The Film Experience

by Nathaniel R

Which Steven Soderbergh film begins with a ton of promise before getting bogged down in the middle due to its relentless seriouness? Which of his films comes chaotically lurching back to messy life near the climax but still can't stick to the landing? I don't have an answer for this question except to say "The 93rd Academy Awards if it counts!" And should it?

The Soderbergh produced ceremony made good on its intentions to not be like every other Oscar ceremony. Not that that was ever in doubt given the worldwide pandemic that put such a dampening slog on awards season (among other admittedly more serious effects). More satisfying than the arbitrary changes in presentation or category order -- thrilling even -- was the pre-show buzz that this would feel more like a movie which the "opening scene" bore out...

Movies dont begin with comedic monologues like the Oscars so often have, but a lot of them do begin with stars strutting down streets with music playing and the cast names accompany them. The opening beats of the 93rd Oscars absolutely delivered in this respect; Regina King was strutting like a true queen through Union Station in a very imposing Louis Vitton gown. The shoulders were so sharp Joan Crawford would have salivated. The opening just exuded good time energy with lots of color, big stars, and kineticism.

The first few awards bits were interesting too, with an approach that felt a bit more like SAG "I am an actor" fun of hearing how people got started in the business. But then, curiously, a malaise set in.

Was it the lack of clips? That was surely one of the culprits. It's extremely strange and even weirdly self-loathing to attempt to celebrate movies while visually behaving as if those movies just do not exist.

More broadly, though, we suspect it was the self-seriousness that was so deep it involved not even writing any jokes. The Oscars should not be in the position of congratulating themselves about their own progress in terms of inclusion, diversity, and social justice. Or their own social consciousness about the pandemic... unless they can also education you and poke fun at themselves and make you giggle while doing it. In a show that's intrinsically about back-patting (as all awards shows are) it's better to not add extra back-patting. That's just too onanistic. Applause is supposed to come from the audience, not the performers.

One caveat: Normally we'd love to see the Jean Hersholt Huminatarian Awards back on the mainstage but given that these very purposefully reverent prizes were surrounded by total seriousness about things we could have been having fun talking about, there was just absolutely no tonal variety. No variety in a three hour "film" is for the extremes of cinema -- numbing hack action blockbusters or numbing static arthouse realism -- not for regular movies and certainly not for the Oscars which are by their nature vignette like in construction.

The lack of a sense of humor was something of a surprise given Soderbergh's filmography. The monotonous seriouness is surely what made the show's highlights so unanimously agreed upon if online reaction is indication: Glenn Close doing "Da Butt" and proving for the billionth time that she's an awards show treasure, Youn Yuh-jung delivering another hilarious acceptance speech (more on her later), Frances McDormand being her spontaneous iconoclastic self and howling at the moon... or the roof of the Union Station, rather; and Rita Moreno absolutely slaying the Best Picture presentation (more on that later). Please note that those highlights all came from actresses over the age of 60. We don't want to stereotype but could this be because they're old enough to give no f***s while also caring enough to be good sports? Or maybe that they've all endured so long in the brutal flash-in-the-pan world of showbiz that it's in their blood and bones to always put on a show? They're not just going to sit back and hope you passively enjoy something. They're going to grab your attention and help you feel something.

We don't want to join the boring "worst Oscars ever!" negativity of the internet. That ritual that is as predictable as the sun rising each morning, and worse yet it has virtually no relation to whether or not the show was any good since it's always the reaction. (PRO TIP: IF YOU HATE IT, DON'T WATCH. SIMPLY LET THOSE OF US WHO LOVE IT, SHARE OUR LOVES AND CRITIQUES IN PEACE). So here are some things we loved about the approach last night. Had they written some jokes... the star presenters were well chosen with a nice variety of types of stars. We absolutely loved that there was apparently no time limit on speeches. Yes, some people aren't particularly good at giving acceptance speeches but this doesn't mean everyone should get the hook after 40 seconds. We were totally into the speeches. It's an awards show, so thank you thank you thank you for letting people feel their feelings on the stage! Had they also shared film clips... the approach was very focused on the nominees (as it should be) without too much distraction from dumb comedy bits or random 'montages'. And the stars looked great. Some of the dresses were insane but the fashion was interesting across the board (more on which later).

Back to the show to wrap things up.

Placing Best Actor last seems to have drawn the most ire as it cynically suggested that everyone was assembled for a Chadwick Boseman Memorial Service rather than for Oscar Night. But even had the late great won Best Actor (as Soderbergh and the other producers clearly expected) this would have been a terrible decision. You don't want the Oscars to end on a downer. As uplifting as certain memorials can be, what they invoke is catharsis through communal sadness and do you really want people feeling melancholy at the end of the Oscars? It's supposed to be a party, and these ceremonies wisely keep the communal sadness neatly contained in the "In Memoriam" segment, where this season Chadwick already had justified pride of place. (Don't get us started on screen legend and double Oscar-winner Olivia de Havilland barely noticeable in a flurry of other faces!)

The weird ending did a disservice to both Chadwick Boseman and Anthony Hopkins (the best "Best Actor" winner in several years now). If anyone could have saved that moment it would surely have been Olivia Colman who was present. As her numerous appearances at awards shows and in acceptance speeches prove, she's a master of disarming and surprising and entertaining the audience all at once which would have been perfect for that unexpected moment. We don't know if there's truth to the rumor that she was supposed to accept on Hopkins behalf but Joaquin Phoenix didn't realize it. Or maybe he got the 'wrap it up' signal from the powers that be since the show was running over time. Either way though, it's a pity.

After recent kerfuffles and cancellations the Oscars have decided that "Hosts" aren't worth the trouble. We fully understand this move while at the same time suspecting that the producers haven't really thought about what a host can mean to a show, jokes aside. And while we absolutely agree that the Academy has put way too much of an emphasis on the comedians chosen to host the show in the past -- the night is supposed to be about movies, not whatever random household name comedian is in vogue that year/decade -- not having one at all comes with its own problems, like the lack of a through line. Or, while we're on the movie topic, a protagonist if you will. We would have been happier if Regina King had stuck around, to put it bluntly. Perhaps she could have strutted us out of Union Station at the end and into a meeting for Oceans 14 for some full circle pleasure.