I agree that Streep looked matronly and dreadful, for no reason; she’s still is in pretty good shape. But then again she’s never been a good dresser.

“Bunch of self-absorbed narcissists living in a bubble and congratulating each other for their brilliance.”

C’mon rickl, this topic is about the Oscars, not about the White House!

Unfortunately, last night’s show just wasn’t very good. I could blame Billy Crystal and the writers for the fact that the comedy bits didn’t work, but I think the problem actually goes deeper. The main problem, IMO, is that the stars of today (along with the directors and executives, for that matter) simply don’t have the glamour or the grandeur needed for effective parody. When the two biggest “stars” in Hollywood are George Clooney and Brad Pitt, then clearly something has gone terribly wrong. Pitt in particular is a good actor, but you can’t even start to compare him to guys like James Cagney, Clark Gable, Cary Grant, or Humphrey Bogart in terms of projecting a personality. Ironically, Pitt’s wife comes a lot closer to the classic movie star ideal — but only in real life! Her movie performances are pretty forgettable (or at least have been for a long time).

Another (related) phenomenon is that movie dramas now strive so much to portray “real life,” there isn’t much of an an opportunity for stars to BE movie stars on screen. It seems like most of today’s “stars” are competing to see who can give the most “restrained,” “understated,” and “nuanced” performance. That style of acting is fine as far as it goes, but don’t you kind of miss Bette Davis? (Actually, you don’t need to go back nearly that far: Jack Nicholson, Joe Pesci, Sharon Stone, and even Julia Roberts could be pull off being larger than life.

All of that said, I thought last night’s winners actually did reflect a bit of longing for the old days. The Artist, most obviously (Best Picture, Director, and Actor). Meryl Streep, for what I take was a pretty uncompromising take on a great broad, Lady Thatcher. And Christopher Plummer, who started acting in the movies in the late 1950s.

One could argue that the relative popularity of movies in the action (Transformers), fantasy (Harry Potter), and animated (Toy Story) genres means that the public wants more movies with larger-than-life story-telling and acting and fewer movies about George Clooney spending time in airports and hospitals.

Billy Crystal always does an excellent job as host. Not hilarious but funny without being too sarcastic or crude.

Fashions this year seemed reasonable…not as wild as other years. My favorite was Gweneth Paltrow’s elegant, simple gown and coat (seen as she was interviewed on the “red carpet”). Meryl Streep’s gown was Gawd awful. What was she THINKING?

As usual, most of the acceptance speeches were boring and almost embarrassing. My all time favorite was Joe Pesci’s “It was my privilege…thank you.” given a few years ago for best supporting actor.

Movies? I liked “Midnight In Paris” but mostly for the scenery. Paris is the city I go to when I need a big city fix (my main house and my summer home are both in rural areas).

I thought “Hugo”was OK. Really liked “War Horse”.

When I tried the watch “The Artist” on my computer, I thought something was wrong with my computer’s sound card…guess I need to go back and watch it all the way through now.

I liked “The Descendants”, but of course I had to separate the art from the politics of the artist.

I have to say, I thought “Midnight in Paris” was grossly overrated: thin, with the historic characters written much like a clever high-school senior might see them. And Woody Allen (er, Owen Wilson in an embarrassing Woody imitation) as the “Mary Sue” of the 1920s Paris literary set.

Yeesh.

I do want to see “Hugo,” though.