Am I the only one who thinks 3 technical awards is not a failure?

(I haven't posted in awhile, but the Oscars always bring out the ranter in me)

And 10 nominations too, for that matter. I know it really is a cliche to say "Oh, well it's an honor just to be nominated", but god, it's true.

I'm talking about The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which was one of my favourite films of 2008 and one that has apparently lost much respect because of that bombastic cheesy mess known as the Oscars, and I don't quite understand why.



Before I continue, let me just say that I'm not one of the fanboys who is going to bitch and moan about Benjamin Button not winning OVER 9000 Oscars. It was, in my opinion, a beautifully orchestrated and moving film, but it did not deserve over 9000 Oscars. But it deserved what it received - not because it deserves to be ridiculed for not winning the apparently "more important" Oscars, but because it deserved to win awards for the very things that made it a quality film in the first place.

The Oscars are, at best, fairly overblown and pompous. This was clearly evident in last night's excessive attempts to bring back the good old fashioned Hollywood glamour. The ritualistic sense of pageantry - who's wearing what on the red carpet, who arrives with whom, who makes the schmaltziest acceptance speech, etc etc - ensures that it is the one film event that is sure to be watched by millions. Most of the millions are people who aren't aware of formal film criticism and techniques and who, more often than not, haven't seen most of the films nominated. Therefore, they aren't in a place to appreciate the finer details of what goes in to making a film a film, like the aforementioned technical aspects. I realize there are exceptions to this rule, that there are average moviegoers who appreciate cinematography and editing and so forth, I would sound pretentious if I did not admit it. But judging by box office trends, the average moviegoer does not make a beeline for Oscar nominated films when they go to the cinema.

Anyway, before I get ridiculously off-topic like I usually do, why is it shameful that Benjamin Button won technical awards? I know Best Actor/Actress/Picture awards are obviously the most publicized awards at the Oscars, but is it just because more people are sure to recognize actor names and discuss the latest celebrity news around the water cooler? Last time I checked, actors and actresses do not make a movie. It is the sum of the total parts of everyone who works toward making it a success, and this includes the cinematographer, the art director, the film editor, the makeup artist, the key grip, even the guy who gets Brad Pitt coffee in the morning. And hell, is it really that bad to enjoy a movie because it looks lovely? Is someone shallow for appreciating a beautifully composed shot or set?

So no, it probably wasn't amazing enough to warrant a Best Picture Award, or a Best Actor Award (I like Brad Pitt but he was not at his best here, but that's another story). But the art direction was lovely, and the makeup, and the visual effects, and those are the awards it won. And if you think it deserved more than that, that's entirely your opinion, and your opinion is not invalid. But the Oscars is not about your opinion, it's about the opinion of people in the industry. And that should mean little in influencing your opinion, because if you love a movie, you love it because it spoke to you, regardless of what awards or critical acclaim is bestowed upon it.

Hell, my favourite movie ever is The Big Lebowski. Not an Oscar in sight, but I'm not bothered by that in the slightest.

I miss when vampires used to be cool.

I'm not sold on all this Twilight business.

I tried reading it. I really did. But somewhere in between the horribly awkward sentence structuring, the Hallmark card "romantic" dialogue, the bland characterization (even if there are entire paragraphs devoted to Hot Vampire Guy's appearance), and the throwback to 1950's female gender roles that only a Mormon stay-at-home mom could pull off, I lost the will to continue and couldn't finish the bloody thing.

I suppose it's the safe, traditional romance that draws in both teenage girls and those who wish they still were. Impossibly handsome and charming boy meets fragile damsel in distress, boy gallantly swears to never touch innocent, chaste lady, minor wrench (aka vampirism) is introduced to possibly harm the relationship, relationship survives against all odds, chastity still withstanding.

Therein lies the problem: what the hell does chastity and traditional courtship have to do with vampires? They're not supposed to be the perfect boyfriend, they're supposed to be dangerous, poetic, half-insane, sex-crazed gore fiends.

When I was the age the primary fanbase of Twilight are now, around 13 or so, this was what a vampire meant to me:

Good old Anne Rice vampire fare (yes, I was one of those goth 13 year olds who read Anne Rice. Oh, to be young again...). While they may not be literary masterpieces, they are classic vampire novels that sold millions of copies and broke through to the mainstream. This is exactly what Twilight has done, but compare my summary of Twilight above to the sorts of things that happen in Anne Rice's books. Lestat hates his blind dad, torments and feeds on hookers, turns a six year old kid into a vampire (six year old kid then proceeds to kill entire families), has his throat slit by the six year old vampire, is bitten by crocodiles, battles his way back from being half dead and turns into a rock star whose music wakes up a very sexy 7000 year old Egyptian vampire queen who can explode hearts and eyeballs with a single thought.

See? Not a second of wholesome morality or sweetness. Definitely out of a Mormon housewife's reach.