Pajiba

These things (awards) have mutated into flat out popularity contests. It's not that they were ever taken so seriously, but things have just turned laughable. When I do watch, it's for the pretty.

Maybe I’m asking for too much from today’s movies. I came of age in the seventies and eighties, today’s movies don’t move me. It seems as though you don’t have to have any noticeable talent to become a movie star these days.

Wait, did Brad and Angelina really split?

Grey Gardens? I could swear I saw Barrymore giving an award show speech about that LAST year.

I have a "clever" theory that explains award show results, I call it the "Three P's," which are politics, profit and pedigree, and they overlap to some degree. Also known as "The Cynic's Lament."

Politics: Hollywood is a bunch of bleeding heart liberals, this we know. So it's natural to assume that a biopic about the first gay/black/retarded _____ who dies in the end is going to get Oscar buzz, and damn it if Sean Penn didn't assume that too. Awards panels love to look progressive, so more credit will be given to the general story than the script, cinematography or performances. Indeed, there are political movies that are also good (See Brokeback Mountain), but they are among other bleh movies featuring someone who is black/gay/retarded/the first to do something in their designated class.

Profit: Popularity and Profit are strongly linked. However, a movie owes more to Profit when there is no question that it was created as anything other than a business venture by a studio. This can usually be determined by marketing efforts, stretching the merits through unnecessary sequels, or clearly making the movie only to show off the technology you made it with and then license that technology at enormous gain. (See Avatar; The Lord of the Rings.)

Pedigree: Ah, at times Pedigree can be the most powerful of the three P's. Take the Oscars for instance: Who are the people who distribute the most prestigious awards in filmmaking? Well filmmakers of course! Even assuming that the Academy is not that self-interested, audiences and even some critics will see the opening credits as shorthand for the quality of the movies. Some people are in good projects because they make good choices (See Daniel Day-Lewis) and some people are in blatant Oscar fodder because they won't take any job that might not get them a statuette (See Sean Penn, infra). Also, the awards typically seem to reward the actor or director himself instead of a particular contribution to a particular film. (See Martin Scorsese's "Sorry We Gave The Oscar To Chicago Instead Of Gangs of New York A Few Years Ago" Oscar for The Departed. Honestly, I didn't think it was that great, but Jack and Leo were in a Scorsese movie and that was pretty much all that most people needed to know.)

Don't believe me? Consider the past five winners of the Best Picture Oscar:

2004: The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King: Fuck balls, this movie made a lot of money. And it's so pretty! But if we give the award to all three of them we'll look stupid. So..let's give it to the last one to honor Peter Jackson's special effects budget overall achievement! Losers: Lost in Translation, Master and Commander, Mystic River, Seabiscuit.

2005: Million Dollar Baby: Well it's sad and it's by Clint Eastwood, so we can't really ignore it. Plus she dies in the end! We will look sensitive. Actually a very good movie, and certainly better than the Losers: The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Ray (starring Jamie "Holy Shit It Looks Like Music Biopics Get Oscars" Foxx), Sideways.

2006: Crash: PoliticsGasm! When we give this best picture we will look like Progressive People. Losers: Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night and Good Luck, Munich (or, The Only One That Wasn't Better Than Crash).

2007: The Departed: Umm Little Miss Sunshine was better but we don't want to look like pussies. Plus we owe Marty one for that Chicago debacle. Losers: Crash II Babel, Letters From Iwo Jima, Little Miss Sunshine, The Queen.

2008: No Country For Old Men: It's by the Cohen brothers and it's full of blood and I don't really get it. But I don't want to look dumb so give it the Oscar! Losers: Atonement, Juno (you liked it before the backlash too, contrarians) Michael Clayton, There Will Be Blood.

2009: Slumdog Millionare: Okay okay they got this one right, but everyone knew it was the underdog from the beginning. This occupied the same slot that Juno did the year earlier, and Sean Penn getting that contractually-promised Oscar seemed to spell the end of Slumdog. But when you think about it it's not so surprising, since it's a tear-jerker about a not-white person getting something that white people usually get: money. Good thing that quality came along with the Oscar earmarks this time. Losers: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon (Politics! a True Story!), Milk, The Reader.

2010: Avatar. For everything. From now on all movies will be in 3D and will operate on a budget that could have cured cancer. Thanks James Cameron!

Barely on topic, but speaking of the Mad Men cast, I just found out now that the actors who play Roger and Mona Sterling are married to each other in real life. Awww, cute. (Don't laugh--I know it's ancient news, but I didn't know!)

Mr. Tusks has just given us a basic education in how the Oscars work. Bravo, sir!!
Brilliant.

Thanks, Abe Froman! I'm using Firefox now, but I'll try the AdBlock Plus too.

Cheers

i have adblock plus, and i forget it is there,until i hear people complain about ads, and say to myself, "what ads?"

I think that one gets an award when one does a decent job when the world doesn't expect it. See Hudson, Jennifer. Sure, she was fine in "Dreamgirls", but better than Cate Blanchett in "Notes on a Scandal"? Seriously?

Carey Mulligan is the only logical choice in that category.

Wow. I've never seen someone mangle the name "Gabourey Sidibe" this bad before.

Hmmmmm, wonderful!! But who cares? I just came across a nice club for ageless relationships, that's Agegaplove.com. For younger women and older men, or older women and younger men to interact with each other.

Jolie/Pitt's media gurus are only trying to take away from the SAG awards. Their peers did not pay homage to them in past years. I don't see why they should - Jolie/Pitt are nothing more than low life trash with a brood of kids conceived out of wedlock. Only difference, they had the money to hire nannies to take care of their responsibilities. Their ego are so over-rated and they need to do hollywood a favor and drop out for good.

Wow. I've never seen someone mangle the name "Gabourey Sidibe" this bad before.

Posted by: Robert at January 24, 2010 5:26 PM
---
One of the more bizarre things I've read in a while is this chunk of an interview an L.A. Times writer named John Horn did with five directors (Cameron, Bigelow, Reitman, Tarantino and Lee Daniels). After Daniels says "I interviewed over 400 girls [for the Precious role] ... I looked for the truth," the question was: So the casting influenced the movie?

Daniels: Without question, because they're all invisible ... Gabby came in at the end and she was as good as the rest of the girls, but Gabby is not that girl. She talked like this white girl from the Valley. She's like, "Oh my gawd, I love 'Shadowboxer'!" ... And it was clear to me that she came from a really great background and she had gone to college and she was not this girl. And if I had used those girls, one of those girls who had made it to the final 10, I would've been exploiting them because they were the truth. ... The difference is that Gabby really was acting. These girls were not acting. They were the real deal.

I thought Sandra Bullock was good in Infamous. I guess I could've just been blinded by her wig and her frumpy outfits, but I don't think so.

I think the whole brouhaha with Bullock this year is just all about how no one wants to be the guy who didn't vote for the chick everyone voted for. You know what I mean? Someone out there started the rumor that Sandra Bullock was the clear front-runner for the Oscar, and every voter perked up their heads and rushed to vote for her in EVERYTHING without having seen her movie because hell, you don't want your vote to go to waste, do you? Carey Mulligan? who's she ? she hasn't even done a romcom, let's ignore her completely!

So, yeah. Sandra fuckin' Bullock will win for a mediocre performance in a shitty movie no one saw but everyone "heard" about, and now she'll be a damn Oscar Winner. Damn them all.

I don't hate her, but...damn, this is just annoying.

Actually...my first thought about the entire Sandra Bullock thing is that is it possible that Carey Mulligan and Gabourey Sidibe were splitting the vote and Sandra Bullock comes out on top? Because life COULD be that cruel.