#Then being so angry about his writers refusing to kill Dick that over an decade later; | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

chiseler · 3 years ago

Text

The Bombing of Black Wall Street

O.W. Gurley

On the night of May 13th, 1985, as Derek Davis has so eloquently documented in previous issues of The Chiseler, the Philadelphia Police Department dropped a packet of C4 explosives onto the West Philly house occupied by MOVE, a black radical group whose sociopolitical agenda was fuzzy at best. You should read Davis’ stories to more fully understand how and why this came to pass, but suffice it to say in the end eleven people in the house (including several children) were killed, and some sixty surrounding homes—an entire city block’s worth—were allowed to burn to the ground.

At noon on September sixteenth, 1920, a group of anarchists detonated a horse-drawn cart packed with explosives and shrapnel in the middle of Wall Street, killing thirty-eight capitalists and sending hundreds more to area hospitals.

Nine months after the Wall Street bombing and sixty-four years before MOVE, an incident which in a way echoed both events took place in Tulsa, Oklahoma, but with far more devastating results. The Bombing of Black Wall Street, as it was sometimes known, would go on to be just as forgotten, at least in white history books, as both the MOVE and Wall Street bombings.

In 1906, a wealthy black entrepreneur named O.W. Gurley moved from Arkansas to Tulsa, where he bought up forty acres of land on the northern outskirts of the predominately white town. He had a plan in mind, and would only sell parcels of the land to other African-Americans, especially those trying to escape the brutal economic conditions in Tennessee.

Within a decade, the resulting thirty-four square block community, which had been dubbed Greenwood, had evolved into one of the most affluent regions of the state, and certainly the wealthiest and most successful black-owned business district in the country. A few of the new residents had even struck it rich when oil was discovered nearby. Along with the grocery, clothing and hardware stores that lined the main commercial strip, Greenwood boasted its own schools, churches, doctors, banks, law offices, restaurants, movie theaters, a post office and a public transportation system. The houses had indoor plumbing, and, even that early in the history of aviation, six of the residents owned private airplanes. Thanks to Segregation laws which prohibited blacks from shopping in nearby Whites-Only stores, the African-American residents of Greenwood shopped at their own local stores, which kept money circulating in the community, only bolstering their economic strength.

By all accounts, the people who lived there were extremely proud of what they had forged, especially the school system, insisting each and every child of Greenwood receive a full and solid education.

Although generally referred to as “Little Africa” or “Niggertown” in the Tulsa Tribune, Tulsa World, and other local papers, the residents of Greenwood preferred to think of it as Black Wall Street, a nickname that has stuck to this day.

As you might imagine, the much poorer white residents in surrounding Tulsa resented the wealth and success of their black neighbors. This resentment was only fueled by the local papers, in particular the Tribune. Taking their lead from the local chapter of the Klan, more often than not the Tribune’s writers insisted, despite all evidence to the contrary, on caricaturing the residents of “Little Africa” as either stupid, shiftless, shuffling drunks or drug crazed, wild-eyed criminals and rapists running wild in the streets. Meanwhile, editorial writers over at the World even recommended conscripting the Klan to restore law and order to the community.

Combining the reality with the grotesque cartoon proved to be a poor white racist’s worst nightmare. Not only were those blacks in Greenwood subhuman, they were rich subhumans. Jesus God Almighty!

The simmering anger reached the boiling point on May 30th, 1921 when seventeen-year-old (and white) Sarah Page accused nineteen-year-old (and black) shoeshine man Dick Rowland of rape. Page worked as an elevator operator in Tulsa’s Drexel Building, and claimed Rowland attacked her while she was on the job. No one really knows to this day what happened in that elevator, but later investigators who’ve looked into the case genrtally agree there was no rape. Rowland would claim he either bumped into Page accidentally or stepped on her foot—he couldn’t remember. At the time it didn’t matter. The following morning’s Tribune ran a racially inflammatory, lurid account of the fictional crime in which they essentially declared Rowland guilty. A hearing was scheduled for that afternoon, and the paper further erroneously reported the gallows was already being built outside the courthouse for that night’s hanging.

Whether or not a rape had occurred was, to be honest, irrelevant. It was simply the easiest and cheapest way to rile up the angry white masses. If the paper had run an article about economic disparity and racial class resentment turned on its head, all it would have encouraged its white readers to do is flip forward to the sports section.

The residents of Greenwood understood this, and on the 31st, the day of the hearing, a group of men, some of them armed, showed up outside the courthouse in hopes of protecting Rowland. When they arrived they found themselves facing off with the much larger (and better-armed) angry white mob, there to ensure Rowland was hanged, trial or no trial.

Words were exchanged and a few scuffles broke out. A white man reportedly approached an armed African-American WWI vet, and demanded he hand over his gun. When the vet refused and the white tried to wrest it from him, the gun went off, and the riot was underway.

Realizing they were outnumbered, the mob from Greenwood retreated towards home, only to be pursued by the white mob, both on foot and in pickups.

It’s worth noting that the confrontation outside the courthouse had gone on for several hours before the few cops onhand to keep the peace finally called for backup. When all hell broke loose after that gunshot, the cops quickly began deputizing whites on the fly, giving them the authority to make arrests. A few did, and an internment camp set up at the local fairgrounds quickly began to fill. Most of the new deputies didn’t bother, and just started shooting.

As the white mob entered Greenwood, they immediately began looting and torching every building they passed. For the next twelve hours they rampaged through the neighborhood, whooping and hooting as they smashed windows, kicked in doors, took potshots at fleeing residents, and set fire to anything that wasn’t already ablaze. Several eyewitness reports claim two small planes flying over the community started dropping what some believe were kerosene bombs and others believe was dynamite on the already raging inferno. Firemen who arrived on the scene to douse the fires were turned back at gunpoint by the rioters.

The number of white families from nearby neighborhoods—a lot of mothers and children—who gathered around the edges of Greenwood to watch the carnage has led some to believe the attack was planned well in advance, likely by the Klan. They were just waiting for an excuse.

The National Guard arrived shortly before noon on June 1st, but by then most of the rioters had gone home. Along with trying to control the flames, the Guardsmen also began arresting Greenwood’s residents. By the time the fires were put out, all thirty-four square blocks of Black Wall Street had been burned to the ground. An estimated three hundred had been killed, another eight hundred hospitalized, ten thousand were left homeless, six thousand were being held in the internment camp at the fairgrounds, and six hundred businesses had been destroyed. No whites were arrested or charged for their role in the massacre.

Some of the dead, it was reported, were buried in mass graves, others dumped in a nearby river, and still others dropped into the shafts of a local coal mine.

The coverage of the destruction of Black Wall Street in the following day’s Tulsa World included the headlines “Fear of Another Uprising” and “Difficult to Check Negroes.” To this day, white media outlets continue to refer to the incident as “The Tulsa Race Riot,” when they refer to it at all. The Tribune quietly removed the front page story about the alleged rape from all their bound editions, and all police and fire department files about the incident mysteriously vanished.

The day after the riot, all charges were dropped against Dick Rowland (who had been safely hidden away in a jail cell throughout it all), and upon his release he quickly and quietly left town.

Only one of Black Wall Street’s buildings was left standing, and those who survived vowed they would rebuild. They did, too, to an extent, but they were never able to fully reclaim the spirit and status the community once had. Making things more difficult, Greenwood was in a prime location in terms of business expansion. City politicians, anxious to reclaim that land, began devaluing Greenwood property, hoping they might encourage residents to sell out and move far away.

Ironically, the real death blow to Black Wall Street came when Segregation was overturned in Oklahoma in the late ’50s and early ’60s, and most Greenwood residents decided they were happy to take their business to formerly whites-only stores.

Seventy-five years after the massacre, the state of Oklahoma ordered an investigation into the events of May 31st-June 1st, 1921. When the investigation ended in 2001, it was suggested a scholarship fund be set up, and reparations be paid to the families of the victims. A few scholarships were handed out before the program was discontinued three years later, but no reparations were ever paid.

by Jim Knipfel

6 notes · View notes

migleefulmoments · 5 years ago

Text

Let’s unpack some cc nonsense

Anonymous asked:

Not that anyone can at this point but if YOU were representing D, how would you get him out of the mess? The damage that has been done to him is horrendous but the man has talent. Surely D believed there was “light at the end of the tunnel” or he never would have agreed to this??!’ Curious? If there is a plan, would do you think it would entail?

cassie1022 answered: Nonnie, I woke up to reading about this giant shit storm his team has created getting worse (shitstorm? really? it was a GAY website talking about all the straight actors who have played gay characters and gay actors who played straight and gay characters. The website post was not judgmental or cruel- in fact this is what they said

Films are an important voice for a lot of LGBT people as they offer vital representation in society. Actors do an important job of starring as our favourite characters in films. However, very few LGBT roles are filled by openly LGBT actors. Actors who are open about their sexuality are struggling to carve a successful career path for themselves – a fact that is not helped by their heterosexual counterparts filling up roles that some might argue should be reserved for them.PinkNews has compiled all a list of all the Hollywood stars who have gone “gay for pay” on the big screen. We’ve also explored the gay actors who have made a name for themselves playing it straight.

Then they listed along with each actor-most of them A-listers-the movie they were in. That’s it. Hardly career killing.) They completely crossed the last line they had left with this latest nonsense. Make no mistake, this is a deliberate and vicious attack on D’s character, (is it though? he has said he is straight for 10 years) and it’s being perpetuated by people that are supposed to be operating on his behalf and helping him shine (He just won 4 awards and has his own show in the works which allows him to write, write music, sing, act and produce so I don’t know how you can argue they are not helping him shine) So, the question is, why are they coating him in mud instead? (No the question is why do ccers NOT understand that these stories are written by writers-in this case Joseph McCormic (X)- who create content for the specific website. It is the same as Vogue.com, Just Jared, The Advocate, Bon Apetite, Tasty, Buzfeed, and all the other speciality websites that create content for their readers. Writers pitch stories and then do the research or interviews and write the content. If they had to wait for teams to destroy their clients out of revenge, they would never have enough content to publish regularly and if Ricky sent this info to destroy Darren then Meryl Streep and Benedit Cumberbatch’s teams did so as well) THAT strongly suggests to me that they know their time is drawing to a close and they want to break and damage not just his career, but him, as much as they can. (This is a completely illogical idea that Abby started several years ago. Today @ajw720, @Cassie1022 and @Notes-From-Nowhere mentioned it. Obviously there is a coordinated attempt to gaslight their readers with this trope. Did Abby sending out “cc talking points” this morning like the gop always does?). The age old, if I can’t have you, I’m going to destroy you so no one else wants you, prophecy. (”Prophey: noun a prediction of what will happen in the future”. Not the right word here, Cassie. “I’m going to destroy so no one wants you” is abuse, plain and simple. If Ricky was actively and methodically destroying Darren, it would be grounds for Darren to break their contract and pursue legal options against Ricky. Let’s talk about Ricky’s contract- RICKY signed it, Darren didn’t because Darren HIRED Ricky. As a manager, Ricky is legally required to work to further Darren’s best interests. He is not allowed to use his POA to sign anything that Darren wouldn’t sign himself. That is the law. Also you have been claiming this for the last 4 years-either Ricky sucks at destroying Darren, he is doing the world’s slowest destruction or it’s all bullshit).

As for attempting to fix this mess? Well, I have to believe that there is some type of plan in place (again you have said this for 4 years). Clearly, he needs to clean house on his team and start over. (Here is where this gets interesting because Cassie lays out a plan for Darren to STOP being Darren and turn himself into Blaine Anderson once and for all) He needs to seek guidance from members of the LGBTQ community that have successfully come out and have the right people working for them (He isn’t gay). The replacements need to be thoroughly and meticulously researched and carefully selected. D needs to shed the dude bro douche image (that IS who Darren is) and get back to being the quirky, loveable goofball (Blaine) that makes you (ME) fall in love with him (because it is HIS job to be the fictitious character you fantasize about?). I suspect he knew exactly what they were planning and that’s why he hasn’t sought more career opportunities on his own.(He just planned a wedding, produced a StarKid reunion, is writing scrips, writing music, producing, acting and singing in Royalties and producing Elsie. He’s very busy). Let’s be honest, D himself is the one that secured his most successful career opportunities.(This isn’t something you know anything about. If Darren finds Ricky’s work lacking then he needs to fire him.) The things his team has gotten him are few and far between and generally only agreed to so their bank accounts grow and they get swag (Again a trope that Abby made up and you all just mindless globbed on to but that you would have NO idea who did what)

The good news is that people, that are not fandom fanatics, won’t hold a grudge (Actually the ccers are the only ones who hold grudges. The rest of us understand that the healthy adult reaction would be to just find another celeb to like. Getting angry, raging and holding grudges when a celeb doesn’t do what you want them to do is what immature and mentally unwell people do) . Sure, he may take a hit with those outside the fandom, but memories are usually short and people are generally forgiving. He may take a bigger hit within fandom, but I believe he’s charming and sincere enough to rebound (and yet you claim he lies to us now every time he speaks so being sincere isn’t high on your list of criteria for being a fan) . Any fans that walk and don’t come back won’t be missed. I also believe he has a strong support system within the LGBTQ community.(Why? Why would the LGBTQ community strongly support him when he has outright lied about his sexuality so many times over the last decade? He didn’t just avoid questions or give evasive answers, he spoke at length about his being straight, he even brought it up on his own quite a few times. He refused to be honest about who he is in 2019. That’s fucked up. As pissed as you -a gaggle of straight women- are about the Pink comment, imagine how the gay community will feel when they find out that he lied for 10 years about his sexuality and married a women to keep his secret while he was with Chris and he did so simply to keep his career afloat. The LGTBQ community is writing about him in their “pay to gay” article, imagine the articles that would come out-“a decade in the closet while married to his husband cuz he wanted to be an A-lister ” or “Gay but married his Beard to stay relevant in Hollywood: 2019 edition”. According to cc theory, he isn’t closeted because of concerns about his safety or his family disowning him but because he wanted to be an A-lister....he stays in the closet in exchange for not being blacklisted in Hollywood, that is what you guys tell us. But he could come out and still perform- he could act, write, and produce StarKid, he could pursue music, he could do Broadway and be out and proud. He could likely do Royalties. In fact, once Royalties is up and going, the “He’s closeted” trope is going to have a hard time standing because there will be no reason for him to be closeted). So many people that identify as queer LGBTQ genuinely love him (Really? How does a straight women with no connection to the LGBTQ community know that? if you are speaking about Ricky Martin, Justin Trantor, Elivs Duran, and Chris Colfer, you aren’t speaking about “many people”) and that speaks volumes and will be one of the key components of rinsing the mud left on him by team stupid off and helping him regain his brilliant light. If they believed the nonsense his team is spreading about him, they wouldn’t be friends with him (l don’t think any of his friends real CDAN or PinkNews) . The LGBTQ community is a loving, supportive group, but they won’t tolerate people that use them (exactly why they would not support a closeted Darren). If they thought that was the case with D, they would make it known.

All of this makes me so sad for him. He doesn’t deserves the character assassination that’s happening, especially as it’s at the hands of people he’s paying.

ajw720 @cassie1022 well stated. Completely agree.(Of course you agree, these are your tropes -you wrote them all)

notes-from-nowhere. I believe the plan is to discredit him as much as possible. This will make him less believable once he will be able to say his truth.

People is scared, what D may say once free is making them nervous (if that was true then Darren would have all of the POWER and could blackmail them. They certainly shouldn’t antagonize him even further, that isn't how you keep someone quiet. God, this trope is so stupid) and what we are seeing right now is an attempt to do an earlly damage control. Basically someone is trying to take him away his voice. If they successfully make him look like a liar (what have they done that makes him look like a liar? You guys, on the other hand, say he lies every time he talks about himself), an opportunist and a selfish dick, no one will ever take what he says seriously.(That isn’t how it works. Everyone in Hollywood is an opportunist and a dick- nobody in LA would bat and eye) It’s maybe their lowest and lousy move since the beginning but as I’ve said earlier, none of them is better than this (huh?). This is how they play this game, the difference from before is that now that the end is near, D forced them to show their moves because he is no longer bending (and yet they have been playing this game for10 years now, they can only play it if Darren lets them...why is he letting them?) .

ajw720. @notes-from-nowhere that’s one of the reasons the sham mockery had to happen (more illogical logic). Because many that know the truth think d is choosing this. And that’s how it will appear in the surface when he is able to tell the truth. They want him to take the blame completely. (HUH? Did you have wine before you wrote this? It makes NO sense at all “Many who know the truth believe d is choosing this”???? YES BECAUSE HE DID CHOOSE MIA)

I won’t let that happen. Their sins are well documented.(Oh Abby, please let us know how you “won't let this happen” and please share the “documented sins��. We all know you believe they are sins but I would love to see how you have documented them. I’ve read your master posts of evidence and they are all the rants of a mentally unfit person. You have NO power in this so claiming you “won't let this happen is utter nonsense. You sound like Trump)

cc-still-going-strong Don’t forget he still has C and C’s friends. They are a great ally if D ever wants to win back the LBGT’s hearts. And LBGT community will understand the difficulty he has at the present.(This cracks me up- Darren has never been seen in the same vicinity of any of Chris’s friends in the 9 years we have been following them. He never mentioned or Tweeted them- even back we he wasn’t so cautious on sm. This is pure fantasy- complete made up nonsense. I’ve already argued why the LGBTQ wouldn’t be thrilled to welcome Darren into their community with open arms)

There is also a lot of his fans love him for who he is only, so that they will absolutely understand when his dark stage is over.

The only harm he will ever gets would come from Mi/arren stans, but mostly they are love M because of D, not the opposite.

There will be light waiting for him if he decides to be free from this BS. After all, he still has us and C (Thank god he has you, I love that Chris comes second in that comment).

ajw720. @cc-still-going-strong I think that the fact that C is still solidly by his side, speaks volumes for D’s character and makes an incredibly strong statement that I think many of the LGBT+ community in hollywood see. (and what do you see Abby that indicates “Chris is still solidly by his side”? I'm super curious because over her in sane-world, we don’t even see a the most basic of indications of a friendship anymore).

cc-still-going-strong Absolutely. I believe people who did corporate with him and/or know about C and him, will totally understand and support him.

And I strongly believe that C is still has D’s back. When the vid “Gay for pay” outed, C immediately update his Instagram and Twitter, as a distraction - with a video about a caterpillar in its ugly shape, but one day it will turn into a beautiful monarch. He only said #Savethemonarchs as a way to show his support for HIM. (Proving that the tinhatter are not sane. I cannot with this comment. It’s so ridiculous.... I just can’t. Literally WHO was so distracted by a caterpillar video that they forgot Darren was listed in a “gay for pay”? I also love how she totally wrote an entire story behind the post because that is what ccers do- see a caterpillar tagged #Savethemonarchs? It’s not about the plight of global warning and Monarch butterfly survival NOPE is really about HIM and the caterpiller will turn into a beautiful butterfly just like Darren, gag me)

ajw720. Could not agree more (of course she agrees). That video was so intentional and such an interesting choice to not show the butterfly. Just the caterpillar.(blah blah blah blergh) That’s d and his current state. And d is going to emerge as a stunning monarch.

leka-1998 I’ve always liked that song but (Leka believing life is just a big episode of Glee)

“Don’t let them get you down

You’re the best thing I’ve seen”

is probably my favorite part.

cc-still-going-strong Not only the video but also the song choice.

Still going strong, guys.

#cc #ccer #ccers #cc nonsense #cc family #cc fandom #cc blog #cc fan #crisscolfer #chris colfer #Darren Criss #oh look they remembered Chris exists

10 notes · View notes

tessatechaitea · 8 years ago

Text

Hal Jordan and the Green Lantern Corps #19

Hal Jordan and His Army of Penises #19.

Oh yeah! Right there! Time dilations subsiding!

I'm so angry about the direction our country is headed right now that I'm sort of willing to die in a nuclear holocaust just so my last words can be, "I told you, you fucking garbage morons!" Obviously Soranik can tell the race of an alien by touching its genitalia. She determines Rip Hunter is human and that he likes smooth jazz. I'm assuming that's the only kind of music that comes out of Yellow Light Construct Headphones. Hal Jordan screams, "Human?!" My guess is Rip is uncircumcised so Hal didn't recognize the massive sea cucumber between his legs. "Where is the little mushroom cap?!" he pondered. Actually, Hal's main concern is that Rip stole the Green Lantern ring from another human. Hal is stupid. We've had decades of comic books detailing just how stupid Hal is. People like to say he's brash or stubborn or pigheaded but he's really just stupid. Do you want some evidence? Everybody now knows Rip Hunter came out of a temporal anomaly (the rings said so!) so there's really no reason to think this human stole this Green Lantern ring from another human. He could be a future Green Lantern, you fucking asshat. I was calling Hal Jordan a fucking asshat but if you thought I was calling you one, just hang on. I'm sure it'll happen sooner or later. Everybody cares about something that I don't give a shit about and sooner or later, I'm going to tear into your favorite thing. Hal fails to "rip" the ring off Rip Hunter's finger so John steps in and says, "Let me do it, Hal! As you know, the Green Lantern Corps is a despotic, fascist, authoritarian organization which means I have the ability to remove the ring from any fucking piece of shit lantern I deem a fuck up and a waste." He then says the override code and steals Rip Hunter's ring. Fuck the Green Lanterns. Although I bet even these cumsharters have health care coverage through their organization.

"Oh shit! So that's what temporal anomaly means!"

Rip Hunter's message from the future is that time has been corrupted and 2047 isn't the way 2047 is supposed to be. But there's still a chance to fix it here in 2017! How many fangenders reading this comic book have just scooted out to the edge of their seat and possibly stuck a hand down the front of their pants at this revelation? If you did, get the fuck off my blog! I am tired — oh so very fucking tired — you know, exhausted — with people traveling through time to fix time. Just knock it off! If the 2047 Rip visited is different than the 2047 than Rip expected then Rip needs to realize he's just in one of the infinite numbers of timelines. You don't go back in time to fix the timeline you're not happy with. You sidestep into a different timeline! One where everything is how you expected it to be! Being that there are infinite numbers of timelines, you're always going to have the timeline that needs fixing. Because it exists right next door the timeline you're happy with. It also exists two timelines down from the timeline where women are allowed to walk around topless. When Rip discovers that it's 2017, he points out that there's still time to fix the future. A few panels later, after only discovering the year, he declares they have one day to save all space and time. Or maybe just the Green Lantern Corps. It's really a toss-up as to which it is since superheroes basically only deal with two kinds of problems in the modern age: save the entire everything or save themselves. Meanwhile, Space Ape and Gorin-sunn aren't as dead as I expected them to be. They have been thoroughly trounced by Prism Beasts and now must suck the dick of some guy with an evil beard and an alternate timeline Nightwing costume. He says he's from the future and that he's going to mend it all. So I guess he's a good guy like Rip just trying to save time! His name is Sarko because Venditti was having a bad day in the imagination booth when he came up with it. Sarko gives Space Ape and Gorin-sunn a future lesson. Apparently the Yellow Lanterns will eventually lay down their rings to pick up Green Lantern rings. That makes sense because who wants police who utilize fear to do their jobs? But apparently Sarko doesn't like that the Sinestro Corps have become antiquated symbols of disgrace and failure. So he's kind of like a guy who sews a Confederate Flag into his jean jacket. He's proud of a heritage he really needs to think twice about. So Sarko has come from a future that he thinks needs changing and Rip has come from an apparently different future that he thinks needs changing. I mean, I suppose this comic book wants the reader to believe that Sarko has already won and the future has been rewritten simply because Sarko came back in time but since Rip came back in time to fix it, why wasn't the future fixed already? Oh, because time travel stories almost always suck logical dick. And don't you dare start explaining it to me in the boring, normal way you're supposed to understand it! I know how writers use time travel and the way they think it works! I don't need your fucking Actually Nerd interpretations to set me straight. I'm reporting the way things should be but they never are because writers write the way readers expect! Or something. Just...just...get off my blog!

Sure, that's how time works. But that's just the way time works! Whatever you do now will be the cause of whatever happens in the future. And guess what? You can't change it! You never did anything except react to Rip Hunter coming back from the future. You never had a different present! So the future is and always has been the aftereffects of whatever you choose to do now thanks to Rip coming back from the future and telling you that you need to change the future. Which can't really be changed since it's just a present that hasn't happened yet.

Look, Kyle brings up the perfect movie to understand time travel. In Terminator, there are no time paradoxes. There are no alternate timelines. There are no futures that can be changed by going into the past. What happens in the future happens exactly because the robots sent a robot into the past and the humans sent a human back to stop it. Without out that happening, no John Conner. But it happened in order to kill John Conner. That's not a paradox. That's a perfectly knit time quilt. Everything always happens the way they happen. One timeline perfectly in sync. So knock it off with all these people from terrible futures coming to the past to fix things and then having the things fixed. It's fucking stupid bullshit. Although! These stories have their own internal logic as well. It's just that they matter a whole lot less than you would think. And when you realize how they work, you realize it's all wasted effort. If Rip Hunter traveled to the past from a 2047 that sucked, he didn't wind up in the 2017 of that particular 2047. His arrival caused a split timeline which changes everything and veers off on its own direction. Which means the 2047 that he came back in time to save still exists and still sucks and will never be saved. But at least they don't have to worry about that asshole Rip Hunter anymore! So see? If time travel works this way, why bother going back in time at all? I suppose to save yourself, if you're not a Time Master who just gallivants all over time creating offshoot timelines like so many bastard children. I mean, sure! If I were in a sucky 2017 (which I totally am), I would absolutely go back in time and arrive in a totally new timeline that will change simply because I'm now a part of it. Although I might have to kill my other self if I want to seamlessly fit in. I suppose that would depend on how far back I went. Suddenly trying to be a twelve year old me probably wouldn't fool many people at this point. The time travel nonsense was over pages ago so I'll stop ranting about it. Eventually, the Prism Beasts descend on Mogo. Hal says to John, "You're a grower, John, but I'm a show-er!" Then he flies off into the sky with his army of penises in an attempt to destroy the Prism Beasts. But as was shown earlier, they're immune to Spectrum Light. So they're like about 95% of everything else in the universe? Immune to the greatest weapon in the universe? And of course the other 5% that is susceptible to Green Lantern light usually get lucky and the rings lose all their charge during the battle. Unsurprisingly to everyone (and especially to Carol Ferris), Hal's penis army fails at its intended job. The Ranking! No change. I'm not sure why I continue to read comic books when a majority of them use common comic book plots that I despise. It's like writers think it's okay to just shorthand every script. "Readers like familiarity! Also it's easy to write a story they've read five hundred times already!" So here we go again. Somebody from the future wants to change the past and somebody else from the future drops by to tell the people of the present, "Hey! There's this future that currently sucks and there's this guy who's the reason for it. You should probably stop him." Then everybody in the present goes, "Okay! Sounds legit!"

#Hal Jordan #Green Lantern Corps #Robert Venditti #V. Ken Marion #Dexter Vines #Dinei Ribeiro

1 note · View note

ryanjdonovan · 7 years ago

Text

Donovan's Oscar Prognostication 2018

How bad did the Harvey Weinstein scandal get? Well, just wait until Paddington Bear comes forth with his exposé from the making of Paddington 2. (You won't be able to eat marmalade ever again.) So with Harvey out of the picture, what we can we expect at the Academy Awards this year? Read my 19th annual Oscar predictions and find out. And I promise: No Star Wars this year.

Okay, fine. Minimal Star Wars.

BEST PICTURE:

SHOULD WIN: Get Out WILL WIN: The Shape Of Water GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Beauty And The Beast

INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: The Big Sick

I feel like I say this most years, but: Man, the Best Picture nominees are a bunch of bummers. How is it possible that the happiest one is Dunkirk, a movie where soldiers are getting violently killed in a seemingly hopeless situation for an hour and half?? The most "fun" thing we can hope for with this group of nominees is the wrong winner to be announced. Again. (Call me pathetic, but the Best Picture debacle at last year's ceremony was one of the best things that's ever happened to me. At least we can agree that it was way better than any of the actual movies.) Intriguingly, this category is the biggest enigma of them all. While the acting races were locked up weeks ago at the Screen Actors Guild Awards, this category is anyone's guess. Most pundits have The Shape Of Water and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri in a dead heat, with room for Get Out, Lady Bird, or even Dunkirk to sneak in. Any "expert" who tells you they are confident in their prediction is lying. Except me. I'll confidently say that The Shape Of Water will win. Probably. I think.

Talk about a "fish story"… Writer/director Guillermo del Toro tells a tall tale (tail?) in his amazing fantasy-romance-slash-Cold-War-paranoia-thriller, The Shape Of Water. And he pulls out all the stops (as one does when making a fantasy-romance-slash-Cold-War-paranoia-thriller). In filmmaking, they say you can't have too much genre. del Toro certainly believes that; he also seems to believe you can't have too MANY genres, either. I'm not so sure I necessarily subscribe to either theory; I think there's something to be said for subtlety. But I can't deny that del Toro's approach ultimately pays off: He transports us to an alternate reality where anything is possible and everything is beautiful. And he amps up (or overturns) every conceivable element of the genres he's working in. The result is a gorgeous film and a zippy story, but also some thin characters and clunky clichés. And then, yeah, there's the element of physical love with a fish-dude. If you can get on board with that, you're probably willing to overlook everything else. For me, it all works. Bonus points to del Toro for the title - I realize it seems obtuse, without having much to do with the narrative… but anyone who's seen the film knows how well it ties into the climax. (By the way, is it me, or did the movie remind anyone else of the Kanye West "fish dicks" gag on South Park? Just me…?)

It's probably not going to win, but the best movie of the year is Get Out. It's the only movie where I immediately thought afterward, "I've gotta see that again!" The social aspect of it is sharp, novel, humorous, and accessible. But it's much more than that. I appreciate the fact that it's a horror movie that doesn't rely heavily on gore or gratuitous violence - it's more psychologically troubling than traditionally scary. The film is true to the genre without feeling tired or hackneyed. In particular, it excels at honing in on a legitimate anxiety - meeting your significant other's parents, for example - and plays it out as a terrifying worst-case-scenario. And that's just the tip of the iceberg (or the bottom of the sunken place, as it were.) It cleverly flips a few horror tropes on their heads, wink at the audience, and keep us guessing. The top-flight acting helped, of course. The only gripe: No cameo from Key?

Here's my experience watching Three Billboards in a nutshell: The movie started with Frances McDormand and I was happy, then almost immediately a knot formed in my stomach, and then the knot got worse, then worse, and worse, then there was a chuckle and a moment of relief, then the knot came back, then got agonizingly worse, then worse still, then the movie was over. Ugh. I'm generally up for a sardonic dark comedy, but this is not that; this is revenge porn. Here's what gets me (and I'll speak vaguely so as not to spoil plot points): It's clear (but curiously not really explored) that most of the characters in the fictional (thank god!) town of Ebbing are truly angry with themselves. But they choose to externalize everything (because it's a movie, I guess) and take it out on everyone within arm's reach - even their dearest loved ones. And instead of doing anything constructive or graceful or self-analytical, they make every destructive decision possible. It's like… instead of cutting off your nose to spite your face, you're cutting off the noses of a bunch of other people to spite their faces (or in this case, burning the nose on the face of another person), welcoming the fact that they're going cut off your nose in return… and your ears and eyes (plus the noses of some other people for good measure), so you wind up spiting your face anyway, and you've just pissed off a lot of people and refuse to admit that what you really wanted to do all along was cut off your own nose and spite your own face, so in the end you're left with a bunch of nose-less people who spite each other when they should be simply spiting themselves. (Sorry, this seemed like a good metaphor at one point, but it's quite gone off the rails.) What I'm trying to say is that the film might be a little more palatable if the characters were more… introspective. But as you can tell by the near-unanimous glowing reviews, almost nobody agrees with me. I just can't in good conscience predict this as the Best Picture winner. And the capper for me is the fact that it's not nominated for Best Director, and in 89 years, only 4 films in that situation have taken home the big prize. (Talk Argo all you want, I just don't see it happening again so soon.)

I love Dunkirk… but I WANT to love it more than I actually do. There's so much to admire: the realism, the palpable anxiety and claustrophobia, the exhausting sequences, the scope and precision of the cinematography, the tense score, and most of all, the legitimate feeling of being there - you can practically feel the salt in the air. I'm also impressed by the judicious use of dialogue - it's architected much like a silent film, which really adds to the sense of disorientation. Then there are the handful of things I don't exactly love about it. The storytelling: While I'm usually on board with Christopher Nolan's non-linear timelines, his approach to this seems unnecessary and makes it a little less accessible for me (though I understand why he plots the three stories in the way he did); storytelling is often his strongest suit, but this film tellingly didn't get nominating for Best Screenplay. Tom Hardy's flight mask: "I'm sorry Bane, could you speak up?" And Harry Styles: Enough said. All in all, it's fantastic, but it's not my favorite Nolan film. So when it doesn't win, I won't be too heartbroken.

I'm not quite sure how to feel about Lady Bird. It certainly feels personal, but not terribly personal to me. Surprise, surprise, based on misrepresentative marketing, I expected it to be more quirky-fun than quirky-sour. Even moments that play humorously in the trailer play more mutedly in the film. And I think that's fully intentional on the part of writer/director Greta Gerwig - she clearly has a vision, and it's not intended to give me warm-fuzzies. It's supposed to be bittersweet, sure; but in her story about a teenager breaching adulthood, bitterness is the overwhelming feeling while it's happening - the sweetness is only really in hindsight. That's fine, but if I’m going to go along for the movie version of it, I'd like it to be a little more… entertaining.

BEST ACTOR:

SHOULD WIN: Gary Oldman (Darkest Hour) WILL WIN: Gary Oldman (Darkest Hour) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Hugh Jackman (The Greatest Showman)

INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Hugh Jackman (Logan)

This seemed inevitable, didn't it? After years (decades!) of chameleonic performances (and one measly nomination to show for it), Gary Oldman has finally found a role that is a slam dunk for an Oscar, in Darkest Hour. He's so overdue that ordinarily insurmountable obstacles are being rendered inconsequential: Daniel Day-Lewis is also in the race (he's usually - and correctly - the presumptive favorite when he decides to actually make a movie); Winston Churchill is a character that's been played ad nauseum (many revered actors have already portrayed him in award-winning performances, most recently Emmy recipient John Lithgow in The Crown); there's a young up-and-coming nominee grabbing a lot of attention for a star-making performance (though if you ask me, "Timothée Chalamet" sounds more like a vegan bistro in the French Alps than a person - I still can't believe he's American). While it's hard to believe that Oldman has never won an Academy Award, it's even harder to believe that after he wins this year, he'll STILL merely have the same Oscar resume as Casey "I'm not presenting at the ceremony this year because yeah maybe the allegations are true" Affleck.

Phantom Thread is rumored to be famously always-in-character Daniel Day-Lewis's last film ("Thank god!" his beleaguered wife is probably saying). And he's not going to score a record-breaking 4th Oscar for it. Most of his other roles are completely transformative, but in this film he just looks and sounds like… Daniel Day-Lewis. Maybe he should have gone out on top, after Lincoln. Then again, without Day-Lewis's nomination, we'd have to deal with James Franco in this category. So thanks, Daniel, for doing us a solid.

So without Day-Lewis hogging the top roles and collecting accolades for every film he makes, there will be a void in the cinematic landscape. Who should fill it? The mantle should be picked up by preferably a fellow Brit, I suppose, one whose career is just starting, but could be a top talent for years to come. Might I suggest… Daniel Day-Kaluuya? (There's nothing precluding him from changing his middle name to "Day-", is there?) And after arriving in Get Out, Daniel Kaluuya isn't going anywhere.

At this point, what else can be said about Denzel Washington? With Roman J. Israel, Esq., it's another year, and another iconic role. He'll get a 3rd Oscar at some point, but this won't be it.

Hugh Jackman managed to win both my Omitted and Snubbed awards in the same year. A dubious honor indeed. Congratulations, good sir!

BEST ACTRESS:

SHOULD WIN: Frances McDormand (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri) WILL WIN: Frances McDormand (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Emma Watson (The Circle / Beauty And The Beast)

INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Zoe Kazan (The Big Sick)

Not much to debate here: Frances McDormand is (rightfully) running away in this race, for her role as a vengeful, grieving mother in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. In a word, she's a force. McDormand is a commanding actress, and you're willing to go along with her, even when you don't want to, even when you're practically yelling at her in opposition… and if you're not willing, by god, she's going to demand it. Her character is unflinching (except for a few fleeting moments of doubt or empathy), so blinded by sorrow that her only outlet is measured anger, resulting in increasingly calculated and unfocused revenge. The toll of her daughter's rape and unsolved murder has left her so corroded that she literally doesn't care about anyone else, much less herself. She's a stubborn, ornery cuss who's decided to use a sledgehammer on a nail, full well knowing it's going to break a couple of her fingers and really jack up the drywall, because a hammer isn't her style, and goddam it, she's going to drive that nail no matter what. It's a rare performance, one that instantly became the front-runner when it debuted to audiences. In real life, she comes off as awesome, impressive, intimidating, and of course, a total kook. At all the award shows, I've never seen someone look so put-out and irritated to be honored for their work. (Ditto her husband Joel Coen.) The only reason McDormand will lose some votes is because she's already won once (in 1997 for the magnificent Fargo), and a few voters may prefer someone who's been nominated before but never won. Which brings us to…

Saoirse. I dare you to pronounce her name correctly - I dare you! She's only 23, and somehow Saoirse Ronan is already on her third Oscar nomination, for Lady Bird. (Only Jennifer Lawrence has scored 3 noms at a younger age.) It's hard to claim that someone that young is due for a victory, but after she falls short this year, people will be saying that about her. (Except Amy Adams, who will be saying, "Get in line, B.") She's probably the second choice in this race for a lot of people, so some may vote for her to try to spread the gold around a little.

As good as Ronan was, the true runner-up in my book is Sally Hawkins, for The Shape Of Water. In fact, in a lot of other years she'd be my top choice. (And she was my top choice for Supporting Actress in 2015 for Blue Jasmine.) The Shape Of Water is a dazzling (if polarizing) film, and Hawkins is the lynchpin to the entire operation. If you're not willing to go along with her for the ride in the first half of the film (and that first scene in particular, where she, um, takes matters into her own hands), the second half is a total waste of time. It's a tall order (falling in love with a giant fish!), and she pulls it off remarkably. Even when the scenes get uncomfortable, unappealing, or flat-out anatomically impossible, she keeps the audience harnessed and invested. Her character seems invisible (or more literally, silent) to the world, but that masks her true self: assertive, calculating, willful, and sexually aggressive. In a film full of (intentionally, effectively) over-the-top characters and inconceivable happenstance, she manages to ground the film with her underplayed yet emboldened performance. She provides what the film needs most: the reassurance that it's okay to believe in fairy tales.

Are we sure Margot Robbie isn't Jaime Pressly? Frankly, Pressly would have been a more believable choice to play Tonya Harding. On second thought, are we sure Jaime Pressly ISN'T Tonya Harding? While a win would be surprising, it wouldn't be more surprising than Robbie's path to the nomination. If you told anyone a couple years ago that the annoyingly-accented wife in The Wolf Of Wall Street would get nominated for an Oscar for playing Tonya Harding, they would have said you were crazier than… Tonya Harding.

And finally… Let's face it, at this point Meryl Streep is just here for the appetizers.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

SHOULD WIN: Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri) WILL WIN: Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Harrison Ford (Blade Runner 2049)

INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Patrick Stewart (Logan)

The only guy in this race without a previous nomination is the one who's clearly going to win it: Sam Rockwell. It's hard to root for a portrayal of such a wretched human being, but it hasn't stopped voters so far: Rockwell has won every significant award leading up to the Oscars, for his vile role in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. While he's great in this film (I don't think anyone else here is more deserving), he has the benefit of having a huge amount of screen time for a "supporting" role. But whether he wins the Oscar or not, this is still The Frances McDormand Show.

Christopher Plummer has a chance to break his own record for the oldest Oscar winner for acting, at the ripe young age of 88, for his role as J. Paul Getty in All The Money In The World. (He previously won at 82 for Beginners. And this year's nomination makes him the oldest nominee ever for acting.) Though he had a little help: This nomination is as much for director Ridley Scott (and his cojones) and his decision to excise frequent creep and occasional pedophile Kevin Spacey from the film. Nothing against Plummer, but I can't help but feel like the Academy would have nominated ANYBODY in the role, just to give Spacey the middle finger. Eric Roberts as J. Paul Getty? Sure! Give 'em an Oscar nomination! (Actually, the more I think about Eric Roberts as Getty, the awesomer it sounds.)

Woody Harrelson and Willem Dafoe are interesting inclusions in this race. They both became famous in the 80s for oddly iconic roles (Harrelson as a hayseed bartender, Dafoe as none other than Jesus Christ), have been incredibly prolific since then, have been somewhat typecast (as goofy and creepy, respectively), aren't generally considered "prestige role" actors, and somehow manage to pop up in the Oscar race once in a blue moon. This is the third nomination for each (Harrelson for Three Billboards and Dafoe for The Florida Project), and neither has a particularly strong chance of winning (again). The roles that manage to mix their strengths with something unexpected (and happen to be in critically acclaimed movies) seem to yield the magical golden formula. Though honestly, I'm not sure I'm on board with Harrelson's nomination this year, in this fairly tiny role, especially in light of the other fantastic actors that were passed over (to name a few: Rob Morgan in Mudbound, Bradley Whitford in Get Out, Ray Romano in The Big Sick, Mark Rylance in Dunkirk, Stephen Henderson in Lady Bird, and one more that I'll get to in a minute). He got a big boost from his dynamic chemistry with McDormand, which the film could have used a lot more of. I guess we'll wait and see Harrelson and Dafoe bring to the Oscar table next time, in 10 or 15 years.

Richard Jenkins is actually another guy you don't necessarily expect to show up here, probably because he's strictly considered a character actor, is mostly thought of as the straight man in lowbrow comedies, and wasn't really on the radar until he was in his 50s. He was able to channel those everyman characteristics into the figurative heart (and literal voice) of The Shape Of Water. While this role will forever be a highlight of his career, I'll always remember him for one of the funniest lines from There's Something About Mary: "Highway rest areas, they’re the bath houses of the 90s."

The guy I REALLY wanted to see nominated here was Patrick Stewart, for playing a world famous mutant octogenarian ("Actually, I'm a nonagenarian!"). In Logan, Stewart has an absolute blast as an ancient, senile, powerful X-Man - easily his best Professor X role. In fact, It's one of his best roles, period. He had a realistic shot at an Oscar nomination, raking in a bunch of film critic nominations this year. Unbelievably, it would have been the first Academy Award nom of his career. (A 50-year veteran of TV, stage, and screen, with an incomparable Shakespearean pedigree and a trademark commanding, aristocratic voice, he's scored nominations for just about every other kind of award there is, except the Nobel - and I bet he'll have a shot at that one at some point.) But alas. I guess we'll just have to wait for him to top this in his next role, hopefully as a world famous mutant centenarian.

I really, really want to, but I just can't even with Harrison Ford anymore. (Am I using that right, "just can't even"?)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

SHOULD WIN: Allison Janney (I, Tonya) WILL WIN: Allison Janney (I, Tonya) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Allison Williams (Get Out)

INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Catherine Keener (Get Out)

America may be divided right now, but that's nothing compared to the delicious divisiveness in this category. Never has a fiery chasm between two sworn enemies been so vast and irreparable as it is between Allison Janney and Laurie Metcalf. As everyone knows, they completely hate each other (that's not true, but let's pretend). Their mutual disdain has reached dizzying heights over the past few decades, having competed head-to-head on every smart, wisecracking, mother-figure role that's been cast for TV, cinema, and stage. So before debating the merits of their work (Janney in I, Tonya; Metcalf in Lady Bird), let's indulge in the depth of their bilious feud. Imagine the petty stakes between these two vindictive and venomous veterans (both playing opinionated doyennes whose daughters don't appreciate them): The victor will not only gain pride and satisfaction knowing the soul of the other has been crushed, but will become the clear first choice for every mouthy, meddling matriarch role that comes along for the next dozen or so years. Parallels between them abound: They're close in age, both rose to prominence in long-running critically-acclaimed network TV shows, both have extensive theater backgrounds (Janney has 2 Tony nominations; Metcalf has 4 noms and 1 win), both are award-circuit darlings at the Emmys (Janney: 13 nominations and 7 wins; Metcalf: 10 nominations and 3 wins) and Golden Globes (Janney: 6 nominations and 1 win; Metcalf: 3 nominations). However, the parallel they care about the most? Neither had an Oscar nomination until this year. And they would kill each other (I mean, 'pretend' kill each other) to take home the statuette, preferably while watching the other crumple in agonizing disappointment in the rear view mirror.

So who will emerge victorious, clutching the coveted prize with a heel firmly planted in the loser's windpipe? It's not a sure thing, but all the major precursor awards indicate that it will be Janney. She's a go-to for a lot of prestige films and has been a fixture in Oscar-bait for 20 years, so voters are probably astonished that she's never achieved a nomination before; she simply SEEMS like she's due for an Oscar. Metcalf, on the other hand, doesn't appear in films regularly (and Scream 2 didn't exactly wow the Academy), so voters may feel that her nomination is recognition enough. But a bigger factor will be the showier role: Janney hams it up as a downright diabolical eccentric, while Metcalf plays it straighter as a realistically concerned everywoman. (Ironically, Janney is the one playing a real-life person.) The clincher? The bird on the shoulder. For my pick, it's probably a coin-toss; while I’m ultimately picking Janney, I'm actually rooting for Metcalf. I've gotta be a homer, cheering on the local theater legend (she's a charter member of Chicago's Steppenwolf Theatre). It helps that Metcalf's husband in Lady Bird is played by Tracy Letts, another Chicago stalwart, Steppenwolf player, and Pulitzer Prize winner to boot. (And one more Lady Bird Chicago reference: The driving instructor is played by - hey! - a guy I saw in a Second City beginner class show about 15 years ago.)

There are, of course, other nominees in this category. Octavia Spencer is great as usual in The Shape Of Water, but she's been more impressive in other roles. Mary J. Blige is a pleasant revelation in Mudbound, but I'm not sure her performance is the one I would single out from that film; Rob Morgan, Jason Mitchell, and Carey Mulligan are all just as worthy. (Blige may take home an Oscar regardless - she's also nominated for Best Song from the film.) And Lesley Manville… well, she's also nominated. If any of these women somehow pull an upset and win, then the feud between Janney and Metcalf may finally be put on hold momentarily… so they can team up and bludgeon the winner.

BEST DIRECTOR:

SHOULD WIN: Christopher Nolan (Dunkirk) WILL WIN: Guillermo del Toro (The Shape of Water) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Martin McDonagh (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri)

INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049)

After a career of making fantastical cinematic spectacles, Guillermo del Toro is finally getting his due, with The Shape Of Water. It's a story only he could tell, and a story only he WOULD tell. He has a unique talent (among his many) to embrace the things that others would ordinarily ignore or discard. With his point of view, you almost get a sense of kinship, like he feels obligated to tell the (fictional) story as if it was about someone he loved. He unleashes a geyser of big ideas both real and implied, not the least of which is his love of movies. (In a lot of ways, I think this film is his love letter to cinema - where his masterful Pan's Labyrinth could be called a love letter to fairy tales - and all the things that made him want to be a filmmaker.) He likes his symbolism heavy, his production design opulent, his creatures extraordinary, and his protagonists… well, miserable. He works his themes into every scene and every aspect of the film experience: what it means to be whole, to be different, to be silent, and to make sound. And so del Toro will win Best Director, and it will be well deserved. When he wins, it'll be the 4th time in 5 years that this prize goes to a Mexican director (after Cuarón and Alejandro Iñárritu - twice); in fact, the only American-born director to win in the past 7 years was last year's Damien Chazelle for La La Land. (On a side note, speaking of foreign directors, the more of del Toro's films I see, the more he reminds me of Pedro Almodóvar. They seem to share many of the same sensibilities: strong, decisive women, sympathy for what others consider grotesque, a fun-house mirror reflection of the world, a matter-of-factness and tenderness with which they present the outlandish. Most of all, they dare you to believe when everything else tells you not to.)

In my head, I know this is true, but I'm still trying to fathom it: This is the first Best Director nomination for Christopher Nolan (for Dunkirk). After seeing Memento 19 years ago, I assumed by this time he'd have WON at least half a dozen Oscars for Directing and Writing. (I'm still pained by the Memento and Inception snubs.) When Dunkirk stormed into theaters last summer, victory seemed inevitable. But then erosion over time and a visionary fish story knocked him off the podium. So while he won't win, he's still hands-down my pick for Director this year. And let's be honest, my personal endorsement beats a clunky golden bookend any day.

The rest of the nominees are somewhat surprising, for different reasons. Comedian Jordan Peele shocked everyone (in more ways than one) with his horror/satire Get Out, as a first-time director. Similarly, prolific indie darling Greta Gerwig snuck up on Hollywood with her debut, Lady Bird. Both filmmakers clearly collaborate well with actors (both being primarily performers themselves). They are also undoubtedly self-assured, and not unnecessarily showy - they use the camera to tell the story without drawing much attention to the camera itself. While Peele manages to find laughs in the least likely of places, Gerwig reminds us that there is humor (and seriousness and sadness) in just about all places - it all depends on your perspective. The last nominee is Paul Thomas Anderson, for The Phantom Thread - the only one in the category with a previous Directing nomination. He was an afterthought during the entire awards season, and somehow squeezed in instead of folks like Steven Spielberg, Martin McDonagh, Dee Rees, Luca Guadagnino, Patty Jenkins, Ridley Scott, and Joe Wright. He should probably write Daniel Day-Lewis a nice thank-you note for this one.

Aside from Nolan, the person I most wanted to see get nominated was Denis Villeneuve, for Blade Runner 2049. His film is a luscious, consuming, worthy follow-up to the original Blade Runner. The visuals are both consistent with the original and refreshingly contemporary. Each scene isn't directed, it's composed. (Also credit the cinematographer: Roger Deakins is nominated for his 14th time, and he's astoundingly never won.) It's a slow burn, and complements the first film surprisingly well, expanding the story in an organic but unexpected way. And it's every bit as haunting as the first one. A lot of people were spooked by its nearly-three-hour running time, but the length feels earned. I can't say it doesn’t feel long, because it does, but it's enjoyably long (unlike The Lord Of The Rings or, ahem, The Last Jedi). You want to spend time in every scene. You want a master to take his time. Now, give this master the keys to the Star Wars franchise!

Don't feel too bad for Martin McDonagh for being passed over for Best Director for Three Billboards. He's actually already got an Oscar - for Best Short Film in 2006 for a film called Six Shooter. Gee, I wonder if there's any uncomfortable violence in a movie with that name?

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

SHOULD WIN: Jordan Peele (Get Out) WILL WIN: Jordan Peele (Get Out) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Rian Johnson (Star Wars: The Last Jedi)

INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Steven Rogers (I, Tonya)

What to make of the Original Screenplay category? It's just as befuddling as the Best Picture race. Get Out and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri are neck and neck, with Lady Bird also in position for a possible steal. Usually the lead-up awards give an indication, but confoundingly, the script that won the Writers Guild Award (Get Out) wasn't even nominated for the Golden Globe. And the Golden Globe winner (Three Billboards) wasn't nominated for the WGA. (Though that's deceiving: Three Billboards was not eligible for the WGA because it didn't conform to all the Writers Guild standards; its omission probably won't impact its Oscar chances.) Who in the world will sort out this madness and provide a beacon of hope?? Thank goodness I'm here. Most people will tell you that Three Billboards will win. Most people are idiots. In an upset, it will be Get Out.

I also happen to think Get Out (by Jordan Peele) is the most deserving entry in this category. And frankly, this is the film's best shot at taking home a trophy. Despite all the buzz, it's still hard for people to believe that it's written by one of the minds behind the Key & Peele sketches, because the show wasn't exactly known for, you know, mind-bending horror-thrills. But it's not surprising that he brings a unique sense of humor and satire (not to mention social commentary) to it that, say, Eli Roth wouldn't. It's clear from his script that he has the point of view of someone who loves, and is probably a little tired of, horror movies. It's a sign of a clever and air-tight script that the film demands multiple viewings, and that the set-ups play and pay off in a completely different yet satisfying way the second time around.

I'm fairly conflicted about Martin McDonagh's screenplay for Three Billboards. While the film was grueling, I have to say, the man can write scenes. His background is in theater, and it shows. The screenplay stands apart in its excellent execution (pun sort-of intended), regardless of your opinion of the ending or the tone. He clearly understands that EVERY SINGLE SCENE in a drama should be all dramatic conflict and nothing else. It's a great example for novice screenwriters (and even some experienced ones). The scene starts when the conflict starts, and ends when the conflict ends… or often even before that. (And notice I said when the conflict "ends", not when the conflict "resolves"; the conflict "resolves" when the movie is over.) McDonagh even pulls this off when it's just Frances McDormand talking to a wandering deer, or alone imagining a conversation between her bunny slippers. As for theme? I'm not so sure I can commend him as much on that one. Thematic elements are obviously up to interpretation by the audience (that's kind of the point), but I don't really know what to take away from this. I have a few suspicions of what McDonagh was trying to say, but they're either muddy (to which he'd respond, "Good!") or they're enraging (to which he'd probably also respond, "Good!") or they're irredeemably charred, dredged from the depths of a soulless abyss (and frankly, I think he'd be okay with that as well).

Kumail Nanjiani and Emily V. Gordon's screenplay for The Big Sick is my second-favorite this year behind Get Out, so I was thrilled to see it get a nomination here. (I would have liked to see it get a Best Picture nod too, but I'll get over it.) This kind of film seems to be my style (these days, anyway, as I get older) - at least how to make tragedy palatable: with a healthy blend of humor. (50/50 is another recent example.) Maybe that means I've gotten soft, that I like my drama safe and my comedy harmless. Or maybe I just don't want to feel like I've been drinking warm sewage for two hours at the end of a movie.

I'll be honest, I didn't have a strong personal connection with Lady Bird, so I didn't come away with much from it. The screenplay feels true, and seems to be trying to say something without shouting a message, which I can appreciate. I probably see the film more from the parent's perspective than the teenager's perspective. So to me, it basically says that children never really know how much their parents love them, in part because parents aren't really able to articulate it in a way that children (especially teenagers) can truly understand. And frankly, it also says that children are eternally ungrateful to their parents… except when they make unexpected declarations at the end of Hollywood movies. Little brats.

Though it's got a strong shot to win two of the biggest awards, The Shape Of Water won't be a factor here. Of all its wonders, its screenplay is considered the least dazzling. It's meant to feel like a film from 50 years ago, so the screenplay is intentionally structured in a fairly simple way, with several one-dimensional characters and straightforward dialogue. It's a fable, really, so it's executed as such. It's got some significant plot holes (but in light of the fact that it's a "dating a fish" story, they're pretty minor), the creature gets very little backstory (which is just as well - any attempt to explain it would demystify the story and be a flat waste of time), and the lessons are heavy-handed. Everybody (good, evil, or otherwise) is "less than whole" in some way, whether it's in how they perceive themselves, or in how they are perceived by others. The one that can make them whole (physically or metaphorically) is the one who fits in the least: the fish-man, the proverbial "missing link". (Except for the poor cat. The fish-man makes the cat… decidedly less than whole.)

No, that's not a typo. I put Star Wars: The Last Jedi as my Gloriously Omitted choice. What was wrong with the Canto Bight detour? Well, how much time do you have? I could rant about it for 30 minutes, the same amount of time squandered on that throwaway sequence. What a waste of time. As for the rest of the screenplay… mostly, as a fan of Rian Johnson's other work (like Looper), I expected… more. I really thought he'd have something cool up his sleeve, whether it was a twist or an unexpected structure. New "magical" Force tricks didn't really cut it for me. Filmmaker Werner Herzog once said, "Manoeuvre and mislead, but always deliver." Johnson forgot to heed the second half of that advice. (I am willing, however, to give Johnson extra credit for his Hardware Wars reference - an Easter Egg intended for probably only 1% of even the biggest Start Wars fans.)

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

SHOULD WIN: James Ivory (Call Me By Your Name) WILL WIN: James Ivory (Call Me By Your Name) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Stephen Chbosky, Evan Spiliotopoulos (Beauty And The Beast)

INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Hampton Fancher, Michael Green (Blade Runner 2049)

The Adapted category takes a bit of a back seat to its Original counterpart this year. Only one of the nominees is in contention for Best Picture (as opposed to all 5 in the Original category), and none of the nominees got a Best Director nod (compared to 3 in the other category). The result is a somewhat surprising and unconventional (if arguably weaker) crop of nominees.

As the only Best Picture nominee and the winner of the Writers Guild Award, Call Me By Your Name is the clear front-runner. It's also the sentimental favorite: It's written by 89-year-old James Ivory (he of the esteemed Merchant-Ivory brand), who's been nominated for 3 previous Oscars but has never won. It would make him the oldest non-honorary winner ever. The films of Merchant-Ivory Productions, a period-piece powerhouse in the 80s and 90s, have achieved 6 Oscar wins and countless nominations (like A Room With A View, Howard's End, The Remains Of The Day, and a bunch of other films you've heard are good but have never seen… you heathen), typically directed by Ivory, and produced by Ismail Merchant. (The Wikipedia description of the company is both accurate and hilarious: "A typical 'Merchant-Ivory film' would be a period piece set in the early 20th century, usually in Edwardian England, featuring lavish sets and top British actors portraying genteel characters who suffer from disillusionment and tragic entanglements.") Merchant died in 2005, and Ivory has been mostly inactive since then. So a win here would be seen by many admiring voters as a fitting coda for one of the underappreciated auteurs of his generation.

I was thisclose to calling Logan my Should Win. For those of you who are not paying attention (or who are not as dorky as I am), it's another X-Men movie (astonishingly, the 10th in the franchise). Logan is Wolverine. Wolverine is Hugh Jackman. Hugh Jackman is… if you don't know, I guess I can't help you. The writers (including director James Mangold) took a risk and made a gritty, nihilistic, R-rated version of a comic book (yeah, it's a Marvel superhero movie - relax), and it paid off. The result is perhaps the best X-Men film yet, one that is faithful and irreverent at the same time, and feels more like a drama than a comic flick. It's redefined what's possible with these kind of films. Expect it a usher in a new era of superhero movies. (Except for D.C. You guys keep making absurd Batmans Vs. Supermans. Morons.)

Mudbound incorporates all the fun elements of a classic feel-good movie: Alcoholism, rape, miscarriage, murder, racism, hardship, violent war death, familial strife, affairs, incest, extreme PTSD, unexpected pregnancies, broken limbs, filth, domestic abuse, fist fights, flooding, loveless marriage, abject poverty, childhood illness, grave digging, animal slaughter, mutilation… and that's all before the KKK shows up! I'm not quite sure what to say about Mudbound, as a film overall, or as a screenplay nominee. To call the film "challenging" is an understatement. As an experience, it's downright punishing. It's also extraordinarily beautiful, especially considering the dismal, impoverished environment in which the film is set. Cinematography (by Rachel Morrison) is probably its most deserving nomination, and it may well beat out several renown DPs in that category. I'm impressed by the screenplay (by Dee Rees and Virgil Williams), even if I don't have the stomach for its subject matter. It's unflinching and elegiac, haunting and inspiring. It features dialogue and narration (which is usually a strike against in my book) that is poetic and mollifying. But unfortunately, it also features about 2 hours of misery and only about 10 seconds of happiness.

As you've probably heard by now, The Disaster Artist is the (realistic?) portrayal of the making of reputedly the worst movie of all time, The Room. I’m pretty sure James Franco, on the heels of his Golden Globe victory, was expecting 3 Oscar nominations for his triple-threat work on the film: Actor, Director, and Best Picture. But, poor chap, the one he ended up with was the one he doesn't actually get credit for: Screenplay. (It was written by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber, the writing team behind seemingly every annoying, angsty teen coming-of-age movie from the past 5 years.) I can't decide if The Disaster Artist's endeavor is genius or crazy or simply overindulgent. (Franco himself is usually categorized as all three.) I mean, the original movie is not good. And it's not bad in an awesome way, either, despite its reputation to the contrary. If it hadn't become a cult classic among an influential clique of comedians and actors (i.e., Franco's pals - many of whom have small parts in the film), nobody would pay it a second's attention, the behind-the-scenes book would be a footnote, and this film would never have reason to exist. But it does. And now - good god - The Room is actually an Oscar nominee. I guess there's hope for us all.

#oscars #oscarpredictions #oscarpredictions2018 #oscarprognostication2018 #donovansoscarprognostication2018 #oscars2018 #academyawards #academyaward

0 notes

chiseler · 5 years ago

Text

The Bombing of Black Wall Street

By all accounts, the people who lived there were extremely proud of what they had forged, especially the school system, insisting each and every child of Greenwood receive a full and solid education.

Combining the reality with the grotesque cartoon proved to be a poor white racist’s worst nightmare. Not only were those blacks in Greenwood subhuman, they were rich subhumans. Jesus God Almighty!

Realizing they were outnumbered, the mob from Greenwood retreated towards home, only to be pursued by the white mob, both on foot and in pickups.

Some of the dead, it was reported, were buried in mass graves, others dumped in a nearby river, and still others dropped into the shafts of a local coal mine.

The day after the riot, all charges were dropped against Dick Rowland (who had been safely hidden away in a jail cell throughout it all), and upon his release he quickly and quietly left town.

by Jim Knipfel

1 note · View note