a spot of whimsy: the oscars, revisited

there seems to be one thing that can be agreed upon after sunday's academy awards telecast: it is one of the most polarizing in recent history (or ever?!). the internet went wild with "worst ever" and "best ever" proclamations, james franco was either a hero or a villain (more on that in a minute), and the king's speech either deserved everything it got or was "typical oscar bait" and "highly over-rated."

before i get into some of my thoughts on the night, i’ll just explain really quickly that the pictures accompanying this post (unless otherwise noted) are of the little get-together i had of the event. it was just a few girls, a lasagna, champagne, and nutella mousse for dessert. when you’re hosting an oscars party you don’t want anything too kitchen-intensive once the show starts or you won’t be able to fully enjoy. so a made-ahead lasagna worked brilliantly. no matter how the show actually went, we had a blast with it.

so why am i still talking about the oscars?! i guess because i'm a bit of (ok, a lot) an oscars junkie and because i love movies in general. i usually have at least a few people over for the ceremony (as i did this year) and "force" them to fill out a ballot - even if they haven't seen any of the nominated films!

{while the ballot was from oscar.com, the pretty front was downloaded from twig & thistle}

i know that the oscars and awards season in general are an endless parade of self-congratulations, that hollywood egos reign supreme and there's a whole lot of not-so-nice-stuff that the public doesn't see, but i can't help but be caught up in the glamour and the history of the night.

and that's why i'm mad at mr. james franco. i'm usually on his side when people attack him, but not this time. you can be aloof and above your celebrity "status" all you want every other night of the week, but when you agree to host the oscars? you need to give it the respect it deserves or get off the stage. show a little deference to those who have gone before you. that's all i ask of him!

which leads me to anne hathaway. she brought out everything in her arsenal in her attempt to save their hosting reputation, and it just couldn't overpower franco's detracting (and distracting) presence. she may be talented, but she's not an oscar host (or a miracle worker). but sidenote? get anne in a movie where she can use that voice of hers asap. that came out of nowhere, didn't it?

{via tom & lorenzo}

as for the king's speech, it was a brilliant movie. until i saw the fighter the next week, i couldn't believe people could be thinking anyone but geoffrey rush would win best supporting actor. that all went out the window when i saw mr. bale's performance, but that didn't take anything away from geoffrey. and my dear mr. darcy - colin firth - was just extraordinary. hbc - fantastic as always. but best movie of the year? my pick was the social network. love or hate facebook, the movie is powerful and sums up the current era in a way nothing else has.

i know not everyone takes this stuff this seriously. and i know i'm not a movie blogger, so i hope you'll accept this post as something just a little different today.

i just have a mild obsession with old hollywood. you know that line in the holiday? kate winslet ("iris") asks eli wallach ("arthur") something like, “was hollywood really as wonderful back then as i think it was?" (paraphrasing), and his reply, “no. it was better.” whether that’s true or not, that’s how i think about the oscars.