The Oscars R Us
Kitty O didn't not watch the Oscars, as the man in the White House claimed, my cat slept through them, snoring softly from his curled up position. I marveled at the insanity of wearing millions of dollars worth of jewelry around one's neck, or an $80,000 dress.
But beneath all the glitter and long trains, what struck me is the sheer consistency of the Oscars. There is always great pressure on the host to make it one of the greatest shows on TV, always the fashion police who poke and laud, and always the same boring questions such as "Who are you hoping will win?"
Turns out the choices are never that many, because, as always -- and this blows my mind -- there are just a handful of movies that qualify -- in EVERY category. Hundreds of movies are released and yet just a few are deemed worthy to be put up for the entire assortment of "the best." How does that happen? I think it's good advertising, at least in part. One of the women from "Hidden Figures" noted it was a good story, had known actors, but what made it go this far was the monied backing of the studio.
It's like books. Someone up there in the publishing world will decide on the 'it' book. Like "The girl on the train" a few years ago. Once the decision is made, the author gets lucky, just like the movies.
This year "La La Land" got lucky and then, in a reverse that would not translate well on the pages of a novel, the movie got unlucky, though I admit it was the most human part of the show. We all make mistakes.
There is the other kind of lucky, when a small movie gets picked up, dusted, and displayed. I love it when that happens. Not as much as I would love someone taking notice of my mystery, "The Girl Who Went Missing," but it's great fun to cheer for the under dogs.
Kitty O will have nothing to do with any form of dogs. But then he's a cat, and by definition, it's all about him. Sort of like the man in the White House. Now there's a story for some brave writer to bravely pen.
But beneath all the glitter and long trains, what struck me is the sheer consistency of the Oscars. There is always great pressure on the host to make it one of the greatest shows on TV, always the fashion police who poke and laud, and always the same boring questions such as "Who are you hoping will win?"
Turns out the choices are never that many, because, as always -- and this blows my mind -- there are just a handful of movies that qualify -- in EVERY category. Hundreds of movies are released and yet just a few are deemed worthy to be put up for the entire assortment of "the best." How does that happen? I think it's good advertising, at least in part. One of the women from "Hidden Figures" noted it was a good story, had known actors, but what made it go this far was the monied backing of the studio.
It's like books. Someone up there in the publishing world will decide on the 'it' book. Like "The girl on the train" a few years ago. Once the decision is made, the author gets lucky, just like the movies.
This year "La La Land" got lucky and then, in a reverse that would not translate well on the pages of a novel, the movie got unlucky, though I admit it was the most human part of the show. We all make mistakes.
There is the other kind of lucky, when a small movie gets picked up, dusted, and displayed. I love it when that happens. Not as much as I would love someone taking notice of my mystery, "The Girl Who Went Missing," but it's great fun to cheer for the under dogs.
Kitty O will have nothing to do with any form of dogs. But then he's a cat, and by definition, it's all about him. Sort of like the man in the White House. Now there's a story for some brave writer to bravely pen.
No comments have been added yet.
