Angelina Jolie's Leg wins Best Picture
By Jerry Saravia
The 84th Annual Academy Awards had given a host of Oscar wins to "The Artist" and "Hugo" but you wouldn't know it from all the rapt attention given to Angelina Jolie's leg. As she appeared on stage, she extended her emaciated and thinly shaped leg from her black Atelier Versace dress in a provocative pose. The next day, the Internet and the media was all over it and it even inspired its own Twitter account. Why? Because Angelina Jolie is possibly the biggest female movie star in the world and attention on her is paid inordinately. Why did she strike a pose? Nobody truly knows, and nobody should really care. Never mind the fact that a historic win was announced at the Oscars: "The Artist," the first silent film possibly since 1989's "Sidewalks of New York," won Best Picture which is the first time a silent film has won since 1927's "Wings." That should leave room for ample discussion, not the posed leg of a movie star.
The problem is that film analysis and discussion is not given mainstream attention or close scrutiny of any kind on television (hence TV's ill-fated future of "Ebert Presents At the Movies"). Most filmgoers could care less about discussing the merits of "The Artist" or "Hugo," particularly when the nominated films focus on the turn of the 20th century when cinema was still a wonder for the eyes. In many respects, the 84th Annual Academy Awards Show was singularly focused on a world of cinema that no longer exists making it the most attuned to the art form itself in quite some time (make no mistake, it is an art form). Aside from returnee Billy Crystal's hosting duties and occasional wisecracks, the show featured a mock 1939 focus group segment where the focus group (including actors Christopher Guest and Fred Willard as laypeople) give their trivial assessments of "The Wizard of Oz." One even comments that they liked the "flying monkeys." Such triviality also speaks of most actual focus groups who probably know as much about cinema as Pauly Shore does. But the Academy Awards has never been about the art of cinema but about the commerce and the little pat on the back for a job well done furnished with a shiny gold statue.
As the late Gene Siskel once said, maybe when a winner takes the gold, the host or someone in the background could give tidbits on the film itself - something concrete that would inspire intellectual discussion that didn't revolve around dollar signs. That is probably too much to ask for a show that can run almost four hours but then again, what is any of that compared to Angelina Jolie's leg?
1 comment:
Because only you & Bret Charles usually only hear my thoughts on this subject, I'll post a comment publicly here. Like we discussed the other day, there only seems to be room for quick soundbites and no deep thought/analysis on TV when it comes to discussing/reviewing anything in the arts, esp. music & film. (The 1 and only brilliant exception being "That Metal Show" for musical discussion.) I don't know if that's due to advert time needing to be sold or if it's because the attention span of the average person has become so shortened, but I think it's a sad sign of the times & our culture that a void like that exists. People find it easier to discuss Angelina's leg--a fast food subject more or less, seen & talked about & quickly forgotten by the next day or 2, doesn't require much thought or knowledge of anything, barely makes a blip on yr brain. By the time this is posted, most people will have moved on to something else & likely forgotten the leg & the dress.
One last thing I wanted to mention--eww, Pauly Shore movies. I was gonna eat, but thanks for the appetite supressant, honey. Now you'll still have some Fritos when you get home.
Post a Comment