Techtite Feature Article

Top Second Annual, 

Top-10 Mysteries of Oscar Night,

SOLVED!

(well...sort of).

The answers may only be opinion, though so what? These ponderous moments have kept Oscar Night fans scratching their heads for years. From Marisa Tomei's Oscar win to Saving Private Ryan losing to Shakespeare in Love, there's always a surprise every Oscar year. Here are the "top ten" on my list...along with a possible, logical explanation for each : 

Special Feature! Click on any picture in this article, to buy the related film on DVD!

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

Marisa Tomei's Oscar win as Best Supporting Actress in 1993 is still seen as one of the most controversial surprise wins in Oscar night history. Asking the question asked at the time; what was it that made her win that Supporting Actress Oscar in 1993? Anyone who asks themselves this never saw My Cousin Vinny. After all, the hardest acting roles are the ones that expect the actress to make something out of...nothing! Yes, her film nomination was for a cliché comedy. However, Marisa made her role into something special; a role played to perfection. She was given a direct-to-video, B-grade script --a total lemon-- and made it into lemonade. That's the sort of person who should win in every Oscar category, really.

Why did "Saving Private Ryan" lose to "Shakespeare in Love"? The Oscars has been in a "Titanic" rut for many years now. Every Best Picture has been a film based on some sappy, sentimental, tragic love story: The English Patient, Titanic, Shakespeare in Love, American Beauty, and, to a point, even Gladiator's revenge-for-his-family story last year, which was not a real love story per se, yet was close enough. The rut continues this year, with the directors of Black Hawk Down and Mulholland Drive nominated, yet not the films, just so a film like Moulin Rouge can be nominated...yet not the director. Odd.

Why is Tom Hanks nominated for, practically, everything he does? This is another Academy "rut" that seems hard for them to break...and it isn't the first, either. Meryl Streep has been nominated no less than 12 times. TWELVE times! I mean, as much as I like Meryl Streep, was her performance in The Bridges of Madison County worth a Best Actress nomination? As for Hanks in Castaway, he did make around half the film into his own one-man show, and yet it was still not up to par with other performances that year. "Fire! Fire!...Fi-yi-yare!" Lucky for the nominees this year, that he chose to release only documentaries last year, as well as a TV mini-series. Will the rut continue next year, when Hanks is back on the big screen in at least three films? We'll see...

Why is Jim Carrey snubbed by the Oscars, even when he's done something truly great? If you ask me, it's because his Golden Globe speeches are always so...pompous. His acceptance speech at the Globe awards one year, For The Truman Show, mused that this would make him a shoo-in for the People's Choice Award --har-har!-- and the award committees were obviously not amused. Later in his speech, he "mistakenly" thanked the Academy...oops, mused Carrey, that's for when he wins the Oscar! Unfortunately, as it would turn out, he wasn't even nominated. If Carrey would stop acting so smug, maybe he could start respecting the Academy, and they will respect his performances in turn.

Why do some winners "thank the other nominees"? I think it's their way of being humble, without realizing it's the biggest slap in the face a non-Oscar-recipient can receive. For one thing, it forces the camera man to show their faces during one of the more disappointing moments in their lives. Second, it implies that the winner has to personally tell them that, ya know, their performance was kinda good, too. Of course their performance was great; that's why they were nominated. The "winner" won the vote, merely because of as little as one-fraction of a percentage point in their favor...and yes, we all know this already. We don't need to have it condescendingly "explained" in an acceptance speech. Thank Mom and Dad, then get off the stage.

Why do so many presenters' monologues, and celebrity acceptance speeches, want to talk incessantly about something that has nothing to do with their film, themselves, or the Oscars entirely? There's always the temptation of the Oscars being telecast worldwide --with the best viewing audience anyone could hope for-- to say something you want "everyone" to hear. So, why not say what you always wanted to say, while on stage at an awards show...? Answer: because this winds up looking just plain pompous; these self-appointed speech writers 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.

Why did Helen Hunt win the Best Actress Oscar for As Good As it Gets, over the more popular choice: Kate Winslet, for Titanic? Before singling out the Oscars, keep this in mind; Kate's performance lost three more times, for three other awards: The Golden Globes (Judi Dench won), The Screen Actors Guild Awards (where, once again, Helen Hunt won), and even The MTV Movie Awards (where --how insulting!-- Neve Campbell's performance in Scream was considered the "Best Female Performance"!). However; why did she lose to Helen Hunt for the Oscar? Simple: Titanic was a film with $200 million dollars worth of FX, to help the acting along. As Good As it Gets was rather low-budget in comparison --a "paltry" 50 million-- making Helen Hunt have to act sans FX assistance. Her acting was enhanced with far fewer computer enhancements, haunting musical scores in the background, or an elderly, veteran-actress narrator, to help you know what to feel and when. Was Hunt's acting role actually...better? This is immaterial; the acting job was more difficult, with far less assistance from flashy FX, classical music score, etc. This pulled her over the top, in the eyes of other Actresses voting for her...and deservedly so.

David Letterman still wins Emmys for his late night show; why was his hosting of the Oscars so bad?  Most of his best work is still available on VHS tape collections --including his Top 10 List and Stupid Human Tricks skits-- and they never lose their humor. However, Letterman is a very beer-and-chips comedian, compared to the caviar-and-bonbons type of humor that the Academy thinks itself to have. He went to the Oscars with all his best, finest stapes of humor --Top Ten List, stupid pet trick, and so forth-- yet these jokes seemed too out of place in the tuxedo wearing world of the Oscars. Add to that an Achilles' Heel of never knowing when to stop a running gag --Uma! Oprah!-- and you have what is probably the lowest point of the man's career. What a shame.

Why does the Academy constantly go to Whoopi Goldberg first, whenever Billy Crystal is unavailable? I sense that their collaboration in the annual HBO stage show for charity, "Comic Relief," makes people think of her when thinking of him. However, there are far more standup comics than just that, each of whom might be very good as an Oscar host. Steve Martin proved this last year, and another comedian deserved to prove it yet again this year. I know the Oscars are being directed by a woman who wanted a female host, though she could've chosen so many more hosts than Whoopi...whose performance as host has been bad at least twice, the last two times she hosted. Just MHO.

and finally...

Why is it that the Awards shows that had dance numbers seemed to last too long, yet the ones without the dance numbers take less time to watch, yet are TOTALLY boring? Well, when you figure it out, tell the Oscars to being back those dance numbers. Thanks.

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

What do you think...? Was there an Oscar night occurrence that kept you guessing even more? Send your opinions via Techtite's Letters page!