Letters to the Editor

This letter is associated with the following article:
The academy shows American-style self-loathing by handing its biggest trophies to foreigners and drowning itself in montages. Save us, George Clooney!
  • Why watch if you would rather go to the dentist

    Oscar telecasts have their ups and downs, and this one was no (or not much) better and no (or not much) worse than recent years. So where does this unrelenting diatribe come from. From heavens' sake if you haven't liked Oscar telecasts in the past -- whether it's because they don't pick your favorite movies, or you have the format or the production numbers, or the montages -- don't watch.

    There were no more montages than usual. They always have them, sometimes they work sometimes they didn't. We enjoy a good montage when we can spot movies and moments we've loved, and when the montage has a rhythm to it. The Bee montage was also supposed to be a joke, though the reviewer doesn't seem to have realized it.

    The montages of past winners did *not* include anywhere near "all 79" past winners. They started in the mid-50's (when television broadcast began) and skipped many years, presenting maybe 20 winners. In less than a minute of airtime, I dare say.

    There have been plenty of "give Oscars to the foreigners" years -- And the picture/director/screenplay awards went to Americans.

    The production does not choose the songs that must be presented. So if you didn't like the three songs from Enchanted on their merits, or lack of them, don't blame the telecast producers. I'm glad that for the Disney-parody song (and it was a parody), that they let someone come out and just *sing* without a full production number.

    The production numbers are always awful -- this year was no exception. You might have noticed that there were no production numbers other than the nominated songs -- in other years there has usually been one extra puke-stravaganza, which we were spared this year.

    I honestly don't know what the reviewer was expecting -- it was a perfectly ordinary Oscar show. A lot of tedium, some enthusiastic and stumbling speeches, a couple of weird Tilda-Swinton type moments, a lot of fashion dos-and-donts, a few wretched production numbers, actors reading cue-cards badly, lame intros to awards, several montages and a few bright spots of genuineness peeking through. Can we get the perspective from someone who actually watched the show without their hands over their eyes?

    (Major props to Jon Stewart for bringing that songwriter out to finish her thank yous....)