Oscar's Real Winner

Here's to filmmakers, technicians, and Artists alike...

Most of those who nabbed the Statuettes were expected to win, and deserved to... 

(The night's one head-scratcher:  A Big HUH? in the Film Editing category...)

First, a nod to the major winners...

Horray! for  Christopher Plummer...Meryl Streep...Octavia Spencer...Jean DuJardin....

Kudos to "Hugo", "Midnight in Paris", "The Descendants", "A Separation"...

Bravo! to Mssrs. Hazanavicius... Thomas Langmann... Ludovic Bource....Mark Bridges...

After all of that, the spirit of this year's Oscars was summed up for me in two great photographs found on the web....

Here's to the most deserving victor of the night...in his little bow tie, taking a bow, and offering generous congratulations to his co-star.....

Oscar Night--Thoughts on What Should Be A Fun Evening

I don't want a lot of surprises this year as the Oscars are announced in a few hours.



In fact, so many of the front-runners happen to be personal favorites, that I WANT to see them win. I don't WANT to see Christopher Plummer fall to a Jonah Hill upset (I'm fairly certain Max Von Sydow will not experience a sentimental vote this year)

....I will scream in delight for Meryl Streep, but will also cheer appreciatively for Viola Davis.  Brad and George gave career performances...how could I feel badly for a win for either of them? Then again, a victory for Jean Dujardin is like a victory for Uggie the Dog. How can I resist?



There isn't one Supporting Actress nominee who isn't deserving....while I expect the charming Octavia Spencer to give a moving speech, any other winner would bring me a yelp of pleasant approval.  (Especially Berenice Bejo...or best of all, Jessica Chastain).



Woody Allen's name called out in triumph will feel like a personal vindication, because I loved his movie since I saw it last summer.


And while I have in my heart a deep yearning for two movies in particular as Best Film, I have to say that any one of them would please me in one way or another.



It's nice to watch the Oscars when your favorites are likely to win.  But then again, I had my balloon burst---badly---six years ago (CRASH!!) and I have never fully recovered.  That's why I don't want too many surprises this year.


If there ARE shockers...these would please me most:
Best Picture: Midnight in Paris or Tree of Life
Best Director--Terrence Malick
Best Actress--A Michelle Williams Surprise upset



I will cheer loudly tonight for: Emmanuel Lubzecki (Cinematography, Tree of Life); Woody Allen (Midnight in Paris); Ludovic Bource (The Artist); Meryl Streep (Iron Lady); Christopher Plummer (Beginners); Dante Ferretti (Hugo); and Alexander Payne (Screenplay, The Descendants).  Add Michel Havazanicius to the chorus.



*       *       *       *       *
On recent stories that the Academy is composed overwhelmingly of old white men:

Where were all of these articles in 2005-06, when generational homophobia motivated a voting bloc to rally around a second-rate film, thus ensuring that the deserving critical and popular front-runner would not make history?


Add to that: It has ALWAYS been so; membership has always skewed older.  The Academy reflects the makeup of the industry.  And the Oscars weren't intended to appeal to the preferences of various cults within the moviegoing public.  (The "snub" of "Harry Potter" should not be seen as an injustice.)

 These Old White Men are the ones who create those cults to begin with.  They fashion the blockbusters that bring in the big bucks from the mass of less-discriminating viewers.  The Oscars are an occasion for appreciating moviemaking's better intentions, when films that speak to the better part of our  natures, which can entertain us and give our minds and emotions a workout, are held up for recognition.  Sure, the choices are often less that applause-worthy, but it is, after all, an industry award. 

Who are we to demand anything else?

And for all of our complaining, we come back every year...  We sometimes forget how to regard a movie without the context of the Oscars.


*       *       *       *       *


Another Nominee I would love to see Oscared: 


It's clear that the name Sergio Mendes is a complete mystery to many in the Oscar-blogosphere.  But this composer, nominated for the song from the animated film Rio, has been an influence in world music for decades.


And has been one of my favorite musicians my whole life.


I have read with dismay those who feel a win for Mendes would be seen as a ham-handed effort by the Academy to be "global" and "relevant".  So..what is the Brazilian ---er, Portugese-- word for "bull--it"?


Not only has Mendes entertained millions for almost 50 years..but the song he wrote for Rio is out-of-the-ordinary Oscar fare, and FUN!!


Here are a couple samples of Mendes' previous works that I love so much...

Oscars 2011: Revving Up My Engine With A Rant--Oscar Films Need A Chance

Evidence that modern motion picture distribution has finally descended into madness:

Say what you will about the current Best Picture nominees floundering at the box office. 

I say, don't blame the films.

First of all, has anyone noticed that most Theater chains in the U.S. are no longer advertising in the major daily newspapers?  There are still many people who rely on their local Entertainment Sections for information about which theaters are playing the movies they most want to see, especially in their neighborhood.

Nowadays, all of this information can be found on-line, or on smart-phone movie apps.  But unless you know which theaters are nearby; or you're already familiar with the films in current release; or which are OSCAR-NOMINATED--  

Unless you know all that at the start, how do you connect with an "Artist"? with a "Descendants"?  even (I shudder) "Extremely Loud..."? or any film that does not have the fan-boy build up of a "Twilight " or "Hunger Games" (which just broke a record for on-line advanced ticket sales..)

OK, OK, so I had to admit that times are a-changing, and thus I got with the program.

There is a 12-screen multiplex one mile from my house.  My new preferred method of info-gathering is on-line, using my trusty laptop computer (that alone sort of renders me as timely as Mr. Malick's dinosaurs...)

I logged on.

I found the AMC site for the local 12-plex.

And I found something maddening:

ON THE WEEKEND LEADING UP TO THE ACADEMY AWARDS, NOT ONE OF THE 12 SCREENS WAS SHOWING ANY FILM THAT CURRENTLY HAS AN OSCAR NOMINATION, IN ANY CATEGORY. NOT ONE.  

That means if I want to see "The Descendants" once more to refresh my memory and check out my original impression, or if I wanted to take a friend to see "The Artist", I might have to travel 30 minutes or more.

And yet, the movies themselves are blamed for not reaching an audience, when it is the studios/exhibitors who have not given the films and their potential target audiences a chance to connect.  The people who would likely make the films a hit are those who would  use the traditional print media that have been taken away from them.

To top it off, the films are pulled out of theaters at the EXACT TIME fans may want to check them out.

Am I wrong to believe that ALL of the Best Picture films deserve a chance to be seen on a big screen, at least for the weekend of and week following the Oscars?

More Oscar stuff this weekend!!

Coming Soon: The Movie Year 2011

I just watched "Beginners" again at home, on DVD.  It is a wonderful little film.  My review, written this past June, did not do it complete justice.  Christopher Plummer was even more impressive this time; and the treatment of a son's attempt to comfort a dying father held a special resonance and relevance to me.

**********

Tomorrow I will post a review of "The Artist".  Along with "Beginners", both films charmed me with their canine supporting players, both of them Jack Russell Terriers with the sweetest faces. 
"The Artist" was one of my most highly anticipated films of the year.  I am anxious to share my thoughts about this movie.

**********

In addition to "Beginners", the holiday added a slew of great new films to my personal collection (some of which will be re-viewed on these "pages") including "The Deer Hunter", "Gods and Monsters", "Never Let Me Go", "Inside Job", "Midnight in Paris", "The King's Speech", "Black Swan", "The Exorcist", and "The Thin Red Line". 

**********

When time permits, I'll be checking out "My Week With Marilyn", "War Horse", and "Shame".  I am not yet convinced that I will derive much from "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo".  "The Iron Lady" and "Albert Nobbs" have yet to be released in Chicago. 

**********

2011 was a memorable, heartbreaking and infuriating year.  Great travel, memorable music, an end-of-year movie bonanza, and wonderful Chicago weekends alternated with heartbreaking world news, infuriating politics, and a series of family traumas that have left me numb.  I cherish my closest friends, my readers, my animals, and Mark for helping me keep my feet on the ground as it continued to shift under me.

Looking ahead, Oscars 2011 should provide a well-needed escape, as well as an exciting showcase of some truly great movies (I hope).  I will weigh in at regular intervals.  I'll also take my annual look back to Oscars 40 years ago, when in 1971 the big names were Friedkin and Hackman and Fonda, when New York was the backdrop to the year's most honored films, and when the Russian Revolution played side-by-side with futuristic British  gang wars at local cinemas.

"Incendies" Canadian Oscar Nominee: Brutal Surprises

"Incendies",  last year's Canadian Foreign-Language Oscar Nominee*, distills the brutality and confusion of decades of Middle Eastern conflict into human terms.  The result is a deeply disturbing look at the region's sordid violence and tragedy that the movies have given us since "Midnight Express".


It must have been a logistical nightmare to mount this picture.  It is suspenseful, with a clever (if icky) premise, and contains intimate personal moments as well as awful violence.  The performers play difficult roles with characteristic European understatement and intensity.  I was propelled by my need to discover the solution to the mystery that is at the center of the film.  But in retrospect I admired "Incendies" more than I enjoyed it.


"Incendies" (roughly translated as "fires" or "conflagrations") tells a story of a pair of grown twins, brother and sister, who must carry out their mother's dying wish to deliver two envelopes, one to a brother they never knew they had, and one to their father, who they assumed was dead. 


The film develops on parallel tracks. In one, a series of flashbacks describes the Mother's tragic journey, from disgraced villager who gives up her infant son, to radicalized assassin who switches allegiances to survive, to political prisoner who is tortured and raped.  In the other, we follow the present-day attempts of both twins to follow the clues that will lead them to their respective envelope recipients, leading to a horrible realization abut their own origins.


Let's just say that what they discover does "Chinatown" one better, and then some.

The film introduces the idea of  the unsolvable problems of pure mathematics (the female twin is an assistant to a mathematics professor), and equates it to the quandary that is the Middle East.  The moral and political confusion is symbolized by the Mother's tragic conflict of identity, and the Twins' discovery that horror and violence is their birthright.  The film seeks to dramatize the idea that in a world in which there is no escaping all-pervasive corruption and terror, where simply being born implicates us in the world's misery, the only way to accept living is to forgive.


The film (adapted from a play by Wadji Mouawad) makes its arguments in an original and interesting manner, even though I didn't always buy them.  I honestly felt that the Mother would have found a way to explain her life to her twins earlier, or else leave it unsaid unto death; and I felt the Twins' acceptance of the truth was too sudden, their lack of anger sort of unnatural. 


I had trouble with some of the transitions between past and present, which were sudden and unannounced.  The actresses who play the mother and daughter resemble each other so much that the effect is somewhat confusing; early on I wondered if they were played by the same actress, to make a thematic point.

As the Mother, Lubna Azabal is incredibly strong. She is in closeup for much of the film, creating an unforgettable tragic portrait of a woman trapped in an impossible situation, who behaves as though there were nothing more to lose.  Melissa Desormeaux-Poulin is smart and vulnerable in the role of the twin daughter, and carries a large section of the film.  As the twin son, Maxim Gaudette is interesting, but his portion of the main action is introduced late in the film.  I would have preferred a better balance between both twins' searches. Even so, his eleventh-hour reappearance lends a nice change of pace to the story.


Everything about "Incendies" is heavy.  Director Denis Villeneuve and his filmmakers have an obvious passion for the material and its inherent message.  And they have crafted a haunting piece of cinema, from the strength of their images to the wounding music score that opens the film and recurs. 


In the end, I didn't think the movie said anything new about the obvious horror and tragedy of war, or about the age-old conflicts still plaguing the Middle East.  It is a gripping series of gradually intensifying scenes leading to a nasty climax; one that may be so disturbing that it overshadows the film's message itself.

(*Note: The Danish film "In a Better World" was the ultimate recipient of the Foreign Language Film Oscar.)

Final Thoughts About Oscar 2010: A Personal Journal for Monday

Thank you all in advance for reading.....

Well, a couple of my dreams came true during the 2010 Oscars...

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS:

During last night's Oscars, I found that I might not have been as successful in managing my anxiety as I thought I had been.  No longer a dispassionate outside observer, I had reverted to my old Oscar passion, and became emotionally invested to the point of jitters. 

Fortunately, there were some personal bright spots, so I avoided that horrible feeling of being left-out, like after 2005's "Brokeback-Crash".  Still, I felt an almost irrational protectiveness of my favorites, and of my own reputation as a relevant movie-lover and self-styled cineaste.  

It was an odd show.  I felt bored through the early awards, and felt foreboding during Aaron Sorkin's victory speech, and then David Seidler's name was called...

During Seidler's appearance, as I watched this elderly man alone on stage in the biggest moment of his career, a man I felt I had grown close to over the last few months (as a fellow writer and dreamer of Oscar glory), I started to get hopeful, and teary-eyed.

(Mark and I cried during the Memorials, too...so many of the departed were ones we connected with in our formative years: Lynn Redgrave ("Georgy Girl"), Dennis Hopper ("Easy Rider"), composer John Barry, film editor Dede Allen ("Bonnie and Clyde"), producer Robert Radnitz ("Sounder"), director Blake Edwards, Patricia Neal, producer Dino DiLaurentis...)

ON A FEW OF THE WINNERS:

When your favorites go on to win, it is a buoyant feeling, and the success or failure of the telecast hardly matters. When films you dislike are recognized, it makes for a dreary evening. I experienced a little of both.

--Of course, I felt personal vindication after "The King's Speech" prevailed in major categories. I was actually stunned when Tom Hooper's name was called...and I was still anticipating the big prize would go to "Social Network".  Colin Firth brought to the stage a touch of class.  His speech was eloquent, humorous, and generous.

--"Black Swan" will some day be rediscovered as the overwhelming work of art that it is.  Natalie Portman worked awfully hard to realize the beautiful and horrific vision that was this film, and gave a wonderfully emotional and mature speech.

--I have rarely liked Sandra Bullock or Jeff Bridges more than I did in their introductions to the Acting nominees. It almost made it worthwhile to me that both of them won in their respective categories last year.

--"Inception", to me, was a wall of noise...so I suppose the Sound awards were appropriate. Not sure yet how I feel about its Cinematography win.  (Glad its overwrought score was left begging....no offense intended to its fans....)

--I suppose "Alice in Wonderland" was a triumph of imagination, but its design wins left me apathetic. 

--Melissa Leo and Christian Bale captured the hearts of audiences, and received a lot of good will for their strong work in "The Fighter".  I can't help wonder if their work will hold up in the popular imagination a year from now.  Leo may not need to worry about a future acceptance speech (she has alienated many).  And did Bale forget his wife's name?  I'll concede him the benefit of the doubt, and assume he just got choked up.

--Right on!:  Director Charles Ferguson of the winning Feature Documentary  "Inside Job," remarked: "Forgive me, I must start by pointing out that three years after our horrific financial crisis caused by financial fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that's wrong." 

Right on, too! One of the producers of "The King's Speech", Iain Canning, thanked his boyfriend from the stage.  A nice moment!

"SPEECH" vs. "NETWORK";  AND AGEISM

I hope to stop reading about how older audiences cannot fully appreciate "The Social Network", while "The King's Speech" is old- fashioned and not innovative enough for Oscar recognition. It not only diminishes the merits of "Social Network", but unfairly denigrates the beauty of "The King's Speech". 

True, there may be individual Academy members who voted "generationally".  But  there is a core of Oscar voters who engaged in a full-blown love affair with the movies in the 1960's and 70's, when Hollywood  had its biggest creative ferment since 1939.  Oscar voters in this demographic may have a unique ability to study and assess the subtelties and strengths of each film.  To me, "Network" and "Speech" were each justly rewarded for their achievements in their winning categories.

Variety wrote last Fall that "Social Network" may actually have done better box-office with older rather than younger audiences.  The New York Times just published a piece about the untapped strength of a mature audience.  This demographic, similar to a majority of the Academy, has remained dormant in the last twenty years, but has shown will come out en masse for richer films that are intended for enjoyment across generational lines.  That may bode well for more movies like "King's Speech" AND "Social Network".

THE SHOW..AND THE CO-HOSTS

I was excited about the team of Hathaway and Franco. The promotional ads looked fun, and I enjoy the work of both of these performers, and admire their versatility.

I love James Franco (and he looked amazing in his white ballet tights in the opening montage)...although he seemed far-away, like the light hurt his eyes. Perhaps he dreaded the  writing, which was awful, leaving these two stranded in lame shtick.  (Franco reportedly took a picture on his iPhone of veteran writer Bruce Vilanch asleep backstage.)  


And Anne Hathaway will be wonderful if and when she ever shoots the Judy Garland biopic. She carried the show......Some thought she was too "perky"... she seemed fine to me....given what she was asked to do. 

The Producers of the Academy Awards should stop fretting about courting younger viewers.  Movie lovers come in every age range, and, young or old, will always follow the Oscars.

Billy Crystal's ovation was like a slap in the face to "Frathaway".

It is probably not a good thing to ask a nominee (like Franco) to host for the entire evening...the anticipation, and possible disappointment, make it an unfair proposition....professionals though they are, these people are still human after all...right?    
 
IN PRAISE OF A FAVORITE THAT WAS IGNORED
 
 

 
I think a few years of perspective will show that good choices were made overall in the Major categories...Annette Bening will have her day....perhaps I can write her Oscar-winning screenplay for her (Seidler is not the ONLY late-bloomer!)   A screen biography of Joni Mitchell, maybe, with Bening as a mature Joni???
 
"The Kids Are All Right", one of my three all-time favorites from this year (with "King's Speech and "Black Swan") went home empty-handed.  And you know?  For some incredible reason, I have taken some odd comfort in that.  In spite of its losses at the hands of the Academy, I know, as an objective movie-lover with a special, biased interest in this film's subject matter, I know in my heart that it still is, and always will be, a great film.  To me, it is all that matters.

"The Kids Are All Right" did not need the validation of the Academy to convince me of its greatness.  I calmly accept that it is not an Oscar-Winner, and that it exists in a world beyond the need for Academy accolades.
 
Hmmm...maybe I managed my emotions well enough, after all!
 
BACK TO WATCHING MOVIES AGAIN!
 
Time now to really enjoy movies again, for a while.  SHOCKING NEWS: I plan to watch "The Social Network" again.  In a funny way, now that it is no longer a contender in some heated "contest", it doesn't feel so threatening to me or to the recognition of a more classically-made and lovely film. So now, I think I can relax and find more to appreciate in it.
 
I hope we movie-lovers will all go back to being fans and students of the art and entertainment of film, and leave our prognostications and elbowing for position behind for a while.....No point in assessing David Fincher's odds next year, or creating our nominee predictions, or ANY of that, before we have a chance to enjoy the films purely, objectively, passionately, the way we did when we first fell in love with the movies.
 
 

Oscar Moments I'd Like To See:

In my fantasy of how tonight's Oscar Show will unfold, these are my most anticipated moments: 

*   *   *

James Franco comments on his Best Actor nomination--"I'd give my left arm for an Oscar!"

*   *   *

73-year-old David Seidler gets a standing ovation, in recognition of his life, and labor of love, encapsulated in one marvelous screenplay.

*   *   *

An upset in the Animated Feature category

*   *   *

"Black Swan" wows the Academy with it's awesome Cinematography and Editing..

*   *   *

Overcome with emotion, Colin Firth goes speechless at the podium

*   *   *

A deserved show of love for Goffrey Rush

*   *   *

Helena Bonham-Carter bringing down the house and stealing the show with her acceptance speech.

*   *   *

A gasp from the crowd as Annette Bening is called to the stage

*   *   *

A poetic follow-up to the final sequence in their film, as the producers of "The Social Network" wait for a reply to a friend request that will never be answered....

*   *   *

Friendship, as relevant today as it ever was, will triumph...

"Forget everything else and just say it to me. Say it to me, as a friend."

As I said, it's just my fantasy...but then, especially in Hollywood, some dreams do come true!  Enjoy...

(And check out the results below for this Journal's Shocking Best picture Oscar Quiz)

Sasha Stone's Oscar Blog, and "A Tale of Two Movies"

This weekend I "discovered" a blog that I had been aware of for some time but just started reading in earnest: Awards Daily, by writer/ blogger Sasha Stone

To those who love Oscars (and many of you who read this Journal certainly do) I recommend you check out this site, for a chance to sink your teeth into industry predictions, opinions, and debates.

On one thread, called "State of the Race", she writes a detailed and provocative entry about the divide among Academy members over the prohibitive Oscar front-runners, "The Social Network" and "The King's Speech".

Over 100 people commented...and I threw my hat into the ring, too.

I know many readers of this journal loved both films. Those who especially enjoyed TSN have chided me on my negative critical reaction to it.  While I have not jumped on the Fincher/Eisenberg bandwagon, I have reflected on this competent (but, to me, shallow) film to better understand my resistance to it.  I think I was able to articulate it more directly in my comment on Stone's blog.  

Moreover, I was compelled to comment about my strong reaction to this notion that, even in a field of 10 Best Picture nominees, the discussion still boils down to a race between just two films. 

What's more, according to Stone's essay, there is a huge debate over the supposition that Academy members will vote with EITHER their minds OR their hearts, as though one can't do both.  TSN is positioned as a deserving "thinking person's film", and TKS as merely a "feel-good" choice.  However, these assumptions deserve to be questioned, but they rarely are.

Printed below is my comment to the post.  Check it out here:
http://www.awardsdaily.com/2011/02/the-state-of-the-race-a-tale-of-two-movies/#comment-536598

There are now 10 films nominated for Best Picture, and still the discussion is between only two. There has to be some irony there!

I see many comments about thinking vs. feeling, when in reality the most artistically brilliant of the ten, which engaged the mind and touched the heart in unpredictable, unexplainable ways (like poetry), is “Black Swan”. It’s strange that any discussion about intelligent engagement with a film does not include this gem.


“The Kings Speech” was not only brilliantly performed but technically marvelous. Its use of lenses, creative manipulation of sound, and detail in design, while not drawing undue attention to costumes and sets, gave me the unique pleasures found in classically made pictures. It reminded me what made me love movies in the first place. Anyone who yawns and invokes Masterpiece Theater probably has never watched MP. It is possible to look past the trappings and the “period” aspect, and enjoy this film as a study in an unlikely friendship.


I found “The Social Network” glib, self-satisfied and aware of how precocious it is. It unwittingly glorifies the backstabbing and degradation it sought to expose. To this viewer, because the film treats an historical figure that is very much alive, it comes off as nothing more than an advertisement for the social networking site it portrays…with the unspoken implication that if one disagrees with the film or what it stands for, one is no longer “relevant”. No wonder critics, who rise or fall on relevance, embraced this film.

Royal Surprises, and the Old pre-Oscar Anxiety...Oscar 2010

Tom Hooper with the Director's Guild of America Award for "The King's Speech"

Okay.  I admit it. I am surprised. And I am getting excited.

After ranting about the predictability of the pre-Oscar awards season, the tide has turned.  I was ready to bet the house on a Best Picture win for "The Social Network", and I was resigned to enduring another Oscar telecast in which the final outcome would be a personal disappointment.  I swore I would not let myself become too closely identified with any film this year, so that an eventual loss would not be a personal devastation.  I stated that "Black Swan", "The Kids are All Right", and "The King's Speech" were great films and personal favorites, and would remain so even if none of them won any awards.

I still feel that way.

But now that one of these--"The King's Speech"--has surprised everyone and picked up three important precursor awards in one week (The Producer's Guild, The Director's Guild, and the Screen Actor's Guild), which are accurate predictors of an eventual Oscar win, I am excited in spite of myself.

And once again I run the risk of getting too emotionally attached to my favorites, and too anxious about their chances of losing, especially Annette Bening,  David Seidler, Geoffrey Rush, and "King's Speech".  It seems impossible that "The Social Network" is now an underdog, and I can't bear to speculate that somehow its sudden losses have all been engineered to make it that way, and thus draw it the "sympathy" votes needed to....

Wow.  There I go.  It's 2006 again, and that sure thing for my all-time favorite, "Brokeback Mountain",  was horribly stolen, and I was feeling depressed for days afterward...Once again I'm setting myself up for a huge disappointment.  Time to let my new-found wisdom take hold of me again.  Best to enjoy the glory that is the "King's" for the moment, and just sit back on February 27 and let whatever happens, happen...

Time now to retreat back to 1970 for a final look...at the Nominees for Best Picture...

Back to Oscar 2010: Newsweek, a Nagging Question... and a Cleaned-up "King"?

*

Newsweek Had Inside Info?

This past Tuesday, a mere three hours after the Oscar nominations were announced, I received my copy of Newsweek in the mail.  On the cover were six actors who had just been nominated for Academy Awards: James Franco, Nicole Kidman, Colin Firth, Annette Bening, Natalie Portman, and Michelle Williams.  The title read, "Our 14th annual Oscar Roundtable" (click for the whole article with video links).  It's a fine article, with six actors I admire. It was good, for a change, to read about a group of talented, respectable Hollywood celebrities gathered in an atmosphere of fellowship, see them have fun, and mix it up together. 

And then I wondered: how did Newsweek know?  Sure, a lot of the eventual nominees were easy to predict.  And I know that Newsweek had featured these Roundtables before, where occasionally a member of the panel had missed receiving a nomination.  Even then, I don't recall the issue being released the very day of the nominations.

It seemed a little fishy, and roused my inner cynic.  It would have taken at least 2-3 days for the magazine to reach my mail, plus another week or so to produce the piece.  And a few of these, like Michelle Williams, Nicole Kidman, and even James Franco, were far from sure bets. 

I felt foolish on behalf of all of us who study Oscar trends, keep track of the lead-up awards, and labor over our predictions.  Because somehow, Newsweek assembled six actors weeks before they were all announced as Oscar nominees, and proclaimed the gathering an Oscar Roundtable.

If Newsweek knew this a week ago....well, it makes me wonder if they have already completed the congratulatory profile of David Fincher, or the producers of "The Social Network".  If they didn't know the nominees ahead of time, (and there is a chance they did not), then the Oscars may be getting too predictable.

I'm sorry, but all of the media "excitement"over a supposedly level playing field, because "King's Speech" won at PGA, seems like a desperate ploy to create interest in the Oscar broadcast, and an attempt to introduce artificial suspense into a contest that most of us, if we're honest, could have called weeks ago.

~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~

"King's Speech" to Be Edited??

F****ng  MPAA!!   Harvey Weinstein is making a mistake....  He plans to re-edit "The King's Speech" to clean up a scene that the MPAA felt warranted an R rating and resubmit it for a PG-13, or even a PG. Why?  Sh*t!! To make it more "family friendly"...Weinstein states  that young people are not attending this film because of profanity, citing bigger box office in England, where the film has a more inclusive rating.

Really?  Seems to me that the film's box office is doing pretty well ($90 million so far). The movie is in the top 10, and Fandango reports an over 70% uptick in ticket requests since it received 12 Oscar nominations.  Wow...maybe an older audience is flocking in support of this film...is that such a foreign concept that producers are threatened by it? Sons of Bit***s!

The scene in question is crucial to the development of Colin Firth's and Geoffrey Rush's characters. To circumvent the King's (Firth's) tension, his therapist, Logue (Rush) goads him into letting loose with a stream of expletives.  And voila!  The stammer temporarily disappears.  It is a turning point, and also one of the biggest crowd-pleasing scenes in the film.

The problem is NOT with the film, but with the God**mned Motion Picture Association of America, and a sick and confused national attitude that takes offense to fairly common obscenities, but thinks nothing of allowing kids to be exposed to the most unspeakable cruelty and bloodshed in the name of thrills and chills.

Hey a***holes!! No one enforces the ratings any more.  If you want to attract more young people to  your film, find a new marketing angle.  The LAST thing you want to do is make it more "kid-friendly"! 

We need to all "find our voices", all of us who care about cinematic integrity, and express our distaste at what will absolutely ruin a marvelous work of popular art.

This Weekend: back to Oscar 1970, and best Actor and Best Picture.  Next Week: a review of a great new novel, "Enchanted April".

A Brief Break From 1970..To Look at 2011 Oscar Surprises

By now, anyone who follows Oscar is aware of the nominations, and to no one's surprise, the same titles appear that have been discussed at great length for months: "Black Swan", "King's Speech", "Social Network", "Toy Story 3", "The Kids are All Right", "The Fighter", "True Grit"....many of us are reciting this list in our sleep.


This space is devoted to personal observations: condolences to the forgotten, cheers to the happily remembered, the obscure mentions, and one very, very big surprise that so far (11am Central Time) has received almost no press....


I wish the following names had been called today:  Andrew Garfield (the best thing in "Social Network" and compelling in "Never Let Me Go"), Ryan Gosling ("Blue Valentine"), Julianne Moore ("Kids..."), Rachel Portman (score for "Never Let Me Go") and  Carey Mulligan (same film), Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz and John McLaughlin (writers of "Black Swan"),  Mila Kunis (same film), "I Am Love" for Foreign Language Film, "The Tillman Story" for Documentary.


I was happy these were remembered:  "Hereafter" for Visual Effects (discussed here in November), Mark Ruffalo (for "Kids..."),  "I Am Love" for Costume Design, "How To Train Your Dragon" for Animated Film and Score, and best of all, Javier Bardem in "Biutiful".

My Sentimental Choice So Far is: David Seidler for his Screenplay, "King's Speech". Classic screenwriting at its best. Seidler's personal story, leading up to how he eventually came to write the film, deserves a nice, tearful finish at the winner's podium. (I would also cheer for  a Lisa Cholodenko/Stuart Blumberg upset for "Kids...")

Because of the Oscar Nominations I Will Have to See: "The Fighter", "Winter's Bone", "Rabbit Hole".

In Spite of the Oscar Nominations I Am Still Not Interested: "True Grit", "127 Hours", "Alice in Wonderland".

Really? The heavily improvised "Another Year" gets a screenplay nod.

Biggest Surprise that I Don't Care Either Way:  The inclusion of the Coen Brothers instead of Christopher Nolan for Best Director.

Biggest Surprise--PERIOD!  "Waiting for Superman" did NOT receive a nomination for Best Feature Documentary.  The heavily favored and highly promoted indictment of American public education seemed like a
shoo-in to win, let alone be included in the list of nominees.  The press must be as dumbfounded as I am...I cannot find many
on-line analyses of this snub.  Loyal followers of this Journal may recall my own misgivings about the film; my criticism of it felt like a lone voice in the wilderness
(click here for my review).

I did find an article published in the New York Review of Books, by Diane Ravitch, a Research Professor of Education at New York University and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.


Ravitch wrote an articulate review of the film, taking an insider's look at the problems she found with facts, and the film's propagandistic methodology ("The Myth of Charter Schools"). Some have credited this piece with helping knock "Superman" out of the running.  (That is, if you believe that Academy members read books, or book reviews.)

You are welcome to offer links to any articles that help explain why this Documentary snub occurred.

Now, back to 1970, an Oscar race that seems to have taken place on an entirely different planet....