Precious, Based on the Novel Madea Is a Crack Ho by Tyler[sup]®[/sup] Perry[sup]®[/sup] and Oprah[sup]®[/sup] Winfrey[sup]®[/sup], Starring Eddie Murphy and Eddie Murphy and Eddie Murphy, is a terrible movie. If it had won I’d’ve moved to Canada to live with Alec Baldwin.
He didn’t say anybody else should have been nominated. The only actresses he named were the nominees.
I was a little confused too, but I think he was only saying that he’d forgotten to mention the Best Actress nominees when he won last year, so he was happy he could do it this year.
So why did she quote Oprah and Tyler Perry?
I don’t know what was going on there. Something about people being nominated two years in a row? That was bizarre.
Just rewatched it: “The Academy and I have in common that we neglect to acknowledge the same actress in our own ways in two years running, so I’m gonna start fresh with the Academy and acknowledge these wonderful actresses.”
Say what?
Some trivia.
Updated tallies for number of Oscars for actors’ films:
27: Ralph Fiennes (ranked #9 all time)
26: Robert Duvall
24: John Ratzenberger
17: Kathy Bates
14: Karl Urban
13: Christopher Plummer, Sigourney Weaver
11: Anthony Mackie, Wes Studi
10: Giovanni Ribisi
9: Jim Broadbent
James Cameron’s films have won the Visual Effects Oscar 5 times now–a record.
Also, his films have earned a total of 21 Oscars (rank #7 all-time)
Robert Duvall and John Ratzenberger have now been cast members in 11 different Oscar-winning films. The all-time record is 13.
No, I think it proves people in the Academy are just as snobbish about big budget movies as your average Doper. Avatar had its flaws but it was a directorial accomplishment about 50 times the magnitude of The Hurt Locker.
And the Best Actress Oscar slips another notch in credibility.
The Oscars? Snobbish about big budget movies? Can I visit your planet? I like your Oscars better than the real ones.
And directing is not a technical award, so the magnitude of Avatar as compared to THL is irrelevant. A great director can make a great movie on a tiny budget; a bad director can make a stinker with two hundred million.
Although I completely agree with you on this point, I don’t think the Academy Awards are ever proof of anything.
NONE of the awards given out tonight are technical. The technical awards were last week. These are all artistic awards. Technical awards are for things like developing new types of film stock or CGI applications. Artistic awards are the creative process behind a specific film (acting, direction, editing, costume design, etc)
This needed proof?
Because the films were introduced throughout the nearly four hours of the awards show. Or did you miss all that? 
Anyone else think it was cheating that the cinematography award went to Avatar? He didn’t have to actively set up a shot or anything…just create it from scratch.
That’s still cinematography. . .
I don’t know if Bullock deserved Best Actress, because I haven’t seen the movie. But Streep’s performance in Julie & Julia certainly didn’t strike me as anything special (the only one of the five I saw).
Directing may not be a technical award, but in just about any category you care to mention: vision, creativity, inventiveness, attention to detail, scope, and just plain hard work, Cameron probably did outperform Kathryn Bigelow (and everyone else) 50 to 1, or more…and the award is supposed to go to the director who did the best job of directing, not the one who directed the most popular movie by Hollywood political standards.
Still, even Cameron himself said he hoped Bigelow would win Best Director, so it’s all good as far as that award is concerned.
I believe Avatar suffered not only from a script which wags regard as simplistic and predictable but also because he’s become unpopular in the acting community. Everyone is afraid that their jobs are going to disappear if Cameron’s way of working becomes the norm. Actors become movie stars by virtue of the fact that people for whatever reason find them compelling enough to become invested in them emotionally. Their looks, charisma, personality and in some cases lifestyle cause people to become interested in them and drawn to the theater to watch their performances. But what Cameron has done with Avatar is to reduce both the amount of time that an actor is needed on the set and to eliminate the cult of personality that grows up around the movie star. This means actors will make less money and lose their star power to boot. Actors will become little more than journeymen workers, no more important to the process than screenwriters, cameramen and so forth. Acting ability will be the primary requirement and not star power. The actors also stand to lose the sets, costuming, props and so forth that they rely on to help create believable characters, being required instead to deliver their performances in front of a green screen set up inside a dull gray warehouse somewhere.
So all in all, Cameron has taken movie-making in a direction that threatens the star system and its associated pay and lifestyle for the first time since motion pictures first came into being. And I think a price was extracted tonight by the acting community for whom life as they’ve always known it may well be starting to come to an end.
Much will be made of Bigelow being the first woman to win Best Director, but Geoffrey Fletcher was also the first African-American ever to win a Best Screenplay Oscar.
Writers get no respect.
This is an absurd extrapolation and overwhelmingly overestimates the significance of Cameron’s “achievement”. Actors aren’t going anywhere, and they aren’t running scared of this film, primarily because performance capture is still an indulgence and will be for a long time. Avatar couldn’t have been made without it, but movies like The Blind Side ($200M+) have no need of it and there will always be plenty of opportunity for actors to gravitate towards those types of films. If anything, old-school art directors, set decorators, make-up artists, and cinematographers are much more threatened by this digital revolution, since it renders decades of on-set experience far less invaluable as before.
And directing has more to do than simply vision and visual inventiveness. Getting excellent performances out of actors, calibrating an effective tone and attention to theme, and showing resourcefulness in taking on provocative and challenging subjects are all aspects of great directing, too. And with mediocre performances, leaden heavy-handedness in its theme, and predictable handling or overly-familiar material, Avatar doesn’t even come close to what several other of its competitors (not just Bigelow’s film) managed to do.
The scientific and technical awards were given in a separate awards ceremony on February 20. Editing, special effects, sound mixing, and sound editing are artistic awards.