2012 Oscar Picks

In light of fewer people caring about most of the awards than care about reading this blog, I stuck to the ones that anyone gives a shit about.

Best Original Screenplay--Midnight in Paris
This seems like a no-brainer.  Look at the other nominees--an indie pic that nobody saw, an Iranian film, a movie that's mostly shit jokes (which, for some reason, are considered to be quite elegant if delivered by women instead of men), and a silent movie.  And instead you get to pick a Woody Allen movie, filled with the usual pretension and literacy of an Allen screenplay.  And he probably won't show up for the awards, so there's an outside chance we get to hear Owen Wilson give an Oscar acceptance speech.  I'm down.

Best Adapted Screenplay--The Descendants
This one seems to be getting most of the buzz; ironically, if this George Clooney movie wins, it'll end up defeating a George Clooney script.  The only other movie that seemingly *could* win is Moneyball, but Aaron Sorkin just won last year on a generally better-received script.  I'm expecting Alexander Payne to win at least one Oscar tonight.

Best Supporting Actor--Christopher Plummer
Though I've heard Kenneth Branagh and Jonah Hill get high marks for their performances, this is probably the biggest slam dunk pick of the night.  Acclaimed performance+82 year old that somehow doesn't have an Oscar to his name=Anyone picking someone other than Plummer in their Oscar pools need help.

Best Supporting Actress--Octavia Spencer
Sadly, it always seems to help when you play a stock stereotype character.  This doesn't always mean you win but it does mean that you will if there aren't really any other standout nominees.  I mean, is the chick from Mike & Molly really gonna win an Oscar?

Best Actor--George Clooney
This is considered a close competition between Jean Dujardin and Clooney, and I'm calling for the minor upset with Clooney.  Although Clooney has a supporting actor win from Syriana, he's still Hollywood gold and has an excellent chance to topple the general unknown.  The fact that a silent movie got nominated for screenplay certainly implies that this will be a HUGE night for The Artist, but I don't think this will be one of them.

Best Actress--Viola Davis
I think people are sleeping on Michelle Williams, who got a lot of hype early on, but this probably comes down to Viola Davis and Meryl Streep.  And Meryl Streep doesn't win Oscars because she doesn't make good movies.  She won for Kramer vs. Kramer and Sophie's Choice and has made pretentious crap ever since.  She will continue to be lauded for playing over-the-top characters with insane accents, but the veteran Viola Davis is going to be the winner here.  And I don't think it's as close as many say.

Best Director--Michel Hazanavicius
Alexander Payne seems to fit the mold of the last six winners, all of whom were directing vets who had yet to win (Ang Lee, Martin Scorsese, Coen Brothers, Danny Boyle, Kathryn Bigelow, Tom Hooper; and I know Malick fits this criteria too, but let's be realistic here).  But as Hazanavicius made the most original of the five nominated films, he seems like a lock.  Even if The Artist doesn't win Best Picture, I'm expecting it'll win Best Director.  But really that's beside the point.

Best Picture--The Artist

The Four Dumbest Political Statements People Say to Sound Smart

1. Saying you hate both parties equally: Now let me perfectly clear here, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging the extreme flaws of both the Democratic and Republican parties.  But this does not mean that there is any logical reason to take the patronizing stance that because both sides have flaws, all sides must be treated with equal disrespect.  It is the political equivalent of saying “McDonald’s is bad for you, as is crack cocaine, thus McDonald’s and crack cocaine are equally bad for you.”  It is a gigantic misstep in logic that I honestly don’t think most people believe—it just adds a preposterous inkling of pseudo-independence for no particularly good reason.

2. Being a Reagan Democrat, Kennedy Republican, etc: For people are willing to be generally transparent about partisanship but still want to look moderate, there’s declaring yourself a Reagan Democrat, a Ron Paul Democrat, a Kennedy Republican, or something to this effect.  But especially with the two cases I’ve cited, it just makes you look woefully uneducated about politics.  Oh, so you’re a Reagan Democrat?  You’re a Democrat who opposes AIDS research and supports extreme militarization in order to run up record deficits?  Oh, and the Kennedy Republicans?  You’re a Republican who support rolling over to Communists?  Now, maybe if you say you’re an Eisenhower Democrat or a Clinton Republican or somebody who at least kind of adheres to the principles you claim to believe, you’ll come off as a moderate.  Otherwise, you’ll come off as a moron.

3. Being a liberal/conservative, except for (fill in blank): This applies pretty much across the board to any issue, but for simplicity I’ll stick to two very, very common ones—Democrats who are pro-life and Republicans who are pro-gay rights.  So, you believe that abortion is akin to murder and you support a party that allows hundreds of thousands of deaths a year?  Oh, so you consider gay rights to be the defining social issue of our time, along the lines of African-American or women’s rights, and YOU’RE SIDING WITH THE OTHER PARTY?  It’s a sticky situation because the party doesn’t allow a whole lot of flexibility in voting for somebody who agrees entirely with you; just let it be known that having a single different stance doesn’t display any actual wisdom.

4. I don’t necessarily support (fill in blank)—I just support states’ rights: Okay, THIS is the worst.  Of all the things that people say to try to sound smart, this is the dumbest, most asinine stance.

So let me get this straight—regardless of the issue, you want to leave it up to the states?  I understand the 10th Amendment grants rights to the states when not designated by the Constitution, but at some point, logic needs to step in.  So, in the pre-Civil War era, when states took matters into their own hands on not-specifically-designated issues and, um, MADE HUMAN OWNERSHIP LEGAL, this is okay?  I mean, if a state says it’s okay, isn’t your whole goddamned argument centered around taking their word for it?

Now admittedly there aren’t really divisive issues in the U.S. at this point as obvious as slavery, but the same idea does hold.  If Arizona decided to round up all illegal immigrants and run them in chariot races at University of Phoenix Stadium (with Jan Brewer in office, this isn’t THAT big of a stretch), where in the Constitution does it say they can be stopped?  I don’t believe it does!  So what is Ron Paul going to say about this one?  “Well, I don’t really *support* having illegal immigrants racing chariots, but that’s really not my business.  The federal government doesn’t have the right to bar Arizona from this law.”

Maybe, just maybe, your belief should be tailored around, you know, what’s right, and not a mechanical way to avoid taking an actual stance.

Why Do We Hate Vegetarians?

There are many irrational prejudices which confound me, but none moreso than the animosity that so many feel towards vegetarians.  Unlike prejudices towards, say, racial minorities or non-heterosexuals, hatred of vegetarians borders on social acceptability.  You can’t say you’re annoyed by black people (nor should you—this makes you an intolerant bigot) but if you say something like “Save a cow—eat a vegetarian”, it gets a laugh.  Well, it should, because that’s a funny joke.  But only because it’s so absurdist and hyperbolic.  In reality, though, it becomes okay to taunt vegetarianism.

           

Now, let me be perfectly clear about this—I am not a vegetarian.  I eat meat on a pretty regular basis—I may not be the biggest carnivore in the world, but I will not even patronize you by making you think I’m on the cusp of vegetarianism.  I’m not.  Sometimes I get on a run where I’m eating a lot of salad or where I’m just eating a ton of cheese (Note: Vegetarianism at least seems plausible to me.  The notion of veganism blows my fucking mind) and I think “You know, maybe I don’t really eat meat as much as I think I do”, and then a couple of hours later I crave bacon.  But anyway, why should I care if somebody else is a vegetarian?

            

If somebody asks how I feel about gay men, I personally like to give the line “It means there are more women out there for me.”  While this is just obviously a way to inject unnecessary chauvinism into a discussion of gay rights, there is a certain logic to this.  This person is not a threat to me; under no circumstances am I in competition with them.  Shouldn’t the same apply with vegetarians?  “Hey, since that guy ordered a Fruit and Walnut Salad in front of me at McDonald’s, it means the odds that they ran out of meat for McDoubles have declined somewhat.  This is a positive.”  Yet for some reason, this isn’t the case.  Now, it’s a completely different issue if somebody is being sanctimonious, telling me that I’m a murderer every time I eat a chicken wing—at that point, I’m getting annoyed at them for being a holier-than-thou prick, not for what’s on his or her plate.  But if they merely order differently than I do, where’s the threat?

           

I have a theory about this, which is that we as humans are inclined to prefer the most middle of the road option possible.  Vegetarianism or veganism just seems too extreme, too left of center (a phrase I use mostly as an expression, though I suppose it makes political sense as well).  And the honest truth is that the exact opposite, a carnivorous survivalist who obsesses over eating the cutest animals possible, isn’t exactly appealing either.  For pretty much anybody.  People fear the vegetarian, but they also fear the bizarro-vegetarian.

           

This desire for moderation doesn’t just appeal to whether or not somebody eats meat, either.  Take the two extremes of drinking: There’s the person ranging somewhere from lush to alcoholic who feels that booze is necessary to be happy and is extremely vociferous about his or her drinking.  There’s also the teetotaler who refuses to drink and will vilify anyone who has a single drink as a detriment to society.  Now, as a casual drinker who never has more than a couple of drinks, greatly prefers being with a small group of friends or being at a quiet bar/restaurant than being at a crowded party, and eschews most drinking clichés (i.e. drinking Anheuser-Busch products), I don’t care much for either of these extremes.  I don’t like the frat boy/sorority girl stereotype evoked by the former and I don’t like the Prohibitionist asshole evoked by the latter.  I’m not even saying that this stance isn’t valid—I’m just saying that, once again, I’m opting for moderation.

            

A few more examples: I don’t care for gratuitously sexist music, but will equally trash saccharine ballads.  I mock those who watch brain-dead summer action movies, but also those who refuse to acknowledge the cinematic virtue of movies that aren’t French art house films.  I care about protecting the environment for future generations, but will just as quickly mock environmentalists as hippie tree-huggers.  In short, I’m a hypocrite.  But in all likelihood, you are too.  Maybe not about these specific issues, but about something.  It’s a natural tendency to want to be in the middle of the road.  90%, or maybe even more, of people could best be defined as liberal or conservative (there are certain extremes to these labels, for sure, but most lean one way or another), yet the most popular self-categorization of one’s political affiliation is “independent.”  As though being an independent makes one smarter or more desirable as a human (conversely, many studies have indicated that self-identified independents are actually much less educated on key issues than either liberals or conservatives).

           

The metaphorical middle of the road is considered a safe zone, but perhaps we as a society should view it otherwise.  In actuality, the middle of the road is one of the most dangerous and undesirable places in the world because you’re a slight skew away from getting hit.  Rather than getting angry at vegetarians or vegetarianism, so long as they are not shoving their message down your throat, perhaps we as a society should celebrate people, even if we do not adhere to the same principles to which they adhere, for being willing to stray from society norms and take a stance of principle rather than being a mindless drone who chooses their life’s actions because “everybody else is doing it.”  But I guess it’s just easier to follow the herd.