The Oscar Post

OMG two posts in one day!  Well, I have to get this one out while it's still marginally timely...

I half-watched the show while doing a bunch of stuff for work, and I hardly saw any movies in 2010, so I'm even less informed than usual.  Hooray!

Best Picture - The King's Speech
Of the ten nominees, I saw The Fighter, True Grit, and Inception, and rank them in that order.  However, to find which ones I would most like to see again, you have to read that list in reverse.  All this is moot, though, as my favorite movie of the year was Scott Pilgrim vs the World.  We are Sex Bob-Omb!

Best Director - the guy who did The King's Speech
I didn't see the film, and I'm not really qualified to rate the quality of the direction, but I really liked his acceptance speech.

Best Actor - Colin Firth
OK, there's a pattern here.  I still haven't seen The King's Speech.  I am a fan of Colin Firth, though, and happy to see him win this award.

Best Actress - Natalie Portman
...and I haven't seen Black Swan, nor have I haven't seen any other films in this category.  Clearly, this post is worth your time.

Best Supporting Actress - Melissa Leo
She was excellent in The Fighter, and the best in my opinion of the three nominees whose movies I saw.

Best Supporting Actor - Christian Bale
I'm glad I don't pay attention to the tabloids, because I've heard a few negative things about Mr. Bale in real life that might cloud my opinions.  He did a damn fine job in The Fighter.  I also really liked his acceptance speech, both the first half in which he made light of some of those tabloid issues, and the end where he appeared to create new issues for himself.  Did he forget his wife's name, or never intend to say it in the first place?

The Show Itself

• Why is there a separate category for animated films?  Let them compete against live-action.  Disney and Pixar continue to turn out some top quality work and should be recognized for it alongside everything else.  I still think Wall-E should have been nominated for best picture.
• Why do we have to see performances of the songs nominated for best song?  The category is an artifact from the long passed days when musicals were common.  Let's get rid of performances of songs we never heard and give honorees more time for their acceptance speeches. 
• I lost track of Anne Hathaway's costume changes at 877.  I liked her enthusiasm and wouldn't mind seeing her host again.
• James Franco was awful.  Pinocchio was less wooden before he became a real boy.

The Fashion

• Christian Bale's beard: WTF?  Is that for a movie role?  Why is it different from his hair color?
• Is Reese Witherspoon starring in a live-action Barbie movie or does she always look like that?
• I am still confused by Cate Blanchett's dress.
• Is Gwynneth Paltrow on a crusade against color?
• Amy Adams looked fantastic.  I love the green jewelry against the blue dress!
• Scarlett Johanson is apparently so hot that she has to horribly mess up her hair to bring herself down to the level of everyone else.
• Jennifer Hudson- awesome dress, love that she went with orange, a color no one else dared try.

Putting the Z in DUI

Today on NPR I heard a call-in segment about a proposal to put the letter "Z" on the license plate for three years of anyone convicted of a DUI.  The legislator who proposed the law (Representative Norma Smith of Clinton, Wash) claims it would "...provide a tool for law enforcement… just to be aware that the car is registered to someone with a DUI conviction and to provide a little extra scrutiny."  She believes the plates would also serve as an added incentive against repeat offenses.

Callers were generally in favor of the proposal, and many of them noted that they had relatives who were injured or killed by drunk drivers.  Most of the callers against the idea identified themselves as knowing someone who had received a DUI.  Those against the idea who didn't mention DUI experience were generally arguing against infringement of civil liberties.

I think this proposal is a bad idea for two reasons:

1) The person with a DUI may not be the only driver. 
An easy-to-imagine case could be a family where one parent gets a DUI and then both the sedan and the minivan get Z plates.  The other parent is then forced to drive those cars and seen by the general public unloading children from a Z-plate car.  I think that parent would face unjustified criticism and negative treatment as a result.  The show's host also noted an example from Minnesota, which has a law like this, where a day care center employee got a DUI and then all the center's vans were required to have DUI plates.  I was able to corroborate that story on the web, but wasn't able to find info about what happened to the day care business.  I can't imagine that it survived.

2) I don't think the special license plate will be an effective deterrent. 
When you're drunk, normal logic and thought processes are impaired.  We often do things drunk that we would never do sober.  Sometimes that's due to decreased inhibitions, but it's often due to a breakdown in the ability to accurately assess the outcome and consequences of our actions.  So, is a drunk person going to have the wherewithal to think about the potential Z plate before getting behind the wheel of their car?  I don't think so.  There is an argument to be made that the Z plate may make a sober person take a cab or the bus on their way to the bar/club, but I just don't see that happening much due to the cost a cab ride.


One caller to the show made a comparison to pedophiles, pointing out that many jurisdictions notify neighborhoods when sex offenders move in, and that the Z plate law was no different.  I disagree.  I'm no psychologist, but I'm pretty sure that pedophilia is a mental disorder with no known cure.  Having two drinks too many on Saturday night is merely a bad decision- albeit one with significant consequences if you drive drunk and crash.

So how do we go forward?  The Z plate approach is a well-intended but misguided attempt to address a legitimate problem.  Providing a greater deterrent against driving drunk is a good idea, but I think it makes more sense to deprive DUI offenders of their ability to commit a similar crime by suspending their driver's license and impounding their car for a period of time.  I'm not opposed to fairly severe consequences for even first-time offenders- say one year on the first offense, another year on the second, and permanent on the third.  I might even be ok with a permanent suspension on the second offense.  The Z plate approach puts DUI offenders right back in their cars.

Super Bowl XLV ads!

I'm sure there are tons of polls out there, but I haven't seen them, so here's my take.

Favorites

• Volkswagen Beetle - This is my #1 pick. Fun, engaging, and uniquely tied to the product.  Really well done, I think.  I especially like the slow-motion shots of the beetle skidding - great tie-in to the product.
• Bud Light product placement - I enjoyed the creative ways that Bud Light was worked into the fake movie, as well as the truck that drove into the set at the end.  Appropriately over the top.  
• Volkswagen Darth Vader kid - The soundtrack makes this commercial.  Nice incongruity between the music and the tiny Vader. I also love the cape flourish at the end.
• CareerBuilder.com - can't go wrong with monkeys in human clothes!  I especially enjoyed the sideswiping monkey exiting his car through the sunroof.
• CarMax service station - normal guy freaked out by unexpected activity.  Classic theme well executed.
• Bridgestone beaver - anthropomorphic beavers = always a winner.  I'm not sure it effectively advertised tires, but it made me smile.

Almost great

• Audi - I like the concept of escaping old luxury, and it had some funny moments (release the hounds!), but I think it was too complex to be effective.  This one did not live up to Audi's Godfather parody from last year.
• Teleflora - simple, enjoyable, but predictable.
• Best Buy - This is the ad with Ozzy and Justin Bieber.  I didn't even know what it was advertising until I looked it up just now.  It's only in this spot because the last two seconds with Ozzy in the background were hilarious.

Hurts my eyes

• Doritos pug - Pugs are my favorite dogs, and that was a cute little guy, but the 15 seconds or so of some idiot making faces and yelling at the camera was 15 seconds too much.
• Brisk ad with Eminem - WTF?  Animated puppet white rapper advertising a product I had to look up to see what it was.
• Budweiser Tiny Dancer - made no sense, even as a commercial that was supposed to be ridiculous.
• Chatter.com - I have no desire to visit your site.  Your commercial annoys me.  Kind-of like chatter, I suppose.

Other thoughts

• I'm done with the E-Trade baby.  Let's see something new next year.
• I left out movie commercials from the lists above, but there were some interesting ones.  I don't feel like those ads are on the same platform as the traditional Super Bowl ads.
• Two ads with Eminem?  I didn't realize he was still relevant.  Perhaps we could say the same about Detroit, which makes him an apt choice for that Chrysler commercial.
• Pepsi's two ads both featured people being physically assaulted by their product.  I understand that for, say, Mountain Dew, but Pepsi?  Odd.
• Thanks to Kia, we know that Mayan magic is more powerful than aliens or Greek gods.  (Good observation, Dave)

I have been to the mountain top

A few days ago, someone asked me what I enjoy about hiking.  At the time, I answered that it was partly the exercise, partly the views, and also the solitude.  I've pondered that question a bit since then and discovered that, while that initial response is true, there are deeper reasons.

Projects at work fade quickly as the next task appears, and shaving a few seconds off my regular run is only briefly elating, but I can instantly remember the view from the top of every hike I've done in the last couple years, and can describe each trek to you in detail.  Sometimes the ascent to the summit is a long, gradual climb with the destination visible well before I reach it.  Other times, the trail takes me through stands of trees or up the back of a cliff, and the apex appears suddenly.  Regardless of how I get there, reaching that destination fills me with an immensely satisfying sense of accomplishment that bests anything available back at sea level.  My lunch at the summit - a peanut-butter sandwich and handful of nuts- tastes better than any restaurant meal.

If you're reading this, then you probably know me well enough to know that I'm all about facts and data, research and preparation.  Certainly, I prepare well for a hike, but once the trek is on, it's a sensory-based experience.  I walk along the trail that's a crooked scar on the face of this mountain, the dirt, roots and rocks around me forming little gullies and mounds like a close-up view of the earth's skin.  The trees and plants spread away from the trail in rich layers unlike anything I can find in the best city park.  The air up here is crisper, and sound carries well.  At the summit, standing on solid ground yet so far above other parts of the earth, I grasp the magnificence of our planet more than I do anywhere else.  That connection doesn't happen looking out from an airplane window or from the top of a skyscraper. 

I have never climbed one of the world's famous peaks but I understand why people do.

Cuts alone won't cut it

This short opinion piece from the Sunday Seattle Times is right-on.  The principle is sound regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum.  I approve.

More of the same

In a December interview, incoming House Financial Services Committee chairman Spencer Bachus said “In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks."  Bachus later tried to clarify that what he meant was “regulators should set the parameters in which banks operate but not micromanage them.”  The second quote sounds a lot better, but I think it's just a softened version. The former is what we'd expect to hear from any Fox News talking head, and from any right-wing politician if he/she were to turn off the filter that typically shapes public statements.

We have seen the consequences of setting Washington in the position of serving the banks:

• US banks (and other entities, like AIG's financial services arm) took on risk far exceeding their capacity to handle it, and some began to fail
• US equity markets plummeted, decimating individual investment portfolios and retirement accounts
• Property values fell sharply and millions of Americans lost jobs or had hours reduced
• US taxpayers spent well over $1 trillion (in the form of newly-issued government debt) to stabilize the financial system
• US investment banks were profitable in 2009 and are expected to be again in 2010. 

Mr. Bachus believes that the regulatory framework in place during the last five years was appropriate- banks were able to act without restraint, and the government rescued them when they got into real trouble.

Much reporting has been done to expose the lack of oversight of trading in mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps and activities in general of certain financial entities.  I'm not saying anything new here. But what can we do about it?  Sure, we can elect different representatives in the future, but catastrophes can happen quickly and have effects that last for years or decades to follow.  I think we'd all better increase our personal savings, as it's only a matter of time until the next crisis and we'll each need some cash socked away to weather it.

But what about those who have no income or are barely squeaking by, and have no ability to build a financial cushion?  Too bad, according to Mr. Bachus and friends.  In their view, government exists to serve corporations, not constituents.  I disapprove.

Footnote: I've been wanting to write a post about this ever since mid-November but didn't hear the right supporting quote until today, in an NPR piece.  Here's a transcript that's well worth a few minutes to read.

Act like you've been there before

It's been quite a while since I've seen a football team consistently eschew celebrations after big plays.  Stanford, playing in the Orange Bowl tonight, just made two huge offensive plays in the span of a few minutes, the second resulting in a touchdown, with nary a salute or a ball spike to be seen.  I love it.  Let your progress speak for itself and the game score tell the story.  I approve.

I also love the "Revenge of the Nerds" sign in the Stanford student/fan section.  Clever.

Stanford might be the best college football team in the country, but we'll never know because there is no playoff system.  I disapprove.