Whilst discovering the bestowment upon Michael Bay of a possibly prestigious/possibly dubious award from ShoWest, I also perused the other award winners, such as Chris Pine (who?) as the Male Star of Tomorrow and Bradley Cooper (who?) as the Comedy Star of the Year. But they gave Michael Caine the Lifetime Achievement Award, so it’s not like they’re completely idiotic.

Even more than Sienna Miller as Supporting Actress of the Year, I was taken aback to see that Dennis Quaid will be anointed Male Star of the Year. Maybe I’m the one that is simple, but I fail to see how Dennis Quaid could be named Male Star of the Year, and not even just this year, but any year, ever. His three movies released in 2008 grossed a combined total of $90 million. That’s not even a big number for one movie, let alone three. In fact, the press release doesn’t mention anything Quaid’s done lately, just that he’s “been entertaining audiences for over three decades” and that his “body of work is… a testament to his ability and talent as a great actor.” And of course it drops the names of his next few movies.

It’s not like I really care that some media group is giving an actor an award. Honestly, I don’t really care. What fascinates and perplexes me about this is that I don’t understand why they could be giving their biggest actor award to Dennis Quaid. Sure he’s been in a lot of movies, but few of them have been great financial or critical successes. And it’s not like he’s headlining any huge movies this year that need a little extra exposure from an award of which few people will ever hear. So why in the world could anyone call him the Star of the Year? It’s not like it’s 1987 when he had The Big Easy, Innerspace, and Suspect, but even that is a tenuous proposition.

As we all know, one of the traits common to all in the movie business is the love of showering each other with awards. And ShoWest is definitely no exception, bestowing no less than eight awards each year. But based on the recipients, I’m not entirely sure how much prestige is attached to the awards, though I highly doubt they ever get turned down.

This year’s winner of the Vanguard Award for Excellence in Filmmaking is none other than director and professional dipshit Michael Bay. He is apparently “one of the most bold and imaginative filmmakers in the industry today” and is able to put people “at the edge of the seats and running back to the theaters for more.” The press release goes on to lavish Bay with more praise for the amount of money he’s been able to get from moviegoers. And of course there’s a mention that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen will be out this year.

What isn’t present is an acknowledgement for something Bay did in 2008, you know, which would be the impetus behind him receiving the award. I guess it’s not that weird since he didn’t actually have a film credit for 2008, so I suppose that leaving that out makes sense.

So really, the award is nothing more than an advertisement for Transformers and another reason for Michael Bay to believe he is the greatest person alive. The award shouldn’t be called the Vanguard Award for Excellence in Filmmaking, especially if it’s given to Michael Bay. The name should be changed to the Award For Making Us Money in the Past and the Anticipation of Doing So in the Future.

So like John LaRoche in Adaptation., I renounced fish, well, in my case movies. I didn’t completely sever the bond, but I went from being in a state of constantly watching movies to watching maybe a one or two a week. I do realize that choosing to allow the politics of the Academy to taint the allure of all movies is somewhat stupid, but taint it did.

As the days turned into months, the months to years, the years to decades, decades to centuries, and centuries to millennia, I felt no remorse for my rash decision. And when the Oscars rolled around each year, I ignored it. I read, sat in quiet reflection, picked at scabs- all those other things I never used to have time for. Believe you me, it wasn’t an easy thing to do. When people asked if I was watching the Oscars and I said no, well in my family, it was quite a scandal.

Even though I ignored the 2007 Academy Awards with the ease in which a teenager ignores a sign that reads DANGER, that ceremony would have a profound impact on my life.

For whatever reason, Mrs. Furious decided to add Babel to the Netflix queue. I had little interest in seeing it, but it was the movie Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett hit after they bailed on The Fountain. And it was nominated for Best Picture, so I gave it a chance.

That was a big mistake. I was confounded and flabbergasted after seeing that this thing was put forth as one of the five best movies of the year. Even though I managed to overlook the strident xenophobia and way in which most non-Americans are presented as either barbaric or possessing diminished mental capacities, I could not, will not, never will get past the irrelevant, unrelated storyline about the deaf-mute Japanese girl.

It served to bump up the artistic quotient of the movie. It didn’t do shit for either the narrative or thematic elements. You can’t even call it’s connection to the rest of the movie tenuous, it’s basically nonexistent. Unless you accept that having just one more amongst the already numerous examples of the idea that people who speak different languages have difficulty communicating validates it. The kids in Mexico paralleling the parents plight, that fits. A girl in Japan struggling to participate in society, that’s a different movie.

I was so consumed by anger and rage, that eventually I turned to the Internet to express it. Involuntary Fury was born.

Seeing as how I’ve made a hobby out of complaining about movies, I thought it was time to break my vow and watch the Oscars. There was a promise made by the Academy that this year would be different. It would be better. But in Hollywood, a reimagining is just the same old thing with a slicker production.

I did sorely miss the clips of the actors. Having past winners lavish praise upon them is not a good substitute for giving an example of the work that earned them a nomination. Like I give a steamy blart about what Halle Berry says. Ever. Even if someone else wrote it. Even if I wrote it.

This Academy Awards will be remembered for making Wolverine sing and dance, twice. Don’t be surprised when he’s cast in X-Men the musical. I imagine a lot of comic book junkies had nightmares after that.

Oh, and it will be remembered for Mickey Rourke getting jobbed.

The stupidest thing uttered came from Robert De Niro, commending Sean Penn for the way he “respectfully advises world leaders.” Hollywood elitist entitlement at it’s best.

If we were going off of box office receipts, our five nominees would be The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Indiana Jones and the Spaceship of Crap, Hancock, and WALL-E. Based on popularity and critical opinion, strong cases could be made for The Dark Knight and WALL-E to be amongst the Best Picture nominees, but unless you think the American Film Institute has any relevance, the remaining three shouldn’t be seen in the vicinity of the word “Best.”

So what of the critics? Does critical adoration play a part in determining the Best? Surely the best movies made will also be the ones that get the most praise from those that make a profession about expressing their opinion. Review aggregator Metacritic isn’t the definitive source for qualitative judgment, but the only two Best Picture nominees that appear in their list of the top 20 reviewed movies of 2008 are Slumdog Millionaire and Milk. In fact those are the only two that appear in the range of scores they identify as giving a movie “universal acclaim” (81 points or more on their 0-100 scale). By their estimation The Reader has an aggregate score of 58, which would signify almost half the reviewers didn’t think this movie was very good, let alone one of the best of the year.

As far as the Academy Awards go, neither financial success nor critical opinion plays a direct role in determining the Best Picture. The nominees are selected from ballots submitted by members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. AMPAS consists of “over 6,000 of the most talented and accomplished men and women working in movies.” Surely the people voting for the movies don’t have any personal, financial, or political forces motivating their decisions. They would certainly want to see the best movies get all the praise, not one that might put money in their pocket, right?

The Big Money has a nice little article about the financial boost that can come from a Best Picture nomination. By their estimate, an extra $6,663,508 can come from a nomination- not a lot in the bigger picture, but it does illustrate that financial gain could be one of the rewards. In reality, if a movie has already made $300 million is another $6 million going to matter much? Probably not, but most of these Best Picture nominees aren’t going to see a nine digit gross.

The estimated gross for The Reader as of today is $9.7 million. Frost/Nixon stands at $12 million, Milk at $22 million, Slumdog Millionaire at $55 million, and Ben Button at $111 million. That $6 million boost would be huge for The Reader, Frost/Nixon, and Milk, and still very significant for Slumdog and Button.

Here’s where the impropriety shows up- Frost/Nixon and Slumdog both expanded wide this past weekend, the first weekend after the Academy Award nominations were announced. Frost/Nixon was first released December 5th and Slumdog November 12th. Could the timing of their wide expansions be for any other reason than that they were counting on the Best Picture nominations to give those movies a boost? There’s no question. Clearly there’s a financial incentive for a nomination if movies will build their release schedules around the nomination date.

What this has done is caused a stratification to occur in the movie industry. There are two classes of movies- those made for financial gain and those made for critical acclaim. That’s always been the case to a certain degree, but in recent years those two classes have become more mutually exclusive.

The last movie to be nominated for Best Picture and be tops in the box office was Lord of the Rings: Return of the King in 2003. That was the first time since Saving Private Ryan n 1998, and prior to that were Titanic in 1997 and Forrest Gump in 94. Previous to Return of the King, it was a fairly regular occurrence for at least one of the Best Picture nominees to be one of the five highest-grossing movies of the year. It didn’t happen every year, but there are very few gaps. It’s now been five years since a nominee was any higher than 15th on the list (The Departed, Juno).

So far, the only Best Picture nominee for 2008 that has appreciably out-grossed it’s budget is Slumdog Millionaire. Milk is about $1 million to the good right now, but Button is $111 million against a $150 million budget with momentum slowing, Frost/Nixon is $12/$25, and The Reader $10/$32. With the exception of Button, none of these movies had budgets much greater than most direct to video fare- i.e. no one wanted to invest money in a movie that is not going to make a lot, i.e. these movies were only made with the hopes of winning awards and make enough money to cover their costs.

Seeing as how these movies are (for the most part) products of a non-lucrative award-focused sub-industry, and that pandering to the likes of AMPAS members for a little monetary boost is a real possibility, what does a Best Picture nomination really mean? Was it one of the best movies of the year, or was it just one of five the most agreeable to AMPAS members?

I’m not saying the designation is worthless or the movies undeserving, but that the Best Picture award is as arbitrary as any other and doesn’t represent either the most popular or most critically acclaimed movie of the year. Regardless of that, millions will be on the edge of their seats for the announcement of the winner and will hail it as the best movie of the year, deserving or not.

Now, the Golden Globes aren’t really that much different from any awards show, outside of it being more of an awards dinner. Few of the nominations are based on merit, and fewer so the winners. That’s how a lot of awards programs go, but the HFPA has a bigger reputation for bending to reputation and studio pressure. It’s about who you know or who you are.

Last night’s awards were no exception. The odds-on favorite didn’t always win, but there weren’t any real long shots that made their way to the podium. For those of us without inside knowledge of Hollywood, the adjudication process isn’t always obvious, but insider Nikki Finke live-blogged the show and was pretty candid in her thoughts on how some of the winners were determined.

If you really need proof of the dubious nature of the Globes, take a look at the TV awards. The only award that wasn’t given to HBO or NBC was to AMC for Mad Men, which is lauded as one of the best TV shows in recent years. Maybe the best since The Wire went off the air. Of course, the Globes is broadcast by NBC. Since no other network won an award you have to ask yourself of NBC was really deserving or they wanted to take the time to tell you how great they are.

And HBO only makes shows that will either draw new subscribers or win awards- there’s no advertising space to sell. They don’t really have much going on in the original programming department to make anyone rush to sign up, so they have to win awards or they’re throwing money down the toilet. Any dollar they spend is one they don’t get back. The Wire may have been the greatest show to ever appear on a TV, but it never won a Golden Globe- it was a show that could generate subscribers and didn’t need a high profile boost from the HPFA.

As an awards show, the Golden Globes is worthless. But if you like to watch celebrities laughing at each other and having a good time, then you struck gold.

Yesterday a spiffy gold star popped up next to Anne Hathaway’s name on the Golden Globe nominees website, indicating she had won the award. It was a gaffe, but as long as they didn’t reveal all the winners, people will still watch.

Shortly after the generally abhorred Bride Wars began screening, the star next to Hathaway’s name disappeared. The HFPA won’t comment on the star, but the obvious connection is that Hathaway had won the award for Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama but was stripped of the award once people started seeing Bride Wars. Pretty harsh treatment from the effusively backslapping HFPA.

Bride Wars is reviled by most, but it’s a little unfair to make Hathaway take the fall for what was a collaborative effort, or should I say a collaborative shrug, by everyone involved in the supposed bridal comedy.

Come Sunday, if they give her the award, we’ll know she won. If they don’t, then we’ll know Bride Wars is as bad as they say.

The rumor is that this year the producers are going to chose a non-comedian to host and dump the intro monologue/song-and-dance. This is great news! The format is tired and the jokes always either childish or ego-stroking. Other than to stretch the show out to sell more advertising, I never really saw the point of the big comedy segments. It almost got the feel of a variety show at times.

They needed to do something to liven things up- last year’s Oscars was the lowest rated since ratings for the show were tracked. Some point to the writer’s strike affecting the writing and causing viewers to tune out, but only 6.5 million viewers were lost over the length of the broadcast. The real problem was the tiny 10.68 rating in the 18-49 (money) demographic. They’ll have a harder time selling ads this year with a down economy and few viewers in the prime demographic.

Maybe a kick in the pants is what the Oscars need to make the presentation more relevant. In truth, I’m still turned off by the self-adoration and predictability, but this change will get me to take a look.

UPDATE: It looks like Hugh Jackman will be the host. He won an Emmy for hosting the 2004 Tony Awards.

Image courtesy cliff1066 via Flickr

What will surprise many people, and possibly bring the Internet to a standstill, is that The Dark Knight only got one nomination. All the people who have been touting this as the most amazingly deep and important comic-book movie in history will be sadly disappointed to realize that no one really cares if you’re not part of the club. The sole nom was for Heath Ledger. He was part of the Hollywood club. Christopher Nolan, Christian Bale, and Batman aren’t.

When I think of made for TV movies, I always think of a bunch of semi-recognoizable actors desperately trying to get their face out there, like The Poseidon Adventure with Steve Guttenberg. But looking over the nominees for Best Actor/Actress in a mini-series/TV movie, the actresses have 22 Academy Award nominations between them. HBO and Showtime received a combined 30 nominations. Cable has really upped the ante for the expectations of quality on TV.

Image courtesy Joe Shlabotnik via Flickr

Egoyan is responsible for one of the most beautifully made films in recent years, The Sweet Hereafter- a story of a small town trying to find itself after most of the children are killed in a school bus accident. The movie is crafted so exquisitely that it feels like you should be watching it in a museum, among displays of classical art. It’s so well respected that you’ll have trouble finding a negative review. The movie is based on the Russell Banks novel, which is based on actual tragic events in Texas.