Oscar Reactions

It was interesting reading the various accounts of the Academy Awards. You'd think people saw different shows.

The "Oscarcast Review" by Frazier Moore thought Chris Rock was charming and full of finesse. He liked the anti-Bush material and loved the remote from the Magic Johnson Theatre, where Rock interviewed "ordinary" Americans (who didn't know about Finding Neverland or Sideways but all saw White Chicks).

Tom Shales at the Washington Post though Rock was a disaster.

The New York Times approved of how Rock "shocked" the audience. They recounted, in the NYT overexplanatory style, his remote bit and his cuts at Bush.

Brian Lowry at Variety thought the show classy, with Rock funny and essentially inoffensive. He thought his Bush barbs "clever" even though they didn't "draw blood." He also liked the Magic Johnson remote.

The Hollywood Reporter felt Rock was offensive (though clean) and not that funny. They didn't like how he belittled Jude Law and Tobey Maquire, though they felt his stuff on Bush was "well-aimed." They thought the Magic Johnson remote was a waste of time.

Paul Brownfield at the Los Angeles Times was disappointed at how safe the show was. He felt Rock's monologue was innocuous. However, he loved the remote, which he felt, for a moment, "bl[ew] the show open."

David Edelstein at Slate thought Rock was "screamingly funny." (Lynda Obst, replying to Edelstein, agreed.) He particularly loved Rock's slam at Bush, predicting it was so powerful that right-wing talk radio wouldn't be playing it much. (To check this out, I listened in to four separate right-wing shows--apparently they weren't as frightened as Edelstein thought they'd be as ALL opened their shows with Rock's jokes about Bush.) He also thought the Magic Johnson remote was "spectacularly funny and brilliantly edited."

Personally, I felt Rock did a decent job, though he's obviously been funnier. He wasn't straitjacketed by the event, but did ease up a bit (which was probably good--this is the Oscars, not Bring The Pain II). His Bush jokes weren't his best stuff, and were a little off-topic, but he probably felt he had to say something or he'd look like a eunuch. The remote at the Magic Johnson Theatre not only dealt with the People v. Hollywood (pseudo-)controversy, but was also a very funny bit. (The surprise appearance of Albert Brooks made a good bit great.)

Overall, the show moved swiftly (mostly due to changes wrought by producer Gil Cates) and had surprisingly few dull spots. I'd give Rock a thumbs up, but Billy Crystal can still sleep at night.

Pajama Guy responds: I tuned in at 9:30 p.m. and stayed for a half-hour. I found it dull to stupid (e.g. the Rock/Sandler/Zeta-Jones bit). The sense that I was watching a dud was visually reinforced by all those empty seats in the audience. I assume they probably belonged to stars waiting backstage to present or perform, but it still was like watching a telecast of an old World Football League game. The show was a bigger hit in the cities than in rural areas. Is this a Red State/Blue State political phenomenon, or were folks in the heartland just more likely (like me) to decide the show was not worth staying up late for on a school night?

LAGuy explains: City folks tend to be more up on the latest cinema than country folks, so better ratings in those areas was expected. (Compare this to, say, a NASCAR event.) This trend was only intensified by the choice of Rock as host, who appeals to a younger, more urban crowd. It's too bad you didn't tune in an hour earlier when Rock performed his monologue, which is what everyone's talking about. The rest of the show was mostly interesting to those who cared about who won. My educated guess is Pajama Guy hadn't seen hardly any of the nominated films, which can make for a boring night indeed.

Pajama Guy responds: As a father of three kids 5 and under, I'm pretty sure I saw all the animated nominees. But that would be it.