Caroline's Super Awesome, Last-Minute, Oscar Breakdown Extravaganza

There are very few traditions in my family. Most of the traditions I have revolve either around food (making sugar cookies with my mom every year around Christmas) or movies (watching A Muppet Christmas Carol everything Thanksgiving with my parents). I think my favorite tradition is that every year, without fail (except for that year I was at UW), my mom and I watch the Oscars. I'm pretty sure this tradition started in 1995, the year the Forrest Gump won Best Picture. At that point I didn't fully understand what the Oscars meant, but I loved the pageantry and the glamor. I was hooked. This year I decided that, since I have a blog about movies anyway, I'd write a post about who's going to win in some of the categories I care about.

Best Supporting Actress:

I actually don't really care much about this category this year, but I'm going to write about it anyway because I'd feel bad if it was the only acting category I left out. Melissa Leo has won the SAG and the Golden Globe for her role in The Fighter, so it's a pretty safe bet that she'll win the Oscar as well. I have to agree, her performance was incredible, but I'm not sure she'd be my choice for the win. Hailee Steinfeld displayed poise way beyond her years as Mattie Ross in True Grit, and I think she should be rewarded for it. My mom feels like it can be kind of a shame when someone so young beats out veteran actors, but Steinfeld handled that character so beautifully that I truly believe she deserves the prize. Helena Bonham Carter in The King's Speech was also fantastic, but the Academy is never going to award someone who showed up to the Golden Globes in two different colored shoes. I think the biggest tragedy of this category is the exclusion of Mila Kunis from the nominees. Her performance in Black Swan proved to me once and for all that she's not just a pretty face and actually has some legitimate acting chops. I wish the Academy had recognized that instead of giving the fifth nomination to Jacki Weaver for Animal Kingdom, and film that no one I've talked to has heard of, let alone seen.

Best Supporting Actor:

Remember two years ago when Heath Ledger was nominated for his role as the Joker in The Dark Knight, and everyone just knew that there was no way anyone else was going to win? We all said that the other nominees should just appreciate their nods and accept that there was no way they were going home with the statuette. Well, that's what's happening this year too. Christian Bale might as well be the only nominee in the category. His performance as Dicky Eklund in The Fighter is not only brilliant, it's also one of those total-commitment, body-altering roles that the Academy just loves to reward. Bale completely transformed himself into the crack-addicted, waifish Eklund, completely immersing himself in the character. The Welsh Bale even managed to perform a spot-on Boston accent, something that's challenging even for the most seasoned American actors. While we're here though, I would like to give a nod to Geoffrey Rush, who is nothing but charm and grace as Lionel Logue in The King's Speech. If Bale weren't in this category, the Oscar would be Rush's in a heartbeat.

Best Actress:

This is another one of those runaway categories. Experts are saying that Annette Bening could be the upset with her role as the head of a household run by a same-sex couple in The Kids are All Right, but I have to firmly disagree. Natalie Portman in Black Swan was a revelation. Much like Christian Bale, Portman underwent an incredible physical transformation to make herself look like a ballet dancer, and even performed quite a few of her own ballet scenes. On top of that, she mastered the unstable psyche of Nina Sayres, convincingly flipping the switch between innocent ballet darling and stark raving mad. Like I said, this category is a runaway. Even seasoned Oscar nominees like Nicole Kidman don't stand a chance.

Best Actor:

This category seems like it's gotten a lot of attention from the press, and for good reason; it's filled with outstanding nominees.  I haven't seen Javier Bardem in Biutiful, so I'm going to leave him out of this analysis (sorry, Javier). I have seen all of the other nominees in their roles, so I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of the category. Let's start with Jesse Eisenberg. It's no secret that The Social Network is easily one of my favorite films of the year (it's kind of neck and neck with Black Swan, we'll get to that later), and Eisenberg was a great Mark Zuckerberg. Usually nervous and awkward, Eisenberg tackled Zuckerberg's smug arrogance with finesse, convincing many in the audience that he (Eisenberg) was actually like that, my mother included. In another year Eisenberg might have been a contender for this award, but this year he sadly isn't. Next we have James Franco in 127 Hours. One of the most remarkable things about his role as Aron Ralston is that for most of the films 94 minutes, he's the only one on screen. The film is almost a one man show, and that's impressive. However, I feel like in the end James Franco is just playing James Franco with his arm stuck under a boulder, but it's a great feat nonetheless. His problem is similar to Eisenberg's, though. In a different year he probably could have won, but up against the next two contenders he has no chance.

This brings me to Colin Firth in The King's Speech and Jeff Bridges in True Grit. What's interesting about this is that at last years awards the top two contenders were the same two people. Ultimately, Bridges walked away with his first ever Oscar for his portrayal of Bad Blake in Crazy Heart, an award which many believe should have gone to Firth for his understated performance in A Single Man (this is not a sentiment I agree with, but it's definitely out there). This year they find themselves up against each other once again. Firth has taken home a staggering number of awards for The King's Speech already, and will almost definitely take home the Oscar tonight. That being said, Rooster Cogburn might be the role that Jeff Bridges was born to play, and some believe that Firth will only take home the gold man this year to make up for the one that he was arguably cheated out of last year. If I'm being completely honest, I have to say that I'd give the award to Bridges, who I feel has been greatly under-recognized for this performance, but the Academy loves a period piece, and really loves a character with a handicap, so Firth will probably take home the win.

Best Director: 

This is not a category that I usually care much about, though I did give a cheer last year when Kathryn Bigelow unseated James Cameron and became the first woman to win a Best Directing Oscar. This year I actually care a lot. Most of the experts have pegged Tom Hooper as the inevitable winner for his direction of The King's Speech, a prediction which I desperately hope doesn't pan out. I really enjoyed The King's Speech, but it's a film that I feel relies most heavily on the quality of its actors and less on the ability of its director. My choice for the win is either David Fincher for The Social Network or Darren Aronofsky for Black Swan. To me, The Social Network is a movie that is brilliant not only in execution, but in conception as well. It feels like it was born out of a director's vision, and then it delivers in every respect. Additionally, I love David Fincher and feel like his work is not appreciated enough and would love to see him rewarded for what he does. He doesn't only make films that people like, he makes films that make people think, and there isn't enough of that in Hollywood these days. On the other hand, Black Swan feels like a world and a story that exists beautifully inside Aronofsky's head. That he managed to put it on film so it could be shared with the rest of the world feels like a gift, and it would be just as much of a victory to see him take home an Oscar for what he did with that film.

Best Writing:

Normally I would give these two categories (original and adapted screenplay) a lot of attention because they are probably my two favorite categories. Actors and directors are great, but without a good script a film isn't worth a thing, and I like seeing writers get awarded. This year, however, there's not much to write about. The Social Network will win Adapted Screenplay because it's Aaron Sorkin and he's brilliant, and The King's Speech will win Original Screenplay because, well, it just will. The only possible upset would be for Inception to win Original Screenplay, which I would actually love to see happen, but the Academy seems hellbent on not giving an Oscar to Christopher Nolan, so that probably won't happen. It's too bad, but it's the truth. It's great that they even gave him a nomination, which they steadfastly refused to do when he wrote and directed The Dark Knight

Best Picture:
The big one. The Academy decided last year that there would once again be 10 nominees in this category, a decision that I think is really silly and unnecessary. However, this year I have actually seen 9 of the 10 nominees, so I feel like I have a really good handle on this. I'm not going to talk about all of the nominees because some just don't really need to be talked about, but I'll give a rundown on the ones that I think are really worth mentioning. The one film that I haven't seen is Winter's Bone, which I've heard is great, but by all accounts has no real chance of winning. If the category was narrowed down to five like all of the other categories, the nominees would most likely be The Fighter, Black Swan, True Grit, The Social Network, and The King's Speech. Incidentally, those are also the five films with nominations for Best Director, which is no coincidence. 127 Hours could have sneaked in there, but that's really a film that's driven by a single performance, and if it were to get accolades, they would go to Mr. Franco. When you cut it down to those five, Black Swan can immediately be eliminated because, let's face it, it's just too weird for the Academy. It's a shame, because it's an amazing film, but that's how it is. The Fighter probably won't win, because as far as biopics go, The King's Speech can't really be overtaken. True Grit is excellent, but the Coen brothers are Oscar machines and will definitely have another chance. That leaves The Social Network and The King's Speech, a race that The AV Club predicted months ago and ended up being exactly what it came down to. In my perfect world The Social Network would take it for smug nerds everywhere, but once again, the Academy loves a period piece, and The King's Speech has won all of the guild awards, and the people who choose those are the same people who are in the Academy. I sincerely hope that The Social Network wins, but if and when The King's Speech overtakes it, I'll at least be comfortable with the knowledge that a very good film beat it out.

I apologize for the grammar, punctuation, and spelling carnage that is probably currently present in this post, but I wanted to get it posted before the ceremony happened. After I'm done making Oscar night food and actually watching the ceremony, I promise I'll got back through and do my Bacehlor's degree in English proud.

#29.5: How Can They See with Sequins in Their Eyes?

(Chicago, Rob Marshall, 2002)

I realize that I just wrote a Beyond the List post not that long ago, but I'm still kind of easing out of the funk caused by Airplane!, and I honestly spent most of this time believing that Chicago actually was on The List (which it should be, along with The Sound of Music), so I'm just going to write this post now because I feel like it. I guess that's the joy of being the sole entity responsible for this blog. When I want to write about something that's not on The List, or write an entire post that has absolutely nothing to do with the film that it is ostensibly about, I can. It's pretty awesome.

So... Chicago. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this film is single-handedly responsible for the movie musical revival that happened in the last decade. A lot of people (mostly people who hate musicals) would probably argue that that's a bad thing. Being the crazed musical lover that I am, I think it's a great thing. Chicago proved that musicals could still be relevant in the 21st century, and did it with a bullet, going on to win six Academy Awards, including Best Picture. I am of the opinion that Chicago opened the door for movies like Phantom of the Opera and Hairspray, and for that I am deeply grateful. Of course, it also allowed for the film versions of Rent and The Producers, which we probably could have done without (to be completely honest, I like both of those films, but neither is as good as its on-stage counterpart). The reawakened interest in the movie musical allowed me to see musicals that I otherwise would not have been able to. I did eventually realize my dream of seeing Phantom of the Opera live on Broadway, but the film versions of Chicago and Hairspray remain the only incarnations that I have seen. Listening to the soundtracks by themselves is all well and good, but it's nice to have some visuals and story to go along with those great songs.

Chicago came at a great time for me personally. I'd always been a fan of musicals (as a 3rd grader I loved Grease and could not understand why "Summer Lovin'" was not an appropriate song choice for my school talent show), but my love for them really developed when I was in high school. In fact, my increased interest in musicals was probably caused by Chicago, which came out during my freshman year. I remember going to see it with my mom and being taken in by the spectacle of it all, much like Roxy Hart in Billy Flynn's courtroom. It was awe-inspiring. Later that year I saw my school's production of Footloose and my musical love took off even more. By my senior year most of my CD collection consisted of original cast recordings, and I could easily have sung you every song from Little Shop of Horrors or Urinetown. Since then my obsession with musical theater has cooled a little, but rewatching Chicago brought me back to those years I spent in my room, belting "Defying Gravity" along with Idina Menzel and dreaming of the day that I'd be on Broadway. It was a dream that I ultimately realized would never come true, due to my mediocre singing voice and complete lack of acting ability, but I still enjoyed watching Chicago again and revisiting those semi-forgotten dreams.

Another thing that was fun to recall was the thrill I experienced during that year's Academy Awards. For the first time in my memory, the film that I liked, that I wanted to win, actually won. Before 2002 I had rarely seen any of the Best Picture nominees, let alone had any opinion about them. The year before I had foolishly rooted for The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, thinking that it actually had some sort of chance against the likes of Moulin Rouge! and A Beautiful Mind. The only other year a film I'd liked (or even seen) had won was in 1998 when Titanic took the top prize, and I was really only rooting for it because I thought Leonardo DiCaprio was cute, and it was the first time any movie had ever made me cry (which was pretty much only because the cute guy had died).

My point is that Chicago winning Best Picture was something of an awakening for me. Even though I hadn't seen any of the other nominated films except for, once again, Lord of the Rings, I had felt that Chicago was a great film that was worthy of recognition. For the first time I wasn't just a viewer, I was a critic. It was a feeling of maturity and adulthood that I had rarely felt before. I had a strong sense of validation when, together, Kirk and Michael Douglas announced the winner. My opinion and critique no longer felt like the immature comments of a child, but instead the reflections of someone who actually knew what they were talking about. It was invigorating.

It's a shame that Chicago isn't on The List. Perhaps my judgment is clouded by the personal connection to the film that I just recounted, but I truly feel that it is an important part of film history. It is exactly what a Best Picture should be: excellent on every level. Everything from the acting to the art direction, the directing to the costume design, the cinematography to the choreography, is brilliant. I've given up on trying to find things that are wrong with it because I just can't do it. Maybe I've fallen for the old razzle dazzle, but it just feels perfect.

#29: I Am Serious, and Don't Call Me Shirley

(Airplane!, 1980, Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, and Jerry Zucker)

I don't know if it's me or Airplane!, but there's something that makes this film impossible to write about. This blog post has been sitting on my dashboard in various incarnations for months, and I think about it literally every day and say to myself "today I will write the Airplane! blog and get out of my funk and start moving on this project again." Of course, inevitably, I get distracted by Facebook and Youtube and the internet in general and I don't actually do that. I just think to myself "tomorrow... tomorrow I will actually write that post." And, once again, that will inevitably not happen and the whole vicious cycle starts again.

You see, dear readers, I am not good at projects. I currently have at least 3 half-finished knitting projects (including 2 scarves and one pair of socks) sitting in my room gathering dust. I also have all the posters that were previously on my walls now sitting on my floor, waiting for the room redecoration that I've been talking about doing since July. I still haven't finished playing The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess or Super Mario Galaxy. I haven't finished sewing a dress that I was planning on wearing to a function that happened about 6 months ago. The long story short is that I don't finish projects well. I never have. It's a character flaw that I know I have and will probably always be fighting against. The problem is that I also seem to have an unexplainable need to start projects, which is probably causing me a lot more problems than my inability to finish them.

However, the thing about this blog, this particular project, is that for some reason I have it in my mind that it is entirely necessary for me to finish it. Unlike that half-knitted sock in my room, I feel that this blog is something that absolutely has to be completed. After this project evolved from a two-person endeavour into a solo mission I became even more determined to keep it going. I knew that it would be hard for me to stick to such a large undertaking, but I promised myself that I would not give up on it. Partly because I'm trying to break that nasty habit of not finishing things, and partly because this particular project means something more to me.

I didn't mention this when I wrote up High Fidelity because it didn't fit in with the format that I chose, but there's one specific scene in that film that kind of speaks to me because it calls to attention something that I often find myself thinking about: the job that I would want if could have literally any job in the world. Well, the truth is that if I had my way I would be writing the film reviews for Rolling Stone. I would love to have Peter Travers's job. That's it. And for me, giving up on this blog would be like admitting to myself that I don't ever have a chance at having that job. I have to keep writing about these 1000 films because, in my mind, that makes my dream that much closer to being real. Of course, in my ideal world I'd be writing Rolling Stone's film reviews in the 1970's when Kubrick was still making films and awesome things like Star Wars were being seen for the first time. Alas, that is not a possibility. However, it is entirely possibly for me to keep writing this blog, thereby making me one baby step closer to being the next Peter Travers.

So, in case you haven't noticed, this post is not about the film Airplane!. I realized today that this post was never going to be about Airplane! and was probably never really meant to be about Airplane!. Airplane! is a great film and an excellent example of satirical comedy. It's frequently ranked as one of the greatest American comedies, and is remembered as being uproariously funny and highly quotable. Leslie Nielsen's role as Dr. Barry Rumack is remembered as one of his best, and my viewing of the film coincidentally fell only a few days before his death, which made it especially poignant. And... that's it. Honestly, that's all I could ever think of to say about Airplane!. So that's all I'm going to say about it.

I've made a lot of promises about how I'm going to be better about updating the blog more frequently (for the 7-ish of you who care) and try to watch more of the weird movies. Well... I'm taking those back. I think my problem is that I try to keep a schedule (which I hate) or watch the weird movies (which I just straight up don't want to do), and I can't do that. It's just not going to happen, now or ever. So I'm replacing it with this promise: I won't give up on this project. Not entirely, not ever. I don't know if I'm making the promise to myself or to my readers (to those of you who've stuck with me, thanks), but I'm making it. I have to. It's the only way. So now I'm going to walk away from this blasted post that gave me the most brutal blogger's block that has ever existed and end by saying that the next post will definitely be about a movie and not about my own introspection. I promise.