Comments on: The Oscars, Star-Studies Style http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/2010/03/08/the-oscars-star-studies-style/ Responses to Media and Culture Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:35:04 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.5 By: Anne Helen Petersen http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/2010/03/08/the-oscars-star-studies-style/comment-page-1/#comment-1224 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:39:19 +0000 http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/?p=2460#comment-1224 Colin: I don’t think that Sandra Bullock’s image is dangerous — what’s dangerous is the way the image itself facilitates glossing over the problematics of the specific role in Blind Side (and also the specific negotiation of Canadian-ness in The Proposal). Does that make sense? Her star image inoculates against critique.

And Jonathan, you’re totally correct about the power of the Oscar, especially as concerns young actresses’ careers. Oscars help attract work initially, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it builds a solid career. Oscars don’t make star images; but sometimes — as in the case of both Roberts and Bullock — an established and incredibly likable star image can swing the voting pendulum in your direction.

]]>
By: Jonathan Gray http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/2010/03/08/the-oscars-star-studies-style/comment-page-1/#comment-1194 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:58:29 +0000 http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/?p=2460#comment-1194 Oscars don’t tend to do great things for a young(ish) actress’ career these days, mind you: just ask Halle Berry and Gwenyth Paltrow, or Charlize Theron or Nicole Kidman, or even Reese Witherspoon. In that respect, let’s give thanks that Carey Mulligan didn’t win 🙂

]]>
By: Colin Tait http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/2010/03/08/the-oscars-star-studies-style/comment-page-1/#comment-1189 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:29:43 +0000 http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/?p=2460#comment-1189 Very happy about the Bigelow win – as are many of my would-be female directing students.

I’m still not sure what the story of Bullock could or will be after this year…like Julia Roberts, she hadn’t had a hit in some time, begging folks to question whether she still had “it” or not (the same is being said of Julia, aside from the flashes we may have seen in Valentine’s Day…) So certainly she’s a modest star this year, but who knows what will come up for her next…

I’m also not entirely sure if Bullock herself is the source of the “dangerousness” that you attribute to her – I’m actually more offended by her portrayal as a “Canadian” (and a badly rendered Torontonian no less) – than her imitation of a real-life figure, but but perhaps that’s a conversation we could (and should) have another time.

Though there were not so many surprises in the end, I think that it’s worth recealling that the story of this year’s crop of Best Pictures all seem to be little movies that could or that were underestimated and importantly, not many of them had “stars” in the traditional sense.

Neither the Blind Side nor Hurt Locker nor Precious were expected to do the business that they did nor were they expected to win the big awards for the year. Crazy Heart wasn’t supposed to go anywhere. Who had even heard of Christoph Waltz? The same was true of Up (critics weren’t sure that the story of a 70-year old man would appeal to anyone) and everyone thought that Crazy Uncle James Cameron would lose his shirt (just like he was supposed to with Titanic)…I guess my point is that it’s hard to remember that all (if not most) of these movies were (and perhaps are still) small.

A final note on “liveness,” I actually think that Steve Martin had the best line of the night, after Geoffrey Fletcher’s Best adapted screenplay win – he announced “I wrote that speech”.

]]>
By: Myles McNutt http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/2010/03/08/the-oscars-star-studies-style/comment-page-1/#comment-1176 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:45:12 +0000 http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/?p=2460#comment-1176 As always, some great thoughts on the show – it’s interesting to see how the shortened speeches technically give the winners less time, but in some ways it asks them to more directly exude “star quality.” You saw some winners (as Derek points out) skip out on Thank Yous and try to leave their mark on the ceremony (Giacchino, Powell), while you had some others who tried to get one big joke (Foreign Language winner dropping a funny Avatar joke to an unreceptive audience, perhaps because the winner the same year as Return of the King made the same joke in a more landslide-esque situation) or one big statement (Mo’Nique speaking out against the claims that the politics of award campaigning would ruin her oscar chances), trying to use their moment in the spotlight (which, for the non-actors, might never come again) to fit into our perception of what award winners should be. In some cases this was “stars,” in others it was something more subtle and meaningful (like Giacchino’s focus on role modeling). And while The Hurt Locker lacks “major” stars, I thought that all three cast members got their “star” moments, where it’s Renner’s great moment with Bigelow on her way to the stage or Mackie/Geraghty/Renner’s hugely emotional reaction to the Best Picture win and their choice to stand together behind Kathryn and Boal during the acceptance speech looking just so gosh-darned happy about it.

However, I do have one quibble:

others (read: Cameron Diaz) can’t even read the teleprompter — or improvise when the teleprompter forgets to change the name of the presenter.

Diaz didn’t entirely LAND the joke, but I believe the intention was that the opening dialogue of the bit indicated that Diaz and Carell were both intensely beautiful people, which would have made more sense (or sense at all, if you buy into the joke) if Law had been presenting with her. Thus, her confusion was to give the earlier remarks humorous context – it got a bit muddled, but it had more potential than most of the presentation humour.

]]>
By: Derek Kompare http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/2010/03/08/the-oscars-star-studies-style/comment-page-1/#comment-1173 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:46:24 +0000 http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/?p=2460#comment-1173 One of my favorite things about the Oscars is how it works as live (or quasi-live, in our put-the-kids-to-bed household; we didn’t start watching till 9ish) television. Everyone associated with it works so damn hard to put on The Show, and that flop sweat is always in evidence, even in the bits that work. Stars aren’t often stars LIVE to an audience of a billion or so, after all. Accordingly, I think most critics set the bar way too high for this event. Who today is a slam-dunk as a live TV performer? Or even just as a presenter or winner? Nobody. Thus, I watch to be pleasantly diverted by the machinery and politics of it all, to sympathize with the terror embodied by some winners (even old hands), and to hope a decent moment or two comes out of it.

Here are some decent-enough moments:
– the whole bit with Tina Fey and Downey; best scripted patter all night
– the John Hughes tribute (lots to ruminate on stars and memorializing here, as the middle-aged bodies of my Gen X cohort (plus Mac Culkin) trundled on-stage like a surreal high school reunion)
– the Kanye-like dispute at the podium over Prudence
– Jeff Bridges soaking it in
– Kathryn Bigelow blown away
– Cristoph Waltz’ textbook classy acceptance speech
– Michael Giacchino’s genuine (if cliched) call for letting kids be creative (overdue award for him; I’m a big fan!)
– Sandy Powell’s plea for more recognition for low-budget and contemporary costuming
– the dancing in the score category was refreshingly rough around the edges
– the lead-up to the actor and actress awards (with colleagues introducing all nominees) worked better this year than last; oh, that saucy Helen Mirren!

My biggest complaint: doing away with the best original song performances. Yes, they slow the show down. Yes, only a couple of the songs are decent enough any given year. But they’re a nice part of the legacy of live TV, and I missed it this year. Moreover, I’m really surprised ABC/Disney let slip past an opportunity to pimp the Princess and the Frog DVD with a double performance of their nominated songs. No, James Taylor covering the Beatles does not cut it.

]]>
By: The Oscars, Star-Studies Style « Celebrity Gossip, Academic Style http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/2010/03/08/the-oscars-star-studies-style/comment-page-1/#comment-1171 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:24:53 +0000 http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/?p=2460#comment-1171 […] Oscars, Star-Studies Style Here’s a push to go check out my new post on the Oscars and stardom over at my other blogging home, […]

]]>
By: Chelsea Bullock http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/2010/03/08/the-oscars-star-studies-style/comment-page-1/#comment-1170 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:20:42 +0000 http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/?p=2460#comment-1170 Spot on. I especially agree with your analysis of Sandra Bullock’s performance last night — there was/is something quietly dangerous about her character and her win. Her whole speech about everyone deserving to be loved seemed a natural extension of the character she played in “The Blind Side,” sweetness and denial proving to be a potent and lulling combination. I haven’t seen the film, but they showed so many clips last night I feel like I have.
Also? Love that you refer to Him as “Edward Pattinson.” Appropriate, especially considering his absence.
Finally, I’m so with you on the LiveTweeting. It made the entire watching experience way more fun and meaningful than it would have been, with me just groaning at the television alone.

]]>