The 81st Annual Academy Awards

I'm interested in these awards, not because of who wins or why. Sure we all have our favorites, but the more we celebrate when someone we value is recognized, the more we endorse this notion of a competition. A competition in the arts?

No, I'm interested because I study introspection in film, and there is no more obvious and consistent event than this show about shows, this story about storymaking and the people involved. The entrance of the players has become a sort of performance in itself, only the actual awards seem to have escaped as we must suffer through each recipient's list of people they are obligated to mention. Its a puzzling phenomenon why this occurs: the persons judged by the world as the most able to convey stories that matter — and we end up with such dreary speeches, mostly.

But its the show, right? Well, this show really was something unusual. As Jackman said is more "Show" than "Business." I'm sure he was parroting a decision made by the Academy based on their plummeting ratings. Regardless of the reason, the retread was welcome by me.

There were three notable elements, four if you count the pretty wonderful Busby Berkeley inspired production number that Jackman led. Two of them had to do with the stage, the physical stage itself. Since spending time in the Globe and discovering the magic of stage geometry all over again, I appreciated these and am a bit in wonder at the sophistication of the designer, who I understand is Joe Celli.

He designed a massive halo curtain of glittering crystals. I have no idea what something like this costs and what happens to the crystals. It must have been really impressive in the physical space because of the multispectral quality of refracted light. Elsewhere, I've written of the quality of snow and early theater screens. They have this presentation of scintillating colors that appears white but has an inner life, an inner texture. I would have traveled to LA just to experience this, which probably was better without the celebrities.

The other thing they did spatially was to design a stage that repurposes the performance geometry on which the Globe theater was based, the "Globe" of religious performance that Michelangelo created in Saint Peter's Square (where the Pope does his celebrity performance — in fact this is also the origin of the red carpet).

There's a yet to be appreciated pentagonal quasicrystral structure there, something that is tied deeply to notions of presence and being. I'm certain that they did not integrate this design into other elements of the show except as mentioned below. But its a pretty extraordinary statement.

Where they did integrate this five-fold symmetry was in the most extraordinary design change in the actual award presentations. For each of the five nominees for important statues, they presented five previous winners, each of whom "presented" the nominee. They were placed on this floor-stage design in ALMOST a significant way. I think perhaps the designer had them where it mattered. But they were relocated so that the five large screens behind them could be captured better in the focal frame of the three sailing cameras. Something of shame. But the intent is amazingly, wonderfully, intelligently clear.

Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Australians! What else is there?

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

OK, I don't believe in the Oscar as the final stand or the most important cinematic award in the world. It's another award for movies, basically American ones, that was fair and unfair along the years. But sure when it comes to the "show" value, it's not like any other one. Through so many years, especially the 1980s and the 1990s, the night of the Annual Academy Awards used to be big, dazzling, esteeming the spirit of cinema passionately. There were performances and short clips that assured that highly. However, in the last couple of years, the things have never become the same.

Here, I didn't feel the word "ceremony" blazingly. (Hugh Jackman) is a decent host, who can dance well too, but let's face it; he isn't a comedian with witty lines (the word is too decent); undoubtedly the other presenters said a whole lot of funnier stuff than him: "I had to be a vampire to be loved, I had 3 fathers!". Yet, thank God that (Chris Rock) wasn't close this round!

Just one moment got my attention, being both the highest of what this night presented. One is when (Queen Latifah) sang "I'll be Seeing You", so perfect, as a tribute for all the artists who died in 2007; aside from its way of making remembering the late ones a something to remember, it was frankly the best performance for this song yet.

The clips to honoring (Jerry Lewis), or for the main nominated films' themes, were pathetic. The stage was poor; this is by all means not what the Oscars used to be. The academy stage in nights like this was always huge and solemn as the moment of winning itself. This time, the sets made it look like the Golden Globe's stage; smaller and not that stately. Even the camera's cadres were limited!

And when (Will Smith) had to hand in something like 4 awards in one row, it gets silly and boring already, particularly with idiot hasty material that was written for him. There is something totally missing in the writing for the Oscars this year, and just compare what you've been hearing here, "The editors effort" bit for instance, to any previous night to understand that clearly.

Speaking about boring things, I hated the most this piece of music that has been played whenever they have to cut to commercials, OH MY GOD, it was too ominous and so out of the mood, not to mention sickly repetitive. To tell you the truth, the whole music was away from being as rich as it always was. I found that playing (Lawrence of Arabia)'s main theme in specific more than once during the night was strange, ignoring many other themes as nostalgic as it.

The new tradition of some ex-winners actors talk about their fellows who got nominated is catchy and full of eminent deference. It seemed like (The Oscars) meets (Inside the Actors Studio) in a good way. But I think that allowing the winner to give a long, LONG, speech can be wearisome.

All in all, it wasn't that enjoyable night. I didn't feel "grand" inasmuch as "poor". Here goes the only reason I watch the Oscars for!

Thanks to Sky yet again, I didn't have access to the full show this year (although they managed to provide 90 minutes of dull red carpet footage on Sky 1 before moving over to the movie channels. The highlights show the next night was what I had to work off with the exception of Hugh Jackman's opening material because apparently Sky didn't have room for that as they filled the start of the highlights with far too much of more red carpet celeb spotting. This in itself goes on for too long but is made even worse by the presentation by Fern Cotton – who we are suppose to like I guess but personally is just so bland as to be almost a pencil outline of herself.

Getting into the ceremony it is obvious they have had a bit of a rejig generally because suddenly the stage seems very low and the audience (or, well, the "important" audience) is very much part of the stage almost. I quite liked this although the downside is that in some shots the audience feels really small (like a small comedy club) and then at other times it looks like the audience has been totally divided into those "in" and those "out", which isn't a nice look no matter how true it is. Another change is that the actors awards are presented by former winners who talk about/to a different nominee each. At times I really liked this but at other times I didn't. When the lines seemed natural and not too corny then it seemed to be a great idea, however it is right on the knife's edge and the odd time it really clunks badly, either by unnatural delivery or by some terrible lines. Adrian Brody's lines to Richard Jenkins was close to disrespectful and it showed on Jenkins' face. Mostly though it is a good idea – just a bit of a dangerous one.

The ceremony was generally quite good although it is always hard to judge on the highlights show given how much is missing. There are the usual awkward comedy moments that aren't as funny as they should be and so on. The one moment that made me angry was the In Memoriam section. OK, liked the idea of having a singer but the direction was awful, all the names and faces moving around on screen all the time meant that many were hard to read, even on a good sized TV. It was an awful moment but happily one of the few as the majority seemed OK. The winners were mostly as expected and I was glad that Slumdog won so much as it deserved all the awards it got and I'm glad the balance with Benjamin Button didn't occur. BB got many technical awards as predicted and that was fine. The acting awards were good. I was surprised that The Wrestler got a shutout in the way it did but everyone who won was good and there wasn't really any of the usual "politics" to the extent there can be.

Overall these 81st awards were a reasonably good show that tried some new things to mostly positive effect. There was only one awful moment and a hatful of weak moments but it comes with the territory I guess. Jackman was a good host and did a good job for someone who was not a comedian but instead did an all-round entertainers job to good effect.

This year's Academy Awards ceremony was way better than last year's. Hugh Jackman did a tremendous job hosting, I thoroughly enjoyed Beyonce's and A R Rahman's performances, and Hugh Jackman's tribute to the movies.

The Pineapple Express short was also hilarious. The atmosphere was just dazzling, the stars were beautiful and the results were, for the most part, as expected, (although I was indeed rooting for Mickey Rourke.) Everything about it was unforgettable.

Kudos to directors producers and to everyone else involved in the making of this amazing awards show!

This, by far, was the very best Oscar show I've ever seen in my entire life!!! Hugh Jackman was the best Oscar host since Johnny Carson and he needs to come back for the next three years at least. It was entirely tasteful that he gave no political statements and that his performance was full of excitement and appreciation for honoring excellence in cinema...

Apart from that, my favorite part of the whole evening involved all the acting categories where five past recipients all came out and presented the latest 'member of the club' into their circle... Eva Marie Saint, Goldie Hawn, Anjeclica Huston, Whoopi Goldberg and Tilda Swinton announced a most deserving Penelope Cruz as best supporting actress for her wild, dynamic portrayal in 'Vicky Christina Barcelona'; Joel Grey, Christopher Walken, Kevin Kline, Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Alan Arkin awarded the late Heath Ledger's best supporting actor Oscar for 'The Dark Knight' to his grateful and honored father, mother and sister; Sophia Loren, Shirley MacLaine, Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman and Marillon Cotillard made a very emotional moment completely unforgettable when they proudly welcomed Kate Winslet into the Best Actress category for her emotionally gripping performance in 'The Reader'; and Robert DeNiro, Sir Ben Kingsley, Michael Douglas, Sir Anthony Hopkins and Adrien Brody announced Sean Penn as best actor for his dead-on portrayal of San Francisco politician Harvey Milk in the Gus Van Sant-directed biopic 'Milk'... and 'Wall-E', the darling of all the animated films from 2008, was named the best animated feature to little surprise. And then of course, there was the feel-good film of the year, 'Slumdog Millionaire' winning 8 out of the 10 nominations it received, including Best Song, Score, Adapted Screenplay, Director and Best Picture.

It was a magical, thoroughly pleasing night for the Oscars this year and I'm hoping five past recipients will be back next year to present each acting category and definitely Hugh Jackman will be greatly welcomed back as emcee.