Oscar nominations
Jan. 25th, 2011 08:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Announced this morning. They just announced them, and put them in the news feed. No snazzy tv show, no big theatre, no tuxes and fancy dresses, no red carpet, no Billy Crystal or whoever telling jokes, they just announced them, as they do every year, even though I find the nominee list far more interesting and meaningful than the final winners.
I made a point of renting The Social Network as soon as possible after the DVD release for the same reason that I bothered to go to see True Grit and The King's Speech in the theatres: in a bid to increase the number of movies likely to be nominated for major Oscars that I'd seen before the nominations came out. Last year, and the year before, I'd only seen 3 at that point.
And this year: 3. The above 3. Run as fast as you can, you'll still be in the same place.
However, we are better off in at least one respect. In the previous two years, I found only two of the three films to be good as films. This year they were all well-made and enjoyable, on that level, to watch. The problems were different. The Social Network is about a villain who wins the game, which could be great if only the story were fiction. Unfortunately it's all too true. Better that, though, I suppose, than a whitewashing of history. I've previously alluded to to the historical howlers in The King's Speech but I tried not to go on and on whinging about it. No, I'll leave that to Christopher Hitchens, who does it better than I could. I'd quibble with some of his emphases (Edward VIII wasn't that pro-Nazi) and query one statement (I've never read that Edward's equerry Fruity Metcalfe was actually a Blackshirt, and it sounds unlikely to me, as Edward actually repudiated Fascist support in the abdication crisis), but every other shocking fact Hitch throws out is absolutely true, including the existence of the notion in Churchill's mind, that Hitler had only one rival as a noxious, vile, existential threat to the British Empire: Gandhi.
I made a point of renting The Social Network as soon as possible after the DVD release for the same reason that I bothered to go to see True Grit and The King's Speech in the theatres: in a bid to increase the number of movies likely to be nominated for major Oscars that I'd seen before the nominations came out. Last year, and the year before, I'd only seen 3 at that point.
And this year: 3. The above 3. Run as fast as you can, you'll still be in the same place.
However, we are better off in at least one respect. In the previous two years, I found only two of the three films to be good as films. This year they were all well-made and enjoyable, on that level, to watch. The problems were different. The Social Network is about a villain who wins the game, which could be great if only the story were fiction. Unfortunately it's all too true. Better that, though, I suppose, than a whitewashing of history. I've previously alluded to to the historical howlers in The King's Speech but I tried not to go on and on whinging about it. No, I'll leave that to Christopher Hitchens, who does it better than I could. I'd quibble with some of his emphases (Edward VIII wasn't that pro-Nazi) and query one statement (I've never read that Edward's equerry Fruity Metcalfe was actually a Blackshirt, and it sounds unlikely to me, as Edward actually repudiated Fascist support in the abdication crisis), but every other shocking fact Hitch throws out is absolutely true, including the existence of the notion in Churchill's mind, that Hitler had only one rival as a noxious, vile, existential threat to the British Empire: Gandhi.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-25 06:18 pm (UTC)Edward VIII is sufficiently vile that nobody needs to invent slanders. Never was a man so condemned out of his own mouth as he is in his autobiography.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-25 06:40 pm (UTC)More relevant is Metcalfe's own wife, Alexandra, who was also having an affair with Mosley, which continued well into his Blackshirt days. She was tarred fascist in the press, with what justification I don't know, but again I haven't seen that Fruity got the same treatment. He, so far as I know, was not having an affair with Mosley.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-25 07:37 pm (UTC)While I liked the Harry Potter entry better than most nominators, I also thought Shrek 4 was pretty good. Really, while many of the nominees have been on my list for a while, I'm in no hurry. Especially after finally seeing The Hurt Locker; a fine film but not the one I would have picked for Best Picture (which is Up).
This is why I don't pay much attention to the Academy Awards.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-25 08:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 02:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-25 07:49 pm (UTC)The Social Network also has some historical howlers, including a portrayal of Zuckerberg as not having a girlfriend while he developed Facebook. The whole thread about the girl who rejected him, and his attempts to regain her favor via Facebook, is an invention. But, you know, geeks can't get chicks, so they program instead.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-25 08:35 pm (UTC)But however fictional it may be, both in fact and even in concept, the opening conversation is, I thought, a brilliant depiction of the idea of the nerd mind. Movie-Zuck is totally tone-deaf to conversational nuance, while being sensitive enough to realize when he's gone wrong somewhere, and also desperate enough to win the woman's favor to acknowledge it - a combination unlikely to be found to such an extent in any real person - and it's fascinating to watch him back up when she gets angry, trying to feel his way back without having any idea of where he's going.
Another oddity is the handling of the aftermath of Sean Parker's bust for cocaine. The movie cuts to Zuck being asked in deposition what happened, and he says merely that Sean still owns a large share of the stock, which was true; what isn't revealed, and only implied by the implication of what Zuck doesn't say, is that, like Eduardo before him, Sean was kicked out of Facebook management at the insistence of investors.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-25 11:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 12:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 09:23 am (UTC)But I'm also bothered by the notion that a person (in this instance, Churchill) must be entirely good. No one is. We all f* up, sometimes more than we do it right. It doesn't make Churchill less important and heroic for having gotten it wrong for awhile. On the other hand, my father (stationed in England for several years during WWII) said that Churchill was often a laughingstock because of inebriation. Of course, my father had very littler tolerance for drunkenness, so take it with a grain of salt.