Let Me See Your OSCAR Talk!

I went to the AMC Best Picture Showcase yesterday and saw all five Best Picture-nominated films. When I told my friends and family that I was going to do this they either told me that I was crazy or that they were happy because, as my best friend commented, "This is tailor-made for you."

It was fun and I won three prizes, which they gave out during the breaks between the movie for correctly answering Oscar trivia. I received a Milk-themed t-shirt, a calendar, and a full-size poster of The Wrestler. They gave us a large popcorn with free refills all day long, as well as allowing outside food and drink. Luckily, there was a Costa Vida next door!

I saw the films in the above order: Milk started at 10:30 a.m. and Frost/Nixon didn't get over until 11:45 p.m.!

I have to say that I am confused by the film awards season this year: some films that should be nominated aren't; some films that are nominated aren't getting the attention they deserve; and an actress is nominated in the wrong category.

I desperately wanted Milk to be "the film" of the year, much as Brokeback Mountain was "the film" of the year a couple of years ago; I wanted it to be great; it wasn't. Although I do have to admit that it was better upon a second viewing. To me, it felt like it was on a small scale; it localized gay-rights issues instead of focusing on, perhaps, a national movement or event (like Prop. 8). I do know that it was a true story and so the small-scale feeling of the film wasn't under the director's control. But I do have to say that it felt like more of a documentary than a narrative. Even more, Sean Penn's portrayal, while good, is nothing special (he will win the Best Actor Oscar anyway).

The Reader has been accused of stealing the fifth Best Picture nominations slot from The Dark Knight; nothing could be further from the truth. The Reader is a great story. However, I have to say that Kate Winslet does not deserve to win Best Actress for two reasons: 1) she plays a supporting role, and 2) she's had much more worthy performances. I am actually shocked that she did not win the Best Actress Oscar for her role in Little Children a couple of years ago (which also deserved a Best Picture nomination).

If any movie stole anything, it is The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I have to admit that this film was absolutely beautiful: great cinematography, great special effects, great art direction. However, the film was too long by at least 45 minutes! A great deal of time was wasted on tangent plot lines that didn't add much to the film. Brad Pitt (who doesn't deserve his Best Actor nomination) and Cate Blanchett have absolutely no chemistry together. The most tiring thing about the movie was Benjamin's and Daisy's relationship: she wants to sleep with him but he says no; he visits her in New York City but she now has a boyfriend; she comes back to him and they have a baby; he decides to abandon his family; then he comes back but she has a new husband. This is bland melodrama and it doesn't make sense.

Slumdog Millionaire wasn't what I was expecting at all: it was violent and moody, yet joyful and full of love. I found myself rooting for Jamal and wanted him and Latika to end up together. The twists and turns in the end are what makes the film worth the journey (I won't spoil anything). Dev Patel, who plays Jamal, deserves a Best Supporting Actor nomination.

Frost/Nixon is nominated for four major awards (Picture, Director, Actor, Adapted Screenplay) yet is receiving little attention. This is unfortunate because this film is so intense and satisfies the audience. Frank Langella deserves to win the Best Actor prize.

I would rank the Best Picture nominees in this order, from Best to Worst:

1) Frost/Nixon, 2) The Reader, 3) Slumdog Millionaire, 4) Milk, 5) The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I could make my own Best Picture list, it would look something like this:

Doubt is the best film I've seen this past year. Meryl Streep deserves to win her third Oscar for her performance in this film. It is a film entirely driven by its performances; one weak actor would ruin the entire film. It's a great thing, then, that all four of its major players received acting nominations. Furthermore, Amy Adams deserves to win the Supporting Actress Oscar for her performance in this film as well. This movie makes you think; the ending is ambiguous and is left up to the audience member to decide for himself. If you haven't seen this movie - GO SEE IT!

Just about everybody and their dogs have seen The Dark Knight, which was snubbed for just about everything! It should've been nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and many more. Heath Ledger is a lock for Best Supporting Actor, and deservedly so.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for my predictions.

Best Picture and Best Director

WILL WIN: Slumdog Millionaire; Although I have heard of late that the recent Prop. 8 controversy may play a role in an upset; some are predicting that Milk will walk away with one or both of the awards as a political statement. I doubt that.

SHOULD WIN: Frost/Nixon or The Reader

Best Actor

WILL WIN: Sean Penn (Milk) - (his win will be the political statement hypothesized above).

SHOULD WIN: Frank Langella (Frost/Nixon)

Best Actress

WILL WIN: Kate Winslet (The Reader)

SHOULD WIN: Meryl Streep (Doubt); some have predicted an upset in this category, although it is very unlikely.

Best Supporting Actor

WILL/SHOULD WIN: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)

Best Supprting Actress

WILL WIN: I'm going out on a limb here, as this is the most wide-open race: Taraji P. Henson (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). Although Penelope Cruz has swept earlier awards for Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Henson will win because she is the only actress who is in a Best Picture-nominated film.

SHOULD WIN: Amy Adams (Doubt)

Chris Buttars Can Kiss My Ass! (and More Opinions)

NOTE: In the past I have refrained from criticizing the Church and specific individuals because I had always thought that those actions are unbecoming of an ethical human being. However, due to recent events discussed below, I cannot remain silent anymore; I have an obligation to speak out. I need to release these feelings.

I've been patient. I've given my fellow Utahns and its legislative leaders the benefit of the doubt. I was naive.

Even after the Church specifically named certain rights that it believes gays and gay couples should receive; after Equality Utah and a few legislators drafted bills based on the specific rights mentioned by the Church - they did nothing. And by they, I mean the legislators AND the Church.

Recently, the Church has been fairly involved in legislation regarding immigration issues and liquor laws; why would the Church not issue another statement backing the Common Ground Initiative? Don't tell me it's because the Church is "neutral;" it clearly is not. (This is discussed later).

If the Church had issued another statement endorsing the Common Ground Initiative, then the legislators on Capitol Hill would have been clamoring over each other to sponsor the bills, inevitably making some contrived public statement that he/she has always supported the rights in the Common Ground Initiative.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Senator Chris Buttars: You are a sorry excuse for a man and a disgrace to all Mormons and Utahns. I have morals you son-of-a-bitch. Who do you think you are? As far as I am concerned, you can suck it.

I hope you get cancer.

Furthermore, your claims that Reed Cowan "assured [you] that he would treat both sides of the issue fairly and that [you] would be treated fairly... and told [you] that the interview would be made public in about a year and [you] would be allowed to see his work and approve [your] part before he released it" are blatant lies.

You signed a release form. You never asked for your statements to be taken off-the-record. To "take [Reed] at his word" is incomprehensible given the fact that you have a penchant for being scrutinized in the media because you make inflammatory statements. Dumbass.

The sad fact is, you were re-elected after you made racist comments on the Senate floor. Your constituents agree with what you have to say.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Utahns, especially Mormons, can't have it both ways. Mormons claim that it is unfair to blame them for the passage of Proposition 8, given that they make up only 2% of the California electorate. But they donated at least 40% of the money used to promote its passage. I dare say that without all the financial resources Mormons provided to Pro-Proposition 8 organizations, the Proposition wouldn't have passed.

Mormons are willing to take all the credit for its passage; case in point: a recent comment in Elders' Quorum by a Californian visiting a relative in my ward claimed that very fact: without the Mormons, Proposition 8 wouldn't have passed. However, when people started protesting the Church; when people specifically targeted Utah for boycotts; when churches were vandalized - Mormons were (and still are) quick to cry afoul, asking, "What did I ever do to you?" You can't have your cake and eat it too!

There is a genuine disconnect in the communication between Mormons and the "other side." Mormons perceive that the "other side" objects to them voting their consciences; voting based on their moral, even religious, beliefs. NEWSFLASH: That is not what the "other side" objects to. It objects to the fact that Church leaders issued conflicting statements: one regarding alleged political neutrality and another specifically asking Mormons to donate of their time and means to the passage of Proposition 8.

But then another genuine disconnect is encountered: Mormons say that Proposition 8 was not a political issue but, rather, a moral issue. With the "other side" claiming otherwise, this specific disconnect is the root of the problem: neither side will budge on on the "moral/political" nature of this issue - and until one does (which will never happen), healing on both sides will never take place.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another irony: one of the arguments used back in 2004 in promoting the passage of Amendment 3 (which defined marriage as between one man and one woman) was that, essentially, nothing could be legally equated to marriage; there was one definition and one definition only. However, the argument used against the passage of the five bills in the Common Ground Initiative was that of a "slippery slope" to the point that gay marriage will slowly and eventually be established in the State of Utah...

My question is this: if that is the argument, then why the hell was the passage of Amendment 3 so important? Amendment 3 was supposedly untouchable - after all, it is now a part of the Utah Constitution. The fact is, because Amendment 3 is now a part of the Utah Constitution, the "slippery slope" argument holds no weight; if a proposed state bill conflicts with the Utah Constitution, then that bill is, by definition, unconstitutional, and that bill will never pass. Do you, Gayle Ruzicka, and you, Chris Buttars, and all you other legislators have so little faith in your state's Constitution that you would be threatened by a bill that would make hiring/firing an employee on the basis of sexual orientation (gay or straight) illegal? Really?! Really?!

Furthermore, the five bills in the Common Ground Initiative never discussed gay marriage or civil unions. The bills outlined medical, legal, and property rights as well as discrimination protections and were offered on an a la carte basis. Failure of their passage contradicts Mormons' claims that they don't hate gays and are just opposed to a redefinition of marriage. (And I can legitimately say "Mormons" and not "legislators" because a full 80% of Utah's legislators are LDS).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact is this: Proposition 8 passed. Fine. Later, the Church issued a statement naming specifically six types of gay rights that it supports. You did not pass one of them.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If the Church was right about Proposition 8 then it was right about the Common Ground Initiative.

And, once again, just for kicks: Chris Buttars - you can Kiss My Ass!