Comments | mizzoumark: The Oscars: Live-on-Tape Blogging

mizzoumark

The Oscars: Live-on-Tape Blogging

Feb 22, 2009 23:01

I always wanted to liveblog the Oscars (well, not always. I wasn't sitting around at the age of 7 saying "I have no idea what a blog is, but I know I want to do it while watching the Academy Awards!"), but LJ really isn't a good forum to do it. After all, I can imagine that my friend list wouldn't be too happy with me if I posted a new update every ( Read more... )

Comments 8

brokn2pieces February 23 2009, 05:37:45 UTC

I loved Penn's slam on Prop 8 supporters and his shout out to Rourke. I would have been happy with either win as well but I am glad Penn got it!

mizzoumark February 24 2009, 14:12:35 UTC

I liked The Wrestler but loved Milk, so I was ecstatic about Penn winning. And his Prop 8 slam was highly appropriate.

tko_ak February 23 2009, 06:01:56 UTC

I imagine Penn's remarks, while right on, will be lambasted.

mizzoumark February 24 2009, 14:15:39 UTC

I haven't really looked through the conservative websites yet, but yeah, I'm sure that there will be lectures from far right-wingers about how Prop. 8 won and he should shut up and blah blah blah. Of course, Penn is right, and history is on his (and our) side. In 30-40 years, kids will be just as incredulous about the denial of gay rights as we are about the denial of civil rights through the 1960s.

tko_ak February 24 2009, 18:32:48 UTC

O'Reilly was discussing how intolerant and judgmental it is to say those who oppose gay marriage should feel shame. That those on the left are intolerant if you disagree with them (which, in my experiences, is right on).

mizzoumark February 25 2009, 15:05:46 UTC

Yeah, neither side has a monopoly on arrogant, intolerant know-it-alls (one of the reasons I dislike liberal talk radio as much as I dislike conservative talk). And I can certainly understand while O'Reilly would find Penn's words judgmental. However, Penn is absolutely right. I suspect that even the most ardent supporters of segregation in 1960, assuming they're still alive, are probably not sitting around bragging about it these days (and if they are, it's to a very small audience). And the same thing will happen with gay rights.

halogencycle February 27 2009, 23:25:54 UTC

All my friends who are into the technical side of filmmaking are outraged that Dark Knight won Best Sound Editing. The people who know this stuff think the sound editing in Wall-E was truly groundbreaking, while Dark Knight's sound editing was competent, solid and ordinary. But the whole Academy votes on all of the categories (except documentaries and shorts, where only members who attend screenings of all the films are allowed to vote) so the Best Sound Editing Oscar usually goes to whichever film was the loudest.

mizzoumark February 28 2009, 12:03:10 UTC

For a layman/frustrated Roger Ebert wannabe, I think I'm pretty good at identifying what various elements in a film are "good" or not. But, when it comes to the Sound awards, I'm pretty clueless. To be honest, I still don't really know the difference between Sound Mixing and Sound Editing. If I was voting, I probably would have voted Wall-E in both categories, but only because it was my favorite movie among the six films nominated for at least one Sound award. Of course, if I was a voting member of the Academy (which I will be as soon as I finish my novel, have it become a runaway bestseller, convince the producer who bought the film rights to let me adapt it myself, and win an Oscar for it--easy!), I'd presumably have friends in the industry who could give me a quick tutorial on who to vote for in those categories.