Ranting On...Ann Romney

I’m not even sure I have enough to say about this, but I am A) oddly without opinions this week and B) you all seem to have swiftly moved beyond my other topic of the week, the revoked nomination for Alone Yet Not Alone (okay-I’ll do a quick rant here-I get why they went against the film, but I feel like if this had been a more critically-acclaimed or commercially-successful or even more socially liberal film that they wouldn’t have made this jump and I think it’s a crime that they don’t give Lana del Rey or Alex Ebert or Taylor Swift or whomever truly earned that fifth nomination their moment in the sun).

But what’s really bugging me this week is that woman who just can’t get over her husband losing over a year ago.  Ann Romney said on FOX News earlier today, “we lost, but truly the country lost, by not having Mitt as president.”  She later said she would be “polite and nice and not comment” on her thoughts regarding President Obama’s second term in office.

Listen, Ann, I get there’s a home movie documentary out right now regarding your husband, but is this really the way you want to make headlines?  I don’t know why I’m asking that-this is the way that she wants to make headlines.  One of the most frustrating thing about the past election (it feels like it was just last year, but it’s 2014, isn’t it, and as the media will point out every chance it gets, it’s time to focus on 2016…it was in fact time in December 2012 according to the media) was the Romneys’ continually playing the “victim” card.

I get it-presidential races are brutal.  It sucks having everyone in the media saying literally everything about you.  I’m guessing this is particularly rough when you’re the one who has to endure all of the hardships, and they’re being directed toward the person you love most in the world.  It sucks, and there are things that were levied at Governor Romney in the last election that felt wildly unfair (in particular, the attacks on his religion).

However, I find it beyond frustrating that the Republicans, and Ms. Romney in particular, have spent so much time before and after blaming the electorate for their loss, rather than their own campaign and political positions.  This is certainly not the only time that the Romney clan has stated that if the electorate “got to know” their patriarch that he would have won.  The problem with this argument is, though, that the fact that America never really got to know this man is mostly on him.  Few people have dominated the American political landscape more in the past decade that Mitt Romney.  From his high-profile tenure as governor of Massachusetts to his two failed presidential elections, he likely has a name recognition level in America that is unrivaled by anyone not named Bush, Clinton, or Obama.  And yet, how is it possible that we haven’t gotten to know him better?

Quite frankly, it isn’t really, and if it is, it’s due to Mitt’s own inability to connect with voters.  While I’ll take their word for the fact that Mitt Romney is much looser and funnier in person, why didn’t that ever come across in the softball interviews he and his wife did for talk shows and magazines?  The Romneys frequently bring up that he’s an avid family man and great husband/father, but let’s be honest, does anyone actually doubt that?  The problem here isn’t that people didn’t believe that Mitt Romney was good to his family (even the most partisan of people can see he’s devoted to them), it’s that it didn’t win him the White House.

And that’s what bugs Ann Romney most.  This is a woman who clearly cannot handle a loss.  I frequently imagine that political losses, especially at this high level, are hardest on spouses.  The actual candidates spend every day in the trenches, immersing themselves in polls and are more than aware that they could win or lose.  Spouses, on the other hand, have to put themselves completely on-display.  They have the press deriding their personal lives, their appearances, their speaking abilities without ever having made the commitment to that aspect of public life.  And they’re the ones that see the crushed dreams of their spouse, who came so close to achieving a lifelong ambition just to fail at the finish line.

However, most of them keep their attacks on the winning administration private.  You don’t hear Cindy McCain grousing about the Obamas.  It’s long been rumored that Rosalynn Carter was not a fan of President Reagan, but you didn’t see that publicly.  Tipper Gore, Joan Mondale, even Barbara Bush (who can famously hold a grudge) all stayed classy when it came to the men who beat their husbands.  And there’s a reason for this-in order for the country to move forward after a divided election (no matter which side wins, tens of millions of people voted for the other side) the election needs to end.  Ann Romney continually bringing up her husband’s loss and deriding the president and those who voted for him continues the negativity of the previous election, and if there’s one thing we don’t need more of in Washington politics, it’s negativity.

So Ann Romney, I understand where you’re coming from, but (at least publicly) it’s time to move on and admit that people didn’t want your husband to be president.  It wasn’t because they didn’t get to know him.  It wasn’t because of gifts.  It wasn’t because they didn’t understand the issues.  It’s because they wanted Barack Obama to be president more.  Case closed.

Only You Can Prevent the Death of Gay Cinema

Yesterday I read Sally Kohn’s article about Frozen with great relish.  As someone who frequently harangues anyone willing to listen about diversity in film, I definitely saw her point about “why can’t we have a gay Disney princess.”  After all, we’ve come a lot closer in the past few years (both Brave and Frozen arguably have same-sex oriented lead characters, and “Let It Go” only backs up that claim), but like so many gay-hinted characters through the year, we didn’t get any tangible proof.

This is something that has been going on for years in films.  Movies like Brave or Frozen can wink at the idea of having a gay character, but they never actually say it out loud.  Arguably the most successful children’s series in the past fifty years or so, Harry Potter, has a major gay character in Albus Dumbledore.  We all know he’s gay-J.K. Rowling told us so.  And yet, if you look through the pages of her seven-book series or the eight films that followed, you won’t find one word about Albus Dumbledore leaning toward fellas instead of the ladies.

I frequently get into arguments regarding this subject (most often with articles for mainstream internet publications…less so actual people) when their response is “the character is gay, but that’s not the focus.”  In the past year, after all, we saw two films that had obviously gay characters (COG and The Bling Ring) that barely or never fully acknowledged their gay characters.  And the reality is, as a gay man, there are days I don’t think about being gay.  You don’t constantly think about relationships, and work, art, education, and paying the bills don’t have a sexual orientation.

However, to completely ignore it is to defeat the purpose.  You would never see a film with an adult that doesn’t in some way acknowledge their relationship status, even if it’s not the central part of their lives or the film’s plot.  People revolve their lives around their romantic relationships, or lack thereof.  You put me in a room with anyone, ANYONE, over the age of 21 and I will be able to figure out what their relationship status is in under ten minutes, and not because I asked.  People’s lives gravitate around having someone else in them-it’s part of the reason it’s so frustrating when you have friends who are single and friends who are married in the same circle.  So when I hear an actor say, “well, he’s gay, but that’s not the point” (and both gay and straight actors make this argument), I cringe a bit, because you would never say that about being straight.

But I’m digressing a bit off-topic right now because what Ms. Kohn’s article got me to thinking about is the complete lack of gay-themed films in recent years.  It’s kind of stunning, but as acceptance for gay people continues to climb, the number of people attending gay cinema continues to dwindle.  In looking at Box Office Mojo (don’t you love that site?), only two of the 100 highest-grossing GLBT films of all time were released in the past year: Dallas Buyers Club and Blue is the Warmest Color.  This doesn’t sound too bad, right?  After all, it’s an “all-time” list-shouldn’t it be hard to crack?

No, it’s not traditionally hard to crack.  For comparison’s sake, if you look at the overall domestic top 100 list, ten of those films were released in the past year.  Eight more are from 2012, when only one new GLBT-themed film was added to its Top 100.

The highest-grossing GLBT film of all time?  It’s the 1996 comedy The Birdcage starring Nathan Lane and Robin Williams, which made a very strong $124.1 million domestically.  However, the film was released nearly eighteen years ago.  Of the 216 genres that Box Office Mojo tracks, only 15 genres have older “top-grossing” film; 93% of the genres have more recent higher-grossing films than GLBT-themed pictures.  Delving further into the Top 10 highest-grossing GLBT films, only two were released in the past ten years (Brokeback Mountain and Bruno) and you only add four more if you expand into the Top 20.

So what’s the deal here, people?  I know that in general we’re making less films that we used to (or at least Hollywood is releasing less of them), but shouldn’t greater tolerance mean greater exposure?  Is it that as more people tolerate, there’s less story to discuss here (anyone who makes that argument seriously and not just in an attempt to try and get inside a studio executive’s head is a moron, as there’s tons of story still to play with there)?  Or is it that, despite recent Best Picture nominations for Brokeback, Milk, Kids Are All Right, and now Dallas Buyers Club, the studios just don’t see financial gain in investing in the GLBT community.

It says something that television greatly outperforms in this department, though even there it’s not as easy to find gay characters as it once was.  I texted my brother, who watches more television than anyone I know, for a comprehensive list of gay characters on television, and he came up with a number of shows including Orange is the New Black, Modern Family, Glee, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, and the soon-to-be-cancelled Sean Saves the World, but I have to tell you, most shows seem to put gay characters on the backburner.  Lots of the characters he listed are side characters, and very few shows seem to put gay characters out in front in the same way that say, Will and Grace did.  Though Will and Grace did occasionally trade in stereotypes and suffered a bit late in its run, it was still a quality, traditional sitcom that I cannot fathom getting made today, even though it’s been off the air for seven years.

I guess what I have to say is this is disappointing, but I’m not 100% sure whom to blame, because I don’t think that we gay people should get a pass.  We have enough strength-in-numbers at this point to make a show a hit if we so want (look at Bravo and the success of the Real Housewives, not to mention something like RuPaul’s Drag Race for evidence).  If we as a collective group wanted more Kids Are All Rights or Milks, studios would invest in them.  Just look at the success of Tyler Perry and his films-he’s become a film industry titan making movies that are viewed almost exclusively by African-American audiences and make mountains of money.  Put Tyler Perry’s name on a film, and it gets greenlit.  This would have been unthinkable even ten years ago, but studios react to money and audience demand, and if the gay audiences demanded more representation on film, they would get it.

This won’t happen overnight, though, so don’t expect Andrew Garfield to be trading Emma Stone in for Michael B. Jordan in the next Spider-Man film.  However, supporting quality programming that is also geared toward gay audiences is always a good thing as a community (and straight people, quality programming is rare and should come in all sizes, so we’d love your support as well).  So I’ll close with this plea (not sure that I earned this plea with the point of this article, but I’ve been wanting to say it for a week now): gay audiences, for the love of god, watch HBO’s Looking.  This is probably one of the better examples of gay-themed television that we’ve had in a while, and is far more realistic and excellent than almost any other depiction of gay life on television (actually, after two episodes, it's the best new show I've seen in a couple years).  Yes, the characters on it bare a striking resemblance to Lena Dunham’s Girls, but is that really a horrible starting off point?  Two episodes in, and I’m utterly smitten and am feeling that my heart is about to be smashed to smithereens due to low ratings.  So save the show, don’t let this become the next Enlightened, and continue to seek out quality gay-themed film, so that it doesn’t disappear entirely or become a novelty.

Kathy Griffin Takes the Grammy!

For everyone else, the headline winner of last night's Grammy Awards was surely Daft Punk, but for me, it was a five-time loser redhead who FINALLLY took home her Grammy Award.  You can see the spectacular Kathy Griffin accept her award here (with props to some of the people who truly got her there).  Congrats Kathy, from one of your ardent and loving gays.

I, Frankenstein (2014)

Film: I, Frankenstein (2014)
Stars: Aaron Eckhart, Bill Nighy, Yvonne Strahovski, Miranda Otto, Jai Courtney
Director: Stuart Beattie
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

I actually had a really fun time before and after this movie last night, so I feel a little bit weird giving it a bad review.  Do you ever have that-you're out on a good date or with friends or watching a movie with your brother and the movie is terrible but the people you are with are so enjoyable that the movie actually is better in your memory that it has any right to be?

(Spoilers Ahead) Because of this, I'm going to start out with the good in what is a Grade-Z action adventure (there's a reason it's being released on a cold January weekend when any rational, casual moviegoer is deciding between American Hustle or 12 Years a Slave at the theaters).  I genuinely like Yvonne Strahovski, who is best known to the nerd world as Sarah Walker on Chuck or Hannah McKay in Dexter.  She has a pleasing demeanor, decent comic timing, and I actually bought her as a scientist in the film, which you don't normally when it's a gorgeous blond woman who also happens to have a brilliant mind (Denise Richards as Christmas Jones, anyone?).

The rest of the film lacks her appeal and freshness, however.  Aaron Eckhart, who can act and was a smart choice by the casting directors here (he's at his best when he's playing noble but damned), doesn't find any of the fun of this role.  Part of what makes horror/sci-fi films a pip is that there's humor in it.  The idea that vampires or werewolves or demons could walk amongst us without ever becoming apparent is absurd, and so more interactions with humanity always add a jarring juxtaposition to the film.  Beattie's movie, however, does none of that-humans (aside from the two scientists) play almost no role in the film, to the point where you almost didn't need them to be on earth; this could just as easily have been on a different planet and been a regular battle of souls.

Eckhart's stoicism is balanced by Bill Nighy's over-the-top demon prince, though balanced is hardly a word to describe Nighy's work in the film.  Arguably the best actor in the bunch (certainly the most critically-praised), Nighy excels in this sort of saturated villain-he made Davy Jones interesting in the Pirates of the Caribbean films and has that sort of great, lilting voice that makes him an appropriate choice for the film.  Were the film dealing with subtlety, though, they would have made it mildly more believable that this man wasn't a demon.  It's hard to imagine that Strahovski's scientist, in this world that doesn't actually have sunlight (I don't know if it's ever daytime in the 92 minutes of movie), would have worked for such a man without quickly leaving his employ after spending longer than five minutes with him.

The plot is exactly what you'd expect once you see the protagonists: evil demon prince, brilliant and beautiful scientist, tortured but ultimately good monster, and an angelic queen forced to carry the burdens of humanity (Miranda Otto, so underused since Lord of the Rings that I'm just glad she got a paycheck).  You can find the plot without much trouble.  The effects are also rather staid (though I did like what they did with Otto's Hellenistic goddess paint when she transformed into a gargoyle), and while Jai Courtney is a crazy attractive man, even his good looks couldn't save his listless work here.

That said, going to the movies with fun people makes the movie enjoyable, which may be the sign of someone who ultimately loves the movie experience every time even if it doesn't equal a great movie.  What are your thoughts on this subject-do you have movies you enjoy because of the experience surrounding the film even if you don't like the actual movie?  Share in the comments!

OVP: American Hustle (2013)

Film: American Hustle (2013)

Stars: Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Jeremy Renner

Director: David O. Russell

Oscar History: 10 nominations (Best Picture, Director, Actor-Christian Bale, Actress-Amy Adams, Supporting Actor-Bradley Cooper, Supporting Actress-Jennifer Lawrence, Costume, Film Editing, Production Design, Original Screenplay)

(Not So) Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

If you ever met me in real life (or have met me in real life), and were asked to describe me, the word “movies” would come up at least once within the first fifteen seconds.  I’ve actually tested this theory before with friends and family members.  If it’s not the first thing to come out of their mouth, it’s always there without a leading question.

So when the Oscar nominations were announced, like every year, I was asked my thoughts on it, but one question I didn’t exactly expect was, “why is American Hustle nominated?”  This is a film that has solid Oscar pedigree (all five of the leads have been nominated for or won an Oscar before), is from an award-winning director, and generally seems like a populist hit.  And yet people of the water cooler don’t seem to be buying it.  I saw this movie a couple of weeks ago (a few of our film reviews will not be my trademark “snap judgment” in the next week or so and I’ll note them as such), and here were my thoughts.

First of all, can we all just royally embrace the whole “sort of based on true events” before we get into the validity of the actual story?  I find the second that I see “based on a true story” in the opening titles of a movie that I’m instantly turned off-I mean, we already know that this movie will be based in logic and reality, that most of the story is already known to anyone with a newspaper and a Wikipedia binging habit, and therefore the “what will happen next?” element is gone from the film.  While they kept some of the more fact-based aspects of the story intact (such as the end result of multiple members of Congress being arrested), there were clear indulgences meant to make the film more entertaining and loose.

Since the bulk of you are familiar with the ABSCAM scandals, I won’t bore you with specifics on the plot (plus, my guess is most of you have actually already seen this film), but instead I’ll go to my opinion.  What I think most people are seeing as an issue with the film and its enormous ten Oscar nominations is that this film is hardly what one would consider remarkable.  Hustle has its moments (as do all David O. Russell films), but like all of his three recent Oscar hits (The Fighter, SLP, and this movie), it never seems to hit the “great” button very hard.

This is particularly true for this picture, which in my opinion is the weakest of the three.  The film has tonal problems throughout the movie-is it a winking comedy, is it a drama about lost dreams, is it simply a caper film with some random supporting scene-stealers?  No one can tell-the film feels disjointed, which makes the editing Oscar nomination probably the one that gives me the biggest headache.

The film’s acting, however, suffers pretty severely.  With that cast list, you know that it isn’t entirely the fault of the stars (though I’d like some confirmation that Jeremy Renner has remembered how to act after the glut of terrible he has unleashed on us in the last few years since The Town), but they aren’t doing themselves any favors.  Perhaps because they are relying so heavily on their very specifically tailored looks (with ten nominations, how the hell did the Makeup team, the most deserving aspect of the film, not get nominated?!?) the performances occasionally feel lazy.

Bale’s role as a down-on-his-luck conman lacks any sort of verve or spark or passion-it’s not just the character here-he’s a conman, he should be more enjoyable onscreen.  Compare his character and his personality with someone like Leo DiCaprio’s Jordan Belfort for a lesson in on-screen charisma and how important it is for an actor.  This is also true of Adams’ Sydney, though here we occasionally get glimpses behind the woman (like when she tells Cooper’s Richie she isn’t really English).  Adams few moments of intrigue, though, don’t make up for the fact that she’s fine, probably just below fine, and certainly not as good as someone like Adele Exarchopolous or Brie Larson from this past year.

And this is where reviewing a film like American Hustle gets royally tricky, because when you throw the concept of “Best of the Year” into the mix, you end up with a problem.  A film like Slumdog Millionaire or The King’s Speech or American Hustle is perfectly adequate, maybe occasionally good, but when you decide to make it compete for Hollywood’s top honor, you have to grade on a curve and in that case the movie just can’t compete. 

Even the most fascinating actors in the film (Cooper, and in particular Lawrence) both have troubles here.  This is partially because both of them are doing a pretty tight balancing act between scene-stealer and overpowering the entire film.  There is literally nothing you want to stare at more than Lawrence as a “neglected,” bored housewife who can manipulate her husband any way she pleases.  We don’t get any hint as to why these two were together in the first place, why someone so young is with Bale and has an elementary school-age son, or why he’s abandoning her for Adams’ Sydney.  It’s hard to care much when Lawrence is actually onscreen, as she’s pure movie star dynamite in the role (and that’s something to be damn impressed by-aside from Best Makeup, she’d be the only other element of the film I would nominate for an Oscar, and in the end I might decide it deserved to win both), but her character is adrift in Russell’s narrative.

And that’s perhaps the worst part about American Hustle-there are WAY too many plot holes to fill.  Russell is too intent on giving us hair and movie stars and fun to actually string together a cohesive movie with sense and reason.  The movie would be forgiven all of this (movie stars and crazy makeup ARE fun), but then they decided to give it a bunch of shiny statues and we had to take it seriously.  And this movie cannot withstand the pressure.

Ranting On...Mark Herring and Gay Marriage

Attorney General Mark Herring (D-VA)

Mark Herring is not what one would picture as a “hero” of the gay rights movement.  A former Town Attorney of Lovettsville, Virginia (population: 1737), he looks like the sort of man who would be in the front pew at his church every Sunday and would, at best, be a Blue Dog Democrat in the Southern tradition of such gentlemen.

However Herring, who won election to the Attorney General’s office by less than a thousand votes this past November, made huge waves in the GLBT community when one of his first acts as Virginia’s head lawyer was to not defend the Virginia Marriage Amendment (passed in 2006), stating “I believe the freedom to marry is a fundamental right and I intend to ensure that Virginia is on the right side of history and the right side of the law.”  Previously, Democratic Attorneys General Lisa Madigan (IL), Kamala Harris (CA), and Kathleen Kane (PA) have also followed a similar course of action.

While I applaud Mr. Herring’s personal views on this issue, I feel that this may be a dangerous precedent that he and some of the other Democratic Attorneys General are setting.  The job of the Attorney General is to provide legal advice to the governor and government, defend the state in criminal and civil cases, collect money owed to state institutions, and defend the constitutionality of state laws.  The Supreme Court has not made a definitive statement on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans, and neither have any of the courts in Virginia (Mr. Herring isn’t doing this based on a recent court case, similar to what’s going on in Utah and Oklahoma).  There are no federal laws that he can rely upon to back-up his claim.

Instead, the only law on the books in Virginia is the Virginia Marriage Amendment of 2006, which doesn’t allow for gay marriage.  This is a travesty and were Herring the governor or still in the State Senate, and introducing legislation to ban gay marriage in the state or to try and get the ban on a state ballot, I’d be applauding him.  But he’s the Attorney General, and like the Secretary of State, his job is not supposed to be wholly partisan.  It’s fine (and admirable) of him to propose that he doesn’t want to support the law and wishes that the law were different (a course taken by Democratic Attorney General Roy Cooper of North Carolina), but it doesn’t feel appropriate for him to pick and choose the laws he will defend.

For those who are saying “the ends justify the means,” imagine if the shoe were on the other foot.  What if Republican Attorney General John Jay Hoffman of New Jersey decided not to defend his state’s gay marriage law?  Or what about other hot button issues such as women’s reproductive rights, state environmental laws, state gun laws, and laws regarding the death penalty?  The Attorney General’s office may have a partisan bent to it, but that doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate for them to pick-and-choose the laws that they agree with to enforce.  That’s a job for the governor, state legislature, and when applicable, the courts. 

Therefore, while I think the National Organization for Marriage are overreaching in their quest to impeach Herring, I do feel that he has the right idea, wrong action plan with this particular decision.  Hopefully the people of Virginia and their legislative officials will soon overturn this discriminatory ban, giving Mr. Herring a law worth defending.  Until then, though, it is his responsibility to defend the law as it is written.

Everybody's Linking for the Weekend

We haven't done this in a while.  Here's some of the top stories of the past week...

Oscar Winner Goldie Hawn

In Entertainment...

Huffington Post: Easily the best entertainment news of the week, Goldie Hawn has signed with CAA, giving us hope that she's returning to show business.  Hawn hasn't made a film in twelve years (her last was her Golden Globe-nominated work in The Banger Sisters), and I've missed her perfect comic timing and sassy onscreen presence desperately.

Grantland: Mark Harris wrote this week's "must-read" piece-a fascinating look at how the larger Best Picture field has actually limited the number of films that are nominated for the Oscars.  It's truly a remarkable observation-I hadn't noticed before, but if you look at the "Big 8" (producing, acting, writing, and directing) only twelve films take up the forty slots, a mere three of which weren't Best Picture nominees.  That's absurd, and this locks out the truly little films (such as last year's Compliance with Ann Dowd's superb work in a bid for Best Supporting Actress or the excellent Short-Term 12 in a bid to gain a writing citation) that aren't playing in Best Picture but are trying to make a run at it in other categories.

CNN: Harvey Weinstein has vowed to no longer make violent pictures.  This is A) a little bit late to the conversation, Harvey and B) infuriating.  Censorship is almost never the answer, and a better rule would be for Harvey to make it more difficult for theatergoers to let children into R-rated films (such as how it is in Europe) or to make violence have the same sorts of strict criteria that sex have with the MPAA.  But at the end of the day, violent films, television, and video games are not what you should be focusing on in this debate-easy access to guns and violent weapons and lack of proper background checks are where the real issue is.  Not the movies.

The Guardian: Speaking of Harvey, have you heard that Grace of Monaco will once again disappear from the release schedule?  The film, about the late Princess Grace, starring Nicole Kidman, was at one point a threat in the Best Actress race, and had now moved to March (release dates are up-in-the-air right now).  Now the question is simply will anyone ever see it, as the delays sound to be of a pretty tumultuous nature.

In Politics...

Ezra Klein

Slate: The world's most adorable political/economics blogger, Ezra Klein, will be leaving the Washington Post to start a new project.  As someone who reads the Post daily online, this is a big disappointment, as Chris Cillizza is no Ezra Klein, and Klein actually has opinions and insights that you couldn't read on every Politico article.  Hopefully his next project (which is mired in secrecy) will be out soon.

Mediaite: Have you all seen Lawrence O'Donnell's attack ad against Chris Christie?  I am not a Christie fan at all, but I feel like this is a step too far from MSNBC.  There's being partisan, and then there's going to a place you can't come back from-is there where we're at now with the news?  Is this where we want to be with the news?  My guess is no one wants their newsmen out there writing political ads against sitting members of the government.

Just One More...

CNN: I don't have a lot to say on Justin Bieber (I'm really too old for either, but since I don't like to tie myself down with age-specific stereotyping, I'm a proud Directioner and not at all a "Belieber").  However, I do want to say that A) someone needs to get involved in this young man's life and fast before we run into another Amy Winehouse style situation and B) what's with the smiling in the mugshot?  I get that his publicist probably said right beforehand that he should smile because it will play well in the media (still one of the smartest decisions Tom DeLay ever made), but this was a bit much, and made him look...odd.  Perhaps skip the teeth next time Justin?

What Happened With Oscar?

I'm aware that it's been, what, five days, and suddenly the entire world has moved beyond the surprises and the snubs and everyone suddenly predicted The Grandmaster for Best Costume Design and Christian Bale for Best Actor.  However, I thought it would be worth looking a little bit more into five of the biggest snubs of this year's Oscars and trying to figure out, mathematically, which was the biggest head-scratcher.  Here's my homework:

What Happened with...Tom Hanks?
Precursors: BFCA Awards, SAG Awards, Golden Globes, BAFTA
Oscar History: During the 1990's, he could do no wrong at the Oscars.  Hanks won back-to-back trophies in 1993 and 1994, and was nominated for Big (1988), Saving Private Ryan (1998), and Cast Away (2000).  He's also on the AMPAS Board of Governors.
Why This Makes No Sense: Well it's certainly not the precursors-Hanks is the first person EVER to miss at the Oscars in Best Actor after getting nominated for all four of the previous televised awards shows.  It's also not due to Hanks over-performing historically with these awards bodies: he has always turned a BAFTA citation into an Oscar nod (ditto the SAG Award) and while he's made it with HFPA without making it with Oscar, it's never been for a drama.
Why This Makes Sense: Hanks has a history of watching his films get Best Picture nominations while he misses for acting.  Apollo 13, The Green Mile, and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close all three landed Best Picture nominations without Hanks scoring for acting, and Catch Me If You Can and Road to Perdition both scored multiple Oscar nominations without Hanks making it.  Perhaps the clincher here is that all five of these films, plus Captain Phillips have something else in common: a Best Supporting Actor nomination.  It's not a perfect theory (damn you Gary Sinise!), but the odds seem to oddly be against Hanks if one of his costars is getting nominated.  Perhaps he's too generous on the campaign trail?

What Happened with...Emma Thompson?
Precursors: BFCA, SAG, Golden Globes and BAFTA
Oscar History: Over the course of four years, Thompson managed to win two Oscars and gain five nominations, one of the most impressive counts during the 1990's.
Why This Makes No Sense: Unlike Best Actor, it's not unprecedented (Marion Cotillard, Tilda Swinton, and if we discount BFCA since it wasn't doing nominations, Jane Horrocks all have had a miss after hitting every major precursor), but it's still extremely rare-only the fourth time it's happened in twenty years.  Thompson oddly doesn't over-perform at the BAFTA Awards relative to the Oscars (only one other film prior to Saving Mr. Banks didn't get her to Oscar), so it's not that.
Why This Makes Sense: This makes sense when you view it through the lens of Amy Adams and Meryl Streep and two odd facts about them.

First Adams-it is extremely rare for Oscar to nominate a film with a female star for Best Picture and not nominate the film for Best Actress.  While there have been a few films with multiple female leads and only one got in (The Kids Are All Right, The Help, The Hours), there are only four films that I can find in the past twenty years that scored with Best Picture but not Best Actress (Cate Blanchett and Benjamin Button, Keira Knightley and Atonement, Toni Collette and Little Miss Sunshine, and Andie MacDowell and Four Weddings).  Conversely, there were thirty films that pulled off both.  Adams was going with 88% odds, not a bad place to be for someone the Academy has already nominated as many times for acting as Thompson.

Secondly, we have Meryl.  Everyone knows that Meryl has seventeen Oscar nominations (...now 18), but one of the more underreported aspects of Meryl's career is that it has very few coattails that don't benefit her first.  Looking just at films where Meryl was the lead actor (like August Osage County), only one film she's ever made has received an acting nomination without her being nominated: The Hours.  And Meryl received an Oscar nomination that year for Adaptation, which everyone knew she would be scoring, putting less pressure on the Academy to cast off Salma Hayek.  That wasn't the case this year with Meryl only having one film to carry her, and with Julia Roberts looking strong in the supporting category.  A near perfect track record for Streep wasn't something Thompson was going to be able to top.

Add onto this that Dench and Bullock were also in Best Picture nominees, and no one would quibble that Thompson was more likely than Blanchett, and you have your explanation.

What Happened with...Oprah Winfrey?
Precursors: BAFTA, BFCA, and SAG Awards
Oscar History: Winfrey received an Oscar nomination for her first film role in The Color Purple, and is a recent recipient of the Jean Hersholt Award.
Why This Makes No Sense: Multiple reasons-this one for some reason seems the oddest to me.  Winfrey is a huge celebrity, scoring a major comeback in a critical (and perhaps more crucial) commercial hit, and had Harvey Weinstein plugging her.  It'd be one thing if she wasn't any good in the film, but she's even that-she acts circles around June Squibb and I'd put her above Julia or Sally.  So why, Academy, why?

It isn't the lack of the Globe nomination, oddly enough.  In fact, in the past ten years, the actress who missed at the Globes but made it with the SAG Awards got Oscar-nominated 60% of the time (the reverse is only 40%, and that's including Hawkins).

Why This Makes Sense: About the only explanation I can think of is The Butler missing in all other fields, while Blue Jasmine, August Osage County, Nebraska, American Hustle, and 12 Years a Slave all came with not only more nominations, but also acting nominations.  In the past twenty years, 70% of the nominees for Best Supporting Actress also came with another nominated actor.  I think that's probably the best explanation here-Cate Blanchett's coattails carried Sally Hawkins across the finish line.  If Forest Whitaker had only been stronger, Oprah would have made it.

What Happened with...Paul Greengrass?
Precursors: DGA, BAFTA, BFCA, and HFPA, plus a Best Picture nomination
Oscar History: Greengrass was the odd-man-in, the role now taken by, let's say Marty Scorsese, for United 93.
Why This Makes No Sense: That's a LOAD of precursors to miss on.  Plus, people who traditionally miss with AMPAS and score with the DGA Awards do it multiple times (Christopher Nolan, Cameron Crowe, Rob Reiner) and never score in this category, which Greengrass already has done.
Why This Makes Sense: This is the first one that I have to become objective on-there's no mathematical evidence for Greengrass missing with this many precursors without going to subject matter analysis.  It's not to say this doesn't happen (Ben Affleck and Kathryn Bigelow both did it last year), but quite frequently, the more standardized films frequently get ousted for edgier fare: Haneke over Affleck in 2012, Greengrass over Bill Condon in 2006, Mike Leigh over Marc Forster in 2004, and Fernando Meirelles over Gary Ross in 2003.  While few would argue that Scorsese isn't establishment, his film is far edgier and more catered to this branch than Captain Phillips.

What Happened with...Hans Zimmer?
Precursors: HFPA, BFCA, and BAFTA nominations
Oscar History: Zimmer won an Oscar for The Lion King and has ten nominations for scoring.
Why This Makes No Sense: Zimmer is one of the biggest names in music in one of the most clique-oriented branches of the Academy (witness Alexandre Desplat making it when few thought he would).  And he got snubbed for Arcade Fire-first time nominees in a rock band...that may fly with the Globes, but the Oscars?  Doubtful.
Why This Makes Sense: Unlike, say, John Williams, Zimmer goes in spurts with the Academy.  Zimmer has missed on two Best Picture nominees (Driving Miss Daisy and Frost/Nixon), something unfathomable for several composers.  Sometimes the Academy runs cold with him-considering he also had a shot with Rush, his prolific nature may have cost him as well.

Anyway, those are some of my theories-what are yours?  How do you think these five missed with Oscar?  And which is the biggest surprise?

John's Top 10 Movies of 2013

Oscar's done it.  The Globes have done it.  It's about damn time I give it a shot.  While I'm still working on the order, below you will find my Top 10 films of 2014 (for now, alphabetically).

12 Years a Slave (dir: Steve McQueen)

A brutal portrayal of the most shameful chapter in our nation's history.  Gripping, raw, and unrelenting, with solid work by all involved, and particularly Michael Fassbender in a brilliant portrayal of evil that never veers into the cartoonish.

Before Midnight (dir. Richard Linklater)
The (final?) chapter in the Celine and Jesse saga does the pair justice-after the lovelorn look at their twenties and the increasing desperation of their thirties, they find themselves in the crossroads of their forties.  Linklater doesn't spare the audience the bitterness that can ensue from broken dreams and untold truths.

The Bling Ring (dir. Sofia Coppola)
Every year there's a film that for some reason is tossed aside by critics and audiences that a chosen few find worthy of picking back up-this is it for me.  Coppola's film at once finds the beauty and ugliness of celebrity, and gives us a fascinating look at what the surface-level antics of Gen Y can yield when you mix in crime.

Blue is the Warmest Color (dir. Abdellatif Kechiche)
Yes-two attractive French women simulate sex for ten minutes or so.  But you know what's in the other 170 minutes of this film?  A complex array of coming-of-age, love, and romance, along with a star-making role from Adele Exarchopoulos, whose naturalism is something you have to see to believe.

Gravity (dir. Alfonso Cuaron)
A visual wonder.  Cuaron waited seven years to follow-up his pitch perfect Children of Men, and few would argue with the results-a triumphant look into the struggles of one woman's humanity (a blessedly cast Sandra Bullock) and one director's terrifying imagination.

Her (dir. Spike Jonze)
Just when I think that there's nothing new I can learn about love from the movies, someone like Spike Jonze comes along and knocks me off my feet.  A heartfelt look into how one man's loneliness can be melted away by a pure, effervescent force of curiosity and appreciation for the world around him.  Both Phoenix and Johansson sing in their scenes together.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (dir. Peter Jackson)
To quote someone, "haters are gonna hate," and some critics I read online cannot grasp the idea that Peter Jackson can still find magic in the realms of Middle Earth.  And yet that's what he does in his latest installment in the series, improving on his previous chapter and giving us a dragon to tremble before.

Inside Llewyn Davis (dir. Joel and Ethan Coen)
For some reason excitement for this film subsided as the year went on (the Coens missed in all major categories at the Oscars), but led by a great turn from Oscar Isaac, we get to see one quick snapshot into a man's evolution.  And we also get to hear some of the most beautiful music I've seen onscreen since Once.

Short-Term 12 (dir. Destin Cretton)
Youth is such a fleeting thing, and leaves such an imprint on the rest of your life, and yet it frequently falls into cliches when caught on the big-screen.  Not so Cretton's warm, real Short-Term, which gives a series of fully-felt people, with Brie Larson and John Gallagher, Jr. at the lead, and what it takes to keep living when the walls start closing in on your spirit.

To the Wonder (dir. Terrence Malick)
A forgotten piece of Malick's filmography?  There's no such thing, certainly not with a film that attempts to uncover the complicated tethers that come with romantic love.  With sparing dialogue, Malick's film washes over you, never leaving you with a clear picture of message, but always with transcendence that allows you to find it.

Those are my Top 10-share yours in the comments!

Ranting On...Being Sick

It Sucks.  The End.

Sorry for the lack of posts this week-I will try this weekend when my head doesn't feel like it's both turned into and been hit by a bowling ball.

25 Thoughts I Had About the Oscar Nominations

Chris Hemsworth & Cheryl Boone Isaacs

So, it’s the day after Oscar nomination day, and I have gone through a few different iterations of what I want to post.  I will be covering all of these more in-depth when I have more access to the thirteen unseen films for the OVP (the vast majority of which are foreign or animated).  Instead, I’ll go with 25 random thoughts I had while perusing today’s nominees, in no particular order (except they’re kind of in order).

1. I promise that this won’t be a full American Hustle bashing session, but how did Bale get in-the other three I can see based on competition, precursors, and performance-but Bale over Tom Hanks?!?  Are you serious here?  I’m not even going to complain about how someone like Joaquin Phoenix or Oscar Isaac or Michael B. Jordan or Ethan Hawke (all significantly better than Bale) should have made it, but Hanks is Oscar-beloved.  Two-time winner.  Staging a major comeback.  In a Best Picture nominee.  Come on Academy-you can do better than this.

2. Robert Redford is probably the snubbed actor who cares the least that he was snubbed.  I have a feeling that Redford’s Oscars are in an attic somewhere.

3. I should have made the jump and predicted Emma to lose-it seemed so obvious in hindsight (the film was losing steam, she hasn’t been an awards presence in years), but I just couldn’t see beyond the Julie vs. Julia narrative.  Anyone think Adams might be able to win?

4. How much better is Michael Fassbender than all of his other nominees?  It’s not even close, and yet he’s probably in third place to Leto (who else is dreading this season’s series of random nonsense speeches) and Cooper (Hustle mania!)

5. I totally predicted all five of the Best Supporting Actors right.  I knew it would be Hill.

6. Two-time Oscar nominee Jonah Hill

7. The real sad thing about Oprah missing is that of the “six” potential nominees, I’d put her in third.  They should have cut Roberts, who is the worst case of category fraud since Casey Affleck.  And how is it that Sarah Paulson, Octavia Spencer, Melissa Leo, and Emma Watson somehow managed to miss all of the major precursor awards in this ridiculously rich year for Supporting Actresses?

8. I wish I could have seen The Wind Rises and Ernest and Celestine before this morning’s nominations.

9. Note to all striving cinematographers: shoot your film in black-and-white.  You’ll get an Oscar nomination.  Even if the film's look is hopelessly generic.

10. I cannot get a grasp over whether Patricia Norris can finally break her streak here-both Catherine Martin and Michael Wilkinson have a shot to upset her and send her into the all-time losers book.

11. It says something about how much I hate Nebraska that David O. Russell will not get last place in the OVP.

12. Stories We Tell I understand missing (it’s so unconventional), but how did the socially relevant Blackfish get trounced for Dirty Wars, possibly the least publicized Documentary on the shortlist, and one that I’ve heard is severely underwhelming (Addendum: I haven’t seen it).

13. Don’t you hate when people complain about a film getting nominated and they haven’t seen it?

14. I wouldn’t have nominated Wolf of Wall Street for Best Editing (…probably), but Thelma deserved it more than Dallas Buyers Club.

15. First Time Nominee Cambodia!!!  I love when a country gets its first nomination.

16. I am done with the Makeup branch-seriously.  Perhaps the only category I was rooting for American Hustle in outside of Lawrence, and they skip it.

17. Some may complain about how Thomas Newman, John Williams, and Alexandre Desplat got yet another Oscar nomination, but Arcade Fire beat out Hans Zimmer (who was doing a Best Picture nominee, no less)-they were thinking ever so slightly outside the box.  Also: Oscar Nominee Saving Mr. Banks (barely).

18. Alone Yet Not Alone gets the title for film I’ve never heard of that somehow got nominated for an Oscar.  And looking at the trailer, it also gets the title of "OVP movie I'm least looking forward to seeing," and that's in a year that Bad Grandpa is nominated.

19. Spike Jonze got three Oscar nominations-anyone else notice that yet?

20. Somewhere Harvey Weinstein is looking into a magic mirror, saying who is the most Oscar-nominated of them all, and seeing Megan Ellison pop up in the reflection.

21. The Hobbit had the best Art Direction of the year.  I don’t care that they’ve gone there before.  I don’t care at all-it’s still the best, and possibly the best of the series since Fellowship.

22. So The Hobbit misses in Best Art Direction and Best Makeup, but somehow lands a nomination in both Sound categories?  Huh?

23. How is it that there’s always one film that splits the Sound categories, and the other four go to the same films…and how was Rush not nominated?  For anything?

24. The Lone Ranger takes out Pacific Rim in Visual Effects, proving that no one knows anything…and attending the Visual Effects bakeoff would really help my Oscar predicting.

25. Dallas Buyers Club beating Inside Llewyn Davis for the final slot in Best Original Screenplay makes me want to cry.

And those are the first 25 thoughts I have looking at the nominees from this year’s Oscars!