Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Someone posted here earlier that Cintra Wilson is too young to be so jaded. She is 39. (The photos of Cintra on the gallery page of her web site are 15 years old.)
Perhaps it is time to venture into new territory. Perhaps it is way past due.
Whether or not Martin Scorsese ever wins one of those silly-assed gold statuettes, he and his art will be remembered by the world long, long, long after you and the Pick Six Mafia, or whatever the fuck they're called, are forgotten. Just thought you might like to know that. Loser.
90% of Stewart's material bombed? What telecast were you watching, a few bits didn't go over that well, but even to say half of his material bombed is hyperbole. Overall he did great. Even if you thought otherwise, you gotta like just having a new face other than the usual suspects and their canned routines. Why didn't they get Robin Williams? He could have done all those great impressions, I mean they were kinda funny thirty years ago. Why not Billy Crystal? His material is really fresh. But really, why not just get Jay Leno to host? He's so nice and non-threatening.
There is only one columnist on Salon.com who has the gift, hands down, of wicked, artful, tongue-in-cheek, biting commentary, where you laugh out loud while hating her, and that is Heather Havrilasky. Only Garrison Keillor is better, but I love him.
The Oscars are never FUN, and lately, celebs are shying away from the type of displays which could become a defining moment in the public's perception. Take Tom Cruise for example. Shouldn't a man have one moment in life when he jumps on the couch out of sheer exuberation? One would think that if any Star could do so, it would be Tom Cruise! However you will notice that not one of the War of the Worlds clips feature him.
Chris Rock tried to shake up the Oscars and we know the results. He was eviscerated in reviews. Sean Penn got on his pseudo-intellectual, self-righteous soapbox and repudiated him for a (really humorous) remark about Jude Law. (I notice that Sean was quiet when the nanny scandal broke out about Jude the next week.)
What really irks about this whole business is that the celebs, victims of the tabloids' shrill inaccuracies, exaggeration and downright lies, will believe them about each other!
I was caught up in a good book all day and only tuned in to the Academy Awards about halfway, just to see who won the best actress category. One show I set aside time for religiously for the MTV "moonmen' awards -- they have the best categories, the sublime moments ( a certain kiss between Will Smith and Jim Carrey comes to mind)...and make a point of being entertaining and original.
The Academy Awards were always about politics; however Cintra, your point is well-taken, even if it was not well made.
For a comedian, hosting the oscars is civil-service-like gig, but unlike a civil service job, few can really do it well. The reason ought to be obvious: the crowd is jaded and takes itself a bit too seriously. Stewart, I think, did an excellent job by actually getting the crowd to take itself a little *less* seriously. All the successful hosts do this, in fact. Yes, it took a little shaking of the oscar tree, but he did make it happen.
I wish you would get off the tinsletown/motion picture hating bandwagon long enough to appreciate a show such as the Oscars for what it is . . . a freak show, a car wreck, plastic surgery on tv – we watch it out of morbid curiosity. We love it because we get to see those who are richer,prettier and more famous (in some cases smarter, more talented and more creative) than we could ever hope to be, make fools of themselves. We wait for them to fall, say something dumb, or wear something tacky or ill-fitting and then we get to cackle and tease and feel some absurd sense of superiority for a split second – this goes double for entertainment journalists. Calling the Oscars ridiculous, making fun of the interpretive dance pieces or the dialogue is like critiquing the acting prowess of the cast of Days of our Lives. It’s too easy. Come on. I understand a large part of oscar fun is making fun of its participants the next day but my god you guys like hate these people? it's weird.
And as for the movies, personally I liked Crash because of it’s fanciful coincidences, jarring events and the mosaic of characters and scenes that eventually form a meaningful (while admittedly maudlin from some angles) picture. PT Anderson made this puzzle-like quality popular in movies such as Magnolia and Boogie Nights. It's ok to love his movies because the focus lies on the underbelly of society, druggies and porn stars. But, while Crash was as artistically appealing and smart, it sucks because it touches on such a banal moral issue. We get it – you’re not fallin’ for that and we sure are idiots if we do. Make sure those who dare to make a movie around an issue so trite as racism know that your not taking the bait! After all you’re too goddamn smart for that!
Did anyone else notice, as the camera was panning out at the end of the show, Jake and Heath had walked up onto the stage to shake hands with Jon? Kudos to them for recognizing what an entertaining job he did as host!
Christ on a cruch! shut up already. Your article about nothing is more annoying then most annoying Oscar speeches. Save some cyber space and just say nobody did anything bad. The end.
Dear Ms. Wilson:
Judging by the response letters that have been posted, it seems you've not only touched on the nerves of some Salon readers but worse, have rubbed raw an open secret about the Salon-reading set et al. Most of us would agree that differing opinions are not only important but also favored; we advance as intellectuals with tension in our dialogue and speaking with an air of empiricism is mostly and frequently unwanted. However, your appropriately vitriolic assessment of the Oscars is spot on (bordering on undeniably factual). I'm shocked and dismayed to read of people writing in to defend Stewart (who failed failed failed in so many ways last night with his miserable faux-tenderness on world topics ) simply because he is the public twin of our private dialogue or because he is the embodiment of an antidote for everything that many of us can agree is wrong with most news media outlets.
I'm just as equally surprised to see how readers are so put off by your snide and snarky tone - I cannot believe the majority of Salon's readers didn't feel it too when watching these historically left-speaking yet untouchable folks – during a time that is so politically bewildering - take to the stage and the limelight as if they were being served their First Communion. Maybe my perception of those who read Salon is way off. (I've been off before, I mean, I remember thinking back in November 2000 - and again in ‘04 - There's no way George Bush could be elected.") I just thought that here at Salon, we have solidarity on some really obvious issues and this seems like a horrifically obvious one to me.
This morning I had a conversation with a friend about the Oscars and Jon Stewart, which led quite naturally to talk about testis-less democrat politicians and lefty/liberals' inability to capitalize on anything that might actually have us wielding a heavy stick in the public sphere. I was thinking about Arianna Huffington's open letter to Stewart, pleading with him to make the best use of his time in front of so many viewers [see Arianna Huffington's blog post on 3/2/06] by not using the stage as a "bully pulpit." WHY?! Why does such a venue have to be full of niceties, outrage diminished and/or forgotten for the sake of preserving Hollywood's special night? This morning my friend was fuming about the tenor of the evening last night. I played devil's advocate explaining that many people wanted Jon Stewart and the politics toned down so that viewers wouldn't be put off by typical liberal Hollywood and that many public liberals were concerned that viewers would be more inclined to write-off any political views emanating from Hollywood in the future. My friend became incensed, why, she asked, are we forced to standby and swallow every time Limbaugh or Cheney or Scalia or any other right-wing wing-nut uses any public moment, regardless of the audience, forum, or expected decorum, to lambaste the dems/liberals/lefties? The point she ultimately made was that for as long as anyone can really remember, celebrity and royalty have always had a captivated audience - nothing is going to change that including political rhetoric. When she said this I stopped arguing with her. She’s right. What are we afraid of? Why must "Return to Glamour", the theme of last night's event, be mutually exclusive of any intelligent thought, of any emotion other than the requisite thank-you tears and mock surprise?
Outrage is not something we wear like an accessory when the proper attire calls for it. The right-wing and the republicans get this. They don't try to be decent. They don't try to be nice. They don't try to be appropriate. Everytime is the right time to share their views and this is exactly why they are winning and we dems/liberals/lefties are losing. Our country and our culture are slowly being right-washed and everyone is falling in lockstep behind this neo-con empowered discourse. When are we going to stop polling our consciences and stop applying that fucked up acceptability-barometer to our rhetoric? When are we going to snap out of this trance a la Pied Piper's rats, pull off our kid gloves and put our boxing gloves on?
Cintra, dear, I'll be in your corner any day of the week.
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
