Oscars 2011 Winners and Losers
The trophies were important, but who claimed best and worst of Oscar night?
Loser: James Franco
We knew what we were getting with Franco: The chance of quirky brilliance or the chance of embarrassing failure. After a serious of hosts-in-the-clips filmed bits -- an opening I actually really liked -- Franco's role in the telecast became less and less and less and less. By the halfway point, he was just smirking. Did I laugh a few times at the smirking? Sure. But even in the pre-show, it became clear that Anne Hathaway was over-invested in this gig and that Franco viewed it as just another oddball life experience he hadn't tried before. And you could almost see him deciding that it wasn't worth his effort to give a damn and shutting down. And as he shut down, Hathaway had to try harder and harder and harder, so hard that she often came off as desperately eager to please. But what else could she do? The show was stumbling and she had a co-host with no desire or ability (poor writing definitely shackled Franco) to lend a hand. In fact, heck, let's blame the writing. What could Franco have gotten out of what he was given?
Photo Credit: Chris Carlson/AP
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupSarah
February 28, 2011 at 4:41AM EST Reply to CommentLosers: Everyone who watched the entire show. This has to be one of the worst Oscars in recent years.
dan Sarah - How about people who watched the show, tweeted about the show and then spent two hours writing about the show and will podcast about the show tomorrow?
February 28, 2011 at 4:43AM EST-Daniel
February 28, 2011 at 2:17PM EST
February 28, 2011 at 4:48AM EST Reply to CommentThe delightful surprise winner of the night was Best Editing for the Social Network.
dan Dan - "Social Network" won the Editors Guild award, so it was, at the very least, a co-favorite there, if not the favorite... I'm still irked "Inception" wasn't nominated there...
February 28, 2011 at 4:56AM EST-Daniel
February 28, 2011 at 5:11AM ESTdan Dan - Oh come on! Who doesn't follow EVERY move of the Editors Guild?
February 28, 2011 at 5:13AM EST:-)
Daniel
February 28, 2011 at 5:19AM ESTdan Dan - This is an instance where the near obsession with Fincher's "Let's Do 100 Takes" methodology really helped "The Social Network." Usually the general membership is clueless on what the editor did or didn't have to work with, but with Fincher, there's the assumption that they were weeding through a million hours of repeated takes and reshoots. So there's at least some measure of "Most" = "Best" to this choice as well, though I agree that it was deserving...
February 28, 2011 at 5:24AM EST-Daniel
alynch
February 28, 2011 at 4:55AM EST Reply to CommentDan, Twitter actually made the show more bearable. You could at least enjoy a lot of people bashing the show in amusing fashion (especially if you're following comedians. Norm MacDonald's twitter feed in particular was a highlight.
dan ALynch - I'm not sure what I would have done if I couldn't have tweet-snarked through the entire show...
February 28, 2011 at 4:57AM EST-Daniel
rsfbean Dan - I think twitter deserves a WIN page
February 28, 2011 at 11:20AM ESTHwah
February 28, 2011 at 5:34AM EST Reply to CommentDan, there's losing, and then there is the type of losing that we turn our heads away from and agree to never speak of again.
Ryan
February 28, 2011 at 7:40AM EST Reply to CommentSorry but yes the Kirk Douglas bit was uncomfortable because it went on forever and you could barely understand him. He's a great actor and deserves all the respect in the world but it was completely unnecessary and you can't fault people for finding it awkward. Also, people need to stop feeling this residual pity for Sandra Bullock. She was one of the worst presenters of the night, and could barely read the script.
Craig Ranapia
February 28, 2011 at 7:57AM EST Reply to CommentThe worse of the night: If the reports are true, the people who hissed Tom Hooper when he won best director. He wasn't my first choice (neither was David Fincher, FWIW), but just because the show is infantile doesn't mean the audience has to be.
And for future reference, the f-word stopped being deliciously naughty about five minutes after I hit puberty. Try hard, much?
Beth
February 28, 2011 at 8:45AM EST Reply to CommentDan, for all your "tweet-snark", your list contains a nice list of winners rather than all the loser moments of the evening.
I would add the children's choir and "mothers" in general (Anne Hathaway's, the mother who inspired the director of the King's Speech) to the winner's list.
To the commenter who thinks Sandra Bullock needs pity, most people just appreciated her presenting. She had the rather awkward job of praising several very different actors prior to the film clips, and she did it with charm and humor.
Beth To clarify that first sentence, more winners than losers.
February 28, 2011 at 8:48AM ESTJohn W
February 28, 2011 at 11:06AM EST Reply to Comment"Oh. I'm sorry. Did the presence of a 94-year-old acting legend and heroic stroke survivor speaking a little slowly on stage make you UNCOMFORTABLE?"
Guilty as charged.
I had a feeling Leo was still going to win.
Andy
February 28, 2011 at 11:38AM EST Reply to CommentI really miss Rob Lowe and Snow White.
Man, that was awful. The worst I can remember and I've been watching every year since the mid-70s.
And the problems were across the board - the writing, directing, producing, in addition to the selection of the hosts.
Even in bad years, there are usually a few laugh out loud moments - here there were none. We've seen that open before - many times - and the Charlie Sheen and RDJ jokes have been done before... and funnier, by many including Ricky Gervais.
The whole pacing of the show was off - it never felt like there was any flow, from the way that the awards were stacked to the placement of special speeches and presentations.
The directing was awful - there seemed to be one spontaneous moment where Brolin and Bardem danced, but we saw Penelope Cruz's reaction instead. And several times the winner was shot at an extreme angle (so that we could see crew members running behind curtains). Even the audience reactions were poorly chosen, due in part to the complete lack of star power in the audience (more on that later).
The whole show seems to be suffering from an identity crisis. It's a show about movies, but they think that people won't sit through film clips but that anything musical must stay in the show. They're trying to be younger and hipper, yet we have to watch recycled clips of Bob Hope who died before the majority of their precious demographic was born.
I thought the selection of Franco and Hathaway was a mistake, and a misguided one. I have no problem watching Steve Martin every year, but if you feel compelled to get a young entertainer with a sense of humor, get Timberlake. And I'm not even a fan of his.
The thing that's bothered me for years about the Oscars is the lack of star power. The only people who show up lately are the nominees and the presenters, which makes for a pretty small group. Meanwhile, the clips from the Governor's Awards look like they're having the time of their lives.
Chrissy
February 28, 2011 at 1:59PM EST Reply to CommentThat live-action short guy was the winner of the night for me. Don't know who he is, never heard of his movie, but he did a great job of seeming both prepared and unassuming. I also liked the bit with Jake Gyllenhaal exhorting people to watch the shorts so they can win their office pools. I am actually going to try to catch some of the shorts this week, so, mission accomplished, Oscars.
jcpdiesel21 Definitely check out the Oscar nominated shorts, they are worth seeing every year. Luke Matheny is a very deserving winner as God of Love is adorable and well-executed.
February 28, 2011 at 2:55PM ESTRazorback
February 28, 2011 at 3:36PM EST Reply to CommentNo, Dan... Zac was pretty darn good. It was Moore who messed up. Let's be realzies.
FoundNemo He was just ok, difficult as it is to admit for a die hard Levi fan. His voice is pleasant but fairly unremarkable, and doesn't carry very well in any recording I've ever heard.
March 1, 2011 at 2:14AM EST
February 28, 2011 at 4:04PM EST Reply to CommentZachary Levi for 2012 host?
Dezbot
February 28, 2011 at 6:31PM EST Reply to CommentI agree about the necrology. I was happy that they turned off the audio from the crowd.
Also, the phrase is "by and large," not "by in large." The latter is a common error, but an error all the same.
dan Dezbot - Right you are! Fixed... Gracias...
February 28, 2011 at 6:47PM EST-Daniel
Dezbot You're welcome!
March 1, 2011 at 12:38PM EST