Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
This woman did not see the same broadcast I did, and certainly not the same one Roger Ebert did. John Stewart was one of the best hosts in years. It's true the audience took a little time to warm up to his deadpan style, but when they did, they were laughing as hard as my husband and I were at home.
As far as I can tell, Wilson is gnawing the furniture because she wanted an excuse to rip everyone for their "embarrassing moments," and they didn't give her any. Aw, cry me a river.
She went away from Salon for awhile, and now she's back. Before, she was mean as spit, eviscerating, but funny as hell at times and often insightful.
Now she's just...I don't know what.
Hmmm, let's see...a couple years older and deeper into the realization that you will never be anything better than a B-list commentator? Is that what she was doing on a podcast with that other cultural hackmeister, Paglia?
Ever since Salon decided to turn the letters section into a free-for-all, I have been appalled by the painful imbecility of my fellow readers. The reaction to Wilson's SPOT-ON review of the Oscars is no exception.
Typical were lines like this:
Another reader fed up with Cintra's moronic and uninspired reviews
Yeah? You left something out, Anonymous: "Another chickenshit who lacks the courage of their convictions and refuses to post their real name."
Hey, monons! JON STEWART ATE IT. 90% of his material flopped, and I wasn't very impressed by the stuff touted here as "hilarious." Yes, it's true that he occasionally misses on "The Daily Show", but you've ironically proved Cintra's point: Last night he missed MOST of the time. And he did look increasingly pained as the show went on. Billy Crystal at his best has always been the best ever, period. Stewart use of "Daily Show"-style gags wasn't the complete disaster that was David Letterman's only showing as host, but it was close.
And although I like Reese Witherspoon's work, Felicity Huffington's performance was, by ANY credible measure, head and shoulders above the other laides nominated, including Witherspoon. Although I don't generally traffic in conspiracy theories, I understand Wilson turning to one - however ironically - to explain the completely vanilla display we had last night. It was grotesque.
Last but not least, you people have no taste in movies, none whatsoever. This was a tough year in the Best Film category. Every movie nominated was deserving of the award, but when I look back on all those films CRASH is indeed just that much better, just enough to put it at the top. Everybody has an opinion, yes; some are educated and indicative of taste. Most are not. Like most of yours'.
Who is the imbecile?
Have whatever opinion you want, but if you're going to insult your (many) fellow posters, maybe you should get your facts straight.
I like Jon Stewart and I think he did a great job. He showed some nerves at the beginning of the show, but warmed up. I think you may be reading the audience reaction, which, being Hollywood, doesn't get a guy like Jon Stewart. He's not Hollywood, so he doesn't matter to them. Give him a chance.
As one of the 18-30 crowd that Oscar was desperately trying to get to watch this year with it's pick of Stewart, I can say they succeeded. I haven't had an Oscar party in years, but this time we all gathered around to see what Stewart and his Daily Show writing crew would produce. We were not disappointed.
Cintra, I have to ask, do you know anything about comedy? Do you know anything about Stewart's comedy? Yes, he bombed several times - and HE LOVES BOMBING! It's part of his routine on the Daily Show - if a joke hits, it makes a laugh and its gone, if it bombs, he has the chance to pull himself up and make more jokes and self-depreciating comments.
Oscar this year set up a tension between ratings and their theme 'a return to glamor;' they wanted the kids and they wanted to protect themselves, so it ended up being weird...and often funny. The opening montage of past hosts was great and a tad creepy (Letterman with Steve Martin's kids), Stiller making a fool of himself and loving it in the leotard, and even the stupid little animation segment procaiming an end to pants ended up being funny.
The bad has been mentioned - audience members who were too afraid/uptight to laugh and get into it, the orch playing people off even as they stepped up to the mic, and the multitude of montages - usually I love them, but they were terrible this year. A salute to noir?..um, ok, but use better clips please. Jon had it right when he said they ran out of clips.
All in all, a fun Oscar night - hope they ask Stewart back.
I was RELIEVED not disappointed that the Minstrel Show last night did not include the word "bitch" in their performance. As a young black woman I'm tired of black men calling me a bitch to entertain white people.
Who cares about Oscars broadcast? The world is going to hell in a handbasket and two talented writers are wasting their time with snarky commentary on face-lifts and starlet cleavage.
Yawn...
What upsets me about the discussion about "Crash" vs. "Brokeback Mountain" is that people on either side discuss the movies as if they "matter" because they believe the opinions of the Academy or box office receipts reveal Americans "true" feelings about gays or minorities. Some criticisms, from an LA Times critic in particular, have said basically well Hollywood is more comfortable supporting a movie about race than homosexuality. That may or may not be true, but Hollywood's support in either case does not have the impact that he or others might suggest.
By and large, people of color and LBGT persons are targets of discrimination, and will continue to be, and no Hollywood movie has the capacity to change that. "Crash" and "Brokeback Mountain" may give you warm and fuzzy feelings about gay love or race, but in the end very few of us are engaged in any direct action that will change the treatment of LGBT persons or persons of color. Heck, very few of us have deep and meaningful relationships with people who do not look, live, believe, or earn the same income as we do.
The only thing that Americans emulate from Hollywood is its excess. Hollywood's liberlism is a facade, it is decidely more libertine than liberal, and is just as self-righteous and "out of touch" as the leaders of the religious right. Hollywood and the entertainment industry are primarily about profit and narcissism. In the past few years there have been several movies that have dealt with complex social issues, and few have had a broad impact (which is different from appeal) or have produced lasting social change. I am sure that we could argue which movies would fall into the change category, but largely that would be based upon personal opinion, not a quantifiable reality. Let me assure you that no persecuted minority group or person is now living in the "land of milk and honey" because their story was told in a movie.
So, take a deep breath and relax. Your movie won or lost, get over it, and if you have not done so already do something that actually will improve the life of another person.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
