen Justice League.

Myles said...

The only people getting excluded as a result of inclusion are less talented than the people who look and think like them and already have a spot. This just makes it so there are less duplicates and more diverses voices, backgrounds, thinking, ideas, etc not just diverse faces. That is good for the art which benefits everyone. Also, things are still VERY white male in this town. Most are still only throwing one job, if that, to people of color or women on the other side of the camera. Imagine if all the white men were trying to get one "diversity spot." Would that mean those trying to get that spot are less qualified or would it mean there are probably 20 others deserving of the job but won't get it because they are all fighting for one job, even though 10 slots are on the show.They aren't looked at until the last role needs to be filled and only so the show can be "diverse" and get a free writer for their budget. I'm betting you didn't watch the clip so it's also safe to say you won't read this but here it is for those who are truly concerned...The link is misleading. Only 4.8% of tv writers are black. Even worse for black women and other people of color. Tell me who is being excluded again?

The Bumble Bee Pendant said...

Myles, thanks for your remarks.
I did watch the video. It's true that life isn't fair, or that every person has a better or worse situation due to things beyond their control. I hadn't remarked about it, because I didn't understand what that had to do with our conversation. If there's something I missed please let me know.

I think we all understand that it's very white male in this town. And that article you provided was very inciteful. The diversity of color/race/creed/gender etc, shouldn't be paramount (it's kinda anti-american to think like that). BUT, and this is important, there absolutely should be a diversity of experience, ESPECIALLY in the writers rooms, where the ideas come from. How can a place where creativity is supposed to be the most important element, continue to be creative, if everyone thinks the same.
The hyperbole and the hypocrisy that flows from Hollywood never fails to disgust all of us.

The hiring of talented women & men of all experiences and cultures must be pushed.

I must remark, that while Hollywood "pretends" (your article proves it) to push for the diversity of bodies, they don't allow diversity of thought. As long as your opinions (especially politically) are liberal than you are fine.
Everyone at that Oscar snooze fest thinks the same politically. Or at least has to pretend to think the same.

The Bumble Bee Pendant said...

Myles, I replied below (or above) if you are reading this on your phone or computer.