Let the Ranting Begin

Now that the Oscars have actually been handed out there's not a lot more to say as there were pretty well no surprises this year, even in the technical categories.


The King's Speech proved to have fairly limited coattails, winning Director & Screenplay (which usually follow Picture anyway) as well as Actor for Colin Firth. The Social Network winning three categories, including Editing (which also tends to follow Picture), indicates that it wasn't too far from winning Best Picture.
As for the ceremony itself, it seemed a bit shorter than the norm, with less unnecessary stuff added in; perhaps this is a good sign for future years, though I doubt it. They ought to go back to just one host - as with last year, having two just doesn't seem to work well.

Going to what I said before - that the reputations of the losers often tend to hold up better than those of the winners - Steven Spielberg mentioned past Best Picture winners & losers before opening the envelope, citing Citizen Kane, The Graduate & Raging Bull as legendary losers.

From a historical perspective, this is a bit of a change from recent years: the Academy, for most of its history, has tended to pick movies that were somewhere in between critical & commercial success (and in the process usually satisfied neither critics nor audiences with its choices). However, perhaps in recognition of the complaints by reviewers (and movie fans) that never seem to end no matter how many years have passed, for the last few years they've come down on the side of critical acclaim, picking movies like No Country for Old Men & The Hurt Locker that weren't big audience favorites. This year, they've gone back to their old ways, choosing a movie that's an audience hit, as well as being well-reviewed.