The Academy almost always messes this stuff up.

Note:  Over the coming weeks I will be writing about the Oscars, giving you my personal, sometimes very idiosyncratic, picks on who or what should win (whether they were nominated or not), and then give you my opinion on who is likely to win from the nominees.  Today I am going to talk about Woody Allen, Cate Blanchett, and the Academy Awards, in general.

Take for instance that William Randolph Hearst and his media empire intimidated Hollywood and the Academy enough that Citizen Kane was nearly 'deleted' and/or destroyed before it was released, and that every single time one of the many nominations for Citizen Kane came  up, it was roundly booed at the Academy Awards.  Citizen Kane won only one award, for best screenplay, and that was really for Herman J Mankewicz, a recognition for all his significant contributions to building the Golden Age of Hollywood.

Or, let us talk about the Academy giving Elia Kazan a lifetime achievement award.

I would not be the least surprised to hear boos when Woody Allen's name is called at the Academy Awards next month.  Academy members are allowed to express their opinions, certainly.  Allen, himself, will not be there.  He never attends award ceremonies.  But, I am curious to see if Academy members will  boo Cate Blanchett or Sally Hawkins.  I would hope not, but like I said, the Academy almost always makes the wrong choice, or does the wrong thing when it comes to controversial issues like this.

And, I think we can pretty much forget any chance of Ms Blanchett winning Best Actress this year.  (I really do not believe Ms Hawkins had any shot at winning in her category, Best Supporting Actress.) Which is a real shame.  Ms Blanchett's performance in Blue Jasmine is certainly deserving, and is the type of performance the Academy generally adores.  But her association with Allen will likely prohibit her from taking home the Oscar.

Instead, I think, this year's Best Actress Award will go to Amy Adams.  (Much to my Wife's chagrin, who believes Ms Adams should win the Academy Award for Most Acting While Not Wearing a Bra.  When will that category be created?)

Yet, if I were King Academy Award, I would give the Best Actress Award to Barbara Sukowa for her mesmerizing, slinky, and seductive performance as Hannah Arendt.

Still, King Academy Award and the Academy could very well be agreeing with each other regarding the Best Supporting Actress category.  As elated as I am that Ms Hawkins (one of my absolute favorite movie stars right now) received her second nomination -- she should have won Best Actress for Happy-Go-Lucky! -- I think that Jennifer Lawrence and Mickey Sumner (as Sophie in Frances Ha) should share this award.  Ms Lawrence in American Hustle reminded me so much of say, Judy Holliday's sterling performance in Adam's Rib.  Or Jean Hagan's performances in Singin' in the Rain and Adam's Rib.  Or Ruth Hussey in The Philadelphia Story, etc, ... Meanwhile, Ms Sumner gave one of the richest and most complex performances I have seen this past year; an exquisite study of female friendship.

As for Best Original Screenplay, notwithstanding the controversy, Mr Allen is deserving of the nomination, but will not win.  I imagine it will go to either Bob Nelson for Nebraska or Eric Warren Singer and David O Russell for American Hustle.

If I were King Academy Award, however, I would give the prize to Noah Baumbach and Greta Gerwig for Frances Ha.  Seriously, for just this passage alone:

Frances: It's that thing when you're with someone, and you love them and they know it, and they love you and you know it... but it's a party... and you're both talking to other people, and you're laughing and shining... and you look across the room and catch each other's eyes... but - but not because you're possessive, or it's precisely sexual... but because... that is your person in this life. And it's funny and sad, but only because this life will end, and it's this secret world that exists right there in public, unnoticed, that no one else knows about. It's sort of like how they say that other dimensions exist all around us, but we don't have the ability to perceive them. That's - That's what I want out of a relationship. Or just life, I guess.

All my love,
xxxoooxxx

My gosh.

No one is exactly covering themselves in glory here.  And gossip might truly be the new pornography.  And Twitter (and friendface to a lesser but still significant effect) is the new bathroom wall of the internet.

There is nowt a objective voice to be heard.  Instead we get  the sound of axes grinding over the tumult and shouting of a family's tragedy.

This is no good, and is factually incorrect in spots.

This is disgusting, and should never have seen print.  Ms Saunders is obviously using this family tragedy as a political football to apologize for the GOP's legitimate War on Women.

This, like so many others, presumes through statistics, that anyone who might disagree with her is blaming the victim.

Which brings me to this column, which Ms Valenti links to, which is one of the worst yet.  It is appalling to me that someone could suggest to have it both ways, stating, "The second reason it’s okay if I’m wrong is that I’m probably not wrong. It’s much more likely that I’m right." Who says? This is your gut speaking? You have absolutely no bonafide or serious information to back you up on this issue.  That someone pays this gentleman to write is an abomination.

This piece, reviled by the Farrow camp, and nonetheless actually full of hard facts about the case, is not be trusted due to conflict of interest.

This is not so bad, but still faintly smells of advertising and marketing.  (And, let me say this:  Any public carping that the NYT is selling right now about whether or not they should publish Mr Allen's response right now is reprehensible.  It is only an excuse to sell newspapers.  Allen's response will be in the NYT for sure.  And, I am also disturbed by the notion that Nicholas Kristof and the NYT were the vehicle for Dylan Farrow's statement.  As much as someone would like to chastise Mr Allen for being wealthy, white, and powerful; it is also good to point out that the Farrow's have a powerful media figure to proclaim their stories, as well.)

This is crap.

This is crap, too.

And, there is still so much more crap out there for all of us to enjoy!

But, this one by Molly Lambert for Grantland has got to be the absolute worst one of all.  Ms Lambert needs to stick to her witty recaps of Mad Men.  Seriously!

This was shitty.  And, he did apologize.

The best thing I have seen on this issue was on Jezebel.  Which many in the Farrow camp would be angry with because Jezebel said that Allen's marriage with Ms Previn should not be an issue in this case.  (It is a massive difference between legal creepy and pedophilia.  That is mds speaking.)

The next best thing I have seen on this is our nation's news leader, The Onion's, take on this:  Boy, I've Really Put You in a Tough Spot, Haven't I? Of course, many in both camps probably see this faux editorial in bad taste.  I see it as by far the most relevant conversation to the topic.

Say what you will about the justice system, but the only objective parties for this issue decided that there was no case to pursue.  And, these allegations occurred during an extremely public and incendiary custody battle.  Which makes this argument a matter of faith.  I know where I stand on this question, and I respect the many others that might disagree with me.  I sincerely hope that those that disagree with me would fashion me the same respect.
















All my love,
Michael David Spitler