OSCAR REDUX-ULOUS

The only real highlight this year was Kathryn Bigilow's win for Best Director. First woman to do that, But I was hoping her speech would build on that, mention all the unsung (and often uncredited) women directors of classic Hollywood, as well as those in recent years that broke down the barriers.

I would have loved to have heard Ida Lupino lauded or Randa Haines (who broke ground with CHILDREN OF A LESSER GOD as a woman director but was overlooked for the nomination despite almost everything else in that movie being nominated—full disclosure Haines was a friend at the time, but she still deserved a nomination).

The opening number with Neil Patrick Harris was embarrassing. The problem is they try to create the show partly to impress the live Hollywood audience, who can see the screens on stage and the dance numbers and the moving Ikea sculptures or whatever they were in a personally in-the-house connection way.

But they also have to impress the rest of us who are watching on our TVs. Most often they end up doing neither. Like I said, the opening number was an embarrassment and wasted way too much time. Ed Sullivan knew how to pace a show better in the 1950s!

But some stuff worked well. Like the co-hosts. A great team, comfortable and professional and not too intrusive (it wasn't about them, as it was about Billy Crystal say). And they made me laugh out loud a lot (full disclosure Alec Baldwin's an old friend).

I thought having James Taylor sing and play acoustic over the memorial segment was a nice touch, though the confusion in the directing booth about the on-stage screens and the TV screen at home made for some awkward moments. They never had that problem years ago, just automatically switched to the small screen the second any clips or montages began. Now they seem to linger for us to see, in this case, two screens at odd angles and have to try and figure out what's on them.

And as others have pointed out, they not only left Farrah Faucett off the memorial montage, but Bea Arthur, Henry Gibson and Brad Renfro as well. What's up with that?

And too many extraneous clips (like the one on how they did the sound for a DARK KNIGHT explosion, as if making up for leaving THE DARK KNIGHT out last year) and not enough of the stuff that matters (remember those old montages, like the one that incorporated what seemed like hundreds of the most iconic movie moments of all time—more of that please!). [I used to remember the guy's name who edited that, but can't post brain surgery and can't find it on the net either)

Surprisingly there were no memorable speeches this year either. I was hoping for something from Bridges or even Bullock that would nail the moment, but they kind of wavered and settled for sincere, but not that poignant or ultimately interesting (Bridges initial remark about being an "extension" of his parents and their show biz aspirations and achievements was a nice touch, but then he went into "The Dude" mode and I wondered if he had maybe toked up beforehand and thought everything was happening a lot faster than it was).

When Geoffrey Fletcher won for adapted screen play that almost turned into a memorable moment because he's the first African-American to win in that category and was obviously overwhelmed, but then it became more about him than the story, which after all was adapted, not written by him, though he sounded as if it had been. And as far as I could hear he didn't even include Sapphire among those he thanked and she wrote the book he took the story and characters and much of the dialogue from! (I hope I'm wrong about that, so if you heard different let me know.)

The other dance number had some amazing moves in it (triple flips etc.) but it was too much. They should have made the soundtracks the dancers were interpreting into a medley and had the dancers do their most spectacular moves in the shortest time possible, or cut the whole bit.

But despite all the problems and disappointments and glitches and being way too long, in the end I enjoyed it, because of Baldwin and Martin and because of some of the presenters and recipients and mostly because there were some nominees who were totally deserving of the accolades, and I got to see some old friends and co-workers live, even if just on the small screen.

MY OSCARS

As you may have heard by now, the Oscar scoring system is different this year for best picture because there's ten nominees instead of five. I still don't get why that means voters don't just vote for the movie they thought was best of the year but instead have to rank them, first choice, second etc.

But whatever the reasoning, I like the idea of ordering my favorites among the nominees and it's another list I otherwise wouldn't make, since my post-brain-surgery lack of interest in lists is still operating, but will because I have never missed making my choices and predicting what the Academy will do since I was a kid.

But first I want to say that none of the nominees for Best Picture really rise to the level of best pictures of previous years for my taste. AVATAR may deserve it for sheer movie technical artistry, HURT LOCKER for direction, UP IN THE AIR for story and performances, PRECIOUS for performances and risk taking, etc.

But my favorite movie of the year, post-brain surgery was probably IT'S COMPLICATED, which for my taste was pretty much flawless, especially the second time I saw it, and flawless is hard to do even if the movie is basically lightweight compared to most Best Picture winners (and even though plenty of people would disagree with me on the flawlessness I'm sure).

Two other movies I would have had on my top ten list for the year post brain surgery are A SINGLE MAN and THE LAST STATION.

And my favorite movie of the year, pre-brain surgery, is AMERICAN VIOLET, with BRIGHT STAR a close second and WHATEVER WORKS right behind it (I went back and looked over pre-surgery posts to refresh my memory for that part of the year).

But of the Oscar nominees I saw (I still have to catch A SINGLE MAN and DISTRICT 9) I'd rank them like this:

BEST PICTURE OSCAR NOMINEES I'VE SEEN:
1. AVATAR
2. THE HURT LOCKER
3. UP IN THE AIR
4. UP
5. AN EDUCATION
6. PRECIOUS
7. THE BLIND SIDE
8. INGLORIOUS BASTERDS

As for who will win it, even though THE HURT LOCKER is the favorite at this point, if I was betting on it, I'd pick AVATAR.

The Best Actor category is missing some giant performances of the year in my mind, like Ben Wishaw as John Keats in BRIGHT STAR and Will Patton in AMERICAN VIOLET (I'm sorry I missed INVICTUS and the other movie Matt Damon was in based on that real life whistle blower mad man I heard was an incredible performance, etc.)

BEST ACTOR OSCAR NOMINEES I'VE SEEN:
1. Colin Firth in A SINGLE MAN
2. Jeff Bridges in CRAZY HEART
3. George Clooney in UP IN THE AIR
4. Jeremy Renner in HURT LOCKER

All my top three choices deserve an Oscar for their performances this year for my taste, but the favorite, Jeff Bridges will probably nab it for a lifetime of amazingly nuanced and amazingly underrated performances.

Best Actress category is missing what I thought were the greatest performances of the year. My first choice would have been Nicole Beharie in AMERICAN VIOLET, followed by Abbie Cornish in BRIGHT STAR and Evan Rachel Wood in WHATEVER WORKS.

BEST ACTRESS OSCAR NOMINEES:
1. Gabourey Sidibe in PRECIOUS
2. Helen Mirren in LAST STATION
3. Carey Mulligan in AN EDUCATION
4. Meryl Streep in JULIE & JULIA
5. Sandra Bullock in THE BLIND SIDE

The favorite seems to be Bullock but I would bet on Streep again (though I have my fingers crossed for either Sidibe or Mirren, whose performances were beyond a doubt the best of these five).

Many of my favorite Best Supporting Actor performances weren't nominated, like almost everyone in AMERICAN VIOLET, especially Michael O'Keefe, Charles S. Dutton, Tim Blake and Xzibit. I also liked Brian Geraghty in THE HURT LOCKER and found his performance at times more realistic than Jemery Renner's (as I did the cameo appreances in the same flick by Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes and David Morse, as well as Ed Begley in WHATEVER WORKS).

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR OSCAR NOMINEES I SAW:
1. Christopher Plummer in THE LAST STATION
2. Christoph Waltz in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS
3. Stanley Tucci in THE LOVELY BONES

Everyone says it's Christoph Waltz and I suspect that's gonna turn out to be right.

As for Best Supporting Actress, again there's performances missing I'd have chosen, like Alfre Woodard in AMERICAN VIOLET and Kerry Fox in BRIGHT STAR, but my choice would have been Patricia Clarkson in WHATEVER WORKS.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS OSCAR NOMINEES I SAW:
1. Mo'Nique in PRECIOUS
2. Anna Kendrick in UP IN THE AIR
3. Maggie Gyllenhaal in CRAZY HEART
4. Vera Famiga in UP IN THE AIR

Of course Mo'Nique deserves and most likely will get this one, no matter what you think of the movie this performance is undeniably precedent shattering (and not because the character is African American but because she is so realistically and believably evil without losing her humanity entirely).

I would have liked to have seen Tim Disney nominated for AMERICAN VIOLET because it's such a powerfully realistic movie for my taste and yet restrained in a way few directors would have pulled off (with amazing performances) and Jane Campion for BRIGHT STAR too.

BEST DIRECTOR OSCAR NOMINEES:
1. Katheryn Bigelow for THE HURT LOCKER
2. James Cameron for AVATAR
3. Jason Reitman for UP IN THE AIR
4. Lee Daniels for PRECIOUS
5. Tarantino for INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

It's Bigelow's. Though maybe Cameron actually deserves it more for what he managed to pull off.

[I can't believe I forgot the screenplay and adapted screenplay categories, especially since I made my living for a while in Hollywood writing screenplays. Again I would have chosen some others, but as for the ones nominated, my choices would be:

ADAPTED SCREENPLAYS I SAW:
1. Geoffrey Fletcher for PRECIOUS
2. Jason Reitman for UP IN THE AIR
3. Nick Hornby for AN EDUCATION

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAYS I SAW:
1. Bob Peterson and Pete Doctor for UP
2. Marl Boal for THE HURT LOCKER
3. Quentin Tarantino for INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

The favorite for Adapted is Reitman, but I'm thinking Fletcher just might win it. The favorite for Original is Tarantino, though some favor Boal and I'd bet on him.]

PS TO RIGHTWING LIES

In case you had trouble linking to the two sites my older son Miles commented on in a previous post: I thought I'd write this fast PS with the links in it here and here so you can read them for yourself and use them if you deign to argue with anyone who still thinks the media is anything but rightwing or so rightwing intimidated it might as well be right wing.

REGULATION VS. DE- OR NO REGULATION & THE USUAL RIGHTWING LIES

Ever since the earthquake in Chile I've been waiting for someone on the news to make the point that the more powerful Chilean one caused only hundreds (what may still turn out to be thousands, though many of those more a result of the tsunami following the quake than the quake itself) of deaths while the Haitian one caused hundreds of thousands because the Haitian buildings were constructed without any government regulations or without their being enforced while the Chilean buildings were government regulated and therefore safer.

The news has pointed this out but never in terms of regulation vs. de- or no regulation. As I referred to in yesterday's post and TPW elaborated beautifully on, the Dems seem incapable of being succinct and to the point, as in "Here's what lack of regulation caused—over two hundred thousand dead—as opposed to regulation—hundreds dead!"

And now I read a rightwinger's defending the Chilean regulations as something coming from the father of deregulation and privatization Milton Friedman! But of course, it is a LIE. A lie that I am sure rightwingers will promulgate and within months if not days it will become an accepted "fact" on the right and an "opposing view" in the mainstream media, instead of A LIE, which is what it is and Naomi Wolfe articulates in her usual clear and logically reasoned way.

IT'S POINTLESS

One of the things I've mentioned that changed with the brain surgery is my tolerance for the outright idiocy on the right wing of the political spectrum these days. Or to be more specific, the lies and misinformation, but even more so the absence of logic and reason, as if opinions based on repeating lies and misinformation loudly or emotionally or with the pretense of individuality makes it true (i.e. someone like Sarah Pailin or Glen Beck repeating tired rightwing propaganda as if it's coming out of their personal experience, like "death panels" being set up by Obama and the Dems to deprive her "special needs" child of his healthcare or even his life (!) etc.)

To hear Obama's successful moves that saved us all from another Great Depression characterized as "Marxist" or "socialist" or "fascism" or other completely inapplicable terms, is to watch desperate politicos and their followers overreach for ways to demonize middle-of-the-road, moderate, pragmatist Obama who has addressed and is addressing issues the Republicans neglected for decades that contributed the most to our current problems.

It's as if there are now two dictionaries of "American English"—one that is based on the meanings of words as they have always been defined in dictionaries since Webster, and another that has redefined common and uncommon words in order to give them sinister or benevolent connotations as fits the political agenda of the rightwingers who have basically stolen the language I have dedicated my life to, as have so many others.

It's an Alice in Wonderland kind of fantasy world where birth certificates and tons of factual data mean their opposite if a rightwing propagandist can strike an emotional chord in the rightwing crowd. Where one person's "retard" means one thing (Dem=sinister) and another's another thing (Repub=benevolent) etc.

I don't have the capacity to recall the kind of quotes and information I used to have easy access to in my mind (for instance I can't remember what Orwell called that kind of doubletalk, was it Newspeak?) but I also have an appreciation for clarity and precision in language I had maybe gotten away from (and may not be achieving now in my writing since my vocabulary and memory seem at times more limited).

If there's one criticism I have of Obama (and I have more than one) it's his and his team's (and most of the Dems for that matter) lack of clarity at times in presenting a simple and concise version of the facts. They either seem to assume the general populace gets the ridiculousness of some of the right's attacks and language distortions and reality manipulations etc. or get too elaborate in explaining and defending their policies, so that, as I've written here before, only 2% of the population in a recent poll are even aware that Obama LOWERED taxes for most of us, unlike the last administration that only lowered them for the wealthiest few, like themselves.

Anyway, I've already wasted too much time on this. It bores me now, because I realize how pointless it is. Not for everyone, but certainly for the rightwingers that continue to spout whatever the rightwing line of the day is (and I know the tea partyers are supposedly something new or giving the rightwingers trouble, but that's not really the case when examined closely and realistically. Whatever an individual tea partyer might believe, the core principles being espoused by those in that "movement" who have expressed themselves in interviews and speeches and signs and angry outbursts at town hall meetings and tea party rallies etc. have honed almost perfectly to the rightwing line and agenda) it is pointless to even engage in arguing. They lack the capacity to acknowledge any reality that doesn't reflect their ideology.

The facts are most, if not all, European countries, and others, that have any kind of universal health plan for their citizens, spend less on healthcare and are healthier by every statistical measure than we in the USA are. And these same industrialized (actually an outmoded term these days for Western democracies) nations have much better education systems and spend more money on education (as a part of their budgets) and get better results, while here in the richest country on earth people are homeless because of the cost of healthcare crises, or dying because of lack of healthcare, etc. etc. etc. and schools are getting worse and costing more etc. etc. etc.

The taxes are higher in these countries, and for that the citizens get a better educated, safer, healthier, body politic. While we seem to get worse and worse. That's what Obama's trying to change, but he's trying to do it incrementally and cautiously and moderately and with well thought out but often too nuanced and elaborate explanations and policies. He's criticized from the left for not taking more bold measures and by the right for taking any.

But it's late and this probably isn't even making sense. Just been meaning to address this sense of pointlessness every time i read or hear one of these rightwingers say almost anything.

ANOTHER POST-BRAIN SURGERY UPDATE

It's late and been a long day, but wanted to report that my reading is back to what it was for the most part. I'm so into this biography of Thelonious Monk I'm almost finished.

And I'm able to do some writing beyond this blog. Well, rewriting actually on the monster memoir thing I've been working on for a couple of years now and will be the longest in history probably if I ever finish it.

It's the process of writing that I'm into and aleays have been. I was totally ready to accept the possibility that I wouldn't be able tow rite again as I once did, or have for most of my life. But now it looks like I'm pretty close to returning to at least the cognitiive and motor sckills to write again.

But I tire more easily still, and forget things more than I used to, so I we'll see if I can actually write as much or for as long if this recovery continues as it has been going.

There are still changes that have affected the way I think and think of myself. It feels like some of those might be permanent. But we'll see. Like the one I've pointed out most often because it is so obvious, my lifelong list making compulsion, which no longer is there and hasn't been since I woke up from the operation.

Other characteristics, large and small, seem permanenetly changed as well. But who knows what the future might bring. Whatever it might be I hope I'm grateful for all of it.

[PS: I corrected a bunch of typos as I was writing this, but in reading it when I was finished I noticed a bunch more, but am leaving them in as examples of what my writing is like now. I know a few typos might mean nothing to many people but to someone like me who has been writing for every day of my life—and I mean "writing" as in articles essays reviews stories poems screenplays plays books etc.—making the kinds of mistakes, typos and redundancies etc. as I do above is rare. (and I obviously corrected a bunch more in this PS]

OUT OF STYLE

Ever since the brain surgery, I seem to have less patience for what seems to me to be hypocrisy or outright delusion, and not just from the right.

For instance, can anyone tell me how the make up on the model on the cover of Sunday's NY Times magazine (as well as most of the shots inside and over the past few decades—did this decadent style begin in the Reagan era? Hmmm...) can be seen as anything other than an attempt to make this woman look like an evil robot?

If it's meant to be art, I can dig that, though it's nothing that new. But as "fashion" (and I know some see that as "art" too, as I do, but only when it reaches that level, which for my taste this doesn't) this seems incredibly tedious and obvious and technically trite. Or is it just me?