Well, one of us changed...

I was reading Rick Reilly's latest column, feeling the same frustration I get when I read all of his columns now. He writes with absolute certainty about a number of things about which I feel you can't be certain: NBA players wanting to play together is bad for the league and for fans, a Christian who refuses to wrestle a girl is a ridiculous travesty, his son is a better person than Kevin Durant because he has less money, Jay Cutler is the worst person in the world, people who play fantasy sports are pathetic losers, players who cause concussions should sit out along with the players they injure, we shouldn't change what we do to help people who have rare allergies, etc. 

I remember I read and enjoyed the book of Reilly's collected columns, Hate Mail From Cheerleaders, a few years back. I breezed right through it without hitting any speed bumps, in fact, I often found myself nodding in agreement, or getting emotionally invested in things that had come and gone ten years earlier. But now I read all of his columns and am struck by how unshakably he'll maintain his confidence even when his opinion is completely wrongheaded. I assumed for a while that it was Reilly who had changed - he's now become grumpier, more biased, more arrogant.

But what if it isn't? Is it possible that in five or six years, when these columns are collected into another book, people will read them and assume that he's totally correct? If we generally agree with someone, will all their opinions seem correct in retrospect if we've mostly forgotten what our own thoghts on the issues were at the time?

I remember reading throught the entire Doonesbury catalog at one point. I loved all of it, especially during the first stretch when they were in college (the strip jumped the shark after their graduation). But I wasn't alive during most of the issues that they were discussing, so Garry Trudeau's opinions on Haldeman or the Iran Contra hearings simply became my own opinions. I didn't have any reason to disagree. Later in life, I would read Trudeau's work in the paper and violently disagree. I assumed at the time that it was Trudeau who had changed. Now, I can't assume that's true.

The lesson here, I suppose, is that in modern life, we're picking up details and opinions from every possible angle. I've heard dozens of people give their opinion on the Carmelo Anthony trade, and I've distilled each of them into my own. But when we read or hear something from the distant - or even not-so-distant - past, our instinct is to accept it at face value. After all, if it's stuck around this long, it must be true. So while we'd never vote for a President based entirely off of one article by a vaguelly credible news source, we'd willingly accept an article that H.G. Wells was a hack and an asshole without blinking.

Apparently, nothing ages so nicely as a well-told lie.

Oscar Results

Boy, what a snoozefest. James Franco was so uninvested he makes Baron Davis look like a Bill Russell. God bless Twitter! There's no event so dull that it can't be made watchable by people actively, viciously hating it.

I got 15 out of 24, which I think is about average this year. That's what Roger Ebert got, too. Anyone do better?*

*Check that, I actually got 17 out of 24, which is exactly what I predicted I would get. Evidently I can predict better than I can count.

Oscar Predictions 2011

My favorite prediction post of the year! I tend to be much better on this subject than any other. Last year I got 19 out of 24 right, so I’m unlikely to do better this year.

No matter! I intend to rest on my laurels. On to the predictions! I’m planning on keeping the column short this year, unless an explanation is absolutely necessary.

Two answers for each category – the likely winner, and the nominee I’d like to see take it.

Best Picture
Will Win: The King’s Speech
Should Win: The King’s Speech
Explanation: I know, I know, I just picked Inception as my favorite movie of the year. But I really feel like The King’s Speech is the more deserving movie. It’s less daring than Inception, but also has less flaws.

 
Best Actor
Will Win: Colin Firth, The King’s Speech
Should Win: Colin Firth, The King’s Speech
Explanation: This race was over before it began. I’d be surprised if any of the other nominees wrote speeches.

Best Actress
Will Win: Natalie Portman, Black Swan
Should Win: Natalie Portman, Black Swan
Explanation: The only reason Portman wouldn’t win is that voters seem inclined to vote for Annette Bening because Portman’s much younger, and Bening “probably doesn’t have many chances left.” I think this is lunacy, but people apparently “vote with their hearts, and a lot of people are just less inclined to vote for the pretty skinny girl.” (I don’t know why that’s in quotes, I just made that up) You’ll hear this same argument come up whenever Julie Zorrilla or Pia Toscano get voted off American Idol get voted off this year.

 
Best Supporting Actor
Will Win: Christian Bale, The Fighter
Should Win: Christian Bale, The Fighter
Explanation: Who is this grinning, fun-loving shaggy figure making jokey acceptance speeches, singing the PowderPuff Girls theme song and talking about how much he loves Beverly Hills Ninja? This is the same guy who went on a rant at some random lighting guy for ruining his ability to over-emote on the Terminator: Salvation set? The same guy who (allegedly) hit his mother? I’m not convinced.

 
Best Supporting Actress
Will Win: Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit
Should Win: Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit
Explanation: Melissa Leo has won every trophy in this category up to this point, but she has two things that’ll trip her up this time:

a.     Steinfeld, who was really a lead actress in her movie, usually wasn’t nominated in this category.
b.     Leo decided to release her own series of “Consider: Melissa Leo” ads that were so self-aggrandizing, it made it much easier to admit that she wasn’t that great in The Fighter. A lot of the acting she did in that movie was just making her hair frizzy.

 
Best Director
Will Win: David Fincher, The Social Network
Should Win: Christopher Nolan. I mean, David Fincher.
Explanation: I know it’s rare that a film wins Best Picture but not Director, but it’s not been quite so rare lately. It’s happened a couple times in the past ten years, including in 2006, when Ang Lee won Director even though Brokeback Mountain lost out to Crash.

 
Best Animated Feature
Will Win: Toy Story 3
Should Win: How To Train Your Dragon
Explanation: Pixar’s nominated every time, and they’ve only lost this thing twice, not to mention they’ve got a Best Picture nomination, so it seems a safe bet to pick them. I liked Dragon better than Toy Story, but I may need to re-watch both before I make a final choice on that front.

 
Best Foreign Film
Will Win: Denmark, In A Better World
Should Win: ???
Explanation: In order to vote on these films, you’re required to see all 5, which very few Academy members do. So even though Biutiful has an Oscar nomination, it's not a lock to win. The word on the street from those who have actually watched these films is that In A Better World is excellent, and Dogtooth is just crazy and strange. Do with that information what you will.

 
Best Documentary
Will Win: Inside Job
Should Win: Exit Through The Gift Shop
Explanation: I have no idea. Usually I pick a war documentary – I was leaning towards Restrepo – but Inside Job is about the financial meltdown, so I assume that the Academy will lean that way. I’d prefer that the choice be Exit Through The Gift Shop, because if Banksy really did get to accept the Oscar while wearing a gorilla mask so we wouldn’t know what he looks like, that would be the best thing that ever happened, ever.

 
Best Original Song
Will Win: “Coming Home,” Country Strong
Should Win: “I See The Light,” Tangled
Explanation: I can’t decide here. I feel that “I See The Light” is the best song – it feels like a classic Disney song in all the right ways. But “Coming Home” is far and away the most radio-ready, and the Academy might want to honor Gwyneth Paltrow for working so hard to become a viable musician. Then again, Randy Newman is nominated, and the man has 20 nominations, one win. Hmmm.

 
Best Adapted Screenplay
Will Win: Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network
Should Win: Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network
Explanation: You probably already know, I’m a huge Sorkinite (that’s not really a thing, I just wanted a word for it), so this was an easy pick for me. But still: verbose, smart, well-assembled. A slam dunk in this category.

 
Best Original Screenplay
Will Win: David Seidler, The King’s Speech
Should Win: Christopher Nolan, Inception
Explanation: You already know my feelings on the lack of Inception love here, so I’ll just point out that a lot of the run-up to the awards shows have noted that Seidler also overcame a speech impediment. He’ll get the sympathy vote, but on the upside, it probably will make his victory speech exciting. Not because he’ll be stuttering, but because he’ll be talking about how this win means so much to stutterers everywhere, as if they cared that a guy who used to stutter won an award for something. Harsh? Maybe. I have no sympathy for such things when the movie I'm rooting for is getting shut out.

 
Best Art Direction
Will Win: Alice In Wonderland
Should Win: Alice In Wonderland
Explanation: Showy beats subtle. Every time.

 
Best Cinematography
Will Win: Roger Deakins, True Grit
Should Win: Roger Deakins, True Grit
Explanation: Roger Deakins has shot the following films: Revolutionary Road, The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, No Country For Old Men, Jarhead, A Beautiful Mind, O Brother, Where Art Thou, The Hurricane, Fargo, The Shawshank Redemption, The Hudsucker Proxy, and In The Valley of Elah. He has never won this award. That’s changing.  

 
Best Costumes
Will Win: The King’s Speech
Should Win: The King’s Speech
Explanation: There’s no flashy choice here, so it’s wise to go with the frontrunner. I tried to talk myself into Alice In Wonderland here, and failed.

 
Best Editing
Will Win: The Social Network
Should Win: Inception
Explanation: I will not stop flogging this dead horse. This award should have been Inception’s, and it's not even nominated. If The King’s Speech wins this, I will lose my mind.

 
Best Makeup
Will Win: The Wolfman
Should Win: The Wolfman
Explanation: Always pick the makeup job that seemed hardest to do. Making some guy a wolf seems way harder than making some guy look dirty, or old.

 
Best Score
Will Win: The Social Network
Should Win: Inception
Explanation: BRAAAAAAAAHM! BRAAAAAAAAHM! BRAAAAAAHM

 
Best Sound Editing/Design
Will Win: Inception
Should Win: Inception
Explanation: Hooray, consolation prizes!

 
Best Visual Effects:
Will Win: Inception
Should Win: Inception
Explanation: More consolation prizes!

 
Best Animated Short
Will Win: Day & Night
Should Win:  Day & Night
Explanation: When in doubt, pick the only choice that you personally saw. Loved this thing.

Best Live Action Short
Will Win: “Na Wewe”
Should Win: Who cares?
Explanation: Haven’t watched any of these, and none of them seems to have a subject matter that jumps out – they didn’t get AIDs from Bernie Madoff or anything – so I’ll pick the one that seems to have some sort of buzz to it. It’s set in Africa, which is always a win.

 
Best Documentary Short
Will Win: “Strangers No More”
Should Win: No idea.
Explanation: Underpriviliged kids in Tel Aviv where kids from dozens of different countries come to learn. Their stories are filled with hardship, and uplift. It’s like an Oscar voters’ wet dream. But then, so is “Killing In The Name,” which is about a Jordanian who confronts Muslim extremists after a bomber kills 27 people at his wedding. The voters must be so torn. So many bad things happening to people! How can we show that we care more about it than other people?

It feels like a straightforward year, right? I predict 17 out of 24 correct for me this year. It’s kind of a chalk tournament, I think.



1. Inception

Sunday night, at the Oscars, Inception will be shut out of all the big awards. Oh, it’ll probably land a few condolence prizes: the two sound awards, special effects, maybe even best score, though that seems unlikely.  The winners will get up there and make reference to the great vision cast by Christopher Nolan, and the camera will cut to him smiling graciously, and everyone watching will think what a nice moment it is for a film like Inception to get some notice at the Oscars. And all those people will be missing the point.

Members of the Academy – or columnists talking about members of the Academy – always mention the Academy’s desire to be current. It wants to be in tune with the average moviegoer, they say. It wants to have an awards show that honors movies people actually watched. It doesn’t want to be pretentious.

But it can’t help itself. Inception is going to be snubbed on Oscar night for having the gall to be considered intelligent and brilliant by the average moviegoer, and the Academy knows better. They know what a smart movie actually looks like.

If you didn’t see – or didn’t like – Inception, you might be raising an eyebrow at the previous paragraph. Do you really think that the Academy’s really that condescending? And I don’t, really; not intentionally, at least. Nor do I think that Inception is in any way an inarguably better movie than Social Network or King’s Speech, I just liked it a little better than those two movies.

All I’m saying is that if Inception was truly being considered fairly, the nominations would look a little bit different.

Consider this: Inception failed to garner a nomination for either Best Director or Best Editing. Were there five films this year that were better envisioned and executed? Five that were more skillfully assembled? Were there any? The films nominated in those categories (Black Swan, The Fighter, The King’s Speech, and The Social Network are nominated in both categories, with True Grit getting the other directing spot and 127 Hours the other editing one) are all deserving, but there’s not much of a case you can make that Inception isn’t clearly more deserving.

Let's study the editing nominations, since that's an easier case to make. No offense to The Fighter or The King’s Speech, but those were both relatively simple films to assemble. I don’t mean to make light of anyone’s work, but with all the long takes and back-and-forths of The King’s Speech, I’m pretty sure I could’ve put it together myself in an afternoon.

Compare that with Inception. The film works on dreams within dreams within dreams, with time moving at a different speed in every level the characters move to.  It requires an exceptional piece of editing in order to just make the story make any sense at all – the fact that the film is exciting and energetic while remaining lucid is a testament to the talents of Christopher Nolan and his editor, Lee Smith.

Don't believe me? Dave Edelstein from New York Magazine hated Inception, but declared the editing Oscar "all but sewn up."

Look, I’m a video editor by trade. So believe me that while I couldn’t actually assemble these films as cleanly as the men and women who did so, I understand the amount of effort and skill required to put certain films together, and recognize good editing when I see it. And for a film like Inception to work, it requires a masterful director and incredible dedication by its editor.

And the Academy knows that too. That’s why Inception’s snub is so egregious. To put these other movies in a class above that film is to say that you consider honoring movies you like better a more important responsibility than doing your job correctly. And I can’t get behind that attitude at all.

For shame, Academy.

2. The King's Speech

We are in the middle of awards season, and The King’s Speech is gaining speed as an Oscar contender. A month ago it seemed certain to be runner-up to The Social Network as it continued its ticker-tape parade, but it received 12 Oscar nods to The Social Network’s eight, and suddenly it’s the odds-on favorite.

There is talk – mutterings, really, in dark corners of the internet – that an Best Picture win for The King’s Speech would be a travesty, an ugly distortion of justice. That The King’s Speech is an Oscar bait for an older, staler generation, and The Social Network represents the new school and the cutting edge. It’s become yet another Star Wars-Annie Hall, or Pulp Fiction-Forrest Gump, the battle between a historical Oscar-baiting epic and a film that will define a new generation. Stuff and nonsense.

First, let me dismiss the idea that voting for The Social Network would be some sort of recognition of a new breed of filmmaking. The only thing modern about The Social Network is its subject matter, nothing else about that movie seems particularly daring or fresh. It’s a movie that centers around an intermediary negotiating financial settlements in boardrooms, which is something most teenagers very little time doing (Lindsay Lohan’s now too old for a joke here, right? <checking> Yup. Oh, well).  It’s a well-told, verbose movie, and if it wins Best Picture, I won’t be in the least aggrieved, because it’s deserving of the accolades it’s received. But there’s no reason to celebrate it for being revolutionary filmmaking. That’s not what that movie is about.

The King’s Speech, meanwhile, is not nearly as traditional as you might be led to believe. It’s directed by first-time filmmaker Tom Hooper, best known as the director of HBO’s acclaimed “John Adams” series.  That series, like this one, is marked by an unconventional attitude towards historical stories – no soft close-ups, no sweeping shots of grand vistas, and very little in the way of stirring orchestral music. There are no giant battles as set pieces, no one tries to land a ridiculous accent, and there’s certainly no bodice-ripping. Instead, Hooper tries to introduce you to two characters you have no reason to care about – a very dull king and his slightly bizarre speech therapist – and makes you root for them passionately.

As much as Hooper deserves a great deal of credit for how well the movie works (even during Academy season, I think that directors don't get nearly the credit they deserve), the hero here is Colin Firth. Firth is known as a good actor, but until last year’s A Single Man, he’d never had a vehicle to show just how remarkable a talent he really is. He’s stunning here – he transforms King George VI’s stutter from a tacked-on physical impediment into an internal emotional struggle. You only have to watch Firth’s eyes to see him bursting to get the words out, furious to be held back by his own frailty. The Best Actor trophy has rarely been so little in doubt.

As for Best Picture, in a choice between this and Social Network… I'd say there are no losers in that scenario. Except of course, for...