This probably won't be too long of an entry, since the show was, for the most part, blah. It was overlong and boring, and there wasn't a single major upset. Since I haven't seen many of the movies, I won't get into whether so and so deserved to win. Here are some various thoughts about the show:
The host: I think Neil Patrick Harris is very talented, and from what I can tell, he seems like a genuinely nice person and a dad who loves his kids. I really wanted to like him here and say he did a good job, but, unfortunately, I can't. The song and dance number, as expected, was great, but, overall, many of his jokes were corny, his interactions with the audience were awkward, and his "Oscar predictions" magic trick fell flat and wasted time as an already overlong show was trying to end. He didn't lay a total egg like, say, James Franco, but he just wasn't that good, and was a big step down from Ellen DeGeneres, who did a wonderful job last year.
The winners: I stand corrected. My prediction about "Boyhood" didn't come true, because "Birdman" won most of the major guild awards, and there was even some undeserved backlash about "Boyhood," with comments like "If I was given 12 years, I can make an Oscar-winning movie too." I look forward to seeing "Birdman," because I hear it is a well-constructed and well-acted film, although I hear it's a bit artsy-fartsy.
The presenters: As many people pointed out, all 20 acting nominees were white. I warned that the Oscar voters will overcompensate next year, likely nominating mediocre performances as long as they can get some blacks on next year's Oscar ballots so they can make up for this year. What I didn't realize was going to happen was that the overcompensation would start at the ceremony. There were 15, yes, 15 black presenters at the ceremony. This was no accident.
The soapbox: That is what the microphone became for Oscar winners because several winners aired their political beliefs. I am on the fence on this. Many of the issues the winners brought up had some connection to the movies they were involved with. Common and John Legend won for "Glory" from the movie "Selma" and almost had to say something about the continuing struggle for equal rights. Patricia Arquette spoke about wage inequality, having played a single mother in "Boyhood." Again, I am on the fence, because the Oscar stage is not a soapbox, but these are relevant issues that were brought up in these movies, so I will give them a pass. However, every winner was given raucous applause, a stark contrast to Michael Moore, who rightfully accused George W. Bush of waging a phony war during his acceptance speech for "Fahrenheit 9/11" many years ago, and was booed off the stage. I was touched by Best Adapted Screenplay winner Graham Moore talk about his attempted suicide and tell us all to embrace our weirdness. It almost took away my anger after "Whiplash" didn't win this category.
The orchestra: This was the night the winners said F--- you to the orchestra. Apparently at least two winners couldn't care less that they were getting played off, because they just kept on talking. They both had meaningful things to say about their families and the issues their films dealt with, and I admire their rebellious spirit. My advice to the director- next time, just kill the microphone.
The songs: "Everything is Awesome" from the Lego Movie was a lot of fun to watch and listen to. The aforementioned John Legend and Common gave an emotional performance of "Glory," which was the deserving winner. Tim McGraw did a fine job of singing a song Glen Campbell wrote to his family about his battle with Alzheimer's. The other two songs were boring.
The diva: I am referring, of course, to the one and only Lady Gaga. I was very impressed with her vocal ability singing a medley from "The Sound of Music." I bet NBC wishes they had hired her instead of Carrie Underwood when they aired a live version of the musical. However, not to take from Gaga's wonderful performance, but there was no particular reason to make this a part of the show, and it added 10 minutes to an already overlong show. This is one of the reasons the show went 40 minutes long.
The stiffs: First of all, the audience was told during the commercial to hold their applause until the entire dead person montage was over, taking away one of the most delightfully tacky parts of the show in which some dead people get more applause than other dead people. Nonetheless, Robin Williams and Mike Nichols managed to get some applause. Despite the lame excuses made by the Academy, the omissions of Joan Rivers and Elaine Stritch are inexcusable. And where the hell was Jon Lovitz? Finally, Jennifer Hudson comes out afterwards and sings some song from the cancelled "Smash" TV show. She sounded great, but again, this added 4 minutes. This is another reason the show went 40 minutes long.
The insult: When Sean Penn awarded "Birdman" Best Picture, he made the comment "How did this son of a bitch get his green card?" referring to director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. Many people screamed "racism!", saying things like "This only confirms even more that the Oscars are a white man's ceremony." I just saw it as one friend busting on another friend. The two worked together on "21 Grams" and have been together ever since. Inarritu even said he thought the comment was "hilarious."
The supporrting actor award, won by J.K. Simmons for "Whiplash": All I have to say is this: Good job.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Taking on snotty jazz aficionados who didn't like Whiplash! *SPOILERS*
"Whiplash" is a great movie. J.K. Simmons is a shoo-in to win the supporting actor Oscar for his unbelievable performance, and the screenplay has a decent shot at winning as well. Personally, for lack of a better term, the movie blew me away. It is the best movie I have seen in a while. The acting and story are intense and thought-provoking, and it is about one of my favorite genres of music - jazz. However, some movie critics, and snotty people who claim to be jazz experts have beaten up on the movie. This annoys me because jazz is not a mainstream genre. This movie could get more people interested in this great form of music, especially high school and college students. Even though this movie is helping to increase awareness of jazz music, a few stuck-up jerks have seen fit to criticize this movie. I am going to present some of the arguments from movie critics and jazz "experts" and proceed to do what I do best- shoot them the hell down. By the way, there will be some spoilers ahead, so don't read this if you haven't seen the movie.
The way jazz music is taught and learned in the movie is completely wrong!
No f---ing s---, Sherlock! No one ever said this movie was a primer on how to teach jazz. Many people argued that J.K. Simmons' character was teaching solely for technical mastery. This is obviously not the best way to teach jazz, but I have seen it done before. As a matter of fact, one of the jazz bands my band competed against in high school was infamous for it. Obviously, constantly belittling your students is obviously not a good way to teach anything, although I have seen teachers of all subjects do this. It is important to remember that this is a movie, a work of fiction. More specifically, it is a psychological thriller focusing on the relationship between the two main characters, which happens to use a college jazz band as a backdrop. As director Damien Chazelle said, "This movie is as much about jazz music as 'Titanic' was about avoiding icebergs."
That Charlie Parker story is all wrong.
An anecdote frequently retold in the movie goes something like this. Charlie Parker goofed a solo, and drummer Jo Jones threw a cymbal at his head, nearly decapitating him. Because of this, Charlie Parker practiced harder, came back and played an unbelievable solo, and became Bird. In real life, supposedly, Parker was off tempo, and Jones effectively "gave him the gong" by throwing the cymbal on the ground. Again, I will stress that this movie is a work of fiction. So the story was changed slightly for dramatic effect. I don't see what the big deal is, and either way, many people agree that this incident was one of the events that led to Charlie Parker becoming the greatest jazz saxophonist ever. (sorry, Kenny G fans).
Why would the main character have Buddy Rich as a role model? He wasn't a musician, he was a TV and radio personality, a "loud and insensitive technical whiz". Also, he was a complete jerk to his band members.
Where do I begin with this one? Much of this snark comes from Richard Brody, a widely respected film critic for the New Yorker. This is his opinion, but I particularly disagree with his opinions about jazz, and he comes off as just another conceited New York know-it-all. This really struck a nerve with me, because, thanks to listening to tapes from my "Uncle" Jack Conboy, I have been a huge fan of Buddy Rich since I started listening to jazz as a child. He is one of my favorite jazz musicians, and I'm not even a drummer! He is more than just a technical player and a TV personality. He is exactly what his nickname says he is- The World's Greatest Drummer. He could do things on a drum kit that no one did or will ever do. He still outplays today's drummers with giant sets and double bass pedals. Although he did have the tendency to show off sometimes with one-handed drum rolls and the like, Buddy Rich's legacy was much, much more than that. His technique as well as his style are perfect. If you need convincing, just listen to the "West Side Story Medley." He was a better drummer than Roach or Krupa. He completely blew both of them away in the famous "drum battles". Today's best drummers (IMO), like Neal Peart, Questlove, Bill Bruford, Steve Smith, Lars Ulrich and Carter Beauford, don't even come close. Peart even admits to this. Despite what Mr. Brody says, Buddy Rich's drumming was not all loud and insensitive. He doesn't just sit there and bash the drums like many rock drummers do. His solos, such as that in the "West Side Story Medley" have shape. Like a good book or movie, his solos slowly build to an explosive ending. Rich has influenced and continues to influence jazz and rock drummers to this day. I have found that most jazz critics tend to bash music that is loud and in your face, and seem to assume that all jazz should be played by quartets in smoke-filled clubs. "In your face" jazz from performers like Buddy Rich and Maynard Ferguson is entertaining and easy to get into and enjoy, and got me interested in jazz when I was a teenager. Later on, I was better able to appreciate musicians like Sonny Rollins and Miles Davis, that, one can argue, are more of an acquired taste. Finally, there is no denying the fact that Buddy Rich was a nasty cuss, as the famous "bus tapes" demonstrate (The Buddy Rich tirade (NSFW) set to the music of Neal Hefti's "Cute" is particularly hilarious). But, the thing is, Buddy was so great, and demanded the same excellence from his band, that one could argue that he earned the right to be the way he was. Finally, Buddy constantly lambasted his band members, and Fletcher (J.K. Simmons' character) often launched tirades on members of his band. I don't think this is a coincidence.
Your hands don't bleed when you play drums (unless you are holding the sticks the wrong way).
No, they don't. But, once again, this is a work of fiction, and certain elements of the story may be exaggerated for dramatic effect. I don't have a problem with this.
The quality of the drumming in this movie is mediocre at best.
Again, I am not a drummer. If I were a drummer, my feelings may be different. As a musician, I think Miles Teller, who did almost all of his own drumming in the movie, did a fantastic job. Before this movie, Teller had some experience as a rock drummer. He even admitted he didn't know how to grip the sticks correctly. This movie was made on a very short shooting schedule so it could premiere at the Sundance Film Festival. As a result, Teller only had a couple of days to practice before they started shooting the movie. The bottom line is that Teller is an actor. He played the part of a jazz drummer, and part of this role included drumming. As an actor, he convinced me and many others that his character was a great drummer.
Why are there no black or female musicians in the movie?
Yes, one critic even plays the race card. I wholeheartedly agree that many of jazz's pioneers and innovators were and are African American. Many music historians say jazz traces its origins back to the songs slaves sang in their masters' fields. However, the fact is that most big bands in American colleges and universities are almost entirely comprised of white males. If you don't believe me, go to the websites of different colleges and look at the pictures of the bands. If they weren't holding instruments, you might confuse them with the Young Republicans club. And, by the way, one of the musicians in the movie was a woman, even though she was quickly dismissed by J.K. Simmons' character.
"Able to infuse every scene with a sense of immediacy and electricity, you'll marvel at just how accomplished an indie feature this is."
Finally, someone gets the idea. Leave it to Joblo.com.
The way jazz music is taught and learned in the movie is completely wrong!
No f---ing s---, Sherlock! No one ever said this movie was a primer on how to teach jazz. Many people argued that J.K. Simmons' character was teaching solely for technical mastery. This is obviously not the best way to teach jazz, but I have seen it done before. As a matter of fact, one of the jazz bands my band competed against in high school was infamous for it. Obviously, constantly belittling your students is obviously not a good way to teach anything, although I have seen teachers of all subjects do this. It is important to remember that this is a movie, a work of fiction. More specifically, it is a psychological thriller focusing on the relationship between the two main characters, which happens to use a college jazz band as a backdrop. As director Damien Chazelle said, "This movie is as much about jazz music as 'Titanic' was about avoiding icebergs."
That Charlie Parker story is all wrong.
An anecdote frequently retold in the movie goes something like this. Charlie Parker goofed a solo, and drummer Jo Jones threw a cymbal at his head, nearly decapitating him. Because of this, Charlie Parker practiced harder, came back and played an unbelievable solo, and became Bird. In real life, supposedly, Parker was off tempo, and Jones effectively "gave him the gong" by throwing the cymbal on the ground. Again, I will stress that this movie is a work of fiction. So the story was changed slightly for dramatic effect. I don't see what the big deal is, and either way, many people agree that this incident was one of the events that led to Charlie Parker becoming the greatest jazz saxophonist ever. (sorry, Kenny G fans).
Why would the main character have Buddy Rich as a role model? He wasn't a musician, he was a TV and radio personality, a "loud and insensitive technical whiz". Also, he was a complete jerk to his band members.
Where do I begin with this one? Much of this snark comes from Richard Brody, a widely respected film critic for the New Yorker. This is his opinion, but I particularly disagree with his opinions about jazz, and he comes off as just another conceited New York know-it-all. This really struck a nerve with me, because, thanks to listening to tapes from my "Uncle" Jack Conboy, I have been a huge fan of Buddy Rich since I started listening to jazz as a child. He is one of my favorite jazz musicians, and I'm not even a drummer! He is more than just a technical player and a TV personality. He is exactly what his nickname says he is- The World's Greatest Drummer. He could do things on a drum kit that no one did or will ever do. He still outplays today's drummers with giant sets and double bass pedals. Although he did have the tendency to show off sometimes with one-handed drum rolls and the like, Buddy Rich's legacy was much, much more than that. His technique as well as his style are perfect. If you need convincing, just listen to the "West Side Story Medley." He was a better drummer than Roach or Krupa. He completely blew both of them away in the famous "drum battles". Today's best drummers (IMO), like Neal Peart, Questlove, Bill Bruford, Steve Smith, Lars Ulrich and Carter Beauford, don't even come close. Peart even admits to this. Despite what Mr. Brody says, Buddy Rich's drumming was not all loud and insensitive. He doesn't just sit there and bash the drums like many rock drummers do. His solos, such as that in the "West Side Story Medley" have shape. Like a good book or movie, his solos slowly build to an explosive ending. Rich has influenced and continues to influence jazz and rock drummers to this day. I have found that most jazz critics tend to bash music that is loud and in your face, and seem to assume that all jazz should be played by quartets in smoke-filled clubs. "In your face" jazz from performers like Buddy Rich and Maynard Ferguson is entertaining and easy to get into and enjoy, and got me interested in jazz when I was a teenager. Later on, I was better able to appreciate musicians like Sonny Rollins and Miles Davis, that, one can argue, are more of an acquired taste. Finally, there is no denying the fact that Buddy Rich was a nasty cuss, as the famous "bus tapes" demonstrate (The Buddy Rich tirade (NSFW) set to the music of Neal Hefti's "Cute" is particularly hilarious). But, the thing is, Buddy was so great, and demanded the same excellence from his band, that one could argue that he earned the right to be the way he was. Finally, Buddy constantly lambasted his band members, and Fletcher (J.K. Simmons' character) often launched tirades on members of his band. I don't think this is a coincidence.
Your hands don't bleed when you play drums (unless you are holding the sticks the wrong way).
No, they don't. But, once again, this is a work of fiction, and certain elements of the story may be exaggerated for dramatic effect. I don't have a problem with this.
The quality of the drumming in this movie is mediocre at best.
Again, I am not a drummer. If I were a drummer, my feelings may be different. As a musician, I think Miles Teller, who did almost all of his own drumming in the movie, did a fantastic job. Before this movie, Teller had some experience as a rock drummer. He even admitted he didn't know how to grip the sticks correctly. This movie was made on a very short shooting schedule so it could premiere at the Sundance Film Festival. As a result, Teller only had a couple of days to practice before they started shooting the movie. The bottom line is that Teller is an actor. He played the part of a jazz drummer, and part of this role included drumming. As an actor, he convinced me and many others that his character was a great drummer.
Why are there no black or female musicians in the movie?
Yes, one critic even plays the race card. I wholeheartedly agree that many of jazz's pioneers and innovators were and are African American. Many music historians say jazz traces its origins back to the songs slaves sang in their masters' fields. However, the fact is that most big bands in American colleges and universities are almost entirely comprised of white males. If you don't believe me, go to the websites of different colleges and look at the pictures of the bands. If they weren't holding instruments, you might confuse them with the Young Republicans club. And, by the way, one of the musicians in the movie was a woman, even though she was quickly dismissed by J.K. Simmons' character.
"Able to infuse every scene with a sense of immediacy and electricity, you'll marvel at just how accomplished an indie feature this is."
Finally, someone gets the idea. Leave it to Joblo.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)