Earlier this year, seven other film/TV/media professors, PhD students, and I live-tweeted the Golden Globes. In other words, we watched the awards show as it aired, commercials and all, and simultaneously posted to Twitter our commentary on the onscreen happenings. [1] From the bizarre (William Hurt’s grizzly beard!) to the banal (Harrison Ford’s dour demeanor), we few, we happy few, considered it all, lobbing 140-character phrases into the Twittersphere as fast and consistently as pitching machines. Yes, it was tough to keep up, and, yes, watching TV while reading and typing was (somewhat) difficult. But mostly, it was fun. As a result, I was quite excited to participate in a similar synchronous conversation for this year’s Oscars. (See Annie Peterson’s “Our Golden Globes Hangover” for more about our tweeting experience.)

During the evening, Hurt’s wooly beard turned into a Twitter hashtag (#williamhurtsbeard) and then a Twitter account itself: http://twitter.com/beardofhurt.

The 82^nd Annual Academy Awards aired live Sunday, March 7, and despite a few intrusions from my young nephews, I live-tweeted. This time though, I created a list — a recent addition to Twitter that allows users to follow a select group rather than their entire Twitter stream. Personalized lists like this one cut down on all the noise, so to speak. Ten minutes before the Oscars began, our group consisted of roughly eight, mostly the profs and doctoral candidates who live-tweeted the Golden Globes. But by the time the show concluded, 27 of us (plus @ebertchicago) were concurrently evaluating, praising, bashing, and mocking Hollywood’s biggest night. Looking back over our three-hour Twitter stream, several tweets stand out:

• @noelrk: “My sister had to ask me what ceremony this was.”
• @ericonmedia: “That screen of lamps makes it looks like a Pottery Barn exploded in the Kodak Theater.”
• @princesscowboy: “George Clooney’s finger nail clippings can feed all the children of Africa! Gaby Sidibe’s mammaries can stop global warming!”
• @fymaxwell: “Does Charlize Theron’s dress have boobs drawn on it?”
• @filmsnob: “Every time THE HURT LOCKER gets an Oscar over AVATAR, an angel gets its wings (via @baratunde).”
• @ebertchicago: “No Farrah Fawcett in the memorial tribute? Major fail.”
• @chutry: “The only horror aspect of INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE was Tom Cruise’s performance.”
• @sononick: “Oh, apparently, this is a tribute to a really loose definition of the horror genre.”
• @aperren: “I get it Oscars…you think a woman is going to win best director, so you have a woman present director. You’re funny.”
• @annehelen: “Love that Bigelow refused to turn around and acknowledge Cameron trying to hug her.”
• @crsbecker: “‘I Am Woman’? Seriously? What did they have cued up if Lee Daniels won?” (via poniewozik)

Witty, perceptive, honest, and pointed: these statements represent much of the conversation between the 27 of us. Sure, we talked about the fashion and the Kodak Theater’s mise-en-scene. Sure, we made snarky remarks about James Cameron, the guy who was “Kanye’d,” and the tedious Oscar script/hosts. But we also produced insightful analysis about the ceremony, the nominees, and the film industry in general, e.g., the omission of Fawcett from the In Memoriam tribute, the (ridiculous) choice of song for Bigelow’s win, and the wide scope of movies included in the horror film montage (regarding the latter, some serious debate ensued). Also mentioned repeatedly were observations like these:

• Because it was filmed primarily with green screens and CGI, Avatar did not deserve an award for cinematography.
• Kathryn Bigelow was indeed The Best Director — not The Best Female Director and not The Best Woman Director, just The Best Director.
• Of all the categories to omit clips, cinematography should not have been one of them.
• Sandra Bullock may have given the best speech of the evening, but her role in The Blind Side is still troubling on many levels.
• Lauren Bacall should have received her award at the Oscars (not in an earlier ceremony); moreover, of all the recipients, she should have been allowed to say a few words.

The Academy rolls out its most feminist star and the most offensive music they can think of for Bigelow, the first female to win Best Director.

Because our Twitter list was comprised of like people with like interests — academics, critics, media lovers, movie fans — probably 70% of what was discussed was oft repeated; this is somewhat unintentional of course, a result of Twitter’s “refresh” delay. However, such reiteration is noteworthy, I think, because it suggests:

We understand both the ridiculousness and significance of the Oscars (as well as the movie industry). Take for instance, @princesscowboy’s declaration that “Gaby Sidibe’s mammaries can stop global warming!” Tweeted while presenters like Oprah Winfrey and Forest Whitaker lavished praise on the Best Actress nominees as though each had miraculously raised the dead, this statement amusingly summarizes what the industry in general thinks of itself, i.e., Revolutionary! Transformative! Original! Freethinking! The Greatest! Or as comedian @billmaher tweeted only moments before @princesscowboy: “Actors are just the bestest people in the world! We are so lucky to be sharing the earth with them!! Fuck!!!” Those of us who live-tweeted the Oscars are keenly aware that we spent three hours of our weekend watching and commenting on this spectacle and, thus, in a way reinforced the movie industry’s pompous view of itself. However, we are also quite mindful that a key objective of visual art (and popular culture) is, Shakespeare so eloquently reminds, “to hold as ’twere the mirror up to nature” (Hamlet 3.2). It is an exploration of this relationship, this bizarre mirroring of our/a “reality,” which drives us to the television set and subsequently to Twitter. [2]

Oprah Winfrey lauds Gaby Sidibe’s performance in Precious as well as her singular ability to change the world.

We are selective and specific with which films we consider award-worthy. Our vitriolic tweets about movies like The Blind Side, Avatar, and Twilight — that’s right, movies not films – confirm that when it comes to judging motion pictures, our group differs significantly from the masses. As virtually everyone knows, these three movies succeeded wildly at the box office; their special effects, characters, and narratives (no matter how stereotypical, bland, or anti-feminist) have moved a large number of moviegoers. But they did not speak to most of us. According to our tweets, we evidently cannot excuse the way in which The Blind Side contributes to Hollywood’s fetishism of whiteness and stereotypical representations of African American males. Likewise, our group apparently cannot or will not root for Avatar because of its simplistic and potentially racist story, grossly excessive budget, superfluous special effects, and the director’s bloated ego (e.g., in an interview, Cameron suggested that the Oscar go to Bigelow because “I already have one”). Rather, we deem award-worthy more complex and more intimate films like An Education, The Hurt Locker, Crazy Heart, and Up in the Air. Considering our background and career choices, this is not a complete surprise. Still, it’s nice to see one’s ideology validated.

“Honest Movie Titles: from http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1802286

We have formed a valuable community. Finally, this showering of shared ideas demonstrates that we have created a productive, purposeful community on Twitter. Without doubt, live-tweeting the Oscars and the Golden Globes is entertaining; and as suggested here, it can further validate one’s academic interests and ideology about art and popular culture. But our everyday Twitter conversations achieve the same. Specifically, we share theories, links, images, videos, news, websites, etc., many of which strengthen both our research and our teaching. We also ask for and receive pedagogical advice from people who are sincerely interested in our fields of study. As well, we meet at conferences, contribute to each other’s academic blogs, and discuss contemporary issues in higher education, professional development, and popular culture. We have created a valuable virtual community indeed.

Follow us on Twitter: @annehelen, @aperren, @billiehara, @bitchphd, @chutry, @crsbecker, @devan_, @doctork100, @ebertchicago, @eetempleton, @emarsh, @ericonmedia, @filmfan1971, @filmsnob, @fymaxwell, @greeney28, @heatherdotnet, @lhgarrison, @kellimarshall, @m_abel, @memles, @noelrk, @princesscowboy, @proctor, @sononick, @stevejamesmedia, @williambgoss, @wrightallison.

---

[1] The NY Times recently made a similar point: “No matter if they’re a source of loathing and laughter, the Oscars matter as a cultural flashpoint, perhaps now more than ever. All those Oscar viewers might not be ticket buyers, but when they watched the show this year they would have heard, perhaps even for the first time, the startling, shocking, infuriating or uninteresting news — pick your degree of engagement — that Ms. Bigelow was the first woman in Oscar’s 82 years to win for best directing” (March 10, 2010).

[2] We are certainly not alone in our live-tweeting experiment. For example, some blogs now instruct twitter users how to live-tweet events like the Golden Globes, the Academy Awards, and the Grammys. Moreover, some people are now live-tweeting from space, election sites, music events, and academic conferences. Much more controversial is a woman who recently live-tweeted her abortion.

---

Technorati Tags: 2010, 82nd Annual Academy Awards, community, Golden Globes, graduate students, live-tweeting, Oscars, professors, twitter