Let the Ranting Begin

Now that the Oscars have actually been handed out there's not a lot more to say as there were pretty well no surprises this year, even in the technical categories.


The King's Speech proved to have fairly limited coattails, winning Director & Screenplay (which usually follow Picture anyway) as well as Actor for Colin Firth. The Social Network winning three categories, including Editing (which also tends to follow Picture), indicates that it wasn't too far from winning Best Picture.
As for the ceremony itself, it seemed a bit shorter than the norm, with less unnecessary stuff added in; perhaps this is a good sign for future years, though I doubt it. They ought to go back to just one host - as with last year, having two just doesn't seem to work well.

Going to what I said before - that the reputations of the losers often tend to hold up better than those of the winners - Steven Spielberg mentioned past Best Picture winners & losers before opening the envelope, citing Citizen Kane, The Graduate & Raging Bull as legendary losers.

From a historical perspective, this is a bit of a change from recent years: the Academy, for most of its history, has tended to pick movies that were somewhere in between critical & commercial success (and in the process usually satisfied neither critics nor audiences with its choices). However, perhaps in recognition of the complaints by reviewers (and movie fans) that never seem to end no matter how many years have passed, for the last few years they've come down on the side of critical acclaim, picking movies like No Country for Old Men & The Hurt Locker that weren't big audience favorites. This year, they've gone back to their old ways, choosing a movie that's an audience hit, as well as being well-reviewed.

The Flip Side

Eyes are still on the Oscars tomorrow, but today I'd like to cast a brief glance at the enjoyably silly Razzies.

M. Night Shyamalan has won Worst Director once already for Lady in the Water, but no movie of his has ever won Worst Picture. I suspect that will be corrected tonight. The Last Airbender is easily the worst-reviewed movie he has made, the worst-reviewed of the nominees, and one of the worst-reviewed movies of the year overall. Shyamalan will win too (for Director and probably Screenplay), and Rathbone will likely get Supporting (he's up for both Airbender and Eclipse, so it's a way to ridicule both films with one vote). It may get the Worst Eye-Gouging Misuse of 3-D prize as well, as things like that are often used to pad the tallies of films they want to give lots of berries.

If The Last Airbender doesn't win, then Eclipse will. It's hardly the worst of the series, but its nods are likely in recognition of the first two movies (think of the avalanche of Oscars given to the third Lord of the Rings film). As there are more Twilights coming, I suspect that the final one will sweep the Razzies. Robert Pattinson, however, will probably win, for both Twilight and Remember Me.

As for Worst Actress, there's a good possibility for any of them, but the most likely are the Sex & the City 2 cast (a way to slam that film), Miley Cyrus (music stars tend to win - think Neil Diamond & the Spice Girls), and Megan Fox (in recognition of just about every movie she has made and of her almost instant punchline status). If pressed, I'd say Fox will take it. For the same reasons, I'd say Alba is likely to get Supporting.

I'll likely be totally wrong on most of this, but what the hell? It's all in good fun.

---------------------

Wow - I was actually right on most of them. Airbender takes home Picture, Supporting Actor, Director, Screenplay & 3-D, and Jessica Alba wins Supporting Actress.

Sex & the City 2 did rather well (or badly, I suppose), taking Actress, Ensemble & Sequel. Ashton Kutcher won Worst Actor, which should please Richard Roeper.

Across the Ocean

The British Academy is announcing their own winners right now; not always a good predictor of the Oscars, but they can provide something of an indicator. Inception is winning many technical categories, and Helena Bonham Carter has won too - perhaps a good sign for The King's Speech, but it has also just won the Best British Film award, which usually goes to a film that doesn't win the Best Film prize (I don't know if it's against the rules for a film to win both, but no film has done so for about forty years).
Perhaps there will be an upset later today - and if The King's Speech doesn't win the BAFTA Award (which is more likely to go to a British movie than the Oscar), perhaps The Social Network may be rallying. We shall soon see.


---------------------


Never mind - a King's Speech victory as was generally expected. One small surprise: the win for David Fincher in the Director category, though there is not as firm a match between director & film at the BAFTAs as there is at the Oscars. Fincher's win here does raise some hopes for his Oscar chances, though.

Oscars

Since just about everyone else has already written plenty about this year's Oscars, there's probably no need for another to put another one on the pile, but what the hell . . .

If I had been writing this a few weeks ago, I would be predicting The Social Network to win in a walk. It's gotten as close to universal praise as a modern film can have, and made enough money to get itself noticed by the voters. But as more and more of the indicator awards have gone to The King's Speech it looks likely that the infamous Weinstein marketing machine is working its magic yet again.
I quite enjoyed The King's Speech, and when I first saw it I did not expect it to get much notice - it felt like a movie that only people with my own tastes would enjoy. Now it seems that it's going to go down as a much-derided movie only by virtue of winning the Oscar over better-liked movies (think Shakespeare, which I also liked very much). There may be a last-minute rally round The Social Network, but as the ceremony draws closer it looks less and less likely.

As for The Social Network, it still may win, so I'll write a bit about it too - I liked it a lot (and would prefer it to The King's Speech), but mostly out of admiration for its technique - it takes a story that you wouldn't think would make a very interesting movie and makes it fascinating. David Fincher tended to overdo the atmosphere and the stylistics in his earlier movies like Se7en and Fight Club, but in this film and Zodiac he's made his sense of style all the more effective my using it in a way that doesn't immediately announce itself. Thinking about both movies afterward, I realized all of the different tricks he had used, but I wasn't thinking about them all that much while I watched. As far as I'm concerned, that's the best sign of their effectiveness.

There's been a lot of praise for its relevance to contemporary society, but I'm a bit less interested in that; it doesn't seem quite sure what it thinks about this new phenomenon, but since we're all not quite sure what effects these new social networking sites are going to have on our society, it's probably the best route to take.

Before the sudden Speech bandwagon, it didn't look like there would be much of a contest in any big category - the only one I could think of would be Original Screenplay - would they give it to The King's Speech or Inception? Now it looks like Picture & Director will be the ones with suspense, while Nolan will have to wait until his next movie. Cinematography and editing might go to Inception as The Social Network's stock falls, but I doubt it. Aaron Sorkin still has a lock in the adaptation category, though.
The lead & supporting categories, in contrast, are looking more certain all the time, so there's not much point in saying too much - Firth, Portman, Bale, Leo. I don't know if any of them would be my own choices (though I have yet to decide who would be), but they were all very good so I won't complain. I would have expected all four of them to go down in history as talented actors who never won, and perhaps that's why they're likely to win - well-respected people who get it as much for their entire careers as for the nominated films.

As for my own choices, I still have yet to make up my mind on most of them - usually it's long after the ceremony before I'm satisfied as to what I would have chosen, but since so many people like to gripe and grouse for years afterward there will always be an audience for such opinions.

It's become the trend to bash every winner - a film may be well-loved, but as soon as it wins the Oscar it loses a lot of appeal. Maybe it's the old "Mom and Dad like it, so it must not be cool after all" effect. For that reason, I rather prefer it when my favorite nominee doesn't win because I know it may still claim a future place among classics. Perhaps it will be ultimately good for The Social Network not to win because its reputation will be better preserved. Bad luck for The King's Speech, though, which will probably become the latest punchline among movie lovers. Such is the way of the film fan.