Blog PostsOscars 2013 Preferences and Predictions: Best Picture

Today is the Friday before the Oscars and the last day of my predictions posts. It’s Best Picture prediction time!

Best Picture
Amour
Argo
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Django Unchained
Les Miserables
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty

Note: I liked or loved every single Best Picture nominee this year. The number of excellent movies in this category blows my mind. Last year, the only Best Picture nominee I really enjoyed was the winner, The Artist, and I still forgot about it a few days after I saw it. This year, I’m thinking about half of these films months after I saw them. My least favorite nominated film in 2012 is better than my favorite nominated film in 2011. I’m actually grateful for 2012’s crop of films. Go, 2012!

Should Win: Beasts of the Southern Wild. Or Lincoln. Or Life of Pi. Or Zero Dark Thirty. Seriously, I cannot choose! With films like this, that are so different from each other in terms of story, scope, tone, dialogue, how on earth does one pick a BEST? How can one compare Beasts to Lincoln when the films aren’t remotely alike? HOW?!

Anyway, I think those four films are the most deserving of the Best Picture award. I also am obliged to say that I loved Les Miserables even though it’s very flawed and inconsistent, I thought Silver Linings Playbook was excellent and moving, Amour was very European and very difficult to watch (in a good way), and while I cannot say Django Unchained was objectively the best film of year, it is my personal favorite film of the year, and the first one I will buy on DVD and watch seven hundred more times. 

Will Win: Argo. Let’s talk about Argo, as it is the clear frontrunner for Best Picture, while also my least favorite of the Best Picture nominees. (Not the WORST, mind you – Argo is definitely a much better-crafted film than Les Miserables, for example, even though I enjoyed Les Miserables more. BEST and FAVORITE are not the same thing.)

I could hear the fanboy (and perhaps fangirl) outrage brewing the minute I typed that above paragraph, but I don’t care. I think Argo is a very good film, and had it come out in 2011, it would have easily squashed the other Best Picture nominees and taken away every well-deserved prize. But this is 2012, where the competition is much stiffer, and I don’t think it holds up compared to the other Best Picture nominees.

Before I explain why, I will write about all the things I liked about Argo: The pacing. The suspense. The storming of the embassy at the beginning of the movie. The comedic dialogue. The supporting cast, from their acting performances to how much they looked like the real-life people they were portraying. The way the movie just looks and feels like the 70s. (I assume – I was born in the 80s.) The only real flaws of the film are Affleck’s “acting” (though kudos to his directorial work) and the extended chase onto the tarmac at the airport with the jeeps chasing a plane taking off, like, come on now.

In short, Argo is a very good movie, but I did not think it was a great movie. In my opinion, a great dramatic movie has to either challenge the audience on an intellectual level, or be really affecting on an emotional level, and the best dramatic films are ones that do both. (Rules are different for comedies, obviously, since comedies have a different purpose.)

The other Best Picture nominees were either intellectually challenging or emotionally affecting, and sometimes both. Django Unchained smacked us in the face with the brutality of slavery, had us root for Django to find the woman he loves, and made us squirm with guilt and discomfort at Stephen, one of the most disturbing characters I’ve seen. Les Miserables, technically a weaker film than Argo, still made us feel for Jean Valjean and Fantine. Beasts has unforgettable characters in Hushpuppy and Wink and a fascinating, disturbing yet moving father-daughter relationship. Silver Linings Playbook has two damaged people finding love, and bonding over the different medication combinations they’re on (lol). Lincoln made a great historical figure emotionally accessible. Amour showed us the challenges of looking after sick, damaged loved ones in a world where a happy ending is impossible. Life of Pi gave us a very intimate human story against a visual feast of a backdrop, and has unforgettable messages about the power of storytelling.

Zero Dark Thirty is the film most similar to Argo in that it’s more plot-driven than character-driven, and both films are about the CIA. Zero Dark Thirty is suspenseful and constantly makes the viewer question our nation’s role in the war on terror, from the use of torture to the empty victory in killing bin Laden.

Argo doesn’t really have any of that. It doesn’t whitewash the US’s role in making Iran hate us, but it doesn’t make us think about why we started messing with that country in the first place. It doesn’t have any characters that affect us emotionally – we feel bad because they’re hostages, but we don’t really get to know any of them. It’s a very good thriller, it’s funny, it’s entertaining, and the period work is great, but ten years from now, I doubt that many people will look back at that film and think, “Wow, remember that Tony Mendez character? Remember how emotional it was?”

Confidence Level in Making This Prediction: 75%. The film doesn’t have a Best Director nomination, and only three movies in Oscar history have won Best Picture without a Best Director nomination. I do wonder if Argo might be this year’s Apollo 13, which won every single precursor award, but didn’t get a Director nod and the Oscar went to Braveheart.

However, there is a LOT of industry outrage over Affleck’s snub as though he’s the Second Coming of Kubrick. Had Affleck been nominated for Director, I would have predicted a Lincoln/Affleck Picture/Director split. But since he wasn’t nominated, I’m predicting an Argo/Spielberg Picture/Director split.

Besides, the plot of Argo is about how Hollywood helped save the lives of American citizens being held hostage, and Hollywood LOVES to remind itself and everyone else about how very important Hollywood is.

Possible Upset: Lincoln, one a frontrunner, could still win this, and Silver Linings Playbook has a decent chance, too (because Harvey Weinstein KNOWS PEOPLE).

For Your Consideration: Once more, with feeling – The Perks of Being a Wallflower. Also Moonrise Kingdom.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Blog PostsOscars 2013 Preferences and Predictions: Best Director

In today’s Oscar predictions post, I’m going to write about the Best Director category. This category has had a few surprises and is throwing everyone’s prognostications out of whack. Fun!

Best Director
Michael Haneke, Amour
Ang Lee, Life of Pi
David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook
Steven Spielberg, Lincoln
Benh Zeitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild

Note: I’m warning you – this is going to be a long Note section.

First of all, let’s talk a minute about Kathryn Bigelow. The backlash against her and Zero Dark Thirty in the press reeks of angry, resentful sexism. However, I don’t think sexism is the reason she was snubbed at the Oscars. She and Ben Affleck were considered two frontrunners in this category, and they were both snubbed.

Why were they snubbed? Maybe the Academy members thought Bigelow and Affleck were guaranteed nominations, and voted for Haneke and Zeitlin to give them a fighting chance, and the second-guessing managed to push Bigelow and Affleck out of the way. Maybe they didn’t feel the need to award Bigelow because she won just a few years ago for a movie with similar themes and scope.

Or maybe, just maybe, they thought the five directors listed did a better job than Bigelow and Affleck. This is an unusually good year for film, after all. Had Bigelow and Affleck’s films come out in the highly unimpressive 2011 movie year, their films would’ve won everything. But you can’t look at the list of the five nominated directors and tell me that any of those five people are slouches who made boring trash. Their films were very good, too.

So, can we please stop it with the “AFFLECK WAS SNUBBED, THIS IS AN OUTRAGE” complaining? Yes, he made a very good film, but it is only the third-ever movie he’s directed and he has a big career ahead of him. To talk of his snub as though it’s the 2010s equivalent of Martin Scorsese losing again is a little much. Also, one could argue that the biggest responsibility of the director is to get good performances out of his/her actors, and uh…Affleck the actor still suffers from Imminent Death Syndrome. Besides, of the two previous frontrunners who were overlooked, he’s not the one being compared to a Nazi propagandist, so let’s all calm down, shall we?

Having said all that, I would not have minded if Affleck had been nominated, and won, in this category this year. Remember what I said before about not wanting the same people winning all the time? Well, that remains true. My three favorites in this category are Lee, Zeitlin, and Senor Spielbergo. Lee and Spielberg have won before. Zeitlin made a beautiful movie and I’m thrilled he was recognized, but I also feel that his nomination is his win. This is his first ever feature film. He doesn’t need to win an Oscar for that. And though I thought Beasts was excellent and loved it more than Argo, Argo is a comparable achievement in directing. Affleck’s not a Spielberg or Lee previous winner, and he’s not a fresh newbie like Zeitlin, so his win would’ve been a nice middle ground, if you will. (A win for Michael Haneke would also accomplish that middle ground, though, as he has a great career and has never been nominated for an Oscar.)

ANYWAY.

Should Win: Ang Lee. Picking my favorite was tough. Spielberg made Congressional procedure fascinating, Haneke was restrained and made a heartbreaking film, Russell did great work with his actors, and Zeitlin made arguably the best movie of the year (Beasts is soooooo good, people). Still, I would love to see Ang Lee win this award. I just love how precise his films are, and Life of Pi is no exception. He doesn’t waste a single shot, he doesn’t overindulge, he treats the emotional moments with the weight they deserve without wandering into treacly sentimental territory. Life of Pi was more than just a brilliant CGI achievement. It was a beautiful, moving story. His ability to combine technical brilliance with real human emotion never ceases to amaze me. He’s probably my favorite film director ever. (I have not seen The Hulk.)

Will Win: I have no clue? Heh. Now I DO want to join in on the “WHY WASN’T AFFLECK NOMINATED?!” complaining, because an Affleck nomination would make this category much easier to predict! I am very tentatively predicting Steven Spielberg. Lincoln, once considered THE frontrunner, is very quickly losing momentum. In the BAFTAs, it was nominated for a bunch of awards but then lost in every category except Best Actor. Maybe the Academy likes Lincoln more than other awards organizations do, but who knows?

Confidence Level in Making This Prediction: 25%. This category, man.

Possible Upset: Anyone except Benh Zeitlin, and most likely Michael Haneke. The stick up the Academy’s butt seems to be loosening a little in that they nominated Zeitlin at all, but not so much that they’ll award a snotty little upstart for his first-ever feature film. (I do not think Zeitlin is a snotty little upstart, but the Academy probably does.) Ang Lee could win for adapting an impossible book, making a very good and entirely non-controversial movie, and just for being Ang Lee, because who doesn’t like Ang Lee? (If you don’t like Ang Lee, don’t talk to me.) David O. Russell could win this because of how popular his film is, and because Harvey Weinstein is Harvey Weinstein. Michael Haneke is the likeliest upset, I think, because Amour has momentum. Amourmentum!

The important thing is, I am definitely not winning any money in the Oscar pool this year, because even if my other predictions are all correct, this category will completely undo me, and I never know how to predict the short film/documentary/movies nobody sees categories anyway.

For Your Consideration (besides Bigelow and Affleck): Stephen Chbosky, The Perks of Being a Wallflower; Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained; Joss Whedon, The Avengers.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Blog PostsOscars 2013 Predictions and Preferences: Best Actor and Best Actress

It’s Oscars predictions week, and today, I’m going to talk about the Best Actor and Best Actress nominees. This year, the lead acting categories are the inverse of the supporting acting categories. One winner is a lock, and the other is completely up in the air.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Bradley Cooper, Silver Linings Playbook
Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln
Hugh Jackman, Les Miserables
Joaquin Phoenix, The Master
Denzel Washington, Flight

Note: This category has two first-time nominees, a second-time nominee, a previous winner of Supporting and Lead Actor, and a two-time winner of Best Actor. Nice mix.

Should Win: Daniel Day-Lewis. This isn’t even close. Not that the other guys aren’t very talented, but Day-Lewis is in a different category entirely. He obviously did an incredible amount of research into this role, and yet his performance seemed effortless. He became Lincoln. My dad is a Civil War buff, and he came home from seeing the film in a daze, saying, “I feel like I just met Lincoln.” Were he not a contender this year, I would vote for Denzel Washington.

Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis.

Confidence Level In Making This Prediction: 99% – again, only because I never predict 100% for anything.

Possible Upset: Please.

For Your Consideration: Jamie Foxx, Django Unchained; John Hawkes, The Sessions; Logan Lerman, The Perks of Being a Wallflower; Suraj Sharma, Life of Pi; Jean-Louis Trintignant, Amour.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty
Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook
Emmanuelle Riva, Amour
Quvenzhane Wallis, Beasts of the Southern Wild
Naomi Watts, The Impossible

Note: This category has three previous nominees and no previous winners. The two first-time nominees are, coincidentally, the youngest AND oldest nominees to appear in this category. The ages of the Best Actress nominees range from 9 to 85, and the records were broken by a black girl and a woman in a non-English-speaking performance. How cool is that?

This has also been the hardest race to predict all year. Prognosticators couldn’t even decide on which five would be nominated. Chastain and Lawrence were the only certainties. People didn’t know whether to pick Wallis, Watts, Riva, Marion Cotillard, Helen Mirren. They thought the Academy would never nominate a nine-year-old for a lead performance, but everyone thought Hitchcock was bad. They thought the Academy would nominate one French-speaking performance, but which one?! Viewers hoped that Watts would be overlooked so they wouldn’t have to watch a tsunami movie about white people (or maybe that was just me and my friend). Eventually, though, the Academy made up their minds and chose the above five.

I’ve also seen comments about how Wallis doesn’t deserve a nomination because how much can a six-year-old really “act,” and how much of it was directing and editing, and no, you are wrong, and also, shut up. ALL successful (and unsuccessful) film performances are a combination of acting, collaboration with the director, and editing. The exception to the rule is someone like Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln, where I’m pretty sure Spielberg’s contribution to the performance was to say to DDL, “Imma let you do your thing and just film it, okay?” But he’s the exception. Leave Quvenzhane alone!

Should Win: My favorite performance this year came from Quvenzhane Wallis. She didn’t make me think, “Oh, she’s good – for a kid.” She knocked my socks off. Fierce, moving, scary, she brings Hushpuppy to life in a way that wowed me. However, I don’t want her to win, because she’s nine, and I’m always afraid of children stars having their lives ruined by the time they’re teenagers. Hollywood is mean and she should go to school! Therefore, I’ll pick Emmanuelle Riva as the “should win,” as she was excellent and a close second favorite.

Will Win: Emmanuelle Riva. I learned my lesson about discounting the BAFTA winner. In recent history, Viola Davis and Julie Christie have won Golden Globes and SAGs, but their competition – Meryl Streep and Marion Cotillard – won the BAFTA and then won the Oscar. I think the same will happen this year. On the other hand…

Confidence Level in Making This Prediction: Barely 50%. Jennifer Lawrence does have the SAG Award and one Golden Globe. Jessica Chastain has the other Golden Globe and the Critic’s Choice Award.

Possible Upset: Emmanuelle Riva IS the upset, because right now, Jennifer Lawrence is still widely considered the frontrunner with Riva slowly gaining on her. In this case, the upset is my prediction. However, I am not discounting Lawrence at all, because Silver Linings Playbook is popular with the Academy, and Harvey Weinstein KNOWS PEOPLE.

For Your Consideration: N/A. I haven’t seen the other actresses that once had a shot at this award (Marion Cotillard in Rust and Bone, Helen Mirren in Hitchcock, Rachel Weisz in The Deep Blue Sea.) I am interested in seeing Weisz’s movie, though.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Blog PostsOscars 2013 Preferences and Predictions: Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Original Screenplay

It’s Oscar prediction week, and today, I’m going to talk about the nominees for the two screenplay categories.

The screenplay categories are weird. I’m invested in this category because I’m a writer (and have a screenplay in progress, WHUT), and I never know how the Academy differentiates between adapted and original screenplay. I understand the need for separate categories, but I’m never sure what counts as an “adapted” screenplay and what counts as an “original” screenplay. Borat was once nominated for a screenplay award when most of that movie was improvised. Zero Dark Thirty is considered an original screenplay, despite Bigelow and Boal working directly with CIA people to create their work. Lincoln is an adapted screenplay of Team of Rivals, though my dad, having read the book twice, has said that the film, while historically accurate, has very little to do with Team of Rivals.

In short, I have no idea how voters judge screenplays. Do they read any of the scripts? Do they pick the films that have the best dialogue? Does familiarity with the source material determine the quality of an adapted screenplay? I can’t tell. This is a tough category to predict, especially since not all precursor awards even have screenplay awards. (The SAGs don’t, and the Globes have only one general “Best Screenplay” category.) I’m giving it my best shot.

Best Adapted Screenplay
Argo, written by Chris Terrio
Beasts of the Southern Wild, written by Lucy Alibar & Benh Zeitlin
Life of Pi, written by David Magee
Lincoln, written by Tony Kushner
Silver Linings Playbook, written by David O. Russell

Note: Every single nominee is also a Best Picture nominee, which means that no one film has the “BP nominee” competitive edge. Thanks, Academy, for messing up my ability to predict winners!

Should Win: Lincoln, though I really want to say Life of Pi. That film is based on one of my all-time favorite books, and David Magee did a wonderful job adapting it. That book is not an easy one to translate to film, and the work was masterful. However, I give Lincoln the slight edge, because Kushner wisely chose to focus on the last several months of Lincoln’s life instead of doing a typical biopic, and he made two and a half hours of Congressional procedure fascinating to watch. I was biting my nails in anxiety even though I knew the outcome of the vote. That takes talent.

Will Win: Silver Linings Playbook. Like I said, the Academy loves this movie, and it won the BAFTA. I have learned my lesson in discounting BAFTA winners.

Confidence Level in Making This Prediction: 50%. This award could just as easily go to Argo. It’s winning Best Picture all over the damn place in the precursor awards. The Academy does not seem to love Argo the way other award organizations love the film, and they seem to love Silver Linings Playbook more, but let’s say Argo wins Best Picture. I have a hard time believing that a film that wins Best Picture will ONLY win Best Picture and nothing else.

Possible Upset: Like I said – Argo.

For Your Consideration: The Perks of Being a Wallflower, written by Stephen Chbosky. My favorite non-nominated movie of the year. You’ll see this title pop up a lot in my posts.

Best Original Screenplay
Amour, written by Michael Haneke
Django Unchained, written by Quentin Tarantino
Flight, written by John Gatins
Moonrise Kingdom, written by Wes Anderson
Zero Dark Thirty, written by Mark Boal

Note: Three of these films are Best Picture nominees, so I am eliminating Moonrise Kingdom and Flight from the running. There is no real momentum for either of these movies.

Should Win: Django Unchained. I am an unabashed Tarantino fangirl, and I loved loved loved this movie. I saw it twice in one week and I want to see it again immediately. A part of me would love to see Zero Dark Thirty win this, though, because it’s a great film, and it will irritate the stupidheads who thought the movie was condoning torture (wrong).

Will Win: Django Unchained. It won the Golden Globe, Critic’s Choice Award, AND the BAFTA. 

Confidence Level in Making This Prediction: 50%. The Academy does not love Quentin, but they like him enough to throw him a bone every now and then. They’ll nominate him for Best Picture (though they will NEVER let him win Best Picture) and let him win in a Screenplay or Supporting acting category. Pulp Fiction won the Screenplay award, Inglourious Basterds won the Supporting Actor award. If Quentin wins an award, it will be in the Screenplay category.

Possible Upset: Amour. The film’s momentum is growing and it has a Best Director AND a Lead Acting nomination, while Django Unchained does not. I also suspect that the Academy is racist (no duh) and will react differently to Django Unchained (where American whites are all bad guys) than they did to Inglourious Basterds (where American white Jews – and French Jews – were heroes). Amour, while heartbreaking, does not make voters uncomfortable in the same way that Django will. Plus, it was also a very good screenplay. I can see this taking the Screenplay award despite the lack of previous wins.

For Your Consideration: The Cabin in the Woods, written by Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon; Friends with Kids, written by Jennifer Westfeldt.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Blog PostsOscars 2013 Preferences and Predictions: Best Supporting Actor/Actress

The Oscars are dumb. I love the Oscars. In the greater scheme of things, the Oscars are not very important, but oh, I love them so, and this week, I’m going to write about my preferences and predictions for the screenplay, acting, directing, and picture categories.

When deciding who should win an Academy Award, I tend to focus on merit. The best person in the category should win, no matter how many times he or she has previously won or been nominated. (Determining the best person in the category is, of course, subjective.) HOWEVER. If two people in the same category did comparably strong work, where it’s really hard to determine who was “better” than the other, and one person is a previous winner and the other has never won, the Oscar should go to the person who hasn’t won before. I believe in spreading the wealth.

When deciding who will win an Academy Award, I look at the winners of the precursor awards (DGA, PGA, Golden Globes, SAGs, Critic’s Choice Awards, and the BAFTAs), entertainment coverage in the press, and Academy Award history. I also like to predict upsets from time to time, as there is usually one surprise or two come Oscar night.

Anyway, enough preamble. In this post, I will write about my predictions and preferences for the Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress categories.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Alan Arkin, Argo
Robert De Niro, Silver Linings Playbook
Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master
Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln
Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained

Note: All nominees in this category are previous nominees. Scratch that – all nominees in this category are previous winners. Way to spread the wealth, AMPAS.

Should Win: Tommy Lee Jones. His performance as Thaddeus Stevens in Lincoln was fierce, as uncompromising as the abolitionist himself. Lincoln could have easily been a one-man show without a strong supporting cast, and he forcibly reminded us that the fight to end slavery wasn’t just about the Emancipation Proclamation or about Abraham Lincoln. He was passionate, interesting without being likable, and soft only when the moment required it.

Will Win: Robert DeNiro. The Academy loves Silver Linings Playbook. They love it a lot. It’s going to go home with at least one award. Now that Emmanuelle Riva is getting some awards momentum for Amour, I think she might wind up beating Jennifer Lawrence in the Best Actress category. If Riva beats Lawrence, then I think DeNiro will win Supporting Actor. I think voters will also be pleased to see an actor of his caliber doing something besides yet another gangster role, and they usually have at least one surprise in an acting category.

Confidence Level in Making This Prediction: I’m 40% sure about this prediction – a soft 40%. Anyone could win this one. I hope it doesn’t go to Arkin or Hoffman. Arkin is a wonderful actor, but his performance in Argo really boils down to the repetition of a catchphrase. It’s a role many people could have played with a similar result, and doesn’t speak to his talent and skill. And I’m tired of Hoffman; I think he’s been coasting or going way over-the-top in his acting for a few years now, and The Master is definitely an over-the-top situation.

Potential Upset: Robert DeNiro is actually the upset in a category with no real frontrunner, but Christoph Waltz also has a good chance. He’s won the Golden Globe (which doesn’t mean much in terms of Oscars) AND the BAFTA (which does mean a lot, because there’s a big overlap in BAFTA and AMPAS voters). He’s also really charming, everyone likes him, and he was great in the movie.

However, as much as I loved Django Unchained and Waltz in it…it’s almost the same performance he did in Inglourious Basterds. The same charm and affability with the underlying dangerous quality. Even though it’s a GREAT performance, it’s essentially the same performance twice, except this time he’s playing a good guy. (I would’ve nominated DiCaprio or Jackson, especially Jackson, in his place.) The Academy is already hesitant to give Quentin Tarantino movies too much love, and if his movie wins an award, I think it has a better chance in the Screenplay category than the Supporting Actor category. I’m not ruling him out, but I think DeNiro and Jones both have better chances.

For Your Consideration: Jason Clarke, Zero Dark Thirty; Leonardo DiCaprio, Django Unchained; John Goodman, Flight; Dwight Henry, Beasts of the Southern Wild; Samuel L. Jackson, Django Unchained; Irrfan Khan, Life of Pi; Ezra Miller, The Perks of Being a Wallflower; Eddie Redmayne, Les Miserables; Bruce Willis, Moonrise Kingdom. 

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Amy Adams, The Master
Sally Field, Lincoln
Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables
Helen Hunt, The Sessions
Jacki Weaver, Silver Linings Playbook

Note: Every nominee is a previous nominee, but only two are previous winners.

Should Win: Anne Hathaway. She knocked “I Dreamed a Dream” out of the park, despite Tom Hooper shoving the camera so close to her face that you could almost see up her nostrils. She also elevated the performance beyond a typical “hooker with a heart of gold in a period drama” role and made Fantine’s struggle seem relevant today. Hathaway was comfortable and appropriate in the nineteenth century setting, but when I watched her suffer as Fantine, I felt chills thinking of women today who still suffer when they don’t have enough money to feed their children. That combination is hard to pull off, but she did it.

Will Win: Anne Hathaway, and deservedly so. As far as I’m concerned, she and Sally Field are the only two worth talking about. Weaver was moving but her part was too small to really stand out. Helen Hunt was fine in The Sessions but her accent slipped a lot, to the point of distraction. Amy Adams did the best she could with a “character” that was a pale copy of Lady Macbeth that Paul Thomas Anderson picked up at the 99-cent Character Trope Store because he doesn’t know how to write an actual flesh-and-blood woman. Sally Field was excellent in Lincoln. She and Hathaway’s performances were of comparable quality, and Field already has two Oscars, so let’s give it to Hathaway.

Confidence Level in Making This Prediction: 99%, and only because I am never 100% sure about anything.

Potential Upset: Ha ha. No. She’s winning. Enjoy picking apart how sincere or insincere she is in her acceptance speech, haters – that’s still one more Oscar than you’ll ever have.

For Your Consideration: Jennifer Ehle, Zero Dark Thirty; Emma Watson, The Perks of Being a Wallflower.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 1 Comment

ArticlesAcademy Awards Diversity Checklist

I have a piece up at Bitch Flicks about the diversity (and lack thereof) in the Academy Award nominations this year. To sum up: the selection is not that diverse, but in some cases, more diverse than in previous years.

Here is an excerpt:

Number of Best Picture-Nominated Films With a Person of Color as a Protagonist, Played by a POC Actor: 3/9

Commentary: Beasts of the Southern Wild, Django Unchained, and Life of Pi have all been nominated for Best Picture, and their films all have POC actors/protagonists (Quvenzhane Wallis, Jamie Foxx, and Suraj Sharma, respectively). Argo technically has a POC protagonist, but the role played by a white actor (Ben Affleck). I don’t know whether Affleck cast himself out of vanity, an understandable desire to perform and direct at the same time, fear that the racist film industry wouldn’t stand behind and promote a film without a famous white actor in the lead role, or all of the above.”

Would you like to read the rest? Of course you do! Here is the link: 2013 Academy Awards Diversity Checklist.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Blog PostsTo Everyone Who Had a Problem With the Most Recent Episode of “Girls”

Many people like to have sex.

Yes, even the people you don’t find attractive.

Sometimes people you don’t find attractive have sex with other people you don’t find attractive.

You don’t like to know this. You don’t like having a mental picture of two ugly people humping each other.

But guess what? Sometimes, people you don’t find attractive will have sex with people you do find attractive.

Sometimes the person you find attractive is really attractive. Maybe even gorgeous, by any standard. And that incredibly attractive person still wants to have sex with a person you find unattractive, maybe even repulsive.

Right now, a person you might find attractive is probably having sex with someone you don’t find attractive, even as you are reading this.

It’s happening all over the world.

On your TV screens, and also in real life.

You know why this is happening?

That person you find attractive? Is very attracted to the person you don’t find attractive.

That’s right. The person you find unattractive is considered attractive to other people.

Yes, even if the person is chubby.

Yes, even if the person is – gasp – fat.

Yes, even if the person has other obvious physical “flaws.”

See, the things you consider flaws? Not everyone considers them flaws. Some people find those flaws attractive. Even sexually appealing.

You can’t handle this. You can’t handle the idea that someone you would really like to have sex with is out there, having sex with someone you don’t find attractive, someone who is probably less attractive than you.

These thoughts are plaguing your brain. You find these thoughts uncomfortable. Maybe these thoughts are even driving you to jealousy, or anger.

Here is my advice for dealing with these unwelcome thoughts:

Get over it.

You’re welcome.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Blog PostsThis troll is going to be legend…wait for it…

In 2011, I wrote a post about my problems with the characterization of Barney Stinson on How I Met Your Mother.

Yesterday, this popped up in my inbox:

“You know what? Barney is awesome, and you should live with it. Neil Patrick Harris just got the job, that doesn`t mean that he`s actually like that. Suck It Bitch!”

Well. That seems like a reasonable response.

Edited to add: A response! This just appeared in my email:

“da hell if you odnt lik ehim why d you use his queues
legendary is his bitch”

Oh, my.

At this point, I would usually mark the poster as spam, but this is way too entertaining. Keep ’em coming, angry Barney Stinson fan!

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Blog PostsA Note on a Previous Post

Once upon a time – or, two years ago, on January 31, 2011 – I wrote a post called “Easy A: A Fauxminist Film.” In this post, I alleged that the film Easy A was not very feminist, despite having an on-the-surface feminist message. This post was featured on Bitch Flicks and re-blogged in different places.

On December 14, 2012, I received this comment on the Easy A post. The poster identified herself as Tess. This is what Tess wrote:

“Would have been nice if you had discussed the extreme lack of POC in the cast. Apart from Olive’s younger brother, I can’t think of any other POC in the entire film.”

This comment rubbed me the wrong way. I was put off by the beginning of the sentence, the “would have been nice if you had…” I pictured the commenter, this Tess, clicking the “post” button while sniffing haughtily. I responded with this:

“Well, fortunately I have people like you to tell me what I should write on my own blog.”

I clicked “post comment,” and then thought, “Oh, shit, did I just start a flame war?” I thought about deleting the comment, but realized that Tess would be able to read the comment whether I deleted it or not, and the damage was already done.

Surprisingly, Tess did not comment again. I did, however, receive a comment from Lisa, on January 24, 2013, a full month after the comment from Tess:

“Well that was unnecessarily rude…It seemed like more of a suggestion than the previous poster “telling [you] what to write on [your] blog.” And it’s a good suggestion, at that! But I guess there will always be some self-proclaimed ‘feminists’ who only care about ‘oppression’ through their white/cis lenses.”

This comment irked me even more than the original comment from Tess for two reasons: one, the inappropriate use of single quotation marks, and two, the mention of “white/cis” lenses. I never mentioned cis/trans issues in the original post, and Tess never mentioned cis/trans issues in her comment, so I don’t know why Lisa felt the need to mention “white/cis lenses.” What does my being cis have to do with Tess’s original criticism about my lack of commentary on racial issues?

Anyway, I was still irked, so I responded like this:

“Sorry, I don’t take kindly to people who read a post and then leave a comment addressing nothing I actually wrote and instead snottily inform me that it ‘would’ve been nice’ if I had written about THIS instead of THAT. Had the comment been phrased as a question – ‘What do you think about the lack of POC in the film?’ – I would have responded differently.

As for you, when you came to the conclusion about what I do and don’t care about anyone but white women, was this before or after you perused the 10+ posts I’ve written on racism and racial diversity? Or is standing up for people in comments sections just a hobby of yours?’

Again, I expected Lisa to respond to this comment. She never did. However, on February 8, 2013, a poster who identified herself as Anne responded to Lisa’s comment:

“I agree with you. The original commenter actually made a valid point and the op responds with a tone argument. She might have made racism and racially diverse posts in the past but missed the mark in this particular post. Intersectionalism is part of feminism and critiquing the lack of poc in media is a feminist issue. If anyone has a problem with that then maybe they’re not as much of a ‘feminist’ as they think they are.”

And again, with the improper usage of quotation marks. Sigh.

I thought about responding to Anne’s comment, but instead, I decided to write a new post about this mini-kerfluffle. (Though really, it’s so mini that I can’t even call it a mini-kerfluffle. It’s more like a mini-kerf.)

To begin with, I was not in a very charitable state of mind when I received Tess’s comment. The comment popped up in my email while I was having an exceptionally rotten day, for personal reasons that I won’t get into, and my patience was already running thin.

It’s possible I made too much of the “would have been nice if” comment. Maybe Tess did not intend for that comment to come off as rude and challenging. I’ve had my share of Internet trolls, and maybe I was oversensitive due to past experiences. Thanks to the benefit of hindsight – and a conversation with a friend – I have come to the conclusion that I was unnecessarily harsh in my response to her. Tess, if you’re reading this, I apologize for snapping at you.

However, I still think it’s weird for someone to leave a first-ever comment on my blog, on a post that’s almost two years old, say nothing about the content of the piece, and only comment on what I didn’t write about. Weird, and a little rude. Probably not intentionally rude, probably not malicious, but a little rude.

Here’s the thing: I wrote that post on Easy A in January 2011. In October 2011, I started writing posts about race, diversity, and racial stereotypes, and tagged those posts “white girl talkin’ about racism.” I used that tag because I realized that my feminist criticism was pretty white-centric, and I wanted to write more about racial diversity and how stereotypes affect women (and men) of color.

Does this make me a perfect person who wins the Little Miss Intersectionality Pageant? Absolutely not. But I make an effort to be conscious about racism and other feminist issues that might not directly affect me and other straight, white, able-bodied, cisgendered women like me. I try (oh my GOD do I try/I try all the time/in this institution/and I said hey-ey-ey-ey…).

So to receive a comment about how I didn’t mention the lack of POC in Easy A when that post is two years old…well, it got on my nerves. My feminist philosophy and my understanding of racial issues have developed and matured since January 31, 2011. The proof is on the blog itself. It won’t take long for people to find that proof.

That’s why the two followup comments annoyed me much more than the original comment. “She might have made racism and racially diverse posts in the past but missed the mark in this particular post.” In the past? I wrote the posts about racism after I wrote the Easy A review, after.

This is how I read articles on the Internet. When I read an interesting blog post that I feel misses the mark on an important issue, I check the post’s publication date. If the post I want to respond to is two years old, I refrain from commenting until I’ve read a few recent pieces by the same author, because I want to see if the person has developed in his/her thinking since writing the two-year-old post. If a person wrote a post in 2010 called “Why Rape Jokes Are Awesome,” and then wrote a post in 2012 called “Never Mind, Rape Jokes Are Terrible,” I’m not going to waste my energy commenting on the 2010 post.

However, let’s say the author wrote a post in 2010 called “Why Gone With the Wind is a Feminist Classic” and wrote 2,000+ words about the awesomeness of Scarlett O’Hara and Melanie Wilkes, and never brought up the racist portrayals of Mammy and Prissy. I probably wouldn’t feel inclined to comment, because that post would be three years old, but if I did comment, I’d probably say something like this: “You raise a lot of good points about the characters of Scarlett and Melanie. I wonder what you think about the portrayals of black women in the film, though. I think the racist portrayals of Mammy and Prissy undermine a feminist message in the film, if there is one. I also think that the movie’s sunny depiction of slavery undermines any social justice message.”

That takes a little more time to write than “I guess you only care about feminism through your white/cis lenses,” but it’s worth it, because I believe in one rule when commenting on another person’s blog: be polite.

Let’s also consider the fact that, in my Easy A review, I said nothing racist or objectionable or anything that reinforced stereotypes. The lack of POC in the film was just something I forgot to bring up. It happens.

But since that post has now attracted unwanted attention from the social justice 101 crowd, I’ll make this statement: Easy A, like many Hollywood films, is very white. It could stand to have more people of color in the cast. Also, the actor who played Olive’s little brother seems like a charming kid, and I hope he gets more work.

Look, I expect to be held to task when I screw up. I don’t expect to be held up to a standard of perfection. And I have no patience for people who think they can determine my entire character, or determine what I care about, based on one post I write. That is what we call trolling.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , , , | 11 Comments

Blog PostsReading Recommendations for Storm Nemo

It’s Friday, and Mother Nature is apparently going to barf snow all over New England and the Northeast. Here are some reading recommendations to last you about ten minutes into the storm.

“5 People Who Should Host the Oscars At Some Point,” by yours truly, at Bitch Flicks. Excerpt:

“I would love for the Academy to break its pattern of picking straight white guys, believe me, but I’ll make an exception for Tom Hanks, because Tom Hanks needs to host the Oscars.Tom Hanks is a national treasure. He’s a very good actor, personable, hilarious, and willing to take the piss out of everyone and everything, especially himself. I still remember Steve Martin’s joke from his first hosting gig: “There’s been an update in the plot to kidnap Russell Crowe, and all I have to say is – Tom Hanks, I’m very ashamed of you.” Martin’s joke was funny enough on its own, but then the camera cut to Hanks in the audience looking shame-faced and mouthing, “I’m sorry,” which made it hilarious and memorable.

Also, he did slam poetry about Full House on Jimmy Fallon’s show.”

“Hell Hath No Fury Like a Blogger Impassioned: Why Do ‘Angry Women’ Scare People So Much?” by Carey Purcell, at Careypurcell.com. Excerpt:

“If the recent New York Post cover is any indication, a woman feeling anger is a spectacle, a newsworthy event that belongs on the front cover of a major daily newspaper. Publishing a full-page photograph of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with her mouth open, mid-sentence, the Post ran the headline, “NO WONDER BILL’S AFRAID” and describes Clinton as exploding “with rage” at a recent hearing.

To give this grossly exaggerated headline some context, Clinton’s image was captured mid-sentence after Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), aggressively questioned her during a recent hearing on Benghazi about the actions her department took following the attack. Clinton’s response was, “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans.” And the New York Post took that and ran into the land of angry womanhood.

The fact that a respected politician who expressed emotion over the death of four Americans is a newsworthy event begs the question: would Clinton have made headlines, let alone the front page, if she were a man? I recall President George W. Bush being praised for crying on television after the September 11, 2001 attacks. People were moved that a man – the most powerful man in America – was comfortable with expressing his emotions publicly.”

“I’m Sad 30 Rock Ended (And Why You Should Be Too)” by Anisha Ahuja on Feminspire. Excerpt:

“I’m sad. It’s been a rough week. The first part was filled with reminiscing, but most of all, dread. And the second part was just filled with pure melancholy. And that’s because after seven years of 30 Rock, this week was goodbye. The sitcom loved by nerds and critics said its goodbyes in an extended episode filled with laughs, but mostly cries. Did I mention I’m really sad? And I’m not just sad because Tina Fey (and her rapport with Alec Baldwin) is leaving my screen for I don’t even know how long, but I’m sad because of the underlying issues with its cancellation. Yes, there it is – there has to be a greater point to everything!

The worst part about 30 Rock ending is that as it leaves and other shows of a similar caliber fight to stay on the air, the shows that stick to the status quo have no problem being renewed again and again. And this status quo is a very specific type – it’s one that uses the dirth of television to reinforce misconceptions, stereotypes, and objectifications of women (say it with me everyone: sexism). 30 Rock was a show spearheaded by Tina Fey (who played the now widely commercialized concept of “Liz Lemon”) – a comedy goddess who consistently proves that working women are not only normal but also incredibly necessary.”

“Jon Kelly at BBC News: Janeites: The Curious American Cult of Jane Austen” by Sarah Rees Brennan at her tumblr. Excerpt:

“I’m a lady creator, though not as fancy as the ones I’ve been discussing. I’ve had my appearance criticised, and the company I keep, and how I conduct myself, and that all sucks. Quite recently I remember a blogger described my behaviour at a public event as ‘attention-seeking’ (no! good gravy! who do I think I am, up on a stage talking?)… I’ve seen that word used for a lot of women, but I’ve never seen it used for a man. It’s almost as if… people see a dude up on stage talking and think ‘Yes, things are as they should be.’ And they see a lady and think ‘SHUT UP, WOMAN’S NAME, SHUT UP.’

I’ve said snarky things and been roundly criticised for my rudeness. (Like, this weekend.) So have many ladies! While snarky dudes are celebrated, quoted, applauded: while we all know that dudes can get away with a million more things than we can.”

“#NOTBUYINGIT: The Problem is Far Bigger than Audi’s #BraveryWins” by Garland Grey at Tiger Beatdown. Excerpt:

“The message of this commercial is: if you are driving a nice car, you are entitled to having your sexual/romantic desires met, in public. Because women, like nice cars and other luxury goods, are property you might incur negative repercussions, but you shouldn’t doubt for a second that you absolutely have a right to them. If the comments over at Jalopnik and the tweets to those the linked article highlighted are any indication, this interpretation is not universal. Some viewers felt that not enthusiastically endorsing their interpretation of the kiss as harmless was silly because it was just a commercial, because the girl “liked it,” because the only reason someone would have a problem with it is if they were jealous, because shut up, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, shut up.

Charming shit. I especially enjoy the logic of asserting that it doesn’t matter because the story is fictional, but despite that fact they are able to read the non-verbal consent of a complete stranger in the span of a few seconds. I am likewise overjoyed that people are still putting on productions of “It Wasn’t Sexual Assault Because She Liked It” — I was humming “Calling Everything Sexual Assault is an Insult to People Who Have Been Sexually Assaulted” all morning. But I have a few critical thinking questions for you.”

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | Leave a comment