Monday, March 01, 2004

Oscar, the Morning After

So one of the advantages of doing the immediate post after the Oscars is that I got to get my two-cents out into the blogosphere before most other people (except those blogging live - I couldn't type that quickly or neatly). In addition, it gave me a chance to read and hear about other people's opinions while I had already gone "on-record". And in general, I stand on my earlier comments.

Those people who I've heard from on their blogs or in person tended to like the Oscars - it was more glam than outrageous, more sentimental than confrontational, more of a, well, AWARDS SHOW. There were few surprises, no meltdowns, no horrible gowns.

On the other hand, people who were PAID to review the Oscars (in the media and on-line), just hated it to pieces, for pretty much the same reasons. There were few surprises, no meltdowns, no horrible gowns. Nothing to talk about except the MOVIES. Gosh, how terrible. These writers are akin to people who go to NASCAR events for the crashes. A traditional Oscar show is a boring Oscar show, and more than one accused Hollywood of selling out by not being controversial (yeah, yeah, I know - "Hollywood" and "selling out" is redundant).

There were media attempts to get some traction on "down the rabbit hole" and Sean Penn's offhanded WMD remark, but such attempts are, well, whiny at best. The best actor and supporting actors are both libs who got their awards on a picture directed by . . . conservative Clint Eastwood. I think the lesson there is - its about the movies, dummy. Send the Culture Wars on holiday for this one, you're not going to get much. Sean Penn gets a standing O for his performance - I never thought I would live to see it.

As a result, within the next few days Oscar will be forgotten for another year (unlike the Super Bowl, which lingered on for weeks afterwards like a bad burrito). The media and the pundits will find something else to fume about, and the world spins on.

More later,