Ranting On...Ronan Farrow

Ronan Farrow

Ronan Farrow's recent interview in The Guardian is one of the more interesting things I've been able to read in recent weeks, and honestly it took me a bit after reading it to understand why.  Farrow is having a moment right now, coming off of a Pulitzer Prize win for his work in The New Yorker looking into the allegations of Harvey Weinstein, and more recently for his piece on former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.  Exceedingly polished in interviews, poised and almost constantly unflappable and witty, Farrow has become a poster boy for progressive millennials.  With the face of a movie star (though exactly which movie stars, it's still a question mark), and an impossibly pedigreed Ivy League education, Farrow is smart, capable, and consistently comes across as a crusader for those exploited by men in positions of power.  But the Guardian piece points to a problem in Farrow's journalism, one that no one seems to want to talk about because of the good that it's doing, but is there just the same.

Farrow's fame, while obviously blossoming from his journalism and career at MSNBC, admittedly still resides from who his parents are: film legends Woody Allen and Mia Farrow.  The only biological child from the couple's long romantic relationship, Farrow's celebrity was likely cemented the second the couple split up in one of Hollywood's biggest scandals from the past thirty years.  Allen had been involved with Farrow's daughter Soon-Yi Previn, and while Allen & Farrow were not married at the time (and Previn/Allen were not biologically or legally related), pretty much everyone involved (including yours truly), thinks it was a disgusting move.  The facts of this have never been denied-Allen & Previn clearly had a romantic relationship that eventually turned into a marriage in 1997.  This is not, for the most part, the scandal that the #MeToo movement focuses on when it comes to discussing Woody Allen, though.  That is the allegations made by Mia's daughter Dylan, that Allen molested her when she was 7-years-old.

I'm not a judge, jury, or legal expert here, and I'm also smart enough not to re-litigate this case, mostly because it's near impossible to do so on the internet anymore without it erupting in a screaming match.  I attempted to find genuine facts on the case by only sticking to news sources that I trust, and in perhaps the first time this has happened to me in researching an article, I ran into a "fake news" situation.  Literally conflicting, recent reports from Vox and Vanity Fair (both news sources I trust) make it difficult to point out the facts in this case.  Based on the evidence, one of the few things that can be confirmed from the case is that Allen lost custody of his children as a result of the allegations, and that no criminal charges were ultimately filed against Allen.  However, it's worth noting this is one of the few cases where the courts actually saw the situation in real-time.  Most of the allegations against other people (such as Bill Cosby), the statute of limitations had expired at the time of the case so the court of public opinion was the only option available to consumers of his work.

As I said, I don't want to necessarily discuss opinions on Woody Allen or Mia Farrow here.  Honestly, the evidence and messages surrounding the case are horrifying.  Either Dylan Farrow's stories are true, in which case Woody Allen should have gone to jail, or they weren't, and Mia Farrow coached her daughter to destroy her ex-lover's reputation.  Either way, Dylan Farrow is a victim in this situation and deserves our sympathy.  But what is true is that Ronan Farrow cannot be considered an objective reporter in this case.  Covering a father he clearly despises (with admittedly good reason), it frequently feels like he's trying to vindicate his mother through his reporting, oftentimes lumping Allen with Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby.  This isn't entirely accurate, though.  Allen's sole allegation of abuse actually saw the light-of-day in court, and charges were never filed despite there being ample opportunity to do so.  In many ways, it's difficult to imagine Farrow including Allen in his typical name check of sexual abusers in Hollywood without him, in fact, being his father.  As a result, it does create a bit of a gap in his credibility which is unfortunate, because he's doing such important work here.

It also makes me raise an eyebrow when a journalist actually calls him out on this, because in many ways Farrow's been having his cake and eating it too when it comes to including his father in the #MeToo movement.  He says that he hasn't called for a boycott of his father's films, which may be the case, but he has publicly criticized people celebrating his father's work, and members of his family have called for a public boycott of Allen's work, something he doesn't repudiate.  It feels to me that a journalist of his integrity should probably say that he can't be objective in this case considering his relationships with all of the figures involved, but Farrow doesn't feel capable of doing so.  In not acknowledging his clear bias, Farrow risks the larger merits of his work being sullied.  Woody Allen's day in the court of public opinion may well be deserved (and in many ways, has already been dealt), but Ronan Farrow is an inappropriate choice for its byline.

12 Best Actors Without an Oscar Nomination

Okay, here we go!  This isn't going to mean much to you, probably, since it's just another article, but this is the first day of NaNoWriMo for me!  Right now I am probably, frantically, wondering how on earth I am going to write 50,000 words in a month, and fretting about my writerly process, or perhaps (I can occasionally be an optimist) I'm knee-deep in my book, writing to my heart's content because I've spent the past month heartily preparing and am ready for this adventure (I'm writing this on October 7th, so who knows what's happened in the world in the past few weeks).

As a result of this being NaNoWriMo, you're going to be noticing some things might be a little unusual on the blog, namely that I'm not going to be reacting to the events of the day as often as I usually do, and the focus is going to be more on timeless issues (like movies, reviews, OVP, and history) than the events of the day.  Hopefully you don't mind, as this is me trying to do something new and exciting in my life, while also maintaining TMROJ to the best of my abilities.  If there's something truly groundbreaking in the news (something I feel I would be remiss to comment on like a major political/entertainment announcement or where I need to write an obituary), I might come back from my sabbatical early, but otherwise the only current event I'm allowing myself time to discuss on the blog is the election (you'll get a recap of what happened in Virginia, New Jersey, and across the country).  Otherwise, all of these articles will have been written in advance for the next thirty days.

One of the fun things about doing this is that I get to create a lot of lists, as those are the easiest to package in advance, and we're going to start out with a doozy, one that I've been sitting on for a while-the actors that I most think deserve an Academy Award nomination, but for some reason never received one.  This is, bizarrely, a list I've never actually put together on this blog before despite my obsession with the Oscars, and I can't exactly explain why (I've done write-ups about people most "owed" an Oscar, but never my personal tastes).  Perhaps it's because, as I've documented in the past, I don't think there's a lot of actors who really cry out in a major way "why haven't they ever been nominated?!?"  I'm sure there are performers who are giving me side eye right now (if somehow one of them came across this blog), but while it's easy to list actors who have never won an Oscar who should deserved one, most of the major, critically-acclaimed actors at some point in their careers have won at least a nomination.  Even actors who are principally known for commercial work like Doris Day and Harrison Ford wound up in Oscar's good graces during their careers.

It's also because most long lists of actor's who deserved an Oscar nomination in the past end up being written as if there are an unlimited number of nominations in a year-there aren't.  Yes, it's very, very easy to come up with occasional nominations that were undeserved, but those aren't always in the right year to warrant a nomination.  If you're going to call someone out as a "snub," you need to also be willing to get rid of some of the nominees that made it instead, and most writers won't do that.  Frequently on lists like this I see a name like John Cusack, a major movie star who probably, collectively, deserved a nomination at some point, but for what, exactly?  Was John Cusack ever actually one of the five best nominees in a year?  The people below I include because I think they had careers that were/are huge in the motion pictures AND because they have given at least one performance that I'd argue was one of the five best of that year (if not higher), that they would have displaced one of the nominees in my book.  It's genuinely hard for me to find people who fit both of those criteria, but the below twelve are the actors who most make my blood boil when I think about them not having been cited at some point in their careers.  Without further adieu...

12. Jeanne Moreau

Why She Was Never Nominated: With this sole exception, I largely stuck to actors who worked primarily in English-language films, as those are overwhelmingly the ones favored by Oscar.  This list could entirely have been made up just of brilliant actors who didn't work in English-language films that have been amongst the year's bests in the past (Lu Chen, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Toshiro Mifune...).  But considering that Isabelle Huppert finally broke the mold this past year, it seems a shame that Jeanne Moreau, the great French actress, never joined those who had similar crossover appeal and insane talent (Huppert, Catherine Deneuve, Juliette Binoche, Marion Cotillard, Anouk Aimee, Isabelle Adjani) in winning just one dance with Oscar.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Moreau won the BAFTA Award for Viva Villa!, and was nominated for Jules and Jim.  She also took Best Actress at Cannes for Seven Days...Seven Nights, and grabbed the Cesar for The Old Lady Who Walked in the Sea.
When She Should Have Been Nominated: I certainly would buy an argument for La Notte or Bay of Angels, but honestly-how did she not make it for Jules and Jim?  I get that 1962 was a tough year for Best Actress, but I'd probably be willing to displace pretty much anyone for what Moreau accomplishes as Catherine, a careless, cruel, intensely beautiful and magnetic presence in Francois Truffaut's greatest masterpiece (and one of my personal favorite pictures).
Chances in the Future: Moreau died earlier this year, meaning that we'll never get to hear her name while an envelope is announced (and somehow she never took the Governor's Award).

11. Ann Miller

Why She Was Never Nominated: Ann Miller's career has always perplexed me.  Despite talent, beauty, and tap dancing skills that were pretty much unrivaled in Hollywood, she was never really a leading lady.  In fact, I couldn't find a single movie that she was ever the headliner of, which is strange because she wasn't your typical "character actress."  This is perhaps why she was never cited-she didn't play the doting mother or wife in a drama all that often (denying her the ability to be someone like Thelma Ritter or Claire Trevor), instead providing the comic relief in musicals and insane dancing ability.  Perhaps her career was too comical, and she was too shapely, to be taken seriously?
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Other than a spot on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, Miller's only reward was a long tenure in Hollywood.
When She Should Have Been Nominated: Some may go with Miller's most serious role, and the one that she is most well-known for to modern audiences as Coco in Mulholland Drive (she, is, indeed a strange link to the failed dreams of Hollywood in that film), but I'd go with something flat-out marvelous like her work in Kiss Me Kate.  Miller steals the entire movie away from Kathryn Grayson, and is, well, spectacular.
Chances in the Future: Miller passed away in 2004, so we'll never have the opportunity.  Perhaps the best reward is that she is still seen regularly on Turner Classic Movies nearly every month, something some of her leading lady costars can't even claim.  #Revenge?

10. Jim Carrey

Why He Was Never Nominated: Carrey is that classic conundrum of the comedian who has talent, and yet can't make it work with Oscar.  Similarly to others like Danny Kaye or Bob Hope, Carrey went from being a comedic leading man to showing that he had real ability in the late 1990's and early 2000's, but Oscar never seemed interested.  As a result, he's actually the most Golden Globe-nominated film actor EVER to never land an Oscar nomination.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Carrey has been cited for six Golden Globes, winning two back-to-back trophies (he made the wisecrack that he was now "the Tom Hanks of the Golden Globes,"), as well as a BAFTA nomination and a Grammy nomination.  Plus, he had one of the best "Loser Moments" ever when he showed up at the 1998 Oscars after just missing.
When He Should Have Been Nominated: Carrey deserved two nominations (I've never seen Man on the Moon, so quite frankly he might be the most overdue actor, period, if you look at just actual nominations and their collective careers): The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  1998 was admittedly a very good year, and someone worthy was bound to miss, but 2004 wasn't, and there's really no excuse for his losing as Joel Barish-he should have won the damn thing.
Chances in the Future: Probably not.  Carrey isn't an actor that does this sort of work anymore-quite frankly.  He kind of stopped working in major movies after he bad-mouthed Kick-Ass 2 publicly (he did have a hit the following year, but that was already in the can at that point, and was a sequel to one of his biggest pictures).  His interviews have grown increasingly erratic in recent years, as has his off-screen behavior, and at this point even an Honorary Oscar would be a surprise.

9. Meg Ryan

Why She Was Never Nominated: Ryan never had quite the luck that her fellow 90's "America's Sweethearts" did with Oscar (Julia Roberts & Sandra Bullock both of course have their own statues). This is a pity as Ryan is a superb actress and arguably starred in the best actual films during her heyday as a Rom-Com queen.  That said, she couldn't land it for her dramatic turn in Courage Under Fire, and her career got destroyed after she was caught cheating on Dennis Quaid with Russell Crowe (sexism of course rears its ugly head here, as Crowe went on to become a major movie star and an Oscar-winner in the wake of such publicity).  Since then, she's never really landed a major role and has largely disappeared from Hollywood, particularly after The Women was universally-panned (though it did better than you remember at the Box Office).
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Ryan picked up a trio of Golden Globe nominations for her rom-com triumvirate When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless in Seattle, and You've Got Mail.
When She Should Have Been Nominated: The critic in me wants to say When Harry Met Sally, perhaps her breeziest performance, but the ardent fan in me will stick to one of my all-time favorite movies Sleepless in Seattle.  Her Annie is wonderfully-felt, charming, lived-in, lonely, heartbreaking, relatable, and layered-it's one of my favorite romantic performances, and I literally watch it every year at Christmas.  That she couldn't make it for either is a crime.
Chances in the Future: Doubtful-she's not famous enough anymore to get an Honorary Oscar, and she hardly works at all.  She seems to want to move into direction-maybe she'll have a knack for that?  It is how Clint Eastwood, Kevin Costner, and Mel Gibson finally started getting nominated after being skipped over for commercial acting fare.

8. Joseph Cotten

Why He Was Never Nominated: Cotten was that leading man who never really caught on as an icon, despite starring in some of the biggest films of all-time, and being a favorite of two of Hollywood's best directors (Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock).  This wasn't for a lack of talent, though, as Cotten always delivered with his characters, bringing forward complicated men who blurred the line between righteous & sinister.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Like Ann Miller, he got a spot on the Walk of Fame, but really that was it for this leading man, whose greatest trophy might be the place that Citizen Kane ended up taking in the history of the movies (not many people get to have second billing on the "greatest film of all-time").
When He Should Have Been Nominated: Citizen Kane is a perfect movie, truly one of the cinema's greatest, but Cotten's performance there isn't why he should have been nominated.  Instead, he should have been cited for his work in The Third Man, an achievement also over-shadowed by Welles (who should have made Supporting Actor that year), but Cotten himself is marvelous as the complicated, slow-march-into-hell man at the center of Harry Lime's plot.
Chances in the Future: Cotten passed away in 1994, leaving behind a laundry list of great film credits but no Oscar.

7. Oscar Isaac

Why He Was Never Nominated: His performances have so far been the right kind, wrong picture.  Isaac is emerging onto the stage of superstardom with the Star Wars franchise giving him the kind of exposure that turned Harrison Ford from a player in low-budget movies decades ago into an action superstar.  Isaac, though, seems to care a lot more about arthouse fare than Ford ever appeared to, starring in complicated movies like Inside Llewyn Davis, A Most Violent Year, and Ex Machina.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Picked up a Golden Globe for Show Me a Hero, as well as a second nomination for Llewyn Davis.  He's also won the position as my future husband, truly the greatest prize of all.
When He Should Have Been Nominated: I genuinely would have nominated him for all three of those performances.  Honestly-Isaac is such a good and exciting actor it's staggering to me he hasn't gotten more traction yet; the only reason he's not higher on this list is that he's so new to the public consciousness & that I'm sure he'll make it eventually, so I'm less perturbed than I am for the next six.  I think his best performance may well have been Ex Machina, a movie that seems destined to gain stature as the years go by, it's like a cross between Elon Musk and John Huston in Chinatown.
Chances in the Future: Solid.  Isaac is too good of an actor and working too often to stay off of Oscar's shortlist for a long.  The better question is, though, whether he is cited for work as good as what he's done before now (ala Michael Fassbender) or is eventually cited for a performance that's not nearly as fascinating (ala Andrew Garfield).

6. Peter Lorre

Why He Was Never Nominated: Lorre's that strange supporting player who never really took off in the supporting categories.  His best shot may have arguably been for his work with Humphrey Bogart in classics like The Maltese Falcon, but for some reason noir was very hit-or-miss when it came to actual acting nominations (Bogart himself was never even nominated for his work in one of these films), and his star in the 1930's wasn't strong enough to grab the Academy's attention during its formative years.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Aside from his Walk of Fame star (a gimme for major actors of his generation), Lorre's only other public honor was being nominated for the Golden Lion at Venice, but this was a director, not an actor.
When He Should Have Been Nominated: I would have cited Lorre for The Maltese Falcon, as his work as Joel Cairo was spectacular, and considering the film's Best Picture nomination, he should have joined costar Sydney Greenstreet as a nominee.  But Lorre's best performance was one of his first, as a child killer in M, a seismic achievement in acting and one of the most powerful performances of the 1930's.
Chances in the Future: Lorre died in 1964, leaving behind several film classics, the largest of being his small role as Ugarte in Casablanca.

5. Scarlett Johansson

Why She Was Never Nominated: Some of the actors on this list I'm postulating as to why they were never nominated, and would invite those who are more associated with these actors' past Oscar campaigns to weigh in, but here's a case where I'm old enough to remember why Johansson missed, and it was greed.  In 2003, ScarJo had two major roles competing for Best Actress (Girl with a Pearl Earring and Lost in Translation), and while it seemed probable that the surging LiT was the better shot at a nomination, the studios didn't want to get into each other's way and so they commit massive category fraud moving her to supporting in LiT, likely killing her traction in the race and leaving room for surprise nominees Samantha Morton and Keisha Castle-Hughes instead.  Had they just stuck with a lead campaign, I think her work for Sofia Coppola probably would have snuck her in in one of the most bizarre Best Actress fields I remember seeing.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Johansson has yet to score with Oscar, but she's a favorite of the HFPA, boasting four nominations at the Golden Globes.
When She Should Have Been Nominated: Her work in Lost in Translation remains, in my opinion, her best, and better than most of the nominees that year (and I'd even argue, the winner).  I also would have cited her for Under the Skin, a film that was never going to catch on with Oscar but was proof that a decade of lounging in bad rom-com's and action flicks didn't dim her star when it came to acting talent.
Chances in the Future: If she's going to get it, it's going to have to be soon.  She's a major star, obviously, but she's 33 now and while that's not an acting death knell for Oscar, it is a time when you need to start making your move on a trophy.  I still think she makes it at some point though-she feels too famous not to land at least once.

4. Myrna Loy

Why She Was Never Nominated: Loy's best performances were always light comedy, and she made them look incredibly easy.  While the early Academy wasn't nearly as allergic to comedy as later generations of voters, they still had a propensity to favor melodrama, which wasn't Loy's strong suit (even her best dramatic performance, in The Best Years of Our Lives, is arguably the 4th or 5th best performance in that movie).  Even so, it's a pity that one of the finest performers of the 1930's never joined women like Carole Lombard or Jean Arthur with at least one nomination.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Loy actually does have an Oscar even if she never won a nomination, due to an Honorary trophy she won at the 63rd Academy Awards.  Her victory was actually a result over an uproar when Sophia Loren, who already had a trophy, picked up a statue despite numerous longtime performers like Myrna Loy who had never won an Oscar.  The Academy agreed with those complaining and gave them both statues.
When She Should Have Been Nominated: It seems truly bizarre to me, even in a year where Best Actress was pretty competitive (just ask Bette Davis!) that Loy couldn't get in for her pitch-perfect work in The Thin Man while her leading man William Powell was included.  This would have been the perfect moment to cite her gifts.
Chances in the Future: Thankfully Loy won as a result of that petition, as she would die just two years later.

3. Edward G. Robinson

Why He Was Never Nominated: For the most part, Robinson's career as a leading man wasn't in the sorts of films that won Oscars, but instead just made oodles of money.  Though longtime player as a tough-guy gangster in pictures like Little Caesar and Kid Galahad, he was apparently a kind and sensitive man off-screen (who fell victim to the McCarthy-era political climate when he was forced to name names before HUAC), his tough guy exterior and the public demand for it meant that he only occasionally did the sort of movies that AMPAS loves, even though he was always a deeply-talented actor.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Robinson won an Honorary Oscar in 1973 for his lifetime of movie-making, as well as the SAG Life Achievement Award in 1970.  He also won the Best Actor prize from both the National Board of Review (for Tales of Manhattan) and the Cannes Best Actor prize (for House of Strangers).
When She Should Have Been Nominated: Robinson not being nominated for his spectacular work in Double Indemnity is, in my opinion, one of the biggest snubs in Supporting Actor Oscar history.  It would have been such a fine time to honor a man who had made most of Hollywood rich, and it's easily his best performance.  A crime.
Chances in the Future: Robinson sadly died in 1973, two months before he was able to win his Academy Award.

2. Mia Farrow

Why She Was Never Nominated: Mia Farrow's lack of a nomination is more perplexing than literally any other person on this list.  It's hard to understand right now (Farrow has become synonymous with her ex-partner Woody Allen and their decades-long public feud more than her actual career as a performer at this point), but Farrow was a major star in Hollywood for decades, and starred in a number of classic pictures.  Plus, Allen has a gift for getting actresses nominated for an Oscar like few others, and Farrow has starred in more of Woody's movies than literally any other actor (and she was the lead in most of them).  All-in-all, I have no explanation other than bad luck.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Farrow won the Golden Globe for Best Newcomer in 1965, and during her career would win 9 nominations from the HFPA, five of which were for individual film performances.  She was also nominated for the BAFTA three times.
When She Should Have Been Nominated: This is where I have to admit that I'm not as familiar with Allen's filmography during the Mia Years as I am pre and post that time period (it's an issue I'm hoping to rectify), though I've heard The Purple Rose of Cairo and Broadway Danny Rose are the standouts.  What I CAN vouch for is that Farrow surely deserved a nomination for her brilliant work in Rosemary's Baby, which even in the standout 1968 lineup deserved mention.
Chances in the Future: Doubtful.  Farrow would make a worthy recipient of the Honorary Oscar or the Jean Hersholt, but Hollywood seems to want to forget the entire Woody/Mia feud, and unlike Woody, Mia would probably show up to grab her Oscar and remind them of it.

1. Rita Hayworth

Why She Was Never Nominated: How do you pick the most Oscar-worthy actor ever who's never won a nomination?  Simple-you pick a woman who deserved two trophies and yet wasn't nominated for any.  Hayworth was insanely beautiful and took on glam-doll roles, but Oscar has proven in the past to be fine with giving beautiful women Academy Awards without issue.  Why it was that Hayworth, a box office star who regularly worked with serious directors, couldn't get this nomination is beyond me.
Award-Worthy in Other Ways: Hayworth would be named one of the 25 Greatest Actresses of All-Time by the American Film Institute (a posthumous honor, but still), and would be nominated for the Golden Globe one time, for the dramatic western Circus World with John Wayne & Claudia Cardinale.
When She Should Have Been Nominated: 1946 and 1947.  I admittedly still have a few performances before I say this officially (and YEARS until we tackle these in the OVP, unfortunately), but I feel absolutely confident that Hayworth would have gotten nominations from me for Gilda and The Lady from Shanghai, polar opposite roles that bring out her best traits as an actress.  Give or take Celia Johnson in Brief Encounter and Gloria Grahame in Crossfire, they may well be the best performances given by a woman in either of those years, regardless of category. That she missed for both-I just can't stand it.
Chances in the Future: Hayworth died in 1987 at the sadly young age of 67.

Those are my list-how about yours?  I know you have quibbles or people you can throw "but what about..." at me, so let's have it.  And which of these do you think was the biggest snub or has the best shot in the future (my money's on Oscar Isaac)?  Share below!

OVP: The Great Gatsby (1974)

Film: The Great Gatsby (1974)
Stars: Robert Redford, Mia Farrow, Bruce Dern, Sam Waterston, Karen Black, Lois Chiles
Director: Jack Clayton
Oscar History: 2 nominations/2 wins (Best Costume Design*, Best Original Song Score*)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

I have never bought the argument that a book is un-filmable, save perhaps for the dictionary or some form of poetry (and even then I think you might be able to make something interesting out of it).  This is certainly not true of a novel-you just have to change your approach.  No book, in my opinion, has been called "unfilmable" more often, however, than F. Scott Fitzgerald's magnum opus The Great Gatsby.  I honestly loved this book the first time I read it.  I hit it appropriately at the precipice of adulthood, just around the age of seventeen, when most people do, and the beautiful shirts and the vivid colors sparkled on the page.  Unfortunately, much like its future successor from Baz Luhrmann, Francis Ford Coppola's vision of Gatsby fails to land on the page, frequently feeling like a boring, odiously long movie and nothing more.

(Spoilers Ahead) I could start this out with an explanation of the book, but as it's arguably the most discussed novel of the 20th century (give or take Orwell and Tolkien), I don't know that it's necessary.  Suffice it to say Gatsby (Redford) loves and loses, Nick (Waterston) becomes disillusioned, and Daisy (Farrow) learns very little along the way.  The movie stays relatively close to the book in terms of plotting, though, it's worth noting, resisting flights of fancy or ways to make the novel more conducive to the screen, as large swaths of the book rest on Nick's narration.  This may be its greatest undoing, as you have to try to at least get at some of the interpretations of the book in order to get to why it's so terrific, but it has to be said that if you wanted a movie simply for the sake of preserving the book with a select set of stars (like having every major Broadway diva do Gypsy), that mission is accomplished to the satisfaction of those people who complain about minute details being changed in adaptation.  After all, the casting director isn't at fault here-I would've picked this slate of actors too.

No, the movie itself, though, is rather lifeless, and never really sees beyond the world of parties, costumes, and a romantic triangle.  This is typically all most movies ever need to thrive.  But Gatsby has always felt like a story where the romance was secondary.  I don't want to get into an English class-level discussion of the book (you can find thousands of those at SparkNotes sites all around the web), but the book itself turns the whole romance ideal on its head.  You have the inherited wealth of Tom and Daisy Buchanan, unpunished despite their actions, in juxtaposition to the crooked Gatsby, who is the closest we get to a likable character but whose sole drives are shallow and utterly fruitless-Daisy will never leave behind her country club life to go with this dangerous nouveau riche man, and perhaps doesn't even love him other than she loves his adoration.  The film loses this in its treatment of Daisy (always the problem with films-Daisy isn't supposed to be likable, and Farrow doesn't get that across enough to the point where it changes our onscreen perception of her-she just makes her naive, not cruel), and doesn't even delve into the possibilities that Nick presents.  All-in-all, it's a clunker of a film-boring, listless, and nothing really to lend itself other than gorgeous costume work.

This is, of course, where it won one of its pair of Oscars.  The book presents a costume designer's paradise, complete with Farrow and Lois Chiles in a variety of hats and flapper dresses, and of course there's Redford in that impeccably cut pink suit.  The costumes are gorgeous-I've seen both the suit and one of Farrow's dresses on a recent trip to Rosecliff in Newport (where the movie was filmed), and the stitch-work and precision is exquisite.  I'm not saying I'm automatically giving this the OVP based on being one of the more iconic looks in all of 1970's cinema (there's some really wonderful costumery in Chinatown and The Godfather Part II that year as well), but it's hard to argue with the Academy's knee-jerk win for the film.  The Song Score Oscar, on the other hand, felt overly generous.  It essentially won for the inclusion of a few jazz standards that were "ehh" to the plotline, and perhaps more so because it competed against two massive flops, and even though it had tepid reviews initially, Gatsby itself made Paramount a fortune.

Those are my thoughts on this 1974 misfire-what are yours?  I feel like this is a movie that many of you may have seen, or at the very least have opinions on, so why do you think that no one can quite get Gatsby right?  Do you think this movie deserved both of its Oscars?  Share below in the comments!

Ranting On...Awards Snubs

The never-nominated Mia Farrow

Snub is a word that gets thrown around a lot regarding award shows, and it's one that I frequently use.  After all a big part of the fun of awards shows is around cheering for your victors and agonizing over a specific nominee that you were dying to get into the race or that you wanted to win.  However, I frequently feel that the term 'snub' is thrown around way too often.  Entertainment Weekly, in particular, has made a career out of bludgeoning the word to within an inch of its life, frequently doing slideshows of thirty or more snubs after awards are announced, and one of my great pet peeves in this scenario is that, well, every single quality person can't be nominated, otherwise it wouldn't be an honor.  You can't list five people who were snubbed for Best Actor but still want the men in the lineup nominated-there's five slots, so it only really qualifies as a "snub" if you would nominate the person or give the person the trophy, and would be willing to throw out a different nominee, as well as all but four other potential nominees.  This sort of defense of awards show is why I started the Oscar Viewing Project, as I wanted to see if I made the same mistakes of "snubbing" certain people and films because there's only a finite amount of accolades, especially when you consider certain film years are better than others.

This is a particularly galling problem when people discuss winners, of course-everyone thinks that X, Y, and Z actors should win, but the reality is that unless you can name a specific performance that was the better of everyone else that year, your argument doesn't hold water.  However, I think it's more interesting when you talk about who the most snubbed actor who has never been nominated is (we're sticking to actors, though any aspect of film works for this conversation and the comments are there for a reason, and if you want to go with directors or what have you know I will join you) at the Oscars.  I've written multiple articles about this, scientifically showing how Jim Carrey and Mia Farrow top the list if you look at the Globes while Mia Farrow and Dirk Bogarde are tops if you look at the BAFTA Awards.  However, it gets more complicated than that if you look instead at the larger picture of who should have been nominated the most but never made the cut.

The reality is when people crow about actors, particularly actors who have never been nominated for the Oscars, they don't really go at it with a specific performance in mind that was snubbed, and state who shouldn't have made it and how the "snubbed" was better than every other potential contender for the nomination.  I actually googled quite a few articles about actors who should have been nominated, and a lot of them laundry listed every single film that the actor made that might be sort of good, but hardly is it representative of what was clearly one of the year's five best performances.  In theory you might think that, say, Ewan McGregor deserves a nomination but you raise an eyebrow when someone lists The Impossible as one of the films he could have been nominated.  John Cusack hasn't done anything in his career to win a nomination for a specific performance, but he frequently shows up on these lists because he's the rare male movie star to never win an Oscar nomination.  Collectively, yes, they both might deserve mention (and McGregor probably did for Moulin Rouge!), but you saturate your point if you list every good film the person made because that's entering Entertainment Weekly territory in terms of "everything's a snub."

The reality is that most actors only turn in a handful of performances that are truly one of the year's five best if you get objective about it, and that includes actors who do get nominated (I haven't done the math completely on it, but I don't think I'd nominate any actor into the double digits for the Oscars, including Meryl Streep though she and Nicholson might be close), but there are few actors who have never been nominated who have actually deserved multiple nominations.  Someone like Mia Farrow, arguably the pinnacle of the "she never got an Oscar nomination?!?" conversation is part of the list of people who clearly deserved one nomination, and maybe two, but I think we wouldn't hear a peep about Farrow's lack of inclusion if she'd been simply nominated for Rosemary's Baby and never was cited again.  Farrow may have five Globe nominations, many of them for Woody Allen movies, but while you might have one favorite that you'd include, by-and-large if she was nominated for Rosemary's Baby you wouldn't hear too many complaints here.  One-and-done is not completely egregious for Farrow.  The same can be said for Steve Martin, Jim Carrey, and Donald Sutherland, the latter of whom it's actually questionable where he would have gotten the nomination (Ordinary People? MASH? JFK?-those are pretty strong lineups without him in the conversation).  One nomination would seem fine for these guys.

It's actually a pretty short list of actors whom I can think of who have never been nominated that even clearly deserved two citations.  Scarlett Johansson (Lost in Translation and Under the Skin), Jim Carrey (The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), and Peter Lorre (M and The Maltese Falcon) are about it.  Honestly you'd have to go to foreign actors who don't work in English primarily to find someone whom I'd nominate three times without an issue, and even then legends like Jeanne Moreau and Gong Li are stacking up against some steep odds.  All of this is to say that the snub categorization is pretty wrong in my opinion-there are hundreds of movies released a year around the world, and only five get to make it on the nomination list, so some great performances are going to get left in the dust.  While I understand the idea that the Academy and other awards bodies should pay more attention and I wish they wouldn't just knee-jerk nominate certain people (sorry Meryl, but even you know it's true), the reality is that snubs, especially for long-neglected actors, aren't as common as you may think and before you groan about a Richard Gere or a Hugh Grant never being nominated, make sure you come armed with whom you're cutting from the lineup.

Everybody's Linking for the Weekend

Who needed a Friday?  I know I sure did-here's what you may have missed this week.

In Entertainment...

Kristin Scott Thomas

The Guardian: In a deeply reflective and excellent interview (seriously-why can we not get interviews like this stateside from interesting artists?), Kristin Scott Thomas discusses everything from anti-semitism in France to aging to her impending retirement from film.  Hopefully this doesn't stick, as Scott Thomas is one of the greatest actors in the world, but maybe a break for a while will help her recharge on the stage.  A permanent retirement would be a tragedy, though.

Film Experience: Nathaniel takes a very level-headed approach to the entire Woody/Mia/Dylan debate raging in the tabloid press.  Definitely worth a read, and I echo him on almost every point.

Vidiocy: A truly great article about the complicated relationship between Pauline Kael and one of her nemeses Meryl Streep.  I have never once read Meryl give a remark that cutting about anyone (she's one of the most polished celebrities around), so it's worth it just for the calculated shade.

Los Angeles Times: I'm sure everyone's had a thought on this, but J.K. Rowling has declared that Ron and Hermione was a pairing she regretted in hindsight.  While I love that Rowling continues the conversation about this world, part of me wonders if she should have just done the recommendations.  This is particularly directed toward the Dumbledore outing, which would have been monumental if she'd had someone say something in the actual books.  Here, I'm a fan of this coupling (opposites attract), though if you want to splash a the cold water of reality on the pairing, she's right-this wasn't meant for paradise.  In real life, opposites end up in couples therapy.

In Politics...

Second Lady Joan Mondale

CNN: In one of the nastiest moves so far of the election season, the NRCC has launched a series of fake websites meant to mimic their opponents, such as Montana Democrat John Lewis.

Also from CNN: Congress so rarely passes anything anymore, it's kind of stunning when they do.  While there's a lot of things to not like about the farm bill (I probably would have supported it, but with a heavy heart), here's some of things you should know about it.

New York Times: Former Second Lady Joan Mondale passed away this week at the age of 83.  Interesting fact: I met Mrs. Mondale once.  I was nineteen, and was attending a law school event on my campus.  The Vice President was speaking, and afterwards, I went up to former Minnesota Attorney General Miles Lord to introduce myself.  We chatted a bit, and he said he was going to go and speak with the Vice President.  I shook his hand, and he asked if I wanted to go meet the vice president.  I got waved through security and chatted for several minutes with both Mondales.  Definitely one of the most surreal moments of my life, and she was delightful.

Ambassador Max Baucus

CBS News: The U.S. Senate approved Sen. Max Baucus to be the next Ambassador to China.  Aside from this being a large post for Baucus and in general (before Baucus, two governors held the post), this could cause a major trickle down effect that could impact the 2014 elections.  Baucus's departure means that Ron Wyden will take over at Finance, and that Mary Landrieu, vulnerable in 2014, will become the head of the Senate Energy committee, a powerful tool for her reelection in Louisiana, a state which greatly relies on energy for its economy.  Additionally, Baucus's departure means that Gov. Steve Bullock (D) will be able to appoint a replacement, and the smart money is on Lt. Governor John Walsh, who is already running.  With incumbency, Walsh will be able to start building a voting record and have more access to donors, franking privileges, and just name recognition in general.  In fact, this is such a good idea I really wish that President Obama would give some post quickly to Jay Rockefeller so that we could start a similar push with Natalie Tennant in West Virginia.

New York Daily News: I love Joe Biden more than life itself, and his comments regarding LaGuardia are dead-on.  Considering New York City is the greatest city in the world, why is it that their major airport LaGuardia looks like a strip mall?  The only reason that anyone prefers JFK (which looks like a slightly higher-end strip mall) is because LaGuardia is the uglier guy making it look good.

RT: Fracking is one of my greatest pet peeves because of the truly horrible things it does to our environment and water supply, and this is just another log for the fire-some of the areas suffering from the worst droughts in the United States are also having some of their precious water supply being used up by this dangerous practice.

Just One More...

Bleacher Report: Chris Kluwe, whom I've discussed before on the blog, is potentially looking at legal action against the Minnesota Vikings over his controversial firing and the retention of a coach who made homophobic comments (allegedly).  Kluwe can do no wrong in my book, so I'm behind this, and we'll probably continue to cover this story as it unfolds, even though football is not in my regular forte.

BAFTA Nominations ≠ Oscar Nominations: Part 1

Okay, so while we sadly don’t get very many comments on this blog (it’s SOOOO easy to rectify that situation-hint, hint), I notice quite readily when you enjoy a particular post or series based on traffic, and so I have been meaning to do something in regard to our series about the Golden Globes not equaling the Oscars, as you all seemed to enjoy it and it still gets lots of hits.  After all, if Hollywood has shown us anything, it’s that we need to make a sequel to anything that’s popular.

I’ve finally settled on the BAFTA Awards as our follow-up.  The BAFTA Awards, one of the most prestigious “precursor” (anyone else secretly hate that word?) awards, have come to mirror Oscar a bit more in recent years, but does have its own quirks and favorites.  Obviously, it has a penchant for nominating British actors; this was particularly true in the earlier years of the awards, when British Actors and Foreign Actors were in two separate categories.  However, like the Globes, it is extremely rare to ring up a large number of nominations at the BAFTA Awards without at least one nomination from Oscar.

Therefore, I’ve compiled a list of the ten actors that have received the most nominations at the BAFTA Awards without ever receiving an Oscar acting nomination (this is going to factor into one of the ten people below).  In order to break ties (there were a number of them), I did the following:

1. If an actor received multiple nominations for different films in the same year, that counted as less for the rankings.

2. If the actor won a BAFTA Award for one of their performances.

3. If an actor received their nomination as a “British Actor” rather than the more all inclusive category.

Any questions you can ask in the comments-otherwise, let’s dive in!

10. Ziyi Zhang

BAFTA Nominations: 3 nominations: 2000-Best Supporting Actress (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), 2004-Best Actress (House of Flying Daggers), 2005-Best Actress (Memoirs of a Geisha)

BAFTA Wins: None

Got the Closest On: Memoirs of a Geisha, hands down.

Reasons She Missed: The first two films likely fall into a penchant for BAFTA to favor international cinema more than AMPAS (everyone knows the awards body favors their fellow countrymen, but they actually do a better job of getting involved with international celebrities than the Oscars do).  The third nomination remains a conundrum.  Zhang was one of four women that year that scored nominations from HFPA, BAFTA, and the SAG Awards (the other three-Reese Witherspoon, Charlize Theron, and Judi Dench-all received Oscar nominations).  Felicity Huffman was ineligible for the BAFTA because of release issues, but was also a certainty.  Oddly, though, Zhang was one of those annual actors who hits every precursor but somehow misses with Oscar (in this case, to Keira Knightley for Pride & Prejudice).  It seems odd in particular that they snubbed her for Theron, who had just won, and Zhang's  film got six Oscar nominations.  It’s worth noting that this was a decidedly weak field and that Knightley’s performance was actually better than Zhang’s (or Dench’s or Theron’s or Huffman’s), but it’s still a weird one.

9. Edward Fox

BAFTA Nominations: 3 nominations: 1971-Best Supporting Actor (The Go-Between), 1977-Best Supporting Actor (A Bridge Too Far), 1982-Gandhi (Best Supporting Actor)

BAFTA Wins: Fox won for The Go-Between

Got the Closest On: A Bridge Too Far

Reasons He Missed: It’s worth noting that there were be several actors on this list who missed simply because BAFTA and AMPAS aren’t always looking at the same set of goals-BAFTA does want to well represent its countrymen and the vast majority of both of these write-ups will feature Brits.  That said, Fox’s snub for A Bridge Too Far seems odd if only because that film seems right up Oscar’s alley.  The film is a massive epic and even won Fox the NSFCA Best Supporting Actor trophy.  1977 is a hard year to explain Oscar's thinking.  Somehow an epic biopic about an Oscar-nominated writer from an Oscar-winning filmmaker missed to a short, modern romantic comedy, and was competing against a Sci-Fi adventure film and another mod-romantic comedy.  Oscar occasionally likes to prove he isn’t predictable, and that may have cost Fox.

8. Jack Hawkins

BAFTA Nominations: 4 nominations: 1952-Best British Actor (Mandy), 1953-Best British Actor (The Cruel Sea), 1955-Best British Actor (The Prisoner), 1956-Best British Actor (The Long Arm)

BAFTA Wins: No wins

Got the Closest On: None of these, but that doesn’t mean Hawkins was never in contention.

Reasons He Missed: For these films, Hawkins was in the same boat as our next actor, in that he wasn’t a leading man outside of Britain.  However, unlike our next actor, Hawkins made a pretty solid splash in British films that played to international audiences.  He was a character actor in such Academy favorites as The Bridge on the River Kwai, Ben-Hur, and Lawrence of Arabia.  All three of these films received Oscar nominations for a supporting actor, and it’s not a stretch to assume that Hawkins may have been in contention for at least one of them.

7. Kenneth More

BAFTA Nominations: 4 nominations: 1953-Best British Actor (Genevieve), 1954-Best British Actor (Doctor in the House), 1955-Best British Actor (The Deep Blue Sea), 1956-Best British Actor (Reach for the Sky)

BAFTA Wins: More won for Doctor in the House

Got the Closest On: None of them

Reasons He Missed: More was never a major star in American film (I’m guessing most people who read this haven’t even heard of him, and I had to look him up to write this).  Unlike Olivier, Niven, and Burton, he didn’t star in American productions until later years and was primarily known as a British star.  His film The Deep Blue Sea did get close to an Oscar nomination some 57 years later when Rachel Weisz was in contention for a nomination for the lead role (Vivien Leigh played the part in the original).

6. Lord Richard Attenborough

BAFTA Nominations: 4 nominations: 1960-Best British Actor (The Angry Silence), 1962-Best British Actor (The Dock Brief), 1964-Best British Actor (Guns at Batasi), 1964-Best British Actor (Séance on a Wet Afternoon)

BAFTA Wins: 1 win for two films in 1964

Got the Closest On: Okay here’s where I’m cheating a bit as Richard Attenborough famously won two Oscars for 1982’s Gandhi but as a producer and director rather than as an actor.  However, for acting, his closest draws were for different films than I’ve just listed, and I’ll get to them below.

Reasons He Missed: Attenborough’s nominated films for BAFTA are like Hawkins' and More's-it just doesn't sem like they were going to go for any of them (Seance was probably his best, very, very longshot).  More likely, though, were one of his nominated performances at the Golden Globes: Attenborough got nominated for Supporting Actor for The Sand Pebbles and Doctor Doolittle, both of which scored highly with AMPAS and were probably a better shot for Attenborough.

5. Billie Whitelaw

BAFTA Nominations: 4 nominations: 1968-Best Supporting Actress (Twisted Nerve), 1968-Best Supporting Actress (Charlie Bubbles), 1976-Best Supporting Actress (The Omen), 1990-Best Supporting Actress (The Krays)

BAFTA Wins: 1 win for two films in 1968

Got the Closest On: I'm guessing The Omen, though she did win NSFCA for Charlie Bubbles

Reasons She Missed: With three of these films, Whitelaw was like many of the other performers a British actor over-indexing for films that were well-loved across the pond.  However, for millions of moviegoers, she is instantly recognizable as the evil Mrs. Baylock in The Omen (you also recognize her from Hot Fuzz, if you're under thirty and can't figure out why she looks familiar).  The Omen didn't pick up any Oscar nominations for acting, but it was a huge film in 1976 and got two music nominations, so I wouldn't be stunned if Whitelaw was in the field for her work in the film.

4. Stephane Audran

BAFTA Nominations: 4 nominations: 1972-Best Actress (Le Boucher), 1973-Best Actress (The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie), 1973-Best Actress (Just Before Nightfall), 1988-Best Actress (Babette's Feast)

BAFTA Wins: She won a trophy in 1973 for both performances

Got the Closest On: Probably The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie

Reasons She Missed: Audran is one of those major European actors of her day that rarely get discussed now.  Two of her films won the Best Foreign Film Award (Discreet Charm and Babette's Feast) with AMPAS, so unlike someone like More, they were clearly aware that she existed.  I suspect that Discreet Charm would have been a better shot-the film got a Screenplay nomination (usually a sign of stronger support with AMPAS) and the 1970's had a number of foreign actresses scoring for films in their native languages.

3. Alan Rickman

BAFTA Nominations: 4 nominations: 1991-Best Actor (Truly Madly Deeply), 1991-Best Supporting Actor (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves), 1995-Best Supporting Actor (Sense and Sensibility), 1996-Best Supporting Actor (Michael Collins)

BAFTA Wins: Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham picked him up his only BAFTA near the beginning of his fame.

Got the Closest On: Probably none of them, though it stands to reason that he was closest for Academy favorite Sense and Sensibility.

Reasons He Missed: That sigh of relief I'm hearing from you is that we're finally back on someone everyone's heard of-yes, Professor Snape is one of the most snubbed actors in the history of the Oscars through the lens of BAFTA, yet it's pretty clear none of these were really close.  Truly Madly Deeply was from a director that would land hard five years later with Oscar, but he didn't make it for this early film.  Sense and Sensibility was a major film with Oscar, but I don't remember reading much about Rickman getting a nomination for this film (it was all about the ladies).  That said, he's still working very regularly (he was in The Butler from this past year, which is certainly on Oscar's radar even if his performance isn't) and this isn't an impossible situation for him.

2. Mia Farrow

BAFTA Nominations: 5 nominations: 1969-Best Actress (John and Mary), 1969-Best Actress (Rosemary's Baby), 1969-Best Actress (Secret Ceremony), 1985-Best Actress (The Purple Rose of Cairo), 1986-Best Actress (Hannah and Her Sisters)

BAFTA Wins: No wins

Got the Closest On: Rosemary's Baby

Reasons She Missed: Proving just how much Farrow deserves an Honorary Oscar, not only was she in second place on the Globes list, she also manages second place at the BAFTA Awards.  Some of you may quibble that the Best Actress nomination in 1969 really was just one, rather than for all three films, but still, it's impossible to argue that Farrow should sport the title Oscar nominee by now.  Her closest shot was certainly Rosemary's Baby, and considering that she had two other films out in close proximity to Rosemary and that it was nominated in other Oscar categories, it's still bizarre that the young actress couldn't score that year.

1. Sir Dirk Bogarde

BAFTA Nominations: 6 nominations: 1961-Best British Actor (Victim), 1963-Best British Actor (The Servant), 1965-Best British Actor (Darling), 1967-Best British Actor (Our Mother's House), 1967-Best British Actor (Accident), 1971-Best Actor (Death in Venice)

BAFTA Wins: Two wins, for The Servant and Darling

Got the Closest On: Darling

Reasons He Missed: While it's easy to dismiss a few of these films as products of BAFTA's fascination with home product (I feel like I should see Victim immediately considering the subject matter), but Darling is another story entirely.  The film was a major player at the Oscars that year-it won Best Actress and Best Screenplay and was nominated for Picture and Director.  That's not a film that you easily dismiss the lead actor.  I've never seen the film (shame on me, I know), but I would imagine that Bogarde's youth, coupled with vote-splitting with a costar (Laurence Harvey, who was better known to the Oscars due to Room at the Top and Summer and Smoke) probably cost him.  Bogarde was famously closeted during his career (making the fact that he made Victim all the more bolder, since it shed a light on his life in a way that he likely didn't want to), and despite his good looks, he never enjoyed major success in Hollywood.  Legend has it that he was in contention for the leads in Gigi, Lawrence of Arabia, and Doctor Zhivago, which would have certainly gotten him at least one Oscar nomination had he been able to score them.  He also appeared with Edward Fox in A Bridge Too Far and had a very successful second career as an author.

There's the list.  Unlike the Golden Globes, there's not a lot of hope for these actors.  Bogarde, More, Hawkins, and Fox are all dead, Farrow, while Attenborough, Whitelaw, and Audran are all largely retired.  The only two people with legitimate shots of getting off of this list are Zhang and Rickman-do you think they will?  Which of these actors probably got the closest to an actual nomination in their career (my gut says either Farrow or Zhang)?  Which should have been nominated?  Share in the comments!

Everybody's Linking for the Weekend

We have a particularly robust list of things to cover this week in the world of links, so without further ado, let's dive into what I was reading and pondering this week.

In Entertainment...

Ronan Farrow

Vanity Fair: Actress Mia Farrow, during an intimate interview with Vanity Fair, recently stated that her son Ronan could in fact be Frank Sinatra's child.  This has set off the gossip world (well, the high class gossip world that doesn't worry about the Kardashians or the Giudices), and both Sinatra's widow and Woody Allen (the man considered to be Ronan's father, as he was married to Farrow at the time) have scoffed at the idea.  Personally, I think if anyone alive is going to know the paternity, it's going to be Mia (considering she's the only "guaranteed" biological parent).  It does make a lot of sense-Ronan Farrow, who is drop dead gorgeous and the funniest person on Twitter, does bare a striking resemblance to the late crooner (more striking than Woody).

Also in Vanity Fair: Since we're on the subject of my social media boyfriend, Ronan Farrow is rumored to be getting his own MSNBC show, which I would watch religiously.  Farrow is a Rhodes Scholar (like MSNBC's Rachel Maddow) and used to work for Hillary Clinton in the State Department.  This news got me a lot more excited than Alec Baldwin's recent show on the channel.

CBS News: For those of us obsessed with the concept of finding lost films, this story is incredibly heartening.  One of the earliest films of Mary Pickford's career was discovered more than a century after it was made.  As Leonard Maltin says in the film, this is the first film that the Oscar-winning Pickford made where she received screen billing under that name (her real name was Gladys Marie Smith).  While this wasn't on my lost films list from a while back, it's still a great discovery, and makes me hopeful that we'll someday find others, including the ten on that list.

CNN: This is a long article, but a really cool one.  The thing that first drew me into it, of course, was Oscar-winning composer Hans Zimmer's name in the title, but it's fascinating to see some of the advances that we're making in musical production and in creating musical instruments.  I desperately want to learn to play the Swarmatron (which was the instrument behind some of the most mesmerizing pieces in our OVP winner of 2010, The Social Network)

New York Times: In the saddest artistic news of the week, we have learned that the New York City Opera has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  For those of us that love New York and opera in general, this is extremely disheartening.  This file was likely due to both the decline in popularity of opera and being overshadowed by the more famous New York Metropolitan Opera.

Film Experience: For those of you who have been obsessing about the Oscars online long enough to remember when Awards Daily was Oscarwatch and when Entertainment Weekly had its message boards on a separate site, you likely considered the return of Supporting Actress Smackdowns to be the best news you've heard all year.  Nathaniel, Brian, and the crew tackled the eclectic bunch of women that made up 1980's Supporting Actress race this past week, and even if you haven't seen any of the films, you'll still enjoy reading about the lineup.  Fun factoid: I was a part of the Smackdown six years ago when they tackled 1990.  You can read what I had to say here and here.

In Politics...

Lt. Governor John Walsh (D-MT)

National Journal: You may have noticed this week a large lack of discussion about the government shutdown, and there's a couple of reasons for me not discussing it.  Principally, the story seems to be progressing so quickly (and I write all of my articles the night before) that I didn't want to put together a long piece and then have it become totally irrelevant when I could have watched the next Richard Linklater Before film instead.  But this great observation by Patrick Reis so beautifully said my thoughts about the politics behind the shutdown that I felt I didn't need to write anything.

My biggest pet peeve about politics (no qualifiers-this is absolutely, positively, no-holds-barred the biggest) is when people ignorantly say "it's both side's fault" or "there's no difference between the two parties," and I'm so glad that Reis brought this up, because the government shutdown is a perfect example of why this simply isn't true-either you believe that the Republicans have shutdown the government to stop the ACA or you believe that the Democrats are causing this by not allowing any concessions on the ACA.  It's one or the other.

Politico: One of the more popular articles on TMROJ over the past week has been last Friday's rant about Sen. Ted Cruz.  So I of course wanted to share this article about Cruz and his icy relationship with his fellow senators.  Like I said before, Cruz is not someone that is in this for a long congressional career-he has his eyes on the bigger prize of the White House, and though having the help of the powers-that-be surely assists in that road, having the most appealing populist message for your base matters the most.

Montana Standard: The Democrats landed their final big recruit of the 2014 Senate cycle with Lt. Gov. John Walsh of Montana deciding to run for the United States Senate.  Walsh starts out as the underdog against Rep. Steve Daines (who hasn't announced yet, but is surely going to run for the GOP), but the Democrats have had a lot of luck lately in Big Sky Country so Walsh cannot be counted out; the Republicans haven't won a Senate or governors race here since 2000.

Texas Tribune: The Dems also officially landed one of the most exciting candidates of the cycle, even if she's a major underdog for the win.  State Sen. Wendy Davis, who became a hero for progressives across the country with her filibuster regarding women's reproductive rights, has officially announced that she is running to be the next Governor of Texas.

And Just One More...

Huffington Post: The Huffington Post put together a fun little bit about the increasing number of people who fancy themselves explorers, as well as tips on how to succeed as an explorer.  Since I'm a huge supporter of adventurers, I figured I'd throw it into the round-up in hopes that one of you finds an "extinct" animal species or discovers a cure for cancer in a rainforest somewhere.