What the blog?

So last night was the Oscars. And I, for one, didn't have super high expectations. I was much more excited about eating pot roast (which my uncle cooked to perfection).

Perhaps it was unadulterated hunger (we didn't have dinner until 8:20 pm), but I absolutely loved this year's ceremony. I wasn't super into the hype or really paying attention to any pre-Oscar reporting. I didn't even realize Hugh Jackman was hosting until I saw him appear. But I thought the entire evening was so entertaining. And after it was over, I was left feeling like that was one of the most successful productions ever.

The whole night had a sort of vintage, throw-back vibe. Even the dresses & tuxedos seemed to mimic the 1950s "Old Hollywood" scene--with bow ties and ball gowns galore. The musical numbers were tasteful and hilarious. And it didn't feel like the host had to carry the whole damn show himself. This is the most star-studded night of the year; it makes sense that Hollywood's top talent would... well, perform. Right? Can we imagine a production of the Grammy's where nobody sings?

To me, it was obvious that we took a page from the Tony's playbook, (with surprise plants and surprise presenters!) and all I can say is THANK GOD. This is an evening to celebrate cinematic art and the people that make it possible. And I think this year's Oscars finally did just that. What better proof is there than the way each nominated actor was mentioned (and thanked!) before the announcement of the category's "best"? I'm not gonna lie--each of those presentations made me want to dust off my chops and become an actor again...

But I think Meryl Streep said it best earlier this year when she won the SAG award for her character in Doubt: "Women in the industry, nominated or not, should be proud of the work they did this year. Everybody wins when we get to play such parts."

Obviously this comment is geared toward a single gender, but I think it can be applied to all the films (and talent) that showed up this year--across all movie departments. When scripts get written, and budgets get approved, and stories get told, and actors get room, and directors get inspired, and producers get lost... we get a year like this. And it was truly a year to celebrate.

But, I was shocked to see how many people panned last night's affair. It's such a cliche to say that the Oscars are lame, long, and disappointing. But for an awards ceremony that totally reinvented itself last night (or rather, rediscovered what the night should be about), I'm thoroughly disappointed with the reviewers. Is it because Hollywood is ridiculously insecure--especially when compared with Broadway? Or is it something more?

I mean, let's face it. Most critics are wanna-be actors/writers/directors/fill-in-the-blanks themselves. And so it's easier to dis than criticize constructively (or own up to the fact that they couldn't do it better). But I'm going to paraphrase A. R. Rahman here (the man who won two Oscars for his music contributions to Slumdog Millionaire) in my opinion of Oscar Night 2009: If I have to choose between hate and love, I'll choose love.