Techtite Feature Article

Techtite.com's Third, (Semi-)Annual, 

Top-10 Mysteries of Oscar Night,

SOLVED!*

(*well...sort of).

Well, we tried to keep it annual, then last year came along and we forgot to answer any questions about Oscar night, because quite frankly, there weren't any...or at least, none worth making a feature article about. This is a different year, though, with no less than 10 questions worth asking. Hold on to your ballot sheets kids, 'cause it's going to be a bumpy Oscar night. :

P.S.: Keep in mind if a popular question isn't answered here it was probably answered before, in the prior list!

-------------------------------------

Okay, standard Oscar Night Question #1: what or who was nominated for a major award --actor, actress, director, or picture-- which you can't believe is up there? Personally, I'm surprised at what's not up there. I'm particularly disappointed that Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers' director, Peter Jackson, was not nominated for a directorial Oscar even though the film itself is nominated for Best Picture. How does the Academy figure this every year; that a Best Picture nominee directed itself? That said, I suppose I need to say which director I feel should've been bumped to make way for Jackson; it's Pedro Almodóvar, whose foreign film was conversely very well directed, yet not worth a Best Picture nod. So why'd they give Jackson's nomination to him?

Okay, similar question: what did another "professional movie critic" (knock wood) complain about being snubbed, that you're the most surprized they're so upset about? I'm a bit amused at Entertainment Weekly --as I am, often, on a weekly basis-- when they complained that The Hours was not nominated for Best Make-Up. Wasn't the only recognizable make-up in that film Nicole Kidman's fake rubber nose? Come on.

Two years ago, it seemed like Tom Hanks was nominated for, practically, everything he did. Now he performs brilliantly in not one, but two top-notch films, and doesn't get a single Oscar nod...? In defense of Oscar --slightly-- this was a tough race this year. However, if they were so willing to give Oscar nominations to practically every single star in The Hours, couldn't they have thrown a nomination Hank's way, for either of his two Oscar-worthy performances this year...? It's not like Oscar didn't see the films, either: Road to Perdition got six Oscar nominations, and Catch me if You Can got two. The contradictions here speak for themselves. Does The Academy really think that Cast Away was a better performance from Tom Hanks than he did in either of these top-notch films? That's a question I truly cannot answer.

How Stupid is it that someone has been co-nominated for a Best Screenplay award, who doesn't even exist? I think The Academy was just trying to be cutesy here, though it does come off as looking pretty dumb. While both Charlie Kaufman and "brother" Donald Kaufman are nominated for "their" screenplay for Adaptation, the truth is Donald is a character in the movie, not a real person. I know I'm supposed to enjoy a hearty joke though what about the people who didn't even get nominated? This joke implies that a fictional person "co-wrote" a better screenplay than they did! Nominate Charlie Kaufman, if you must, but let's forget the natty little in-jokes. Thanks.

Which do you think will win; Treasure Planet or Lilo & Stitch, for Best Animated Feature? I mean, it's a foregone conclusion a Disney picture will win, isn't it? Don't hold your breath; while one movie had the most artistic, visually stunning animation (Treasure Planet; and don't argue with me on that one), Lilo & Stitch had far better writing. This is due to Disney splitting up their animation departments to make more animated features than they probably should. It's now clear one animation studio has the best writers, while one has the best animators. If the CGI and epic splendor of Treasure Planet was put into the muppet-faced world of Lilo & Stitch, that film would've been a Disney classic, not a mere Saturday matinee sleeper. Conversely, it's clear Treasure Planet could've had better writing (how irritating was the alien pirate who only talked in flatulence?). Yet it's still possible Lilo could win, if just because of a brilliant publicity campaign, and the many kids who love Stitch, muppet show reject that he is. However, my vote is for the CGI film Ice Age. That prehistoric squirrel always makes me laugh.

So, two years ago Julia Roberts embarrassed herself big time with her yammering acceptance speech; last year she managed to latch onto poor Denzel Washington, and embarrass him as well. Who will she embarrass this year? I guess it's a foregone conclusion she'll be attending the Oscars this year, even though she starred in only one 2002 film --Full Frontal-- which few people even saw. However, I would like to think she's learned her lesson by now. Oh, but how funny was it when Saturday Night Live spoofed her? My nickel's worth of free advice to Julia this year is to stay home. Her lack of meatier roles lately is clear indication her P.R. is slipping. Just a thought.

Shouldn't some celebrity make yet another political monologue during their speech this year, given current events...? No matter how relevant this question seems to be in 2003, this could be just as easily cut-and-pasted in every Oscar telecast since 1977, and the answer is always: sorry, NO. Don't argue. Should celebrities think they're suddenly running for the U.S. Senate, as if theirs is the most major political voice out there? This opinion is just plain pompous. At the risk of sounding crass, it's the truth: these are just actors, accepting an acting award, and that's it. The presumption that we all will change our personal political views, after hearing theirs, is not without its fair share of conceit. It's also totally incorrect. If I wanted current events, I'd be watching CNN. We want to see out favorite, most entertaining celebrities win acting awards. That's it.

Everyone has their view of who'd be best to replace Billy Crystal as host these days. Who'd make the perfect Oscar night host...? This is a tough call, even though I truly feel Steve Martin earned the right to come back this year. Some people who would be perfect have the dry wit needed for the job, yet not the desire (Woody Allen comes to mind). Others have the desire, yet not the dry wit (I'm sure any number of news journalists fall into this category). Then there are the talk show hosts who have the wit and the desire, yet their sense of humor is not appropriate for Oscar night (David Letterman comes to mind, as would Jay Leno, and to a point, Regis Philbin). However, just about everyone deserves a chance. Be honest: prior to actually performing the job, did anybody really think that Billy Crystal would be such an excellent host of The Academy Awards? Other comedians (or comediennes) deserve their chance, too.

and finally...

Was it really that bad to stay up past midnight on the East Coast...? The current show is so...boring! Agreed. Oscar made a big ballyhoo about removing dance numbers and what-not, though without some sort of shenanigans on stage it's clear the show is sorely lacking. Maybe they could get help from Broadway choreographers to do something with the costuming or best soundtrack categories, to give the show a little added "kick." In addition; maybe they could enlarge the clips shown of each nominee. Oscar needs to be as entertaining as the shows being awarded. Otherwise, it's a lot of thanking mom and pop and then going to bed. <Sigh.> See you Oscar night, kids.

------------------------------------------

What are your feelings of Oscar night, 2003?

Send your opinions via Techtite's Letters page!