Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Although I agree with some of the points made in this article, I have to draw the line at insulting Jon Stewart. I felt that, thanks to him, this was the most entertaining Oscars I've seen in years. What did you expect, a 3 hour Daily Show? Maybe he'd like to be asked back.
Imagine what might happen if the agony--minus the glib, self-satisfied imitation of a one-woman Greek chorus--poured into Ms. Wilson's rant were applied to something that actually mattered. Someone might think, briefly, that she was on to something.
Ms. Wilson strives mightily to find Meaning in Disaster but, um, excuse me: wasn't this the silly diversion called The Oscars? Perhaps she should confine further cultural critique to an exegesis of the next People magazine.
And Jon Stewart, blessed with more comic talent, intelligence and decency than we collectively deserve, surely will survive without her, or anyone's, sympathy.
I've read some of the other letters (couldnt quite get through all 17 pages) and discovered that the author of this spiteful piece is someone everyone but me seems to be acquainted with. If this is a sample of his/her writing I'm merely glad I haven't been exposed before.
As for the comments on Jon Stewart, I have to echo several others who wondered what show the reviewer watched. I watched most (not all) of the Oscars, something I haven't done for 4 or 5 years, precicely because Jon Stewart was hosting. I wasn't disappointed. I thought his opening monologue, or whatever one calls it, was hilarious and dead on. I also agree that the cowboy film clips and the other humorous film bits were well done. Cintra take your pseudo snobbery back to your cellar - please.
Dixie
Wow, did you watch the same show as me?
Sorry, I don't mean to be to rude here but that your review is so off it's mind numbing. I'll admit that the oscars had some dull moments, but the oscars always has dull moments. This year I think it had far less dull moments than oscars of past. And Jon Stewart not funny? Holy crap, maybe you should have watched the show with the volume on. I thought, and my friends thought, that he was hilarious!
Oh, and I'm so very sorry that someone didn't show up to the oscars drunk out of their gourd, come up on stage to accept an oscar (one that isn't even theirs), start screaming profanity at everyone and then vomiting all over Tom Hanks and themselves. Got how the world is unfair and not true to itself! There must be some conspiracy here!
Sorry but your article isn't even as good to me as a roll of Charmin, if I tried wiping my ass with my monitor I'd probably get a shock and then I would just have to wipe down the screen with some Charmin anyway.
Anyway, to end on a positive note, at least you made an attempt at doing your job. (Hint: Sarcasm, please duly note it)
...if they don't automatically pan an awards show or a Christmas special. I think they have to take a blood oath about it or something, and if they actually admit the show was a thumbs-up, they wouldn't get to entertain themselves with their over-the-top swill that they call writing. I really hope that the Academy Awards people listen to the common folk and invite Mr. Stewart back to host for many years to come, because the common knowledge seems to prove that he did a great job. You want to know what's boring? Crappy, knee-jerk reviews like this one.
Having watched Bob Hope, Johnny Carson, Robin Williams, Billy Crystal, Steve Martin, and a couple others, I thought Jon Stewart was excellent. I’ve enjoyed some of the mania and zaniness of the past but this was the first year I did not fall asleep or wander out of the room. Stewart is far more than a monologist or kibbitzer. His controlled manner, sharp wit and the enhancing bits (fake attack ads, etc) he brought to the “show” made it for once really watchable and well-organized. You and the other reviewers who failed to appreciate Jon Stewart’s superb performance should be forced to watch 90 hrs of Bob Hope reruns.
The negative response to this review underscores the writer's point perfectly. It would appear that it is not only Acadmey members who are embracing self-censorship, but the Oscar audience seems to love it too.
I was equally disappointed with Jon Stewart's decision to use Bruce Vilanch's processed-for-mass-consumption material instead of his own. I'm sure the right-leaning viewers watched gleefully as Jon became less relevent and Brokeback Mountain failed to take home the best picture award which we know it deserved, thus welcoming the culture war against a now feeble Hollywood.
Imagine a world in which cultural critics celebrated bleeping out "B***H" (or just not saying it in the first place) the way they (rightfully) celebrate overcoming other types of contempt directed at other types of people. Can't imagine it? I can't either.
Reese Witherspoon won because she's a clean, upstanding family girl, proving that some kind of larger entity is trying to force it's values on Hollywood and the world? What the HELL? Didn't Charlize Theron win two years ago for playing a prostitute serial killer and Hillary Swank just win for being a suicidal female boxer? Believe me, you can still do pretty much whatever you want in Hollywood, as long as the film or performance is good enough, hits the right chords with people and makes the right amount of money. Brokeback still did over 100 million and Philip Seymour Hoffman still won an Oscar for playing a gay man. The Hollywood world will continue to turn on it's axis.
I can argue all I want about how Brokeback's loss and Reese's win had nothing to do with some evil churchy empire trying to crush free thinking, but what if values did have something to do with Academy votes? They always do! You either agree with them or you don't. Do you realize how unbelievably self-righteous this talk is starting to sound? So what if there are people in the world who feel uncomfortable with homosexuality and who respect a woman who's married and having kids? As long as they're not forcing others to believe the same, shouldn't they be allowed to state their opinions, to cast their vote? Does stating an opinion mean you're trying to control someone? If that's the case, Salon is the freaking Third Reich. I thought there was supposed to be enough room for everyone's beliefs. Just stop bringing all of this shit into the Oscars. There's way too much evidence supporting both sides to talk like you've hit on some secret conspiracy.
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
