Monday, February 23, 2009

Wrestling With The Oscars

Wrestling With The Oscars

Another Oscar blog? I know, bpring! I didn't even see most of it and here I am writing two pieces on the subject. It's only fitting that I do a wrap up to my previous blog. Looks like I was wrong about some of my picks. Oh well. Don't blame me, I didn't even give them to you in time to piss away your $20 in the office pool.

Rourke losing for the wrestler seems to be the only upset for the night from what people expected the outcome to be. I have to say, I'm very surprised about it. Mickey Rourke gave the best performance of the year by far, definitely deserved the win over Penn. I'm an ultraleft liberal too, I spent dozens of hours campaigning against Prop 8, wrote many blogs against it as well, but Rourke gave the better performance; just because you're a liberal doesn't mean you automatically have to flock with fanatical reverence to whichever performance or film has a liberal political theme, guys.

Talk about an Oscar make-over! Move over Monster!

But I'm not going to hate too much on Sean Penn. MILK was a good film and I don't follow the holy gospel of Team America World Police that states that actors should just shut the fuck up and make word sounds and action movements for the picture show. His "You commie homo lovin' sons of guns" was pretty comical and he has the right idea. I guess I just think going through the transformation of putting on all that muscle to look like a wrestler fit the Oscar quota of transforming yourself in order to get a statue. All Sean Penn did was act flaming.

Gotta admit though, Rourke would have just thanked his small pet dogs who recently died. I mean check out his speech from the IFC awards. That's what sealed it. I bet the Academy saw that and said "Fuck this, let's change the votes around." Where as Spicoli went the full nine yards and said this:
"I think it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren's eyes if they continue that way,"

I'm pretty sure he's not making any political statements in that interview.. Ok, maybe to legalize it...

On the flip side, do you know how hard it is to act like a wrestler? Hell, they put on a show weekly. If you've never seen professional wrestling done right, you'd be missing out on some tough moves that they have to put on daily while acting the part of whatever role they are in the ring. Much like bad actors, there's bad wrestlers. Those end up doing these sorts of things in the ring....

If you've ever seen a one trick pony happy in the field.. well then you haven't seen those clips.

So perhaps the academy should see not only how hard Rourke beefed up for this role, but how long he actually put into this character to get the wrestling moves down right.

Not only did the wrestler get hit with a steel chair when it comes to best actor, it also got the snub when it came to best song... Mainly because it wasn't nominated. It's part of two more snubs I failed to report in the pre-Oscar blog. Two songs got screwed out because of new rules that the song has to be IN the film and not the credits.
There were only three nominees, and none were Bruce Springsteen's "The Wrestler," the Golden Globe winner, or "Gran Torino," a Globe nominee co-written by Clint Eastwood. How is this possible, fans wondered, when there are two perfectly good slots going unused?

The answer stems from the complex system the Academy's music branch has developed the past few years.

The branch's several hundred members no longer list their top five choices, as they did for years (and as they do for best original score). Instead, they rate the songs on a scale of 6 to 10, with half-scores (say, 7.5) allowed, too. In order to land a nom, a song has to average an 8.25. (If more than five songs hit that mark, the five highest make it.)

Where this especially becomes a problem is when a song rolls over the end-credits. Two of the nominees this year (A.R. Rahman's "Jai Ho" and Peter Gabriel's "Down to Earth") close their films, but there are important visuals to go with them. "The Wrestler" on the other hand, plays over a static black screen. The effect is to let the powerful final scene linger. But if you're judging the song based on how it plays in the movie, chances are you're not going to rate is as highly as a song that comes with snappy or affecting visuals.

As for the Clint Eastwood song... well, that one wasn't very good. I don't have many problems with Clint. I mean, the only lame thing Clint has ever done in his time on Earth is sing that song at the end of Gran Torino. Ok, so maybe he's also a self-described libertarian and registered Republican who outwardly supported Nixon, Reagan, Schwarzeneggar and McCain...

But still, the song he sang after Gran Torino was pretty god damn bad. But to snub the Boss -now that's just cold. The song was perfect. So what if it comes at the end when it goes to black. You have Slumdog with the dance number at the end. So the only difference is that The Wrestler lets it all set in and doesn't bombard you with a happy go lucky Bollywood ending credits? Please, tell me this song doesn't just pull at your emotions.

Yeah, I'm sure you're just in the corner crying right now.. How dare they exclude these two songs from the Oscars.

Look who got the prize!

As for Slumdog Millionaire. Don't get me wrong, I liked it. But now that it's so loved by all I guess I should take the counter position on the matter and hate it for the sake of being "different."

If you look at as a fairytale, its pretty good. Distant princess, poor orphan, defeating evil with magic. Unfortunately, it also falls into sexist stereotypes by making the love interest a sexual object who has no ability to control her own life and only finds happiness because a man finds it for her, poverty is treated as a magical condition instead of a place where you die of malnutrition, and in the end the hollowness of his victory in the face of overwhelming death and poverty is obscured by a fucking dance number.

So pretty much like any Bollywood movie.

I actually heard someone say this is an uplifting movie because, as they put it, "It shows that people in any situation can better their lives with a little perseverance."
How in the HELL could you get that message out of this film?

Where the hell are the droves of Feminist to protest this clear example of the MALE GAZE!

Did he even really "persevere" anywhere besides trying to get the girl? His brother did and became a random henchman, maybe that's what they were referring to? Most people in the world aren’t lucky enough to get on game shows much less win them. Most slumdogs stay slumdogs for the duration of their lives. If you’re lucky enough to be destined for something.

British Colonialism.jpg

Don't get me started on Benjamin Button. It is literally the same plot as Forrest Gump with an aging subplot tacked on and both films are garbage. It was nothing more than oscarbating drivel. It was far too long, even for Oscar pandering standards. I've already seen all that I needed to see in the trailers. Thanks for killing three hours of my life.

I suppose the best thing to come out of this years Oscars was Ben Stiller making fun of a certain Actor turned Singer.

Now that was funny.

No comments: