Oscar Predictions 2014

Predicting the Oscars have always been fascinating because they are a black box: we know what we think are the factors that go in to deciding who wins (is someone overdue, was the movie they were in a hit, do they have a reputation, are they impersonating a famous person . . . oh yeah, was their performance good?) but in the end we know only the winner’s name, but not the reason why any particular member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences voted for them. 

The prediction game has gotten less interesting in recent years, what with the advent of so many pre-Oscar awards and the emergence of social media.  A true upset is almost impossible under these circumstances.  The person who wins the Oscar will almost invariably have picked up a Guild award, Golden Globe, or some critics’ association award before the Oscars are awarded.

This year promised to be one of the most boring Oscar years on record, with most of the major awards locked in once the nominations were announced.  However, some last minute changes to the landscape have managed to add an air of uncertainty, although by and large there should be few surprises on March 2^nd.

Best Picture:  Yeah, I’m starting with the big one first, because it is the most interesting.  Most pre-Oscar awards have been going to 12 Years a Slave, with some going to Gravity.  However, I think there are a couple of things to consider before flipping a coin between those two films.  First, the Academy Best Picture winners that have dealt with race have either been light (Driving Miss Daisy) or positive (the abominable Crash, easily the worst Best Picture winner ever).  A dark (pardon the expression) movie like 12 Years might not be some members’ cup of tea.  Science Fiction films taking place in outer space have never been big vote getters when nominated for Best Picture (2001 wasn't even nominated, Star Wars).  The Academy uses a weighted average system of voting, meaning that it is possible for the Least Common Denominator, the film that annoys the fewest people, to win.  So I am predicting an upset and making my pick American Hustle.

What else does Hustle have going for it?  It picked up the Golden Globe for Best Comedy.  It is the second year in a row that director David O. Russell has directed his cast to nominations in all four acting categories, something that has only happened a total of 15 times and not since Reds in 1981 (plus he directed The Fighter which won two acting Oscars and was nominated for Best Picture).  It is an historical film set in the 1970’s, something else Oscar likes (The King’s Speech over The Social Network).  It is a “comedy,” which is a drawback, but it is not a jokefest Animal House kind of comedy but a satire on the era it is set in.  Russell has directed two recent Oscar winners, Christian Bale for The Fighter and Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook. 

So my pick for Best Picture is American Hustle.  If I am right I am a genius; if not, hey I took a shot.

Best Director: Alfonso Cuaron, Gravity.  One point against 12 Years a Slave winning Best Picture is that Steve McQueen almost certainly won’t win Best Director (although being nominated is an accomplishment for an actor who has been dead since 1980).  Cuaron made an eye-popping special effects film that contains two great performances by Sandra Bullock and George Clooney.  He’s picked up just about every pre-Oscar award including the Golden Globe and BAFTA. 

Best Actor: Matthew McConaughey.  When the nominations were first announced, I thought McConaughey’s lightweight filmography (Failure to Launch, Sahara, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past) might cost him votes among those who couldn’t take him seriously as an actor.  But he has added gravitas to his career with recent work in films like Mud and The Lincoln Lawyer, and he’s just about run the table of the pre-Oscar awards.  I’m pulling for Chiwetel Ejiofor just because he starred in Joss Whedon’s Serenity and I always pull for anyone associated with Joss.  But Oscar LOVES actors who make physical transformations for roles (Phillip Seymour Hoffman for Capote), so McConaughey’s got the nod.  My dark horse is Bruce Dern, a respected older actor who’s been nominated before, but older actors usually win in the Supporting category (Alan Arkin, James Coburn).

Best Actress: Cate Blanchette.  This was a stone lock until the flap over child abuse charges were leveled at Woody Allen.  It might cost Cate some votes, but she’s an Oscar winner for The Aviator and gave the stand-out performance in a weak year for Best Actress candidates.

Supporting Actor and Actress:  Jared Leto and Lupita Nyong’o.  They've almost run the table  (Nyong’o lost the Golden Globe to Jennifer Lawrence, but the Academy’s not going to give her an award two years in a row) and the run won’t stop in Oscar night.

Best Adapted Screenplay: 12 Years a Slave.  It will get votes from those who will vote for it for Best Picture, and from those who DON’T vote for it for Best Picture as a consolation prize.

Best Original Screenplay: American Hustle.  There is a strong correlation between winning best picture and winning best screenplay, since I am picking Hustle to win Best Picture I have to be consistent.  Also, the main rival is Spike Jonze’s Her, which is wonderful but again might put some Oscar voters off with the Sci-Fi aspects.  

Best Original song:  When a rap song wins Best Song, it's time to eliminate the category; when a song whose lyrics are in Hindi wins Best Song, it's time to eliminate the category; when a song called "Man or Muppet" wins Best Song, it is past time to eliminate the category.

In Memoriam: Harold Ramis

In Memoriam: Harold Ramis

There was a lot of talk recently about Mount Rushmore when Lebron James made his choice about which iconic NBA stars he would put on “his” basketball Mount Rushmore (of course he then announced by the end of his career he would knock one of them off).  For whatever reason, any talk about the best of anything always requires choosing four to put on that category’s Mount Rushmore.

If you were to choose the Mount Rushmore of film comedies since 1978 it would not be insane to nominate Animal House, Caddyshack, Ghostbusters and Groundhog Day.  You’d almost have to bump Caddyshack in favor of Airplane!, and you could lobby for something from Woody Allen or the Judd Apatow family, but otherwise that’s a solid group of comedies for enshrinement.  What do they have in common?  Harold Ramis.

Unlike other noted film comedy writer/directors like Woody Allen, Charlie Chaplin or Preston Stuges, Ramis was not a singular comedic voice.  His best work was usually in collaboration with others, and his acting work was always in smaller roles.  But the fact that he had some input on so many classic comedies indicates that his comic instincts were formidable.

Putting out a few quality comedies could be a fluke; Ramis was associated with several comedies that were game-changers.  He was a co-writer on Animal House, a movie that transformed the movie industry by showing that a low-budget comedy could generate a huge box office if it was smart and took chances.  He co-wrote and co-starred in Ghostbusters, a film that proved that a big-budget comedy could generate a huge box office if it was smart and took chances (a lesson lost on Steven Spielberg when he made 1941).  He directed and co-wrote Caddyshack, which proved that one way to success is to just get out of Bill Murray’s way and let him ad lib.

And then there is Groundhog Day, which is Harold Ramis’ “Annie Hall,” the film where he went from making “funny” films and managed to combine laughter with heart.  In contrast to his early work which reveled in anarchy (thanks to stars like John Belushi and Bill Murray), Groundhog Day was a screenplay executed with mathematical precision (almost literally; people have tried to estimate exactly how many times weatherman Phil Connor re-lived the same day over and over and over).  It was a film whose unique structure required precision in plotting, character development and dialogue, and Ramis was more than up to the challenge.  Ignored by the Oscars, Ramis won a BAFTA award for Best Original Screenplay.  It was also the first film where Bill Murray’s acting was taken seriously, possibly contributing to his eventual nomination for Lost in Translation.

Unlike Woody Allen, Ramis did not follow Groundhog Day with a series of equally prestigious films.  In fact, his post-Groundhog Day efforts are a litany of mediocre comedies; the only one that stands out at all is Analyze This, which was one of the first films to successfully make hay out of the comedic acting chops of Robert deNiro.  Bedazzled was a poor idea poorly executed; why on Earth would anyone try to improve upon the Dudley Moore/Peter Cook original, especially with Elizabeth Hurley in the role as the Devil (Roger Ebert pointed out that if the Devil looked like Elizabeth Hurley, why is the poor guy selling his soul asking for another woman)?  Year One attempted to tap into the John Belushi zeitgeist with arguably his closest approximation, Jack Black, but it didn’t work. 

But why focus on the negative?  Animal House.  Caddyshack.  Vacation.  Ghostbusters.  Back to School.  Groundhog Day.  Now THAT’s a resume.

Sports and Society

We are at a point in history when a derogatory stereotype can be shattered.  Michael Sam, a defensive football player from Missouri, has publicly come out as being gay.  This presents a tremendous opportunity to thoroughly debunk a long-held, deeply ingrained stereotype, namely that all football players are raw meat eating, psychotic homophobes.

Several NFL player tweeted that they didn't have a problem with an openly gay football player.  Almost every quote mentioned on ESPN expressing doubts about whether an openly gay player would be accepted in the NFL came from nameless executives.  None of them said they wouldn't want a gay player on their teams; they all said that they didn't THINK a gay player would be accepted by athletes.

I’m not saying Michael Sam would be welcomed by every player in every locker room.  Given what Richie Incognito did to toughen up a fellow player who was straight, heaven knows what would happen if Sam was an inhabitant of the Miami Dolphins locker room.  But the coach of the Green Bay Packers said he’d be accepted there, and presumably other teams (not to foster another cliche, but maybe the San Francisco 49ers) would not have a problem with a gay player on the roster.

Maybe football players are more evolved than society gives them credit for.  Maybe young football players have been exposed to more openly gay performers, friends, and relatives than older NFL executives.  Maybe not 100% of football players are testosterone fueled idiots who instinctively hate gays, women and nerds.  Sure, there will be some haters; and maybe the percentage of football players harboring anti-gay feeling is higher than that of the general public.  But maybe that percentage is a lot smaller than people assume.

The most noteworthy thing about the whole Michael Sam story is that he came out to his teammates several months ago, and every single one of them respected his privacy and kept his secret.  This is at a time where teenage kids tweet every stupid thought that passes through their heads (oops, that’s another stereotype).  And yet an entire team of macho football players respected Michael Sam so much that not a single one disclosed his announcement. 

Attitudes about gays is notoriously generational.  Someone once said that all that has to happen for gay marriage to be voted into law in most states is a good flu epidemic that might thin the herd of elderly voters.  Ellen DeGeneres is hosting the Academy Awards next month; coming out didn’t hurt her career.  We’ve come a long way from the 1930’s when Hollywood studios ran brothels on their lots and required unmarried actors to “prove” they weren't gay with prostitutes once a week.

We shall have to see what happens with Michael Sam and the NFL draft, and if he is drafted how his presence is dealt with.  One thing is already obvious; societal attitudes towards gays have tipped so far that those who do have a problem with a gay football player are treading lightly and remaining anonymous.  Maybe they’re the ones who are now in a closet harboring a secret they dare not reveal.

Meanwhile, in college basketball, Oklahoma State’s Marcus Smart was suspended three games for shoving a Texas Tech fan after the fan directed a comment towards Smart as he was getting up after falling into the crowd.  Smart said he thought he heard a racial taunt; evidence seems to indicate that the fan actually called him a “piece of crap.” 

I have two comments on the entire situation.  First, I am not one to condone violence, but if a 54 year old fat white guy says to a young, athletic African-American, “You’re a piece of crap,” shouldn’t he expect a lot more than a shove?  Can you imagine any context when a fat 54 year old white guy could go up to a young, athletic African American man, call him excrement, and violence would NOT ensue?  Either this guy is dumber than a sack of Texas dirt, or he felt that he was protected by Texas Tech and was thus free to hurl insults at the other team.

Second, both Smart and the fan used the same tired excuse in their apologies; both said that the action that they took “wasn't me.”  I am sick of people committing some heinous act, usually on camera so it can’t be denied, and then saying, “That’s not who I am.”  No, that’s EXACTLY who you are.  The Texas Tech fan is someone who loves to sit close to the court and yell insults at the athletes representing the other team (the idea that this is the first time he EVER yelled an insult at a member of the other team defies credibility), and there had been concerns about Smart’s previous incidents of displaying temper.  People, you are what you do.  I just wish someone would be caught punching an opposing player in the back of the head and apologize by saying, “I’m sorry I got caught.”

Sports is a microcosm of society.  Sometimes sports is ahead of the curve (Jackie Robinson) and sometimes it has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21^st century (instant replay in baseball).  Michael Sam proves we've come a long way; the Marcus Smart incident proves we have a long way to go.

TV Review: Sherlock

Warning: Here there be spoilers

After two long years the series Sherlock returned to American television with three new episodes, once again proving that the British model of television production is a far cry from its American counterpart.  American networks are reducing their commitment to new shows (Sleepy Hollow is arguably the biggest hit of the season but Fox is only producing 13 episodes instead of the usual 22), but for the BBC to call three episodes a season is pushing things well beyond where US networks are willing to go.

The third season of Sherlock is, in my view, the weakest of the three seasons taken as a whole.  It did not produce an episode as weak as season one’s The Blind Banker or season two’s The Hounds of Baskerville, but neither did it approach the giddy heights of The Great Game or A Scandal in Belgravia.  It never really produced a reasonable explanation for Sherlock not being dead after the events of The Reichenbach Fall, although it did have a great deal of fun in refusing to play fair and say what happened.  And the season finale dealt with a villain so underwhelming that the possible return of Moriarty in the waning seconds of the third episode is a decided relief.

But let’s focus on the positive, starting with the acting of Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman.  While I still consider Cumberbatch to be the third best Holmes ever (Jeremy Brett is numero uno, followed by Basil Rathbone) Cumberbatch and Freeman are the best pair to inhabit the Doyle characters.  They are, to steal a line from The Simpsons, the original Odd Couple: Holmes is dynamic, flamboyant, a force of nature, while Watson is quiet, unassuming, and possesses an unending supply of British reserve.  Watson knows Holmes so well, yet is endlessly surprised by him.  This process of discovery is wonderfully portrayed by Freeman in the facial reactions he gives to Holmes.

The third season continues to flesh out the supporting players while adding one major new one.  Lestrade (Holmes can never remember his first name, a tip of the cap to the Doyle Canon which never supplied him with one) is still defending Holmes, still there when he calls for help even if it turns out he needs assistance with his Best Man speech at Watson’s wedding.  Molly Hooper, the morgue attendant at St. Bart’s Hospital, is still horribly in love with Holmes even after being given greater access to the object of her affections and thus a chance to see what a jerk he is.  Anderson, Holmes biggest detractor on the police force, is now the leader of a Holmes fan group.  Holmes’ brother Mycroft (played by series co-creator Mark Gatiss, who gave himself a great part) is still as supercilious and contemptuous as ever.

The addition is Mary Morstan Watson (Amanda Abbington), the woman Watson proposes to just as Holmes comes out of hiding after being thought dead for two years, and whom he marries is episode two.  Creators Gatiss and Steven Moffatt do a great job of inserting her into the delicate chemistry of Holmes and Watson; she’s not an impediment to their further adventures, she’s a catalyst.  Holmes immediately deduces there is something “off” about her (when he first reads her the word “Liar” is prominent among his deductions), but he allows Watson’s feelings to cloud his judgment.  It’s just possible she “gets” Holmes even better than Watson does (“I’m not John,” she says to Holmes at one point, “I can tell when you’re fibbing.”).

The biggest weakness of season three is that it doesn’t quite measure up to the expectations that have been established.  Unfair, but true.  It is probably impossible for the creators to ever match A Scandal in Belgravia, which had a wonderfully twisty plot that somehow all pulled together, snappy dialog (Watson: “I was a soldier, I killed people!” Holmes: “You were a doctor.”  Watson: “I had bad days!”) and the heady infusion of Lara Pulver as Irene Adler, aka “The Woman.”  Episode one of season three, The Empty Hearse, was cleverly set up but ultimately its “blow up Parliament on Guy Fawkes Day” plot came across as a mild rip-off of (or homage to) V For Vendetta.  Probably the best episode of season three was the middle one, The Sign of Three, where Holmes solves one attempted murder and thwarts another during his Best Man speech at Watson’s wedding.  Actually, the eight year old ring bearer in fact solves the crimes, which has to be a little embarrassing for Holmes.  The third episode, His Last Vow, featured a villain whose modus operandi made little sense; he was a blackmailer who apparently memorized whatever dirty information he got his hands on and then destroyed the supporting documents.  His entire ability to blackmail people was based on a bluff; all it would take is one person to sue him and his game would be up.

His Last Vow also demonstrates the increasing tendency of the stories to autocorrect Holmes’ erroneous deductions.  Early on Holmes is shot and he deduces that his life depends on whether he falls backwards or forwards.  Let’s skip over the utter implausibility of that and skip ahead to where Holmes states that the shooter aimed carefully and in fact did not want him dead.  So the shooter knew that Holmes would choose the correct way to fall?  That an ambulance would arrive in the usual 8 minutes and not be delayed long enough to allow Holmes to bleed to death?  That it is possible to shoot someone in the abdomen and know EXACTLY how long it will take them to bleed to death?  Holmes was either wrong when he decided that falling backwards was the only way to survive, or wrong when he decided the shooter didn’t want to kill him.  Either way, he is fallible.

Of course these complaints are dwarfed by the cleverness of the plots, the subtlety of the acting and the visual flair of the direction.  His Last Vow ended with a cliffhanger almost as impossible as the one that ended season two, with an apparently alive Moriarty declaring he was back and asking, “Miss me?”  After watching all three episodes of season three of Sherlock, I have to say yes, we did.  Season three started out with the creators of Sherlock resurrecting Holmes; let’s see if they can bring his arch nemesis back to life as well.  The problem is that it might take another two years.