94th Academy Awards in Review: Slaps, Tears, and Confusion. "And the Oscar goes to... Mixed Messaging"

Monday, March 28, 2022 at 2:15PM
NATHANIEL R in LGBTQ+, Oscar Ceremonies, Oscars (21), Will Smith

by Nathaniel R

Nicole reacts... to what? I was sent this image but it applies to the whole show really

"What just happened?" the question ricocheted across the room at our Oscar party last night. We weren't yet drunk enough to have lost the thread but confusion reigned.

Having cut the cords years ago we were watching the Oscars via the "live TV" on Hulu, putting us at the mercy of not just ABC and Hulu but a temperamental 5G internet connection in Bedstuy, Brooklyn. We heard Chris Rock making a pretty low G.I. Jane joke at Jada Pinkett-Smith's expense (we were already aware that she lost her hair due to Alopecia and how could Rock not be aware of that?) When Smith lept on stage and approached Chris Rock with what looked like aggression we knew something was up. But wait, is this a comic bit? Smith was laughing seconds earlier. Abruptly, true story, our screen-mirror connection cut out and the menu screen appeared. When we restored the connection a few seconds later, Chris Rock was doing his presenting job (the category now forgotten) but he looked and sounded a bit rattled. We missed the whole verbal exchange too. "What just happened?" No one in the room had the answer.

But dear reader, the booze kept flowing, the pizza (sans licorice) and fried chicken (in honor of The Power of the Dog) kept being devoured, and the Oscars kept "going to"...

So our night proceeded in ignorance until Will Smith's very tearful speech began and cleared it up that it had not been a comic bit and something awful had happened that we missed. But Will Smith's impulsive violence, which he blamed on the devil (!) and his calling to protect the women in his life (I'll take toxic masculinity for $800, Alex), was hardly the only confusion or exceedingly mixed messaging coming through the screen on Oscar night. 

Jessica Chastain congratulating the Makeup team, who won before the show began. Their speech was censored!

Academy executives had promised that the show would be respectful -- in reaction to their disrespectful cutting of five crucial categories to the art of feature filmmaking as well as the three short film categories. But the show was anything but. While it's true that the awards were edited in in ways that were, if not quite seamless at least not jarring, but executives outright lied when they claimed that the speeches would be unedited. We've already learned that they edited out elements of the speech that talked about the importance of the craft awards. Editing out righteous complaints about your decisions is extremely shady behavior and the very last possible word to describe it is "respectful".

The 94th Academy Awards were hardly the first Oscar telecast to show disrespect to the art of filmmaking -- anti-intellectualism and jokes about artistically minded movies are a staple of our popular culture and thus the ceremony, too --  but in these years of the feature film art form being on the defensive, it feels not unlike  bullying or punching down. While the three hosts (Regina Hall, Wanda Sykes, and Amy Schumer) were mostly funny, if seldom deployed, their collective three-way joke about not being able to sit through The Power of the Dog was not just offensive but downright mean considering the beating the film has taken from all corners of the internet from people who take offense at art in their entertainment; God forbid!

One of our friends leaned in confused after one of several mean jokes at the expense of movies and movie stars (I forget which) and said "is this a roast?" No, no. It's meant to be a celebration. Even at its best this Oscar show felt very influenced by Ricky Gervais take on hosting the Golden Globes --tear people and movies down for fun.

But if the Academy Awards aren't meant to celebrate the art of filmmaking and the joy of gawking at movie stars, what are they meant for? 

Throughout the night we learned that new producer Will Packer, ABC, and the Academy's current Board of Governors don't. remotely. know.

Their "innovations" such as having non-movie stars present did not pay off. Their decisions, trying to appeal to the kind of imaginary voter that doesn't watch the Oscars (as far as we can tell that's some amalgam of straight extreme sports fans, superhero obsessives, and tween girls with Disney Princess fetishes?), only ended up puzzling those of us who do. Where were the current movie stars? Where were the icons of Old Hollywood? One cutaway to Samuel L Jackson, Danny Glover, and Liv Ullmann is just not going to cut it for our Honorary Oscar winners when we're spending two minutes on random superhero clips. Where was the celebration of CINEMA?

Sure the latter got lip-service but the amount of jokes about people not having seen any movies undercut that considerably. Amy Schumer made a joke about only having seen Encanto this past year and Wanda Sykes entire Academy Museum tour skit was about having no idea what any famous movies were. Out of context those jokes were actually funny (we're not humourless!) but in context and collectively they were depressing reminders that the Oscars are embarassed about sharing movie love... their whole raison d'etre!  Bring back hosts that actually quite obviously care about movies and the Oscars like Billy Crystal, Whoopi Goldberg, or Hugh Jackman. This should be mandatory. No one who doesn't care about movies need apply.

The twitter poll #FanFavourite portion of the show ended in spectacular backfire fashion providing moments from films nobody interested in watching the Oscars knew or cared about -- what is this Johnny Depp movie Minimata (which made far less money than most of the Best Picture nominees that people always claim 'no one watches')? Why are we watching a helicopter stunt from a streaming zombie movie? Why is a poorly reviewed superhero film released in 2017 taking up space in a celebration of 2021 cinema? Oh, right, because those films have mobilized online fanbases.  End of story. Mobilizing fanbases is not even in the same universe as promoting the Oscars. Hell, it's not even a sign of which movies have the biggest fanbases. It's a venn diagram where the overlap is only between which fans are the most extremely online and which have defensive/obsesssive/or aggrieved fanbases. 

Other tributes were also lame. Why were their whole minutes dedicating to James Bond movies when we were already getting 1) a song performance from a James Bond movie 2) a visual effects clip 3) an Oscar speech involving a James Bond movie? We would have had even a fourth non-tribute Bond moment if Oscar hadn't disrespected the presentation of the Best Sound category in which it was also nominated!  We love Bond here at The Film Experience, but that's an awful lot of attention for a franchise connected to a film with just three nominations when a new popular franchise (Dune) which was nominated for and won several Oscars was right there. Best Picture nominees that were watched in large numbers like Don't Look Up and West Side Story (with the combo of theatrical and streaming) got less attention.  

This will get petty now but next time hire a gay man to produce. Gay men understand the appeal of the Oscars more than anyone. That might have saved us from Kevin Costner's rambling at least.

Don't misunderstand. We were happy to see him! He is a movie star (points for that as presenters go) and has been part of several classics (more points) and he was talking about how he fell in love with the movies (yet more points -- THIS IS WHAT THE OSCARS SHOULD BE ABOUT).

Despite all of that, he's also one of the dullest celebrities alive. Only Mormons and Ex-Mormons will get this next joke but one of my girlfriends turned to me during the ceremony and said "General Conference vibes". Costner's older white man stiffness and relentlessly monotone voice (never his strong suit) don't work solo or out of movie character. It's like listening to a CEO give a presentation or a Mormon prophet drone on at a twice annual religious event.  It's not the right energy for an awards show. Why not pair him with a female co-star (since he has proven chemstiry with them) to raise his energy. Susan Sarandon? Sean Young?  Mary McDonnell? Diane Lane? Annette Bening? Rene Russo? That way you'd give us another movie reunion. As we said on Twitter, when sharing presenter ideas, it is not rocket science. People watch the Oscars to watch movie stars being themselves with other movie stars. It's that simple. Yet producers seem confused about this. It's actually the #1 easiest thing to understand about the appeal of movie awards shows.

Lady Gaga and Liza Minnelli presented Best Picture together, a smart pairing and nice to see women doing it since the honor has so often gone to men.

Gay bosses would also understand to goose the Liza Minnelli appearance rather than treating it as a 'we're out of time' shrug. 'Oh, sure, it's Cabaret's 50th Anniversary, too' The 1972 Oscars were iconic. Why is only The Godfather getting special treatment (if a lame tribute... which weirdly played into the Will Smith equating "family" with violence) when Cabaret has also endured and won a historic amount of Oscars that night, the most ever (8) without a Best Picture win. 

Under the current Oscar leadership they get halfway towards understanding (Kevin Costner is fine, WHEN PAIRED) but can't commit! You can see the same 'halfway there but clueless as to how to commit' in the weird insistence that cutting categories would make the show short (as if that should be a goal when fans love that it's an epic night!) only to have the show run well over time the alloted time... just like it always does. The trick to making it shorter -- also not rocket science -- if that's truly your end goal is not to ADD things while you're cutting things.

Not that it was all a misfire. The Oscars are still the Oscars and every year has highlights that feel very "oh, yes, this is the Oscars!" warm and cornily thrilling even when the producers and goals are terrible.

The Juno team: Jennifer, Elliot, and J.K. reunited to present Screenplay

All the movie reunions were fun and an easy way to point to fond memories of movies, but there should have been more of them! Juno, White Men Can't Jump, Pulp Fiction. More of this please. 

The Song performances were nice breaks. Beyoncé was best kicking off the show with a heavily choreographed very tennis colored costumed rendition of "Be Alive" but the other song performances weren't too shabby either. The "FIRST EVER" live performance of "We Don't Talk About Bruno" was a complete mess trying to be modern (even though the song is brand new and thus modern!) by adding raps about the Oscars. Still, messy overproduced accidentally camp performances have a long tradition at the Oscars!

The moment when all three hosts dressed as movie characters -- Amy as Spider-Man, Wanda as King Richard, and Regina as Tammy Faye was a terrific silly bit. And show appropriate!

The In Memoriam section, which they tinkered with, was actually respectful and a highlight. The whole room at our party enjoyed the format which had movements broken up by three moments where a celebrity spoke about a beloved icon that had passed. 

Among the speeches, Costner wasn't the only one to actually pay tribute to movies in a genuine way though there wasn't enough of that. Jessica Chastain, Ariana DeBose, Troy Kotsur and Questlove also had their heads and hearts in the right places. Or as Nick wisely said on Twitter: 

Also, bouquets to anyone who said anything sincere, substantial, or inspiring about art on an evening weirdly militarized against the prospect.

— Nick Davis (@NicksFlickPicks) March 28, 2022

 Troy Kotsur gave a beautiful speech

But the highlights outside of beautiful speeches were few and far between. And so we arrive at the big winner, another case of mixed messaging.

When I first saw CODA i thought it was charming and I happily admit that I got choked up at the "Both Sides Now" audition sequence and during the best scene in the film when a father (Oscar winner Troy Kotsur) "hears" his daughter singing through touch. But seeing things outside the context of awards is a far different experiencing than watching them win prizes. CODA simply isn't "Best" material outside of Kotsur's performance. It's a minor pleasant picture, and apart from its deafness, there's nothing revelatory or transcendent about it. It's a well-done formula picture but "Best" is different than enjoyable and this sends a dangerous message primarily because it was paired with the most controversial (pre-Slap) part of this year's ceremony.

Film fans and the industry balked about eight below the line categories being cut (including Cinematography and Editing,  the two most crucial crafts without which not a single film could exist) but even some of the same people expressed deep rooted interest in CODA winning. CODA is a sweet picture but rewarding a film with no clear artistry in its crafts sends a terrible message to the artisans who were already cast aside by ABC  as unimportant in the sisyphean search of audiences that don't care about the Oscars. You've only proven to them that your support is hollow.

Where does the Academy go from here? We'd like to think the only way is up but we're still feeling the sting. We aren't even referring to Will Smith's outrageously inappropriate behavior. We're talking about the Oscar show itself, figuratively slapping their most devout audiences for the sin of daring to care about movies, the Oscars, and the iconic rich history of Hollywood.

THE WINNERS

Article originally appeared on The Film Experience (http://thefilmexperience.net/).