Wednesday, February 01, 2006
And the winner is ...
I can't believe that the only nominations King Kong received was for all the oh, they were good but, you know, ones: art direction, editing & special effects. When a film like Titanic which was SO much less than Kong swept the board.
It's not that I don't rate art direction or editing or special effects. And it's not that I don't like any of the films nominated for best picture and best director. It's just that they're mostly all so frickin' worthy. Where's the acknowledgement of being blown away by something bright and simple and intensely enjoyable? Why do the ones where people don't smile or get on with anyone and suffer things like being a tormented gaylord or having to do something they're morally opposed to mean that it's an oscar-winner?
Worthy-loving fucking cretins.
And why, when they show the Best Actress nominees in action, do they always pick a scene where they're howling like a drunken hen? Rib-shattering sobs, threads of drool twanging from a letter-boxed mouth, that nauseating gem of mucus. Like it's the best an actress can do.
Worthy-loving women-ugly-loving fucking cretins.
And, has anyone noticed that, even after One Night at McCools, John Goodman hasn't received a single nomination? The academy clearly hates big men. Ergo they wouldn't nominate Kong.
Worthy-loving women-ugly-loving ape-hating fucking cretins.
I wish nothing but complex narratives based around 9-11 on them all.