The 79th Annual Academy Awards | The House Next Door

The 79th Annual Academy Awards

By Matt Zoller Seitz on February 26, 2007 in Awards, Film Jump to Comments (0)

PICTURE
The Departed

DIRECTOR
Martin Scorsese, The Departed

ACTRESS
Helen Mirren
The Queen

ACTOR
Forest Whitaker
The Last King of Scotland

SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Jennifer Hudson
Dreamgirls

SUPPORTING ACTOR
Alan Arkin
Little Miss Sunshine

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
William Monahan
The Departed

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Michael Arndt
Little Miss Sunshine

ANIMATED FEATURE
Happy Feet
Directed by George Miller

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
The Lives of Others
Directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
An Inconvenient Truth
Directed by Davis Guggenheim

CINEMATOGRAPHY
Pan's Labyrinth
Guillermo Navarro

FILM EDITING
The Departed
Thelma Schoonmaker

ART DIRECTION
Pan's Labyrinth
Eugenio Caballero (Art Direction); Pilar Revuelta (Set Decoration)

MAKEUP
Pan's Labyrinth
David Martí and Montse Ribé

SOUND EDITING
Letters from Iwo Jima
Alan Robert Murray and Bub Asman

SOUND MIXING
Dreamgirls
Michael Minkler, Bob Beemer and Willie Burton

DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT
"The Blood of Yingzhou District"
Directed by Ruby Yang and Thomas Lennon

SHORT FILM (ANIMATED)
"The Danish Poet"
Directed by Torill Kove

SHORT FILM (LIVE ACTION)
"West Bank Story"
Directed by Ari Sandel

VISUAL EFFECTS
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
John Knoll, Hal Hickel, Charles Gibson and Allen Hall

COSTUME DESIGN
Marie Antoinette
Milena Canonero

MUSIC (SONG)
"I Need to Wake Up"
Music and Lyric by Melissa Etheridge

MUSIC (SCORE)
Babel
Gustavo Santaolalla

SPECIAL OSCAR FOR CAREER ACHIEVEMENT
Ennio Morricone

JEAN HERSHOLT HUMANITARIAN AWARD
Sherry Lansing

TAGS: uncategorized

I happen to have liked Children of Men a lot, but is it possible that the reason it lost for best cinematography is the same reason it was nominated for best editing--because its long takes were as much a function of high-tech sneaky editing as of shooting? I guess the general membership of the Academy is not that savvy. The thought did cross my mind, though.
Posted by Josh on 2007-03-01 05:17:00 Concerning the honor system, many Academy members have been quite open about not even filling out the ballots themselves. Denzel Washington says he always lets his wife do the voting because she has more time to watch everything than he does.
Posted by Edward Copeland on 2007-02-28 22:41:00 matt. your daughters clarity is refreshing. is it really "that's life"? or just "that's the oscars".
It's like taking a nyc cab ride and being charged by the mile and the minute. having it both ways.
Posted by Kino on 2007-02-28 21:41:00 A better example of what I'm citing (that I thought of while drifting off to sleep) is probably An Inconvenient Truth winning over Iraq in Fragments or Deliver Us from Evil. But there you get into politics as much as anything, so I'm not sure it's as good an example as I'd like.
Posted by Todd VanDerWerff on 2007-02-28 20:26:00 Andrew, I don't say that to besmirch Lives of Others at all. I simply mean that over the last few decades that the committee system has been in place, the foreign film Oscar often goes to the most conventional film in the bunch. Lives of Others is a great piece of moviemaking, but it's not horribly stylistically innovative (unless I'm missing something). Pan's, with its monsters, has more unconventional elements.

This led Salon.com critic Andrew O'Hehir (last year when predicting Tsotsi, I think) to proclaim that the foreign film winner will be the one that is the least "foreign" seeming (in the sense of the word that means. . .out of one's comfort zone). That's how stuff like Raise the Red Lantern loses to something like Meditteraneo (which, I must admit, I haven't seen, but I'll just go with critical consensus that the former was much better).
Posted by Todd VanDerWerff on 2007-02-28 08:23:00 Matt and Todd, thanks so much for your answers. And, Matt, thank you too for so politely declining to be . . . um, my father.

But I just want to make sure I understand fully understand. If, as an Academy member, you do not sign the foreign film, documentary and short affidavit, you can still vote for all the other categories? So there are two groups of members voting -- those who vote in every single category, and those who vote for everything except foreign film, documentary and short?
Posted by Nomi on 2007-02-28 06:47:00 Matt said:

"The super-long-take cinematography WAS the movie, to such a degree that a smartass could ask how it could get nominated for best editing."

Um, I believe I was that smartass. Although I must concede that a second viewing of the film revealed dozens of "conventional edits." Still I suspect that nomination had more to do with an admiration for the film and Cuaron by the editorsâ€™ branch than a specific citation of its edits.

Incidentally, I think I'd be more depressed by Sunshine winning best picture than I was when Crash won (and I was mighty bummed when that happened). I can forgive knee-jerk liberalism that mistakes a film with an "important" subject as good filmmaking (I only see a degree of inches between Crash and something regarded as a classic like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner). But for voters to consciously vote for a piece of recycled, National Lampoon's fluff as their personal favorite, free of any political implications would be a sad, sad reflection on the state of film in the year 2006.

Todd said:

"Ironically, this may have cost Pan's Labyrinth the win (it being, after all, a fairly conservative, narrative film), simply because it had monsters (or so I have seen theorized)."

It's an interesting theory but one which does a bit of a disservice to The Lives of Others which was (eventually) as well received as Pan's was in most critical circles. I'm convinced Sony Pictures Classics screwed up big time by only releasing the film in LA at the end of the year, leaving it out of the running for most critics awards (although it did win LAFC). I've always felt the individual parts of Pan's were a lot better than the whole and the awards the film did win reflect that sentiment as well.

I've never seen an official Oscar ballot but I can't help but wonder if it takes into account voters not having seen every nominee. This year I voted for the Independent Spirit Awards (aka the give everything to Little Miss Sunshine awards) and right on the ballot it states only rank the films you have seen, which I assume is factored into some kind of weighted system. Or maybe not: the highest grossing film (ie: the one likely viewed by the most voters) won in almost every single category at the ISA's.
Posted by Andrew Dignan on 2007-02-28 00:32:00 "I mean, who ISN'T happy to see everybody's buddy, Marty, hoisting an Oscar?"

Me. The list of non-winners is definitely more impressive than the list of winners, and I care enough about Scorsese to see him leave the former for the latter.
Posted by Noel Vera on 2007-02-27 23:14:00 Forgot to mention the exceptions in those three categories -- thanks, Todd.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2007-02-27 22:39:00 Nomi, it's an honors system for all categories but foreign film, documentary and short, where you have to sign an affadavit swearing you've seen the nominees at official Academy screenings. This can account for the often unadventurous choices in those categories, because the handful of people who have the time to see all five nominees are often older or retired and more wedded to conservative filmmaking ideals. Ironically, this may have cost Pan's Labyrinth the win (it being, after all, a fairly conservative, narrative film), simply because it had monsters (or so I have seen theorized).

The rumor is that less than 10% of the Academy's membership routinely sees all five nominees in any one of these categories, but, of course, AMPAS doesn't release such statistics.
Posted by Todd VanDerWerff on 2007-02-27 22:27:00 Nomi: It's an honors system. Academy voters make a good faith effort to see everything, but in the six-week window between nominations and awards, it's final exam time -- time is short, and obviously some hard choices have to be made. In some cases that surely translates into people voting for things they've already seen and liked (and in some cases, were already inclined to seek out) over things they didn't get around to seeing at an academy screening or watching on DVD at home, and that might be considered unappetizing for some reason or another. (This might be the best argument for homophobia being a factor, however unconscious, in "Brokeback" beating "Crash," as per Nathaniel R's piece -- given a choice between a liberal back-pat fest about the evils of racism and a slow-moving modern western about two gay sheep herders, voters went with option A.)

There's also a buzz factor at play -- if, by the end of the calendar year, certain films are established as must-sees -- conversation topics at parties -- voters make time to see them, and they may neglect titles with less buzz. Again, human nature at work.

One daughter is all I can handle, but thanks for the offer. She's a kick. Just today she noticed my copy of Roger Ebert's all-pans compilation, "I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie" and asked to read it. She flipped through the index for titles of movies she'd seen -- there weren't too many -- and asked, "Has Roger Ebert ever written a book of bad reviews about only animated movies?"

I said no, not to my knowledge.

She stared at the book for a second, then asked, "What else has this guy written?"
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2007-02-27 22:11:00 Here's a pretty good FAQ piece if anyone's interested.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2007-02-27 22:08:00 Thanks for the link. It was the phrase "so much of" that threw me.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2007-02-27 21:42:00 Matt, I get most of my Oscar-y stuff from The Film Experience, and I'm basing a lot of my thoughts on what Nathaniel wrote over there last year, linked here.
Posted by Todd VanDerWerff on 2007-02-27 21:33:00 Matt, may I be your other 9-year-old daughter?

I do have a question that I suppose an extremely precocious 9-year-old ;) could ask. I clearly understand that how-how-many-people-have-seen-it factor certainly comes into play as far as nominations. But once the nominations are chosen, and the voting goes out to the general academy members, is it purely an honor's system arrangement that tries to ensure that the voters have actually taken the time to see the movies they are not voting for?

(Forgive me if this is a well known age old Oscar complaint/debate. I'm only nine years old.)
Posted by Nomi on 2007-02-27 21:22:00 I think you're off re: the Oscars online fan base being predominantly gay. I don't see interest in the awards skewing one way or another, notwithstanding The Advocate and other outlets dubbing the telecast, "The gay Super Bowl."
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2007-02-27 20:42:00 Matt, I like Streep better in comedies than in dramas. I seem to be the only one though. Her performance in Adapatation is a personal favorite. Also, is there any way Morris' upcoming Abu Ghraib film won't be awesome? (And now it will probably be awful.) I try not to hype myself for stuff, but. . .that seems like a perfect match of subject matter and director, particularly after reading his NYT essay on truth and denial spurred on by the photos from the prison.

Also, I think LMS winning would have been met with a collective shrug. So much of the Oscars fan base (at least online) is gay, and a big element in the Crash backlash had to do with anger at AMPAS members who refused to see Brokeback due to subject matter. At least, as I saw it.

Tall Chris -- right you are. I completely forgot Lee had won, which is really pathetic of me. I guess in that case, the new storyline will be -- when will AMPAS to award an African-American or female director?

Or am I off?
Posted by Todd VanDerWerff on 2007-02-27 20:27:00 Also, regarding Errol Morris' opener -- I like pretty much everything he's done up to now, but I thought the opener felt too much like an ad for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Which is what the whole telecast is, granted - but at least in past years, the opening comedy bits showed a bit of court jester disrespect in needling the industry and its power players (or showed those same players taking part in the prank, showing they could take a joke). This one felt a bit too respectful to me -- even the bit with Spielberg taking a cell phone call in the middle of his interview was very affectionate.

Also, two other bits I liked: Scorsese's improv with DeGeneres when she tried to slip him a script (easy to forget what a fine actor he is) and Streep's icy stare, which rescued that rather lame "personal assistant" shtick. (Streep's always been stereotyped as an ivory tower intellectual, but in her heart, I think she's probably a clown.)
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2007-02-27 19:04:00 I had a great time watching the Oscars at Disney World with my nine-year old daughter, who has just recently become obsessed with reading film reviews (every time we discuss any movie, she looks it up on Rotten Tomatoes to see who liked it and who didn't). She asked a lot of basic questions that put me in the position of having to explain very essential concepts.

For instance, when "Pirates" won for visual effects, she asked, "Did you think that had the best visual effects?" I said no -- my vote would have been for "Superman Returns," which had effects that were more poetic and beautiful, with a more sophisticated grasp of color and texture. She said, "Why do you think Pirates won?" I said probably because there are so many nominated movies to screen, and people are mainly concerned with the top eight categories (picture, director, the acting awards, the screenplay awards) so when they're pressed for time, in the minor categories they'll often vote for something they saw and liked. More people saw "Pirates" than saw "Superman Returns," and while the critics weren't too kind to either movie, the shallow-escapism-and-proud-of-it "Pirates" was more widely enjoyed among non-critics than "Superman Returns" (which had pretensions toward pop mythology, and was much more divisive).

I told her, "I think what happened was, more people saw 'Pirates,' and of people who saw both movies, they enjoyed 'Pirates' more."

"What does that have to do with visual effects?" she asked. "The category is best visual effects, not 'Movie you liked the most.""

I said this is the way of the world. I said I suppose it's possible that everyone who voted for "Pirates" over "Superman" in that category saw both films and legitimately thought the former had more imaginative and convincing effects, but somehow I doubted it.

She asked a similar question about the cinematography category. I told her I didn't love "Children of Men" as much as everyone else -- I respected the effort but thought it wasn't as deep as it seemed -- but if there was a category where the movie deserved to win, it was this one. The super-long-take cinematography WAS the movie, to such a degree that a smartass could ask how it could get nominated for best editing. (I know -- best editing does not equal most editing, but you get my point.) I said I thought "Pan's Labyrinth" won in this category for the same reason "Pirates" beat "Superman" for visual effects -- more people saw "Pan's," and while both films are respected, anecdotally I get the sense that people just adored de Toro's film but only respected Cuaron's. In fact, I have a couple of friends who are academy members, and their votes in these two categories lined up with the eventual winners, for the reasons I describe.

"What difference does it make if you liked the movie or not?" my daughter asked again. "You said yourself that people win acting awards for good performances in movies that aren't good."

"Yeah, but that's acting," I said. "Most of the other categories are held to a different standard."

"That doesn't seem fair," she said.

I don't think so either. But that's life.

On a side note, on the personal Oscar ballot I filled out for an informal poll among blog contributors, I picked "Little Miss Sunshine" to win, because in the past six months, I've heard many moviegoers -- and a few academy members -- say that they loved that movie more than anything else they saw last year, and wanted it to win. So I was a little surprised that it didn't. Imagine the uproar if it had! It would have made the "Crash" fury look mild in comparison.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2007-02-27 18:57:00 Patrick, I didn't hear the red carpet person name those three directing greats of the 1970's (God, I'd hate to completely relegated to a decade that ended decades ago while I'm still breathing and working), but it seems pretty obvious that he or she had Francis Ford Coppola in mind and fumbled it. But why do I think you already know that?
Posted by Nomi on 2007-02-27 11:45:00 Bob Weber,

Thanks for clearing that up, I've been living a lie! What does everyone think about that? Should choosing a winner for say, art direction, be limited to art directors? I'm putting in a vote for yes. Surely a licensed cinematographer would be more fit to give a cinematography award than, say, Ed Asner.

I just tried to read the Academy's labyrinthian voting regulations and got lost, but what is the rule on shorts? Same deal?
Posted by Patrick Walsh on 2007-02-27 08:11:00 Note to Patrick Walsh,

Cinematographers nominate other cinematographers ( and writers nominate writers, etc...) but everyone votes from the final list of nominees for the winner.

Bob Weber
Posted by Bob Weber on 2007-02-27 03:54:00 "Todd VanDerWerff said...

I think the next onus on the Academy from the media will be awarding a non-white male in the directing category."

Ang Lee doesn't count?
Posted by (tall) Chris on 2007-02-27 03:12:00 I'm only doing this shameless piece of self-promotion because Keith asked me to, but if anyone isn't Oscared out yet, you can read my ramblings and rant on the show here.
Posted by Edward Copeland on 2007-02-27 02:57:00 Patrick Walsh's post was....unpleasant.
Posted by Justin on 2007-02-27 01:32:00 So who does the "greatest living English-language director without an Oscar but still in AMPAS wheelhouse" default to. My money's on Malick, but there's no way he's ever winning anything but an honorary.

I think the next onus on the Academy from the media will be awarding a non-white male in the directing category.

And, to those who commented, Jennifer Hudson has apparently taken meetings with Spike Lee and Quentin Tarantino?
Posted by Todd VanDerWerff on 2007-02-27 01:15:00 Scorsese has now left the company of Hawks, Hitchcock, Welles, Kurosawa, Altman and Kubrick as directors who've never won (for best director) and joins the company of Barry Levenson, Ron Howard, Kevin Costner and John Avildsen. I dunno, this is probably a very happy day in the Scorsese home but as it's almost universally accepted that The Departed is not one of Scrosese's best I think his role as a martyr would have made for a better legacy. As long as Marty didn't have an award it was like a constant middle finger to the entire shitty institution and their irrelevance. Now he's been embraced by the same organization that selected Crash.

Just a few random thoughts: I applaud the selection of The Lives of Others for foreign language film. The whole scenario reminded me of when No Man's Land (deservingly) beat the much more high profile and profitable Amelie. One of the few things the Academy does right is only allowing voters who attend the foreign language screenings (as well as those for docs and shorts) vote for those categories.

I've always been a little bit baffled by the whole Jennifer Hudson craze. I equate her performance with that of your average Jackie Chan performance. Which is to say it's half dazzling spectacle and half dead-eyed, conviction-less, line readings. Any scene which stranded Hudson mid-frame with hand planted on hip and a single directorial cue ("be defiant Jennifer") and dialogue as opposed to song, felt like a high school production.

Also can the Academy please host a seminar explaining the difference between cinematography and art direction, or at the very least put together a pamphlet to send out to voters. It would help avoid embarrassments like the one last night that resulted in the guy who shot the Spy Kids movies winning over Children of Men.
Posted by Andrew Dignan on 2007-02-27 00:54:00 Happy for Marty (now everyone utter a collective "phew" and move on), but bummed that Letters from Iwo Jima didn't get a little more recognition. I'm pretty sure it's the one film from all the nominees that will stand the test of time.

It sure looks like Norbit bit Eddie on his big ol' ass, doesn't it?
Posted by Dan Jardine on 2007-02-27 00:19:00 Matt. Yes we did need to be reminded that showbiz is the true religion. I felt rather zen about that gospel number. Especially after catching a glimpse of the red carpet action on E! channel. Lynchian is a word that kind of describes it.
I watched the show specifically to see Helen Mirren win. Yeah she was hot as Morgana in Excaliber, but she's put in the best performance. I'll agree tho that Gong Li shoulda been a nominee.
kenjfuj.The Tom Hanks snarky comment was hilarious.Something like "Hey! Chris! Yeah Folks! Stay tuned for more FUN!"
I know Babel was labeled as the next Crash(stayed away from THAT one last year) and yeah it was "contrived"....but Adriana Barraza put in a moving performance..so altho i expected Jennifer Hudson to win, it felt wrong. Then again, sort of like a "Jennifer Huds Hudssssnot gonna be working here anymore" kind of award. She's an awesome singer. Continue on that journey.
I liked Ellen's bit about keeping with the "Green" theme at the Oscars and decided to recycle old material.
As for Scorcese. Oye. This guy has been courting the hollywood insiders openly for so long. "Leo I hope i make movies with you forever!" He swallowed his pride, hired Nicholson against his wishes (it appears)..and was anointed.
Posted by Kino on 2007-02-27 00:13:00 I'm just mostly glad that "Babel" didn't won for best picture... That really made my day, and how can't you not feel joy for Martin Scorsese. I know "The Departed" isn't his best movie but it was the best movie I watched in 2006.

I was one of many who didn't got Miami Vice the first time around (I promise I'll give it another try on DVD after reading your review).

"The Black Dahlia" was a great noir but had a weak plot and suffered from a weak lead.

"Inland Empire" has not yet been released in Denmark but I'm looking forward to it, big Lynch fan.

Best Forein film "Das Leben Der Anderen" (The Lives of others) is a great film, and compared to Pans Labyrinth a better choice. Even though it was an interesting movie it was mainly weird for the sake of weird.

How "Children of Men" didn't win for best Cinematography is beyond me...
Posted by Lasse Andersen on 2007-02-26 23:39:00 Before things even started, one of those red carpet morons was talking about the "great 70's directors like Lucas, Ford, and Coppola." Anyone else see that? Who would the Ford be exactly, John Ford? They were hardly contemporaries. Harrison Ford? He's a popular actor. Henry Ford? He was a car manufacturer.

Cinematographers vote for Best Cinematography so there's only one way to explain Children of Men not winning: Jealousy.

Good to see Ichabod Crane pick up the Best Costume Design Oscar.

Can you imagine if Hugh Grant and Ellen DeGeneres were in a romantic comedy together? Aside from the obvious chemistry issues, that movie would be six hours on line readings alone.

ELLEN: I'm trying to...decide if I love you the most, because...if I love you the most that means I can't love...cheesecake most...and I do love cheesecake, but, no I mean I like you a lot, but I also...really do love cheesecake, but then again cheesecake...doesn't really love me back, so it's hard to...say...if you...

HUGH: I understand...you are quite possibly...yes, oh I'm terribly embarassed...no it's just that...hippity dippity diggery doo, ah, yes, no terribly sorry, terribly sorry...it's just that my trousers....yes, or rather my knickers are, you see it's just...I say, you really are quite beautiful.

I thought Ellen was OK, but she missed a great presenter intro opportunity:

"Ladies and gentlemen, two of my favorite queens, Queen Latifah and John Travolta!"

Don't usually notice fashion, but I believe Cameron Diaz was wearing a paper airplane.

I just pretended Happy Feet won an award for Shittiest Shit That Ever Shat. It made it easier to deal with. It's not like I was passionate about the other two nominees, but...my God. Happy Feet?

Biggest laugh of the night was the clip they showed from Click, Adam Sandler in a fat suit screaming "I'm a fat guy!" That's how you know your makeup is working, when the character has to yell what he's supposed to be. I expected the Pan's Labyrinth clip to be "I got eyes in my hands!!!"

Those dancers forming objects was reasonably neat. I kept wishing it was 1997, the year Boogie Nights got some nominations. I'd love to see twenty ballet dancers form a 13-foot penis.

Terrible acceptance speeches all around last night, with Alan Arkin's being particularly annoying. Walked up like it was totally expected, read a confusingly worded speech off a piece of paper without looking up, sat down. Almost as obnoxious, Helen Mirren's "LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOUR QUEEN!!!" as she thrust the Oscar into the air. Um...what?

Outside of a possible supporting role in a Tyler Perry flick down the line (as a sassy single mother with a big heart who thinks she'll never find love again, until...let's say Blair Underwood walks into her life), Jennifer Hudson will never work again as an actress.

Just as things were getting dull, they wheeled out the lifeless corpses of James Taylor and Randy Newman to save the day. My pulse dropped about 50 beats per minute during that.

Thankfully, Celine Dion was waiting in the wings to sing a song written by the 200 year old Ennio Morricone. Who made that call?

Probably the same guy who made the call to have Morricone talk in Italian for ten minutes! Funniest cut of the night was when they cut from Morricone's endless foreign ramblings to a confused Ken Watanabe! If even Ken Watanabe can't mask his disgust at your English-speaking abilities, just get off the stage.

Yay Scorsese. Yay Departed.

www.patrickwalsh.blog-city.com
Posted by Patrick Walsh on 2007-02-26 23:12:00 Ryland, you love a good train wreck, huh?

I understand the call for "egdier" (God, I hate that word) hosting at the Oscars. But . . . well, it's a fine line. The Academy Awards are an establishment event and always will be, with all the negatives, and, yes, the positives of that. Despite the few definitely cringy moments that others have pointed out, I though Ellen was a great alternative to the by-the-book smoothness of Billy Crystal and the exciting train wrecks that Ryland's longing for.

We can go to Comedy Central any time we're in need of the ugly truth.

I found the Ennio Morricone tribute and Martin Scorsese's win two extremely touching moments. And most of the extras were better and funnier than usual.

Too long? Well, I'm in the it-didn't-feel-as-long-as-usual camp, but isn't complaining about the Oscars being too long a little silly? There are always boring parts, irritating parts, embarrassing parts. But those of us who sit through it every time, sit through it every time.
Posted by Nomi on 2007-02-26 23:03:00 From manuel's comment:

Asked to contribute to the creative process, Ballhaus says, Nicholson basically walked all over Scorsese during the 24 days he was on the set, improvising scenes and changing storylines as he went along.

If it's true, I think it makes sense when you see the movie. Others may disagree, but as Nicholson gets hammier and hammier as The Departed goes along, to me it almost feels as if Scorsese is perhaps inadvertently allowing the movie to get away from him (or maybe not so inadvertently; maybe he felt the audience preferred seeing more of the old devilish Jack).

From abhimanyu's comment:

...Jennifer Hudson's inexplicable win for being a good singer.

I kinda agree, but then, much of the drama in Dreamgirls was in the songs (whether or not one actually liked the songs). Hudson, as Effie, got the meatiest of them, and she, to borrow American Idol-speak, "made them her own, dawg." I just wonder how she'll fare if she ever decides to take on a purely dramatic role (if she ever does), because I thought, outside of her singing, she was serviceable at best.
Posted by kenjfuj on 2007-02-26 22:57:00 i'm quite happy with Lives of Others winning. one of my favourite films of last year.
Posted by manuel on 2007-02-26 21:52:00 Marty and The Departed picking up awards just about made up for Guillermo del Toro being ROBBED and Jennifer Hudson's inexplicable win for being a good singer. Along the lines of Halle Berry's win, that one - only worse.
Posted by Abhimanyu on 2007-02-26 21:00:00 I thought it was pretty bland all over although there were some highlights. I mean, who ISN'T happy to see everybody's buddy, Marty, hoisting an Oscar? But still, it just felt too smooth. I actually want the Oscars to feel like a trainwreck and last year's was a perfect example. Some comedian from outside the LA bubble flies in, ruffles some feathers, and then, in a move nobody believed would happen, the bubble closed in on itself and patted itself on the back by giving Paul Haggis (and LA) Best Picture. This year, it was all Hollywood self-congradulation. Even giving Martin Scorsese was a pat on the back, not a bold move. He won it, finally, for a remake! Oh well.

I think the biggest travesty was, perhaps, the acting nominations and wins this year. Don't get me wrong, Helen Mirren is great--and the hottest old lady around--and I can even support Forrest Whitaker's mugging a little bit as it's a top notch impression. But to snub Laura Dern, Carmen Maura, and Gong Li is pretty shitty. Also, the lead males: they nominated Leo for the wrong movie and forgot all about Clive Owen and Denzel, two of the better performers this year, as ever. Deja Vu kinda sucks but I watched a good hour of it solely because of Denzel. Inside Man was great and a lot of it was Denzel -- and a lot of it was how Clive Owen could emote and gradate his performance through such a mask, using only his voice. And, of course, I totally dig Owen's work in Children of Men. Oh well.

A few more useless gripes, tho, before I go: I just read most of Proust's Swann's Way and the Nietzsche essay "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense" for the first time/s and it only fueled my ire against Little Miss Sunshine. I really doubt Mr Arndt read either one. Or, at the least, he didn't quite read them right. Cuz shoe-horning in those BIG TIME BALLERS into this small, safe movie felt like such an empty ploy even before I read either one. And I guess you could say the mute kid is the bad reader of Nietzsche but that's a pretty safe joke, too, isn't it? Oh well.

I, too, dug the Errol Morris opening. And I really wanted to love the Michael Mann thing but it felt kind of cumbersome and leaden. He should have just shown 25th Hour.

At least we had a year that gave us INLAND EMPIRE, Miami Vice, Block Party, Volver, Marie Antoinette, Jackass: Number Two, A Prairie Home Companion and, well, The Departed. I'm thankful for that.
Posted by Ryland Walker Knight on 2007-02-26 19:54:00 Any Oscar show where Crash doesn't win is right with me.

I was especially pleased that The Departed won since it was my favorite of the five nominees, disappointed that Lubezki won cinematography to the Academy's non-visual tastes and to various other horrible wins (Best Live-Action Short).
Posted by jeffmcm on 2007-02-26 19:50:00 My clocking for my oscar pool was 3:51 (which is probably a little longer than the offical time, since I run it until the end of the credits). Last year I had it at 3:33, so it was longer. The worst I have since 99 was in 2002, when it ran for 4:21.

One thing that kind of annoyed me that might just be a quirk - the foreign language film montage not playing any dialogue. I know we wouldn't have understood it, but still, it seemed to miss the point. Although I agree it was well done otherwise, as was the Morricone one. The writing one was OK, the Mann one and the Errol Morris film (except for Eddie Murphy) weren't.

I wasn't that crazy about Ellen - I thought the monologue was weak, and the Eastwood/Spielberg bit felt rehearsed, although I don't know if it was. I also thought she missed a possible good bit with the "recycled jokes" - she should have gone for things that have long since been forgotten.
Posted by Devin McCullen on 2007-02-26 19:16:00 Hooray for another Errol Morris opener. And even though Mann's montage was terribly edited, it made my night to see him quote Terence Malick.
Posted by jasmine on 2007-02-26 19:13:00 Chris Connelly is a former MTV news man, I think. I definitely know he was on MTV. I wish he would go back. Then we wouldn't have to deal with him.

I missed the opening monologue, but Ellen didn't seem too much on the money. Other than "they're naked," one of the highlights of the film, there wasn't much to write home about.

Though I felt most of the show was well done, it was too damn long. The writer's montage was a waste for me, and they waited far too long to get to any awards anyone cared about. That isn't a dig at Art Direction or Sound Editing (at least Letters From Iwo Jima got something), but we needed to wait 45 minutes before seeing Best Supporting Actor.

I'm very happy with the spread the wealth mentality that has dominated the last 3 shows. Most of the awards went to the right people (still a bit miffed at Pan's taking Cinematography . . .), and it prevented the show from getting too boring, at least with regards to the awards.
Posted by Dan E. on 2007-02-26 19:06:00 With regard to The Departed, I read an interesting interview with Michael Ballhaus, the film's cinematographer. According to him, The Departed was a pretty rushed affair, because De Niro wanted to use Damon in The Good Shepherd. Also, Nicholson was apparently not Scorsese's choice but the studio's. Asked to contribute to the creative process, Ballhaus says, Nicholson basically walked all over Scorsese during the 24 days he was on the set, improvising scenes and changing storylines as he went along.
Posted by Manuel on 2007-02-26 18:53:00 josh: Yeah, that was a pretty ironic and annoying mistake.

I missed the Ennio Morricone tribute, so I missed seeing Clint Eastwood translate for him (I guess I'm going to have to look for it on youtube or something). Otherwise...it was long, but it didn't feel too long to me (maybe because I was running up and down in between breaks). I'm fairly immune to whatever charms people see in Ellen Degeneres---maybe I just temperamentally prefer the perhaps more hit-or-miss but much edgier hosting style of Jon Stewart last year or Chris Rock (I think) the year before. She had her moments, but the funniest moment for me was the song-and-dance of Will Ferrell, Jack Black and John C. Reilly poking fun at the Academy's neglect of comedies and comedians. That I clapped for.

As for the victors last night---well, I suppose it's somewhat refreshing that the Academy decided to give Best Picture to a straight genre piece (and, despite the filmmakers' claims to the contrary, that's pretty much what I think the movie is) like The Departed instead of more overtly Oscar-baiting fare like Babel. If only I liked the movie more. (Both of my friends with whom I watched the telecast are far bigger Departed supporters than I am---one of them even claimed out loud that it was probably one of the best movies he's seen in quite a while---so I felt a little like the odd man out when it won.) But hey, Scorsese finally got his Best Director Oscar, so more power to him, I guess.

And who is this Chris Connelly guy? My friends and I all laughed when he put the microphone onto Tom Hanks and he responded with something hilariously insincere (I don't remember the exchange exactly; perhaps someone else remembers it better than I do at the moment). You all know what I'm talking about?
Posted by kenjfuj on 2007-02-26 17:51:00 Tosy and Cosh: My "Superman Returns" review is here.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2007-02-26 17:41:00 With everyone patting themselves on the back for all the diversity, I was more than a little annoyed when Monahan won, and the announcer noted that The Departed was based on a "Japanese" film.
Posted by Josh on 2007-02-26 17:17:00 I like the montages, too. Mann's was weird; I think he intended it as a warts-and-all history of America through film. Which was interesting, at least, though not especially well made (ending with James Brown's "Living in America"? Really?). Also, his use of "Ali" seemed excessive.

I enjoyed the ceremony overall, but preferred Jon Stewart-- also, I think last year's was shorter.

Jim Emerson captured the main problem nicely: "Since none of the Best Picture nominees inspired much passion (don't expect a "Crash"-lash" this year), and none stood out as a Timeless Achievement in Cinema, one winner was pretty much as good as another." Usually I'm rooting for or against something, but this year, not so much.
Posted by David Haglund on 2007-02-26 17:13:00 I got incredibly restless when I saw all the different time wasters they were inflicting upon us. My mom was trying to stay up to watch with me and when the clock hit 10 Central time (with the laughable TV listing saying the show would end at 10:30), she asked what was left and I had to tell her that they still had 10 awards, the Michael Mann montage, the In Memoriam segment, the Dreamgirls songs' performances and clips from a couple of the nominated best pictures. I'd have to check, but this had to be the longest show in quite some time and it sure felt like it to me. Of course, the dirty secret that Letterman gave away years ago is that as much as they profess to want to cut down the length, they really tell hosts to stretch so ABC can get in as many ads as they can. I just think it's terrible that they always try to put the blame on the winners' speeches when it's the extra crap that drag it out and they really want it longer for monetary reasons anyway.
Posted by Edward Copeland on 2007-02-26 16:29:00 Matt - Do you have a linkable review or post on Superman Returns somewhere? Would be very curious to read it.
Posted by Tosy And Cosh on 2007-02-26 16:25:00 There were some strange/cringeworthy moments -- I had to leave the room for a second when Ellen led that faux-revivalist choir down the aisles; did we really need a reminder that showbiz is America's real religion?

But otherwise, yeah, an excellent telecast. The silhouettes honoring the best picture nominees were the best idea they've had in years. The idea was visual but in no way literal, and brief to boot.

Scorsese's speech was great. I also liked the little kids presenting the short film nomines (though if I was one of those nominees, I might feel condescended to -- I mean, really, were no adults available?).

The most intriguing aspect of the telecast was the undeniable internationalist vibe. It really did look like the United Nations out there. Of course the Academy patted itself on the back for this, good Hollywood liberals that they are -- I could have definitely done without Ellen's "look at how diverse we are" spiel at the start of the evening, as if we couldn't see that with our own eyes. But it's still a striking development. Not only were some of the most-honored movies very UN in flavor ("Babel," "Children of Men," "Blood Diamond") but there was also a behind-the-scenes diversity (as so many people have already pointed out, three of the most-honored films were from Mexico), and you had a special award going to Morricone (another highlight -- even if Clint Eastwood's translation was aided by cue cards, the sight of the Man with No Name making like Morricone's personal assistant in a strange land was another evening highlight -- so many of them). My question is, is this a pivotal moment in Hollywood history -- the point where barriers truly begin to break down, and movies become a genuinely international industry instead of being defined by borders -- or was it an anomaly?

I tend to think the former. Judging from the announcement of who financed the international featurs and shorts, I'd say we're already getting there.

"Babel" and "United 93" got mostly shut out, which pleased me, as I thought the were hammer-to-the-head movies that make a huge impression when you first see them but that will fade from the mind (and from the collective consciousness) rather quickly. As readers of this blog know, "The Departed" is among my least favorite Scorsese films, but I still enjoyed it, and have new affection for it now that it got Scorsese the recognition that's so preoccupied him during the last ten or 15 years.

From a purely personal standpoint, it was nice to see so many images from Terrence Malick's movies -- well, just "Days of Heaven" and one or two snippets from "The New World" -- creeping into the telecast. To me this seemed like evidence that Malick is finding his way into the mainstream pantheon, albiet slowly.

The foreign language film montage by Guiuseppe Tornatore ("Cinema Paradiso") was incredibly gracefuly and moving -- like a Chuck Workman short, but more supple somehow, with cutting on similar actions/shapes/compositions to make it seem as though all the films were scenes in one very long movie. It was reminiscent -- probably intentionally -- of the kiss montage from the end of Tornatore's "Paradiso." The montages are often highlights of the evening, though Michael Mann's seemed very weak and confusing to me -- could someone tell me what, exactly, it was supposed to convey? When Will Smith introduced it, I was rooting around in a sofa bed trying to find my three-year old's lost stuffed animal.

Of course most of my favorite 2006 films got few or no nominations -- "INLAND EMPIRE," "Miami Vice," "The Good Shepherd," "Superman Returns," "The Black Dahlia," "A Prairie Home Companion" -- but seeing as how rarely my tastes match up with the Academy's, that's to be expected. I enjoyed the show as a show and found the whole thing less insufferable than usual.

I agree that the evening was long but didn't play long. Whatever they're doing, they should keep doing it.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2007-02-26 16:02:00 Todd, I agree. I wasn't as invested as I usually am, which may explain why it passed quickly, but it seemed markedly less dull and gluey this year, pacing-wise.
Posted by Sars on 2007-02-26 15:06:00 Hmmm, I found the show pretty boring this year. No sharp gags/one liners (sorry, but I think Ellen was sooo lame), no big emotions, no "freaky" or "freaky-funny" stuff of any kind (Ã¡ la moore, brody, gooding jr. etc). Everything and everyone was earnest, polite and harmless. There was no "edge" to it. And with 4 hours the whole thing was way too long...

greetings from germany
Posted by kai on 2007-02-26 13:42:00 For one of the weaker nominee slates of recent years, I thought this was a remarkably well-produced show. I watch the Oscars every year regardless, but this one really seemed to go by more quickly than the show usually does.
Posted by Todd VanDerWerff on 2007-02-26 11:22:00 Ellen rocked.

I thought most of the attempts at upping the production's hipness were mostly successful.

My mom took me to see Pilobolus when I was maybe 12. They made a big impact on me then. Hadn't thought of them in a long time, though.
Posted by Nomi on 2007-02-26 10:22:00 Is there any good place to go for online video highlights. Particularly Marty's acceptance speech? I'm in the UK this year and wasn't able to watch the awards. I'm assuming YouTube will have something, but it's not there yet.
Posted by Tom E on 2007-02-26 09:28:00 It was beautiful listening to Marty's ovation.

Talk about the surprises. Alan Arkin for supporting, LMS for screenplay, and The Departed's Editing and Picture wins.

As for the show itself, I thought Ellen was great, though you could tell a few of her quirks were embraced with skepticism. The Pilobolus Dance Theatre's shadow performances were really something.
Posted by Simon on 2007-02-26 07:55:00