wowOwow - The Women on the Web

The boring, slow moving, commercial laden award show would have been absolutely miserable to watch had it not been for Mr. Wow’s llive forum.  (Thank you again, Mr. Wow.)  I don’t know who is responsible, but perhaps he/she should think about a career change before this time next year.

I’m just sick that Farrah Fawcett wasn’t mentioned.  Especially since Michael Jackson was.  Television smothered us with Michael Jackson’s face, music, and life story when he died.  And I hate to sound so cold-hearted, but he did die because of his disgusting drug habit, while Farrah Fawcett was taken from us by a horrible, painful disease.  And she actually made some pretty great movies, IMO.  (The Burning Bed is one of my favorites.)  So shame on whoever is responsible for that huge screw-up!

But what made it all worth watching was seeing Jeff Bridges and Sandra Bullock win.  It’s about time those two were recognized for their work.  Sandra’s acceptance speech was wonderful.  She appears to be the kind of nice, down-to-earth person that you’d want to hang out with.  And Jeff has worked so hard for so long, and finally it paid off for him.

Let’s just hope next year’s awards show does a better job of keeping us all awake.

Hey Liz:

I so agree re: Lauren Bacall.  She certainly deserved better.  She was amazing in "The Mirror Has Two Faces", should have received an Oscar for that role.  Personally, the Farrah omission didn’t bother me except for the Jackson inclusion - didn’t make a lot of sense.

Oh well, its Hollyweird.

How is it that an awards show for entertainers, manages to always fail to entertain.  Years ago, before the stylists, and when Bob Hope and Johnny Carson were alive, it was pretty good…..but now…..????? I watch the preshow to see the dresses, but I record the show in case something fab. happens (like Adrien Brody kissing Halle Berry) I’ll give it a pass. 

 Sandra Bullock was probably good in her role, but Meryl Streep channeled Julia Child. And yes Jeff Bridges should have won -years ago for Starman.  He was good as Bad Blake, but the movie was atrocious.  The sound track was the star of that movie. 

Like the rest of you, I was speechless over the shabby treatment of Lauren Bacall.  I didn’t mind the John Hughes tribute, because I was shocked at how many now stars were in his movies. 

This show really is dreadful.  It’s not funny or entertaining and now, it’s not even accurate. 

I did not watch, but others have already pointed out the omission of Farrah Fawcett and the odd inclusion of Michael Jackson. 

I agree with you, Liz - not only did Michael Jackson do little in films, he already had a long and sumptuous send-off which dominated all of the media for weeks.  This wasn’t the right venue for yet another Michael Jackson tribute.

Meanwhile, Farrah Fawcett not only was an award winning film actress (and TV, and stage) - I think she was very brave and gracious to allow the documentation of her final illness.  She deserved at least a mention in memoriam.

And - yes, Lauren Bacall deserved better.  Is Hollywood scorning its roots, when they are older and not made of plastic?  Is the Academy made up of a bunch of young clueless people with no grounding in the classics?

The exclusion of Farrah Fawcett and the inclusion of Michael Jackson just summed up the evening which I didn’t even bother to watch after the first five minutes of someone who can’t sing do the opening number, including an odd reference to ‘dropping the soap" which I suppose was meant to reach a certain gay audience, in prison no less, followed by the new Lewis and Martin who weren’t Lewis and Martin.  The look on George Clooney’s face was prescient enough for me to turn off the tv.

The insult to Lauren Bacall, and it was an insult, was an insult by New Hollywood directed at Old Hollywood.  Which forgets that without Old Hollywood, there wouldn’t be a New Hollywood. 

The reality is the awards show is no longer about honoring their own but merely entertaining an audience and including Michael Jackson was merely accomodating that audience.  No doubt next year they will award a posthumous Lifetime Achievement Award to Michael Jackson just to ensure high ratings.  Or to divert attention from Roman Polanski winning best director. Who of course will probably not be there. Again. 

Lauren Bacall deserved better. So did everyone else.  

But it was inevitable. This decline in decorum so to speak began when the "hot invitation" was to the Vanity Fair party instead of the Governor’s Ball.  Vanity Fair of course choosing who’s hot and who’s not.  Hooray for Hollywood.  Wherever it has gone. 

I really watch the Oscars for the In Memoriam, it gives you a chance to remember.  I also flinched when I saw MJ and then saw the Wiz photo and remembered he was in a movie.  I regret that I did not realize they left off Farrah, how very sad for me and them.  It was not done well at all this year.  Of course, James Taylor does make all things better, but the first part where we could not see the beginning up close, was just poorly done.

I did not watch from the beginning, but thought there was the usual waste of time.  Someone should count the minutes wasted having presenters take those steps to the microphone, and the dancing to the theme music was just irrelevant to the movies the music represents.

I did like the intro of the actor and actress awards with their costars talking about them.

As as for how they treated Lauren Bacall, they should as an organization be ashamed and should act now to apologize and make it up to her.

As for acceptance speeches, they recipients are on their own there and are under enormous stress so we should take that into account. The ones who are not professional actors are not usually public speakers. Sandra Bullock was the best of the ones I saw, but come on, let Jeff Bridges be himself, he got it together.  I thought the emotion about his parents was very real.