The Oscars

Eight years after #OscarsSoWhite movement the Academy took steps toward racial and cultural diversity in its structure. Today however we continue to debate on exclusion, which I think stems from selected overrate and selected overlook.

Award winners Ke Huy Quan and Michelle Yeoh are undeniably good actors but what about Cate Blanchett or Austin Butler and the movies like Tar and Elvis? The little multiverse mudder Everything Everywhere All At Once is a mediocre film lacking a heart to relate. Academy maybe demonstrated its stance for diversity but also overlooked the artistic merits as sole benchmark for awards.

My personal awards this year go to Tar, Elvis and Belgium film Close.

The producers were hoping The Oscars 2023 would prove to be knockout for the viewers instead of the presenters like last year.

Presenter Jimmy Kimmel took his cue from Billy Crystal, inserting himself into footage of the Best Picture nominees.

Unfortunately his jokes lacked Crystal's sure touch. I thought maybe Steven Spielberg was going to slap him for poking fun of his parent's marriage.

It took a while for the ceremony to get going. Only one award was handed in the first half hour.

The two best supporting acting awards indicated that this would be the night for Everything Everywhere All at Once.

Ke Huy Quan no longer a Trivial Pursuit question. Whatever happened to the kid from Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom?

Jamie Lee Curtis showing she was always an acting talent to reckon with. Charismatic but the Hollywood bigwigs took a while to notice her outside of genre movies.

Brendan Fraser who seemed to have disappeared for a few years and them emerged on television got the Best Actor award. He was championed by Ian McKellen 25 years ago. He said once Brendan gets older, the looks go, the Hollywood executives will notice just what a good actor he is. The Mummy films might have been silly but Fraser always had the effortless star quality.

Michelle Yeoh took a leap from the martial arts genre. The first Star Trek captain to be an Oscar winner.

The songs were boring It was a good job Naatu Naatu had the infectious dance moves.

Overall rather safe and predictable. Apart from an impromptu Happy Birthday sang out at the auditorium.

. . . of this year's Academy Awards program. There were songs. There were dances. Celebrity cameos. Jokes galore. Some of the Favorites won. Some of the Dark Horses triumphed. Half of the ten Best Picture nominees reaped a total of zero shiny statuettes between them. The remaining quintet garnered 14 top prizes, with one lucky Mega Ball winner grabbing 7 of them, and another streaming service entry notching a quartet of trophies. Who cares if a few--or even most--of the glitterati in attendance wouldn't be caught dead in an actual movie theater, despite their frequent hypocritical tributes to flicks which had drawn in the Paying Public to see "movies like they were meant to be seen." Most of we normal, regular people also would prefer to stream the latest films--or view them on free "screen-er" discs--in the comfort of our own homes, if this were an affordable option available to us. To argue otherwise would smack of "sour grapes."

What a wonderful show it was this year with some genuinely deserving winners and an absolutely fantastic host. The one thing that kept bothering me however was the rush with which things were happening. I get that it's a long show but the Oscars take place only once in a year and it holds a special place in every cinema lover's heart. For all the importance associated with the Oscars, I feel rushing through with the awards night is not the right way to go. In comedy, it's a basic rule not to say anything when the audience is applauding at your jokes; the fact that an experienced host and comedian like Jimmy Kimmel had to break that rule and say his lines even as the audience clapped, gives an idea about the kind of pressure he must have been under to move forward the show at a rapid pace.

I know some winners have had the habit of just going on and on with their speech, so I tend to agree that there should be a time limit allotted to each winner to deliver their speech, but cutting them off, especially the first time winners, comes across as a little rude. The Oscars should go a little easy on first time winners and when there is more than one person receiving the award. I felt really bad for Guneet Monga, who was ready with her speech but wasn't allowed to say anything. She won an Oscar for Best Documentary Short Film for Nuestro bebé elefante (2022), and it was the first time an Indian had won this award, so it just felt a little unfair. Also, the next award which was given for Best Animated Short Film had two winners as well, but interestingly both of them were allowed to speak for close to two minutes, which felt rather odd. Why wasn't the Oscar management team consistent with the time allotted for the winner's speech? The award for the Best Make-up went to La ballena (The Whale) (2022) and even in this category more than one person was getting the trophy, but only one person was allowed to speak as the music started playing right after 36 seconds, cutting Judy Chin off; meanwhile both winners of Best Production Design were allowed to deliver their speech. This inconsistency was wrong and unfair in my honest opinion.

I was really happy with the decision of making Jimmy Kimmel the host of this year's Oscars, as he is truly an exceptional comedian and host. By the end of his initial monologue, he had delivered way more punches than what we experienced last year, only this time it left everyone in splits. I was looking forward to some more comedy from Jimmy Kimmel but unfortunately he was on stage for a very little time after his initial monologue; I guess they reduced the comedy on purpose this year to avoid a situation like the one we had last year. The segment where Jimmy Kimmel was throwing stupid questions towards the guests should have been longer as it was so much fun, but it just came to an end abruptly. I feel there are many things in an award show that can be cut short, but comedy is not one of them, because it keeps everyone in high spirits and excited.

The performance on the song 'Naatu Naatu' from RRR (2022) was truly one of the highlights of the show. The introduction by Deepika Padukone, the highly energetic dance and finally the Oscar for Best Original Song made this year's Oscars truly memorable for every Indian. Of course I can't say anything about every song that came out last year, but among the nominees, 'Naatu Naatu' was easily the most enjoyable number.

I was very happy to see Michelle Yeoh getting an Oscar; she is such an amazing talent and after so many years in the movie industry, her magic moment finally arrived at this year's Oscars. In my honest opinion, Michelle also gave the best speech of this year's Oscars; I feel it's so much better to say something that comes straight from your heart instead of thanking hundreds of people, because quite frankly that just comes across as a formality and not something that you really want to say.

This year's Oscars did not have a number of top actors and actresses like Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Tom Cruise, Emma Stone, Jennifer Lawrence, Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Joaquin Phoenix, Russel Crowe, Woody Harrelson and Lupita Nyong'o among others; I almost thought there is some kind of boycott happening his year! It would be really sad if just the nominees attend the event. It's understandable if people skip other award functions, but considering the importance associated with the Oscars, I was really hoping to see a lot more stars in the auditorium.

There is a visible effort being made by the Oscars to focus on representation and inclusivity, but in my honest opinion that should not be a criteria for selecting the winners. The award for the best film should go to the best film, that's it, there should be no additional eligibility criteria for it to fulfill. No one should be overlooked just because of who they are, but the quality of their work should be the only reason for them to win an award.

What does Oscar stand for? Why?

By Sultan Gencer March 13, 2023 @filmstarstudies

This year's #Oscars95 did not feature the red carpet, which was less appealing than in previous years. As previously observed, the color red heightened the appeal of renowned personalities uniquely. Their presence was swallowed up by the pale carpet color. Also, the strolling area for guests was small and tight, resulting in almost identical photographs. It was difficult to find eye-catching or gorgeous video clips or photographs. Surprisingly, only a few A-list stars attended the ceremony, and no applause could be heard from fans or members of the public. Similarly, the film stars' #Oscars2023 social media posts were noticeably low, notably on Twitter and Instagram. For the stars, the Oscar is losing its relevance as a source of status, a privileged position, and a platform for product endorsement and publicity. Notwithstanding that the non-red carpet pre-ceremony were extensively covered by digital, online, and social media, there was a noticeable lack of enthusiasm and excitement among the attendees.

There were separate brand, magazine, or agency parties both before and after the #Oscars95 ceremony. Stars also attended the events and were photographed. The period around Oscar was replete with celebratory and mediatized activities, beginning with the nominees' award promotion and concluding with post-ceremony publicity and coverage, whether they won or not. Months, if not a year, of planning have vanished in the blink of an eye.

Oscar-The Academy Awards play an essential role in shaping people's perceptions of movie stars. It is a form of affirmation of cinematic acting in a certain picture, combined with critics and viewers' appreciation of the actor's skill. Winning or getting nominated becomes an identifying (or differentiating, one-of-a-kind) phrase in the actor's media depictions and biography. Oscar offers actors momentary popularity; nonetheless, the main question is if it delivers fresh performing alternatives or not.

In some cases, such as with Julia Roberts, nominations and/or Oscar wins changed the star's standing. In the early years of her career, an Oscar nomination and win transformed her status from a rising film actor (from the late 1980s to the early 1990s) to one of Hollywood's most influential stars in the early 2000s.

Despite the fact that it is her unique case, it still shows how rising actors may be noticed and applauded during nomination campaigns or after receiving an Oscar. The Oscars provide hope that great exposure may enhance awareness of their names and images, among other aspects.

Yet, it is different for established stars who allude to the re-validation, legitimization, and re-recognition of their talent. When it comes to established film stars, keeping a high level of components (e.g., pay, film budget, box office, star vehicle, good reactions) is just as important as winning an Oscar.

On the contrary, not all film actors want the Oscar, such as Marlon Brando, who has harshly criticized and expressed his objection to its oppressive norms, lack of understanding, and discriminating responses to off-screen events such as minority and race.

The Oscar is one of the few credible worldwide prizes with at least symbolic significance. It is advantageous for films and performers whose names are published as a marketing tool to use exaggerated words like "Oscar Winner" or "Oscar Nominated" in advertisements and promotions.

The Oscars are awarded through a linear, continuing, dynamic, and ever-changing procedure. There is always "the next," and the Oscar is awarded to whomever or wherever the worldwide preparation takes place each year. It can be an aspect of film investments, and the item in stars' films involves a production or distribution firm.