The Academy Awards thread

[odannyboy]

Make your choices, if you even care about these things. I will admit, a host can make this appear on your radar quicker than many of these movies. I will readily admit that many of these movies are pure bunk to me anyway. I'm hoping that Best Foreign Film goes to Downfall, even though I have not seen it. Hope to see Hotel Rwanda and The Aviator though, and they are in the running for best picture.

The choice of Chris Rock to host the Oscars is a response to the steady decline in viewership in recent years.

By Daniel B. Wood and Gloria Goodale, Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor
LOS ANGELES - To some, it's a worldwide cultural sacrament - one of the few national, even global, campfire events, uniting mankind into a cozy village, if only for a few hours.

To others, it's the apex of public-relations gasbaggery - a deft but ultimately superficial elevation of a mere trade event into universal high culture.


These opposing views aren't new, but this year there's extra lighter fluid on these "campfire" flames. At issue is the selection of controversial comedian Chris Rock to host the extravaganza, which has seen viewership steadily decline in recent years even as it boasts a broadcast reach upwards of 1 billion.


Does the younger, edgier - many say raunchier - Mr. Rock give a fresh boost to the graying institution of old Hollywood? Or does the comedian's reputation for sexual innuendo and generally harsh language represent another notch downward in the coarsening of America?


At the very least, Rock's arrival, with its ensuing debate, confirms the growing importance of the host at this venerable "old lady" of award shows - which used to be a rare chance for the public to glimpse their favorite stars. "Whatever you want to say about the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (news - web sites), they've always been very open to change," says Robert Osborne, author of "75 Years of the Oscar." "They're always given flak for getting old and stodgy and slow to move, but they've really tried to stay ahead of the critics over the years. The [choice of Rock] is a signal they are once again willing to try new things."


Whether the change is good, bad, or neutral is the subject of heated debate as Sunday approaches. Host network ABC has announced a five-second delay to avoid inflaming the Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites), in the hot seat since the baring of Janet Jackson's breast in a "wardrobe malfunction" at the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. Mr. Rock has said that he can and will keep it clean. ("I've been on TV and been funny not cursing," he told "60 Minutes" last week.)


On the surface, Mr. Osborne and others seem to agree, the choice of Rock - called "the funniest man in America" by Entertainment Weekly magazine, but one of the most irreverent by many conservative groups - is a clear appeal for higher ratings. All kinds of award shows - including the recent Golden Globes and Grammy shows - have seen a downward spiral of viewership in recent years, especially in the 18- to 49-year-old age bracket.


Some wonder why that has happened - and what the new face of Rock, who is younger and more caustic than recent hosts Billy Crystal, Steve Martin, and Whoopi Goldberg, bodes for one of America's most visible institutions of pop culture. Oscar producer Gil Cates has said that the choice of Rock is just part of a total revamp of the show.


"Chris is a very smart man and he understands quite clearly the difference between the scatological observations he can make on cable television specials and to be funny within the boundaries allowed on the networks," says Mr. Cates in his daily producer's blog at Oscar.com. He reminds viewers that Rock spent five years on the NBC show "Saturday Night Live."


Conservative organizations in several states have come out against the choice of Rock. "We think this shows that Hollywood just doesn't get it that the country is fed up with rudeness, crudeness, and depravity," says Robert Knight, director of the Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America, the nation's largest public-policy women's group. After screening several of Rock's comedy shows for HBO, Mr. Knight says Rock's repeated use of the "f" word, discussion of sex in graphic detail, and praise for abortion make him "an inappropriate role model" - regardless of whether he tones down his act for the Oscar presentation.


"Why put a guy like this in the spotlight if you don't want to promote that view of life?" asks Knight. "Because that is the view of life that Hollywood thinks is reality, and they want to inflict it on the rest of the country."


But Rock has lots of defenders as well. He is often compared to Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy - both role models for Rock who pushed the envelope - and Rock fans say his very appeal is the honesty of "telling it like it is" and "not pulling any punches."


"He is such a strong observational talent [that] he grabs the world and holds it up for us to see.... That's his gift," says Fred Talbott of the Vanderbilt Owen Graduate School of Management, who teaches comedy to MBA students. "He's true to the street to what America really is. He picks [audiences] up and shakes them. He doesn't try to sweet-talk things [but rather] holds a mirror."


In the view of Professor Talbott and others, the choice of Rock simply reprises a familiar strategy. Billy Crystal, they point out, who is now considered "mainstream America," was once considered too hip and avant-garde by many - as the actor who played the first regular gay character on a network series, "Soap."


"They wrote the same story when Billy Crystal took over from Johnny Carson and when Letterman took it from [Crystal]," says Mike Hammer, editor in chief of Stuff Magazine. Now, he says, "every kid thinks Chris Rock is cool and Billy Crystal is an artifact. The television audience is graying and the target demo is younger people, and the only way to attract them is with personalities who don't do jokes about LBJ and Charlie Weaver. They need edge, and Chris Rock has it on his résumé."


Other observers say that it is certainly possible that Rock will take the opportunity to transform himself into a more mainstream comic like Crystal and Martin - or at least expand on his core audiences and broaden his appeal. "He has a thin line to walk," says Dr. Robert R. Butterworth, a psychologist and media commentator based in Los Angeles. "Part of the dynamic of America these days is that what is termed 'edgy' for the East and West Coast is often considered over the cliff to middle America."

Given the time delay, it's unlikely that Rock will try anything potentially bleep-able, say most observers. Beyond that, he's far too smart to pass up the opportunity to expand his persona. Says Oscar historian Osborne: "It can really make him for the broad mainstream if he's smart enough to be witty without crossing that line."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...5/ts_csm/arock

[Betty Boop]

Oh, I disagree. I think that art form should be and has to be appreciated in it's unique realm. I don't look at stars and starlets or directors or producers or writers as anything but that - and in that realm they deserve to be recognized and celebrated for their accomplishment in cinema.

When I was in college I had a dear friend who used to host an Oscars party. To this day I wonder if Dick kept up the tradition (I am 30 years removed from my college days now).

Through the cinema we experience perspectives on life - some perspectives we like, some we don't. We laugh, we cry, we joy, and we sorrow. We see the best of human nature as well as the worst on the big screen.

Do I care that Kid Rock is hosting? I will have to see what type of a job he does as a professional in the field. And remember, he is a professional charged with the task of entertaining what are already considered the top in the entertainment field. The Academy Awards/Oscars is about a profession celebrating its accomplishments for the past year and in that realm, we who choose to "attend" during the three-hour telecast are by-and-large invited guests to a party that we would not normally be included on the guest list for. I think that is part of the allure of Oscar!

I look forward to the glamour, the music, the film clips, and all the other excitement of jubilant celebration that mean "Oscar" tonight!!!

[odannyboy]

It's all a matter of perception. They have finally admitted that the movies Hollyweird produces are of such little value, and by extension interest, to most of us they have to know bill this as a semi raunchy comedy hour.


Some people will love to see the movie stars congregate in one place, and that is understandable I guess, but I only have any interest in hearing of new films recognized by the movie types, whoever they are that give the awards. I can stomach none of the glamour of these awards and really any of the actors or actresses, either. I'll only be interested in best picture, best lead role (actor and actress) and, my main interest, best foreign film.

I long ago gave up on Hollywood. They are truly one of the reasons society has been dumbed down and numbed to the degree it is today, with their absolutely mindless drivel they churn out every week.

[Betty Boop]

I think that a lot of Hollywood in celebrating "itself" forgot that it's purpose was to entertain. With very little real education amongst its ranks with some exceptional notables [such as Brooke Shields (Princeton U.) - never Oscar nominated, Ron Howard (University of Southern California) - excellent producer and Award winner, and Steven Spielberg - excellent producer and multiple Award winner], those who are truly well educated never forgot that they entered the business to ENTERTAIN - and that makes Hollywood relevant even today - it's entertainment value!

[Betty Boop]

I can't believe the hostility and open prejudice this board presents towards entertainers - Totally amazes me. I don't think that such blanket statements would be accepted if we were speaking of any other industry. But then, I live near the industry and my frame of reference is not what yours is. I'm sorry that there is so little joy available for others who just enjoy life in a different forum than common to your own experiences. I will sit with my TV on and enjoy what "floats my boat," expecting that you will do much the same .

[SNP]

Originally Posted by ebbabc

I agree 100% Danny, mindless drivel fits the bill wonderfully. I will be interested to see if Clint gets best picture and best actor etc. but I can read about it in the paper or hear on FoxNews tomorrow or later tonight.

I would have to say that your perceptions are incorrect. If what you say were true for most Americans the awards would not receive enough ratings to be aired. Nor would Americans shell out the multi-billions of dollars each year to be entertained at the movies. Those billions are funneled back into the economy all the way down to the smallest small town in the form of the snackbar attendant or ushers wages. Not to mention the the tremendous amount of funds that are donated each year by Hollywood (both by people and corporations) to oh so many charities. Or do volunteer work for groups such as the USO.

[odannyboy]

It doesn't make the perceptions incorrect. On the contrary, most of what Hollywood delivers is in the form of special effects and computer generation that always follows convention, and much of that convention is indeed drivel. Just because alot of Americans cannot get enough of it does not mean it is not garbage.