Oscar Night
So tonight is Oscar night. An occasionally amusing, occasionally sickening, and for the most part boring exhibit of Hollywood self-satsifaction and self-righteousness. But I still watch. There are little moments that can be priceless. I still remember a woman a few years back who won her first Academy Award for, get this, Best Documentary Short Subject. Why do I remember her? Because in her acceptance speech she said, "You know you've made it when your dress cost more than your movie." Classic!
Sometimes the academy gets it right, and that's always fun -- as when Return of the King swept all 11 oscars two years back. And sometimes they get it wrong, and that's always painful -- 11 oscars for Titanic. (Though it was almost worth it to witness James Cameron make an ass of himself in front of a billion people.) Winners shouldn't get too self-congratulatory, however...here's a few films that did NOT win Best Picture: City Lights, Citizen Kane, It's a Wonderful Life, a Streetcar Named Desire, Singin' in the Rain, The Manchurian Candidate, 2001: a space odyssey, Chinatown, Jaws, Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, Fargo, and The Big Lebowski. Okay, maybe that last one's a stretch. But we're all certainly still watching "How Green is My Valley" and "Going My Way," right?
Oh, and one other thing. Alfred Hitchcock never won Best Director. And here's a quick look at the films he made that were not even nominated for Best Picture: the 39 Steps, Shadow of a Doubt, Notorious, Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Psycho, and the Birds.
But I'll still be watching.
John Murphy
|
24 Comments
Share this: del.icio.us | Digg | Google | Ma.gnolia | Reddit | Stumble Upon | Technorati
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (24)
B. Does "Streetcar" really merit being on that list?
C. It's a shame about Hitchcock(Scorcese as well), but even if Psycho had been nominated, "The Apartment" would still be better.
Has anyone seen a photo? She was always a funny gal, but best dressed? I'm curious.
Hayek gets my vote for best dressed with the Dawnson's Creek - now Brokeback Mountain woman pulling in quite close. I liked Reese Witherspoon's dress as well. I thought J.Lo went in the wrong direction - the green dress was an interesting choice but her hair was just pulled back- easy to manage - but not particularly flattering.
With notable eceptions - the past few years have seen a return to true glamour at Oscar night.
Joyeux Noël? I cannot agree. It was fine film in many ways, but its hostility to religion in general, and the Catholic faith in particular, left me cold. Given the efforts of Pope Benedict XV to make peace, coupled with our own president's refusal to accept anything but complete destruction of the enemy, this is a curious, though predictable, pose.
Others will disagree, but I cannot help but think that Wilson's hostility to Catholicism and monarchy help define our approach to the conflict. Of course, after the evil monarchies were destroyed, democracy took hold...for about fifteen minutes, only to be replaced by the most horrible despotisms known to man. No, the film does not deal with the macro-causes and intrigues of the war, but the overall message I got from Joyeux Noël was an anti-religious one. Sad, given that the story of these soldiers pausing in their killing of one another to play soccer is such an inspiring story.
Michael, I must disagree on these counts:
- It was self-defeating for Hollywood's glamour girls to espouse the cruelty-to-animals ideology. God knows, there are plenty of ideologies on the market if they insist on taking themselves seriously. The fur cloak/stole not only added colour and texture, but mystery. It was, obviously, removed at some point, creating allure and anticipation. Nowadays the girls are all too up-front, which makes the show rather dull. There is no tension, no excitement in the air, which is the whole purpose of glamour.
- Modern designers/glamour girls do themselves a disservice by not sticking to the rules. Hence, Nicole Kidman's long, loose hair simply becomes uncreative, ungrammatical, vulgar. There is a grammar to fashion, as to language, and it's the foundation upon which all creativity rests. To ignore the rules is to render oneself sterile.
Fashion designers - and all modern artists - should listen to the advice of C.S.Lewis: "We need most urgently to recover the lost poetic art of enriching a response without making it eccentric, and of being normal without being vulgar."
The most under-rated designer in America: Marie Gray, St John.
I suppose I meant that I thought the dresses were more likely to look tailored and cared for and to flatter the body rather than just made of transgressive fabrics and experimental cuts. There also seems to be a lack of women wearing menswear. That is certainly welcome.
Send me an e-mail and say hello sometime.
My favourite portrayal of a starlet: Marilyn Monroe's bit part in 'All About Eve'. The perfect addition to the perfect movie!
I actually met director Christian Carion last night and he said that he did not write that sermon the Anglican bishop preached towards the end, but in fact took it right out of an historical record. He said that he had been shocked to find it, that his intentions were to show "both sides" of clericism (an understandable, even relieving, position for someone who does not believe in God, which he does not).
The lack of men's wear is certainly very refreshing.
My girlfriend did not like the Hayek dress. She thought the assymetrical design of the top made Salma look lopsided. I did not get that effect.
I do agree with you that cleavage is generally intended only to satisfy the male audience's baser passions. It does not inspire that awe and attraction that a man feels towards a modestly-dressed, feminine woman. But rather inspires more of a "Me big cave man wanna sleep with girl!" (to quote <a href="http://hardsayings.blogspot.com/2006/02/loss-of-genuine-love-and-rise-of.html">Anthony Tardiff</a> in one of his very eloquent and insightful rants) reaction.
Why do I always get images of sackcloth when I hear the expression "modestly dressed women"? Too many sermons along those lines, I guess!
I think you're getting mediaeval fashion confused with Renaissance fashion. Please define prudery.
Prudery? Well, I'll tell a funny story: on my grandparents (lifelong, devout Catholics) 50th wedding anniversary someone asked my grandfather how they had managed to be happily married for so long. He replied that "they'd always had good sex", to thunderous applause! Granted, he'd had a couple of scotches, but my grandmother - at his side - tittered away with pleasure at his response. Marriage is the sacrament of sex, pure and simple, and anyone who shies away from this fact is a prude. This plays out in the more traditional parishes by a proliferation of women dressed so "modestly" that one can barely tell that they're women at all. The quantity of ugly, shapeless, colourless garments at traditional parishes tells me that there is confusion among Catholics about this most simple fact of life. These women are not being more "modest" (and let's not forget that there's such a thing as spiritual pride) but simply foolish. Their husbands go to work every day and are surrounded by women who take the trouble to look good. Then they come home to a bedraggled wife. You figure out the rest...
Medieval dresses were cut to fall from directly beneath the bust, and if that doesn't accentuate it I don't know what does! Remember, I'm not talking about showing actual flesh, only which fashions glory in the feminine form and which do not.
I drew quite a bit of heat not to long ago for lamenting this very fact and arguing that women should dress nicely, in a feminine way that compliments the feminine form without inciting lustful objectification of the woman.