And the nominees are...

Yesterday the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences released the nominees for their 83rd annual Academy Award show, better known as the Oscars. Now, I know the Oscars aren't perfect (see my post on The Blind Side if you don't believe me), but despite working in an entirely subjective area, they provide a pretty reasonable foundation for what constitutes great art within the medium of film.

The glitz and glamor can be fun. The history is great. Whoever is hosting usually has an enormous impact on how enjoyable the 3+ hours are (James Franco and Anne Hathaway could be fun), and it is an especially interesting twist that for the first time ever, a host will also be a nominee (Franco for 127 Hours), but the real reason I watch is the debate. So I thought I would open it up here to you guys for some friendly discussion. There is a link to the the full list of nominees at the bottom of the post. Go peruse and let me know what you think. Who got left off, who has no place being included, who should win, who is just receiving a career nomination... etc. So far the biggest stories appear to be the snubs of Christopher Nolan in the Best Director category for Inception, and the documentary Waiting For Superman.

James Franco and Anne Hathaway

In addition, I want to at least float the idea of the possibility of live Routinely Average coverage of the Oscars. I believe I have the technology (or as I call it... magic) all figured out, so there could potentially be some live blogging going on if you are interested. Thoughts and suggestions are always appreciated. Thanks for reading.

Link to list of nominees.

Old versus New

Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck in Roman Holiday

A while ago I had a long debate with a friend of mine on the importance of old movies. My friend, a terrific movie watcher and all-around good guy, was under the impression that old movies were virtually irrelevant at this point. Obviously special effects and graphics of today blow away the most advanced movies of 20 years ago, let alone the 1940s. My friend, lets call him Joe, went farther than that however, claiming all aspects of movie making were more sophisticated now. Screenwriting, acting, cinematography. Modern directors have learned from their predecessors and are now building on top of if. That is not to say that Joe thinks all new movies are great and all old movies are crap. He just feels that a good new movie tops a good old movie any day, and doesn't understand the fuss about all the classics. I have several other friends, movie lovers even, whose film watching repertoire is nearly complete among the new releases section, but develops giant gaps the farther back in time we go.

I hold a different view point. I love old films. Sometimes, I'll admit the label of classic can be misleading. If Roman Holiday were released today, it would star Julia Roberts or Rachel McAdams instead of Audrey Hepburn, and be rightly lambasted as pure escapism. Many Marilyn Monroe movies are downright sexist, and I even find (gasp) Casablanca to be a bit tedious. Just because they were great at the time does not mean they remain great now. I still enjoy watching these, mainly because I have some historian in me. Even though the original telephone cannot compare to an iphone in terms of utility and elegance, it would still be cool to use one. But I understand that argument does not apply to everyone. I love watching the truly great old movies for a very simple reason. They stood the test of time.

Christopher Nolan's Inception is a terrific movie. It is exciting, subversive, thoughtful, complex, event and character driven, philosophical while still being escapism. Yet as of right now, Inception has appealed to exactly one audience in time. The 2010 movie going audience. In 2040 will people still be wowed by the craftsmanship that went into Inception? I think so, but I also think Avatar, despite being a best picture nominee an the highest grossing film of all-time, will fade into history as at best, nothing more than a landmark for special effects. 

Joseph Gordon-Levitt in Inception

Then you have movies like The African Queen, Adam's Rib, or Citizen Kane. The Orson Welles' masterpiece was created in 1941. It continues to capture the hearts of cinephiles now almost 70 years after it was released. If I had to bet, I would guess that movie watchers will still be wowed by Citizen Kane in 2040 and long after that. For me at least, that is the definition of a classic.

All the News that's fit to type

Hello, and welcome to RA's news update. Lots of new things happening here. I'd like to extend a welcome to our newest writer, my kid brother Michael. Unlike myself, Michael is actually studying film, so instead of some random baseless opinions, you will be getting college educated baseless opinions. Much more desirable.

And now... the news.

News: Irishcentral.com has recently reported that bad boy Colin Farrell is Paramount Pictures' first choice to play rocker Ozzy Osborne in an upcoming biopic. LINK
RA's Take: As the article points out, Mr. Farrell is more than capable of passing for crazy. Portraying the bat-eating lead singer of Black Sabbath is just the next logical step. I, for one, am rooting for Farrell to get the part.


News: Collider has posted a Steve Carell press conference where he talks about voice-acting, the new animated film, Despicable Me, and his impending departure from The Office. LINK
RA's Take: The biggest news here is obviously The Office and when Carell removes Michael Scott from the equation, it's hard to imagine the show being nearly as good. I must confess however, to being within the group that thinks the show stopped being great a while ago and should take this a sign to call it quits.


News: Contrary to previous RA reports, it appears Andrew Garfield will be playing Peter Parker in the new Spider-Man reboot. Here is a rumor that Garfield will only make $500,000 dollars for the film. For comparison, Tobey Maguire made $4 million for  the 2002 version. LINK
RA's Take: While that certainly appears to be a low amount, the movie is rumored to have a fairly small budget, and Garfield is no Maguire. Garfield has appeared in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, and will be in the upcoming Facebook movie, The Social Network, but Spider-Man will make him a star if all goes to plan. Hence his acceptance of the low price tag.


News: We have here a link to an interview with Sir Ian McKellen discussing acting in the theater, and more importantly, the likelihood of playing Gandalf the Grey in The Hobbit. He is not under contract, and is not willing to wait endlessly for the film's numerous other delays to sort themselves out. He is not gone for sure, but the situation seems precarious. LINK
RA's Take: It is hard to blame McKellen for wanting to pursue other avenues for his career, but this announcement still comes at a bad time for a project that has been wracked with difficulties. I really hope that Peter Jackson can step in and sort this all out, but that appears to be increasingly less likely. I just can't picture anyone else playing Gandalf.

News: Cinematical has just published a long and in-depth review of Inception. This is probably the most anticipated film of the summer as director Christopher Nolan releases his first movie since the record-breaking, The Dark Night. LINK
RA's Take: Nolan is on a hot streak, and the rave reviews Inception is getting would seem to indicate he doesn't plan on slowing down anytime soon. I can not wait to see this movie.