Alright, it's time we had a good little chat about the Academy Award nominees for this year. Actually no, one of the things I like best about the blog-o-sphere (or is that one word? Not too familiar with the etymology of that one) is that my opinions reign supreme. True, there is the "comment" option for all you readers subjected to my ideas with which you may disagree. However, my role as blogger monarch instills in me the power to veto or ignore any comment that rubs me the wrong way intentionally or otherwise.
The oh-so-illusive academy (who would probably insist on the capitalization of their name, but I choose to openly defy such an elitist request) acts like a group of over-zealous kids when any high-quality film, or simply one perceived as such, wriggles through a crack in the muck of cinematic garbage pumped out of Hollywood. Example: Lincoln. Woah there, put down those pitchforks and repress those ideas of ousting me from my blog throne! I'm not insinuating a lack of quality in that film. It was a well-rounded, emotional and poignant representation of Lincoln and his personal and political struggles (the two often amalgamated), albeit with slightly too many scenes focusing on political arguments behind closed doors. To summarize its strengths, it did what a movie should do- reached into the emotional stores of its audience and extracted raw feeling. Though not to the point as Les Miserables, Lincoln sure brought those tears to just behind my optometric floodgates.
My issue is not the Academy's (damn, I indulged their capitalization wish) nomination of Lincoln for best picture. My beef with them (I feel like only vegetarians should use that saying) is that they saw it's best picture-worthiness as justification to nominate it for EVERY other award category, whether actually worthy of nomination or not. Sally Field did a fine job as Mrs. Lincoln. But best actress worthy (am I supposed to capitalize best actress? Clearly I'm not on the up-and-up with Academy Award capitalization rules)? Not in my opinion (which just so happens to be the only one that matters in this post). I mean, is it really that challenging to be a swarthy little woman driven borderline insane by the events in her life? No.
The oh-so-illusive academy (who would probably insist on the capitalization of their name, but I choose to openly defy such an elitist request) acts like a group of over-zealous kids when any high-quality film, or simply one perceived as such, wriggles through a crack in the muck of cinematic garbage pumped out of Hollywood. Example: Lincoln. Woah there, put down those pitchforks and repress those ideas of ousting me from my blog throne! I'm not insinuating a lack of quality in that film. It was a well-rounded, emotional and poignant representation of Lincoln and his personal and political struggles (the two often amalgamated), albeit with slightly too many scenes focusing on political arguments behind closed doors. To summarize its strengths, it did what a movie should do- reached into the emotional stores of its audience and extracted raw feeling. Though not to the point as Les Miserables, Lincoln sure brought those tears to just behind my optometric floodgates.
My issue is not the Academy's (damn, I indulged their capitalization wish) nomination of Lincoln for best picture. My beef with them (I feel like only vegetarians should use that saying) is that they saw it's best picture-worthiness as justification to nominate it for EVERY other award category, whether actually worthy of nomination or not. Sally Field did a fine job as Mrs. Lincoln. But best actress worthy (am I supposed to capitalize best actress? Clearly I'm not on the up-and-up with Academy Award capitalization rules)? Not in my opinion (which just so happens to be the only one that matters in this post). I mean, is it really that challenging to be a swarthy little woman driven borderline insane by the events in her life? No.
 |
| SEE? I can be CRAAZZZYYY too! |
No comments:
Post a Comment