Chicago: The Eponymous Thread

"Vindication at last. Perhaps now society will look upon our women not as the fairer sex but with an equal eye and as much to blame as the men."

I did! The head copy editor brought in a couple of boxes.

I guess my point was, I've never heard of it, there was no Oscar buzz attached to it, and IMDB (which apparently has been redesigned?) says it came out in 2005.

Because I love the whole horse-race aspect of it, seeing what the pundits are predicting and if momentum is shifting in one direction or another, and because, like baseball, I love all the lore and the trivia and the history attached to it, and because I also sincerely love watching the show to see who wins and to see what everyone's wearing and to yell at the screen and make fun of celebrities with a dozen friends at someone's apartment with beer and snacks, and with some stake in it, too (since I'll be betting on it -- two years ago I won over $200). It's one of my favorite days of the year.

No. More like, why would I NOT know about a movie WITH Oscar buzz?

3.5 hours left of this dumbaroo work day...

In New Orleans, Bands Struggle to Regain Footing

Oscars are Sunday night.

Whatsay some of us organize a little road trip? I have a hankering for New Orleans!

I say with conviction that I WILL be in NO for Carnival next year. The only thing that can keep me away is being a FT student, or perhaps death.

Anyway, is the winner of a sports competition really the best team? Sure, they scored their way to the top, but if you replayed any game they were in, they could often just as easily have won, so the empirical reason for calling them "the best" is not unquestionable, and there is room for subjectivity. Right?

Stupid because it's relative? I mean, obv. there's no way to prove that such-and-such film is the "best" of the year, but I guess I like the idea of history recording what many people's consensus favorite is. When I say "get it right," partially I'm talking about agreeing with ME (which is admittedly silly) -- but I'm also talking about the Oscars reiterating what seems to be the overall critical/public opinion. Last year, I was disappointed by Crash winning, on one hand because *I* thought that Brokeback Mountain was the superior film, but mostly because Brokeback was a fascinating cultural phenomenon and a Best Picture win would've capped off its narrative in a really satisfying way.

Oh wait, I just remembered, you didn't like it.

I don't think "get it right" necessarily means "agree with me," only since one's reasons for believing a movie is The Best would have to extend beyond your own particular opinion. Right?

I agree with this.

Anyway, is the winner of a sports competition really the best team? Sure, they scored their way to the top, but if you replayed any game they were in, they could often just as easily have won, so the empirical reason for calling them "the best" is not unquestionable, and there is room for subjectivity. Right?

The difference is that the whole purpose of a baseball team is to win the World Series, the whole purpose of a football team is to win the Super Bowl, etc. Few movies are created with the primary purpose of winning an Oscar.

I meant BBM. If it wasn't clear.

Few movies are created with the primary purpose of winning an Oscar.

Maybe the way they get it really wrong is by nominating mostly/only films that are made for this purpose.

so lowest common denomenator wins here? i dunno, i have lousy taste in films especially.

As for Oscars, I could not possibly care less about who wins what and whose performance was best. I find actors talking about acting to be boring. That does not mean that it IS boring, just that I, Armando, find it to be boring.

1. General concept of art being a competition.
2. Terrible movies always nominated.
3. People acting like they are actually a measure of quality.

YES

http://www.cdzone.co.uk/scans/S/p/Sparks/351847f.jpg

Yes.

so lowest common denomenator wins here?

I'm not sure that's the best way to describe it, since in the context of film, that term is too redolent of big gross-out comedies or whatever. I mean, yes, it's a consensus, but it's a consensus of what's considered quality.

I find actors talking about acting to be boring.

Hmmm, yeah, I actually find it pretty interesting. But I don't think you find any actors talking about acting on the Oscars. In fact, about the only place you'll actually find actors talking about acting -- I mean, really going into depth about the craft -- is on Charlie Rose or Inside the Actors Studio.