They Say That in Hollywood Oscar is King, Which I Suppose Means That it's a Corrupt Monarchy

You may not like a powerful winter storm or an oppressive summer heat wave but there they are, pretty hard to ignore. The same can be said of the annual Academy Awards. There is much to dislike about them for true cinephiles and much that should be ignored. But there it is.

I've made my disdain for the Oscars quite clear on numerous occasions. For every time the Best Picture award has gone to something deserving such as No Country For Old Men (2007), All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) or Casablanca (1942) there have been three or four travesties. Cases in point: How Green Was My Valley over Citizen Kane in 1941, Ordinary People over Raging Bull in 1980, An American in Paris over A Streetcar Named Desire in 1951, Rocky over Network and Taxi Driver in 1976 and who can ever forget the odious Crash winning in 2005 against fellow nominees as Brokeback Mountain, Good Night and Good Luck, Munich and Capote – all of which were far more deserving (which admittedly didn't take a lot).

The acting wards are often not given for the best performance but out of sentiment. Hence the laughable presenting of the Oscar for best Actor to John Wayne in 1969 (True Grit) over Dustin Hoffman (Midnight Cowboy). Paul Newman had deserved the award several times (especially for The Verdict (1982)) and they finally got around to rewarding him for a rather pedestrian performance in The Color of Money (1986). This year Colin Firth will win for The King's Speech. True, his performance was worthy of recognition, but he'll get it as much for having lost by a whisker last year to Jeff Bridges and for his impressive body of work as he will for stuttering like a King.

At any rate, this year's show will be "interesting" (I use the word loosely) because of the co-hosts, Anne Hathaway and James Franco. Word is the Academy wanted to lure a younger audience. On the one hand I feel that if you kiddies can't appreciate last year's hosting duo of Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin there's something seriously wrong with you. But, on the other hand, I really like both Hathaway and Franco and reckon that most folks share my fondness for them.

Both seem like people I'd want to hang out with. Franco is both popular and respected these days. He is the very antithesis of Charlie Sheen. He's acting, producing, writing and earning a Ph.D. Franco is clearly a young man with a strong social conscience but somehow seems not to avoid ticking off conservatives in the process, unlike Sean Penn.

The Oscars show is at its best when presenting their montages honoring someone or recognizing a particular type of film or genre. Their tribute to those Academy members who have died in the preceding year is also usually touching. Some of the acceptance speeches are quite nice though the majority seem to be from people we never heard of thanking still more people we have never heard of while we are left to twiddle our thumbs.

This year I fully expect The King's Speech to win the Oscar for Best Picture. It's the type of film that the academy loves. Historical drama, excellent costume design, nice sets and broad and wonderful acting performances. I found it an altogether mediocre movie. It had the story arc of the modern day sports picture. Someone struggling, gets a coach with unconventional methods, quits, comes back (didn't see that coming) overcomes handicap, big clutch victory as we cut to scenes of people in various places celebrating the triumph including the beaming coach. Ho hum. On a scale of one to ten its originality rating would be a two.

Two of the ten nominees are actually outstanding films. Winter's Bone and Black Swan. And the Coens' version of True Grit is laudable as well. A lot of people loved The Social Network. I thought it a nice enough movie and wouldn't argue a second with anyone who loves it. As a nod to 17 year old boys everywhere, Inception actually earned a nomination. Another nominee is The Kids Are All Right. This just proves that if the Academy will give the picture award to Crash, all bets are off.

So tomorrow night at around 9:30 in this time zone I know exactly what I'll be thinking: that's three hours I'll never get back. And now I'm going to watch The Searchers (1956). it didn't win the Best Picture award either.

Celebrity at 2009 Oscars red carpet

Angelina Jolie in Elie Saab 

Amy Adams in Carolina Herrera 

Anne Hathaway in Armani Prive 

Beyonce in House of Dereon couture 

Freida Pinto in John Galliano 

Heidi Klum in custom RM by Roland Mouret 

 Jessica Biel in Prada 

Kate Winslet in Yves Saint Laurent

 Marisa Tomei in Atelier Versace 

Melissa George in Dolce & Gabbana 

Miley Cyrus in Zuhair Murad

Natalie Portman in Rodarte 

 Sarah Jessica Parker in Christian Dior couture 

IF U LIKE THIS POST PLEASE COMMENTS AND SHARE IT

PIXAX

I Answer the Question: Is it Ever to Early to Talk About Next Year's Oscars? (Hint: YES!!!!)

c

According to my calender today is July 2nd. Nonetheless in today's San Francisco Chronicle there is an article by film critic Mick LaSalle about the year in film's so far. Fair enough. But the article also includes numerous sidebars about which films have a chance at receiving an Oscar nomination.

With six months left in the calendar year.

Seven months before the nominations are announced.

Eight months before the awards are presented.

Is is ever to early to discuss the coming year's Oscars? I think the day before the show is too early. Eight months? Gimme a break....

I'm open to any discussion on the state of films over the last few weeks, months, years or any other arbitrary time period you care to introduce. While the fact is that there have been more than enough great films released over the past 100 years to keep me busy for as long as I inhabit this planet, I'm always willing to enjoy another terrific new film.

If new pictures had stop being released a year ago at this time I'd have missed out on Inglourious Basterds and A Serious Man, two of my all time favorites. So as much as it cuts into my valuable time, bring me more.

But please, once and for all can we put an end to this fallacy that the Academy Awards have the slightest thing to do with determining the best achievement in films over the course of a year?

And for God's sakes, we're stuck with enough Oscar hype from November through March, can we at least be spared from it in July?

While I'm badly beating a dead horse (God forbid PETA should find out) let me refer  you to last Tuesday's list on the wonderful website, Listserve. It is titled Top 10 Biggest Travesties of the Oscars. It only really scratches the surface and in fact I did a better job a couple of years ago, but it's worth a look in any case.

I better ask my daughters never to name any of their children, Oscar.

I Enter an Oscar Competition and You Get to See My Picks (Wish Me Luck)

My ambivalence about the Academy Wards has been well documented on this blog. But that doesn't mean I can turn away from the show when it rears its humongous head every year. Nor can I resist the notion of a little competition, especially when there's a gift certificate to Amazon to be won and nothing to lose.

The rules of the competition call for participants getting one point for every correct prediction but a minus one for every one that is wrong. I can make as many or as few picks as I want.

Please note that I'm in it to win so the following DO NOT REFLECT MY PREFERENCES but my best guesses as to how voters were thinking when they filled out their ballots. Here goes nuthin.'

Best Picture - Hurt Locker
Best Supporting Actor - Christoph Waltz
Best Supporting Actress Mo'Nique
Best Foreign Language Film - Das weisse Band - Eine deutsche Kindergeschicte
Best Original Screenplay - Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds
Best Adapted Screenplay - Jason Reitman & Terri Tatchell, Up in the Air
Best Animated Feature - Up
Best Achievement in Visual Effects - Avatar

It's National "So What?" Day For Cinephiles, Oscar Nominations Announced

When I used to drink -- and boy did I used to drink -- those of us who were serious about our alcohol consumption considered New Year's Eve to be amateur night. People who got no more than tipsy all year suddenly became sots for a night. We were not amused.

In much the same way, Oscar season emboldens every Tom, Dick and Mahmoud to venture an opinion on nominated films. Even though they haven't seen most of the films, if any.

Here's the thing that one should remember about the Oscars and every other award show or list that names the "best" film or performance of the year: They're full of crap.  There is no empirical evidence for the best work of art or performance of the week, year, decade or century. What is being named is the favorite. In the case of the Oscars it's the favorites of the voters of the The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences. And these are people who have a notoriously bad track record. Please see, time permitting, this post of mine from a year and half ago in which I detail just a few of the egregious omissions the Academy has made. (To be fair, last year I provided some examples of when Oscar and I agreed on the "best" picture winner.)

Picking a "best" in the arts is an interesting parlor game but nothing to be taken seriously. One reason many of us sports fans love competition is that you can in fact name a winner. This Sunday's Super Bowl will be the definitive answer to the question, what was the best team in professional football this year. Of course sports fans can always fall back on things like, "yeah well the ref blew a call," or "our best player was injured." But savvy  fans know that there is no category for woulda, shoulda, coulda.

The Oscars are no better than the Golden Globes, the New York Film Critics or this blog in naming the "best" of anything. Does that mean that the whole shebang has no value? No. While it is an always bloated show, constantly interrupted by commercials (I DVR it and start watching a half hour after it starts so I can fast forward through the ads) it does at least bring attention to some films that are worth seeing that many people may have missed. There are also some nice moments when clips of films are shown, sometimes as a tribute to a director, other times to pay homage to the recently deceased and other times as part of some theme.

Plus this year Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin are co-hosting. It's hard to imagine a more delightful pairing. I anticipate laughs aplenty, enough to offset the dreary acceptance speeches of people we never heard of thanking people we never heard of.

Just please don't think there's any great significance to what "wins." That's a lot of hooey.

Angelina’s Oscar Emeralds…on Nicky Hilton?

Jewelry hounds, I need your peepers. Is it me or is Nicky Hilton wearing THE SAME emerald earrings that Angelina Jolie made famous at the Oscars this year? The horror!

The giant teardrop-sized stunners are cut in the same shape as Angelina’s green gems, but I quite simply can’t imagine anyone who would want to trod that same hallowed jewelry ground. Especially someone low-key like Paris’s younger sib.

Hilton was walking the red carpet of sister Paris’s narcissistic, I mean, self-titled documentary, Paris, not France last week when the emeralds made their appearance.

It is possible that Lorraine Schwartz accessorized both Angelina and Nicky with the same emeralds, but any stylist worth their salt would surely know that repeating a history-making jewelry moment – and one made by Angelina Jolie no less – is anything but a wise choice in today's shark-infested fashion waters.

Mon Dieu!

What do you guys think? Are they the same earrings? Or are they look-alikes? Regardless, should she have steered clear of the fashion faux-pas or are the emerald earrings fair game for anyone who wants to be a…well..wannabe?

Opinions Are Like Cardiovascular Systems, Everybody Has One

I'm minding my own damn business reading the Sunday San Francisco Chronicle when I get to the entertainment section. I was delighted to come across an article about Jorma Taccone, who along with work partners Andy Samberg and Akiva Scahffer I posted about recently. However, the author of the piece, Ruthe Stein, said the three lads met at Berkeley High School when they in fact became friends at Willard Middle School where they all suffered from having me as a history teacher. I've since written Ms. Stein to straighten her out.

Then I came to the "Ask the Critic" section where readers can send in questions to film critic Mick LaSalle (friend of this blog). One local yokel submitted the following:

Dear Mick: Your reviews are usually on target, but you missed "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" by a country mile. I loved it, and so did the vast majority of your peers. You must have felt embarrassed at panning a movie that got a zillion Oscar nominations and won in three categories. Are you so steadfast in your opinions that you never admit blowing it?

Larry Snyder

Berkeley

(You can look at LaSalle's response by clicking on this sentence, but let me hurl my two cents in.)

Seriously Larry, you're going to use the Oscars as a measuring stick for a movie? Have you no recollection of the travesties they've visited upon film fans in the past? You need a calculator to tally the Oscars won by such drivel as Titanic and Gone with the Wind. Meanwhile you need nothing, nada, zero to count the competitive Oscars won by Alfred Hithcock, Howard Hawks, Charlie Chaplin, King Vidor, Stanley Kubrick, William Wellman, Arthur Penn, Ridley Scott, Stanley Kramer, Sidney Lumet, Ernst Lubitsch, Robert Altman, Orson Wells and Alan J. Pakula combined. Were you not aware that the Academy of Motion Pictures Sciences awarded best picture awards to How Green Was My Valley (1941) over Citizen Kane (1941) and Ordinary People (1980) over Raging Bull (1980)? I could go on and indeed I did in a post last Summer linked to this sentence. So don't ever try to convince someone of the worth or worthlessness of a film based on the Oscars.

But more to the point, you think a critic is going to change her or his mind about a film because of other people's opinion? "Gee, I hated it but a lot of people like it, I must be wrong!"

Finally I ask you this: why do you care if you and Mick disagree on a movie? Let it go, pal. I disagree with him and every other critic all the time. You know why? Because we all bring our own world view, tastes and feelings into our perception of a film or any other work of art. There is nothing that is universally loved because people are all different. How sad would the world be if we all liked the same exact things. Vive la difference. When it comes to political issues like torture or gay marriage, go ahead and get your panties in a bunch and try to prove the validity of your views to others. But movies? A losing proposition.

I next returned to front of the entertainment section where there are "Letters to the Pink" (referring to the section's color on Sundays). There I read this gem:

Mick LaSalle is a brilliant critic and analytical writer. But with his personal opinions, you have to realize that they are just his opinions and some of them are subject to question.

Last year he made the claim that Helen Forrest (who?), an obscure singer from the 1930s, was as great a singer as Frank Sinatra. I kid you not.
Now LaSalle has given us his top 15 movies of the 2000 decade. But he doesn't include "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" (11 Academy Awards) or "No Country for Old Men," the best pictures of the past nine years and maybe the past 20 years. "The Return of the King" is the best action-adventure motion picture of all time, and "No Country" has to be the most complex and riveting murder mystery ever filmed.
Then we have LaSalle's pick for the most beautiful actress ever: Hedy Lamarr. I agree that Lamarr was stunning, but he doesn't even mention the most beautiful of all time: Elizabeth Taylor. Watching "Raintree County" or "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof," one is hypnotized by her perfect features, black hair and purple eyes. No one in the history of film compares with this woman's jaw-dropping beauty.
So, Mick, thank you for your unparalleled insights and analysis of motion pictures, but your opinions are strictly your own.
Nicholas Duka
Lafayette

So let me see if I got this straight. You're saying that we need to realize that Mr. LaSalle's opinions are "are just his opinions and some of them are subject to question." Wow, are there really people who aren't aware of the fact that people's opinions are opinions and not the Oracle of Delphi? And aren't opinions by definition "subject to question"?

Now here's some of my opinions which are by the way "just my opinions" and are subject to question. If you don't know who Helen Forest is you're missing out. While I may not put her in Sinatra's league (I wouldn't rank anyone in his league) she was a helluva songstress.  Next you take LaSalle to task for not including Return of the King (2003) and No Country for Old Men in his preliminary list of top films of the decade. I can tell you with great certainty that No Country for Old Men (2007) will rank high on my list (look for the list in early January 2010) but one of those bloated Peter Jackson Lord of the Ring films? Gimme a break. See how people have such a wide variety of opinions?

Next he disparages LaSalle for calling Heddy Lamarr as the most beautiful actress ever. I gotta agree with you, the lovely Ms. Lamarr wouldn't even crack my top ten. But I've gotta ask the same question again: what the hell do you care? If someone named Moms Mabley (pictured above) the most beautiful entertainer of all time I can't see what it has to do with me. But the last line of the letter is the best: "your opinions are strictly your own." Evidently so are yours. And everyone else's. Here are the first two definitions of opinion from something called the dictionary: 1) A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2) A personal view, attitude or appraisal.

Congratulations, Nick old boy, you nailed it.

So anytime that someone tries to tell you that a film critic's or historian's or carpenter's opinion is empirically verifiable fact, you just remind them what Nick said.
Anyway, that's my opinion.

Diamonds and Divas at the Vanity Fair After Party

The Oscar hangover continues, jewelry hounds, with a glittering jewelry wrap-up of the after party circuit. The stars attended a bevy of bashes post-Oscar, including the Elton John AIDS Foundation party, Fox Searchlight's celebration and, of course, the always A-list Vanity Fair soiree.

Many of Hollywood’s biggest stars skipped the ceremony altogether, making their first appearance on the Vanity Fair red carpet, including Madonna who was wearing over $1 million in Neil Lane diamond jewels, including layers of black and white diamond beads (500 carats in all), a 50 carat diamond and onyx bracelet, 20 carat pear-shaped diamond earrings and a large cocktail ring.


















Other diamond divas included the always-stunning Kate Beckinsale in huge diamond loop earrings, red carpet staple, Sheryl Crowe, in diamond chandeliers, and the ageless Joan Collins in vintage diamond drops and a diamond cuff as icy as an Alexis Carrington glare. Meow.


















Gold glittered on JT main squeeze, Jessica Biel, Halle Berry, and Debra Messing; and Uma Thurman, Reese Witherspoon, Carrie Underwood and Gwen Stefani kept it classic with simple diamond statements.


















While Angelina and Brad didn’t show to rub elbows with Jen and John (big surprise), Sean Penn and ex, Madonna, shared the same space as did Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillipe, who reportedly shunned each other as they walked by arm in arm with their current loves, Jake Gyllenhaal and Abbie Cornish.

Meow indeed!

Jewelry Shines at the 2009 Academy Awards

Aside from the much-anticipated Angelina Jolie / Jennifer Aniston showdown, jewelry fashion was the talk of the town leading up to last night’s Oscar telecast. Diamonds? Gemstones? Gold? Would the stars bring out the bling, or would the economy force the A-list to keep the diamonds on the down-low?

Well, thank the jewelry gods above that the stars ignored the gloom and doom-ers and positively lit up the red carpet with jewels – from giant statement looks to tasteful, show-stopping diamond glamour.

The Statement Makers included a fiery Amy Adams in red Carolina Herrera and a lobster bib-sized Fred Leighton gemstone statement necklace from the 1950s, a sparkling Taraji P. Henson in Roberto Cavalli and a vintage diamond flower necklace - also from Fred Leighton, and Heidi Klum who rocked a Roland Mouret red dress with $900,000 worth of Lorraine Schwartz diamond jewels. And, of course, my winner of the night, Angelina Jolie, in Lorraine Schwartz emeralds, who reminded me how much fun it is to gasp aloud at the televsion.


















Light colors with tasteful diamond looks also made a frequent appearance last night. Oscar-winner and Woody Allen muse, Penelope Cruz, looked stunning in vintage Balmain and a 69-carat cushion cut diamond necklace, a 21-carat starburst yellow diamond ring, and 11-carat diamond stud earrings - all from Chopard. That’s $3 million in diamonds in case you were wondering. Odios Mio!

And Anne Hathaway surprised us all with her musical-theater skills and her impeccable fashion sense as she glowed in Armani Prive and Cartier. I take back every evil pants-suited remark I made, Anne, after boo-hooing my way through that Shirley MacLain tribute to you.

Also on the light side of fashion was Marisa Tomei in Versace and vintage jewels from Van Cleef & Arpels that included a 1941 diamond and sapphire bracelet, a 1960 diamond ring, and 1973 lapis and diamond earrings.


















Color couture added a much needed rainbow effect as Natalie Portman was the prettiest in pink Rodarte and rocky diamonds studs, Freida Pinto stunned in purple Galiano and gemstone drop earrings, and Alica Keys shimmered in a lilac Armani Prive frock with jaw-dropping diamond-leaf earrings.



















And what is a red carpet without our Metallic Mavens? Viola Davis won the category in my book with a shimmering Reem Acra gold gown and a series of icey diamond bangles. Tina Fey, whose schtick with Steve Martin made me fall in love with her all over again, wore the most stunning silvery Zac Posen number I’ve ever seen on her. And Jennifer Aniston finally gave up the black (and the pants suit) for a bejeweled Valentino number with minimal bling.


















And much like Hugh Jackman’s bizarre interpretive Reader dance and the weird attempt to make a Wall-e/Jai-Ho mash up (Peter Gabriel was SO right to opt out of that one), there were some missteps worthy of mention.

Melissa Leo’s mismatched jewels did nothing to help her unfortunate gown choice, Beyonce totally misfired with this gaudy gold and black number from her mother’s line, and the ‘age appropriate’ police needed to arrest both Miley Cyrus and Sophia Loren. Not a good choice there, ladies.




















And I’m going to get flack for this, but I thought both Kate Winslet and Meryl Streep could have chosen better this year. And Sarah Jessica Parker was just a bit too Glinda the Good Witch for me. There. I said it.




















But all in all, the Oscars gave this jewelry hound a glittering night to remember full of worthy winners, fashion marvels and jewels, jewels, jewels. Weigh in with your own musings, jewelry lovers!

And stay tuned for my Oscar After Party jewelry remix with Halle "can your husband be any more gorgeous?" Berry, Madonna, Mickey Rourke's Loki choker and more…