The Oscars - What a Farce!

[Udaman]

I know I pay more attention to garbage like that than I should...but the Oscars, with today's nominations, have officially joined The Golden Globes for me in terms of "total B.S."

Let's start with what did get nominated:

Moneyball. Seriously? I saw it. It was OK. That's it. People are voting for it, because it showed want went on with the Oakland A's the year they had the crazy winning streak after losing their top 3 players - only the entire movie was fake. Jonah Hill's character didn't exist. Billy Beane didn't invent the concept. He never traded his first baseman so that the manager would have to start the other first baseman. All Brad Pitt did was stand around and make concerned faces. Much of what Jonah Hill did was stare at Brad Pitt. I would give the movie a 6 out of 10, but nowhere near "Best Picture" consideration.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Nominated purely because it's the first movie to try and tackle the emotional issues of 9/11 that stared award winning people. Period. Because the movie itself is so completely and utterly unbelievable (a widowed mom is going to let her 10 year old son wander the streets of New York with a stranger? Are you kidding me), and so forced, it's beyond comprehension.

The Tree of Life? Just proof that if you package something as "so artsy that the average person doesn't get it," the Academy voters will vote for it. Terrence Malick getting nominated just further proves the point.

Best Supporting Actors: the fact that both Jonah Hill and Max Von Sydow got nominated show what a joke this all is. And to the detriment of someone else (listed below). Though I will say that having Ming the Merciless nominated again does make me sing the Flash song.

Best Actress. Rooney Mara? She wasn't even as good as the Swedish girl in the original. Sure, she was fine...but she didn't carry that movie (Craig did), and I found her scenes to be pretty boring actually. OK, she pierced some stuff - that deserves a nomination? Meryl Streep? Her performance bordered on camp. But she's Meryl Streep, so has to get a nomination.

Best Actor. Demian Bichir? Who? What? I actually saw this movie, and it was fine...but it was all about the concept - "look how tough immigration can be on a family." Anyone could have acted in that and looked convincing.

Best Animated Feature. Kung Fu Panda 2? Yes, this is animation, and a fringe award...but as a father with kids under 10, I pretty much see every animated movie that comes out, and without a doubt, Kung Fu Panda was the worst of them this year. It was awful. Arthur Christmas was better (much better). So was Tin-Tin.

And as for the snubs:

It starts (and ends, really) with Albert Brooks, who not only should have been nominated for his work in "Drive." He should have won. He stepped out of his typical character and stole every single scene he was in. To me this is like the year that Val Kilmer didn't get nominated for his portrayal of Doc Holliday in Tombstone. The fact that Jonah Hill got a nomination over the performance Brooks put up is 100% bunk.

Other major jokes: Drive for best picture, or Bridesmaids (my favorite movie of the year), or 50/50, or Ides of March - anything other than Tree of Life and Incredibly Stupid.

Charlize Theron in Young Adult was better than Mara (by a lot)

I know that some people see Ryan Gosling as a bit campy, but I thought his performances in Drive, Crazy, Stupid Love and Ides of March were ALL better than Bichir's role. J. Edgar Hoover wasn't that great, but Di Caprio at least threw himself into the role. He deserves a nomination over Bichir, or Brad Pitt (and the hypocrisy of the Academy is that Meryl Streep gets nomination - Leonardo acted circles around her - he actually acted. She just talked with a British accent).

Again, I let this get to me when I shouldn't...Grrrrr

[JasonEvans]

I agree with almost everything you wrote. Tintin not getting an animation nomination is absurd. It would have been alongside Rango as my pick to win. Same with Brooks who would have been my upset pick over Plummer in Beginners. Tree of Life and Extremely Loud getting best pic nominations is a joke.

Speaking of Albert Brooks, I have been tweeting mercilessly about that snub. Here are a few examples --

Things stupider than @AlbertBrooks not getting a Best Supporting Actor nom- "Joey" TV show, JarJar Binks, Buckner at 1B

Things stupider than @AlbertBrooks not getting a Best Supporting Actor nom- Zima, Jordan playing baseball, After M*A*S*H TV show

Things stupider than @AlbertBrooks not getting a Best Supporting Actor nom- New Coke, Rick Perry debating, Designated Hitter rule

Things stupider than @AlbertBrooks not getting a Best Supporting Actor nom- Betamax, Caruso leaving NYPD Blue, Clinton defining "is"

-Jason "I know The Artist is gonna take a ton of awards, but I hope Hugo manages to get at least a few statues" Evans

[CameronBornAndBred]

Tree of Life and Extremely Loud getting best pic nominations is a joke.

-Jason "Oscar noms are announced next week... and I think this flick (Extremely Loud) is going to get snubbed" Evans

If it's nomination is a joke, then how was it going to be a snub if it wasn't selected?

[Olympic Fan]

Not going to dispute your general take on how bizarre the Oscar process had been in recent years, although it hasn't been the most accurate guage of greatness from the beginning (Wings as Best Picture over Sunrise? ... or Vidor's The Crowd?).

Based on Rotten Tomatoes critic ratings, you are right about the absurdity of the nomination for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Annoying -- a 48 on the Tomatometer, which is rotten.

The other eight nominees (wait, I thought they were supposed to pick 10 ... why only nine?) all got "fresh" reviews. In order of their RT ranking:

1. The Artist 97%
2. Moneyball 95% (although I agree with you -- a grossly overrated and dishonest movie)
3. Hugo 94%
4. Midnight in Paris 93%
5. The Descendents 89%
6. Tree of Life 84%
7. War Horse 78%
8. The Help 76%
9. ELAIC 48%

I was actually pleased to see the nominations for Midnight in Paris, which would be my choice as the Best Picture I saw this year (although I have not yet seen the Artist). I happen to be a big fan of Woody Allen's work and this is easily his his best film since Husband and Wives.

Allen was nominated as Best Director for the seventh time. That's an astonishing number -- only William Wyler (12) and Billy Wilder (eight) have more nominations. David Lean and Fred Zinnemann also have seven director dominations. Allen has more nominations than John Ford*, Robert Altman, Stanley Kubrick, Howard Hawks, William Wellman, Alfred Hitchcock, King Vidor, Frank Capra, Martin Scorcese, Steven Spielberg or Francis Ford Coppola. He has more nominations that William Wellman, Ernst Lubitsch and John Huston COMBINED.

But that's not his greatest accomplishment. He was nomined for Best Original Story for the 16th time -- that's BY FAR the most nominations in Oscar history (and that's even if you combine original screenplay and adaptation). You can make the case that Allen is the most successful screenwriter in film history.

He's won three Oscars -- for Best Director (Annie Hall) and twice for best screenplay (Annie Hall and for Hannah and Her Sisters).

His only acting domination came for Annie Hall (which he lost).

* Back on the topic of how misguided the Oscars have been over the years. I consider John Ford to be the greatest American director -- by a wide margin. He did win four Best Director Oscars, which is the most ever, but look at the films he won them for -- The Grapes of Wrath and the Quiet Man are masterpieces, but the heavy-handed The Informer (a ripoff of Murnau stylistically) and the treacly How Green Was My Valley are among my least-favorite Ford films.

At least he got a nomination for Stagecoach (losing to Victor Flemming for Gone With the Wind). Considering that Flemming only did about 2/3s of the work on GWTW (after Cukor started and Menzies did most of the most interesting stuff), that was probably a mistake. Orson Welles reviewed Stagecoach more than 20 times before and during his work on Citizen Kane, later arguing that it was one of the most revolutionary directing jobs ever done.

But as I said, at least it was dominated. What about Young Mr. Lincoln? What about They Were Expendable (a film many critics consider the greatest Anerican WWII film)? What about his cavalry trilogy? How about My Darling Clementine (which Colonel Potter on MASH insisted was the greatest Western of all time)? Of course, the great tragedy is that he was not nominated for The Searchers in 1956 -- a film that has consistently ranked among the top 10-15 films ever made (in the last Sight and Sound survey, the world's critics had it 5th best in history, although it ranked 14th overall).

No nominations for best director for any of these films ...

I guess that despite the love shown my man Woody Allen, I guess Ford's experience is pretty good evidence that you shouldn't take the Oscars seriously.

[CameronBornAndBred]

(wait, I thought they were supposed to pick 10 ... why only nine?) .

I think only 9 qualified.

After expanding category from five to 10 movies in 2009, the academy says a film now must receive at least 5% of the first-place votes to receive a nomination

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun...anges-20110616

[Mal]

Aesthetic preferences being what they are, I'll just drop in and out, noting the generality that the Oscars have always been strange and snubbish and hard to predict and overly celebratory of middlebrow dreck ("Titanic," anyone?) but also quickly defending "Tree of Life." I found it to be incredibly daring storytelling, brilliantly shot, and audacious in scope and subject matter. Pitt's always been fun to knock for his limitations, but he's really good in this, understated and subtle. The elegiac tone and sense of wonder were spellbinding for me. It's imperfect, and I understand how some would see it as overreaching or too artsy, but give Malick some credit for having the stones to make and release a film like this, and reward serious art. Plus, you all should have known from the initial critical gushing, even with some notable dissention, that this was a shoo-in for a Best Picture nomination, so I'm not sure where the surprise and indignation is coming from at this point.

[Udaman]

I don't know if you all have seen the Youtube parodies of Hitler in the movie "Downfall," but I just did my very first one and posted it there...about Brooks not getting nominated. I think it's funny...but I am biased.

Let me know your thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS-Up...ature=youtu.be

[Udaman]

Wow...I just saw that Albert Brooks just mentioned this clip on his Twitter account....

WOW

https://twitter.com/#!/AlbertBrooks

[JasonEvans]

I don't know if you all have seen the Youtube parodies of Hitler in the movie "Downfall," but I just did my very first one and posted it there...about Brooks not getting nominated. I think it's funny...but I am biased.

Let me know your thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS-Up...ature=youtu.be

Love it! Albert Brooks likes it too. He tweeted about it.

-Jason

edit-- Udaman beat me to it.

[Bostondevil]

Name the last 5 Best Supporting Actor winners, I'll be generous and give you 20 seconds - no cheating!

[Bostondevil]

There, see? If you could do it, than kudos, and I officially give you permission to have a hissy fit about who wins. If you couldn't, why not? Yes, it is very important to the people who get nominated and if you win, from then on, whenever you go on Letterman they announce you as an Academy Award winner but beyond that, who cares? Or remembers?

The Oscars are another form of entertainment as is arguing about who deserves them but Albert Brooks's career isn't going to change because he didn't get nominated just like Jonah Hill's isn't likely to change because he did. Jonah Hill MIGHT get considered for a couple of roles that otherwise wouldn't have gone his way because of the nomination but I'm skeptical. And Albert Brooks will still be Albert Brooks and what this snub will give him is the NEXT time he crushes a role like he did in Drive he will get nominated. He'll probably even win.

Paul Newman won for The Color of Money, which, let's face it, was really a Lifetime Achievement Award dressed up in Best Actor clothes.

[Bostondevil]

And speaking of Best Actor clothes, the reason we watch the Oscars is to see George Clooney in a tux. All right maybe that's just half the population, but it's the half that watches the Oscars. ;-)

[Udaman]

Dude - you are kidding, right? Best Supporting Actor is a great award, and has gone to some serious, serious heavy weights over the years. They are also (or at least used to be) presented near the beginning of the ceremony along with Best Supporting Actress, so they are easy to remember.

Off the top of my head...

I know that Christian Bale won last year for The Fighter
I know that Heath Ledger won for Batman (that might have been a few years ago)
Then there was Christopher Waltz for Inglorious Basterds (and he was great in that)
And Bardiem won as well, I'm pretty sure, for No Country for Old Men
After that, not sure, though I know Clooney won for Syriana and Arkin for Little Miss Sunshine, and at some point Morgan Freeman won for Million Dollar Baby

The sad thing is that the Academy has a history of giving older actors this award for stepping out of their normal spot, or for reaching in an Indi type film (Arkin, James Coburn for Affliction, etc) which is why I thought Brooks had a good chance of winning...if he was nominated. And I still think it sucks that he wasn't.

In the grand scheme of things is it a big deal? Of course not....but still.

[SlimSlowSlider]

Udaman - Hilarious. Nice work!

Have not seen Drive, but will definitely catch it after your stamp of approval.

[A-Tex Devil]

Love it! Albert Brooks likes it too. He tweeted about it.

-Jason

edit-- Udaman beat me to it.

Building on this, Patton Oswalt, who many also thought got snubbed, created a fake pity party on his twitter for all those that were spurned by the Academy. Pretty funny.

[Bostondevil]

Dude - you are kidding, right? Best Supporting Actor is a great award, and has gone to some serious, serious heavy weights over the years. They are also (or at least used to be) presented near the beginning of the ceremony along with Best Supporting Actress, so they are easy to remember.

Off the top of my head...

I know that Christian Bale won last year for The Fighter
I know that Heath Ledger won for Batman (that might have been a few years ago)
Then there was Christopher Waltz for Inglorious Basterds (and he was great in that)
And Bardiem won as well, I'm pretty sure, for No Country for Old Men
After that, not sure, though I know Clooney won for Syriana and Arkin for Little Miss Sunshine, and at some point Morgan Freeman won for Million Dollar Baby

The sad thing is that the Academy has a history of giving older actors this award for stepping out of their normal spot, or for reaching in an Indi type film (Arkin, James Coburn for Affliction, etc) which is why I thought Brooks had a good chance of winning...if he was nominated. And I still think it sucks that he wasn't.

In the grand scheme of things is it a big deal? Of course not....but still.

OK, kudos, you can name the last 5 winners. Jonah Hill isn't going to win. In 10 years, you'll have to Google him to prove that he was nominated. Christopher Plummer is winning it, by the way, even if Albert Brooks was nominated. He's got the older actor thing sewed up. Plus, it's only his second nomination.

[Bostondevil]

And I never said it wasn't a great award. I just challenged you to remember the last 5 winners - quickly. Most people, even most people who regularly watch the Oscars, can't do that.

[gus]

And I never said it wasn't a great award. I just challenged you to remember the last 5 winners - quickly. Most people, even most people who regularly watch the Oscars, can't do that.

I can only name one the last five NCAA champions, and I watch every year.

[dukebluelemur]

Love it! Albert Brooks likes it too. He tweeted about it.

-Jason

edit-- Udaman beat me to it.

Looks like russell crowe retweeted it as well.

[Olympic Fan]

Thought some of you might like Roger Ebert's take on this year's Oscar omissions:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012...uz_robbed.html

He agrees with the majority in this thread that Albert Brooks got robbed ... he also agrees that Extremely Loud, etc., was an unworthy nominee. But he does disagree with the critics here about Tree of Life, arguing that it was a masterpiece.

The real revelation for me was his criticism of the academy for their omission of Steve James' latest documentary (apparently a gritty, dangerous film about ex-cons and ex-gang members intervening to stop gang violence on the streets ... I don't know, I haven't seen it or heard about it before this). James, if you rememeber, was one of two filmmakers who created "Hoop Dreams", the single finest documentary of my lifetime. It's a film that Ebert rated as the best film of any kind in the 1990s (if I remember right, Gene Siskel had it as his second-best film of the decade).

It didn't get nominated for an Oscar. Evert reveals in this piece that the committee screening candidates turned it off after 15 minutes.