Can You Remember Last Year's Oscar Winner?

On this side of the television screen...

I love to play a game with friends and family that basically involves quizzing them on who won the best picture Oscar for last year. A very small percentage of them get it right, and these are people who are "movie geeks" (when did the word "buff" go out of vogue?). Sometimes I go a bit further, and see how many from the past decade we can name. It was real tough to do.

If you go back further, and give people a multiple choice of what won best picture in a given year, the results are often enlightening. Let's head back to 1987 to illustrate the point. What won best picture that year? Here's the choices:

1. Full Metal Jacket
2. Good Morning, Vietnam
   
3. The Untouchables
   
4. The Last Emperor
5. Wall Street

When I just showed this list to several people, the results were not surprising. Out of ten people, only one correctly "guessed" the answer (and the person freely admitted to guessing). Three people chose "Full Metal Jacket" because, as one of them enthused, Kubrick always won Oscars; three chose "Wall Street" because they remembered Gordon Gecko's "greed" speech; two chose "The Untouchables"; and one couldn't decide and wondered aloud if it was a trick and the real winner wasn't included in the list.

Here's what's interesting, although they assumed it was true, Stanley Kubrick never won an Oscar. "Full Metal Jacket" wasn't nominated for a major award that year (unless you count writing). The actors of "Wall Street" and "The Untouchables" won awards that year (Michael Douglas and Sean Connery respectively) but the films weren't even nominated for Best Picture.

And the most interesting part of this experiment? The one who guessed correctly did so because he hadn't seen the film, "The Last Emperor," and chose it for that very reason. He just knew that "they always pick boring stuff like that."

What does that tell you about the significance of the Best Picture Oscar? The most enduring, culturally significant films of that year, the ones people revisit years later, were not winners; nor were they even nominated for the top prize. If you choose any given decade from the Academy's history you'll see a higher ratio of films that audiences have forgotten than those that are true classics.

Of this decade the only one I think will still resonate years from now is "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King." A few seem like consolation prizes. "The Departed" got it because Martin Scorsese was passed over for decades for truly worthy films, although this one will actually be a minor entry in his oeuvre compared to "Raging Bull" and "Goodfellas." And the same can be said for the likes of "A Beautiful Mind," although Ron Howard had much stronger films much more deserving of awards, and "No Country for Old Men" which is a good film in the Coen Brothers' career, but not near their best like "Fargo" or "Miller's Crossing." A few are just plain odd choices, like "Chicago" and "Crash" which were widely derided the moment they were chosen. And then there was the one case of the "good ol' boys club" choosing one of their own with Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby." It was a very poor decade, not that you can't say the same about any other.

To be fair, I never hold up the Best Picture winner as the sole barometer of a year's film landscape. In fact, box office is a better time capsule for what society was like during that period. If you look back at the "classics" of literature we study in school such as Charles Dickens and Shakespeare, they were the popular authors of their age, not the critical darlings. But since this time of year starts the buzz, and people start speculating which one will win, I like to remind people how they'll feel about the winner twenty years from now.

~J. Spellman

"Google Thyself"

Not exactly what the ancient Greeks said, but fairly apropos considering the times. A Google search of my name reveals an interesting mix of web profiles, press releases, and so forth. Here's a sampling:

Ash Eldifrawi on LinkedIn
Ash Eldifrawi on ZoomInfo
Ash Eldifrawi on CrunchBase
Ash Eldifrawi on Facebook
Ash Eldifrawi on Lead411
Ash Eldifrawi on TradeVibes


Ash Eldifrawi press release (McKinsey & Company)
Ash Eldifrawi NetShops press release (PRNewsWire)
Ash Eldifrawi NetShops press release (RedOrbit)
Ash Eldifrawi collection of press releases

And the winner is...the lowest common denominator

On the other side of the screen...

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences made another bold move today to not recognize the best the art of movies has to offer. As reported in Variety, the powers that be decided to not allow the musical score for "The Dark Knight" compete in the best original score category for this year's Academy Awards.

They're reasoning is simple although misguided; since five people's names appear on the music cue sheet, too many people collaborated on the score and it's then somehow ineligible. It doesn't matter that all of the music was original, they just don't want to hand out too many Oscars.

The reason behind the five names is simple. Although Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard are the principal composers for the film, just like they were for the previous film in the series, "Batman Begins," they put down the extra names on the cue sheet to reward their hard working assistants with additional royalties. Let's face it, Hans and James are employed constantly and are not in need of money. Helping out their assistants with extra pay, not to mention more notoriety that may help them build bigger careers, is nice of the duo to do. To be penalized for it by an organization that's supposed to put art above commerce is not only despicable, but illustrative of the larger problem with the Oscars in general.

For too long the Academy has been protective of its brand, and the massive amounts of money its telecast generates throughout the world, at the expense of its core mission: to celebrate the best art film has to offer. Shouldn't an entity that holds this tenant as its source be doing everything it can to include as many films, artists and technicians into the competition as possible? Trust me, the Oscar brand is in no danger of being devalued based on who gets in.

This same exclusionary principle is true for the "Foreign Language Film" category. First, how can you crown a film "Best Picture" if you only include American productions? But, even if you allow for the existence of a Foreign picture category, why is each country only allowed to enter one of their films in the competition? Should a country be faulted because they turn out multiple films that are awards worthy? Should a talented filmmaker have his career stunted just because his country decided to enter a film that makes more sense to them politically?

These are but two of the many reasons why the Oscars are no longer relevant to the art of film making. They are not the slightest bit interested in rewarding excellence, only serving their own company ego.

~J. Spellman

Not gonna do it to Bond

On this side of the television screen...

Well, I'm as excited about the new James Bond movie as can be. I did consider doing a rev up to the new film by reviewing the old films. However, as you all know, the last time I did that for "The X-Files" the movie tanked at the box office, and I rather superstitiously fear I had something to do with it. I don't want to jinx Bond in the same way.

With that said, expect a full retrospective of "Knight Rider" to be posted soon!

~J. Spellman

Where's the blitz?

On the other side of the screen...

Schools are back in session, the summer movie season is winding down -- so where the customary blitz of commercials for new fall shows?

Well, there aren't many. The writer's strike that crippled the television industry last winter is still taking its toll on networks. This fall, only half of the usual new offerings will be premiering on the tube due to the typical development season being interrupted by the strike.

Also, since most new shows from last season didn't have a real chance with audiences, networks decided to give them a second shot this year to see if they could build an audience.

In short, this is going to be a very interesting fall season.

In recent years networks have been a little too quick on the trigger to kill off shows that weren't instant hits. There's just so much money at stake, and so much competition being offered by cable and the internet, networks just aren't willing to let a show grow over time. One of the most popular sitcoms of all time, "Cheers", did horribly in the ratings its first year. But, after an Emmy nomination its audience picked up during its second season and quickly escalated to one of the top shows on television.

Hopefully that same phenomenon will repeat for some really clever shows like "Chuck," "Pushing Daisies" or "Reaper" that all have been given reprieves for their less than stellar ratings due to the strike. And if they do, then perhaps networks will rethink the "hit out of the box" mentality that has ham stringed so many good shows the past few years.

Who says the writer's strike didn't accomplish anything?

~J. Spellman

The X-Files - I Want to Believe

On this side of the television screen...

I wanted to believe, but what will undoubtedly be the final chapter of "The X-Files" was a middling disappointment. If I were to rank this in the pantheon of episodes from the TV show, it would fall in the bottom third; plenty that were worse, but a whole heap that were way better. The X-File at the story's core was weakly conceived, developed and concluded. Except for a few notable exceptions, it looked like everyone involved was there to pick up a paycheck and that was it.

The film primarily focuses on the dwindling relationship between Fox Mulder and Dana Scully. In the six years since the conclusion of the series, when he was put on trial for all of his rabble-rousing, the two have been shacked up together, with Mulder leeching off of Scully's new found career as a proper doctor. And although they've been in a loving, committed relationship for six years, they still "endearingly" refer to each other by their last names. Huh?

Although there is a sort of neat plot about human organ traffickers trying to build a new body for a dying cancer patient by abducting healthy young girls with the same rare blood type, this is second fiddle to the reinvigoration of both Scully's and Mulder's beliefs; i.e. Scully's belief in herself and her medical skills, and Mulder's belief in mooching off of Scully. By the end of the movie the characters are right back to where they were at the beginning. Scully's still a doctor, and Mulder's still clipping out newspapers to wallpaper his room unabomber style.

During the nine year run of the series, it made sense to move the characters and plot very little each episode. Chris Carter did not own the series and had no idea how long it would run. Since his conspiracy ultimately wasn't as complicated as his sleight of hand indicated, the baby steps they would take week after week revealing it was a smart storytelling device. However, now that the show is over, it's okay to let the movie make huge leaps and tell a lot of story. We don't necessarily need big special effects like the first film delivered, but at the very least some sort of resolution, on some level, would be appreciated!

Also, their supposition that fans really wanted a relationship story rather than a real creepy horror story is dead wrong. When the series ended, Mulder and Scully had a child together and the last shot is them lying on a bed looking longingly into each other's eyes. Where was the ambiguity in that? We had gotten what we wanted on that front. So, instead of a new story, we get a rehash of their relationship, which in drama terms has a very minor conflict that's resolved simply.

The plot does not resolve so much as it stops. There's a lot of hullabaloo about a defrocked priest having a psychic connection to the case that prompts the SAC (Amanda Peet) to enlist Mulder due to his experience, but none of it amounts to anything. Mulder isn't really needed as the case is finally broken by hard evidence at the crime scene. So Mulder shows up, "believes" in this pedophile priest, only to stand around looking ineffectual (which he is). Finally, after discovering the evil doer's layer, the climactic showdown is settled by a few bumps to the head.

Only Gillian Anderson brings her A game to the film, infusing each scene with internal conflict and doubt. She transcends the bland writing by telling more of the story with her performance than was put on paper by Chirs Carter and Frank Spotnitz. Both David Duchovny and Carter seem to be looking past this project to their next, or the line at the bank standing between them and their new summer home.

There's an easter egg at the end of the credits that sums the whole affair up. After a series of helicopter shots that take us from the icy tundra to tropical waters, there's an overhead shot of the stars in a boat waving at us as if to say, "ha ha, we took your money, gave you a crappy story, and ran off to a fabulous vacation without you."

~J. Spellman

The X-Files - Oubilette

On this side of the television screen...

The eleventh article in a series exploring the best monster of the week episodes of "The X-Files" leading up to the premiere of the new movie July 25th.

Although it was an integral part of the series grander mythology of Alien invasion, the childhood abduction of Agent Mulder was the driving force behind his obsession with the paranormal. The lowdown on that is when Mulder and his sister were just children, she was abducted by what he perceived as aliens. From that moment on, his personal quest has been to discover the truth behind that night.

It's this incident that also informs Mulder's connection to the kidnapping in the third season episode, "Oubilette." A fifteen year-old girl is abducted by an unseen assailant. What's strange about the case is that a waitress across town collapses at the exact same moment after muttering the exact same words as the abductor. Is she an accomplice, or a former victim? Or, does she possess a psychic link to the killer that Mulder can exploit to save the child?

During the initial investigation, Mulder visits the mother of the abducted child and offers his condolences. Distraught, she rebukes his kindness by telling him that he couldn't possibly understand how it is she's feeling. This scene is steeped in irony. First, Mulder obviously does know how the woman feels, having lost his young sitster. The irony is even deeper in the fact that Mulder does not mention this. His character is famous for not holding his tongue about his theories and experiences, even when such talk can damage his career or reputation. Mulder is so steadfast in his beliefs that he never shies away from sharing them. However, he does here.

Primarily, he understands the woman's pain and knows that his experiences will not comfort the woman. All that will is the return of her little girl. He knows this, as that is all that will comfort him. More than twenty years after the fact, his wounds are still open and bleeding. When Scully confronts him with the fact that he's relating this case too much to his sisters, he responds that "...not everything I do, say, think, and feel goes back to my sister." However this just speaks to Mulder's complicated character, saying one thing and then doing the exact opposite.

Mulder relates to the waitress, a damaged individual who has the chance to do good. Through her and her connection to the paranormal, Mulder sees himself. Metaphorically, if this woman can save the little girl, then maybe Mulder has one at saving his sister. Saving this girl won't close Mulder's wounds, but it may make them easier to bear.

~J. Spellman