My friends and many of our site’s regular contributors have complimented me for predicting the Oscars more accurately than most accomplished professional pundits. I am no genius or clairvoyant but as I wrote earlier, there was a method to the madness, an absolute science at work.
All I needed to know was the lobbyist and the name that popped up was Harvey Weinstein. Mr. Weinstein is no Howard Hughes. But he knows and abides by one single law of Hollywood Inc. The runner up is a loser that everyone remembers and Weinstein is no loser. In 1998 he singlehandedly took a little remembered movie, Shakespeare in Love, to Oscar glory beating (check this out) Saving Private Ryan, one of the most realistic war dramas ever produced.
When I learned that he is personally in charge of King’s Speech, The Fighter’s supporting cast and Natalie Portman, I knew the rest didn’t stand a prayer except for categories where he had no vested interest.
Person had commented that they have a new voting system. Yes, it is a fair system where you rank the nominees, so technically you can have a 2nd best nominee win if the number 1 nominee gets a significant number of lower rankings at the same time. In other words, if you vilify the favorite nominee, you can still have the second best nominee win. It sounds outrageous and improbable. Who would go to such lengths for a trophy that has lost its sheen?
Except that is exactly what happened. Serious movies were ignored to satisfy a company’s lust for ill-deserved prestige. In Hollywood, money doesn’t just talk, it screams – at times, obscenely.
Dr. H Explains His Oscar Prediction System: Mr. Weinstein Goes to Hollywood
04
Mar
J.P.'s I'm Outta Here Movie Thoughts 
Jude
March 4, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Dude, the scales are falling off my eyes as we speak. H-man, you are totally disillusioning me here! I had no idea…dude, I will never watch the Oscars the same way again.
LikeLike
Jude
March 4, 2011 at 4:28 pm
H, how did you find all this stuff out? You must be an Internet research demon, dude!
LikeLike
DR H
March 5, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Jude,my friend,just google search the gentleman and you will understand the hollowness of the system. Its all a farce and not a very funny one. As to how I stumbled upon this particular piece— its all over the net. Apparently he thrives on publicity.
LikeLike
Person
March 8, 2011 at 11:53 am
Dr. H:
Perhaps you’re a follower of Hitchens. If not, I call your attention to the post(s) he wrote regarding “The King’s Speech.” Hitchens is vitriolic in his opposition to the monarchy (yes, he’s British), and he has taken strong exception to the airbrushed portrayal of the monarchy and of Edward (a fan of Hitler) in Seidler’s film. Apparently Seidler was none too pleased with anyone who presented a different view, so he fought back, making things worse for himself. For the full impact of Hitchens’ wit and wisdom, go to:
http://www.slate.com/id/2285695/pagenum/all/#p2
And from the first piece HItchens wrote on the film, the intro. begins as such:
“The King’s Speech is an extremely well-made film with a seductive human interest plot, very prettily calculated to appeal to the smarter filmgoer and the latent Anglophile. But it perpetrates a gross falsification of history. One of the very few miscast actors—Timothy Spall as a woefully thin pastiche of Winston Churchill—is the exemplar of this bizarre rewriting. He is shown as a consistent friend of the stuttering prince and his loyal princess and as a man generally in favor of a statesmanlike solution to the crisis of the abdication.”
So, Dr. H, it looks like your views on the Oscar have been vindicated by someone of serious high stature.
As for “The Reader” having won awards (last year?), you can find a slew of well-reasoned arguments against awarding a film that honored the victimizer rather than the victims.
LikeLike
DR H
March 5, 2011 at 2:36 pm
No, do watch the Oscars — for the glamour and the song and dance show. Just dont take the winners too seriously.
LikeLike
Person
March 6, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Dr. H:
You’ve explained how you came up with your winners and losers, but you didn’t say anything about the show itself. There was a lot of discussion here about the “young” and “more hip” hosts, as the show was trying to draw a younger audience. What did you think of this attempt? I thought the two hosts fell flat quite a bit of the time. The audience may have felt the same way judging by the way Bill Cyrstal’s entrance was greeted. Did you enjoy the actual presentation?
LikeLike
DR H
March 6, 2011 at 3:21 pm
I think it was mediocre at best. But I am going to take a walk down the memory lane and remind you it was not the worst. The award for infamy goes to none other than Dave Litterman who in 1995,set new standards for bad taste and flat jokes. Check this one out, he actually had a dog on stage do something like spin on its hind legs for 5 minutes and then roared into laughter as if he had just witnessed the most hilarious gig ever. In my opinion the most spontaneously funny host was Chris Rock in 2004 whose political candour made sure he was never invited again. Such are the wages of political correctness.
LikeLike
DR H
March 6, 2011 at 3:36 pm
And as to how a doctor has a peak season, I am kind of embarassed to admit it but in case you havent noticed a typical clinic sees a spate of respiratory and ENT ailments during winter that tapers off by end of march to being flat during the summer and then again picks up by fall.In a perfect world we would want to see 4 patients an hour and 2 per hour if we were doing a physical but that doesnt happen in real life.But still as Jp will tell you I run the most ethical practice in the city
LikeLike
Person
March 6, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Ah, now I understand. I live in a place without much of a winter and no real pollen season . . . mercifully. You’ll soon have more time on your hands to watch movies given that spring is on the way.
As for the Awards, I always enjoyed Billy Crystal. I don’t remember the David Letterman episode, but it sounds dreadful. I thought Franco and Hathaway stumbled through much of it, but didn’t expect anything different. It’s got to be a tough job to get in front of such a huge audience, but then again, that’s what they’re paid for!
LikeLike
dangerousmeredith
March 7, 2011 at 12:41 am
I gave up watching the Oscars long ago. I assumed they were some sort of a marketing exercise rather than an actual fair competition. I feel quite justified after reading your blog. Thanks for enlightening us.
LikeLike
DR H
March 8, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Yes Person I was aware of the historical inaccuracies and also the fact that King Edward the VI was not that much handicapped by stuttering.
My objection is much deeper than that. In this day and age where people are up in arms for democracy and human rights,to honor a movie that is antithesis to everything I believe in.
If monarchy is to celebrated why in the name of Mike did we fight against it.
LikeLike
Person
March 8, 2011 at 4:09 pm
I believe that the audience got caught up in the idea that the future king could and did overcome a serious obstacle and was, therefore, rooting for him. That was the intention of the writers, and it worked.
Did you read the Hitchens piece? He’s always worth the effort!
LikeLike
Bonnie
March 8, 2011 at 6:36 pm
I didn’t see King’s Speech, or any of the other movies, since I don’t go to movies, but can’t help but note that Hollywood is always always always entranced by any script involving royalty and/or “nobles.” And I do think it is a form of brainwashing. Why do we always have to assume that a rise in class is the same thing as success? Even in American society, where we talk the talk of democracy, classism is rampant, and Hollywood is generally eager to bow down and worship at the altar of classism. No, I don’t know that that was the case with The King’s Speech, but I can hardly believe that it wasn’t–that WOULD be a fairy tale.
LikeLike
Bonnie
March 8, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Oops–hit send before I finished my reply — but anyway, Dr. H, I agree with you on this one…
LikeLike
Dr H
March 9, 2011 at 5:19 pm
There is a reason why Hollywood is obsessed with royalty. It is a primitive response to ones challenges. You seek solace in something averse to change, something that reassures you as a non participant.
LikeLike
Person
March 9, 2011 at 8:05 pm
I didn’t find this film to be an homage to royalty. My problem with it is that it’s riddled with historical inaccuracies and purports just the opposite. If one is writing or producing a film that is based on a historical set of events, shouldn’t that history be presented as it in fact happened? Airbrushing fundamental facts such as a leader’s support of Hitler is not a minor issue; meanwhile, the writer is unrepentant and even angry about being called out. Again, I had similar problems with “The Reader.”
I disagree that Americans are somehow enamored of royalty; I’ve always found quite the the reverse – we don’t get what all the fuss is about – it’s lost on us here.
LikeLike
Bonnie
March 10, 2011 at 9:15 am
Right. Methink the lady doth protest too much.
LikeLike
person
March 10, 2011 at 11:38 am
What’s that supposed to mean? Seems a rather snide response. As such, and since the person whose name is on the site doesn’t respond anyway, I think I’ll end my run on this blog.
I’m just disagreeing with the premise you’ve provided in this instance, and as you noted yourself, you’ve not seen the film. As it happens, I enjoyed it, stayed for the Q&A with the writer afterward, and was upset later, upon reading Hitchens pieces, to find out how inaccurate the portrayal was. Fanboys of Hitler should be shown as such; in this case, history was whitewashed.
Oh, and last I checked, England has a democracy and practices common law, which is what the American system is based on as well.
LikeLike
Takuan
March 10, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Looking carefully at the world, we can see that there are many people who throw away their lives lightly. But do you suppose one person in a thousand would die for right-mindedness? It would seem that among the humble servant class, contrary to what you might expect, there are many who would. Yet it would be difficult for people who think themselves wise to do the same.
LikeLike
Dr H
March 10, 2011 at 5:01 pm
P
LikeLike
Dr H
March 10, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Person,we are all friends here. Dont take any offense. I am sure Bonnie’s remark was in jest.We are having fun here, right. At times people get sarcastic. Its a one off thing ,forget and forgive.
We will post the inside job tomorrow and between you and me I was kind of disappointed and you will see why.
LikeLike
Person
March 10, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Dr. H:
I did, in fact, take offense, and I didn’t even understand the point of the comment to be honest, other than to give me some sort of hard time. I offered up my opinion of the film along with some serious literary pieces bolstering those thoughts. As for “Takuan,” (I suspect this is actually a pseudonym for a regular poster on the site), I have no idea what the relevance of the quote is to “The King’s Speech.”
LikeLike
Person
March 11, 2011 at 11:51 am
See the comment below by Bonnie – as I assumed, no jest was intended, and I suppose the offense was. I didn’t know it was a crime to be sensitive to people insults Bonnie.
This forum was fun while it . . . was fun.
Case closed it appears.
LikeLike
Bonnie
March 11, 2011 at 9:07 am
I wasn’t joking. But Person (oh, is she still here?) does take offense very easily.
LikeLike
Bonnie
March 11, 2011 at 12:41 pm
And by the way, Person — if that IS your real name — I am shocked that you of all people would lay into Takuan for using an alleged pseudonym.
LikeLike
Person
March 11, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Yes, Bonnie, you’re shocked. What I meant, in case it wasn’t clear, was that Takuan is a pseudonym for a regular poster, not a pseudonym in general, which is what everyone on this blog uses, including: Silver, Dr. H, Jude, and others.
LikeLike
Jude
March 11, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Um….look, dudes, dudettes, I don’t know what any of this is about, but I’m not using a pseudonym for anything….maybe the conspiracy nuts think I should watch out, but as long as Matt Zuckerberg isn’t running this site, I think my data’s okay, I don’t figure the JPFMovies mailing list is out there on the open market or anything…it better not be!
LikeLike
Jude
March 11, 2011 at 11:06 pm
by the way dude, when is the next review coming out?
LikeLike
Bonnie
March 11, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Are you still here?
LikeLike
DR H
March 11, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Guys, this childish attitude should end now! Please remember you are no longer 5th graders.
LikeLike
Bonnie
March 11, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Thank you, Dr. H. That was my point exactly.
LikeLike
Person
March 11, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Dr. H:
No need to intervene, I’ve just tried to post interesting articles on here and hoped to have added something. I don’t need to be given a hard time for my effort.
I’ll read your post on “Inside Job,” but will discontinue attempting to add anything to the discussion. Ca ne fait rien . . .
LikeLike
DR H
March 11, 2011 at 8:27 pm
I am disappointed but respect your decision. This site was created to provide meaningful insight into movies with some candour and humour. It appears that we have failed in our endeavour. We never met but I am sure you are a very enlightened person, Person. So long.
LikeLike
person
March 13, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Thanks Dr. H. I appreciate your kind words and look forward to your reading your review of “The Inside Job.” (And I do appreciate candor and humor, but not mean-spirited and goading.) :)
LikeLike