The BAH!scars #7: Getting Some Direction

Time for me to finish off my predictions and ranting. Well, sort of. I have a few more crazy things in store for the BAH!scars before the big night...but before I get to those, time to do my good duty as a blogger and weigh in on the rest of the big categories.

Best Direction
“Avatar” — James Cameron
“The Hurt Locker” — Kathryn Bigelow
“Inglourious Basterds” — Quentin Tarantino
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” — Lee Daniels
“Up in the Air” — Jason Reitman

I'm a tad ambivalent about Lee Daniels's job as director of Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire. I found some of the techniques interesting and effective at conveying what I imagine to be the feel of Sapphire’s prose. I appreciated how the camera really changed its style to fit each scene. However, the whole time, I was being irritatingly reminded that this was all just a trope on a much better director and a much better movie: Darren Aronofsky and his masterpiece, Requiem for a Dream. Lee Daniels does well because he has chosen the right guy to copy. Furthermore, I cannot help but be vexed by the fact that Aronofsky has directed three better films than this (I have to reevaluate Pi), but has not gotten a single nomination. Daniels of course gets it by making a movie that is almost textbook Academic.

About Jason Reitman, I barely have anything to say since I found Up in the Air’s direction unimpressive. As for feel, I’ve reiterated on numerous occasions how he went the completely wrong direction (see: Devin likes screwball comedies). As for camera, with the exception of two scenes, it conveyed the idea that Reitman would be more comfortable just directing a play with an innumerable amount of sets. The two scenes are the opening credits, which were horrendously obnoxious, and first scene of George Clooney making his way to his plane, which might have been a bit too flashy, but was just good enough to work.

James Cameron clearly accomplished what he set out to do in Avatar, but I’m not sure where to draw the line between director and visual effects and I’m pretty sure it veers towards the latter.

The Hurt Locker is a director’s movie. It’s a good, but not great script, that is buoyed by a phenomenal camera and well-done performances. Bigelow perfectly captures the right feel, where you are nervous even after you would be in a typical narrative (like when the bomb is already diffused). She does shaky cam right which nowadays almost seems worthy of some laurels in and of itself.



Finally, there’s Inglourious Basterds. Like I’ve said earlier, I think this might be one of the best films of the decade. As you may have guessed, Tarantino’s direction is definitely responsible for a good chunk of that. But, like Best Picture, this is ultimately a race between Bigelow and Cameron – the gritty vs. the pretty. While Best Picture seems tougher to call, I can say that Bigelow has a more noticeable lead here. Not so much that Cameron taking it from her is unthinkable, but as I see it, either the Academy will split the vote or give director and picture to the same film (okay, that’s a bit of a tautology). If they give it to the same film, it’ll be more on quality and therefore The Hurt Locker will get both. If they split it, they’ll do so to appease more people. They’ll give Avatar the big prize to really appease the masses and give Bigelow the slightly less important Best Director to appease the film geeks.

Who will will: Kathryn Bigelow
Who should win: Quentin Tarantino, though I’m quite fine with Bigelow



Writing (Original Screenplay)
“The Hurt Locker” — Written by Mark Boal
“Inglourious Basterds” — Written by Quentin Tarantino
“The Messenger” — Written by Alessandro Camon & Oren Moverman
“A Serious Man” — Written by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
“Up” — Screenplay by Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Story by Pete Docter, Bob Peterson, Tom McCarthy

Aside from A Serious Man, I would not be too upset over any of these choices. The Hurt Locker in my opinion is a bit weaker in the script department than acting or direction, but not so much that I would find its winning a grave injustice. The Messenger is probably in a similar category but I would simply be amused by the oddness of such a small, not-known independent film winning over 4 Best Picture nominations. Up would be a perfectly suitable winner, though the Academy’s anti-animation prejudice is far reaching. Finally, there’s Inglourious Basterds. This movie will probably not take home too many awards in March (aside from Waltz’s), but it has a strong likelihood of winning this award. Despite bouts of extreme violence, this movie is all about dialogues between characters in the way that only Tarantino can deliver it (along with some great mini-monologues). The Academy may tend to lean towards a sweep (as is their habit) and go with Hurt Locker, but they might also try to throw Tarantino his bone. Ultimately, this is probably one of the closest races of the year, and I myself go back and forth on who will win day after day.

Who will win: The Hurt Locker or Inglourious Basterds – too close to call. If forced at gunpoint, I’d choose Basterds, if only because that’s what I want.
Who should win: Inglourious Basterds

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
“District 9” — Written by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell
“An Education” — Screenplay by Nick Hornby
“In the Loop” — Screenplay by Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” — Screenplay by Geoffrey Fletcher
“Up in the Air” — Screenplay by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner

The great irony here is that the surprise nomination (and the one that has not the slightest hope of winning) is clearly the best of the five screenplays. In fact, it may be one of the best of the ten. But sadly, In the Loop is too clever, too rude, and far too problematic to dream of ever taking home a little gold man. After seeing the film, I was even surprised that the Academy deemed to nominate it.

Also, little aside: I keep going back and forth on whether or not this script deserves to be in the Adapted category. While the scenario is based on a television show and one of the characters comes from that show, the story, dialogue, and majority of the characters are original. So yes, while this is not 100% from nothing…how could this be Adapted when Milk last year was under original screenplay?

An Education is the only other film I would be reasonably fine with seeing win this award. The dialogue is great, dramatic (and at times melodramatic) without losing itself (it constantly remains aware that the characters are prone to overreacting) and at other times just hilarious. Nowhere near as good as In the Loop’s, but very few screenplays this year are.

I’ve already gone into depth about my hated of District 9’s script and my warm to lukewarm about Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire. As for Up in the Air, I still do not get the love for this film’s “cleverness” or “wit” or “originality” or what-have-you. I mean, all of that love makes this the clear frontrunner and has guaranteed this film at least one prize…I just don’t see from where the love grows.

Who will win: Up in the Air.
Who should win: In the Loop.

Animated Feature Film
“Coraline”
“Fantastic Mr. Fox”
“The Princess and the Frog”
“The Secret of Kells”
“Up”

Neither The Secret of Kells or Coraline stand a chance. This is a symbolic race, between computer, stop-motion, and cell-animation. The Secret of Kells winning will mean nothing since nobody has seen it (including yours truly) and Coraline is not as emblematic (or good) an entry as Fantastic Mr. Fox when it comes to stop-motion animation. Yeah, I did not really like Coraline all that much. It was…good, but that was about it. I imagine how I felt about its style is akin to how many felt upon watching (and disliking) Juno with all its hipster affections. I love Nightmare Before Christmas, but all the Hot-Topic-Girl’s-Jerk-off Fantasy, semi-Tim-Burton-esque, mainstream-alternative style of Coraline bothered me. It wasn’t quirky or disturbing or whatever the designers were going for, but instead felt like a computer’s reaction if you fed it the past two decades of designs that met that description and asked it to make one itself. It felt artificial and forced and a bit bland and ultimately quite irritating. All of this is also an apt description for the character of Coraline. I’m sorry to all of you who felt that a girl who moves into a new town where she just doesn’t fit in and her parents don’t understand was such a breath of fresh air in the canon of cinema. The second half did a decent job with the final execution…but all that did was make me give it three stars on Netflix instead of a damnable two.



Now for the big three. If The Princess and the Frog wins, it will win purely because the Academy wants to see more 2-D animation. While the story was good and cute, the problem is that the mere evocation of the Disney movies of the late 80s and early 90s (as the trailer did try to summon up) only serve to highlight that while the story was good and cute (and Shadow Man was a fun villain), this movie is nowhere near the caliber of Beauty and the Beast or Aladdin. It’s a standard-good entry into the world of cell animation. In 1991, it would be pretty forgettable. Now, it’s Oscar-nominated.

Finally, it’s Up vs. Fantastic Mr. Fox. Now, we all know my adoration of Up. I think it was the second or third best film of the year. It’s a better movie than Mr. Fox. But, I would be completely fine if Fantastic Mr. Fox won. The fact that of the five nominees, only one is computer animated is refreshing enough. To see such a wonderful showcase of stop-motion animation and all its quirks and differences from real life win would be a lovely boost of energy for animation as a medium. It might even help stop the onslaught of Despicable Me and similarly subpar, mass-produced 3-D animated films. Granted, the chance of that happening is as small as the chance of Mr. Fox winning. Up has the award in the bag like it’s Lock, Shock, and Barrel and the gold statue is Sandy Claws. And if there is any upset, symbolic win, it’ll be The Princess and the Frog.

Who will win: Up
Who should win: Up

The BAH!scars #6: Actors Speak Louder Than Words

I don't exactly understand the title myself, but like many a line in a Bruce Springsteen song, it sounds cool despite not be completely decipherable. Now, without further ado, I present my take on the four acting categories.

Actor in a Leading Role
Jeff Bridges in “Crazy Heart”
George Clooney in “Up in the Air”
Colin Firth in “A Single Man”
Morgan Freeman in “Invictus”
Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker”

As I said before, I haven’t seen Invictus, nor do I have any inclinition to do so and I’m pretty sure I would find Morgan Freeman’s performance as unimpressive as his last two decades of work. Jeremy Renner does not have a shot at winning since his very nomination was doubtful, which is a shame since his performance is the second best on this list. I do not understand the George Clooney buzz. He does a decent job with what he had to do in Up in the Air, but what he had to do was not all that much. Just because one does not screw up pan frying chicken breasts does not make one a gourmet chef. This role more or less cements his desire to be a modern day Cary Grant, but Clooney’s problem is that he is not willing to humiliate himself (well, except for maybe Batman and Robin) and go off-the-wall-bonkers like Grant often does. He always has to be the coolest guy in the room, but that is only half the game. Could you see Clooney leaping about in a frilly negligee screaming, “I just went gay all of a sudden!”? Neither could I.

That leaves us with the two big figures in my eyes: who should win and who will win. If the Academy could actually identify good acting, this award would be Firth’s. His quiet, restrained, tortured performance as a man in an intense state of grief and mourning was the heart of A Single Man. Every word of his, every action he did was informed by what he had suffered, yet he did not labor his points like other actors would. My only concern with Firth winning would be that, between him, Hoffman, and Penn all winning in recent years, that would turn "playing a gay man" into the new "playing a mentally challenged person" for "how to win Best Actor."

Jeff Bridges however has made a pretty clean getaway with most of the awards. This trophy is his. Now allow me to rant for a bit:

I despise Crazy Heart. Originally, I walked out of it just feeling bored and underwhelmed and wanting to kill Maggie Gyllenhaal for what she did to my sensibilities. The movie is The Wrestler, just with a less interesting screenplay, a completely bland director, and an inferior actor. In fact, this movie is a great rebuttal to anyone who said that The Wrestler was soley carried by Roarke's performance. Crazy Heart has been scrubbed and polished and Hollywoodized to the extreme, replacing pro-wrestling in New Jersey with the overly romantic country singing in the southwest and shoving in a trite happy ending. It feels contrived and created just to win awards and I honestly don’t sense the semblance of a soul or piece of artistic merit in it. Naturally, the Academy would smile even the slightest bit more favorably on this film than The Wrestler.

Now, when I see a movie, even if I hate it, I can usually find one thing good about it. Even Dark Knight, my sworn celluloid nemesis, has about 15 seconds that I thought were excellent (Joker fiddling with the explosive remote outside the hospital). (500) Days of Summer, District 9, A Christmas Carol – all of these had one aspect or another that I could praise, something that would make me hesitate or even stop before throwing all proof of these films into utter nihility. Crazy Heart has nothing I can praise. Nothing is noteworthy. Nothing ascends beyond its bile of insipidness and absolute forgetability. If Bridges’ performance can be praised as “good,” it is only good in the most average of ways that the world would not have suffered had it been deracinated at its inception as there are hundreds of more of those in the sweep of cinema.

Colin Firth delivers a powerful character study of a broken man. Jeff Bridges just goes through the motions.

Who will win: Jeff Bridges
Who should win: Colin Firth

Actress in a Leading Role
Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side”
Helen Mirren in “The Last Station”
Carey Mulligan in “An Education”
Gabourey Sidibe in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
Meryl Streep in “Julie & Julia”

I’ve already spoken about my disgust at the mere concept of The Blind Side (see prior entry if you suffer from amnesia). Of course, Bullock already should start dusting off a place on her shelf from her little gold man. The Blind Side got nominated for Best Picture and she’s the only other nomination it has. The Academy clearly finds her so great (or, to be honest, is so surprised that she is not a completely shit actor and can act in a serious role) that it nominated a movie for the top accolade because of her. She’s already won.

I haven’t seen The Last Station, so I’ll instead talk about the other three actresses who will be done a great disservice next month. First off, Meryl Streep, who was probably hoping for some time that she’d finally win her first Oscar in decades despite a bajillion and eight nominations. Every moment that she was Julia Child on screen was an absolute joy (I really think I had a smile on my face the entire time). As for Gabourey Sidibe, she really impressed me. Her performance may seem on the surface to be very simple – she just plays a victim. But she plays the role of a stoic, where she can’t overact or overreact, but instead must play the part of a character who keeps the same expression despite her turmoil of emotions (akin to Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain). Yet her body language (in large print font – hey-o!) changes so subtly yet effectively that you don’t even realize how much she’s growing as a character until the end.

Finally, there’s Carey Mulligan. She deserves this Oscar for her absolutely breath-taking break-out role as Jenny. She plays the role perfectly and, as one critic nicely put it, conveys that she is a girl making stupid decision, but herself is not stupid. Just as I mentioned how Sarsgaard seduces us, Mulligan is as necessary to that seduction. She must convince us how attractive David is and simultaneously place herself as a figure of identification and almost authority (so we can embrace her choices) and a figure who we know is headed towards a tragic conclusion.

Who will win: Sandra Bullock
Who should win: Carey Mulligan


Actor in a Supporting Role
Matt Damon in “Invictus”
Woody Harrelson in “The Messenger”
Christopher Plummer in “The Last Station”
Stanley Tucci in “The Lovely Bones”
Christoph Waltz in “Inglourious Basterds”

Yeah, this one still ain’t a contest. And I still have only seen two of the performances. And I still wonder why Stanley Tucci was not nominated for Julie and Julia since everyone seems to like that movie more and really only have nominated him for The Lovely Bones since for some reason that seems better than nominating him for Julie and Julia. Anyway, I love me some Waltz, though am sorry for Harrelson that he had to put forth such an outstanding performance this particular year.

Who should and win will: Christoph Waltz.

Actress in a Supporting Role
Penélope Cruz in “Nine”
Vera Farmiga in “Up in the Air”
Maggie Gyllenhaal in “Crazy Heart”
Anna Kendrick in “Up in the Air”
Mo’Nique in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”

God, this category just vitiates the entire Oscars. I’ve already gone on in the BAH!scars #3 about the absolute, hyperbole-defying atrocity that is Maggie Gyllenhaal in Crazy Heart. Vera Farmiga was in that “Meryl Streep in Doubt, good but not astoundingly, uniquely good, just generically good” category. Penelope Cruz excels with her one musical number in Nine (and also probably successfully titillated all 12 straight men who saw it), but aside from that is stuck doing a decent job covering scenes from 8 ½ that could never surpass the original.

Of course, the buzz in this category is circling around Mo’Nique, who plays Precious’s truculent mother, particularly for her final monologue. Naturally, I differ from the masses. I liked Mo’Nique’s character for most of the film, as she simply sat in her chair, watching TV, smoking, and waiting to strike. She was like a scorpion in the room; you knew she was going to bring destruction eventually, but you knew that running away from her would only entice her sadistic tendencies. Furthermore, I liked that she was an unexplained evil and the same level of obstacle for Precious as poverty. She could not be reasoned away or reasoned with – she was just there. Very rarely is inexplicable evil done well - this could have been one of those times.

Then came that atrocious monologue. Firstly, I do not think Mo’Nique did all that impressive of a job with it. She was *ACTING!* instead of acting and that only works if you’re Gloria Swanson and the name of your movie is "Sunset Boulevard". As for the speech itself...no. Just no. It did not work. It did not provide a satisfying explanation, and whether it was trying to make me hate her more or elicit sympathy, I could not tell. At the end, I was just confused and ready for her to exit stage right.

I suppose I would give this award to Anna Kendrick. While she does play her part in an over-the-top fashion, she manages to make her choice become of the funniest, liveliest parts in a film that only wishes it were that funny and lively. She perfectly straddles the line of too-ridiculous-to-be-true and just-believable-enough-to-work-in-a-movie.

Who will win: Mo’Nique
Who should win: Anna Kendrick (at least of those nominated)



Because I'm a considerate sonuvagun, I'll do the rest of my Oscar predictions next entry to spare you from reading another 5+ page entry. Coming up next time: director, screenplays, maybe cinematography, possibly animated, and anything else you're really curious for me to weigh in on! Seriously, if you want me to do a category, just let me know!

The BAH!scars #5: Best Picture?

Welcome back to another installment of the BAH!scars! This entry really requires no introduction...so I'll stop now.

Level 1 – the Other 3

These were the three films that were kind of the toss-up when it came to the Best Picture nomination discussion. Obviously, they all stand an Aronofsky’s chance of winning (despite Aronofsky’s films being able to wipe the floor with these pieces of poo).

The Blind Side

The one nominee I have not yet seen and, to be perfectly frank, have no interest in seeing. Anyone who I respect and who has seen it has nothing but condemnatory words to say about it. “Glorified TV movie.” “Bullock’s just okay.” “Boring then boring then racist then boring.” What can I say? I hate schmaltz, I hate sport movies, I hate mindless Oscar feel-good-inspiration bait. And I hate Sandra Bullock. I’d be miserable every step of the way and I’m not giving into the Academy by seeing this movie just because they threw two nominations at it.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 10

Odds of winning: 1 to 1,000. This film was the surprise nominee of the year, bolstered only by the awards/reviews for Bullock, very similar to The Reader last year. In a five-picture year, the odds might be 1 to 100, but now there are nine other films to beat, all of which have more clout/support than this one does. Of course, bad Bullock movies that take a heavy-handed look at race have won before against all odds. But if it happens this time, film-nerds nationwide may have their own “Rodney King Verdict”-style riots.


District 9

Like I said in a prior entry, this movie snatched up Star Trek’s “Token Summer Movie Nomination/Let’s Keep the Plebs Happy” prize. Ironically, despite thinking Star Trek is a better movie, I am annoyed less by this selection. Possibly because at least this choice seems more in line with typical Academy thinking (Little Indie That Could, Important Issue, etc.). That being said, the fact that District 9 is a nomination for Best Picture is a complete and utter joke. The plot was incredibly cookie cutter (I dare say it may rival Avatar’s), the commentary was heavy-handed, and I really do not think I should feel so bored when watching people explode.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 9

Odds of winning: 1 to 500. Note the “Token” in its prize. This nomination was an act of diplomacy by the Academy. Diplomacy is taking a few small hits to appease the other party. It’s not committing seppuku to show you were wrong.

A Serious Man

The more I thought about A Serious Man, the more it crumbled for me. Probably initially I was temporarily blinded by what so many people were blinded by: if a movie is that depressing, boring, dense, and contains no answers, it must be great stuff. It had a strong lead performance and a few good moments with the camera (and I did love the opening scene), but aside from that…it was a shaggy dog of a movie: a lot of hair that couldn’t attach itself to anything. While there have been great movies that have broken free of traditional norms of plot and character (e.g. Bunuel’s The Phantom of Liberty), this picture did not even have a single idea upon which to hinge itself, aside from the very tired Job one.

This nomination was probably a combination the aforementioned blinding with A) “Hey! We’ve nominated and awarded the Coen’s before!” and B) a desire for more cred among the film geeks who hate the Academy as much as the cretins.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 8

Odds of winning: 1 to 150. In many’s eyes, this was a doubtful nomination. I thought it had a good chance of making it to the race of 10, but that’s about it. This movie is bland, but not Academy-Approved-Bland and will therefore not grab voters’ eyes come check-off time.

Level 2

“We’re so happy the Academy amped it up to 10!” These two were the ones that were pretty much guaranteed 2 of the 5 extra slots. They never would have gotten a real nomination, but they were also not a question when filling out the list. They have the slightest chance of winning, though a picture of that moment would have to go in the dictionary under “upset.”

Up

Oh, how I love this movie. Oh, how it’s refreshing to see the Academy’s need to nominate token films used for good instead of evil. Oh, how this movie does not have a chance of winning.

Amazing - Up is a film that delivers well-developed characters, clever humor, tears, an uplifting message about the human condition, and adventure…and because it’s computer animated, it has a pretty infinitesimal chance of taking home the gold. However, this nomination does cement what everyone already knew: that Up will win Best Animated Feature.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 2

Odds of winning: 1 to 85. This nomination is almost as much of a token as District 9. However, this injustice has the benefit of having a more vocal, consistent, and intelligent group of complainers rallying behind it. There is a miniscule possibility that the Academy will try to appease the animated lobbyists in one foul swoop before returning to their usual antics. But it’s miniscule.

An Education

This film is a solid choice. The acting is phenomenal and the dialogue is top notch. Carey Mulligan deserves the Oscar, though she won’t get it, and a few of the other actors were quite snubbed. It by no means is a “Best Picture” film either in the Academy’s eyes (Ew! Girl sleeping with older man! Ew! Quiet British film!) or mine, but this film is a welcome addition to filling out the list, be it 5 or 10 films.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 4

Odds of winning: 1 to 60. Like I said, it’s a good pick for filling out the list, but it is not flashy enough for the Academy. Only if there were an incredible vote split would it have a shot.

Level 3

We’re now on the movies that would have been the five nominees had the Academy not decided to make a desperate attempt to get more viewers and pander to the masses.

Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire

I will admit I went into this movie with some biases against it. I thought (and still think) that the title is as obnoxious as a neon yellow sweatsuit (and misuses quotations). All the trailers made it looks exploitative, predictable, and mindless Oscar-bait (let’s all think about race for two hours! Hurray for triumphing over adversity!). I did not like how certain critics/marketers were trying to guilt the American public into seeing the film by saying they were racist if they did not (when really, the American public will only see “indy”-ish film if they’re quirky and cute). And, I really did not want to see Fatty walk down the red carpet in a dress, trying to look attractive or at least not completely repulsive.

Now, little sidetrack. Sometimes, I see a movie that I expect I’m going to hate and it surpasses my expectations as to how repugnant it can be. I will then say, “Yes, it was indeed as horrible as I surmised...and then some!” and people will say that I went in prejudiced against it and did not give it a fair chance. I always argue with them that even if I go in with expectations, I still do not let those cloud my judgment. In fact, if the movie is even the slightest bit decent, it benefits from my bias. I often will think “Wow! This isn’t horrible!” and that will quickly transition to “This is quite good!” If anything, most movies find that my preconceived negative opinions ameliorate my final judgment, just as my excitement for a film has a tendency to lead to ultimate disappointment.

Upon reflection, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire is still predictable (it's only a step or two up from Avatar), a bit exploitative, and nothing all that special. But the acting is mostly strong (Fatty in fact so exceeds with what her role requires that I lament the reality that she probably will not have a career after this movie), the script is just interesting enough, and the directio – er, I’ll describe my ambivalence towards the direction in my next Oscar post – that it won my over. I approve of Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire, as a movie. It may not deserve to be in the top 5, but it’s better than a lot of other nominees.

Of course, I may not have actually seen Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire since both my ticket and the marquis for the theater only said "Precious."



Where I rank it amongst the ten: 6

Odds of winning: 1 to 25. It’s the recipient of the “Little Miss Juno” Award. Part of the deal with that award is that the recipient has not all that great of a chance of getting any award past the “Little Miss Juno” Award.

Up in the Air

Back when this movie had a very good shot at winning, Entertainment Weekly ran this piece. It simultaneously interested and bothered me. Why did it vex me so? Because Up in the Air is not a triumph of witty dialogue and plot and great characters. It only thinks it is. It half-wants to be a modern day screwball comedy (as this article belies) but cannot bring itself to abandon its seeming-sophistication and unabashedly invite in the immaturity that allows such a pleasant juxtaposition. As a result, it drags. Furthermore, I simply did not find Clooney’s character as funny, sharp, distinct, roguish, or fascinating as the film expected me to. He seemed like a partially-formed idea that never fully took route into a person, and without that, the script continued its collapse. There are moments of greatness in this film, sure, but this is not a great film or anything close. There are just briefs flashes of what could have been one.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 7

Odds of winning: 1 to 10. This movie was probably the favorite back at the turn of the year, but it has lost steam like a kettle taken off the stove. I think the problem was that people started actually seeing it and realized it really wasn’t all that special. It’s only true shot comes from the fact that it carries with it a very timely and Academic message: having loved ones >>> having money and a job.

Level 4

These are the ones that are really duking it out for Best Picture. Any other one will be some level of an upset. None of these three have a definite chance of winning and therefore there will be surprise no matter which one wins, but not too much surprise.

Inglourious Basterds

Forget about the year; I’d rank this film as one of the best of the decade. It’s a remarkably clever, incisive film masquerading as a mindless, frat-boy gorefest. Yet, it’s façade of Eli Roth controlling Quentin Tarantino like Brainiac puppeteering Lex Luthor only manages to enhance the film’s overall message and make it more brilliant (I may have to gush about this more in depth in a full-length entry). I walked away from this movie back in August not knowing what to think. I did not even know if I liked it. Repeated viewers and what probably amounts to hours of thinking and discussion have affirmed its place in film history in my mind (and probably also guaranteed that I’ll be writing a real academic essay on this at some point in the future)

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 1

Odds of winning: 1 to 4. On one hand, we have a director that has already been nominated, the SAG win, nominations in director, screenplay, editing, and cinematography, and general good buzz. On the other hand (SPOILER), we have a movie that ends with Hitler getting a machine gun to the face. The Academy may not look too favorably upon a film that exposes all other “good” WWII films for being as bloodthirsty as any slasher flick. However, this film may be able to rise above the rubble that will ensue in the Avatar/Hurt Locker brawl.



Avatar

I’ve already defended Avatar in this blog (read “Avatar’s Gross!” if you need a refresher). That being said, this movie is not Best Picture material. Too many necessary elements are lacking from the film to allow it to make the leap from “enjoyable” to “great” (by the way, I know I use the word “great” a lot when discussing films…I owe that quite a bit to Roger Ebert’s Great Movies. It’s more of a status than an adjective for me, hence why I don’t vary my vocabulary when it comes to that).

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 5

Odds of winning: 3 to 7. It will definitely eat up Technical Awards like they were white dots and it was Pac Man. And the Academy is really trying to appease the masses this year (see: ten nominations), so how better to do that than awarding the top grossing movie of all time the top prize? Hey, it worked over a decade ago! And then of course, there’s that whole Golden Globe thing and the fact that the last thing the director did was that movie where the boat sinks.

The Hurt Locker

The great paradox of the Oscars is that they make no one happy: not the masses, nor film nerds. The plebeians complain that the Oscars only choose prestigious, boring films that only a few people see. People who actually know about film bewail that the Academy only chooses films that tend to gross over $100 million and only give the illusion of being “small, independent films.” Yet, ironically, the plebs’ conception might finally be the case for a change. Up against the movie that everyone saw is the truly great film that only grossed about $10 million in its initial release in theaters.

Barely anyone saw The Hurt Locker this summer. Only a select few film nerds and friends of film nerds were lucky enough to enter the theater in July to see one of the tensest films in years and the best film about the Iraq war to come out so far. It was a film lover’s/thinking man’s action movie, one that delivered a few explosions but knew that the mere promise of an explosion is so much scarier and so much more thrilling.

While I prefer Inglourious Basterds to this movie, I will be more than happy if The Hurt Locker wins. This movie is the one that has the best chance of beating Avatar and it will be the first time in a while that I can really rally behind a Best Picture winner. Hurray for that.

Where I rank it amongst the ten: 3

Odds of winning: 1 to 2. This movie not only took home a lot of critic’s year-end awards, but has been catching up pre-Oscar awards like they’re Pokemon (what is with me and videogame similes?). By all means, it should be a hands-down favorite to win. But it’s a small movie. And therefore, it’s going to be a struggle. It has a slight advantage over Avatar, but that’s about it.

The BAH!scars #2: Supporting Brah

I currently feel as if my entire life is in purgatory (or antepurgatory, to use Dante Alighieri’s model of the afterlife). I’m waiting. Waiting for the weather to get warmer. Waiting for grad programs to get back to me. Waiting for the Academy to announce their nominations.

Yes, I could speculate endlessly on what they’ll nominate, but I feel that everyone’s already done that and that I really can’t add anything all that new or interesting to the mix. So instead, I’m going to go on about the one category that, barring us shifting into alternate reality or something else that would have to change the odds on the most cosmic of levels, is already in the bag. Hell, it’s already in the bag and the bag has been thrown into the car, driven home, brought into the kitchen, and unpacked into the cupboard. Christoph Waltz is undoubtedly going to win Best Supporting Actor.

The buzz already was circling around him like flies around a dropped ice cream cone since Inglourious Basterds first premiered. Since then, there has yet to be a winners list that is devoid of his name. According to IMDB (as of January 31), the only awards he has only been nominated for have not yet announced their winners. At this rate, I think he’ll only miss the NAACP and GLAAD awards (and his camp performance might even give him a chance in the latter’s eyes).

Never has there been an actor more guaranteed of an award since, well, last year’s Best Supporting Actor, Heath Ledger. Is there some weird type of curse around this category that prevents it from being a real contest? Did Dumbledore refuse Voldemort the award years ago (or maybe the Riddle just really wanted to present it)? I mean, Waltz didn’t even have to go through the whole inconvenience of dying, which I’ve heard really quite an encumbrance to getting things done.

So, before we continue, let’s just acknowledge the indisputable feeling of impending anticlimax every other nominee must feel as he finds out that he is indeed a nominee and thus is to lose to Waltz in a month. Let us also the pay heed to the quick curse of fate that must emancipate itself from each mouth as to why he had to give his great performance the same year that Inglourious Basterds debuted.

Now let me ask the real question of this entry: how must it feel to be Christoph Waltz on Oscar Night? I imagine for the majority of actors, Oscar nights are exciting, tense, and a plethora of other emotions. They either are anxious if they will take home a statue, or possibly acknowledge that they are the fifth nominee and just enjoying the thrill of being there. But very rarely does someone walk in assured that he will be a winner. Like, I said, the last time that a victory was so certain that actor was a bit too inanimate to really consider the situation.

Is there any doubt in Waltz’s mind? Does he still have jitters over the night, that a fluke will turn his category in the very quintessence of “upset?” Or is he going to spend the first hour or so of the show making last minute changes to his acceptance speech? Has he run out of things to say and people to thank? Is winning “Best Supporting Actor” even exciting after going through the routine so many times or does the prestige of the Oscars somehow make reinvigorate everything?

The only way I can even think to relate is to think of when I was taking a math class to fill a requirement in college. It was essentially “Math for Drama Majors and Kids Who Got into Tufts Since They Were From North Dakota.” We spent the first day going over “y = mx + b” and by the end of the semester, we had successfully reviewed my first two years of high school math. I imagine the absolute dearth of nervousness with the most Lilliputian pinch of “I better not screw this up” in my head as I walked in to take a test is probably the closest I have ever felt to how Waltz will feel on March 7. Of course, I was filling a BS distribution requirement whereas Waltz is about to get one of the (justified or not) most prestigious accolades that can be bestowed upon a thespian of film.

In short, as Judgment Day Part 1 rolls around, at least we can all rest assured that the biggest question of the Supporting Actor category is not “Who will be nominated?” or even “Who will win?” but instead, “How awesome is it to be Christoph Waltz right now?”