Oscar Zone Vol. II; Part III: Writing!

As we keep moving closer to the biggest Movie Night of the year, the Oscar Ceremony February 27 (8:00 pm EST on ABC) we must prepare a few things. First we need to prep our eyes and ears for four hours of self-indulgent congratulations as well as the best-looking Corporate Synergy you'll see this year (Imagine Christina Hendricks' diamonds! Also watch Mad Men). We've also got to needle into every possible scenario and determine exactly who is going to bring home statue. Because what's the fun in a surprise? After going over the least important category last week (Acting, clearly), we move on to something slightly more less important: Screenwriting.

Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen

Another Year (2010) by Mike Leigh
Anyone heard of this one? I haven't, which means it's probably a good script that has no following and no momentum going into the Academy Awards. This is the easy one to write off and narrow the option down to the remaining four nominees.
Chances of Winning: 1/5

The Fighter (2010): Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson, Keith Dorrington
I have no doubts that The Fighter may sweep much of the Supporting Acting Nominations, but it's not dynamic enough of a screenplay to earn a Golden Boy here. A Sports Drama hasn't won here since Chariots of Fire (1981) and that flick had enough cajones to pull Best Picture, too. Screenplay tends to be a really quirky category, The Fighter is just way to typical to pull the upset.
Chances of Winning: 2/5

The King's Speech (2010): David Seidler
I would not be surprised if I'm way off and The King's Speech goes on a mad dash and sweeps most of its Awards. Slumdog Millionaire (2008) and The Hurt Locker (2009) both pulled off effective sweeps which included their writing categories and since The King's Speech's main competition (The Social Network) is in the Adapted slot, it would appear and open invite for Seidler to score here. What is interesting this year is that there isn't an obvious favourite for Best Picture so a sweep is more difficult to predict.
Chances of Winning: 3/5

The Kids Are All Right (2010): Lisa Cholodenko, Stuart Blumberg
There was this good streak in the later half of the past decade of tons of flicks just like this one nabbing Original Screenplay. The Academy seemed to love small, quirky indie, super-liberal stuff like Little Miss Sunshine (2006), Juno (2007) and Milk (2008). I picked this in my original bet to win, as of now I'm almost torn over its chances despite some recent history (And of course The Hurt Locker's win last year, tho that was still a small film). As of now, there's not a whole lot of momentum or hype over this Screenplay, tho both Milk and The Hurt Locker were decent surprises.
Chances of Winning: 4/5

Inception (2010): Christopher Nolan
I would call this nearly sealed up by now. Fresh of a WGA win, the Academy should apologize to Chris for snubbing him in the Director's spot (despite all his achievements, he only has a single Golden Globe nomination for Best Director to his name, also for Inception). He's been nominated before for Memento (2000), and he similarly handled the nuances of this screenplay with great talent. Of course, I thought the Academy would similarly award Tarantino last year the same way for Inglourious Basterds (2009) but I was off on that. Hopefully the WGA win pushes Inception in the right direction. Actually I do really believe the Academy has to find some way to honour a truly great Original Summer Blockbuster Idea that also made a ton of money. With this Summer already appearing to be ridiculous with its franchise overload, Inception was the one major brilliant highlight of 'Summer '010 and it was damn good.
Chances of Winning: 5/5

Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published

127 Hours (2010): Danny Boyle, Simon Beaufoy
Danny and Simon just snagged a statue for Slumdog a few years back but they won't repeat. 127 Hours is an interesting concept but the Screenplay isn't that exciting even with its gimmick film premise. It's much less interesting beat by beat than in a hot pitch room. In general it seems as though Critics and Academies have given this film the kind of standard Awards Love it deserves from the type of film it is, but the big prizes are reserved for some other seats come Oscar Night.
Chances of Winning: 1/5

Winter's Bone (2010): Debra Granik, Anne Rosellini
Winter's Bone! Winter's Bone! Winter's Bone! I'm going to just latch on to that joke.
Chances of Winning: 2/5

True Grit (2010): Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
This is kind of like last year, isn't it? Actually it's a trend every year. You've got the Coen Film, the Pixar Film, the Film no one's heard of, then the Serious Contender. I always have to give the Coens some love because they write their dialogue so crisply and their actors just eat it up. With True Grit however, there really weren't a whole lot of changes from the original 1969 film, nor even the original Charles Portis novel. Do they deserve an award anyway for still making the screenplay into an interesting, fresh and very cool movie? Possibly. that's why they're number three today.
Chances of Winning: 3/5

Toy Story 3 (2010): Michael Arndt, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich
As I just mentioned, we're pretty deep in a little trend of Pixar releasing incredible films with spectacular screenplays. How long until they're recognized? It's not going to be Cars 2 (2011). They can rack up all the Best Animated Feature Awards we'll give them but at some point we have to start noticing that these are flicks that can stand on their legs against anything else in Hollywood. That said, an animated film won't win Best Adapted Screenplay this year. This is a shame because Animated Screenplays must contain a lot more information than normal films. Every direction needs to be put on screen. Actually in part that's the Director's job. I don't see an Animation Director winning against a live action one any time soon either. It's just too different an animal.
Chances of Winning: 4/5

The Social Network (2010): Aaron Sorkin
There's not a chance in hell The Social Network loses this. From its premiere the greatest facets people touted for this film were is Trent Reznor score and the incredible Aaron Sorkin dialogue. The first scene is beautiful. It puts every thing on display, the instant characterization, the clever wordplay and the inciting incident for the entire sequence of events that follows. It's probably one of the best-written films I've seen in years and it should win next year's award, too. Full of iconic lines and brilliant set-ups, blow-aparts and interesting scenes and characters, this is awesome. While The King's Speech may have trouble in its category, The Social Network is the kind of film that rules Original Screenplay. In the past decade 5/7 Best Picture Winners have also won Best Adapted Screenplay (The other three Best Picture Winners, 2/3 won Best Original. The losers, respectively have been Chicago [2003], Million Dollar Baby [2004] and Gladiator [2000]. None of these films were considered frontrunners for Best Picture [maybe Gladiator] and none of them have been thought of highly since [maybe Gladiator]). What I'm saying is that if The Social Network gets its Screenplay win I think it'll secure Best Picture.
Chances of Winning: 5/5

Stay tuned, dear readers, next week we'll take a juicy look at the Best Director Nominations!

Because it was on TV: The Rise of F/X

F/X has the movies. They really do, actually. There has been no other channel rising through the ranks of Most Flipped To like F/X the past couple years. They've achieved this through a very adept business plan, somehow unique in the world of cable. There are tons of F/X-like channels out there. I'm talking about the Cable Channels that only play syndicated repeats of old TV shows, movies and typically crappy original programming. How does F/X rise above the ranks of USA, TBS and TNT? Because they're awesome in each of these aspects.

The Best in TV Reruns:

See, F/X has this very simple knack of just seeking out whatever's really popular and broadcasting it constantly. Its programming schedule continually shifts to accommodate the most popular tastes possible. While TNT and USA split hundreds of ubiquitous Law & Order, Bones and NCIS episodes, F/X recently picked up Two and a Half Men and currently plays it constantly. This in addition to decent older shit like Spin City and That 70s Show. The network is really just following the most basic numbers. Two and a Half Men is one of the highest rated TV shows of the past few years, and it also performs fantastic in syndication. In fact it's the highest-rated scripted show. F/X just jumps on the pony.

The Best in Original TV:

F/X originated as this repeats-only channel. Around the turn of the century it began creating Original Programming though, and they've only gone up from there. Starting with The Shield and Nip/Tuck, F/X actually developed a very high standard for its Original Programming. Its shows are consistently excellent, from Sons of Anarchy to Justified and Rescue Me. The channel in general has been consistently snuffed by most major award shows, notably the Emmys. The shows are fantastic though. Unlike quirky cute USA shows or Tyler Perry TBS Comedies, F/X is full of near-HBO level programming. It's a slight notch below AMC's prestigious programs. They still tend to be renegades, shows that fly by their underrated pants. Sometimes they're too under the radar (Terriers), others are heavily hyped but middling (Lights Out).

What also sets F/X apart from other stations is their equal knack for Comedy as well as Drama. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia remains one of the funniest shows on television and is already a huge cult hit. I personally hate The League, but it seems to work for other people, and Louie is the darker spiritual successor to Seinfeld if there ever was one. F/X has done an excellent job spending its money. They built themselves up through the success of other programs and movies then invest in their own Original Content, always with very high standards. They really aren't content with the broad dramas of TNT or the bland comedy of TBS. They've found a very unique niche and have so far been successful.

The Best in Movies on TV:

Now this is by far F/X's greatest selling point. F/X really does have the movies. Their aggressive acquisition of the most popular flicks as soon as they're available attracts the most viewership and interest. We're smack in the middle of every great hit of Summer 2008 (except The Dark Knight, which TNT snatched up). F/X has been assaulting the senses with Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Kung Fu Panda, Hancock, Wanted, Tropic Thunder and Step Brothers. It's an incredible line-up. At least from a popular standpoint. F/X is like that all the time. They're always on the cutting edge of Movies on TV. It's an art form for these guys.

F/X will be this way for some time to come. They had a widely reported deal for the rights to AVABAR (2009). They also plan on showing Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) as well as the Twilight series. It's a complete money grab. They're also showing the coolest flicks of the last two years. It's the place to be, baby. Not only that but they're increasing their prestige by recently acquiring The Social Network (2010) as well as Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (2010). If you're a careful watcher of the network you may have caught fellow Best Picture Winner (maybe) The Departed (2006) play in between showings of Ghost Rider (2007) and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007). This is fun actually, tracking recent Best Picture winners. You'll find No Country for Old Men (2007) on USA for some reason, Million Dollar Baby (2004) on AMC and Return of the King (2003) on TNT. Fun stuff. I know I've seen Crash (2005) somewhere, it's not often on TV though.

I have no idea if anyone else is interested in this stuff. I find it awesome and extremely interesting. Maybe I just watch too much TV, explicitly movies on TV. In an age of competing media outlets, declining DVD sales, Netflix and Chinese Pirated everything, I still watch flicks on television. On a lazy hungover Saturday everybody does. Who gets what films and how that reflects on a Channel's Reputation and Personality affects more lives than we take for granted.

Anywho, here's to a great 2012 showing of AVABAR!

Because it was on TV: The Case Against Glee

I don't often get a chance to watch the Teen Choice Award-winning FOX program known as Glee, but enough of a Packers high after the Big Game Sunday night drew me into one of the most terrible shows I've ever seen. This show is so ingratiatingly painful to watch, so frustrating and tepid that I could barely make it through a few minutes (I had a girl over. Also the only way I've gotten through my single episode of Grey's Anatomy). But like a good Pop Culture Rambler (I'm not bold enough to label this blog a Critic's Column) I did feel as though I shouldn't judge a show based on preconceptions, rumours or hearsay. I also don't feel like I should dismiss the program for the sole reason that it's not targeting my specific demographic. There's a fine line here though and I'm not taking excuses. I'm not the demographic for Josie and the Pussycats (2001) either but that movie ruled. It's time to really dig into what makes Glee so awful. If you take my hand on this journey, we can discover together.

Glee is probably the gayest show on television. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But the amount of homosexuality rampant in this show is ludicrous. Everyone is so gay! What kind of high school is this? It does a nice job in a sense shining some light on the plight of the homosexual community, but c'mon - High School Football players get sore because their teammates call them gay for joining Glee Club? Are they really joining Glee Club and not expecting their masculinity to take a hit? If Glee sought to challenge gender standards in an innovative and interesting way that would be one thing, but it seems to me as though the show makes a big deal over something that would very obviously happen and the characters are simply too prideful to deal with harassment effectively or coolly.

Let me peddle out of my corner here because I don't want to appear homophobic. The show just pounds you over the head with this stuff, and much of it is unjustified. There are always assholes in High School, but the characters in Glee just don't deal well with the abuse. It just seems as though all the Glee Club members have this undeserved sense of pride. None of them seem to be in on the ridiculous joke that the Starting Quarterback is also in fucking Glee Club. Instead of inspiring his teammates by rolling through the punches or laughing off the joke, he gets insanely defensive over his fellow Glee Clubbers, which creates further animosity in their High School dynamic rather than easily defusing tension. I can't believe they have that wheelchair kid play football. C'mon. You've got limitations, kid. You will never be this. Sorry.

The fact is that the show magnifies High School problems immensely. I'd rather watch a show like Freaks and Geeks that is more grounded in displaying some of the problems with being unpopular in High School. No one however, really hates the Glee Club because they're nerdy or pathetic. They hate them because they're fucking singing all day when other kids are studying their asses off to pass their Chemistry Exams. They're in everybody's face all the time. It's so irritating. It's also full of dumb sluts, really bitchy goody-two shoes and whatever the hell that is. None of these students are content with just going to class and staying quiet. They're always whining and singing and screaming for attention in everyone's face. What the hell. That's why no one likes you, go sing in the shower or car ashamedly like everyone else.

I also really dislike the format of this show. The songs seem to constantly just cover gaps in plot or fill time, which happens all the time in Musical Films or Shows, but in Glee they tend to be all Pop Songs. Their placement therefore, is really just to sell Popular Albums with little to no context with the actual storylines. The plot isn't advanced through song content, occasionally by tone, but the selections seem ridiculously arbitrary. Every now and then there's a Britney Spears Night or a Michael Jackson Night, what is this, American Idol? It's awful.

Now, you might think I've saved some love for the end, probably Jane Lynch. No way. She does a nice acting job but is far too maniacal to be really believable as a character. You can believe she's a national champion but her irrational hatred for Glee Club and every one else around her doesn't make any sense. No one is reasonable in this show. It's difficult to watch such tremendous egos bounce off each other all day without any retension. I mean, fuck, even the kids on Jersey Shore apologize to each other and make up their differences every now and then (still debating the reality of that show. Wait, no we shouldn't). The characters are cartoons.

So you can watch Glee tonight.8:00 EST. I won't be. I really can't stand this show, tho I wanted to give it a chance and then administer hopefully thoughtful criticism that would dissuade anyone else ever from watching it. I do wish there would be a good Gay Comedy Show on TV that can appeal across Sexuality Lines. Gay people need their Chappelle Show. But would watching it make us Gay? I think that's a lot of people's fear. No one's turning Black from watching Tyler Perry. But too much Glee...be careful, red-blooded America. What a ridiculous country. I still hate Glee.