83rd Academy Awards wrap up

(Note from the Editor: I wrote this while trying to stay awake on Nyquil, so I apologize.)

Post-Academy Award scrutiny usually has to do with people's dresses or how good the skits were between awards. All people care about is outrageous fashion and who made a full of themselves. I personally don't care an oompa loompa about all that stuff (apologizes to every English teacher I ever had for using the word stuff). All I care about is the movies.

The one in the right-hand corner looks so sad..

I admit, a lot of my picks were off. But that doesn't make me wrong. No, that makes the Academy wrong. The night started out well enough, with me correctly guessing Melissa Leo as Best Supporting Actress. That one was easy though, and I proceeded to fail on both writing Oscars. Toy Story 3 won Best Animated but there was no suprise there. Now if Toy Story 3 won Best Picture it would be surpising. The thing of it is, I never got why they expanded the category to 10 nominees. You just know that some of those films don't belong on the list. In the end only one can win, so what's the point of sticking 10 movies in there? All it does is make Steven Spielberg read more names when he announces the winners.

Hurry up and make the Hook sequel already.

I figured that Social Network wouldn't win Best Adapted Screenplay, with the debated verocity of the original book, but that and Aaron Sorkin's overwritten dribble didn't stop it from winning. King's Speech won Best Original Screenplay, which set the stage for a night of King's Speech loving. Alice in Wonderland won best Art Direction, which does nothing but further validate the Tim Burton fanclub that eat up every swirly piece of vomit he unleashes onto cinema.

RIP Burton's credibility, 1985-2003.

Inception was awarded the consolidary technical awards. It's like losing the race but still getting the trophy in the end. Inception only getting technical awards is like the Academy saying, "Yeah, you were pretty cool but you're still not sitting at our lunch table." I was also wrong about Christian Bale and the Best Supporting Actor award. I swore he wouldn't get it because he is too crazy. I figured, the fact that he goes all out in every role that this particular character would get lost with all the others. I was wrong though. I guess Bale being a supporting actor helped though. The fact that he wasn't the focal point of the movie allowed him to shine more. I feel bad for Geoffery Rush though.

Then again he already has a Best Actor award.

Natalie Portman won her award, which was no surprise at all. And I was right about Colin Firth winning his. Yes, the British dude your mom likes now has a statue and I'm happy for him. Best Director ticked me off. They awarded it to someone who made a glorified made-for-television movie while there were so many visionary directors on the list. Why award mediocrity when actual genius was a choice. And King's Speech winning Best Picture just settles it.

They could of picked any other nominated movie and find a winner. But no, the Academy ended up picking the cliche Oscar-bait film. Instead of picking any of the films that showed actual innovation, they awarded it to a movie that was completely by the numbers. I'm not saying that it sucked, I'm just saying that the Academy could of done so much more by picking another movie. By picking any other movie they would be rewarding the progress of the art of cinema and not reiterating the continuous award-winning sterotype.

This whole rushed post is brought to you by Nyquil.

Overall it wasn't a bad year,. Even Bob Hope's ghost came out to party. I just wish that they did more though. Instead they played it safe. We'll see how next year turns out. As for my blog, tune in next time when I talk about how crazy Charlie Sheen is. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some snood to play.

My Oscar 2011 picks

I'm not going to lie, I get invested into the Oscars. Movies are my thing and this is one big movie party. Oscars rarely ever get it right (Rocky beating out Network, Kramer vs. Kramer beating out Apocalypse Now and Driving Miss Daisy beating out Do the Right Thing) but there is still the fun in the debate. I thought Crash was a horrible movie. I thought it was pretentious, heavy handed and gimmicky. Yet somehow it beat Brokeback Mountain; Good Night, and Good Luck and Munich (Capote was more an actors movie and probably wasn't going to win anyway).

I find the debate leading up to and after the awards to be fun. But with that being said, I realize that all this debate means nothing. It's all conjecture. But I don't care, here is my opinions on who will win the awards. My next post will be a wrap up about how right they got it.

Best Picture: Social Network

This is really the movie of a generation. It defines the new social media age through the perspective of the man that created it. To be honest, I'm not sure if it will win. I can see people looking back at Social Network's lost the same way they look at Goodfellas' loss to Dancing With Wolves. Going by past Academy action, The Kings Speech will probably win. But hopefully they will decide to break from their own cliche and pick a relevant movie for once instead of a retread to the past.

Best Director: Darren Aronofsky

To be honest I'd be fine with anybody winning this category. I love all the directors, yes even David O. Russel for all his past douche-baggery. I was probably one of the few that enjoyed I Heart Huckabees. The Coens already won their Oscar and Fincher, while a talent director, didn't leave his mark as much on Social Network. Black Swan was Aronofsky's baby and there is no way it would of been made the way it was without him at the helm. With Christopher Nolan getting snubbed it leaves only Aronofsky.

Best Actor: Colin Firth

This one comes down to politics. Colin Firth has been nominated before, plays a royal and his character overcomes an impediment. That, to be, is an Academy Award trifecta. Jeff Bridges already won his and Jesse Eisenberg is too young. Young actors only win supporting role Oscars and only when they are extra precocious (Tatum O'Neal and Anna Paquin). James Franco plays the hell out of his role in 127 Hours but, let's look at the past. In 2001 Tom Hanks lost the best actor nomination for Castaway, his movie about a lone survivor. Am I mad that Hanks lost to Russel Crowe in Gladiator? Hell no. But the point remains that Franco has the deck stacked against him. Plus he is young, he has plenty of movies left in him.

Best Actress: Natalie Portman

Jennifer Lawrence just came onto the scene and Nicole Kidman didn't do anything spectacular. Annette Benning shouldn't get the nomination even because she plays the same ice-queen that she plays in every other movie. The only difference this time is that she happens to be a lesbian. These kind of nominations annoy me because I feel like it's a step back. Then again maybe I'm still mad about Sean Penn beating out Mickey Rourke in 2008. No, this year comes down to Michelle Williams and Natalie Portman. And since Portman made the greater transition in her character, I feel she will be the winner. Portman has been in the business since her pre-teens and here she really shows how much she has to offer.

Best Supporting Actor: Geoffrey Rush

I know Geoffrey Rush already won for Shine in 1996 but I am a Rush fan so I don't care. Also, Kings Speech is really an actor's film when you get down to it, so I don't see why it shouldn't win the actor awards. John Hawkes is just a token indie nominee. While I do think that Jeremy Renner is a phenomenal actor, I don't think this role is going to win him the statue. His character in The Town is the same character we've seen in every heist movie ever made. Yes he makes it his own but it's still not enough. And Christian Bale goes to such drastic extremes in every role he's ever been in that it's just not surprising anymore. And as for Mark Ruffalo, he seems to everyman for me. Maybe it's the chest hair but I don't know about him winning.

Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo

Melissa Leo is the only one that stands out. The Academy seems to have a thing for bulldog matriarchs anyway.

Best Writing - Original Screenplay: Inception

Inception is probably going to win all the technical awards but it is my hope of hopes that it wins this award. Inception took a high-concept gimmick (I mean that the best way possible) and crafted a masterful story around it. All the other films seem pedestrian to that. If Inception doesn't win then I can see The Fighter winning (especially with Kings Speech maybe winning Best Picture). The Oscars love underdog boxing flicks.

Best Writing - Adapted Screenplay: 127 Hours

Toy Story 3 is winning Best Animated so I don't count it and Social Network has enough controversy surrounding its veracity that I don't see it winning. No, 127 Hours is my pick. The filmmakers took an overblown Reader's Digest story and turned into a harrowing piece of cinema. Just the title alone shows how much an improvement the film is over the book. 127 Hours is a much better title than Between a Rock and a Hard Place. I'm not knocking Aron Ralston, he is much braver than I am. I'm just saying that Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy elevated the work from an article in People Magazine and that deserves recognition.

So there are my picks. Do I think I'm going to be right? No. But again it's the conjecture and debate that I love about award shows. Later in the week I'll probably follow up on the Oscar wrap up. Agree or disagree? Be sure to let me know.

How to be a good award show host

Movie stars don't need validation. Validation is a beautiful thing when one receives it, but it becomes a non-issue when you make millions of dollars a year. With that being said, there is a whole market for award shows. It's perfectly fine to follow award shows and become sucked into the award spirit. At the same time award shows can be seen as masturbatory galas, where the rich and famous come together choosing winners out of arbitrarily chosen nominees. The award show concept is not for us viewers though. We only get a glimpse of that world during that prime-time window.


It's your childhood trophy ceremony, only instead of you and your teammates in cleats and uniforms it's people you will never meet wearing clothes you will never wear. The whole ceremony is as fake as the tans of the people that walk the red carpet. I never saw the reason to obsess over the red carpet and the people that walk it. Why devote hours of discussion over someone's dress? Then again I never saw the point of tabloids like Entertainment Tonight either.

God I hate these shows.

The only saving grace for these award shows is the host. Usually some popular comedian at the time or a late-night talk show host, these masters of ceremony are depended on for keeping our attention until they reveal the best actor award. After every poorly-scripted presenter reveals the winner, it's the hosts job to keep you watching and segueing into the next Bruce Vilanch joke to come out of a dim actresses mouth.

Bruce Vilanch, the man responsible for everything said on stage.

With all the counterfeit pomp and circumstance, you need somebody there that gets it. Somebody there that is self-aware of all the smugness packed on one tiny dais. That's what makes a host good or not in my book. A host that doesn't let the artists and stars sit idle. Stars make millions of dollars and are now being given awards for these achievements that they're already being awarded for by a paycheck. In this way the very best hosts must cut the icons down to size with the only thing legally allowed: quips. Just how in Roman times, a man would whisper in a victorious general's ear that he is still only mortal, the host uses his microphone to remind the glorified line readers that they too are normal people.

Ricky Gervais is up on stage hosting the awards, not for the stars benefit, but for the audience's benefit. Gervais is up there shouting memento mori to a whole theater of tuxes and gowns so that we may see that this pantheon of award-winning artist are one of us. A good award host shouldn't make the audience in front of him comfortable. His performance is for the audience at home who have no say in that insulated world. The fawning that is inherent in award shows can only be balanced by the wit of a comedian.

Pictured: a man who gets it.

As much as a I wish that comedians like Gervais are hosts for all the awards, producers decide to go the easy route most the time. They don't want an opening monologue that makes people squirm in their reserved theater seats. They want the easy Jay Leno jokes that are new only to your grandmother. Only very rarely do you have a host like Billy Crystal who appeals to everybody. Usually it's the producers choice between a real comedian or an empty suit to introduce the next presenter.

With so may award shows out there, the awards themselves are basically meaningless at this point. Yes, the Academy Awards do hold credence, however who remembers the Golden Globe winners a few years later? With so many awards and opinions out there, the host is being relied on more and more to keep the same song and dance interesting. That is why a perfect host is the whole Friars Club rolled into one. Actors inherently have thin skin and are sensitive, this is true. But when they have a whole night dedicated to themselves, the least they can do is put up with some jabs at their ego. I'm sure their ego can handle it.