![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Countdown to Frustration
Feb. 24th, 2008 04:33 pmGod, I loathe the Oscars. I want them to be over and done with. I'm sick to my stomach waiting to find out which great talents will get their due and which will be snubbed in favor of what crap.
I really thought AMERICAN GANGSTER would have been nominated for Best Picture. I easily could have seen it being THE DEPARTED of this year: a safe, solid, unchallenging, unthreatening, cleanly-made crowd-pleasing picture with big stars in the traditional Hollywood style. THERE WILL BE BLOOD, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, and JUNO do not fit this mold, which is stacked against them.
Then I saw MICHAEL CLAYTON last night. Ah, right, there's the film. That's the one.
Apparently, there's a sizable contingent of Academy voters informally known as the "retired voters." They're the old fogies who, as CHUD.com describes them, "wouldn't sully their eyes with the gay cowboy gunk of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (even though a high percentage of these folks probably walked in on Darryl F. Zanuck receiving a blow job from any one of his myriad girlfriends during the golden age of the backlot bacchanal)."
I have living proof of such in this video by self-proclaimed "Real Geezers," Hollywood producer Marcia Nasatir and screenwriter Lorenzo Semple, Jr., who are both Academy voters:
To sum up: these people claim George Clooney deserves to win over Daniel Day-Lewis, because "from beginning to end, [Clooney] is a believable lawyer,"and Daniel's character "has no arc, no journey."
While I try my best to respect the opinions of others, let me simply say right here that they those geezers are blind fucking idiots. Bad enough some people see the character of Daniel Plainview as "a villain" or as "Satan," but this just takes the fucking cake.
I could spend a good hour analyzing the details of Daniel Plainview's journey, growth, and downfall, for anyone that's interested. These two clearly aren't, and have missed the entire goddamn point of the film. And it sounds like they're not the only ones.
And here I was worried about JUNO winning. Shit, I had nothing expressly against MICHAEL CLAYTON*, as silly and forgettable a movie as it was, but if it seriously appeals to such out-of-touch fools as superior modern film making above THERE WILL BE BLOOD and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, shit, I'd sooner hope JUNO wins! (Note: I will still eat my hat if JUNO wins.)
There is only one, only one reason I'm going to flip back and forth to the Oscars tonight, and that's to see Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova perform "Falling Slowly." They deserve their nomination, they deserve their performance, and even though I haven't seen ENCHANTED (three fucking song nominations?!), they deserve to win.
After that, I will need whiskey. Lots of whiskey. Or a milkshake. WHISKEY MILKSHAKE!
*Except the horses. What the fuck is the deal with the three horses?!?! It's obviously pretentious random symbolism of some kind, but I can't figure out what the hell was the point? Why are there three horses standing out there?! Why does he stop to look at them longingly?! GAH!
I really thought AMERICAN GANGSTER would have been nominated for Best Picture. I easily could have seen it being THE DEPARTED of this year: a safe, solid, unchallenging, unthreatening, cleanly-made crowd-pleasing picture with big stars in the traditional Hollywood style. THERE WILL BE BLOOD, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, and JUNO do not fit this mold, which is stacked against them.
Then I saw MICHAEL CLAYTON last night. Ah, right, there's the film. That's the one.
Apparently, there's a sizable contingent of Academy voters informally known as the "retired voters." They're the old fogies who, as CHUD.com describes them, "wouldn't sully their eyes with the gay cowboy gunk of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (even though a high percentage of these folks probably walked in on Darryl F. Zanuck receiving a blow job from any one of his myriad girlfriends during the golden age of the backlot bacchanal)."
I have living proof of such in this video by self-proclaimed "Real Geezers," Hollywood producer Marcia Nasatir and screenwriter Lorenzo Semple, Jr., who are both Academy voters:
To sum up: these people claim George Clooney deserves to win over Daniel Day-Lewis, because "from beginning to end, [Clooney] is a believable lawyer,"and Daniel's character "has no arc, no journey."
While I try my best to respect the opinions of others, let me simply say right here that they those geezers are blind fucking idiots. Bad enough some people see the character of Daniel Plainview as "a villain" or as "Satan," but this just takes the fucking cake.
I could spend a good hour analyzing the details of Daniel Plainview's journey, growth, and downfall, for anyone that's interested. These two clearly aren't, and have missed the entire goddamn point of the film. And it sounds like they're not the only ones.
And here I was worried about JUNO winning. Shit, I had nothing expressly against MICHAEL CLAYTON*, as silly and forgettable a movie as it was, but if it seriously appeals to such out-of-touch fools as superior modern film making above THERE WILL BE BLOOD and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, shit, I'd sooner hope JUNO wins! (Note: I will still eat my hat if JUNO wins.)
There is only one, only one reason I'm going to flip back and forth to the Oscars tonight, and that's to see Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova perform "Falling Slowly." They deserve their nomination, they deserve their performance, and even though I haven't seen ENCHANTED (three fucking song nominations?!), they deserve to win.
After that, I will need whiskey. Lots of whiskey. Or a milkshake. WHISKEY MILKSHAKE!
*Except the horses. What the fuck is the deal with the three horses?!?! It's obviously pretentious random symbolism of some kind, but I can't figure out what the hell was the point? Why are there three horses standing out there?! Why does he stop to look at them longingly?! GAH!
