Oscar silly season in full swing

What is the difference between reading Oscar bloggers writing about the Academy Awards and crackpot conspiracy theorists spinning yarns about the CIA killing JFK or the Israeli secret service being behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks? At this time of year: Not much. With the Oscar ballots in the mail, the silly season has begun, when everyone on the Oscar blogging front starts wildly speculating about who's pulling dirty tricks or which movie--often for the most bizarrely inexplicable reasons--is poised to leap into contention in the best picture race.

The wonderers who wonder have come out of the woodwork, especially with a new controversy involving best picture favorite "Slumdog Millionaire" moving from back-burner to front-page headline status. As we wrote earlier this week, this is hardly a surprise, with virtually every modern-day Oscar front-runner getting hazed by the media, who love to build 'em up and then tear 'em down. But that didn't stop the New York Post's Lou Lumenick from idly speculating: "Is someone connected with one of the other best picture nominees behind a desperate smear campaign to stop prohibitive favorite 'Slumdog Millionaire'? Smells that way to me."

Lumenick's proof? None actually, though he finds it highly suspicious--as opposed to highly coincidental--that the news about 'Slumdog's' payments to its child actors "broke the same day as academy ballots were mailed out." (The italics are his.) Lumenick goes on to say: "We all know which truth-and ethically challenged mogul would benefit most from an upset," an obvious not-so veiled reference to "The Reader's" Harvey Weinstein, who, putting aside any ethical challenges, is the only studio chief today with enough personality to merit being called a mogul. Whatever Harvey's possible past offenses, I think he deserves to remain innocent until proven guilty. If Lou has some evidence, we should hear it, instead of getting pure innuendo.

But everywhere you look, someone is cooking up a crackpot Oscar theory. What are the silliest ones? Keep reading:

New York magazine's Vulture blog--which I'm normally a big fan of--is floating the notion that "Milk" is making a move into best picture contention, largely based on the notion that a win for "Milk" would "ease the sting of the 'Brokeback Mountain' snub" and "re-establish the academy as a place where tolerance prevails above all else."

Yeah, right! First off, how exactly did the academy snub "Brokeback"? Just because a good film lost doesn't mean it was snubbed--it simply means some other good film, in this case "Crash," got more votes. I'd be the first to argue that "Brokeback" will probably hold up better in the light of film history than "Crash," but that's true of dozens of other Oscar films too. Secondly, the academy is a group of 60,00 individuals, many of whom are at odds or insanely envious of each other. They don't all get together one night at the Mormon Temple and secretly agree who to vote for and who to snub, much less worry about redressing old wrongs. They look at their ballots and--rightly or wrongly--vote for the movie they like most at that moment.

And then there's Movie City News' always wacky David Poland, who smells a conspiracy involving Variety, saying the trade paper is selling what he calls "the absurd notion" that "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is hot on the heels of "Slumdog Millionaire." Putting aside the fact that Poland is often touting absurd notions himself, what would Variety's motive be for pushing "Button"? Hhmm, Poland doesn't say. Even worse, it turns out that one of the two examples Poland cites as the key to Variety's insidious "Button" selling campaign--a post by Variety Big Kahuna Peter Bart about the DGA Awards--scarcely makes the case for "Button" at all. It only has one tiny sentence wondering whether the academy's older constituency will rally behind a more traditional Hollywood film like "Button." Hardly a sales job, if you ask me.

But that's typical of Oscar silly season, where, particularly when there's one clear front-runner, the bored bloggers and pundits decide to float outlandish theories and engage in ad hominem attacks in the hopes of turning a dreary rout into a lively horse race. Sometimes its hard to tell where Oscar politics end and real old-fashioned partisan-divide politics begin. The new righty pop-culture blog, Big Hollywood, has a post by Geoff Shepard accusing "Frost/Nixon" of being--you guessed it--an ad hominem attack on Richard Nixon, full of "misrepresentations and sheer inventions," making Shepard wonder how much the truth can "be shaved in filmmaking without becoming outright propaganda."

Apparently Liberal Hollywood, in this case personified by "Frost/Nixon" filmmaker Ron Howard (who actually cast his first presidential vote for Nixon in 1972), has a insatiable loathing for Nixon. Shepard bolsters his case by unmasking all sorts of heinous factual distortions in the film, including a scene in the film where Nixon is wearing shirtsleeves--never happened, he says--and the film's portrayal of Frost giving Nixon a pair of Gucci loafers, which Shepard trumpets as a "complete and knowing fabrication." You begin to suspect that Shepard actually may have never seen a Hollywood movie before, since he seems to react to every writerly flourish in what is clearly billed as a fictionalized film as a stealthy example of political chicanery. It's enough to give conservative criticism a bad name, but then again, most of what passes for Oscar coverage at this time of year is enough to give showbiz journalism a bad name too.

Previous Post:

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE BACKLASH: FAIR OR FOUL

Comments

[bryan]

If it exists, I wondier if Variety's Button push has anything to do with Searchlight's decision to not buy as much ad space in the trades (to downplay Slumdog's front runner status which has developed into a backlash) as Paramount and even Focus. If Button "upsets" Slumdog, one could argue that Button benefited from a sustained trade campaign. Of course, i dont buy Poland's conspircay (yet) but i can see how it makes sense.

[David Poland]

I am endlessly amazed by your willingness to slam others for doing less silly stories than you are actually doing on this blog virtually every day you deign to make an entry.

You intentionally mislead your readers about what has been written and what the context is. Not quite an outright lie, but right on the cusp.

You misunderstand your ignorance of what's happening amongst awards consultants for confusion on the part of others... and do no reporting to determine what the truth is.

I only wish you had the guts to actually do even the tiniest bit of reporting for your annual attack instead of childishly sniping at others from behind the LA Times' now-tattered coattails, But you do not behave like a man of honor, much less a good reporter. Making a call or two might make you late for your lunch with some agent or hack producer at The Grill. Whose expense accounts are those lunches on these days, by the way?

Variety is cutting jobs, including those of your direct competitors, but you are so busy “reporting” on valet parking at the CAA building and Scott Rudin’s schadenfreude, that you can’t see – though you commented (a week after I had) on one example of it a few months back – that Bart continues to push the agenda that more ads need to be bought. (So silly!) You can’t even be bothered to note the firings. God forbid you would ever acknowledge how bad things are at LAT, where poorly paid freelancers now do most of the work in the entertainment sections you work for!

You got a rise out me, Patrick. My weakness. Probably your goal. You continue to aim low.

I won't dance on your journalistic grave when you lose this job, Patrick. You’ll get your few months at Slate... on to HuffPo... etc. But I won't sweat it either. Year after year, you have gotten smaller and smaller. Wrong direction. But it seems to be all you know after years of smelling your own gas and thinking it was not only sweet, but important. Pity.

[byanyother]

Don't you have anything better to do with your time than this kind of stuff? You are a talented writer but when you engage in this -- frankly, this obsession -- with David Poland you trivialize what you do. Writing on the Oscars is not important. It might be silly so here's a thought: don't read it. You and Poland both take turns acting like you're the smartest ones in the room and how much more you know about everything -- but sadly, again and again, you both miss the big picture; no one comes to your sites to read you whine about other people, especially not if you take that tone and especially not if you're saying things that have already been said, over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Oh and good call on The Reader being one the Academy would ignore. Uh......

[kidkosmic]

First time I've ever read a post by Goldstein, but it's enough to get a sense of who he is. A quick reading of the Frost/Nixon article on Big Hollywood reveals Goldstein's comments on the piece to be a childish generalization. I guess he assumes his readership will take his word and not bother to read it?

[Anne Hedley]

Well the good thing is that the best reason for anyone to go to or watch the Oscars - well Huh Jackman will be opresenting the Oscars and besides being a multo talented actor he sure is one helluv an entertainer. Unfortunately we may get to see this presentation i the UK - I just think what a pity the USA could not have supported "Australia" as much as it desereved it took the outside world to show how good the film was and the people in it. What I would not give to see Hugh find out last seconds in time he was announcing his own nomination. But as he will not get one there are many many fans out there who support him and if not diretly his fans that film was a breathe of fresh air. If anyoine out there in the UA reads you will find on ocasions there is more than one story and do I love that author who takes you to a really exciting part and leaves you hanging to prepare you for the same thing again. It is exciting, and so is Australia and I look forward to Hugh's films even if the script is not so hot he more than makes up for it with his characterisation.

[butterfly]

Love the movie and love the dance sequence at the end!!! It's such a great way to give us a little taste of indian movie culture!!

[toptop]

I'll be visiting LA during the Oscars. Does anyone know where you can watch the Oscars? Are there any public places that screen it?