Not So Fast

email this story
read comments (44)
post a comment

I need to clarify something for those who don't read the comment threads, or didn't read them yesterday. I was criticized last night for failing to accurately read the significance of The King's Speech getting 12 nominations vs. The Social Network getting 8. I'm aware that The Social Network couldn't hope to compete in certain below-the-line realms (including Best Supporting Actress, production design, etc.) that The King's Speech, being a British period piece about the royals with a strong supporting female, would probably be recognized for.

So yeah, I got that. Take away those smaller categories and the nomination tallies for the two films are roughly even.

What I also know is that the mice scurried and the world tumbled yesterday morning when people considered the difference between 12 nominations for TKS and 8 nominations for TSN. Nobody thought it through -- they just fled like fools over to TKS. The TSN-favoring Gurus of Gold roster, made up of pros who are supposed to have a veneer of sophistication about this game, took one look and folded for TKS, to a man. Not one of them held their ground. And that's what I was responding to yesterday, why I felt so effin' gloomy. One minute I was savoring a clear blue sky and a morning cappucino with my hot Czech girlfriend in an outdoor cafe in Wenceslas Square, and the next minute....Soviet tanks!

The winds will shift again when TSN director David Fincher wins (as expected) his DGA award on 1.29, and when TSN screenwriter Aaron Sorkin picks up his adapted screenplay WGA award on 2.5. And if the Sorkin or Fincher wins don't happen, then the game will be pretty much over.

Morning Buzz<< previous | next >>Old System

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on January 26, 2011 at 7:18 AM

comment #1

paul_kolas says ...

Jeff, on one hand I'm amused by how seriously you are taking all this, and yet I can relate to your rancor. We all have films that we champion against all odds in the name of our perceived inferior enemy. The "Social Network"- Kings' Speech" showdown puts me in mind of two similar Oscar analogies. Back in the 60's there was implanted firmly in the mind of the Academy the notion that the British "do it better". To that end, "My Fair Lady" won Best Picture over "Dr. Strangelove". Talk about cozy convention triumphing over cutting edge. And the same can be said of "A Man For All Seasons" winning the prize over the then "daring" "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" But as Gaydos mentioned to well in a previous post, there are always anomalies. "Tom Jones" rightfully won the Oscar over admittedly miserable competition ("Cleopatra"?), but it was still a breath of fresh air at the time. And sometimes the Academy spreads the gold around to look "relevant" - "In the Heat of the Night" (Best Picture), "The Graduate" (Best Director); "Chariots of Fire"(Picture), "Reds" (Director). I'd say that last comparison equates pretty well with the present one - British uplift verses Beatty's "vision". We'll soon see how it all shakes out...

Posted by paul_kolas at January 26, 2011 8:07 AM

comment #2

paul_kolas says ...

make that "as Gaydos mentioned so well in a previous post"

Posted by paul_kolas at January 26, 2011 8:08 AM

comment #3

Sams says ...

So it has to be BOTH Fincher at the DGA and Sorkin @ WGA? If Fincher wins and Sorkin doesn't the game is over? I still think if FIncher wins and repeats at the Oscars that it could be TSN, and if Sorkin wins too then it should be a certainty. It's not the number of noms but the importance of the category.

Posted by Sams at January 26, 2011 8:10 AM

comment #4

lise says ...

There is something I don't understand. Gurus post predictions, correct? Why be so upset that so-called Oscar prediction pros are changing their minds? I mean, why get really really bummed about it, unless you think their predictions affect the outcome in some way? By the way, if The Social Network ends up winning, doesn't that just lend more credence to your prediction skills?

Posted by lise at January 26, 2011 8:39 AM

comment #5

Wrecktem says ...

When is this 10 nomination failed experiment going to end?

Posted by Wrecktem at January 26, 2011 8:51 AM

comment #6

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Gurus don't predict and they know it. They define the conversation and ignite fervor by way of "predicting," so to speak. They know what they do, trust me. Don't believe anyone trying to spin otherwise.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at January 26, 2011 10:30 AM

comment #7

longrunner says ...

Once the Gurus come on here and cop to what you allege, that's when I'll believe it. Until then, it's just the ravings of a paranoid personality. : )

Posted by longrunner at January 26, 2011 10:41 AM

comment #8

PastePotPete says ...

For the record Jeff, I wasn't criticizing you, sorry if it came off that way. I was trying to point out all was not lost, maybe give you some talking points in your argument with the King Speechers.

Posted by PastePotPete at January 26, 2011 11:32 AM

comment #9

jeffto says ...

What was the last film to win when it's dominant, main character was so unlikable?

Posted by jeffto at January 26, 2011 11:43 AM

comment #10

ErrantElan says ...

"My Fair Lady" was as exemplary an example of its genre as "Dr Strangelove" was of its. I highly resent the idea that I have to "choose" arbitrarily between too films like that.

This is why the idea of lists, rankings, and especially "Best Pictures" is absurd on the face of it.

Posted by ErrantElan at January 26, 2011 11:50 AM

comment #11

Jeffrey Wells says ...

I liked...okay, accepted Jesse Eisenberg's Mark Zuckerberg. I got what he was doing, what he has about. I couldn't condem him because I love brilliant and/or genius-level people, and I know that many of them are socially handicapped so I cut him all the slack I could. He treated Eduardo terribly but other than that, I was able to roll with him for the most part.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at January 26, 2011 12:29 PM

comment #12

ErrantElan says ...

Intelligence and "brilliance" are genetically inherited traits. Celebrating someone for their intelligence is logically inane. Celebrating the achievements is one thing, but liking someone for their intelligence, or admiring the PERSON, and not the intelligence, is silly. They were born with it.

Posted by ErrantElan at January 26, 2011 12:41 PM

comment #13

ErrantElan says ...

...akin to celebrating someone for being born into wealth. Directly analogous, in fact.

Posted by ErrantElan at January 26, 2011 12:42 PM

comment #14

great scott says ...

This may have been the biggest rope-a-dope since "The Rumble in the Jungle". TSN won the early rounds, landing one body blow after another. TKS was leaning back against the ropes, trying to weather the storm and waiting for the right moment to strike.

Then King's Speech landed a right jab by winning PGA, stunning Social Network and knocking it back on its heels. Now TKS is on the attack and hoping to land the big knockout.

That's why the Weinsteins looked so calm and cool at the Golden Globes. That's why Harvey has been so strangely quiet the past few weeks. He knew what was coming around the bend. He knew the fix was in.

Of course TSN won't win Best Picture. The best movie of the year actually winning Best Picture? Can't have that. The AMPAS might be saying that the last few years have been for the critics. "This year is for US."

Posted by great scott at January 26, 2011 12:44 PM

comment #15

jeffto says ...

Eisenberg portrayed Zuckerberg quite well. Maybe too well. Interesting that the only really likable character was Eduardo and Zuckerberg treated him so poorly.

I took the time to look through previous winners and couldn't really find any where the lead was such a cad. Maybe Lost Weekend (but I don't remember how that ended). Clyde Barrow was pretty awful in real life, but he was a folk hero and Beatty gave him a comic edge.

You guys in the business know more about how an unlikable character figures into the voting.

Posted by jeffto at January 26, 2011 1:01 PM

comment #16

Rashad says ...

The Hurt Locker had an unlikable protagonist. I'd even say Anton was more important than Llwellyn in No Country.

Posted by Rashad at January 26, 2011 1:20 PM

comment #17

BobbyLupo says ...

It's funny, 'The Fighter' is the big thing holding 'The King's Speech' back. If 'The Fighter' weren't there, 'The King's Speech would have at least one of those supporting awards locked up.

'King's Speech' has Actor, and what else? Probably costumes? Maybe screenplay? You have to assume it definitely wins some awards it's not certain on and probably one or two more that it can't win for it to be a real contender.
'Social Network' has Director, Screenplay, and apparently Score fairly locked up [sidebar: why is it eligible for score?]
You figure the technical awards get divvied up between 'True Grit' and 'Inception', but 'Social Network' has more chance of grabbing sound or editing than 'Speech'.

It's funny to watch how afraid people are of 'The King's Speech'. It's a paper tiger. And I say that as a fan, and a person who's hoping Rush can snatch the Oscar away from Christian Bale as Eric Roberts.

Posted by BobbyLupo at January 26, 2011 1:43 PM

comment #18

jeffto says ...

Renner's character was a hero with some bad attributes caused by war. Not a cad.

Anton is one of the best villains ever. I loved him and didn't want him to leave the screen.

I don't think I'd even want to meet Zuckerberg.

Posted by jeffto at January 26, 2011 1:45 PM

comment #19

CitizenKaned4Life says ...

I think I prefer Bale as Roberts to Rush as Sellers.

Posted by CitizenKaned4Life at January 26, 2011 1:48 PM

comment #20

CitizenKaned4Life says ...

jeffto -- You sure you'd want to meet Chigurh?

Call it, friendo.

Posted by CitizenKaned4Life at January 26, 2011 1:50 PM

comment #21

efbrackett says ...

@Errant

"Intelligence and "brilliance" are genetically inherited traits. Celebrating someone for their intelligence is logically inane."

This is one of the most ridiculous and wrong headed things I've ever read. It's just idiotic.

Posted by efbrackett at January 26, 2011 2:11 PM

comment #22

ErrantElan says ...

Efbrackett, I'm sorry you're a typically American anti-science loon. Intelligence is 100% genetically inherited, but most neurobiologists and behavioral geneticists believe it's much, much more genetically based than environmentally based. And, I'd point out, even if it IS partly environmentally based (lack of parental maltreatment, proper nutrition in development, etc), it still wouldn't be an individual's "fault" for not being "intelligent" - with intelligence defined as the PHYSICAL (i.e., neural) ability to problem-solve, reason, and acquire complex knowledge. You have the popular, layman's (and, let's face it, idiot's) understanding of intelligence as "what you know", but that's just memory and knowledge. Not the same thing as neurology-based intelligence at all.

For your science education:

http://www.scq.ubc.ca/the-genetic-basis-of-intelligence/

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/heritability-of-human-intelligence-iq-and-eugenics-796

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml

Posted by ErrantElan at January 26, 2011 2:31 PM

comment #23

CitizenKaned4Life says ...

Well, don't blame him, him's daddy weren't awful smart.

I KEEEEEED.

Posted by CitizenKaned4Life at January 26, 2011 2:32 PM

comment #24

ErrantElan says ...

err, that was meant to be intelligence is not absolutely 100% inheritance-based

Posted by ErrantElan at January 26, 2011 2:32 PM

comment #25

ErrantElan says ...

Or read Steven Pinker's "Blank Slate". Would you call the head of the Department of Psychology and one of the world's leading evolutionary psychologists "ridiculous, wrongheaded, and idiotic"

Efbrackett is exactly what is wrong with American scientific illiteracy today.

Posted by ErrantElan at January 26, 2011 2:35 PM

comment #26

ErrantElan says ...

^head of the Dept of Psychology at Harvard. God I'm useless today.

Posted by ErrantElan at January 26, 2011 2:35 PM

comment #27

Chauncey says ...

"Intelligence and "brilliance" are genetically inherited traits. Celebrating someone for their intelligence is logically inane."

I understand your first statement, even if I think there's room for debate. (Hell, there's plenty of room left open for just defining the terms.)

I don't understand your second one.

Posted by Chauncey at January 26, 2011 2:48 PM

comment #28

ErrantElan says ...

Celebrate the achievement. Celebrate the fact that he applied himself to a difficult task, where someone else with his "unearned" (i.e., in-born) neural-synaptic dexterity may have slouched off and not put in the work. Celebrate the hard work.

Celebrating "Mark Zuckerberg" for having faster glucose-metabolism (the physical basis for brain wave function) and faster-than-normal neural and synaptic activity/dexterity is pointless - he didn't do anything to earn that. Just how he was born, like an Einstein, or a Good Will Hunting ("i don't know how i do it, i just look at a problem, and it makes sense to me...i can do it").

It's the same as being born rich. As Molly Ivins said about George W Bush "he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple". Same applies to celebrating someone FOR their PHYSICAL ability to problem-solve at a much higher rate than the societal mean.

Posted by ErrantElan at January 26, 2011 2:54 PM

comment #29

ErrantElan says ...

Or "celebrating" Shaquille O'Neal HIMSELF being better at basketball than Gary Coleman, i.e. thinking "oh, well he achieved greatness in basketball because he applied himself, worked hard at it, and gosh darn it, Coleman could have too, but didn't apply himself!"

No. Shaq was genetically "blessed" for a certain task, and is simply applying those unearned abilities. Doesn't mean he's a better person, or more admirable for it. Admiring his skill is admiring "God" or "nature" or human evolution, not "Shaquille O'Neal".

That's not to discount the fact that he worked at it, and he could have been as good a player if he hadn't worked his ass off. But that's my point. Commend him for that, not for the natural, above-average size/body type that he had nothing to do with.

Posted by ErrantElan at January 26, 2011 2:59 PM

comment #30

Rashad says ...

"Renner's character was a hero with some bad attributes caused by war. Not a cad."

Um endangering your subordinates by recklessly disarming bombs, because you are addicted to the rush isn't a hero, nor is it normal behavior of soldiers.

Posted by Rashad at January 26, 2011 3:06 PM

comment #31

BobbyLupo says ...

Wait, Shaquille O'Neal started applying himself? Did he finally start practicing enough to be able to hit a free throw?

Posted by BobbyLupo at January 26, 2011 3:08 PM

comment #32

ErrantElan says ...

Haha @ BobbyLupo. Zing!

Point taken. I should have chosen someone more known for their hard work (Kobe or MJ, let's say). But the point stands.

Although, many have argued, convincingly, I think, that there's a direct physical correlation between size of hands and the ability to accurately and consistently reproduce a proper basketball-throwing/aiming motion. Shaq's hands may, arguably, simply be way too big to be very good at that certain task, through no fault of his own.

Posted by ErrantElan at January 26, 2011 3:13 PM

comment #33

the400blows says ...

ErrantElan, can you be any more condescending like Zuckerberg? No wonder some posters are calling Zuckerberg an unlikeable protagonist.

Posted by the400blows at January 26, 2011 3:14 PM

comment #34

Chauncey says ...

"No. Shaq was genetically 'blessed' for a certain task, and is simply applying those unearned abilities. Doesn't mean he's a better person, or more admirable for it. Admiring his skill is admiring 'God' or 'nature' or human evolution, not 'Shaquille O'Neal'."

I would put it this way: To admire his skill is to admire "god" or "nature" as it has manifested itself in Shaquille O'Neal through a combination of good fortune and applied effort. Few would admire him (or even say he has "skills") simply because he is tall.

I think celebrating the accomplishment is functionally inseparable from celebrating the person. How would that even work? When Fincher wins Best Director, it won't be for simply possessing certain traits that make him an excellent filmmaker, it will be for the accomplishment of making TSN. Should he stay in his seat so that we don't mistakenly praise the man himself instead of the accomplishment?

It's actually probably just a semantic disagreement. After all, society tends to dump on people who have exceptional unearned ability who don't make effective use of it. The celebration of raw ability is actually more a celebration of potential, and if that potential isn't realized the knives will soon come out.

Posted by Chauncey at January 26, 2011 3:43 PM

comment #35

Chauncey says ...

P.S. - I don't find you to be condescending...

Posted by Chauncey at January 26, 2011 3:49 PM

comment #36

Rashad says ...

There are a lot of Wall Street guys who lied and took advantage of situations to get rich. Same thing Zuckerberg did. I see a bunch of people being hypocrites when it comes to this.

Posted by Rashad at January 26, 2011 3:58 PM

comment #37

jeffto says ...

[I]"Um endangering your subordinates by recklessly disarming bombs, because you are addicted to the rush isn't a hero, nor is it normal behavior of soldiers. " [/I]

But he was nuanced and had some good guy in him. Zuckerberg was depicted in TSN as a total asshole.

My original point was whether a movie where the lead character is unlikable is handicapped in the stupid best picture horse race.

Posted by jeffto at January 26, 2011 4:09 PM

comment #38

BobbyLupo says ...

Elan - I actually like your general point, yeah, I just think of Shaquille O'Neal as a perfect embodiment of what you're talking about, a guy who is worshiped purely for natural gifts even though, if he worked on top of those gifts instead of what I perceive as kind of coasting, he could be truly great. But because people already worship him, he has no incentive to practice.

Posted by BobbyLupo at January 26, 2011 4:32 PM

comment #39

Rashad says ...

Bullshit. Shaq was dominant, yes in part because of his size, but because he knew exactly how to use it skillfully. Worlds of difference between being a big athletic guy, and being an all time great center.

Posted by Rashad at January 26, 2011 10:23 PM

comment #40

Dr. Kyojô Niide says ...

The argument that you shouldn't celebrate someone for their inherited physical or mental talents is inane. Insisting on the separation of the gift from the person blessed with it is just plain ludicrous.

Posted by Dr. Kyojô Niide at January 28, 2011 5:43 AM

comment #41

Nike Duck Shoes says ...

your website is so great that i love it very much. thank you for sharing it with us.

Posted by Nike Duck Shoes at April 12, 2011 5:45 PM

comment #42

Best Diet Plan says ...

I'm a wholesome diet regime fan, I am positive the Best Diet Plan is the best, I prefer it really significantly. If you'd like to turn into more slender fine? So hurriedly action! The Acai Berry Diet retailer possess a lot of healthful diet program products for you to pick. Such as China Meizitang Slim.

Posted by Best Diet Plan at May 15, 2011 11:51 PM

comment #43