10 February 2011
shut up sasha stone.
i preface the following by stating that i really love sasha stone, and her site awardsdaily is my favorite oscar blog. i also enjoy her other self-titled and non-film themed blog. i find her writing generally witty and entertaining and sometimes insightful. and overall i think she has good taste in movies. that being said. . .
shut up sasha stone.
we get it. you like the social network. but the way you have droned on over the past few weeks regarding the movie's oscar chances when pitted against the king's speech is unbecoming, immature and strange. here's a recap:
january 30 "in a year of grand and visionary cinema, it will go down with a conventional winner taking probably all of the top awards"
january 30 "the king's speech set to sweep oscars"
january 31 "the oscar race is over: the king's speech will be named best film of 2010"
january 31 "harvey Weinstein is, was and will always be a powerful dude. this oscar coup de gras will go down as one of the greats, no doubt about it."
january 31 "it wasn’t until i actually saw him speak that i realized what an ace up their sleeve the king’s speech campaign had in screenwriter david seidler."
february 1 "the oscars are going social network-y. no, not in the way that you think."
i'll stop there, even though stone certainly hasn't. this is just a handful of posts she has written over the past couple weeks lamenting the fact that the social network didn't win the academy award and cynically and facetiously applauding harvey weinstein for engineering a win by a far inferior work. several things are wrong with this:
1. the oscars aren't happening for another two weeks. sure, the king's speech won the pga, dga and sag awards. but the social network has won literally dozens and dozens of critics (and industry) awards as well. the oscar race is FAR from over. i still very strongly feel that the social network is far out ahead in this race and will win in a landslide. i actually think the king's speech brief surge is in the social network's favor as a lot of oscar voters are probably slightly more apt to vote for a movie they see as in danger of not pulling off the win. i don't get why stone is SO convinced that the oscar race is over at this point. calm down and wait for the ballots to be counted.
2. there is nothing wrong with the king's speech. it is a fine movie, and everyone has been saying so for months. it's only now that the movie is collecting a few notches in the win column (at the expense of another) that people are clamoring over one another to tear it apart as an inferior and old fashioned film that nobody will remember in a few months except as a blight on the history of the academy awards. i don't care how much you love the social network, you can't deny that the king's speech is a fine movie as well.
now, i admit that there is little chance that i will convince stone of the veracity of either of the above statements. still, there is a third fact of which she and everyone in her cohort absolutely must be reminded.
3. it's the oscars and the best film of the year (almost) never wins! i suppose the math goes something like: 5% best picture winners great; 90% best picture winners fine; 5% best picture winners terrible. everytime i get irritated by best picture winners i just can't get behind (i.e. the hurt locker) losing out to what i see as outstanding, groundbreaking, artistically and/or technically visionary work (i.e. avatar) i just remind myself that forrest fucking gump won best picture and pulp fiction didn't. simple as that.
let's all take a pill and realize that it's basically just a big fun game, that everyone has their own taste, and that, in the end, not winning the oscar doesn't make a film any less important, entertaining or influential. ¶ 2/10/2011 08:37:00 PM
i preface the following by stating that i really love sasha stone, and her site awardsdaily is my favorite oscar blog. i also enjoy her other self-titled and non-film themed blog. i find her writing generally witty and entertaining and sometimes insightful. and overall i think she has good taste in movies. that being said. . .
shut up sasha stone.
we get it. you like the social network. but the way you have droned on over the past few weeks regarding the movie's oscar chances when pitted against the king's speech is unbecoming, immature and strange. here's a recap:
january 30 "in a year of grand and visionary cinema, it will go down with a conventional winner taking probably all of the top awards"
january 30 "the king's speech set to sweep oscars"
january 31 "the oscar race is over: the king's speech will be named best film of 2010"
january 31 "harvey Weinstein is, was and will always be a powerful dude. this oscar coup de gras will go down as one of the greats, no doubt about it."
january 31 "it wasn’t until i actually saw him speak that i realized what an ace up their sleeve the king’s speech campaign had in screenwriter david seidler."
february 1 "the oscars are going social network-y. no, not in the way that you think."
i'll stop there, even though stone certainly hasn't. this is just a handful of posts she has written over the past couple weeks lamenting the fact that the social network didn't win the academy award and cynically and facetiously applauding harvey weinstein for engineering a win by a far inferior work. several things are wrong with this:
1. the oscars aren't happening for another two weeks. sure, the king's speech won the pga, dga and sag awards. but the social network has won literally dozens and dozens of critics (and industry) awards as well. the oscar race is FAR from over. i still very strongly feel that the social network is far out ahead in this race and will win in a landslide. i actually think the king's speech brief surge is in the social network's favor as a lot of oscar voters are probably slightly more apt to vote for a movie they see as in danger of not pulling off the win. i don't get why stone is SO convinced that the oscar race is over at this point. calm down and wait for the ballots to be counted.
2. there is nothing wrong with the king's speech. it is a fine movie, and everyone has been saying so for months. it's only now that the movie is collecting a few notches in the win column (at the expense of another) that people are clamoring over one another to tear it apart as an inferior and old fashioned film that nobody will remember in a few months except as a blight on the history of the academy awards. i don't care how much you love the social network, you can't deny that the king's speech is a fine movie as well.
now, i admit that there is little chance that i will convince stone of the veracity of either of the above statements. still, there is a third fact of which she and everyone in her cohort absolutely must be reminded.
3. it's the oscars and the best film of the year (almost) never wins! i suppose the math goes something like: 5% best picture winners great; 90% best picture winners fine; 5% best picture winners terrible. everytime i get irritated by best picture winners i just can't get behind (i.e. the hurt locker) losing out to what i see as outstanding, groundbreaking, artistically and/or technically visionary work (i.e. avatar) i just remind myself that forrest fucking gump won best picture and pulp fiction didn't. simple as that.
let's all take a pill and realize that it's basically just a big fun game, that everyone has their own taste, and that, in the end, not winning the oscar doesn't make a film any less important, entertaining or influential. ¶ 2/10/2011 08:37:00 PM
