Oscars Wild

Named for the first six-inch tall gold person to act in Hollywood, the Oscars are the most prestigious event of the year recognizing outstanding films and film-makers. But what makes a movie worthy of the Academy's attention?

For one thing, it isn't the box-office. While usually a decent way to get a nomination, huge revenue does not an Oscar get. 2012's biggest movie, the Avengers, only netted a single nomination (for Visual Effects). Popularity isn't a guarantee either; I'd even say it's a stymie. Some of the big titles press-wise, Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey received 1, 0, and 3, respective nominations.

The Academy of Motion Pictures seems to favor what we might call "artsy-fartsy" films. Last year's The Artist and 2010's The King's Speech were far from the most popular movie of their respective years. The idea is to look for great, well-made films, not blockbuster ones. Thus the cinematography (and acting, art direction, etc.) won the not at all sophisticated Return of the King Best Picture and 10 other Oscars in 2003.

I was surprised that, after The Dark Knight's Best Picture snub-fiasco in 2009, Rises received no love, even pity-love, from the Academy. Personally, I'm pulling for Lincoln to sweep the upper tier of awards (Daniel Day-Lewis is at least a shoe-in for Lead Actor). However, artsier films like Les Miserables and Life of Pi are serious contenders to spoil Spielberg's night.

Two Degrees of Adam Sandler

Mr. Carty considered Will Ferrel's role in Stranger Than Fiction as the "straight man". This blog post has nothing to do with Will Ferrel.

The straight man is, by association, the most normal character in his inner circle, if not the plot entirely. Think about the people Harold works with. Think about Dave. Think about Harold's reaction to Dave and his surroundings. That's kind of the way I prefer Ferrel and his ilk. To compare and contrast, I reccomend you watch Jack and Jill.

While not the pinnacle of Sandler's resume, this movie is an excellent case study in two types of comedy. Jill represents everything I hate about Sandler comedy; she's childish, obnoxious, and about as subtle as a neon-green elephant with cymbals on its feet. Jack is everything I enjoy about Sandler comedy; he's just kinda walking down the street, sees a hobo with a banana, and he's just like, "Huh. That sure is a hobo." Then he moves onto the next scene. He's so good at straight-man comedy that you wonder why he spends so much screen-time flapping his arms and making inane faces at the camera. 

Grammar? What am you talking about?

     Earlier this week we got a handout about the liberties an author is allowed to take with grammar to make their works better. This is largely because normal people don't talk using the grammatical conventions we learn in school. This is especially true for people who write in colloquialisms form way back when, or who use modern informal speech. Further room for experimentation comes into play when a writer experiments with funny accents.
     And then there's sentence fragments, a major grammatical faux-pas. For example, when you are asked, "Why aren't you eating?", grammar dictates that the proper response is "I am not eating because I am not hungry."

HOWEVER!

     Who actually says things like that? Most people would say something like, "Eh, not really hungry." or, like me, "No reason." That's like sacrilege or something. And while we're on that, like, subject; there's stuttering and catching. This isn't particularly common in the written word unless they have a lithp or other s-s-s-speech impediment. In normal speech, people aren't practiced orators, so they can repeat themselves or other... stuff.

Point of View in Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment is most obviously told from the 3rd Person Limited. We follow the sociopathic protagonist Raskolnikov around London, and stay firmly rooted in his life, right. Wrong! The esteemed Mr. Dostoevsky actually creates an ingenious hybrid of Third Person views. We actually follow Raskolnikov around in a sort of narrative bubble of Omniscience. So while we focus on Rodyon for the majority, we can follow the people that he just interacted with for a block or so. We can also peer into the minds of the other characters, though this is used very sparingly by the author. We see the latter technique when Rodya meets Marmeladov in the bar. Dostoevsky gives us some juxtaposition between Ol' Marm's outgoing personality and inner turmoil. The former we see when Pulcheria and Dunya leave Rodyon's house. Rodya would have no means of hearing this conversation, but we do, and will likely need to remember it for later.