calimac: (puzzle)
calimac ([personal profile] calimac) wrote2011-01-25 08:58 am

Oscar nominations

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.

[identity profile] papersky.livejournal.com 2011-01-25 06:18 pm (UTC)(link)
Fruity Metcalfe either actually was or was a very close sympathiser, according to Anne de Courcy's The Viceroy's Daughters -- he was married to one of Curzon's daughters, another was married to Mosley, they were close.

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.

[identity profile] kalimac.livejournal.com 2011-01-25 06:40 pm (UTC)(link)
True that Metcalfe and Mosley were married to sisters, but Mosley's going around the bend to fascism from respectable politics pretty much coincided with his taking up extramaritally with the equally fascist Diana Mitford Guinness, whom he subsequently married after Cimmie Curzon died. Lots of respectable people were associated with Mosley until the New Party days, after which they dropped him with haste. Metcalfe's connection to Mosley here is a bit too guilt-by-association for my tastes.

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.