The Importance of Kanye West

(all quotes taken from Pitchfork’s oral history of the Yeezus sessions)

Noah Goldstein: I really like the fact that people are loving this album or they're like, "This is trash!" I don't really like up-the-middle music, because where's the opinion in that? I'd rather have people hate it than be in the middle

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

It’s been almost two weeks now since I first heard Yeezus and I still don’t quite know what I think of it. I still can’t decide if it’s Dylan going electric or Dylan converting to Christianity. If it’s a masterpiece or disappointing. If it excites me or if it makes me sad. I’m almost positive I love it. But I’m still not sure I like it. And only Kanye could provoke that reaction.

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

Noah Goldstein: "On Sight" sets a new bar. Nobody's doing that. There's no chance in hell that anybody's gonna put that on and be like, "Oh, that's J. Cole"-- not to diss J. Cole. But there's only one person who can do that kind of shit.

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

Yeezus really says it all with its first track: “On Sight”. The moment that best defines the album comes halfway through the song when Kanye asks “How much do I not give a fuck / lemme show you right now before you give it up” then the song completely stops and launches into an extended sample of a completely different song, "He'll Give Us What We Really Need". That’s not something you do if you remotely give a fuck. But as Kanye just said, he clearly doesn’t. And really the whole song itself is a middle finger to giving a fuck, to melody, to convention, to hit singles, to music. It doesn’t ease you into the album, it assaults you. It’s almost literally Kanye shooting lasers at you. It's robots having sex in an abandoned warehouse just before the world ends. It’s not only not commercial, it’s actively anti-commercial. It's Kanye taking known hit-makers and pushing them to their furthest artistic extremes. “On Sight” is what Daft Punk wishes they were bold enough to sound like on Daft Punk records. “On Sight” is new. It’s like nothing Kanye has ever done before. It’s like nothing you were ever expecting him to do. After “On Sight” literally anything is possible. All options are now in play. “On Sight” is scary and daring and innovative. It’s challenging and original and in your face. I can’t stop thinking about it. 

I also don’t particularly like “On Sight”. And it’s definitely my least favorite song on the album.

Only Kanye could provoke that reaction.

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

Travi$ Scott: You gotta be really dialed in to understand something like "On Sight".

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

In a world where every person in a position of power’s sole obsession seems to be holding onto that power or expanding it, in music, a few times a generation, we get people who have so much power that they seem to only be interested in what they can do with it. They don’t care about staying popular as much as they care about staying relevant, and that's a huge difference. One is about success, the other is about achievement.

Jay-Z released the promo video for his new album recently and the buzz was about all the big names in the studio with him. The clip shows off that he is working with well-known producers, that he is trying to give us more of what we like, more of what has worked in the past, from reliable established brand names. With Yeezus on the other hand, Kanye has given us things we weren’t even aware existed. He's created a well curated trip through the edges of the underground. But it doesn't stop there. Kanye found new things, sure, but he took it a step further by reshaping what he found in his own image. He breathed life into clay. He made woman out of a rib. He IS a God. But a God who possibly hates us. A God who is (often literally) yelling at us to leave him alone. A God who would kill off his whole audience if it meant he could make purer art. He's like an underground indie band selling out, only completely the opposite. But paradoxically, chasing less popularity is making music fans love him more.

Only Kanye could provoke that reaction. 

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

Hudson Mohawke: A lot of the record is trying to avoid obviousness. Through the entire process of putting it together, there were tons of easy slam dunks, but rather than just going for the hits and having an album that nobody's going to give a fuck about in a month or two, he intentionally sidestepped the obvious route each time. I think that's what going to give it more longevity and put it in a category of records that you'll go back to in 10 years time.

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

Nearly everyone now agrees that Kid A is a masterpiece, but Kanye makes his version of Kid A and people complain that it doesn’t contain any singles or songs you can dance to or play at your parties. Which says a lot about where hip hop is at, and where Kanye is trying to take it. After all 808’s & Heartbreak was considered similarly difficult and uncommercial, yet it almost directly gave rise to Drake, one of the most popular and commercial rappers working today. Things often seem difficult and new, until they don’t. Yeezus leaked on a Friday and sounded completely inaccessible. By that Saturday "Black Skinheads" was soundtracking a Martin Scorsese trailer. By this week I’m sure it’s being played in clubs. And maybe it's Stockholm Sydrome, but after listening to it non-stop for two weeks Yeezus doesn't even sound that "out there" to me anymore. It sounds normal now. And that's because Kanye just changed the sound of music. He just created the future out of whole cloth. Maybe he is the new Steve Jobs after all.

So love Yeezus or hate it, it has officially declared that hip-hop is art now (just in case there was someone out there who didn't think it was already) and that there's no turning back. Now making interesting music is way cooler than making music that sells. Releasing a super commercial album geared for maximum radio play is now passé. The game changed overnight. Jay-Z’s new album is already dated and it’s not even out yet. Hell, Kanye just made his own entire back catalogue seem dated. His last solo album featured a Chris Rock comedy skit and a significant amount of Rick Ross.  Now I can’t imagine Rick Ross even LISTENING to Kanye's album let alone having anything to do with it. And it seems completely implausible that the man responsible for "Send It Up" could have ever released a song produced by Chris Martin.

I fear that Kanye is tearing music apart, and I simultaneously celebrate that he's making it stronger.
Only Kanye could provoke that reaction.

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

Hudson Mohawke: It takes him out of the realm of so many other mainstream rap artists who only focus on the bragging side of things; you don't necessarily feel like you have any personal connection with a lot of those artists, whereas Kanye puts so much of his own personality into his music.

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

Yeezus isn’t just Kid A though; it’s In Utero, it’s The Marshall Mathers LP, it’s Plastic Ono Band, and it's Rumours. It's music that actually sounds better the more you know about it. It's music that only the Kanyes of the world can give us. Because it's art that has context. If Yeezus had been released by, say, Wiz Khalifa, not only does no one listen to it, but it has no impact and no meaning. But since it comes from Kanye, not only will everyone who is serious about music at least hear it and think about it and give it a chance, but its songs and themes and sounds are all richer and more meaningful because of the way they build off of and respond to Kanye's past work and his life.
Does "Blood on the Leaves" sound the same without "Gold Digger" and Kim Kardashian and a lifetime of soul music samples? Is "Bound 2" resonant without The College Dropout? Does "I Am A God" mean as much with "Jesus Walks"? Does Yeezus even exist if Kanye's mother had never died?

After hearing Yeezus so many people have asked where Kanye goes from here. And thats a great question. But ultimately there's nowhere to go if you haven't come from anywhere.

I may not love Yeezus. I may very well never listen to it again after this week. But I love that I had to listen to it. And that its an absolutely essential part of the musical journey of a lifetime. I may not always like the ride, but I wouldn't miss it for the world.

Only Kanye could provoke that reaction.

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

Justin Vernon: There's no pedestrian fuckery on this album. People are working their asses off to make the best shit, and Kanye's leading the pack.

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

A wise man once said "theres leaders and theres followers / but I'd rather be a dick than a swallower". It's a ridiculous line of course. But it's profound in its own way. Better to be an asshole, difficult, unlikable, and less popular, if it means leading the culture in new directions rather than allowing it to be jammed down your throat. (That metaphor got a little ridiculous there at the end as well.)

Leaders lead, but every once in awhile someone comes along who creates new trails, not knowing if anyone else will ever follow along behind them. It's an essential job, but it's a hard choice to make. It's a hard life to live. You know who can do it though?

Only Kanye.

Why Aren't There More "Before Midnight"s?

Before Midnight is going to probably end up being the best-reviewed and most beloved movie of 2013. There’s almost no way anything is beating it on those fronts. It's an instant classic and a true masterpiece. Which leads to an obvious question: why aren’t more movies like Before Midnight? To get such a rapturous response from such a simple, inexpensive, seemingly easy-to-make movie, why can I not think of a single recent mainstream movie I could compare it to? Any two-character purely dialogue driven movies I think of from recent years are either alienating-ly artistic, have an incredibly narrow focus (usually hyper-intelligent twenty-something New Yorkers), or are depressingly dramatic awards-bait. In the 90’s indie scene that Richard Linklater came up in, literate dialogue-driven character studies were everywhere. But it’s fitting that Frances Ha would come out the same day as Before Midnight because now its just Linklater and Noah Baumbach left from those halcyon days of dialogue and flannel. And it’s worth asking why.

I get that practically speaking it’s largely an issue of economics. Before Midnight probably won’t crack $20 million at the box office. But it also only cost $3 million to make and just 15 days to shoot. It’s definitely making that investment back. And anyway, a billion dollars isn’t cool; you know what’s cool – a million dollars and something that lasts. Isn’t that why filmmakers got involved in this business in the first place?

And that’s what’s so maddeningly inexplicable about the dearth of Before Midnight-like movies – they’re seemingly so simple to make that it's hard to tell what’s holding filmmakers back from attempting them. They’re movies that are just people talking. That’s it. You don’t need much money, or big effects, or big stars. Because of their minimalist nature you can take as much time as you need to finish them. You can work on other more lucrative projects while they gestate. It doesn’t seem that hard. If a song is supposed to be three chords and the truth, then shouldn’t film just be a camera, two people, and the truth? If so, why does the truth always seem grafted onto movies after the fact? Instead of always needing Batman to symbolize the human conscience, why cant the human conscience for once just play itself? Cut out the middle-men, as it were, and just mainline us the good stuff. The pure uncut ideas and emotions. After all, most of us will never travel through space; all of us will always talk.

In fact many of the greatest moments in all of our lives are evenings with friends or lovers or family simply talking the night away – laughing, sharing, discussing, arguing. Nights where dramatic moments yield the biggest laughs and humorous jibes contain the most dramatic of truths. Nights with beautiful backdrops and long walks. Nights you never want to end and always long to revisit. So instead of always trying to give us an escape from real life why don’t filmmakers try creating a real life no one would want to escape from. Instead of struggling to come up with a high concept for your film why not just turn to the highest concept of all – daily existence. And instead of worrying about hitting all four quadrants with your film, just worry about one - the human condition. If you show it, I promise they will come. If not at first, they probably will eventually. And if not, well you’re not out much more than pride. But with so little risk and so much to gain why does Before Midnight feel like a such a rare precious gem when it should be the baseline, not the exception? It should be all that film aspires to. 

Otherwise, you’re just passing through.

Ranking the tracks on The 20/20 Experience from most Timbaland-y to least Timbaland-y

1. "Don't Hold the Wall"
This song should be the Wikipedia entry for Timbaland. Are we totally sure that it wasn't originally written as part of the Supa Dupa Fly sessions?

2. "Tunnel Vision"
Skittery drum sounds? Synths on synths on synths?  Lasers? Weird processed vocal noises in the background? The ghost of Aaliyah is pissed that she wasn't offered this track first.

3. "Mirrors"
The main part of the song is only a third Timbaland (and two thirds fun. and NSYNC), but the breakdown is the most Timbaland-y thing thats ever been Timbalanded.

4. "Spaceship Coupe"
Is that a baby cooing or a door creaking? Exactly the main question a good Timbaland track should always make you ask. Also, there's a crunchy low end. And spaceships!

5. "Strawberry Bubblegum"
Only Timbaland can make a Prince song sound like it was recorded in a swamp on the moon.

(Also, the breakdown sounds like it was recorded in an alternate reality where the entirety of modern pop music doesn't exist. I mean that as a compliment. I think.)

6. "Suit and Tie"
JT may be doing Sinatra, but Timbaland is doing trapped-underwater Mark Ronson.

And Jay-Z is doing Benadryl.

7. "Pusher Love Girl"
This is the Timbaland equivalent of just vocals and acoustic guitar. If Timbaland ever does MTV Unplugged he could just play this track exactly as it is.

8. "That Girl"
Who are The Tennessee Kings and what did they do with Timbaland? Is that him playing the clicker?

9. "Let the Groove In"
As literally everyone has pointed out, this sounds exactly like a Miami Sound Machine song. And Timbaland has probably been to Miami at some point? Maybe?

10. "Blue Ocean Floor" 
This wasn't produced by Timbaland, it was produced by a dolphin on LSD.

Will Adrien Brody Ever Be Nominated For Another Oscar: Investigating the Under-30 Oscar Curse

The release of the movie InAPPropriate Comedy has led to a lot of questions.
Like for example:

• A movie came out called InAPPropriate Comedy?
• It’s directed by the ShamWow Guy??
• How does this movie exist?
• Why does this movie exist?
• What the hell is Adrien Brody doing in it?
• No, seriously, it’s directed by the ShamWow guy?? 
• Didn’t he beat up a prostitute? (Yes he did)

And while all of those are fascinating questions (note: your definition of fascinating may differ from mine) the one that interests me the most is the fifth one. Because while this movie was apparently filmed awhile ago, the question is still worth asking: what in the world has happened to Adrien Brody?

Ten years ago this week, Adrien Brody memorably won an Oscar for Best Actor. The world was his oyster. Yet he hasn’t even so much as sniffed an Oscar nomination since. And he’s not alone. Since 1970 eighteen actors have won Oscars before their 30th birthday. Only two of them have gone on to win another Oscar, and as a group they have only amassed a grand total of seven post-victory nominations.

The Oscar curse is well known, but it hits the young particularly hard.

Looking at the eighteen people in the past four plus decades who have won Oscars before turning 30 it's possible to break them down into at least one of three specific categories. And looking at these categories can maybe help us figure out where Adrien Brody might fit in, and by extension, what might be next for him.

The Child Actors:
Adrien Brody doesn’t really seem to fit into this category, but in fact, at the time of his win he still had a youth about him that would have kept him from playing true adult roles. To paraphrase Britney Spears, he was not quite a boy, but not yet a man. Which is really what your 20s are all about. But  people like Anna Paquin and Tatum O'Neal weren't even in their 20s yet when they won their Oscars. So the "child actor" Oscar winner most comparable to Adrien Brody would then be Timothy Hutton who won at age 20 for Ordinary People.

Depending on your feelings about French Kiss, Leverage, and hitting on college girls at the bar next to my dorm (which Timothy Hutton used to do regularly) then Ordinary People was the peak of Timothy Hutton's career. Instead of his Oscar propelling him to great heights, he hasn't made a relevant movie since. A large part of that was likely the always difficult transition from child actor to adult roles. And part of it was also surely the difficulty in trying to move from supporting roles to leading man parts. But what his career (and the careers of all the actors who have won Oscars while still ostisentably children) demonstrates most acutely, is the biggest and most obvious reason for the Under 30 Oscar Curse: it's the ultimate in "too much too soon". That Oscar creates too much pressure, too many expectations, too much success before you can handle it and before you know what you want to do with it. After all, people younger than 30 aren't generally known for their exceptional decision making ability. But that's why although Adrien Brody was youthful when he won, I wouldn't say he was particularly young.

By the time Adrien Brody won for The Pianist he had been in the business for over ten years. He had headlined movies. He had had major roles in films made by Barry Levinson, Spike Lee, and Ken Loach. He had already experienced the highs of critical acclaim and the infamous low of being cut out of The Thin Red Line. All of the problems that Timothy Hutton would have to face Adrien Brody had already overcome. So perhaps Adrien Brody would fit in better in the next group....

The Young Ingénues
What do Gweneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, and Reese Witherspoon have in common? They're some of the biggest female stars in the world. They all won Oscars before their 30th birthdays. And they’re all only one-time Oscar nominees.

Its no secret that the old men who make up The Academy love them some attractive young ladies, so it should be no surprise that the bulk of the Under 30 Oscar winners fall into this category. What is surprising though is the lack of critical success the winners have had after their victories. And as surprising is the fact that there's not a single man that you would clearly place in this category. In fact of all the Under 30 Oscar winners since 1970 only three of them have been men. So while women can be taken seriously as actors right away, men have to wait until they're older to win Oscars. Especially attractive men. Which raises the question: Is Adrien Brody a leading man?

Gillette would say yes. People who saw The Affair of the Necklace would say maybe. But the roles that he takes on would seem to suggest that the answer is no. Sure Adrien claims to view himself as a leading man, but after winning his Oscar, when he could have seemingly had any role he wanted, here are the ones he chose:

A violent mentally ill person in The Village
An amnesiac trapped in an insane asylum in The Jacket
A brooding writer in King Kong
A brooding detective in Hollywoodland

Only in The Jacket does he get the girl, and none of those parts would be considered typical leading man roles. So while an attractive enough guy, clearly his looks/attractiveness aren't a real driving force behind Adrien Brody's career. So it seems like its more likely he's in the next category...

The Character Actors
Depending where you put Jennifer Hudson, Marlee Matlin, and Hilary Swank, the only real character actor type in the past four decades to win an Oscar before turning 30 is Cuba Gooding Jr. Which is interesting. Because these days Cuba Gooding Jr. is exactly the type of person you'd expect to see in a movie like InAPPropriate Comedy. In fact it's kind of surprising to learn that Cuba Gooding Jr. ISN'T in InAPPropriate Comedy. Because Cuba Gooding Jr. has become synonymous with crap.  So it's encouraging that Adrien Brody isn't at that point yet. Like Swank and Hudson he hasn't used his Oscar as a license to work non-stop. He's been relatively discriminating and worked largely with great directors like Peter Jackson, Wes Anderson, Rain Johnson, and Woody Allen. But working with great directors doesn't necessarily a great career make. In his movies with each of those men he's played the smaller more interesting character parts rather than the leads, even though it seems like he could easily be playing leads if he wanted to. It's fitting he's played Mark Ruffalo's brother, because they both seem like guys who could be leading men, but yet aren't for some reason. Although with Adrien it's hard to imagine him ever being in things like 13 Going on 30 or The Avengers. It seems like he'd rather just hang out with Andre 3000 and say lines like "Go ahead, make me gay" in InAPPropriate Comedy. Rather than becoming the next Pacino, he seems more like James Franco without all the degrees. Someone that doesn't quite know what he wants out of Hollywood any more than Hollywood knows what it wants out of him. He's trapped between leading man and character actor, unable to fully commit to either side. He doesn't quite fit into any Under 30 Oscar Winner category, yet also fits into all three in different ways. But while the newest member of the Under 30 Oscar club, Jennifer Lawrence, is clearly the new Audrey Hepburn, it appears that there's no historical precedent for Adrien Brody. Except for maybe one...

Richard Dreyfuss was technically 30 when he won Best Actor for The Goodbye Girl and was at the time a bigger star than Adrien Brody will likely ever be. Ultimately his post-Oscar career was derailed by drugs. But like Adrien he was someone trapped between being a character actor and a leading man. He made a point of working with good directors and chose interesting roles rather than simply the biggest ones. And also, he made comedies that were seemingly way beneath him (Stakeout, Let it Ride, Moon Over Parador, What About Bob). But, most importantly, he was also eventually nominated for another Oscar (Mr. Holland's Opus). So there's real hope that Adrien Brody, Mr. Flirty Harry in InAPPropriate Comedy himself, could once again be an Oscar nominee. And he wouldn't have been in Detachment or be currently filming a Paul Haggis movie (with James Franco!) if he didn't care about such things.

But of course if it doesn't work out, Richard Dreyfuss is about to star in a movie directed by Jason Preistley. So there's always that....

OSCARS PREDICTIONS 2013

Do you need nearly 5,000 words on one of the best Oscar races in recent years, including analysis of every single category? Of course you do!

Live Action Short
A shorter, poor mans Amour? Way to know your target audience of retired people who have time to go to short film screenings Henry.

(BTW, "a shorter poor man's Amour" still sounds better than about 95% of the movies in the world)

Should Win: Henry
Will Win: Henry

Animated Short
So you're telling me that one of the nominees was produced by Disney, used a new groundbreaking animation technique, played in theatres before Wreck-it-Ralph, and went viral just as Oscar voting was in full swing? Well then, thanks for playing other nominees, it’s been nice not knowing you.

Should Win: Paperman
Will Win: Paperman

Animated Feature
Okay, I’ve only seen Brave here, so maybe I’m not the best judge. It seems like there might be a Wreck-It-Ralph upset brewing, as it won the PGA and the Annie and a bunch of websites are picking it to win. Of course I’m shocked (SHOCKED!) that The Internet seems to like a comedy about video games more than a relatively dramatic movie about the relationship between a princess and her mother. But I haven’t actually seen Wreck-It-Ralph so I can’t say whether they’re right or not. But I thought Brave was really good and find it hard to believe that Wreck-It-Ralph would be better.

Now I’m a huge Pixar fan-boy, so take that into account, but I don't get the relative lack of enthusiasm for Brave. Sure it was more "Disney" than "Pixar". And no it was no Wall-E. But with the near complete critical dismissal of Brave you would think that it was ignored simply because it told a story that wasn’t relatable or of interest to the 18-49 year old male demographic that dominates discussion and appraisal of the film industry in the media. Oh wait...

Anyway, the average Academy voter is 86 years old so they ain't voting for the video game movie. But nice try male nerds. A shame all you have left is everything else in the entire world.

Should Win: Brave
Will Win: Brave

Documentary Short
Going against the logic I used on Live Action Short, I think the movie about the young artist (Inocente) trumps the movie about the old people in a retirement center (Kings Point). Kings Point is the only nominee that doesnt sound super heavy, which should work to its advantage, but nevertheless I think "what we do is important" just barely edges out "we are old" as the message that resonates most with Academy voters.

Should Win: Inocente, I guess (I've seen none of these)
Will Win: Inocente


Documentary Feature
I’ve only seen one of these nominees, which is pretty bad considering I’ll gladly watch a documentary about paint drying. I’m totally Team Non-Fiction like that. So bad job by me this year. But I don't know if it's actually relevant for this discussion. Because I can't imagine anything here is as good as Searching for Sugar Man. 

Searching for Sugar Man is the reason documentaries exist. Not just to explore an issue, but to tell a story that fiction could never tell. And that's what separates Searching for Sugar Man from the pack here. The rest are all just message movies. And that's great. I love message movies too. And something “important” almost always wins here. But I think this year all the “important” films cancel each other out leaving only the truly incredible one.

Searching for Sugar Man is the kind of movie that makes you want to vote for it, get behind it, and champion it. Here’s hoping enough people do.

Should Win: Searching for Sugar Man
Will Win: Searching for Sugar Man


Foreign Language Film
When trying to decide what is going to win Best Foreign Language Film you always only need to ask yourself only one question: what movie is foreign, but not too foreign, and would, in style, tone, and theme, most appeal to a bunch of washed-up old retirees with nothing better to do than go to foreign film screenings?

What’s that you say? One of the nominees this year is a completely naturalistic character study set in Paris, made by a well-respected director, and might be the most honest and moving film ever made about old age and death?

And they bothered to nominate anything else?

(And in case you were wondering, based solely on titles, War Witch, is the exact OPPOSITE of what wins this category)

Should Win: Amour
Will Win: Amour


Sound Mixing
I understand the case for assuming that Argo will win, but music-based movies have won the past three times they've been nominated in this category, so I’m predicting an upset.

Should Win: Hell If I Know
Will Win: Les Miz


Sound Editing
With no musical here, it seems like a clearer case for Argo. It's the only film nominated in both sound categories, it's the Best Picture favorite, and Ethan van Der Ryn has already won twice before so clearly he’s well-liked in Hollywood. Or maybe he’s just good at his job. Who knows really.

Should Win: Hell If I Know
Will Win: Argo


Score
Thomas Newman, John Williams, Alexandre Desplat, Dario Marianelli - that's a murderers row of film score composers right there. So of course the guy no one has ever heard of (Mychael Danna) will win. He’s won the precursor awards and when they played snippets of the scores at the Golden Globes his was the only one that sounded memorable. Other than that I have no real thoughts on this, other than to go back to the fact that I just used the phrase “a murderers row of film score composers”. I really need to get out more.

Should Win: Life of Pi
Will Win: Life of Pi


Original Song
My one word analysis of this category: Adele

Should Win: “Skyfall”
Will Win: “Skyfall”


Production Design
I really don't know. I honestly think any of these five could win. If a Lincoln sweep was happening then I think it wins. But with the way things stand now, this looks like anybody’s game.

Since Anna Karenina calls the most attention its production design I think it probably wins. But nothing would surprise me here.

Should Win: Anna Karenina
Will Win: Anna Karenina

Costume Design
This is actually pretty tough too. On the one hand you have Colleen Atwood. On the other hand you have a posthumous nominee (Eiko Ishioka - Mirror, Mirror). And on the third hand Anna Karenina is costume porn. So I think that the Snow White movies probably cancel each other out and Jacqueline Durran cruises to victory. Sorry Colleen and dead lady.

Should Win: Anna Karenina
Will Win: Anna Karenina


Makeup and Hair Styling
Love these three nominee categories. Makes it easy. And even easier still when one of the nominees pretty much exists solely as an excuse to do crazy makeup (and to make billions of dollars). It also doesn’t hurt that that movie is part of the most Oscar-winning movie franchise of all time.

Other than that, Hitchcock made a fat guy slightly fatter, and Les Miz gets one million points deducted for Anne Hathaway’s “hair styling”. And yes I know cutting her hair that short was part of the plot and all, but still.

(Ladies, if any guy tells you that he likes your hair remotely that short there’s a 100% chance that he’s lying. Trust me. But also, don’t make your hair decisions based on pleasing the patriarchy.)

Why are we still talking about this category?

Should Win: The Hobbit
Will Win: The Hobbit


Visual Effects
Life of Pi is the very definition of “perfectly fine”. It was well-made and pleasant and inoffensive and made absolutely no impact on me whatsoever. But I’m very glad that I paid the money to see it in 3-D in a theater. I would make that same decision again. Because experiencing the visual effects was the whole reason to see the movie. It's winning here.

Should Win: Life of Pi
Will Win: Life of Pi


Editing
Hell if I know.

Silver Linings Playbook had the MOST editing, but I thought all the editing actually detracted from the movie. Action movies do well here, but not as well as you would think. This is probably only one of two chances to give Zero Dark Thirty anything, but the same could be said for Silver Linings Playbook. The obvious choice is Argo, but I’d go with Zero Dark Thirty for my hypothetical vote since they had the most story to put together. But I don't feel strongly about any of that.

(As all good Oscar obsessives know theres a strong correlation between Best Editing and Best Picture, but it’s not actually as strong a bellwether as is often assumed. The winner is here is misdirection as much as its predictive. But still, if Argo wins here, Best Picture is probably over; if Lincoln wins, the Argo folks are gonna start sweating; and if anyone else wins, then it's still anyone’s (Argo’s) game. And all this goes double for the next category...)

Should Win: Zero Dark Thirty
Will Win: Argo


Cinematography
Per usual, this is a really strong category. It seems like Claudio Miranda will win - he’s never won before, there's clearly strong support for his movie, it was the most visually beautiful movie of the year, and Avatar won here three years ago so there’s precedent for a heavily CGI-ed movie winning Cinematography. But for me that's why I’d prefer to see Kaminski win. When it seems like most of what is seen on screen was created by the visual effects department, it's hard for me to give too much credit for the look of the film to the cinematographer. Lincoln may not be as flashy as Life of Pi, but it did more with less, and is (seemingly) 100% real.

Also, remember how for years the fact that Scorsese had never won an Oscar was a huge deal and a great source of embarrassment for all involved. Well Roger Deakins is officially the new Scorsese. If only he wasn't nominated for a Bond movie, he might have a chance here.

Should Win: Janus Kaminiski - Lincoln
Will Win: Claudio Miranda -  Life of Pi


Original Screenplay

"I was pissed I didn't win Best Screenplay... It was Kathryn's year, it wasn't fucking Mark's year"

 -Quentin Tarantino on losing Best Original Screenplay to Mark Boal for The Hurt Locker

Quentin Tarantino only has one Oscar. Considering he's had a 20 year career and has yet to make a bad movie, that's pretty astounding. More astounding though is that someone who most people have never heard of, who as far as I can tell has no distinct personal style or voice, will soon have two. 

I get that Zero Dark Thirty is the more "important" screenplay, but that doesnt make it better artistically. Plus how is Zero Dark Thirty "original"? It's based on years of research into real events. The plot, characters, and timeline all already existed. Everything in Django is totally from Quentin's mind. Shouldnt that automatically give it more artistic merit? But it doesn't matter because one screenplay details white American heroes killing a Muslim terrorist and the other screenplay is about a black guy killing every white person on screen to the tune of 1,000 F-bombs. The Academy is an organization that in the recent past declared Crash "Best Picture" due to its apparently insightful views on race.

Prepare to be pissed all over again Quentin.

Should Win: Quentin Tarantino - Django Unchained
Will Win: Mark Boal - Zero Dark Thirty


Adapted Screenplay
I swear to God if Tony Kushner doesn't win here...

With the Argo non-upset pretty much guaranteed to happen at this point I’ve already got my guard up for Chris Terrio pulling a David Seidler or a Ronald Harwood (Ronald Harwood over Charlie Kaufman #neverforget). I don’t think it WILL happen, but it COULD. And that seems insane to me. Although, Arthur Miller once lost this category to Billy Bob Thorton so clearly anything is possible (other legendary playwrights who were nominated in this category but never won: Tennessee Williams, Lillian Helman, Harold Pinter, and David Mamet).

But more so than Tony Kushner deserving to win for being arguably our greatest living playwright, he should win for writing one of the greatest screenplays of the past 10 years. Lincoln pretty much WAS its screenplay. Even moreso than The Social Network was. And though the movies themselves will likely suffer the same Best Picture fates, Aaron Sorkin won for Adapted Screenplay. So come on people, do the right thing, and make Tony Kushner only a Grammy away from EGOTing.

Should Win: Tony Kushner - Lincoln
Will Win: Tony Kushner - Lincoln


Supporting Actor
What Alan Arkin and Robert DeNiro are doing here I’m not sure other than the fact that they are  Alan Arkin and Robert DeNiro. And how Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson didn't get nominated in their places I’ll never know or understand. It sounds sort of crazy on the surface, but I really think Django Unchained might have been both Leo and Sam’s best work ever. One of the only times I've ever totally bought either of them as people other than themselves. But in their absence we get the first ever All Former Winner category, something I’ve wanted to see for awhile. Turns out it's not as cool as I thought it would be. But then I'm probably the only person alive who ever thought “hey, you know what would be cool? An Oscar category made up solely of former winners!”

Anyway, this is kind of a weird one for me. Philip Seymour Hoffman is my very favorite non-Daniel Day-Lewis actor. His work in The Master is possibly the richest, and most powerful he’s ever done. He was maybe more "impressive" in Capote but I don't know that he was better. And his role in The Master is really a lead role, not a supporting one, which should put him at an advantage here. But Tommy Lee Jones is definitely winning this one and I'm strangely 100% cool with that. I could never develop any attachment to the idea of Phil winning because I recognized from day one that his movie was too inaccessible for most Academy voters. Even I found its lack of narrative clarity off-putting. Tommy Lee Jones on the other hand, was terrific in my favorite (and the best) movie of the year.

I went into Lincoln prepared to ardently claim that Tommy Lee Jones didn't live up to the advance hype. After all, how dare some overrated old curmudgeon dare try and challenge my beloved Phil for an Oscar. But I left Lincoln thinking Mr. Jones totally deserves to win. And that says it all about the greatness of his work. If you can impress someone who is not only predisposed to finding fault with your work, but who is actively hoping to do so, then I’m totally cool with you winning whatever awards you’re nominated for. Which means Tommy Lee Jones will soon have two Oscars. The thought of it probably makes his face muscles contract into something approximating a smile.

Should Win: Phillip Seymour Hoffman
Will Win: Tommy Lee Jones


Supporting Actress
Hey ladies, explain something to me: why do you hate Anne Hathaway so much? Because you definitely do. The level of antipathy for Anne Hathaway from ladies on my facebook news feed is almost always at Jews/Hitler levels. And I just don't get it.

Seems like when women en masse hate another woman the reason is usually easy to figure out. They are threatened by her. Her popularity reinforces physical/sexual standards that they’re not comfortable with. They're jealous of her. They feel her success wasn't properly earned. But none of those things seem to apply here. Anne Hathaway has worked her way slowly but surely up from Disney Princess to (soon-to-be) Oscar Winner. She’s attractive, but not unreasonably so. She seems smart, hard working, humble, and talented. Her ex-boyfriend got arrested by the feds on charges of fraud, which would seemingly make her an object of sympathy not envy. She has starred in movies (Princess Diaries, The Devil Wears Prada) that have huge female fan bases. She’s never been accused of stealing anyone’s husband or boyfriend. And she seems as nice and friendly as a person can be. So what's the beef? I really don't understand.

Anyway, if someone like Jennifer Hudson can win an Oscar for “And I'm Telling You I’m Not Going”, then a former Oscar host like Anne Hathaway is winning in a landslide for her “I Dreamed A Dream”. So ladies, the object of your ire is about to have an Oscar. Might be time to pick a new target for your hatred. Perhaps puppies and/or rainbows?

Should Win: Anne Hathaway
Will Win: Anne Hathaway


Actor
First of all, what a category. You could make a whole second category of people who WEREN'T nominated (John Hawkes, Jack Black, Ewan McGregor, Jean-Louis Trintignant, Matthias Schoenaerts) and it would be better than last year’s entire Best Actor category.

Secondly though, I can't ever remember a major category in my lifetime where it was less clear who the runner-up was, nor one where that seemed less relevant. Because Daniel Day-Lewis might be the first person in history to win an Oscar the day his CASTING was announced. Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher comes close but she had to ultimately really sweat it out against Viola Davis last year. DDL rendered all the competition irrelevant.

Since the race itself isn't worth discussing, let's look at what Daniel-Day Lewis will be accomplishing with his win here: three Best Actor wins, most all-time (one more than Brando, Hoffman, Penn, Nicholson and Hanks). And he’ll be officially claiming not just the Best Male Actor Alive crown, but probably the title of best male film actor in history. Brando comes close - his work in Streetcar revolutionized acting as we know it - but even he couldn't disappear into a role the way Daniel Day-Lewis does in Lincoln. People say things like this all the time, but in this case it is really 100% true: If you showed someone who knew nothing about anything My Left Foot, There Will Be Blood, and Lincoln and told them that it was three different actors THEY WOULD TOTALLY BELIEVE YOU. He becomes other people. He’s the only actor I've ever seen that makes acting seem like some kind of magic trick. I obviously never met the real Abraham Lincoln, never seen him move, never heard him speak, know very little about him. But somehow I know without a doubt that Daniel Day-Lewis got him exactly right. His Lincoln is not at all who I thought Lincoln was, but yet it also completely is. Daniel Day-Lewis can raise the dead. He can enter our minds and show us things we didn't even know that we knew. He is a wizard. He is a treasure. He is our Best Actor.

Should Win: Daniel Day-Lewis, always and forever
Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis


Actress
From Julia Roberts, to Halle Berry, to Nicole Kidman, to Reese Witherspoon, to Natalie Portman, and on and on, this category is the place where the crusty old men of the Academy declare what hot young thing they all have a collective hard-on for at the moment. Which is why whenever picking this category always go with the youngest, hottest nominee. (Not literally the youngest. No Quvenzhale Wallis you pervs).

And from Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Joanne Woodward, and Barbara Streisand to more recent wins by Gweneth Paltrow and Marion Cotilliard there is also a long history of this being the category where new young stars are anointed.

And this year both of the guiding historical principles of this category are coming together in one uber-candidate: Jennifer Lawrence. 

Now strangely all of the same arguments you could make for J-Law being the ultimate Best Actress candidate you could make for Jessica Chastain as well, just to a lesser degree in all cases. She's less of a star, she's had less of a big year, she's not as young, not as "hip", and not as attractive. (I'm just the messenger!)  So stop trying to make Chastain vs. Lawrence happen. It ain't a thing. This is the year of J-Stew. And this Oscar will be its culmination. It will be a star being officially born. It will be the start of a journey together between audience and movie star that I can't wait to watch unfold. This is someone who will be in our lives for the next 20 years. And this is her coronation.

Now notice though, I haven't said a word about the actual performances. And that's because if you strip everything else totally away and look strictly at the work here there's someone who actually deserves this award on merit perhaps slightly more than J-Stew does, and that's E-Riv (Emmanuelle Riva for you non-hipsters out there). 

Emmanuelle Riva was riveting, and raw, and flat out incredible in Amour. When she was considered a long shot for a nomination I didn't buy it because I knew there's was no way anyone who saw her performance would leave her off their ballot. It was as naked, emotionally and physically, as performances get. (People talk about the bravery of Helen Hunt for getting naked at her age, but what about Emmanuelle Riva? She got naked at 85! And yet you never hear a word about it...) If you had told me that Emmanuel Riva had actually died during the filming of Amour I would have totally believed you. To see her perfectly healthy at awards shows blows my mind. I can't process it. To play someone dying and do it well in middle age is a challenge. But to have to do it as someone who is themselves so close to death, it must be one of the hardest things a human can do. But Emmanuelle stared death in the face and brought it to honest and vivid life. And for that she should probably get an Oscar. And here's where things get interesting...she just might.

I still think Jennifer Lawrence will win, for all the reasons I detailed earlier. And a Riva win here would be a huge outlier. But after her win at the BAFTAs it's a real possibility. More and more pundits are picking her and there's a real sense that while Jennifer Lawrence will have plenty of other chances, this is definitely it for Emmanuelle Riva. So she's got some major late-breaking momentum. I think it will look ridiculous to future generations if Jennifer Lawrence doesn't win the Oscar the year of J-Stew, and I think the two performances are of relatively equal merit so I'm still pulling for Jennifer. But if they open that envelope ad call out Emmanuelle Riva's name, I'll be on my feet just like everyone else.

Stay tuned.

Should Win: Jennifer Lawrence (or Emmanuelle Riva)
Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence (but also, maybe Emmanuelle Riva)


Director
Not a lot to say here. Other than Haneke and Spielberg, this is kind of a joke of a category. And despite the greatness of Amour (more on that soon) Haneke ain't winning. So it's Spielberg all the way. And while that might have been true regardless, imagine how much more fun not just this category but the entire ceremony would be if Bigelow and Affleck hadn’t been snubbed. I can't remember two snubs completely changing the entire narrative and potentially the results of an awards season more than those two. In all my years of getting up early to watch the Oscar nominations I can't ever remember being more jaw-on-the-floor shocked than I was by this year’s Best Director lineup. But anyway...

This is the 30th anniversary of Spielberg losing Best Director for ET. And so it seems somehow poetic justice thats it's also the year he becomes only the 4th person to win more than two Best Director Oscars. It’s a list that would seem strange without him on it. I don't know if it’s a testament to his greatness or an argument against it that's he’s going be winning for one of his least “Spielberg-ian” movies ever, but Lincoln was definitely more Munich than War Horse. To once again compare Lincoln to The Social Network, Spielberg, like Fincher, let a brilliant screenplay with a strong voice help him stay out of his own way emotionally, allowing the strengths of his visual craft to really shine through. Also, after almost 40 years now I think it's safe to say that you know how good a Spielberg movie is going to be right away by how bright the lighting is. And Lincoln was dark and shadowy as fuck. And I'm proud to be the only person in history to have ever written that exact sentence.

Well, enjoy your third Oscar Steven, and try not to get too upset about getting Shakespeare-In-Love-ed again. Which brings us at long last to...

Should Win: Spielberg
Will Win: Spielberg


Picture
Best Picture!

First of all, it's pretty great that for once there are no glaring omissions or galling inclusions. No Blind Sides or Extremely Loud Incredibly Closes here. Sure I’m not a big Life of Pi fan, but it's a visual marvel made by a great director with something to say. And I know it's not cool to like Les Miz, but as someone that has absolutely no interest in or affinity for the stage version, I thought the movie was just fine. Not great certainly, but fine. Other than Russell Crowe I thought the complaints about the singing were way overblown. And anything that gets musical theater people worked up into an apoplectic rage is great with me because musical theater people are the absolute worst. (I hear Hitler had strong feelings about his favorite cast recording of Gypsy). The only pseudo-lemon here is Beasts of the Southern Wild. Besides being EXACTLY the movie that a white Wesleyan grad named Benh would make, its lack of real actors fatally flawed it for me, as the non-professionals that were used instead were distractingly bad. And overall the whole enterprise had the feel of a "Kony 2012" video made by more accomplished filmmakers. (I don't mean that as a compliment). But I don't have any real beef with its nomination as I’d always rather reward original, challenging, personal films like Beasts of the Southern Wild than whatever formulaic studio dreck might have been nominated in its place.

Speaking of original, challenging, personal films: Amour!

I amour Amour. That's probably not proper verb conjugation, but love knows no rules. And I love that Amour exists. Because it's the movie I've always longed to see. Now, I get why they dont make more movies about aging and death - it's depressing, it's not marketable, and it's the very thing we're going to the movies to avoid thinking about. But still, I wish they made more of them. Aging followed by death is possibly the most universal and dramatic human experience there is. Yet in declaring Amour the best movie about the aging/dying process ever made, I cant even really think of any competition for that title. But competition or no, it's a haunting and essential masterpiece. Flawless acting and perfect direction. It makes you feel all of the things and it really stays with you. And I'm thrilled that it's nominated and getting the recognition it deserves. It should be required viewing for every person on Earth. But I'm not delusional enough to actually think it has a chance of winning Best Picture.

Which brings us to the Big Five. The five movies that would (likely) have been nominated if there were only five nominees like in the old days. I’m still not totally sure how I feel about the expanded field. I kind of like the fact that things like A Serious Man, Winters Bone, Tree of Life, and Amour can be nominated for Best Picture. But at the same time, what's the point? None of the We’re Just Glad to Be Here nominees are ever winning. And it's almost always clear who the five “real” nominees are. So the whole thing is kind of a meaningless charade that cheapens the value and prestige of a nomination. But hey, Tree of Life was a Best Picture nominee, so maybe it ain't so bad. Moving on....

Silver Linings Playbook for me is the weakest of the Big Five. Very well acted, entertaining, heartfelt, and certainly had its charms. But David O. Russell’s manic direction was distracting and ultimately the whole thing wound up feeling like a poor man’s As Good As It Gets. I don't mean that as a diss necessarily, but As Good As It Gets was never a serious contender to win either. So thanks for playing, This Year’s Little Miss Sunshine.

Zero Dark Thirty is certainly an important film and one I admire a great deal. But not one that I (or apparently The Academy) love. For a movie about obsession and relentless pursuit it felt very slack and airless to me. And perhaps it’s just my natural dislike of procedurals but the whole thing left me cold. I know that that’s, in some way, the point, but different strokes for different folks I guess.

Now Django Unchained on the other hand left me super hot. And not at all bothered. It’s a nearly flawless masterpiece of acting, writing, and direction. It was the most fun I had at the movies this year, and the shootout scene (you know the one) might be the most graphically violent and visceral thrilling 10 minutes in film history. Django was awesome, and if it was a fraction of a percent not as good as Inglorious Basterds, well, you cant really hold that against it. But a bloody and profane B-movie is never winning the Academy Award for Best Picture of the Year. That's how it's always been, and that's how it always will be, forever. And I’m totally cool with that. But then again I still support Forrest Gump’s win over Pulp Fiction, so what do I know.

One thing I do know: the last film, and only film post-WWII, to win Best Picture without a Best Director nomination was Driving Miss Daisy. And we all know how that looks in retrospect. But even Driving Miss Daisy won awards for screenplay, and actress and had nominations for actor and supporting actor. Argo has, or potentially will have, only half of those things, at most. Which means the best analog for an Argo win would probably really be...Crash.

Now Argo is no Crash of course. It's an enjoyable and well-made movie. It's crowd pleasing, and uplifting, and not overwrought. It's the kind of movie they used to make all the time - competent, adult, and entertaining. But that's just the thing; if it had been released in 1974 it would have just blended into the pack, surrounded by a slew of movies just like it. And yet, for the second year in a row, its partially that very quality - "this movie reminds us of old movies we used to love" - that's going to propel a movie to an undeserved Best Picture victory. 

The other reason Argo is going to win is the always awesome and never regrettable "wave of sentiment" reason.

If Ben Affleck had just been nominated for Best Director, Argo wouldn't be in this spot. The day before the nominations were announced it was already an afterthought. And yet here it is days away from all-but-certain victory. Making this probably the clearest example in Oscar history of these awards being popularity contests, not art contests. The nice friendly kid got his feelings hurt by the bully and the Academy wants to make him feel better. (I can't believe I'm saying this, but if only the Academy wasn't filled with so many liberals...) It's not cool to vote for Lincoln. Sure Lincoln may be more well-directed, more well-acted, more well-written, more well-shot, more "important", more socially relevant and timely, more popular, more well-reviewed, more likely to hold up over time, more emotionally resonant, and basically better in every way, but there's nothing hip about voting for Lincoln. It's not an underdog; there's no compelling narrative that a vote for it supports. A vote for Lincoln doesn't make any sort of statement, it doesn't make you a part of anything. And ultimately that's why it's going to lose. It's the same dumb superficial reasons elections are almost always won or lost. And yet that doesn't make it any more correct.

In voting Argo Best Picture the Academy is basically giving themselves a YOLO tattoo. It's a trendy and emotion-based decision that seems right in the moment, but will look dumb in the not-so-distant future, only they'll be stuck with it for life. Sure there have been way worse decisions, but that doesn't mean this isn't still a stupid one. In the end though, its just the Oscars doing what they almost always do. Argo is a fine film, and its winning shouldn't outrage anyone. But look at this list: Slumdog Millionaire, The Kings Speech, The Artist, Argo. All solid, inoffensive, middle-brow entertainments that I found enjoyable, but which will all be completely forgotten 50 years from now. Lincoln likely wont be.

But the Oscars are now like the MLB or NFL playoffs - it's not about who's the best, it's about who gets hot at the right time. And maybe that's how it's always been. 

But that doesn't make it any less disheartening.

Should Win: Lincoln (or Amour)
Will Win: Argo