When Lebron announced "I'm taking my talents" to South Beach at 9:30 tonight, my heart sank. This is the absolute worst thing that could've happened to both King James and the NBA. It speaks volumes about his competitive streak or lack thereof and at least for the time being, my opinion of him has dropped dramatically. But this disappointment has little to do with him leaving Cleveland, who he does not owe anything. He's been amazing for Northeast Ohio, influencing young kids in the community, generating millions of dollars for the local economy, and making millions of fans who'd previously had little reason to follow professional basketball. And yet I do feel bad for greater Cleveland. It's hard not to when a city has suffered this many sports related indignities. After the announcement, local news affiliates reported burning James jerseys, several minor riots, and even crying fans. I understand those who feel cheated, but to those saying he went on TV to stick it to Cleveland, grow up! He speaks genuinely whenever the Akron area is mentioned and hopes this is a community (don't use twice!) that will remain open to him. He's is not the devil. In all likelihood ESPN approached James about turning the announcement into an hour long special they knew would pull big ratings, not vice versa. I don't believe James is vindictive, but now for the first time in his career, I do view him as gutless.
About two hours before the announcement, I'd predicted that he was heading to the Knicks. I thought publicity mattered most and nowhere would he have received more than in the Big Apple, where professional basketball has become a joke in a city that arguably cares more about sports than any other. They'd just signed Amare Stoudemire, had a terrific coach in place, and Lebron would've been that much closer to global domination. Money and marketing opportunities would've come from all angles through endorsements and business deals. He'd have been in the news every day (not that he isn't now, but anyone who thinks Cleveland & New York are the same is naive). The Knicks wouldn't have been great, but they'd have been a fast improving team one move away from contending for a championship. Lebron could've saved basketball in New York and instantly become the best player to ever play for the Knicks, no questions asked. I really thought this would happen.
There was no way he could've chosen New Jersey or the Clippers for that matter, though winning a title with the latter would've been even more impressive than in New York. From a purely basketball standpoint, signing with the Chicago Bulls made the most sense. They have a stud point guard in Derek Rose and just stole power forward Carlos Boozer in free agency. Lebron's considerable skill set would've complemented those two perfectly. The Bulls had a solid supporting cast already in place and Lebron had spoken publicly about his fondness for Chicago. The only legitimate hindrance I could see was playing for the team that will forever belong to Michael Jordan. For years fans and those within the league have been showering praise upon Lebron as the one guy who really might become bigger and better than MJ. I understand not putting oneself under that microscope, but I can't fathom going completely in the opposite direction either. For days fans have been overcome with rumors and had little choice but to listen and sort them out. I'd received emails from friends regarding financial offices in Chicago that were tied to James. I heard the first "official" announcement that Lebron was to join the Knicks yesterday afternoon, but for all we know it could've come from the owner of "Ray's Pizza." And then we heard several sources mentioning Miami over and over again. But I didn't take this rumor seriously. It simply didn't make sense and still doesn't. After tonight's news I'm left wondering if Lebron wants no part of the microscope ever again.
Depending on who you ask, Miami's Dwayne Wade is either the second or third best basketball player alive (Kobe being the final member of this trio). There's no argument that the three of them reside in a different class from all other peers. But I don't ever remember players of this caliber, in any sport, orchestrating their own futures in this manner. It's all rather sickening. James, Wade, and Chris Bosh basically got together like scheming fathers in a youth hoops league to plot how to get their superstar kids on the same team. Bosh is the final pierce of the puzzle, but it's the teaming of James and Wade that irks me, especially from Lebron's perspective. The Heat are Wade's team. He's won a title there and has been the face of the franchise for years. James is too great to join a player of his caliber. I feel cheated as a basketball fan. Both players are use to dominating the ball for entire ball games at a time. They offer breathtaking plays on a nightly basis, many of which we've never seen before. Sure, they both have wonderful passing skills and will adapt their games accordingly, though nobody should want them to. These are the most gifted basketball players on the planet and we may never see either at his peak again. They will take turns dominating the opposition and while the rare game might showcase brilliance from both stars, it won't be often. Imagine Tom Brady and Peyton Manning joining forces and deciding, "we'll simply alternate quarters." Or better yet, Magic and Bird becoming teammates circa 1986. To make matters worse, Lebron and Wade practically play the same position! I'd raise all-in that Kobe would NEVER voluntarily join forces with Dwayne Wade as a free agent in his prime. He's too competitive and would relish the opportunity to beat him. This isn't the same as Shaq and Kobe combining to win back-to-back-to-back titles a decade ago. That pairing came to be when Kobe was an immature, unproven 13th pick out of high school and Shaq was on his way to becoming the league's alpha dog. They became an inside-outside powerhouse combo, but it wasn't of their making.
What is the best case scenario for Lebron now? Say he and Wade win three titles in the next five years (a stretch I think). Is that version of James even a top 10 all-timer at that point? Even if they won six championships together, giving Lebron one more than Kobe and tying Jordan, he'd still rank behind them. Whether he yet realizes it or not, James' decision has undermined his legacy forever. And he may no longer have the supreme stats to back the claims of his supporters. Is it possible to win another MVP when he'll be splitting votes with a teammate? I thought he cared about this stuff, but maybe I was wrong. Winning in Miami will mean less than anywhere else he could've gone. It may very well come easier, but it won't be nearly as impressive as winning in Cleveland or New York or almost any other team outside of Boston or L.A. Furthermore, going to the Bulls or Knicks would've kept the NBA at it's competitive peak, with strong contenders emerging from at least eight cities. Now we have one potential juggernaut in Miami and at least two dozen fewer games for fans to circle on their calendars this season. Quite frankly, this whole thing sucks. If David Stern is half as powerful as some have claimed, he should have vetoed this thing from the get-go.
If James wins in Miami, most knowledgeable fans will ask, "so what?" If he doesn't, it will be a disaster and being that the Heat have approximately $00.14 with which to fill out the remaining nine spots on their roster, a title is far from a sure thing. They will undoubtedly lead the league in SportsCenter top 10 highlights in 2010-11. I believe Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady once did as well in Toronto. But hey, at least he won't have to carry the load every night. What superstar would want that pressure?
This is much bigger than Cleveland. This is about the demeanor of a younger generation of basketball stars. It's about a lack of competitive drive amongst those who are given far too much too fast, who actually believe they've done a public service in settling for contracts that will pay them ONLY $100 million. But more than anything it's about Lebron, the "chosen one" and his decision to play it safe, just in case he can't quite live up to the hype.
Reel Opinions on Movies
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Round 2
I’m giddy with anticipation, as tonight opens what could be one of the best NBA finals of all-time (T-minus 23 hours until tip-off). Honestly, I can’t remember the last time the NBA finals featured two teams this evenly matched. It rarely happens and on those rare instances when it does, the teams involved usually bore me to tears (think ’05 Spurs vs. Pistons or ’94 Rockets vs. Knicks). But 2010 promises to be good at a minimum, great in probability, with potential for a real classic. When Boston faced L.A. in 2008, I came up with a list of 17 legitimate reasons (for #17 of course) why the Celtics would win and it honestly wasn’t all that difficult. The media backed the flashier Lakers as they usually do, even though anyone who knows basketball should’ve seen their demise coming. The ’08 Celtics were tougher, smarter, and hungrier than the ’08 Lakers, not to mention far better defensively. But the teams have changed since then. This Lakers squad is easily the best of their last three, all of which reached the finals (the ’09 team easily conquering a relatively weak Orlando team). The addition of Ron Artest has paid off (count me among the initially skeptical) and Pau Gasol is for my money one of the league’s most improved players. This Celtics team may or may not be as good as their 2008 title team, which sounds ludicrous (they limped unheralded into the playoffs) until you consider the fact that nobody has beaten these guys when completely healthy. And while a few of their key players have lost a step, the emergence of Rajon Rondo as the most destructive force throughout the playoffs will ultimately secure the legacy of this group in team history. While admittedly tough to write an unbiased prediction for the series, I have enough integrity to distance myself from an often blind passion for the C’s. So consider the following as fact, as well as what every prognosticator in the country SHOULD be thinking as I break this series down.
All season I’ve heard about how long the Lakers big men are, how skilled they are, and how they’ve caused huge match up problems for everyone they’ve faced. Well most of that is true, until now, because the Celtics are the only team in the NBA that matches their length. Sure Andrew Bynum is big and bulky, has some ability, and is not quite a poor man’s Dwight Howard, who if memory serves was relatively held in check by none other than Kendrick Perkins. Perkins isn’t on the level of Howard or Bynum or maybe even an aging Shaq, but he’s rock solid, knows how to use his body, and understands his limitations. He’s a terrific rebounder, blocks the occasional shot, and refuses to back down. I see no reason Perk doesn’t hold Bynum to 12pts and 7 boards a game in this series. As for Gasol, he is very, very good but in Kevin Garnett the C’s have the league’s only answer. He’s just as tall as the goofy Spaniard, lean and quick, with equally strong hands and footwork. KG remains the more physical of the two and although Gasol has hardened since ’08, not to mention logged far fewer minutes over the course of his career, a few patented shrieks of insanity from the Big Ticket brings this contest to a draw. Furthermore, the C’s possess an edge on the bench here. Rasheed Wallace will probably continue his Jekyll & Hyde act but could prove a major factor on both ends. He’s long enough to bother Gasol on defense and shoots well enough to pull him away from the paint on the other end. Glen Davis adds bulk and a surprising ability to finish around the basket. He’s the team’s most improved player this season. Luke Walton isn’t big enough to deal with either player. L.A.’s most reliable bench option is Lamar Odom, who will probably play every frontcourt position at one point or another but will see most of his minutes trying to help on KG and Paul Pierce. He could conceivably win a game for L.A. in the finals, but will be a complete no-show in at least one or two others. Odom is what he is, a versatile position player who can provide instant offense and rebound if the mood strikes, but can’t be counted on from night-to-night; he’s a bizarro world Rashard Lewis if you will.
The perimeter features the best offensive players in the series. Pierce had a strong series against Orlando, including a climactic game 6 with 31 points and 13 boards. He can’t fill the box-score every night anymore, but he probably doesn’t have to. But he does need to hold his ground against Artest, who’s given him fits in the past. However, those were mainly issues of maturity on both ends. The Detroit brawler won’t be pulling down the Truth’s pants in the finals and even if he did, Pierce has reached the stage in his career where he can laugh it off rather than bitch to the refs or hold a press conference wearing a head bandage that makes it look like he just fought Tyson. Artest has never been as good as player as Pierce, but he’s even more physical and is one of the few players in the league who can spark a team with his defense. He can shoot from the outside and uses his body well on crafty drives with either hand. Despite remaining as big a nut job as Sheed, I think Artest realizes how important he is to the Lakers in this series and will bring his “A” game. He’s familiar with Pierce on offense, but fortunately for the Celtics their captain is one of the few in the game who can score from any angle on the court. Odom will provide different looks when Artest rests. The key for Pierce will be staying out of foul trouble and avoiding confrontation. At worst small forward is a draw for Boston and at best it’s a significant strength.
The one spot on the floor L.A. holds a clear advantage is the 2-spot, with all-world talent Kobe Bryant gunning for his 5th ring. I’ve been more impressed with Kobe this playoff run than in many sensational previous ones. He just has a better feel for his team it seems. That said he’s going to be kept on his toes the whole series. Ray Allen is playing as well as he has since leaving Seattle and Kobe won’t be able to take any breaks on D. As good as he’s been playing, neither Kobe nor Phil Jackson wants a shoot-out against the artist formerly known as Jesus Shuttlesworth. Tony Allen has been a huge spark off the bench for Boston this postseason and will play an important role in holding Kobe at key times down the stretch. Two years ago one of the big reasons the Lakers lost was that they didn’t have the best player in the series (in practice, not on paper). Kobe knows Pierce outplayed him in 2008 and will be looking for revenge. Only this time his biggest obstacle may be playing a different position.
Rajon Rondo IS the deciding factor in this series assuming he’s healthy (I am knocking the shit out of T’s wooden computer desk at this moment). This isn’t even debatable. He’s is the Celtic’s fastest, most unstoppable, and indispensable player. He runs the offense and may now be the key to starting their defense, wreaking havoc in the open floor. There are maybe 2 or 3 point guards in the league who can go toe-to-toe with Rondo these days and Derek Fisher is not one of them. I’ve always respected Fisher and think he’s one of the best glue-guys of the last 15 years, but he’s out of his depth with Rondo, who could probably run a suicide in the time it takes Fisher to set up for a three. How about the bench options for L.A.? Shannon Brown? Jordan Farmer? Please. (However, I must admit I’d react the same way were Nate Robinson their backup, so nothing is 100%). L.A. may have no choice but to stick Kobe on Rondo for extended stretches, but if Cleveland decided against this strategy with Lebron James, I don’t see Phil getting too radical here. The questions about Rondo’s health do concern me and it would seem tragic if he were to falter just as the KG, Pierce, & Ray have regained their stride. But I think he’ll be fine. If he can bounce back from a mega-blow from D. Howard, he can do anything. L.A.’s one wild card (should Phil start sniffing glue) would be to throw Artest on Rondo, but that’s a last resort that would come only if they lose the 1st two at home. And then he’d be left looking for answers for Pierce.
Another favorable break for Boston is the fact that coaching generally doesn’t win an NBA championship series, though for what it’s worth I’ve grown comfortable to the point of having 70% confidence in Doc Rivers (that’s a huge step-up from a couple seasons ago). He also brings worlds more class to the proceedings than Captain psycho-babble. Phil Jackson’s approach has proven hugely successful for years, but in truth he’s not an X’s and O’s guy. In many ways his impact on this team is a thing of the past. He helped get them here, controlled the team egos, and now understands that his team’s opponent is a veteran club who will be ready for anything. The Lakers will not be pushing anybody around and will likely only go so far as Kobe takes them. Doc takes a much more hands-on approach, which admittedly goes both ways, although to his credit many of his play calls throughout the last several months have really impressed me, both in design and execution. I’m fine with the coaching battle.
So what are we left with? On-court match ups favor Boston by virtue of Rondo, unless Kobe scores 45 a game (which isn’t impossible). Their defense is still better, although L.A. has improved greatly in that regard. Both teams play exceptionally well on the road, so the Lakers home court advantage isn’t much of a factor. Boston has the more passionate fan-base. What’s more, Boston has faced a tougher road to the finals, which many seem to be forgetting. The 2010 Western Conference was a pale imitation of past seasons. There were undoubtedly a higher number of solid teams out west, but the Mavericks, Spurs, Jazz, & Suns all would’ve been underdogs to the Cavs, Magic, or a healthy Celtics squad. The Lakers had cruised until Phoenix started scoring a bit, while the C’s had to battle 3 of the league’s 5 best players on their trip to the finals.
What’s more, everyone outside of California seems to be pulling for Boston which I find amusing. I have customers coming up to me, presumed Cleveland fans no less, saying that while they are upset the Cavs are done, they hate the Lakers more and will definitely be rooting for Boston. Call me old fashioned, but I don’t think I could root for the team that destroyed my whole season and possibly my city’s entire basketball future. I enjoy being considered (foolish though it is) a slight underdog to these Lakers and would be significantly more petrified if we were the dominant favorites. These Celtics relish that opportunity, particularly the veterans and Pierce, who I’m convinced circles the calendar date of every opportunity he gets to play in Los Angeles, his hometown. Pierce has had an up-and-down postseason, but that’s to be expected chasing Lebron one series then abusing Vince Carter the next. History is as much on the line for these Celtics as it is for Kobe’s legacy. And while I rarely bet against Kobe in a big series, he hasn’t shown he can beat a great finals opponent yet even with Shaq (He has no control over his opponent, but still). This is arguably the most momentous test of his career and while he remains the best player in the finals, there are at least 8 players who could conceivably make or break this series. I’ll take the Big 4 in green.
CELTICS in 6!!!
A final capper: I almost always agree with Tim Legler, who knows his facts and seems like he could talk intelligent basketball for hours. He’s become the most underrated ex-player turned reliable analyst in the sport’s history. The most famous member of that group, the endlessly entertaining Charles Barkley, rarely predicts the correct outcome, though his natural charisma draws thousands to his cause. Listening to his radio interview with Dan Patrick Thursday morning brought a smile to my face.
Official 2010 Finals Predictions –
Legler: Celtics
Barkley: Lakers
I feel good (Though I’m pretending I never heard Reggie pick Boston on PTI last week. Jeez, I don’t even like writing that. Scratch it from your memory. He must play no part in this contest. Let’s enjoy the finals)!
All season I’ve heard about how long the Lakers big men are, how skilled they are, and how they’ve caused huge match up problems for everyone they’ve faced. Well most of that is true, until now, because the Celtics are the only team in the NBA that matches their length. Sure Andrew Bynum is big and bulky, has some ability, and is not quite a poor man’s Dwight Howard, who if memory serves was relatively held in check by none other than Kendrick Perkins. Perkins isn’t on the level of Howard or Bynum or maybe even an aging Shaq, but he’s rock solid, knows how to use his body, and understands his limitations. He’s a terrific rebounder, blocks the occasional shot, and refuses to back down. I see no reason Perk doesn’t hold Bynum to 12pts and 7 boards a game in this series. As for Gasol, he is very, very good but in Kevin Garnett the C’s have the league’s only answer. He’s just as tall as the goofy Spaniard, lean and quick, with equally strong hands and footwork. KG remains the more physical of the two and although Gasol has hardened since ’08, not to mention logged far fewer minutes over the course of his career, a few patented shrieks of insanity from the Big Ticket brings this contest to a draw. Furthermore, the C’s possess an edge on the bench here. Rasheed Wallace will probably continue his Jekyll & Hyde act but could prove a major factor on both ends. He’s long enough to bother Gasol on defense and shoots well enough to pull him away from the paint on the other end. Glen Davis adds bulk and a surprising ability to finish around the basket. He’s the team’s most improved player this season. Luke Walton isn’t big enough to deal with either player. L.A.’s most reliable bench option is Lamar Odom, who will probably play every frontcourt position at one point or another but will see most of his minutes trying to help on KG and Paul Pierce. He could conceivably win a game for L.A. in the finals, but will be a complete no-show in at least one or two others. Odom is what he is, a versatile position player who can provide instant offense and rebound if the mood strikes, but can’t be counted on from night-to-night; he’s a bizarro world Rashard Lewis if you will.
The perimeter features the best offensive players in the series. Pierce had a strong series against Orlando, including a climactic game 6 with 31 points and 13 boards. He can’t fill the box-score every night anymore, but he probably doesn’t have to. But he does need to hold his ground against Artest, who’s given him fits in the past. However, those were mainly issues of maturity on both ends. The Detroit brawler won’t be pulling down the Truth’s pants in the finals and even if he did, Pierce has reached the stage in his career where he can laugh it off rather than bitch to the refs or hold a press conference wearing a head bandage that makes it look like he just fought Tyson. Artest has never been as good as player as Pierce, but he’s even more physical and is one of the few players in the league who can spark a team with his defense. He can shoot from the outside and uses his body well on crafty drives with either hand. Despite remaining as big a nut job as Sheed, I think Artest realizes how important he is to the Lakers in this series and will bring his “A” game. He’s familiar with Pierce on offense, but fortunately for the Celtics their captain is one of the few in the game who can score from any angle on the court. Odom will provide different looks when Artest rests. The key for Pierce will be staying out of foul trouble and avoiding confrontation. At worst small forward is a draw for Boston and at best it’s a significant strength.
The one spot on the floor L.A. holds a clear advantage is the 2-spot, with all-world talent Kobe Bryant gunning for his 5th ring. I’ve been more impressed with Kobe this playoff run than in many sensational previous ones. He just has a better feel for his team it seems. That said he’s going to be kept on his toes the whole series. Ray Allen is playing as well as he has since leaving Seattle and Kobe won’t be able to take any breaks on D. As good as he’s been playing, neither Kobe nor Phil Jackson wants a shoot-out against the artist formerly known as Jesus Shuttlesworth. Tony Allen has been a huge spark off the bench for Boston this postseason and will play an important role in holding Kobe at key times down the stretch. Two years ago one of the big reasons the Lakers lost was that they didn’t have the best player in the series (in practice, not on paper). Kobe knows Pierce outplayed him in 2008 and will be looking for revenge. Only this time his biggest obstacle may be playing a different position.
Rajon Rondo IS the deciding factor in this series assuming he’s healthy (I am knocking the shit out of T’s wooden computer desk at this moment). This isn’t even debatable. He’s is the Celtic’s fastest, most unstoppable, and indispensable player. He runs the offense and may now be the key to starting their defense, wreaking havoc in the open floor. There are maybe 2 or 3 point guards in the league who can go toe-to-toe with Rondo these days and Derek Fisher is not one of them. I’ve always respected Fisher and think he’s one of the best glue-guys of the last 15 years, but he’s out of his depth with Rondo, who could probably run a suicide in the time it takes Fisher to set up for a three. How about the bench options for L.A.? Shannon Brown? Jordan Farmer? Please. (However, I must admit I’d react the same way were Nate Robinson their backup, so nothing is 100%). L.A. may have no choice but to stick Kobe on Rondo for extended stretches, but if Cleveland decided against this strategy with Lebron James, I don’t see Phil getting too radical here. The questions about Rondo’s health do concern me and it would seem tragic if he were to falter just as the KG, Pierce, & Ray have regained their stride. But I think he’ll be fine. If he can bounce back from a mega-blow from D. Howard, he can do anything. L.A.’s one wild card (should Phil start sniffing glue) would be to throw Artest on Rondo, but that’s a last resort that would come only if they lose the 1st two at home. And then he’d be left looking for answers for Pierce.
Another favorable break for Boston is the fact that coaching generally doesn’t win an NBA championship series, though for what it’s worth I’ve grown comfortable to the point of having 70% confidence in Doc Rivers (that’s a huge step-up from a couple seasons ago). He also brings worlds more class to the proceedings than Captain psycho-babble. Phil Jackson’s approach has proven hugely successful for years, but in truth he’s not an X’s and O’s guy. In many ways his impact on this team is a thing of the past. He helped get them here, controlled the team egos, and now understands that his team’s opponent is a veteran club who will be ready for anything. The Lakers will not be pushing anybody around and will likely only go so far as Kobe takes them. Doc takes a much more hands-on approach, which admittedly goes both ways, although to his credit many of his play calls throughout the last several months have really impressed me, both in design and execution. I’m fine with the coaching battle.
So what are we left with? On-court match ups favor Boston by virtue of Rondo, unless Kobe scores 45 a game (which isn’t impossible). Their defense is still better, although L.A. has improved greatly in that regard. Both teams play exceptionally well on the road, so the Lakers home court advantage isn’t much of a factor. Boston has the more passionate fan-base. What’s more, Boston has faced a tougher road to the finals, which many seem to be forgetting. The 2010 Western Conference was a pale imitation of past seasons. There were undoubtedly a higher number of solid teams out west, but the Mavericks, Spurs, Jazz, & Suns all would’ve been underdogs to the Cavs, Magic, or a healthy Celtics squad. The Lakers had cruised until Phoenix started scoring a bit, while the C’s had to battle 3 of the league’s 5 best players on their trip to the finals.
What’s more, everyone outside of California seems to be pulling for Boston which I find amusing. I have customers coming up to me, presumed Cleveland fans no less, saying that while they are upset the Cavs are done, they hate the Lakers more and will definitely be rooting for Boston. Call me old fashioned, but I don’t think I could root for the team that destroyed my whole season and possibly my city’s entire basketball future. I enjoy being considered (foolish though it is) a slight underdog to these Lakers and would be significantly more petrified if we were the dominant favorites. These Celtics relish that opportunity, particularly the veterans and Pierce, who I’m convinced circles the calendar date of every opportunity he gets to play in Los Angeles, his hometown. Pierce has had an up-and-down postseason, but that’s to be expected chasing Lebron one series then abusing Vince Carter the next. History is as much on the line for these Celtics as it is for Kobe’s legacy. And while I rarely bet against Kobe in a big series, he hasn’t shown he can beat a great finals opponent yet even with Shaq (He has no control over his opponent, but still). This is arguably the most momentous test of his career and while he remains the best player in the finals, there are at least 8 players who could conceivably make or break this series. I’ll take the Big 4 in green.
CELTICS in 6!!!
A final capper: I almost always agree with Tim Legler, who knows his facts and seems like he could talk intelligent basketball for hours. He’s become the most underrated ex-player turned reliable analyst in the sport’s history. The most famous member of that group, the endlessly entertaining Charles Barkley, rarely predicts the correct outcome, though his natural charisma draws thousands to his cause. Listening to his radio interview with Dan Patrick Thursday morning brought a smile to my face.
Official 2010 Finals Predictions –
Legler: Celtics
Barkley: Lakers
I feel good (Though I’m pretending I never heard Reggie pick Boston on PTI last week. Jeez, I don’t even like writing that. Scratch it from your memory. He must play no part in this contest. Let’s enjoy the finals)!
Sunday, May 9, 2010
The Emergence of Rondo and a Looming NBA Upset
Rajon Rondo just submitted one of the greatest playoff games by any Celtic in my lifetime. But before gushing over how awesome he has become (my green screensaver now lists the 3 definitions of what it means to be "Rondo'd") , I’d like to confirm that I was 8 for 8 picking the 1st round of the NBA playoffs. Unfortunately, because I failed to post these predictions prior to tip-off in round 1, you’ll have to take my word for it. There were only two surprises; Atlanta’s difficulty in eliminating Milwaukee minus Andrew Bogut and Bill Simmons’ incomprehensible pick of Miami in 7 games, the most telling example yet of his pitiful transition to lazy Los Angeles fan. I would’ve bet my apartment on the C’s in round 1. Other high and lowlights: Kevin Durant continued to emerge as a force, Dirk Nowitzki cemented his status as the best player incapable of winning a big game, and Brandon Roy is unfortunately turning into Grant Hill before our eyes. Above all, the Cleveland Cavaliers have become the 2001 Lakers, though not with their play but the public perception surrounding them.
They benefit from phantom fouls to such a degree that the David Stern conspiracy theories seem truly justified. They also have the most arrogant fan base ever for a team that frankly hasn’t won anything. They cruised through the league with ease on their way to the NBA’s top record, but that only goes so far. Hell the 1996 Sonics won 64 games. The media has treated this Cavalier squad with a reverence typically accorded to champions. With the best player in the world leading them this isn't a complete shock, undeserved as it is. But I’ll use this forum to repeat myself for the umpteenth time in 2010 . . . this is NOT a great team, but a good one, made very good with the late season acquisition of Antawn Jamison. They have strong shooting and size, but no real point guard. They have the scariest offensive player in the world, but a suspect coach. They defend with intelligence, but lack the requisite intensity to dominate an entire playoff. I think Lebron knows he’s leaving. I have no proof of course, merely a strong hunch. To everyone who claims he (and Dwayne Wade for that matter) is staying put, I ask the obvious: Why would he stay? James hails from Akron, and perhaps he fears the hometown perception should he bolt to the New York area. But I think he possesses a selfish drive that he hides better than say, Kobe Bryant. He wants to be King of the sport’s world and it’s time to move to the world's biggest city. They have the money to surround James with anyone and anything he wants. Cleveland has made a strong effort, but if I’m James I’m leaving. Shaq is not the answer, neither is Mo Williams. A fresh start ensures at least 3 rings, whereas I could see him wasting his prime years for the Cavs. So I’ll go on record, something I should’ve done months ago: If he wins a title in 2010, he will stay. If not, he’s gone. Wade’s choice is much, much easier unless he can’t live without the beach and pulled pork sandwiches. He can challenge Lebron for the next decade with a timely relocation to Chicago. Otherwise he will go down as the best player ever to win but a single title. I offer no exaggeration: Wade IS that good, though few non-basketball lifers would know it.
The 2nd round has been more surprising than the 1st for a few reasons. The Suns have dominated the Spurs for the first time in Steve Nash’s tenure, with a more polished half-court offense and a higher commitment to defense than his previous highlight reel teams. This series also marks the end of the Spurs, whom I’ve never discounted until now. It's officially time for San Antonio to rebuild (think the Celtics circa 1990). Whether they will is another question. The Lakers have also cruised to a 3-0 lead in round 2, leaving a very good Utah team on the verge of summer vacation. It’s tough to fault the Jazz, who have the league’s best point guard-big man tandem in Deron Williams and Carlos Boozer. They’ve never matched up well with the Kobe-led Lakers, but they are one smart trade away from dominating the western conference for the next 5 years (unless Durant goes bonkers).
In the east no team has disappointed more than the Hawks, who would’ve fared better against either Cleveland or Boston. But a hungry Orlando group is crushing them. When Joe Johnson leaves this summer, it will mark a quick end to the Atlanta resurgence. Al Horford deserves better. But Orlando looks awesome and will benefit more than anyone from the likely 7-game series emerging between their competitors. The Magic are playing with purpose and a chip on their shoulder, knowing that television executives everywhere are hoping they fold before the NBA finals. The league’s dream match up would be L.A./Cleveland, allowing a fight between the world’s two best players for the 1st time since 1987, the last time Bird and Magic faced off. The runner-up scenario would be Boston upsetting Cleveland for a rematch from 2008 between the NBA’s top franchises. An Orlando/Phoenix match up would provide some entertainment and a rare opportunity for Nash & Vince Carter to get over the hump, more important for the latter. Plus Dwight Howard vs. Amare Stoudemire is intriguing. But ultimately nobody wants this match up. And if I’m Nash I’m praying Boston doesn’t advance because they have the only point guard left capable of destroying him, which brings us back to Rondo.
The newly anointed best player for the Celtics, Rondo just put together a spectacular Game 4, posting 29 points, 18 rebounds, & 13 assists, one of them a fast break behind-the-back feed to Tony Allen that fooled Lebron right out of the gym. He is the fastest open-court guard since young Jason Kidd and a constantly improving shooter as well. He drew the defense all day long, creating easy buckets for Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen (strong performance), Glen Davis, and especially Tony Allen, who for my money played his best game in a Boston uniform thus far, making timely baskets and smothering James as well as anyone has in months. But this was Rondo’s show and he was so good that he single-handedly offset a virtual no-show by Paul Pierce, who fought foul trouble and only emerged down the stretch of the 4th quarter. But I’m feeling great right now. The Celtics could easily be up 3-1 had they not blown Game 1. Furthermore they are silencing not only their critics, but the shortsighted local and national media who jumped all over the Cleveland bandwagon. I wanted Cleveland in the East semis rather than the conference finals, knowing we'd have more energy at this stage. I predicted a 7-game series when most of the country saw 5. And it wasn’t a merely a case of favoritism for my hometown boys. The bottom line: For the Cavs to win Lebron is going to need to be the best player on the floor every night. The Celtics merely need one of the big 3 to give Rondo a break every now-and-again. And something tells me Pierce is due to drop 35. He’s too proud and too talented not to make his presence felt in this series.
Beef’s crystal ball the rest of the way: A pair of hard-fought road wins (it's that competitive!) in games 5 & 6, with Boston coming through to take game 7 in Cleveland. And if I’m wrong, at least I didn’t abandon ship like the Sport's Guy.
They benefit from phantom fouls to such a degree that the David Stern conspiracy theories seem truly justified. They also have the most arrogant fan base ever for a team that frankly hasn’t won anything. They cruised through the league with ease on their way to the NBA’s top record, but that only goes so far. Hell the 1996 Sonics won 64 games. The media has treated this Cavalier squad with a reverence typically accorded to champions. With the best player in the world leading them this isn't a complete shock, undeserved as it is. But I’ll use this forum to repeat myself for the umpteenth time in 2010 . . . this is NOT a great team, but a good one, made very good with the late season acquisition of Antawn Jamison. They have strong shooting and size, but no real point guard. They have the scariest offensive player in the world, but a suspect coach. They defend with intelligence, but lack the requisite intensity to dominate an entire playoff. I think Lebron knows he’s leaving. I have no proof of course, merely a strong hunch. To everyone who claims he (and Dwayne Wade for that matter) is staying put, I ask the obvious: Why would he stay? James hails from Akron, and perhaps he fears the hometown perception should he bolt to the New York area. But I think he possesses a selfish drive that he hides better than say, Kobe Bryant. He wants to be King of the sport’s world and it’s time to move to the world's biggest city. They have the money to surround James with anyone and anything he wants. Cleveland has made a strong effort, but if I’m James I’m leaving. Shaq is not the answer, neither is Mo Williams. A fresh start ensures at least 3 rings, whereas I could see him wasting his prime years for the Cavs. So I’ll go on record, something I should’ve done months ago: If he wins a title in 2010, he will stay. If not, he’s gone. Wade’s choice is much, much easier unless he can’t live without the beach and pulled pork sandwiches. He can challenge Lebron for the next decade with a timely relocation to Chicago. Otherwise he will go down as the best player ever to win but a single title. I offer no exaggeration: Wade IS that good, though few non-basketball lifers would know it.
The 2nd round has been more surprising than the 1st for a few reasons. The Suns have dominated the Spurs for the first time in Steve Nash’s tenure, with a more polished half-court offense and a higher commitment to defense than his previous highlight reel teams. This series also marks the end of the Spurs, whom I’ve never discounted until now. It's officially time for San Antonio to rebuild (think the Celtics circa 1990). Whether they will is another question. The Lakers have also cruised to a 3-0 lead in round 2, leaving a very good Utah team on the verge of summer vacation. It’s tough to fault the Jazz, who have the league’s best point guard-big man tandem in Deron Williams and Carlos Boozer. They’ve never matched up well with the Kobe-led Lakers, but they are one smart trade away from dominating the western conference for the next 5 years (unless Durant goes bonkers).
In the east no team has disappointed more than the Hawks, who would’ve fared better against either Cleveland or Boston. But a hungry Orlando group is crushing them. When Joe Johnson leaves this summer, it will mark a quick end to the Atlanta resurgence. Al Horford deserves better. But Orlando looks awesome and will benefit more than anyone from the likely 7-game series emerging between their competitors. The Magic are playing with purpose and a chip on their shoulder, knowing that television executives everywhere are hoping they fold before the NBA finals. The league’s dream match up would be L.A./Cleveland, allowing a fight between the world’s two best players for the 1st time since 1987, the last time Bird and Magic faced off. The runner-up scenario would be Boston upsetting Cleveland for a rematch from 2008 between the NBA’s top franchises. An Orlando/Phoenix match up would provide some entertainment and a rare opportunity for Nash & Vince Carter to get over the hump, more important for the latter. Plus Dwight Howard vs. Amare Stoudemire is intriguing. But ultimately nobody wants this match up. And if I’m Nash I’m praying Boston doesn’t advance because they have the only point guard left capable of destroying him, which brings us back to Rondo.
The newly anointed best player for the Celtics, Rondo just put together a spectacular Game 4, posting 29 points, 18 rebounds, & 13 assists, one of them a fast break behind-the-back feed to Tony Allen that fooled Lebron right out of the gym. He is the fastest open-court guard since young Jason Kidd and a constantly improving shooter as well. He drew the defense all day long, creating easy buckets for Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen (strong performance), Glen Davis, and especially Tony Allen, who for my money played his best game in a Boston uniform thus far, making timely baskets and smothering James as well as anyone has in months. But this was Rondo’s show and he was so good that he single-handedly offset a virtual no-show by Paul Pierce, who fought foul trouble and only emerged down the stretch of the 4th quarter. But I’m feeling great right now. The Celtics could easily be up 3-1 had they not blown Game 1. Furthermore they are silencing not only their critics, but the shortsighted local and national media who jumped all over the Cleveland bandwagon. I wanted Cleveland in the East semis rather than the conference finals, knowing we'd have more energy at this stage. I predicted a 7-game series when most of the country saw 5. And it wasn’t a merely a case of favoritism for my hometown boys. The bottom line: For the Cavs to win Lebron is going to need to be the best player on the floor every night. The Celtics merely need one of the big 3 to give Rondo a break every now-and-again. And something tells me Pierce is due to drop 35. He’s too proud and too talented not to make his presence felt in this series.
Beef’s crystal ball the rest of the way: A pair of hard-fought road wins (it's that competitive!) in games 5 & 6, with Boston coming through to take game 7 in Cleveland. And if I’m wrong, at least I didn’t abandon ship like the Sport's Guy.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
April Fools Day: Time to Make it Official
Seriously what a great day! I relayed tales of chance encounters with the most random old acquaintances. I successfully caused my mom to panic by convincing her I sliced my finger open without health insurance. I later drunkenly fooled my dad into believing my fiancé left me. And I developed ingenious plans for convincing several friends that their significant other(s) were pregnant (foiled by the fact that the girls in question can't keep a straight face). I submit April 1st becomes an official holiday, a day in which all Americans are encouraged to not only make fools of friends & family (excluding the elderly of course; we're not trying to cause heart attacks), but also to play hooky to allow time for the most creative pranks available. This really isn't as crazy as it sounds. Lets run-down the list of days which already inexplicably qualify as holidays (or at least draw national attention):
Valentine's Day: A couple of greedy Hallmark executives decided they needed a time other than Christmas & mid-May (graduation month) to pad their commissions. Each year on February 14th, men all over the country collectively smack their foreheads and start searching for dinner reservations & jewelry store coupons.
President's Day: Oh, please. How many people in the history of the world deserve to have their birthdays celebrated? Maybe Larry Bird and the founder of "Dunkin Donuts." That's about it. At least they lumped the presidents together, but still, we only have 365 of these days go around. As for George Washington, he may have been the first, but certainly not the best.
Groundhog Day: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ok I feel better after getting that out. While not a real holiday, the silliest themed day on the calendar deserves special mention. At least it inspired a funny movie. Let’s just move on.
Columbus Day: Well they say the guy discovered America, even though historians question that claim and by many accounts Columbus was a murderer. Still, this might be the best day of the year for college students. First semester is barely underway, yet here comes a 3 day weekend with no religious obligations. Hard not love it, even though I can't support it.
4th of July: By definition a completely legit holiday, but here's the thing. Probably less than 10% of the population cares or thinks about what the day actually represents. It's become an excuse to get out of work, chow down some barbeque, and drink one's self into a coma by four in the afternoon. I wouldn't really have any objection if it ended here, but we also have "Flag Day," which seems just a tad unnecessary don't you think?
National Arbor Day: Ummmm, yah. Trees really don't merit a day when we already have the highly questionable "Earth Day," which basically celebrates the fact that another year passed without our population wiping itself out. This brings me to . . .
New Year's Day: Every nation acknowledges the New Year, but it's about as meaningless a reason for celebration as any. They could just as easily call it "hangover day" or "national recovery day," or since everyone's going to be skipping work anyway, how about changing the date of Labor Day?
Mother & Father's Day: Ok, I won't go there, since every parent in America would answer their child’s question the same way . . . "Every day is kid's day!!!"
Easter: I'll get flamed for this one, but whatever. Over the long Easter weekend, I worked every day and endured some of the unhappiest people I've ever seen. Maybe the pressures of family visits had the entire Akron area on edge, but let’s just say people weren't exactly embracing the spirit of, in theory, one of the most spiritual days on the calendar. Oh, the irony of watching desperate renters fight over our few copies of 'The Passion of the Christ." I guess the kick-off for the weekend is called 'Good Friday' for a reason; an off day for all children and many adults, yet there are few mandatory observances before Sunday church-going. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for children enjoying a day filled with stuffed bunnies, egg hunts, and those heavenly chocolate/peanut-butter concoctions from Reese’s. But for a day when 95% of the country pays homage to their savior literally rising from the grave (a visitor from another planet would think I’m kidding), I think they are taking that sacred book just a touch too seriously.
So now that we've eliminated the aforementioned holidays, let’s see what we’re left with (I feel like George Carlin whittling the 10 commandments down to 2):
Christmas: Too dominant to ever rid of and a fun day for all, even though the reason for its existence becomes lost annually during a maddening commerce-driven 3 weeks.
Thanksgiving: "The" American holiday, featuring family, food, football (talk about alliteration), and the longest of all long weekends.
Martin Luther King Day: I suppose too important to ignore and eliminating it would cause riots by a large, intimidating segment of our population.
Halloween: Without a doubt the best night of the year for kids.
Labor Day: A well-earned day off to halt our collective depression from summer ending.
War Remembrance Days: Too disrespectful to lump them all into a single day, even though Memorial Day has come to represent the group.
Yom Kippur & Passover (both essential for reasons that even the most reformed Jew such as myself can’t forget). But just to show I'm not above pointing the finger at myself, Rosh Hashanah (bizarro New Years), Purim (bizarro Halloween), and Hanukah (bizarro Christmas) are all somewhat debatable. I really shouldn't send this blog to my grandmother.
(Note: How great is the word Bizarro? Is there anything Seinfeld can’t do?)
The bottom line: If we're going to treat so many frivolous days as reasons to celebrate, what's one more? I’d close by saying April Fools, but that would contradict everything I’ve said.
Valentine's Day: A couple of greedy Hallmark executives decided they needed a time other than Christmas & mid-May (graduation month) to pad their commissions. Each year on February 14th, men all over the country collectively smack their foreheads and start searching for dinner reservations & jewelry store coupons.
President's Day: Oh, please. How many people in the history of the world deserve to have their birthdays celebrated? Maybe Larry Bird and the founder of "Dunkin Donuts." That's about it. At least they lumped the presidents together, but still, we only have 365 of these days go around. As for George Washington, he may have been the first, but certainly not the best.
Groundhog Day: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ok I feel better after getting that out. While not a real holiday, the silliest themed day on the calendar deserves special mention. At least it inspired a funny movie. Let’s just move on.
Columbus Day: Well they say the guy discovered America, even though historians question that claim and by many accounts Columbus was a murderer. Still, this might be the best day of the year for college students. First semester is barely underway, yet here comes a 3 day weekend with no religious obligations. Hard not love it, even though I can't support it.
4th of July: By definition a completely legit holiday, but here's the thing. Probably less than 10% of the population cares or thinks about what the day actually represents. It's become an excuse to get out of work, chow down some barbeque, and drink one's self into a coma by four in the afternoon. I wouldn't really have any objection if it ended here, but we also have "Flag Day," which seems just a tad unnecessary don't you think?
National Arbor Day: Ummmm, yah. Trees really don't merit a day when we already have the highly questionable "Earth Day," which basically celebrates the fact that another year passed without our population wiping itself out. This brings me to . . .
New Year's Day: Every nation acknowledges the New Year, but it's about as meaningless a reason for celebration as any. They could just as easily call it "hangover day" or "national recovery day," or since everyone's going to be skipping work anyway, how about changing the date of Labor Day?
Mother & Father's Day: Ok, I won't go there, since every parent in America would answer their child’s question the same way . . . "Every day is kid's day!!!"
Easter: I'll get flamed for this one, but whatever. Over the long Easter weekend, I worked every day and endured some of the unhappiest people I've ever seen. Maybe the pressures of family visits had the entire Akron area on edge, but let’s just say people weren't exactly embracing the spirit of, in theory, one of the most spiritual days on the calendar. Oh, the irony of watching desperate renters fight over our few copies of 'The Passion of the Christ." I guess the kick-off for the weekend is called 'Good Friday' for a reason; an off day for all children and many adults, yet there are few mandatory observances before Sunday church-going. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for children enjoying a day filled with stuffed bunnies, egg hunts, and those heavenly chocolate/peanut-butter concoctions from Reese’s. But for a day when 95% of the country pays homage to their savior literally rising from the grave (a visitor from another planet would think I’m kidding), I think they are taking that sacred book just a touch too seriously.
So now that we've eliminated the aforementioned holidays, let’s see what we’re left with (I feel like George Carlin whittling the 10 commandments down to 2):
Christmas: Too dominant to ever rid of and a fun day for all, even though the reason for its existence becomes lost annually during a maddening commerce-driven 3 weeks.
Thanksgiving: "The" American holiday, featuring family, food, football (talk about alliteration), and the longest of all long weekends.
Martin Luther King Day: I suppose too important to ignore and eliminating it would cause riots by a large, intimidating segment of our population.
Halloween: Without a doubt the best night of the year for kids.
Labor Day: A well-earned day off to halt our collective depression from summer ending.
War Remembrance Days: Too disrespectful to lump them all into a single day, even though Memorial Day has come to represent the group.
Yom Kippur & Passover (both essential for reasons that even the most reformed Jew such as myself can’t forget). But just to show I'm not above pointing the finger at myself, Rosh Hashanah (bizarro New Years), Purim (bizarro Halloween), and Hanukah (bizarro Christmas) are all somewhat debatable. I really shouldn't send this blog to my grandmother.
(Note: How great is the word Bizarro? Is there anything Seinfeld can’t do?)
The bottom line: If we're going to treat so many frivolous days as reasons to celebrate, what's one more? I’d close by saying April Fools, but that would contradict everything I’ve said.
Monday, March 8, 2010
It's Finally Over: How to Save the Oscar Telecast
Every March I anticipate the most relevant film night of the year and aside from maybe one or two instances, I've ended Sunday disappointed. I'm not even talking about the results, always open for debate. For what it's worth my biggest gripes came involved the writing categories (both Inglourious Basterds & Up in the Air were upset in the original & adapted screenplay groups) and the unexpected domination of The Hurt Locker, a solid, respectable, sometimes exciting film that defeated a handful of better ones. No, I'm here to save the actual telecast, which should be fun but ultimately bores even the most enthusiastic of film buffs. They tried to make things move faster this year, but it still clocked in around 3.5 hours. So here are 5 suggestions that would not only shorten the award fiasco, but make for a smoother, more entertaining show as well.
1) GET RID OF ALL UNNECESSARY PRESENTERS: The most resisted idea on my list is also the most important. Random presenters add almost nothing to the show, serving only to pad the running time by at least 30-45 minutes I'm guessing. "And here to introduce sound mixing is Sigourney Weaver . . ." Who cares? Another problem with the endless introductions, poor quips, and slow walks to the stage is that they limit our enjoyment of the hosts who were hired presumably for a reason. Steve Martin couldn't have been onstage more than 15 minutes last night, but I laugh aloud at least a dozen times when he was. Alec Baldwin looked far less sure of himself, but he improved as the night went on and they had good chemistry. Their exchanges were sharp and well-written and their delivery excellent. Why not simply keep them near the stage all night? They can announce categories much quicker and might even entertain us a little in the process. It seems like a simple idea and I know old school Hollywood types believe it to be a night about the stars, but isn't that what all the red carpet crap is for anyway? At the very least this should be an experiment next year just to see how the show runs. Thus we are left with only the chosen host(s) and specifically chosen presenters who serve some actual purpose, such as the 80s stars who presented the John Hughes tribute.
2) SHORTEN THE ACTING AWARDS: Last year for the first time they had 5 previous Oscar winning actors announce the new winners, filled with lengthy reactions to the nominees' performance and careers. It was nice thought, but it really padded the running time. This year was even worse. The press has already filled hundreds of magazine pages and websites with stories surrounding Jeff Bridges and Sandra Bullock. It must've taken 25 minutes to get through best actor/actress last night which is insane, and leaves the producers short on time and audiences falling asleep. The anti-climactic nature of the best picture announcement with Tom Hanks taking maybe 12 seconds total was ridiculous. Time to return to the old format in which they show a scene from each actor's film and move on.
3) NO MORE SONG AND DANCE NUMBERS: Not everyone will agree with this, but I say leave the singing and dancing to the Grammy's and Tony's. They got this 1/2 right last night, eliminating live performances of the best song nominees, but then contradicted themselves by having strange dancers act out certain films. Their first instinct was correct. And James Taylor's performance was about as out of place as that sort of thing can be. This brings up a huge pet peeve . . .
4) STOP DESTROYING THE MEMORIAL TRIBUTE: How this is hard is beyond me. In almost all previous years, they have an edited tribute up onscreen representing actors/directors/writers/producers, etc. the academy had lost in each respective year with a carefully chosen piece of music (usually from a film) to accompany it. In back-to-back years now, someone idiotically thought it'd be smart to feature a live performance, a bad idea both in principle and execution. For starters the cameraman never seems to know whether to focus on the musician (WRONG) or the slideshow (DING DING DING), leaving the audience struggling to see parts of the segment. We at home (about 99.999999999999% of the viewers) missed the first 30 seconds or so as well as the end. Furthermore, it confuses the audience response for those actually there in person (when to clap, when not to, etc.) and cheapens the whole experience. And if they act on my earlier ideas from this blog, they wouldn't even have to cut out the dozens of performers (Zelda Rubenstein, Bea Arthur, Farrah Fawcett, etc...) who get ignored due to time constraints. I hardly think the memorial tribute is the point of the show to cut seconds or even minutes.
5) BACK TO 5 NOMINEES: Ultimately as predicted, having 10 really did nothing except cheapen the actual victory for the night's winner. It's easy to see where the line was drawn (the 5 nominees would've been The Hurt Locker, Avatar, Precious, Up in the Air, & Inglourious Basterds). By the way, was it really necessary to mention the full name and adaptation for Precious every time it came up last night? Boom, there's another 5 minutes saved. I'm a genius. From an advertising standpoint, I understood the 10 nominees, but that's about it. Up was winning animated feature regardless and Bullock won anyway for The Blind Side, so no reason for either in the best picture category when there was no shot for either. And I'm certain A Serious Man, An Education, and District 9 did little to boost ratings.
Maybe I will print this blog and send it to The Academy of Motion Picture & Sciences in Hollywood, signed a concerned movie fan. Maybe an intern with a single brain cell will look up from his morning coffee and proclaim "Hey, this kid's right! These changes will trim the show by a full hour!" Maybe a higher-up will eventually get around to reading it. Maybe I will receive public credit for single-handedly saving the Oscar ceremony. And maybe years down the road when I'm old and gray, they can mess up a special tribute to me by having it presented by Miley Cyrus' daughter. Or better yet, they can forget all about me in the memorial segment, leaving me slapping my forehead from heaven.
1) GET RID OF ALL UNNECESSARY PRESENTERS: The most resisted idea on my list is also the most important. Random presenters add almost nothing to the show, serving only to pad the running time by at least 30-45 minutes I'm guessing. "And here to introduce sound mixing is Sigourney Weaver . . ." Who cares? Another problem with the endless introductions, poor quips, and slow walks to the stage is that they limit our enjoyment of the hosts who were hired presumably for a reason. Steve Martin couldn't have been onstage more than 15 minutes last night, but I laugh aloud at least a dozen times when he was. Alec Baldwin looked far less sure of himself, but he improved as the night went on and they had good chemistry. Their exchanges were sharp and well-written and their delivery excellent. Why not simply keep them near the stage all night? They can announce categories much quicker and might even entertain us a little in the process. It seems like a simple idea and I know old school Hollywood types believe it to be a night about the stars, but isn't that what all the red carpet crap is for anyway? At the very least this should be an experiment next year just to see how the show runs. Thus we are left with only the chosen host(s) and specifically chosen presenters who serve some actual purpose, such as the 80s stars who presented the John Hughes tribute.
2) SHORTEN THE ACTING AWARDS: Last year for the first time they had 5 previous Oscar winning actors announce the new winners, filled with lengthy reactions to the nominees' performance and careers. It was nice thought, but it really padded the running time. This year was even worse. The press has already filled hundreds of magazine pages and websites with stories surrounding Jeff Bridges and Sandra Bullock. It must've taken 25 minutes to get through best actor/actress last night which is insane, and leaves the producers short on time and audiences falling asleep. The anti-climactic nature of the best picture announcement with Tom Hanks taking maybe 12 seconds total was ridiculous. Time to return to the old format in which they show a scene from each actor's film and move on.
3) NO MORE SONG AND DANCE NUMBERS: Not everyone will agree with this, but I say leave the singing and dancing to the Grammy's and Tony's. They got this 1/2 right last night, eliminating live performances of the best song nominees, but then contradicted themselves by having strange dancers act out certain films. Their first instinct was correct. And James Taylor's performance was about as out of place as that sort of thing can be. This brings up a huge pet peeve . . .
4) STOP DESTROYING THE MEMORIAL TRIBUTE: How this is hard is beyond me. In almost all previous years, they have an edited tribute up onscreen representing actors/directors/writers/producers, etc. the academy had lost in each respective year with a carefully chosen piece of music (usually from a film) to accompany it. In back-to-back years now, someone idiotically thought it'd be smart to feature a live performance, a bad idea both in principle and execution. For starters the cameraman never seems to know whether to focus on the musician (WRONG) or the slideshow (DING DING DING), leaving the audience struggling to see parts of the segment. We at home (about 99.999999999999% of the viewers) missed the first 30 seconds or so as well as the end. Furthermore, it confuses the audience response for those actually there in person (when to clap, when not to, etc.) and cheapens the whole experience. And if they act on my earlier ideas from this blog, they wouldn't even have to cut out the dozens of performers (Zelda Rubenstein, Bea Arthur, Farrah Fawcett, etc...) who get ignored due to time constraints. I hardly think the memorial tribute is the point of the show to cut seconds or even minutes.
5) BACK TO 5 NOMINEES: Ultimately as predicted, having 10 really did nothing except cheapen the actual victory for the night's winner. It's easy to see where the line was drawn (the 5 nominees would've been The Hurt Locker, Avatar, Precious, Up in the Air, & Inglourious Basterds). By the way, was it really necessary to mention the full name and adaptation for Precious every time it came up last night? Boom, there's another 5 minutes saved. I'm a genius. From an advertising standpoint, I understood the 10 nominees, but that's about it. Up was winning animated feature regardless and Bullock won anyway for The Blind Side, so no reason for either in the best picture category when there was no shot for either. And I'm certain A Serious Man, An Education, and District 9 did little to boost ratings.
Maybe I will print this blog and send it to The Academy of Motion Picture & Sciences in Hollywood, signed a concerned movie fan. Maybe an intern with a single brain cell will look up from his morning coffee and proclaim "Hey, this kid's right! These changes will trim the show by a full hour!" Maybe a higher-up will eventually get around to reading it. Maybe I will receive public credit for single-handedly saving the Oscar ceremony. And maybe years down the road when I'm old and gray, they can mess up a special tribute to me by having it presented by Miley Cyrus' daughter. Or better yet, they can forget all about me in the memorial segment, leaving me slapping my forehead from heaven.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Oscars 2010: What Will, Should, and Should've Won
With less than a week remaining before the big show, it's time to distinguish the contenders from the pretenders. This year's Oscar telecast has promised some changes, first and foremost the expansion of the best picture category to ten nominees in hopes of including more popular hits as a way to increase viewership. This theory, combined with the unexpected runaway success of Avatar, seems to have paid off. People outside the industry are talking about the awards for the first time in years. Whether or not doubling the field of nominees damages the prestige of winning best picture is another matter (I say it does to an extent). I am looking forward to co-hosts Steven Martin and Alec Baldwin, two of the funniest actors in the world, to provide some wit and improvisation for a show that will undoubtedly run too long. I am also anticipating the tribute to John Hughes, whose loss this year is immeasurable to all movie fans who came of age during the 1980s (my personal memorial tribute to 2009 will be posted shortly). But on to the business at hand. Last year I correctly picked 19 of 24 categories, but this year is tougher save for the acting categories. I'm hoping to get about 17 right this time around. In addition to predicting which film will win, I offer which film would be my pick (in major categories), as well as an alternate nominee that was ignored by the academy in most categories.
Briefly, I'll predict the 5 categories in which I've never seen any of the nominated films. These are the categories that killed me last year, so let’s go to the officials for the coin toss . . .
Best Foreign Language Film - The White Ribbon
Best Documentary Feature - The Cove
Best Documentary (Short Subject) - Rabbit a la Berlin
Best Short Film (Live Action) - The New Tenants
Best Short Film (Animated) - French Roast
Five more categories that sometimes prove problematic are the unpredictable best song category (didn't see any of the nominees), art direction (which I have only a vague understanding of), and cinematography, sound editing, and sound mixing (in which the criteria seem to change from year to year).
Best Original Song - 'The Weary Kind,' Crazy Heart
Best Art Direction - Avatar
Best Cinematography - The Hurt Locker
Best Sound Editing - Avatar
Best Sound Mixing - Avatar
Quick Note: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is actually nominated for best sound mixing, immediately rendering Michael Bay's fiasco the worst film EVER nominated for an Oscar. This spot should've gone to Michael Mann's highly stylized depression-era gangster flick, Public Enemies.
The next six categories are easier to judge both due to simpler measures and the fact that I've seen enough films to judge adequately. I'll also offer a snub in all remaining categories . . .
Best Animated Feature Film - Up: One of the night's easier picks, I'd vote for it for the 15 minute opening montage alone, one of the best sequences ever committed to an animated feature. Fantastic Mr. Fox is the only possible spoiler here. Actually, this category seems more or less correct, though I did have a soft spot for Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (also the year's goofiest title).
Best Costume Design - The Young Victoria: This seems to have all the prerequisites of a winner in this category; Over-the-top dresses (check). British film (check). Hot chick on the film poster (Emily Blunt, double-check).
SNUB: Where the Wild Things Are, which somehow managed the impossible task of recreating the wild monsters from the children's classic down to every minor detail, satisfying the childhood memories of all viewers. I'd pick this to win as well.
Best Makeup - Star Trek: This is probably the film's best shot at a technical win, earned on the basis of Zachary Quinto's Spock and Eric Bana's Nero.
SNUB: District 9, an impressive achievement in its depiction of the slow species transformation of our hero. But I’d still vote Star Trek.
Best Visual Effects - Avatar: Actually this may be the single easiest pick of the night. Avatar not only showcased astonishing visuals, but the immersive experience was like nothing we've seen before, especially in 3D
SNUB: 2012, which was more believable in it's depiction of ocean disaster than all but a few films in history. The film's action centerpiece, an apocalyptic destruction of California, was simply awesome. In any other recent year, this would've been my pick, but Avatar deserves all the technical awards that are coming.
Best Film Editing - The Hurt Locker: One of the night's tougher races. I could see either Avatar or Inglourious Basterds stealing this one (and the latter would be my pick), but expect a win for Kathryn Bigelow's taut tale of bomb diffusing soldiers. I'd be ok with it.
SNUB(s): Taken, which used the Bourne formula to create some of the most excitingly choreographed fights in years. Crossing Over, the little seen L.A. set drama of interlocking racial stories also warranted recognition.
Best Original Score - Up: A very nice score, though perhaps not up to the best of Disney/Pixar. Avatar could play the role of spoiler, but the nomination for The Hurt Locker is ridiculous here.
SNUB(s): Star Trek is the only 2009 score that I remembered vividly weeks after seeing the film. Its absence invalidates the category. Public Enemies featured a dynamic score while the theme to Where the Wild Things Are perhaps best matched its visuals.
Finally, we've arrived at the night's "Big 8." On to the writers . . .
Best Original Screenplay - Inglourious Basterds: 2009's most audacious, original script by far and since it's unlikely to earn Oscars for the film or its director, this would seem an appropriate place to reward it. However, the growing momentum of The Hurt Locker could steal this one, which would be a shame. Everything I remember about that film involved the dramatic tension and the visual experience. It wouldn't have made a list of my 10 favorite 2009 scripts though. The Messenger, Up, and the Coen Brothers' A Serious Man (consistently interesting, but lacking the vivid characterizations of their best works) round out the group. All should probably be happy just to be nominated.
SNUB(s): (500) Days of Summer & Adventureland, both wonderful romantic comedies filled with wit and 3-dimensional characters. The former used an unorthodox chronological structure to find its emotional core within its main character (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt), while the latter balanced humor with a pronounced sense of time and place. Greg Motolla (Superbad) also deserves credit for convincing me that Kristen Stewart is actually a fine actress with the right material.
Best Adapted Screenplay - Up in the Air: I'd probably be more irritated with a different choice here than in any other category. The script was the film's single greatest asset and provided complex material that not only had something important to say, but gave its three lead actors a number of rich scenes with which to make their mark. I didn't really get In the Loop (maybe it's a British thing, although I loved last year's In Bruges) and District 9's allegorical story was topical, if unspectacular. Nick Hornby always writes well so I assume An Education was strong, while the haunting tale of Precious is probably the runner-up, though still a long shot to Up in the Air's topical story of corporate downsizing.
SNUB: State of Play, which was screwed by an early release date last spring. Probably 2009's best adult thriller, the film was adapted from a complex British miniseries to an intelligent two hour offering with strong characters and few, if any, plot holes.
Best Supporting Actress - Mo'nique, Precious: The comedian has swept every major critic's prize so far, giving me no reason to predict a win for anyone else. She was horrifying as the kind of mother most of us will never have to know, but this wasn't merely a caricature and the film's final scene was a powerhouse. Maggie Gyllenhaal, a surprise nominee for Crazy Heart, and Penelope Cruz are fill-in names because there has to be five nominations (nobody seemed all that thrilled with Nine). Still, Cruz's nomination is impressive considering she won in this same category last year. Both Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick were terrific in Up in the Air, but they will likely split any votes, eliminating the possibility of an upset. Kendrick is the more likely spoiler, though Farmiga would be my personal pick here.
SNUB(s): Zoe Saldana (Avatar), whose performance becomes difficult to judge without knowing exactly where the actor's job ends and the visual component begins. But as are our fiery guide into a dazzling world, Saldana brought energy and intensity to a film that needed both. And as Inglourious Basterds tough, bilingual heroine Shosanna, Melanie Laurent carried much of the film's 2nd half as a Jewish theater owner plotting her own survival in Nazi-occupied France.
Best Supporting Actor - Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds: "That's a Bingo!" As unbeatable as Mo'nique, Waltz performance was arguably the most impressive of 2009. Alternately menacing and goofy, speaking in multiple dialects, he instantly created my favorite complex movie villain in several years. His competition includes the constantly overlooked Matt Damon (Invictus), veteran great Christopher Plummer (with his first career nom. for The Last Station), and Stanley Tucci, one of the few constant positives in Peter Jackson's messy adaptation of The Lovely Bones. (Tucci was equally impressive opposite Meryl Streep in Julie & Julia). Then there's Woody Harrelson, who enjoyed a career resurgence in 2009, offering memorable supporting work in The Messenger (nominated here), 2012, and most notably Zombieland. As a monster hunting, Twinkie craving, Bill Murray fan, Harrelson's performance in the latter will stand the test of time. It's arguably the funniest thing he's ever done. But Waltz is the easy and deserving pick.
SNUB(s): 2009 featured a surprising number of strong comedic ensembles, from which three performers stood out; I Love You, Man's Jason Segel achieved 3-dimensionality as needy potential best man Sydney Fife; World's Greatest Dad's obnoxious teenager Daryl Sabara managed to steal several scenes away from Robin Williams (also good), & The Hangover's Zach Galifianakis turned heads with his turn as the strangest bachelor buddy in the year's runaway comedy smash. His pre-evening toast and subsequent blood oath was one of 2009's best onscreen moments.
Best Actress - Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side: By most accounts, a strong, solid performance against type for the actress best known for romantic comedies (shades of Julia Roberts' win a decade ago for Erin Brockovich, also based on a true story/character). Momentum seems to be in her corner, the biggest obstacle being the most nominated actor (male or female) of all-time. Meryl Streep submitted another stellar year (also noteworthy for It's Complicated) and seemed to effortlessly become famed chef Julia Child right before our eyes. And yet, I've been more slightly impressed with other roles by Streep in recent years (Adaptation, The Devil Wears Prada, etc...) that didn't win. I suspect she'll eventually win a third Oscar. The other nominees include The Last Station's Helen Mirren (who won this category for The Queen in 2006), An Education's 24 year-old Carey Mulligan, and Precious' abused title character, Gabourey Sidibe. Sidibe's work was heartbreaking and will likely leave the longest lasting impression (and would be my pick). But despite the strong field, this is a two-horse race. Factor in the popularity of last summer's The Proposal (this stuff matters) and it's Bullock's to lose, though should Streep win I wouldn't complain.
SNUB: Maya Rudolph, Away We Go, who for my money gave both the best and more unexpected female performance of 2009. Best known for her work since 2000 on Saturday Night Live, Rudolph brought depth and warmth to her role as Verona, a pregnant illustrator searching for a new home with her significant other Burt (John Krasinski, better than ever) whom she refuses to marry. The pair had great chemistry in the year's most underrated film.
Best Actor - Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart: 'The Dude' is due. A few months ago nobody even knew what Crazy Heart was, so the late surge was unexpected in a race previously led by George Clooney for Up in the Air. But all momentum points to Bridges, the respected veteran, whose versatile work over the years has now led to five Oscar nominations. I really need to see this film. Until then my personal pick is Clooney, who gave the best performance of his career and put to rest once and for all any detractors who see him only as a movie star. Unfortunately, he won a supporting Oscar just four years ago for Syriana, so it's going to be a while before he earns another. But on the basis of Michael Clayton and now this, he's heading in the right direction. Morgan Freeman has been one of the best actors alive for decades, but few saw his turn as Nelson Mandela. Colin Firth is supposedly terrific in A Single Man, but fewer people saw that than Invictus. The Hurt Locker's Jeremy Renner is the final nominee and there are whispers he could upset Bridges. A win for Renner would be shocking and disappointing. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing bad about his lead work in the no-nonsense war drama. I just didn't find it the least bit memorable and in fact thought the film's better performance was given by costar Anthony Mackie. But "The Dude abides."
SNUB(s): Two names stand out for different reasons. A Serious Man's Michael Stuhlbarg gave one the year's most unique performances as an uptight, socially awkward Jewish professor looking for life's meaning in the Midwest circa 1970. I've never seen a character quite like Stuhlbarg's Larry Gopnik and given the surprising support for the film, he seemed like a possibility. Then there's Robert De Niro, who quietly submitted his best performance in nearly a decade in Everybody's Fine. There seems to be an inescapable stigma surrounding De Niro these days that's he's lost whatever ability he once possessed. Though he's made some questionable script choices in recent years, this wasn't one of them. I can't help thinking had his role as a traveling widower and father of four been played by the likes of Jack Nicholson, audiences would've taken notice. Most critics praised his work, but the film's abysmal box-office obliterated any chance of a nomination.
Best Director - Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker: History is in the air. A win for Bigelow (James Cameron's ex and incidentally much too good looking for him) would represent the first time a female director has ever taken this category. The Hurt Locker was intelligent and intense, two qualities which often don't go together. It also avoided driving a message down the audience's throats, which may be Bigelow's ace-in-the-hole. If she loses it will be to Cameron, who managed to surpass enormous expectations for his epic Avatar, a sound story encompassed by enough technical razzle-dazzle to match a dozen summer event films. A backlash has already begun (as befalls any film that succeeds to this degree), though I can't recall a single person giving negative feedback after experiencing this film on the big screen. Whether Cameron wins or loses (he already has a directing win for Titanic), I have no doubt that Avatar will inspire a following long after Bigelow's film has faded from memory. Jason Reitman (Up in the Air), Lee Daniels (Precious), and Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds) round out one of the most impressive directing fields in years, with the 'Basterds' auteur delivered his most satisfying entertainment since Pulp Fiction. I wouldn't argue with supporters of any of the five, but my vote would ultimately go to Cameron.
SNUB: J.J. Abrams, Star Trek, though I'm reaching here since the directing nominations were about as on target as they could've been. But Abrams did a hell of a job rebooting the iconic franchise, appeasing older fans while creating an entertainment fast-paced enough for newcomers. It's the only 2009 movie I've seen three times and with each subsequent viewing I become more convinced it's one of the decade's best blockbusters. I've heard directors claim that if they cast a film right they're half-way home. Bull's-eye!
Best Picture - Avatar: Let’s get one thing straight right away. There aren't really ten nominees that can win this award. There are five and they match the nominees in the previous category. The five bonus picks were A Serious Man, Up, The Blind Side, An Education, & District 9. The only one I could see stealing a relevant number of votes is Up, but since that will be rewarded in the animated category, it's no real threat. Precious is a perfectly respectable drama with moments of real power, but it doesn't have nearly enough support to challenge for the top prize. Neither does Inglourious Basterds, which for every ardent supporter who claims it the year's best, there is another who completely dismisses it on the basis of its over-the-top violence and enthusiasm for fictionalizing history. Up in the Air stands the best chance of making this is three-way competition, a throwback to older Hollywood entertainments that depended most on writing and acting. But there's also a widespread belief that an entertainment this breezy is too light for the top prize (see Jerry Maguire, Good Will Hunting, Little Miss Sunshine, etc). This leaves us again with the heavy hitters. I suspect this could be one those rare years where the best picture winner does not match best director. Hollywood loves to reward commerce and large-than-life epics. Avatar happens to be both. It also boasts a "wow" factor unseen in years. Sure, we occasionally marvel at a scene in a movie and ask "How did they do that?" But Avatar sustained that audience response for nearly three hours. The Hurt Locker may win and many are predicting it will. It's a good film, but there are better ones in this category. Should The Hurt Locker take best picture I suspect it will eventually be regarded more in the realm of a Crash or Chicago, films that resonated for a short time and eventually prompted 2nd guessing. I'm actually not sure how I'd vote if given the opportunity. For me Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, and Up in the Air stood apart from everything else released in 2009, but I suppose it's a cheat to conclude this endless post without a prediction in the top category. So I'll go with the only one to inspire (as of March 5th) a 2nd viewing; Inglourious Basterds
SNUB: Away We Go, my favorite small film released in 2009. It's harder to find a big omission with ten nominees, which promised something animated (check), a big studio hit or two (check), and a couple of quirky independent films (check). But I did believe the academy would lean towards humor with so much wiggle room. Sam Mendes' truthful dramedy is my favorite film yet from the man behind American Beauty & Road to Perdition.
Now go out there and win your Oscar pool.
Briefly, I'll predict the 5 categories in which I've never seen any of the nominated films. These are the categories that killed me last year, so let’s go to the officials for the coin toss . . .
Best Foreign Language Film - The White Ribbon
Best Documentary Feature - The Cove
Best Documentary (Short Subject) - Rabbit a la Berlin
Best Short Film (Live Action) - The New Tenants
Best Short Film (Animated) - French Roast
Five more categories that sometimes prove problematic are the unpredictable best song category (didn't see any of the nominees), art direction (which I have only a vague understanding of), and cinematography, sound editing, and sound mixing (in which the criteria seem to change from year to year).
Best Original Song - 'The Weary Kind,' Crazy Heart
Best Art Direction - Avatar
Best Cinematography - The Hurt Locker
Best Sound Editing - Avatar
Best Sound Mixing - Avatar
Quick Note: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is actually nominated for best sound mixing, immediately rendering Michael Bay's fiasco the worst film EVER nominated for an Oscar. This spot should've gone to Michael Mann's highly stylized depression-era gangster flick, Public Enemies.
The next six categories are easier to judge both due to simpler measures and the fact that I've seen enough films to judge adequately. I'll also offer a snub in all remaining categories . . .
Best Animated Feature Film - Up: One of the night's easier picks, I'd vote for it for the 15 minute opening montage alone, one of the best sequences ever committed to an animated feature. Fantastic Mr. Fox is the only possible spoiler here. Actually, this category seems more or less correct, though I did have a soft spot for Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (also the year's goofiest title).
Best Costume Design - The Young Victoria: This seems to have all the prerequisites of a winner in this category; Over-the-top dresses (check). British film (check). Hot chick on the film poster (Emily Blunt, double-check).
SNUB: Where the Wild Things Are, which somehow managed the impossible task of recreating the wild monsters from the children's classic down to every minor detail, satisfying the childhood memories of all viewers. I'd pick this to win as well.
Best Makeup - Star Trek: This is probably the film's best shot at a technical win, earned on the basis of Zachary Quinto's Spock and Eric Bana's Nero.
SNUB: District 9, an impressive achievement in its depiction of the slow species transformation of our hero. But I’d still vote Star Trek.
Best Visual Effects - Avatar: Actually this may be the single easiest pick of the night. Avatar not only showcased astonishing visuals, but the immersive experience was like nothing we've seen before, especially in 3D
SNUB: 2012, which was more believable in it's depiction of ocean disaster than all but a few films in history. The film's action centerpiece, an apocalyptic destruction of California, was simply awesome. In any other recent year, this would've been my pick, but Avatar deserves all the technical awards that are coming.
Best Film Editing - The Hurt Locker: One of the night's tougher races. I could see either Avatar or Inglourious Basterds stealing this one (and the latter would be my pick), but expect a win for Kathryn Bigelow's taut tale of bomb diffusing soldiers. I'd be ok with it.
SNUB(s): Taken, which used the Bourne formula to create some of the most excitingly choreographed fights in years. Crossing Over, the little seen L.A. set drama of interlocking racial stories also warranted recognition.
Best Original Score - Up: A very nice score, though perhaps not up to the best of Disney/Pixar. Avatar could play the role of spoiler, but the nomination for The Hurt Locker is ridiculous here.
SNUB(s): Star Trek is the only 2009 score that I remembered vividly weeks after seeing the film. Its absence invalidates the category. Public Enemies featured a dynamic score while the theme to Where the Wild Things Are perhaps best matched its visuals.
Finally, we've arrived at the night's "Big 8." On to the writers . . .
Best Original Screenplay - Inglourious Basterds: 2009's most audacious, original script by far and since it's unlikely to earn Oscars for the film or its director, this would seem an appropriate place to reward it. However, the growing momentum of The Hurt Locker could steal this one, which would be a shame. Everything I remember about that film involved the dramatic tension and the visual experience. It wouldn't have made a list of my 10 favorite 2009 scripts though. The Messenger, Up, and the Coen Brothers' A Serious Man (consistently interesting, but lacking the vivid characterizations of their best works) round out the group. All should probably be happy just to be nominated.
SNUB(s): (500) Days of Summer & Adventureland, both wonderful romantic comedies filled with wit and 3-dimensional characters. The former used an unorthodox chronological structure to find its emotional core within its main character (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt), while the latter balanced humor with a pronounced sense of time and place. Greg Motolla (Superbad) also deserves credit for convincing me that Kristen Stewart is actually a fine actress with the right material.
Best Adapted Screenplay - Up in the Air: I'd probably be more irritated with a different choice here than in any other category. The script was the film's single greatest asset and provided complex material that not only had something important to say, but gave its three lead actors a number of rich scenes with which to make their mark. I didn't really get In the Loop (maybe it's a British thing, although I loved last year's In Bruges) and District 9's allegorical story was topical, if unspectacular. Nick Hornby always writes well so I assume An Education was strong, while the haunting tale of Precious is probably the runner-up, though still a long shot to Up in the Air's topical story of corporate downsizing.
SNUB: State of Play, which was screwed by an early release date last spring. Probably 2009's best adult thriller, the film was adapted from a complex British miniseries to an intelligent two hour offering with strong characters and few, if any, plot holes.
Best Supporting Actress - Mo'nique, Precious: The comedian has swept every major critic's prize so far, giving me no reason to predict a win for anyone else. She was horrifying as the kind of mother most of us will never have to know, but this wasn't merely a caricature and the film's final scene was a powerhouse. Maggie Gyllenhaal, a surprise nominee for Crazy Heart, and Penelope Cruz are fill-in names because there has to be five nominations (nobody seemed all that thrilled with Nine). Still, Cruz's nomination is impressive considering she won in this same category last year. Both Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick were terrific in Up in the Air, but they will likely split any votes, eliminating the possibility of an upset. Kendrick is the more likely spoiler, though Farmiga would be my personal pick here.
SNUB(s): Zoe Saldana (Avatar), whose performance becomes difficult to judge without knowing exactly where the actor's job ends and the visual component begins. But as are our fiery guide into a dazzling world, Saldana brought energy and intensity to a film that needed both. And as Inglourious Basterds tough, bilingual heroine Shosanna, Melanie Laurent carried much of the film's 2nd half as a Jewish theater owner plotting her own survival in Nazi-occupied France.
Best Supporting Actor - Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds: "That's a Bingo!" As unbeatable as Mo'nique, Waltz performance was arguably the most impressive of 2009. Alternately menacing and goofy, speaking in multiple dialects, he instantly created my favorite complex movie villain in several years. His competition includes the constantly overlooked Matt Damon (Invictus), veteran great Christopher Plummer (with his first career nom. for The Last Station), and Stanley Tucci, one of the few constant positives in Peter Jackson's messy adaptation of The Lovely Bones. (Tucci was equally impressive opposite Meryl Streep in Julie & Julia). Then there's Woody Harrelson, who enjoyed a career resurgence in 2009, offering memorable supporting work in The Messenger (nominated here), 2012, and most notably Zombieland. As a monster hunting, Twinkie craving, Bill Murray fan, Harrelson's performance in the latter will stand the test of time. It's arguably the funniest thing he's ever done. But Waltz is the easy and deserving pick.
SNUB(s): 2009 featured a surprising number of strong comedic ensembles, from which three performers stood out; I Love You, Man's Jason Segel achieved 3-dimensionality as needy potential best man Sydney Fife; World's Greatest Dad's obnoxious teenager Daryl Sabara managed to steal several scenes away from Robin Williams (also good), & The Hangover's Zach Galifianakis turned heads with his turn as the strangest bachelor buddy in the year's runaway comedy smash. His pre-evening toast and subsequent blood oath was one of 2009's best onscreen moments.
Best Actress - Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side: By most accounts, a strong, solid performance against type for the actress best known for romantic comedies (shades of Julia Roberts' win a decade ago for Erin Brockovich, also based on a true story/character). Momentum seems to be in her corner, the biggest obstacle being the most nominated actor (male or female) of all-time. Meryl Streep submitted another stellar year (also noteworthy for It's Complicated) and seemed to effortlessly become famed chef Julia Child right before our eyes. And yet, I've been more slightly impressed with other roles by Streep in recent years (Adaptation, The Devil Wears Prada, etc...) that didn't win. I suspect she'll eventually win a third Oscar. The other nominees include The Last Station's Helen Mirren (who won this category for The Queen in 2006), An Education's 24 year-old Carey Mulligan, and Precious' abused title character, Gabourey Sidibe. Sidibe's work was heartbreaking and will likely leave the longest lasting impression (and would be my pick). But despite the strong field, this is a two-horse race. Factor in the popularity of last summer's The Proposal (this stuff matters) and it's Bullock's to lose, though should Streep win I wouldn't complain.
SNUB: Maya Rudolph, Away We Go, who for my money gave both the best and more unexpected female performance of 2009. Best known for her work since 2000 on Saturday Night Live, Rudolph brought depth and warmth to her role as Verona, a pregnant illustrator searching for a new home with her significant other Burt (John Krasinski, better than ever) whom she refuses to marry. The pair had great chemistry in the year's most underrated film.
Best Actor - Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart: 'The Dude' is due. A few months ago nobody even knew what Crazy Heart was, so the late surge was unexpected in a race previously led by George Clooney for Up in the Air. But all momentum points to Bridges, the respected veteran, whose versatile work over the years has now led to five Oscar nominations. I really need to see this film. Until then my personal pick is Clooney, who gave the best performance of his career and put to rest once and for all any detractors who see him only as a movie star. Unfortunately, he won a supporting Oscar just four years ago for Syriana, so it's going to be a while before he earns another. But on the basis of Michael Clayton and now this, he's heading in the right direction. Morgan Freeman has been one of the best actors alive for decades, but few saw his turn as Nelson Mandela. Colin Firth is supposedly terrific in A Single Man, but fewer people saw that than Invictus. The Hurt Locker's Jeremy Renner is the final nominee and there are whispers he could upset Bridges. A win for Renner would be shocking and disappointing. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing bad about his lead work in the no-nonsense war drama. I just didn't find it the least bit memorable and in fact thought the film's better performance was given by costar Anthony Mackie. But "The Dude abides."
SNUB(s): Two names stand out for different reasons. A Serious Man's Michael Stuhlbarg gave one the year's most unique performances as an uptight, socially awkward Jewish professor looking for life's meaning in the Midwest circa 1970. I've never seen a character quite like Stuhlbarg's Larry Gopnik and given the surprising support for the film, he seemed like a possibility. Then there's Robert De Niro, who quietly submitted his best performance in nearly a decade in Everybody's Fine. There seems to be an inescapable stigma surrounding De Niro these days that's he's lost whatever ability he once possessed. Though he's made some questionable script choices in recent years, this wasn't one of them. I can't help thinking had his role as a traveling widower and father of four been played by the likes of Jack Nicholson, audiences would've taken notice. Most critics praised his work, but the film's abysmal box-office obliterated any chance of a nomination.
Best Director - Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker: History is in the air. A win for Bigelow (James Cameron's ex and incidentally much too good looking for him) would represent the first time a female director has ever taken this category. The Hurt Locker was intelligent and intense, two qualities which often don't go together. It also avoided driving a message down the audience's throats, which may be Bigelow's ace-in-the-hole. If she loses it will be to Cameron, who managed to surpass enormous expectations for his epic Avatar, a sound story encompassed by enough technical razzle-dazzle to match a dozen summer event films. A backlash has already begun (as befalls any film that succeeds to this degree), though I can't recall a single person giving negative feedback after experiencing this film on the big screen. Whether Cameron wins or loses (he already has a directing win for Titanic), I have no doubt that Avatar will inspire a following long after Bigelow's film has faded from memory. Jason Reitman (Up in the Air), Lee Daniels (Precious), and Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds) round out one of the most impressive directing fields in years, with the 'Basterds' auteur delivered his most satisfying entertainment since Pulp Fiction. I wouldn't argue with supporters of any of the five, but my vote would ultimately go to Cameron.
SNUB: J.J. Abrams, Star Trek, though I'm reaching here since the directing nominations were about as on target as they could've been. But Abrams did a hell of a job rebooting the iconic franchise, appeasing older fans while creating an entertainment fast-paced enough for newcomers. It's the only 2009 movie I've seen three times and with each subsequent viewing I become more convinced it's one of the decade's best blockbusters. I've heard directors claim that if they cast a film right they're half-way home. Bull's-eye!
Best Picture - Avatar: Let’s get one thing straight right away. There aren't really ten nominees that can win this award. There are five and they match the nominees in the previous category. The five bonus picks were A Serious Man, Up, The Blind Side, An Education, & District 9. The only one I could see stealing a relevant number of votes is Up, but since that will be rewarded in the animated category, it's no real threat. Precious is a perfectly respectable drama with moments of real power, but it doesn't have nearly enough support to challenge for the top prize. Neither does Inglourious Basterds, which for every ardent supporter who claims it the year's best, there is another who completely dismisses it on the basis of its over-the-top violence and enthusiasm for fictionalizing history. Up in the Air stands the best chance of making this is three-way competition, a throwback to older Hollywood entertainments that depended most on writing and acting. But there's also a widespread belief that an entertainment this breezy is too light for the top prize (see Jerry Maguire, Good Will Hunting, Little Miss Sunshine, etc). This leaves us again with the heavy hitters. I suspect this could be one those rare years where the best picture winner does not match best director. Hollywood loves to reward commerce and large-than-life epics. Avatar happens to be both. It also boasts a "wow" factor unseen in years. Sure, we occasionally marvel at a scene in a movie and ask "How did they do that?" But Avatar sustained that audience response for nearly three hours. The Hurt Locker may win and many are predicting it will. It's a good film, but there are better ones in this category. Should The Hurt Locker take best picture I suspect it will eventually be regarded more in the realm of a Crash or Chicago, films that resonated for a short time and eventually prompted 2nd guessing. I'm actually not sure how I'd vote if given the opportunity. For me Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, and Up in the Air stood apart from everything else released in 2009, but I suppose it's a cheat to conclude this endless post without a prediction in the top category. So I'll go with the only one to inspire (as of March 5th) a 2nd viewing; Inglourious Basterds
SNUB: Away We Go, my favorite small film released in 2009. It's harder to find a big omission with ten nominees, which promised something animated (check), a big studio hit or two (check), and a couple of quirky independent films (check). But I did believe the academy would lean towards humor with so much wiggle room. Sam Mendes' truthful dramedy is my favorite film yet from the man behind American Beauty & Road to Perdition.
Now go out there and win your Oscar pool.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The Internet: Crack for the 21st Century (Part I)
Need proof? I am beginning to write this at 6am. Now this might not seem noteworthy to those who routinely begin their day at this hour, but I haven’t gone to bed yet. Working at a video store certainly doesn’t help. When I close (which I do often) I don’t get home until about 1am. I typically haven’t eaten dinner yet, since my shift starts around 5 or 6pm. My nightly unwinding need is a bit longer than others, as I rarely fall asleep immediately, though I shouldn’t really have to. If the average American gets home from work around 6pm, I imagine he or she is up for at least another 5-6 hours. Basically, my brain and body are on schedule, it’s just a bad schedule that begins when that of others has ended. And unfortunately there isn’t much cause to fix it, at least not now. I’ve tried to get up daily at a reasonable hour, but what’s the point? If I get up at 9am, have breakfast, shower, etc… now what? I don’t have to be at work for 8 hours! I can fill the gap by watching the thousands of free movies at my disposal (Who needs health insurance when I have this perk?). Or I can return to the good old internet which has in my view claimed the term “idiot box” from the television, though for some reason people are reluctant to admit this fact.
Homer Simpson circa 2002, “The internet! That thing’s still around?”
Honestly, aside from work how often do people use the internet for anything productive? It’s certainly more convenient to make travel arrangements and purchase flight than it was 15 years ago. Paying bills is easier, although most people consider this work anyway and I’m personally tired of the question “Want to go green?” That’s about it though. All the information in the world is stored in this ugly off-color rectangle that doesn’t go with anything in your living room. The internet is basically your drug of choice (as opposed to coffee, alcohol, or cocaine). Like a casino it never closes and possesses the power to stimulate the mind all night long. At 5:30 this morning, T sluggishly walked out from the bed room, saw me staring at the computer screen with the lights on and simply asked “Really?” And this from someone who recently created an impossible-to-remember facebook code for herself because she was spending entirely too much time on it. The net affects us all, and not necessarily for the better. I wonder how often the average person goes out for a walk anymore. I’d bet anything it’s less than 20 years ago, despite an entire industry now designed around advertising weight-loss programs, which pop up almost as frequently as adds to meet singles in “your” area.
The problem with the internet is it’s an addiction for adults. Kids routinely seem no more or less interested in it than they are with older addictions like video games and TV. But the truth is one can only engage in those activities for so long before tiring of them. Even when I was young (8 or 9) and stayed up for hours upon hours trying to beat Contra or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for NES, at some point I needed a break. How many times can anyone beat the same adventure game before needing a new activity? Not even I can stay glued to the couch for more than a single movie at a time. T and I cancelled cable 8 months ago now, a feat that stunned a good friend of mine who firmly believed I’d give up food before cable. As the meat of winter approaches and we begin to get a little stir-crazy we may turn it back on, though we’ve been generally ok with our decision. But neither of us can fathom cancelling the internet and not just because it’s impractical. We’d go insane, a relative term given the hour of my blogging.
I mentioned briefly the value of the ‘net’ for those who depend on it, namely students and adults who need it for work (though this group is a lot smaller than you think). The 1st group that pops into anyone’s head regarding adults who use the internet are office workers, who tend to use document files and excel spreadsheets for anything productive (both existed before and lack a dependence on the net). I laugh at the fact that every time we see Creed on “The Office” he’s playing snood, but just how far from reality is that? Another good friend of mine once had his computer confiscated at work because he wasn’t being productive.
It is true that many use the internet for research, but while certainly more convenient, it is a little sad that libraries (and books by the way) are becoming more and more obsolete. Anything you could ever want or need to read is available online, a killer of thousands of jobs and entire professions. Even a newspaper as reputable as The Boston Globe could fold, dashing the dreams of thousands of young writers who’d prefer to write in that type of atmosphere. There’s also something unnatural about having one’s morning coffee while banging away on your laptop as opposed to having a hard paper to highlight the day’s news. I don’t like it and I feel really bad for anyone above a certain age who’s worked a certain way their entire life and suddenly has to find a job doing work online because their specific line-of-work no longer exists.
And then there’s email, the single most widely used advent of the internet. Email will never leave. It’d be like eliminating cell-phones at this point. We want to reach people easier and faster, for important and irrelevant matters alike. Could there me a more impersonal way of communicating with people? At least we can keep tabs on that guy from our freshman dorm in college, who was sort of a friend/acquaintance. If we didn’t have email how would we find out what he does for work or if he still keeps in touch with that other random acquaintance? I will say this for email though; it does save us the awkward phone transitions when it’s clear to both parties that a conversation is over but neither knows how to sign off. All of a sudden you get an abundance of unnatural pauses and your usage of the word “anyway” increases by a multiple of five.
I suppose it’s a pretty futile exercise to bash the internet in 2010. My grandkids will some day laugh at me for being one of the remaining few thousand people on the planet who once had to write school papers by hand. I’ll have to explain to them what a post-office is, what the letters VCR stand for, and how my home internet connection could be interrupted by someone using the phone. They’ll turn to their siblings and roll they eyes, as if I’m the old man from “Up.” Nope, I’ve got to pick my battles. I’m sure if I think long and hard I can come up with several positive uses of the internet. Only then will I be able to unlock the mystery of how I spend all these insomniac hours.
Stay tuned for Part II.
Homer Simpson circa 2002, “The internet! That thing’s still around?”
Honestly, aside from work how often do people use the internet for anything productive? It’s certainly more convenient to make travel arrangements and purchase flight than it was 15 years ago. Paying bills is easier, although most people consider this work anyway and I’m personally tired of the question “Want to go green?” That’s about it though. All the information in the world is stored in this ugly off-color rectangle that doesn’t go with anything in your living room. The internet is basically your drug of choice (as opposed to coffee, alcohol, or cocaine). Like a casino it never closes and possesses the power to stimulate the mind all night long. At 5:30 this morning, T sluggishly walked out from the bed room, saw me staring at the computer screen with the lights on and simply asked “Really?” And this from someone who recently created an impossible-to-remember facebook code for herself because she was spending entirely too much time on it. The net affects us all, and not necessarily for the better. I wonder how often the average person goes out for a walk anymore. I’d bet anything it’s less than 20 years ago, despite an entire industry now designed around advertising weight-loss programs, which pop up almost as frequently as adds to meet singles in “your” area.
The problem with the internet is it’s an addiction for adults. Kids routinely seem no more or less interested in it than they are with older addictions like video games and TV. But the truth is one can only engage in those activities for so long before tiring of them. Even when I was young (8 or 9) and stayed up for hours upon hours trying to beat Contra or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for NES, at some point I needed a break. How many times can anyone beat the same adventure game before needing a new activity? Not even I can stay glued to the couch for more than a single movie at a time. T and I cancelled cable 8 months ago now, a feat that stunned a good friend of mine who firmly believed I’d give up food before cable. As the meat of winter approaches and we begin to get a little stir-crazy we may turn it back on, though we’ve been generally ok with our decision. But neither of us can fathom cancelling the internet and not just because it’s impractical. We’d go insane, a relative term given the hour of my blogging.
I mentioned briefly the value of the ‘net’ for those who depend on it, namely students and adults who need it for work (though this group is a lot smaller than you think). The 1st group that pops into anyone’s head regarding adults who use the internet are office workers, who tend to use document files and excel spreadsheets for anything productive (both existed before and lack a dependence on the net). I laugh at the fact that every time we see Creed on “The Office” he’s playing snood, but just how far from reality is that? Another good friend of mine once had his computer confiscated at work because he wasn’t being productive.
It is true that many use the internet for research, but while certainly more convenient, it is a little sad that libraries (and books by the way) are becoming more and more obsolete. Anything you could ever want or need to read is available online, a killer of thousands of jobs and entire professions. Even a newspaper as reputable as The Boston Globe could fold, dashing the dreams of thousands of young writers who’d prefer to write in that type of atmosphere. There’s also something unnatural about having one’s morning coffee while banging away on your laptop as opposed to having a hard paper to highlight the day’s news. I don’t like it and I feel really bad for anyone above a certain age who’s worked a certain way their entire life and suddenly has to find a job doing work online because their specific line-of-work no longer exists.
And then there’s email, the single most widely used advent of the internet. Email will never leave. It’d be like eliminating cell-phones at this point. We want to reach people easier and faster, for important and irrelevant matters alike. Could there me a more impersonal way of communicating with people? At least we can keep tabs on that guy from our freshman dorm in college, who was sort of a friend/acquaintance. If we didn’t have email how would we find out what he does for work or if he still keeps in touch with that other random acquaintance? I will say this for email though; it does save us the awkward phone transitions when it’s clear to both parties that a conversation is over but neither knows how to sign off. All of a sudden you get an abundance of unnatural pauses and your usage of the word “anyway” increases by a multiple of five.
I suppose it’s a pretty futile exercise to bash the internet in 2010. My grandkids will some day laugh at me for being one of the remaining few thousand people on the planet who once had to write school papers by hand. I’ll have to explain to them what a post-office is, what the letters VCR stand for, and how my home internet connection could be interrupted by someone using the phone. They’ll turn to their siblings and roll they eyes, as if I’m the old man from “Up.” Nope, I’ve got to pick my battles. I’m sure if I think long and hard I can come up with several positive uses of the internet. Only then will I be able to unlock the mystery of how I spend all these insomniac hours.
Stay tuned for Part II.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)