Day 25- There is a fine line between glittering and littering...think about it.

In case you didn't realize this before: The Oscars are bullshit. Not all of it. But most of it. Like everything in Hollywood, it is a money-making device to get people to see more movies. Oscars also, in case you didnt know, arent won by actors who's performances were unbelievable and truly the best of the year, but rather they are given to actors who have the right combination of star power, sympathy, a good back story, and a certain type of performance. Mostly, a performance considered "brave" which basically means that that either an actor portrayed someone that no one likes (Aileen Wuornos, Indi Amin) but made the audience a little more compassionate about that character OR that an actor played someone that EVERYBODY likes (Ray Charles, Ghandi), and did it in a way that was "faithful" and "captured even that person's slightest nuances." You also have to do the right amount of press (For "Gangs of New York," Martin Scorsese went nuts, appearing on everything, while for "The Departed," he only did a few things. The ol' less is more attitude and his "humbleness" helped him score his first victory.) Also of course, you are guaranteed an Oscar if you ugly yourself up either physically (something I've touched on in a previous post), or mentally, that is, if you play someone a little mentally challenged.

The Oscars are kind of a large topic to handle in one post, so I will just handle one part in this one. Namely, Oscar winning performances when, looked back on, were not that good. These performers won their Oscar because of other factors.

2008- Tilda Swinton for "Michael Clayton." Now while I loved this movie, and while I loved her performance in it, I didnt think it was necessarily Oscar worthy (or should I say, award worthy). I think the performance was subtle, contained, and very truthful. The fear she showed, while trying to remain in control was definitely great acting, but it wasnt a performance where, five years down the line, you would say, "wow, she should have won an Oscar for that!" However, she won because the Academy wanted to give Michael Clayton an Oscar, but didnt feel it could give it an Oscar for anything else. With Juno a lock for best screenplay, Daniel-Day Lewis a lock for best actor, Javier Bardem a lock for best supporting actor, and the Coen Brothers a lock for best directors and movie, this was the only category where it could win. The other performers were just as good if not better and some had even more complex characters. Even though I dont think she deserved an Oscar, Ruby Dee's performance in "American Gangster" was crazy good. Can you imagine what it would be like to slap Denzel Washington across the face!? And at that point in the movie, with Denzel's character at the height of his power! Hot Damn that was a intense scene!

2007- Alan Arkin was awesome. Who knew a heroin addict could be so lovable? I didnt, and now I do. But you know who else was just so unbelievable--Eddie Murphy in "Dreamgirls." It was the role of his career, combining his electric performing skills, with his trademark fast talking, narcissism, BUT to this he added a sadness and vulnerability that, when I saw for the first time, made me swell up inside with pity and sympathy. As douche as this guy was at his prime, you still loved him, and then felt bad for him during his demise. You know why Eddie didnt win? Because he is an asshole that too many people in Hollywood dont like. He is difficult to work with, doesnt even do press for his own movies, and has an ego the size of my dick (HUGE). Alan Arkin on the other hand, is old, has always done good work, and people felt that he was really due. That's why he won.

Jennifer Hudson. Oh Jennifer Jennifer. You sang "And I am Telling You" with so much power, and emotion and energy and oomph. You really sang from your heart. But it is the ROLE and your back story as an American Idol reject that won you the Oscar. The role of Effie White is a role that is so meaty and complicated that any decent actress with a good voice would be able to pull it off effectively. Look at the others nominated that year in that category: Cate Blanchett, those two foreigners from Babel, and Abigail Breslin. Alright Abigail didnt deserve it as cute as she was, the two foreigners did not have enough star power or sympathy. No one knew who they were! And well, that leaves Cate Blanchett. I still remember the camera panning her face when she lost. In her head she must have been thinking, "I just lost an Oscar to a girl who's only previous acting experience had been on a Disney cruise ship!" Cate Blanchett should never lose an Oscar to someone who acted on a cruise ship. Never. Plus, her role in "Notes on a Scandal" was far more complex, even if it wasnt as "feel good."

*Sidenote. I saw Jennifer Hudson at a Best Buy in the spring, shopping around, looking at the promotional stuff for the Dreamgirls DVD. Oscar winners dont look at themselves on DVD covers. As a sidenote to that sidenote, I saw Chi McBride (from Boston Public, Undercover Brother, Pushing Daisies etc.) at Best Buy that SAME trip. What are the odds?

2006- I like Reese Witherspoon a lot. I think shes a phenomenal actress and that she deserves an Oscar. Just not for "Walk the Line." What was her role in that movie? Look cute, in love, upset that shes in love, strong, caring and then vulnerable. Thats about it. Oh, and she actually sang. This is one of those times when the other competitors just fell a little short, and Reese is just so damn cute that everyone wanted to vote for her. North Country (Charlize Theron's movie) wasnt that good, no one saw "Mrs Henderson Presents" (starring Judi Dench) or "TransAmerica" (starring Felicity Huffman, or one half of the Hollywood power couple Filliam H. Muffman) and Keira Knightley's performance, while good, wasnt "Oscar worthy." In 10 years someone will rent, "Walk the Line" at a thumb-print identification, 24-hour Blockbuster kiosk and say "Joaquin Phoenix was phenomenal. Reese was good too." That to me says it all.

2005-Morgan Freeman is the most beloved man in Hollywood as far as I can tell. Everyone loves him, respects him, wants to work with him, and loves his old black person dignity. The dude can also make a phone book sound like the Bible. Before 2005, Morgan had never won an Oscar. Hollywood had to change that. Especially if they were going to try and make America feel better for having had slavery for hundreds of years. But to be honest, his Million Dollar Baby performance, while "feel good" and emotional, was not, in my opinion as good as Clive Owen's in "Closer" (Watch him scream, "DID HE MAKE YOU CUM" to Julia Roberts and not get a little bit frightened) or even Thomas Hayden Church's "Sideways" performance. A lot of what the academy does is give people Oscars when they are "due." This is one of those times.

Now, Hollywood does make good decisions sometimes. Adrien Brody's win against heavyweights Jack Nicholson and Daniel Day Lewis was well deserved. Unfortunately Adrien Brody has not paid the Academy back since every other movie he has made since has been shitty.

I'm a little spent now. But I will share with you this information. About Daniel Day-Lewis. Did you know that during the period between The Last of the Mohicans and Gangs of New York, Daniel became a cobbler. The greatest actor alive stopped acting so he could make shoes for like 10 years. Crazy right!

Oh, and I liked Pineapple Express a lot, even though I felt like it switched its tone too much throughout. But, I didnt like it as much as Knocked Up or Superbad. Maybe some repeat viewings will change my mind...

BTW--ABOUT my post--Agree? Disagree? Post your thoughts!

Until Tomorrow--