Best Pictures Nominees Need Best Director Nominations

For the 2008 year of films, there were five films nominated for Best Picture. They were Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, and The Reader.

What was missing from that group was a big budget audience pleaser. That same year, critically acclaimed and commercially successful The Dark Knight was not nominated. In years past, films like Forrest Gump and Titanic would make the most money in a year and win the top award. People liked the thought of watching the Oscars and seeing the films they enjoyed competing for the top awards. While I saw all five of those films before the Oscars took place, I would say that The Reader should have been off of that list and The Dark Knight should have been on it. With five smaller films that many people did not see competing for Best Picture, audiences had little interest in seeing the Oscars.

Realizing that having only five Best Picture nominees may not allow a crowd pleaser to be nominated, the list was increased from five to ten nominees the next year. To correct the problem of too few nominees, they allowed too many nominees. Which ten films up for Best Picture in a single year, audiences knew that some of those films would have no real shot at winning the top prize.

But there was a bigger problem. While they doubled the number of Best Picture nominees, they continued to only have five nominees for Best Director.

Christopher Nolan, having been snubbed before for The Dark Knight, made another box office and critically successful film called Inception. Many people thought that Inception would be one of the top films competing for Best Picture. With ten films nominated for Best Picture, it appeared that the Oscars corrected an error before and allowed enough films to be nominated so people like Mr. Nolan wouldn’t be snubbed again.

Inception was nominated for Best Picture. However, it was not nominated for Best Director. This made Inception’s Best Picture nominee appear to be half-hearted and not serious.

Typically, when there were five films up for Best Picture, at least four of those films had a director who was also nominated. The fifth film may be a fun film that no one assumes would really win the top prize. Increasing the Best Picture nominees to ten and keeping the Best Director nominees at five allows five films to be almost written off they day that the nominations are announced.

There is one exception in recent years… Driving Miss Daisy, which was the Best Picture winner for the 1989 year of film. The director, Bruce Beresford, was not nominated for Best Director.

This year, there are nine films up for Best Picture, and four of them are not up for Best Director. One of the directors who was snubbed is two-time Best Director winner Steven Spielberg. When a director finds out that his or her film is not nominated for Best Director, he or she may just hope to win the top award and think, “It happened for Driving Miss Daisy. It could happen again.” Or the person may feel that they were taken out of the Best Picture race without the Best Director nomination.

If I could give two recommendations to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, I would first recommend that they have the same films nominated for Best Picture automatically be nominated for Best Director. This way, audiences (and Oscar voters) won’t automatically dismiss the chances of a Best Picture nominee because the director did not get a nomination as well. Sure we may not think that films like Toy Story 3 will actually have a shot at the top prize, but we won’t dismiss films like Inception or War Horse due to a snub of the films’ directors. I also feel that while five films may be too few, nine or ten films are too many to have nominations for Best Picture. My second recommendation would be to reduce the number of films nominated for Best Picture (and Best Director)to seven.

My recommendations would give the audience pleasers a better shot at a Best Picture nomination, keep films from being dismissed from the Oscar race due not having a Best Director nomination, and keep a few films out of the Best Picture race that are unlikely to win.

Loutallica: Worthy Experiment, Bad Result

I dedicate this article to my cousin, Evan Appleton.

I want to begin by giving credit to Metallica and Lou Reed for experimenting on an album together instead of playing it safe. I would rather see musicians take risks than to put out albums that sound too much like their previous work. But when an experiment turns out to be bad, in this case really bad, it should have been placed on the shelf.

For some reason, people like to see different musical artists perform together. Recently I downloaded from the Sopranos soundtrack a track that mixes Every Breath You Take with the theme from Peter Gunn. I can easily hear both tracks separately, but hearing them together gives me a new experience. This is referred to as a mashup. I view mashups as the “Reese’ Peanut Butter Cups” of music. Sure people love peanut butter and they love chocolate, but together they taste great. Sometimes two songs mashed up together can be better than the previous songs were separately. This is all a matter of opinion. Sometimes mashups are great and sometimes they are bad.

A few years ago, Linkin Park made an album with Jay-Z and the result was excellent. I am more of a fan of rock music than I am a fan of rap, but I understand how rappers can use rock music in the background successfully. When Aerosmith worked with Run DMC for the song “Walk This Way”, the music and singing of Aerosmith fit with the rapping of Run DMC. When Linkin Park worked with Jay-Z, they made sure that the tempo of the music fit the lyrics correctly. Great lyrics will not make a song successful if the lyrics do not fit well with the original song that was chosen to be in the background. MC Hammer could have used the same rap lyrics from “U Can’t Touch This” and added them to the music of a different song instead of “Super Freak” by Rick James, but the result may have not been as successful.

Jay-Z has a lot of experience taking the music of other artists and makes sure that it fits well in the background. As a rapper, he can tell if the music fits with his lyrics.

Metallica and Lou Reed have decided to make an album together called Lulu. They released a song called “The View.” To compare this to Jay-Z and Linkin Park, the talking is done by Lou Reed and the music and is performed by Metallica.

Here is the link to hear it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LWtb621DRg

The result is absolutely horrible…..

But the reason why this song is bad is very simple. Lou Reed is talking with very little emotion with a very fast musical background. James Hetfield has some lines in the song and he is singing (not talking) with the same aggressive style that fits most Metallica songs. Hearing Lou Reed use such a lack of emotion is like hearing an old man talking on stage while a heavy metal band is playing fast and aggressive music. The singing, talking, or rapping has to fit the music that is being played. Jay-Z understands this. Lou Reed does not.

In my opinion, “The View” is the worst song that Metallica has ever released. When the full album is released on November 1st, I may possibly have a lower opinion of the other songs on the album, but I will not even consider purchasing the album at this time.

I really do love the music of Metallica. I am a big fan of them. I respect their decision work with Lou Reed on an album. But at some point, I really do wish they said to themselves, “This album is bad. We’re going to have to tell Lou that we can’t release it.” How do you tell someone who is considered a legendary artist that you can’t release the work that you have done with him because it’s not good? Would it be like insulting yourself, insulting the other artist, or both?

I expect Lulu to be considered the worst album that Metallica has ever released and ranked below St. Anger. Artists decide not to release songs all of the time. I’m sure that Metallica has written many songs that they did not put on their albums and would only choose the songs that they felt were the best. When a group writes many songs and can only put a few on an album, they have to be their own worst critic and decide which songs are unworthy of the album. But it’s harder to decide that a body of work overall needs to be shelved. It is hard to be that hard on yourself to shelf an entire project. In this case, they would not have had to just be their own worst critic, but a critic of Lou Reed.

By deciding to release the worst song of their career (The View), and possibly their worst album (which I cannot judge it until I hear it), Metallica may have opened up Lou Reed and themselves to their true worst critics… the audience.

Amy Winehouse: The Celebration of Self-Destruction

Earlier this year, a man named Blair River died at the young age of 29. He was the 575-pound spokesman for Heart Attack Grill in Arizona, a restaurant that celebrates obesity. If you go to Heart Attack Grill and you weigh more than 350 pounds, you get to eat for free. They name the burgers the bypass, double-bypass, triple-bypass, and quadruple-bypass based on the number of patties in your burger. Blair River celebrated his obesity by becoming a spokesman for Heart Attack Grill, which celebrates unhealthy eating. This is different than someone being a spokesman for a typical fast-food restaurant. Heart Attack Grill is a celebration of what unhealthy food will do to you. Should anyone have been shocked that Blair River died at such a young age? No. Those around him must have realized that his weight and unhealthy eating habits would take a toll on his health. While I feel sad at the passing of someone at a young age, I feel angry when people celebrate their addictions and then die at an early age.

The death of Amy Winehouse was not a surprise to many people. She did not only struggle through drug addiction, but she celebrated her addiction with the hit single, “Rehab” which won Grammys for Song of the Year and Record of the Year. Now that she has died at the age of 27, I feel that for the first time in my life, I have witnessed a celebrity practically committing public suicide. She let the world know that she was going through substance-abuse and that she did not want to receive treatment.

The two celebrities who I thought for a while would die at a young age have been Amy Winehouse and Lindsay Lohan. I do not think that Lindsay Lohan celebrates her substance-abuse, but I also don’t think that she has been serious about trying to rehabilitate herself. If Lindsay Lohan wants to be serious about getting over her substance-abuse, she needs to place herself in an environment in which she can avoid temptation. An alcoholic and drug-user should not go to clubs where substances can be easily purchased. If Lindsay Lohan continues to go to clubs in L.A. then she’s not serious about getting treatment. A very fat person would struggle to have just one plate of food if he or she goes to a buffet.

While I am sad for the family of Amy Winehouse, I am angry at Amy and those who celebrated her self-destruction. By celebrating her issues with drugs, Amy Winehouse showed an acceptance of her lifestyle and possibly an acceptance of what the final outcome would be. By celebrating Amy’s “I use drugs and I’m not going to change” attitude, her fans should accept that they knew that she was going to die, that they celebrated her self-destruction, and that they patted her on the back instead of offering real help. Amy filled her body with expensive drugs over the years which were paid for by album sales and concert tickets which were purchased by her fans.

I would rather someone live a long life than for me to be correct. I think that Lindsay Lohan is going to die at a young age. I really hope that I am wrong and that she turns her life around.

Adele: The Best Singer Today

This article is dedicated to Jennifer Waller, a fellow fan of Adele.

For weeks, I saw on Amazon.com’s list of the top selling albums the album 21 by Adele. Week after week this album was at the top of the chart. I was not familiar with Adele. I found out that she won the Grammy for Best New Artist a few years ago and had a song called Chasing Pavements that I remembered hearing. But I was not a fan of that song and I did not remember her name. I decided to preview a few of her songs on her 21 album. Once I heard the preview, I knew that I had to order this album. After hearing it, I will not be surprised if it wins the Grammy for Album of the Year.

I read an article in Rolling Stone magazine about her. I learned about how heartbreak inspired both of her albums. I think that her album 19 is good, but her album 21 is a masterpiece.

In my opinion, Adele is the best music artist working today.

The album has four songs that I just love. The first song, Rolling In The Deep, is a powerful ballad about wishing that she did not meet a man who used to be in her life. This is the song that is currently on the radio. One thing I like about this song is that it’s not anti-male, but anti-ex. I am reminded in contrast of the singer Kelis who sang I Hate You So Much Right Now. The problem with that song was it was dedicated to the women who were hurt by men. What about the men who were hurt by women? Adele does not make that mistake. Her songs are not about bad men, but about bad previous relationships. Men and women can identify with her.

The third song on the album, Turning Tables, is not an angry song, but more about feeling hurt. If Rolling In The Deep is like clenching a fist, then Turning Tables is like letting a tear fall down a cheek. It’s about the wounded feeling after the loss of love.

The tenth song is Love Song, which is a remake of the hit by The Cure. Yes, a remake, but this one is good. Unlike the version by 311, the version by Adele is really good. She expresses the sadness that was heard in the original version, while the 311 version feels less emotional.

The final song, Someone Like You, is a farewell to a man she loved who has now married someone else. The album begins with a song full of anger, then is filled with songs of sadness. Now with the final song, Adele deals with the final stage of heartbreak… acceptance of love that will never return.

It is nice to know that an album of true substance has sold so many copies. I predict that this album will win the Grammy for Album of the Year, even if it does not, Adele has touched so many people with her music. In the music industry, occasionally we find a truly great artist. In this case, that artist is being given the attention that she deserves.

Judas Priest, Ray Belknap, and James Vance: 25 Years Later

This is the most powerful story in the history of Heavy Metal.

Either before or after reading this article, you may want to see the documentary about the Judas Priest trial. The documentary is called Dream Deceivers: The Story Behind James Vance vs. Judas Priest.

To view this powerful documentary on YouTube, click on the link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfJkeGpiD9M

Today is the 25th anniversary of the day that Ray Belknap and James Vance shot themselves after listening to the Judas Priest album, Stained Class. On December 23, 1985, Ray Belknap gave James Vance a copy of Stained Class, which they listened to in Ray’s room while drinking beer and smoking pot. Afterwards, they trashed Ray’s room. After trashing the room, they took Ray’s shotgun to the playground by a church. Ray put the shotgun under his chin and fired. He died immediately. James picked up the shotgun which was covered in blood. He put it under his own chin and fired.

He lived…

When James fired, the shot missed his brain and eyes, but blew off his mouth and nose. He lived for three more years disfigured. While he was alive and disfigured, he sent a letter to Ray Belknap’s mother in which he blamed the music of Judas Priest for him and Ray deciding to commit suicide.

James Vance died in 1988. The lawsuit against Judas Priest went to trial in 1990.

As Ken McKenna, the lawyer for the families, planned the lawsuit against Judas Priest, his team of experts listened to the Stained Class album and examined it closely. They could not blame the lyrics for the suicide, because the courts have already ruled that musicians cannot be sued for lyrics because song lyrics are covered by the First Amendment. This was tested and when Ozzy Osbourne was sued over the song “Suicide Solution” that a boy listened to as he committed suicide.

There was a loophole….. subliminal messages. In the song “Better By You, Better Than Me,” there was a sound several times that could be heard throughout the song that sounded like someone saying “Do it!” The judge ruled that the case can move forward because he viewed subliminal messages were not covered by the First Amendment

Throughout the case, it was shown that Ray Belknap and James Vance had horrible upbringings. They were from broken families. Both of them had violence families. They used drugs, had police records, and both of them were high school drop-outs. They did not have promising futures. Feeling that life was not going in a positive direction, they were depressed.

Can anyone really blame the music for this? Should the parents have sued themselves? Or at least maybe they should they have taken some of the blame for the raising of their children?

The case was dismissed when it was proven that the sounds that caused the “Do it” sound came from two different recording tracks. The “Do it” was considered an accidental sound.

Now here’s my take. I do not believe that hearing “Do it” in the middle of “Better By You, Better Than Me” would drive anyone to commit suicide. Let’s say the sound was actually intentional. Let’s say instead of a soft sound, Rob Halford sang “Do it” out loud. The message of the song is about a man asking a friend (gender not identified) to express the feelings of the man to the man’s girlfriend. Kind of like a boy in class asking his best friend to express his love for a girl. If you have seen Steve Martin in the movie Roxanne, Steve Martin’s character was used to express the feelings of another man to Roxanne because Steve Martin’s character was better at finding the right words. Saying “Do it”…. Do what? The singer of the song wants his friend to go express his feelings to a girl. He wants the friend to do that. The song is not about suicide.

When you listen to sad songs, you may think about sad feelings. I do think that listening to the album may have made them think about their own mortality, but not in a way that can be blamed on Judas Priest. One of the songs, “Beyond The Realms Of Death” is a haunting song about life not being worth living. The song after that “Heroes End” has the line “Why do you have to die to be a hero?” They were also the last two songs on the album. Maybe hearing two songs about death (especially at the end of the album) made Ray and James think about not wanting to live.

On this day in 1985, two friends were in a room using substances and talking about their depressing lives. They hear two songs about death at the end of the album. They decide together to commit suicide. What breaks my heart about this story is that in a suicide pack, two people encourage each other to end their lives together, convincing each other that this is the decision to make. Suicide is a serious issue. It should be discouraged. I wonder if one of them convinced the other one to commit suicide. It is possible that the discussion treaded lightly on the topic of suicide and then they may have convinced each other that this was the right decision to make. Maybe both of them were willing to pull the trigger because each one felt that he would not be making this choice alone. Maybe had they listened to a different album that night, they may be alive today.

Let’s say I am right. I don’t know if I am, but for the sake of discussion, let’s say that my theory is correct that listening to “Beyond The Realms Of Death” and “Heroes End” made them think about suicide instead of “Better By You, Better Than Me.” Can we truly blame Judas Priest? As a society, should we ban every song, every film, every play, every book that discusses death? Will lives be perfect, or better, if we ban art discussing death? Will our society be happy and will our problems be solved by censorship?

If James and Ray did not have access to songs that discussed death, would their parents and stepfathers not beat them? The two of them listened to Judas Priest because they could identify with Heavy Metal and loved the music. If they identified with the theme from “Beyond The Realms Of Death” then maybe their mothers should have tried harder to give them happy upbringings without violence.

This is protective speech. I think that hearing these songs when someone is depressed can make them think about death, just like seeing Top Gun in the theaters led to many young men deciding to sign up for the Air Force. Judas Priest did nothing wrong by recording the songs on the album. If we change the Constitution to allow any artist to be sued for someone listening to depressing songs before committing suicide, then we might as well ban any songs about love and loss. If those men listened to “Only The Lonely” and committed suicide, would it have been right for their parents to sue Roy Orbison?

This is the greatest story of Heavy Metal because it has all of the elements. Depressed youth, drugs, suicide, families blaming the music for the problems of the young men. What is most fascinating is how one of the victims lived to blame the music personally. Had both men died that night, this would be another story of youth and suicide. Hearing one of them talk about the events and living to tell about it is a rare look into the sadness and desperation of those without hope. I don’t fault James Vance for blaming the music, but I think he took issue with the wrong song. They would have no case against the song “Beyond The Realms Of Death” so they blamed the only song that they could (Better By You, Better Than Me).

It is ironic that the song they blamed was “Better By You, Better Than Me” because the song is about placing actions in the hands of another. Multiple stepfathers, violence, drug usage, arrest records, and discontinued education led to two young men seeing no future. Better blame the music. Better than the families blaming themselves.

Lost on Netflix (No Spoilers)

I dedicate this article to Shannon Brown, Kelly Flynn, Rich Gillum, Sarah McMahon, John Prado, and Kelley Prado, my co-workers who also watched Lost but did not spoil the ending. Thanks everyone.

I have “No Spoilers” in the title because I want those who have not seen Lost to be able to read this without having plot twists ruined for them. This article is about 1) the show Lost and 2) how using Netflix can be a better way to watch television shows.

Back in 2004 I remember people talking about the show Lost like it was the greatest show ever made. A few years ago I decided to wait for the show to completely end and then I would watch the entire show by renting the DVDs on Netflix. At work several months ago, I asked fellow employees not to discuss the show in front of me because I did not want the ending ruined. I wanted to see why people were so crazy about this show. After the final episode of Lost aired, I started watching the show from the beginning.

For those who have not seen the show, it is mainly about a group of passengers who have survived a plane crash and are stuck on an island. Each episode has a focus on the life of one of the characters before he or she was on the plane in addition to showing the group on the island. This is key because it allows us to learn about what made some characters the way that they are and keeps the story interesting.

When students go to college after high school, they get to start over in a way. When you are in your first year of college, other students will not know that your past (positive or negative) and you have the opportunity to start over. For those on the island, they can tell as much or as little about themselves as they choose. Some of them have very painful pasts.

What makes this show so fascinating is the character development and the plot twists in the show, both from their lives before being on the island and their lives on the island. The plot twists hit the audience like the Twilight Zone. This is not the drama version of Gilligan’s Island. This is an interweaving story of shocking revelations that I won’t reveal in this article. We learn how characters developed into the people they are on the island and why they may be more likeable than they initially appear.

In my opinion, Lost is the greatest drama that I have ever seen on TV. My focus on watching six seasons of Lost prevented me from spending time watching many movies, but I do not regret this. I give Lost four stars and watching the show is the equivalent of watching a long four-star film. It is a masterpiece.

Now about using Netflix to watch television shows. Obviously I have paid money to watch a show that others have seen for free over the last six years. This is something that I not only don’t regret, but will use to watch other television shows in the future. Lost was a fascinating show, but those who viewed it had to wait week by week to watch the show. They also had to go months at a time between seasons. In my situation, I was able to watch the show as slowly or as quickly as I chose to. By waiting until Lost ended, I got to watch the show:

1. Without having to wait during commercials.
2. Without having to wait for the next episode.
3. Without having to wait for the next season.

I literally could watch the show without ever having to wait. Instant gratification. I also was able to enjoy the show over a few months instead of over six years. I know I could have gone through the show more quickly, but I was not in a rush to get through it. I got to enjoy it at my own rate.

There are many shows that I have yet to see. I have decided to wait for some shows to end and then I will use this method to watch them. Having the ability to watch a show straight through without waiting is (ironically) well worth the wait.

Dr. Laura: Read the Constitution

This article is dedicated to Bobby Duke, who truly understands the Constitution.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is either a racist or the least intelligent person in the United States who has obtained a Ph.D. I will refer to her as “Dr. Laura” for the rest of the article because that is what she goes by (like Dr. Phil). I try to make this blog to be about the entertainment business, not about politics. I am discussing Dr. Laura because she had a radio show with millions of listeners. I will avoid having this article be about her political views because it is more important to talk about what she did than where she is on the political spectrum.

Recently, Dr. Laura said the n-word 11 times when talking to a black woman on the radio. Dr. Laura was trying to make a point that she believes that if blacks can use the n-word on HBO, then whites should be able to use it as well. After this became a national story, Dr. Laura “quit” her radio show. I use the word “quit” in quotes because she is acting like she left the show on her own will. Chances are, had she not “quit”, she would have been fired because the advertisers would have stopped advertising on the show. She may have been fired before quitting, or asked if she would resign. I do not know how her departure from radio occurred, but it is unlikely that she would have been able to continue her show.

If Dr. Laura is not a racist, then she is just a very unintelligent person. White people have learned in the last 15 years that a white person should never use the n-word in any situation, even in context. Even if the white person is discussing the word, he or she does not have to actually say it. Instead, the person can just do what I am doing, and describe it as “n-word” so everyone will know what the person is talking about.

During the O.J. Simpson trial, Mark Fuhrman was shown to be a racist for using the n-word. A few years ago, comedian Michael Richards got in trouble for using it on stage while trying to make people laugh. Obviously the joke did not work. Recently, Mel Gibson was caught on an audio recording using the word as well. All three of these men are viewed as racists. Did Dr. Laura not hear about the reaction of society to the actions of each of these men?

If this was 1993, Dr. Laura may have tried to make a point that backfired. But with society knowing how people react to white people using the n-word, she should have known better. It is one thing to be the first person to get into trouble for actions, but to do the same thing after so many careers have been ruined by people using the n-word, means that she’s either a racist, a moron, or both.

Dr. Laura may be a racist and/or a moron, but she definitely has no understanding of the Constitution. She claimed that she left radio to “regain my First Amendment rights.” What she doesn’t understand is that her First Amendment rights were never violated. The First Amendment means that the government will not prohibit your right to speak. The government had nothing to do with this. As an employee of company that employs her to speak on the radio, they can fire her if they do not like what she says at work. A business has the right to not employ someone based on what that person says at work. If advertisers boycott a radio station over comments by a talk show host, those advertisers have the legal right to do so. If the radio station disagrees with her controversial comments, they can fire her. The government has nothing to do with this. People can lose their jobs at work based on their behavior.

Dr. Laura is not a victim. She may have a Ph.D, but she does not understand the Constitution. Hopefully someone will explain to her what the First Amendment truly means.