On the Developing Jameis Winston Sexual Assault Situation

In the past couple of weeks, various outlets have begun to report on the sexual assault situation going on in Tallahassee, Florida, which centers around football player Jameis Winston, quarterback for the #2 Ranked, undefeated Seminoles of Florida State University. A relatively non-biased timeline of events was published by Grantland's Patricia Lee earlier today. At present, Jameis Winston's DNA is a match, and, as reads in the timeline, evidence may suggest Tallahassee PD Detective Scott Angulo worked to pressure the alleged victim to halt her prosecution of Winston because of his celebrity as a football player. Only now, some 11 months after the crime allegedly took place, is the investigation continuing again, with the Seminoles in line to play for a championship and Winston solidly in contention for the Heisman trophy.

It's important to mention Winston's football pedigree here - not because he's "a star football player, good student, watching his life fall apart", but because I can only write this post with my own perspective, as a college football fan. I'm in no way connected to the events that December night in Tallahassee and as such, I have no right to comment on whether or not I think Winston is guilty or not, because, believe it or not, the accused are rightfully innocent until proven guilty in this country. That does not, however, change the notion that if the timeline is correct, Florida State police probably should have laid charges on Winston months before the football season even began. Winston would have been automatically suspended indefinitely, and his pedigree, which makes up a strong portion of the stories being written about him, wouldn't even exist. Maybe I wouldn't have watched a 41-13 demolition of my Pitt Panthers because he wouldn't have even been on the team in the first place, and maybe Florida State wouldn't be #2, three games away from a surely exciting championship game against Alabama. And now, this season, pending the investigation, may have an asterisk on it because Florida State police didn't want to risk a football player getting in trouble.

But the above paragraph is exactly the troubling thing about this case. I'm thinking about the repercussions towards the Vizio National Championship game, for God sakes. And in Tallahassee, there's a girl who's well on her way to being branded a liar and a villain for targeting a football player at a very volatile time in the Seminoles season. And that's why I have to talk about football - because if Scott Angulo actually did his job instead of protecting Winston, there probably wouldn't be this miraculous season in the first place, and maybe that girl could have had her privacy and well-being protected, instead of getting the label of "season-killing pariah".

It's sad, because this is going to keep happening. Celebrities and athletes will always be protected, regardless of their state of guilt, and an attack on the quarterback is an attack on the university the way things are right now. Until we finally grow up and treat everybody equally - men and women, football players and regular students, and give each and every person in this nation the true due process of law as both accusers and defendants, nothing will change. And again, this isn't a comment or accusation insinuating that Winston is guilty, or that he isn't - but he was looked at as Jameis Winston, Florida State quarterback, instead of Jameis Winston, suspect, and that's wrong. It's sad, because I love college football - I grew up on the belief behind alma mater and the players representing the university. And it sucks that the big dollars and the promise of the NFL have turned it into a pre-professional athlete mill. Until we all stop worrying about winning and the pressure, and college football returns to those values it championed for decades upon decades, this will be but one of many more morally troubling situations that will plague the game for years to come.

On 'Gravity', The Best Film I Have Ever Seen

One of my favorite feelings in the world is the moment after a film fades to black. After giving the movie total and undisputed attention for its entirety, you sink back in your seat, take a breath, and allow the real world to come back. A decent film ends with a nod of approval and a quick move to the exit, as you talk to your movie-going companions about what you did and didn't like. A really good film might cause you to remain in your seat for some of the credits, leading to more chatter about its merit. A fantastic, truly great film leads to a more intellectual response, as the feelings stay internalized for a time until you can formulate words to say, to give the movie its credit. 

Then there's Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity. A film so mesmerizing, so exhilarating, and so emotional, that there remains nothing to say even after a night of sleep and a morning to think about it. To those reading this blog post, I apologize, because there are truly no words that could give this film its worthwhile credit. As it ended, my three friends and I had nothing to say. We searched for words, but there weren't any. There still aren't, really. To call Gravity a cinematic masterpiece is a vast understatement. Perhaps the best sentence that can encapsulate how momentous this film is is a thought from my friend Jason, who equally shared in the speechlessness until quite a while later: Simply put, films up until now are Pre-Gravity, and everything that comes after will be Post-Gravity.

Of course, hyperbole and big adjectives only go a certain distance in stating greatness. I suppose I'll start with the effects. Cuaron has always had the gift of being able to place the viewer in the environment of his films, perhaps better than any other active director. Watching Children of Men felt like being in that post-apocalyptic London. Prisoner of Azkaban had the most active viewing experience of any of the Harry Potter movies by far. And now, with Gravity, you truly do feel as if you're experiencing space. The camera never stops moving, floating and suspended in zero-gravity. I've never actually flinched at 3-D before, but I did on several occasions here. And active viewing aside - the movie is stunningly beautiful. And even the smallest of details are so exact and precise that the tears and smallest droplets of blood carry a beauty that I don't think I've ever seen on such a small scale. The beauty is one of the most terrifying elements of the film, in fact. Cuaron places us in an undeniably claustrophobic environment in the most open vastness in existence. We experience a struggle for survival in the most visually stunning openness ever seen on film. We can't discuss cinematic beauty without mentioning James Cameron's Avatar - but Gravity's beauty has an incredible realism to it. Pandora doesn't exist, but Gravity's vacuum of space has a sense of believability that one would not expect it to contain.

Another thing Avatar just didn't have was strong acting or a strong story. And in Gravity, both of these elements fully match the wondrous effects. Whereas Avatar was simply created to make us notice what was possible visually, Gravity takes these visuals, adds believability, and contains one of the most emotional journeys I have ever seen on film. Sandra Bullock gives a once-in-a-generation performance, bar none. Truly stunning work through and through. And Clooney shows up playing Clooney in the best way possible. But the bulk of the film is Bullock, and I really can't say enough about how fantastic she is. The score is also one of the most riveting I've ever experienced. It has a heightened importance in the film because of the utter silence of space surrounding it. We either hear silence, the actors, or the score, which matches the intensity and emotion in every way. 

I would say more, but there is really no point in continuing on. Gravity is a momentous achievement and a complete landmark in every sense. I return again to the immediate moment after the movie ends. In this moment, I truly felt privileged to have experienced the previous 88 minutes. I gained an appreciation for my own planet. I cannot recommend a film more, because the wonder contained in Gravity is what makes the movies so great. It truly is the best film that I have ever seen, and I can't wait to see where cinema goes from here.

Here's a Conversation that HAD to Have Happened Between Kanye West and Jay-Z in September 2009

On September 13, 2009, Kanye West interrupted Taylor Swift's acceptance speech at the MTV Video Music Awards. This much is certain. It is, frankly, the only objective statement that one could make regarding the incident. Many events could have led Kanye to rush the stage on live television, but the blogosphere seemed rather content to align itself with the "Kanye West is just an egotistical jackass" argument. West, in the aftermath of the incident, seemingly went into hiding, only to emerge over a year later from Hawaii with his magnum opus, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, an album within which he pondered his status as a figure of society before ultimately giving a toast to himself as the best there is. The album was so highly praised that West was able to immerse himself back into the spotlight, and people seemed willing to forget the VMA incident.

Upon hearing Yeezus, however, I am fully convinced that the VMAs was part of the plan. I can imagine it now, Kanye and Jay-Z in a VIP section of a nightclub in early Autumn 2009. Kanye is lost in thought. Suddenly he turns to Jay-Z and flashes a grin. "Okay, who's the biggest pop star right now?" he asks. 

"Probably Taylor Swift," Jay-Z replies, sipping a very expensive vodka. "Everybody loves her. She's the media's darling."

"You think she's gonna win a VMA?" 

"Probably. I'd say Best Female Video. Beyonce will win overall though, hers was one of the best videos of all time," Jay-Z says. "Of all time," he repeats.

"I'm gonna interrupt her acceptance speech. I'm gonna go up there, take the microphone, and say how Beyonce should have won. Even though we all know she'll win later in the show," Kanye says, the grin never leaving his face.

"Why would you do that? Everybody would hate you for it, and they'd think you're stupid for not realizing Beyonce still could win later in the show," Jay-Z replies, utterly confused.

"That's the point. They'll all hate me. I'll get roasted by the media. They'll all say that I'm an egotistical jackass, and an idiot too. They'll say it doesn't matter how good my music is, because I made a fool of myself at the VMAs, and they won't play any of my songs on the radio," says Kanye.

"So why do it?"

"Because then I'm gonna buy a one-way ticket to Hawaii. And I'm gonna rent a bungalow on the beach and buy out the entire recording studio for a year. And then I'm gonna fly in Kid Cudi, and Nicki Minaj, and you, and John Legend, and maybe that guy with the band who's name I don't know how to pronounce right. With the I in it," Kanye says.

"Bon Iver?" 

"That's the one. And I'm gonna make the greatest album ever, and it will be so good that Rolling Stone will make another issue of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list just so they can include it," he says.

Jay-Z takes another sip of vodka. It didn't make sense to him. "Why go through all that trouble at the VMAs? Why not just go to Hawaii and not make everybody hate you?" he asks. 

"The whole point is that everybody is gonna hate me and I'm gonna make an album that throws their hate right in their faces. And they'll forget they hated me, just cause the album will be that good," Kanye says.

"That's a dark twisted fantasy," Jay-Z says, shaking his head.

"And not only will I make everybody love me, but Kim Kardashian is gonna have my baby too."

"What!?" Jay-Z exclaims, "She's dating Reggie Bush!"

"I know. But she's gonna move on to a basketball player next, and marry him, and then I'm gonna steal her and she's gonna get pregnant with my baby while she's still married to him," Kanye replies.

"Are you insane!? And how long have you been planning this?" Jay-Z asks, dumbfounded.

"Don't worry about it. So yeah, she'll be pregnant, and then she'll get a divorce. And we're gonna be the biggest couple in America. But I know she's gonna get a lot more attention than me when the baby is about to come, so what I'm gonna do is go to Paris for a while and make another album there," Kanye says.

"Even if this plan does work up until this point, you wouldn't want to stay with her while she's pregnant? Isn't that, like, an abandonment of fatherly morals?" asks Jay-Z.

"Well that's part of it too. I'm Kanye West. I'm not a secondhand man to a reality show personality. And just to prove that to everybody, I'm gonna drop the album a day or two before the baby's due date."

"That's just bad business. Nobody would pay attention to the album because they've been focusing on this hypothetical baby for nine months," Jay-Z says.

"Nah. I'm gonna tweet the date of the release a month ahead of time so they know it's coming," Kanye says.

"What about advertising? You don't really think one tweet will do the job, do you?"

"Yes it will. I'm Kanye West. And then the album will drop and nobody will pay attention to the baby. And not only that, but I'm gonna sing about some other chick in all of the songs. But nobody will care, because the album will be fantastic."

"This is unbelievable. That's like, four years of a huge master plan. I don't think you can pull that off," Jay-Z says, putting on his coat to leave for the night.

"Yes I can," Kanye replies. "I'm Kanye West."

The Great Gatsby Review

Last week, I had a conversation with a friend about my expectations going into The Great Gatsby. Neither of us had seen the movie yet, but I had read the book in tenth grade English class, as has much of American youth. Scholars, teachers, and great writers have said all there is to say about the everlasting greatness and importance of F. Scott Fitzgerald's masterpiece - nothing I could add about the text would add anything new to the volumes of praise heaped upon its 192 pages. And so these were the expectations director Baz Luhrmann and executive producer Jay-Z faced as they attempted to re-tell the classic to fit the tastes of contemporary culture. Personally, I believe Luhrmann to be one of the most polarizing directors working in Hollywood today - he is loved or hated, very rarely does any critic hold and opinion of him in the middle of the two extremes. I happen to be on the "love" side of the argument - Moulin Rouge and, to a lesser extent, Romeo + Juliet (starring Leonardo DiCaprio on the brink of stardom) are two films I can always return to with great joy. Luhrmann is unapologetically avant-garde, and will throw highly stylized color and camera movements at you from start to finish. His characters are bold, nearly as colorful as the sets they stand upon. Simply put, there is no auteur quite like Luhrmann, a position he seems to relish.

And so I told my friend I would enjoy The Great Gatsby going in, because it would be a Luhrmann film, regardless of how closely he kept to the story of the book. And, plot aside, the setting of Gatsby is a perfect set-up for Luhrmann. The '20s was the most colorful, highly charged decade of the history of the United States - at the very least, in upper-class culture, which is precisely the subject matter. The story of Gatsby - what with the bootlegged alcohol, jazz music, and over-extravagant new money houses, was begging to be directed by Luhrmann from the very moment it was published.

Not only did Luhrmann show exactly how over-the-top this story really is, he ended up following the book extremely closely, with the exception of giving the narrator, Nick, a frame story for telling the story. This frame, a stay at a sanitarium in which a doctor convinces him to write, was kept decently to the side of the main action and never once got in the way of the emotions of the plot. In fact, as Nick begins to write, Luhrmann actively incorporates the words of the book with the action. Fitzgerald's prose is as much a character in the film as Nick or Tom Buchanan. Luhrmann truly makes the viewer pay attention to the text itself, understanding that there is a deep importance to the aching, blind hope of Fitzgerald himself.

This deep emotion is fully enhanced by brilliant performances by the main cast - especially DiCaprio as Gatsby and Carey Mulligan as Daisy Buchanan. DiCaprio fully captured the iconic literary figure in a way that eluded Robert Redford some time ago, and his passion on screen was astonishingly exact to what I believed the character of Gatsby to contain. In addition, his youthful bravado shines through on screen in a way I haven't seen since Titanic - an exceptional feat considering that film came out some sixteen years ago. Mulligan, as if she hadn't already with Drive, cemented herself as one of the prime young actresses of our generation, providing Daisy with a level of sympathy I wasn't even aware was there in the first place. Joel Edgerton, as Tom Buchanan, masterfully holds his own against the powerful DiCaprio, and while I have never been a fan of Tobey Maguire, his awkwardness as an actor seemed to perfectly fit the character of Nick Carraway.

These performances are strongly assisted by the trademark color and pizzazz of Luhrmann's backdrops and camera movements - two elements that when combined, give the feel of a moving painting throughout the whole of the film. Another extremely important part of this film that must not be overlooked is the soundtrack. If there is a soundtrack with songs that more accurately fit the culture of both the characters in the film and the audience members watching them, then I would greatly enjoy hearing it. Luhrmann exclusively uses songs from the last decade or so, but each of them are stylized just enough to perfectly encapsulate the 1920s. Lana Del Rey, and her song "Young and Beautiful", in particular, is a fantastic choice to include. "Young and Beautiful", the lead single from the soundtrack, like most of Del Rey's music, is quite jazzy, yet is privileged with a fair amount of production and electronic background to make it listenable for modern day audiences. "A Little Party Never Killed Nobody", my personal favorite track, is also clearly a contemporary pop song, but is infused with elements of swing, providing a superb sound to the colorful Gatsby parties shown in the film. 

By the credits, I felt fully satisfied with the film and Luhrmann's directorial choices, and never once did I feel that there was anything pointedly wrong with it. I do understand that the style is not for everybody and thus, the 50% Rotten Tomatoes rating seems a perfect fit for its polarizing, take-me-or-leave-me boldness. The film never once felt slow, even at a length of 143 minutes. I highly recommend it for both fans of the book and movie fans in general, and I hope that DiCaprio can possibly break his Oscar curse with another legendary performance to add to the record books.

Zach Stone is Gonna Be Famous: Frank makes a Cameo in the Pantheon

On Thursday, Bo Burnham, seemingly my generation's favorite comedian, had a show premiere on MTV. I actually had no idea that Bo Burnham was up to anything - since his stand-up special Words, Words, Words, he had pretty much disappeared. However, he showed up on Reddit to do an AMA to promote his new show and, as a fan, I made sure to tune in. And so did Frank!

So we decided to have a mini e-mail discussion about it. Hope you enjoy.

Frank: I was expecting a raunchier humor before I watched the pilot episode of Zach Stone.  I was disappointed.  As a Bo Burnham fan who’s seen him live twice, I was confused about why the show wasn’t making me laugh.  During his live shows, Bo jokes about rape, religion, race, but Zach Stone is Gonna Be Famous mentioned maybe two “Bo Burnham” lines that could be considered funny.   The jokes Zach did succeed at were recycled from Bo’s live shows.  Bo throws glitter at all of his shows, makes a joke about “losing control of his stools” before he sits down at a piano, etc.  The rest of the show left a lot to be desired in terms of “Laugh out loud” moments.

It makes sense for Bo to make a show about getting famous for basically no reason because that’s how he became famous in the first place.  But it’s hard to sympathize with Zach as a character because Bo’s already famous in real life.  If the show was going for an authentic feel, they should have picked someone who wasn’t already famous.  If the show’s going for a “mocking every person trying to become famous” feel, then it’s just not funny.  And why the hell did Zach’s friends have the same boring personalities as sidekicks from Disney TV shows?  I think I actually like Alan Twitty from Even Stevens better than the characters they’ve introduced so far.  His best friend was sheepish and didn’t say more than two sentences.  His “girlfriend” has no personality whatsoever so far.  I understand that it’s the first episode, but I pictured bigger and better things for Zach’s posse from the get go.

As a character, I do like Zach Stone.  He’s a way for people who would be slighted by Bo Burnham’s music to digest the “mocking society in an offensive way” personae.   If the show wants to succeed, it needs to get raunchier.  Take the woman out of the casket and dance around with her.  Accidently grab her boobs.  Then drop her on someone in the audience.  Zach Stone isn’t “Bo Fo Sho” enough for me, but hopefully it gets better as more episodes air.

Garrett: Ok, so I get what you're saying about your missed expectations. I was reading Bo Burnham's AMA on Reddit, though, and he said that the reason he wanted to make this show was because it wasn't a fictionalized version of himself or anything like that. He didn't want to be Bo Burnham, he wanted to create an entirely new character. So the jokes he makes are supposed to be made by Zach Stone the character, who happens to be acted by Bo Burnham.

The problem, I think, is that Bo Burnham the comedian breaks through more than he may have intended. In his stand-up specials, Bo delivers his jokes in a certain way, and the delivery is the same in the show. He doesn't seem to be able to break out of his mold. I think that to be more successful he needs to really commit in one way or the other - as you said, Bo Burnham fans are disappointed because his style isn't coming through enough.

I also think there's a problem with the show being on MTV - Bo Burnham the comedian and Bo Burnham the writer are much raunchier than what's allowed on cable. MTV is one of those weird enigmas where you can show a sixteen year old using her pregnancy to get famous, but you can't use curse words or show drug use or anything like that. It's why the US version of Skins was so unbelievably bad. Jamie Brittain was the creator of the UK version, but just wasn't allowed to show the same hard-hitting content that he could in England. Bo Burnham has to work around the network that he's on and that may be a big problem for him moving along.

Frank: I watched Conan's interview with Bo Burnham and when Conan asked about Bo insulting Justin Bieber, Bo responded by saying, "Yeah I have a bit where I make fun of all the Bieber songs describing the most general girl ever, so that they apply to pretty much anyone."  Bo is mocking today's pop songs, which are creating ridiculous expectations about love for teen girls and guys.  Bo has the same mentality with Zach Stone.  He's mocking the way reality shows are by making a fake reality show and a fake character who isn't as funny as the real Bo.  Whether this is intentional or unintentional, it doesn't matter.  But  it's good in a way.  I'm glad that he's creating a satire about how incredibly hard it is to become famous unless you're really good at something.  But Bo is good at multiple things: singing, beat-boxing, playing piano and guitar, and gut-bursting comedy.  You can't pretend to be ordinary, untalented Zach Stone when Bo Burnham is a fucking genius and everyone knows it.

He needs to shine through as Bo.  He can't do that on MTV.  He needs to find an outlet that will allow him to express himself.  As for the Skins comment, I agree.  I feel like Bo needs to move to the UK and release a raunchier Zach Stone and then have it appear on Netflix so that I can actually laugh at it because right now, American Zach Stone ain't cuttin' it.

Garrett: It's also tough because Bo is clearly much more talented than everybody around him in this show. I don't know where MTV finds their supporting actors, but they're all atrocious. The entire show relies on two factors: can Bo Burnham carry the entire show on his shoulders, and can he do this while walking the censorship line? I, for one, think Bo Burnham is creative enough to make the character of Zach Stone funny. There's a social commentary in this show, as you said, about the idea of fame and what it means to people. Maybe the reason the show works is because an already-famous comedian is pretending to be one of those people we see all the time, trying to do everything they can to be famous in spite of themselves and their established relationships. Bo does seem to understand the ridiculousness of our society in that we reward fame regardless of how it's obtained, and I think his characterization of Zach is pretty on point with that.

But Bo Burnham wants to be himself too much. The already-famous, near A-List comedian who everybody knows the style of. Therein lies the issue with the show - it's not that I don't find it funny, I just think he's gonna run out of material to put on the censored MTV.

My Life in Game 7s: Documenting Memories from Six Eventful Capitals Playoff Games

As most people know, when it comes to pro sports, I really only have a true allegiance to one team. As happy as I was that the Ravens held off the 49ers to win the Super Bowl, the happiness faded quickly as I realized my dear Washington Capitals still have not come close to contending for a Stanley Cup. The team has qualified for the playoffs each year since 2008, and has experienced a ridiculous six game 7s in that time. I gain more and more gray hair with each one, and these six games are some of my most vivid memories. I can neither confirm nor deny that I sometimes jolt awake at night, shouting things like “GOD DAMN SEMIN PENALTY” or “WHERE ARE YOU OVECHKIN!?”.

Here is a list of the aforementioned Game 7s I have toiled over and my recollections of the viewing experiences I had with them. Warning – I’m going to get sad and you’re going to notice.

Game 7 #1: (6) Flyers at (3) Capitals – 2008 Eastern Conference First Round

The Build-Up: This was the Cinderella year. The Capitals, fresh off firing Head Coach Glen Hanlon, hired bombastic, freewheeling Bruce Boudreau from their minor league affiliate Hershey Bears to replace him. Boudreau installed a wide-open, highly offensive system that the team excelled with. They went on a tear down the stretch, won the Southeast Division on the final day of the regular season, and Alex Ovechkin was awarded the MVP. The Flyers were heavily favored to win the series, but the Caps stole game 1 at home with a late Ovechkin goal. The Flyers, however, won the next three games of the series with relative ease. The Caps fought their way back into it, however, and set up their first Game 7 since 1995 (who knew they’d have so many more to make up for the hiatus?).

The Game: I watched the game with my dad and my brother in our basement. Each of us was relatively confident, knowing we had the momentum going. Our mentality stayed that way until about halfway through the second period. In a wild sequence, goalie Cristobal Huet got a Caps player slammed into him by one of the Flyers, and Sami Kapanen’s empty net goal put the Flyers ahead 2-1. There should have been a crease violation on the play, but the refs had let most things go so far. I kept that in mind, believing fully that we would get a make-up call.

Ovechkin, who had seemingly disappeared since his game-winner in the series opener, tied the game with about four minutes to go in the second period. There wasn’t any scoring in the third, but going into overtime, the Verizon Center crowd seemed raucous and I felt pretty good about our chances. I turned to my dad and said, “Ovechkin scores.” He laughed and said “No, that’s not how playoff overtimes work. It’ll be a Flyer. Somebody you don’t see coming” (Gee, I wonder where I got my sports pessimism from?). As fate would have it, the Caps never got that makeup call, and Tom Poti got called for a toss-up tripping play that was completely out of whack with how the refs had been calling the game. Joffrey Lupul, who hadn’t scored all series, put in a rebound for the Flyers. I sulked, knowing my belief had surely cost the Caps their shot at winning.

Game 7 #2: (7) Rangers at (2) Capitals – 2009 Eastern Conference First Round

The Build-Up: Though we had suffered a blow against the Flyers, the Caps’ success continued throughout the next year. Ovechkin won the MVP for the second straight season and led the league in scoring with 56 goals. The match-up was favorable, against the Rangers, but the Caps got caught looking ahead to the next round and lost the first two games of the series. The Caps pulled goalie Jose Theodore for relatively untested rookie Semyon Varlamov, and after trailing 3-1, Washington mimicked the year before and tied the series, setting up a second straight game 7 at home.

The Game: I was more nervous for this game than the previous year’s, and sat stewing in my Mike Green jersey for most of the day. I didn’t have anybody to watch the game with, and really wish I had. It was a thrilling goaltender duel. Varlamov and New York’s Lundqvist pulled off miraculous save after miraculous save. The game stood at 1-1, until about five minutes to go, when veteran Sergei Fedorov rifled a wrist shot above the glove to give the Caps the lead. I began to get nervous, but the Caps controlled the game until the conclusion and marched into the second round.

Game 7 #3: (4) Penguins at (2) Capitals – 2009 Eastern Conference Semifinals

The Build-Up: Oh my God, what a series this was. The first six games were some of the best hockey I had ever seen. Game 1 featured Varlamov absolutely robbing Sidney Crosby in a 3-2 win in the tied second period with one of the best playoff saves of all time. Game 2 featured Ovechkin and Crosby both scoring hat tricks in a Caps 4-3 win, putting them ahead 2-0 in the series. But the Penguins came back in a stellar game 3, with Malkin absolutely dominating and the Pens winning in overtime. The Penguins tied the series in Game 4, and took the lead in Game 5 on an own goal off a Malkin shot in overtime. On the road, the Caps re-tied the series on a deflection in yet another overtime, setting up a third straight Game 7 at home.

The Game: And then all of the excitement died. After six games of the most intense hockey between featuring the two best players in the world (At the time. No, Ovechkin is no longer in the conversation), Game 7 was an anticlimactic massacre of epic proportions. It started well enough with a huge Ovechkin hit on Brooks Orpik, but a bit later Ovechkin was robbed on a breakaway with a fantastic glove save by Fleury and Crosby scored for the Penguins. On the ensuing faceoff, the Penguins won the draw, skated into the zone, and Craig Adams immediately scored, putting them up 2-0. The Caps lost all of their luster and wilted, losing 6-2. The Adams goal was the sign that the game was over, and as the Penguins poured in goals, I just became numb. I wasn’t sad, and the only thing I felt was disappointment that the game fell flat on its face. I deserved more, I felt. Next year’s team would surely deliver vengeance.

Game 7 #4: (8) Canadiens at (1) Capitals – 2010 Eastern Conference First Round

The Build-Up: This series haunts me. I’ve been going back and watching highlights of all of the other games, but I haven’t touched this one. The Caps were the President’s Trophy winners and the resounding best team in the league. They were unstoppable. After losing Game 1 in overtime, Montreal scored on the first two shots of Game 2, and Theodore got pulled again for Varlamov. The Caps stormed back into the game, winning 6-5 in an overtime thriller, and won games 3 and 4 by a combined 11-3. And then Habs goalie Jaroslav Halak was touched by God and transformed into a brick wall. The Caps, trying to finish off the series, managed only two goals in games 5 and 6 on NINETY-ONE shots.

The Game: I’ve told several people of my “Sporting Events that Have Caused Me to Cry” list before. I won’t get into all of it, but this game is on there. I was sure the Caps would figure out Halak. I was sure we would get to the second round and continue to steamroll the competition. I was sure that the third time would be the charm. I was sure. Until I wasn’t sure. The Canadiens scored early. It was 1-0 the whole game. The seconds ticked by. The Caps kept shooting. Halak kept saving. The Canadiens scored again. Mike Green what are you doing? Minutes seem like seconds. It’s late in the third. Tears are coming. Brooks Laich scores. 2-1. Canadiens hold on. Canadiens win. Season over.

I sat in my chair for a couple of hours. The postgame show played twice. Finally I got up, moved myself to bed, and fell asleep with the realization that it is never ‘just’ sports. It’s more than that. I got it now – I knew heartbreak.

Game 7 #5: (7) Capitals at (2) Bruins – 2012 Eastern Conference First Round

The Build-Up: After a year-long hiatus from Game 7s (horrible postseason memories notwithstanding), the Capitals returned to the playoffs as underdogs. Boudreau had been replaced by Dale Hunter as coach, and the Caps took on a defensive mentality throughout the season. The goalie was Braden Holtby, a 22-year old kid from Saskatchewan with mammoth-sized confidence. He was sublime the entire series, and the Caps clawed their way to Game 7 against the defending champs with each game being decided by a single goal.

The Game: I felt strangely at peace going into this one because we weren’t supposed to win. I didn’t think we would, but I wasn’t very nervous nonetheless. We had a new coach and a new philosophy and this time, we were the team with the best goalie in the playoffs. We seemed built to win a low-scoring Game 7. I also watched this game at Buffalo Wild Wings, and I thought a change in scenery would surely help. The Caps scored first on a Hendricks deflection and Tyler Seguin tied it in the second for the Bruins. The Caps killed a penalty in the dying minutes of regulation, and of course, the game went into overtime where Boston’s Patrice Bergeron missed an absolutely golden opportunity to win the game. After the huge penalty kill and the baffling miss by Bergeron, the hockey gods seemed to be shining on the Caps. I told myself not to show any outward hope, because the Flyers and Canadiens series had taught me to remain utterly pessimistic at all costs. Every word I said was “Bruins goal is coming.” But Joel Ward scored. And I didn’t know how to react, because it had been so long since a good memory. So I ate some more wings.

Game 7 #6: (7) Capitals at (1) Rangers –  2012 Eastern Conference Semifinals

The Build-Up: This series. It was pretty much the aforementioned hockey gods smirking and saying, “let’s painfully remind Garrett of every other heart-wrenching series he’s ever experienced, game by game, minute by minute.” The young goalie fresh off a Game 7 win in the first round, the penalties, the overtimes – it was all just a memory refresher for the past four years. I attended my very first playoff game, and as fate would have it, it was a grueling three-overtime thriller in Game 3 that ended at 1 in the morning with a Rangers win. But the real pain started in Game 5. Series tied 2-2. Capitals holding on to a 2-1 lead with time dwindling down. Joel Ward gets called for a penalty (Flyers). Brad Richards ties the game with six seconds left. The Rangers score 30 seconds into OT, but the Caps tie the series in Game 6 (Penguins).

The Game: I sat down with my friend at Buffalo Wild Wings at our lucky table. He asked me what I thought. I predicted a one goal Rangers win in overtime, seeing as that’s how the playoffs had been going so far. Whatever the outcome though, the team had exceeded expectations.

Brad Richards scored on the first shot of the game. 1-0 Rangers.

No score in the second. Oh no. Not this again.

Michael Del Zotto puts New York up 2-0 in the third. With time ticking away, Roman Hamrlik puts one through for the Caps. The entire restaurant goes crazy. I don’t move. It’s Montreal all over again. It’s the same game. Ovechkin has gone missing. He has one shot on goal all game. The Caps pull the goalie and nothing happens. Again. 2-1. Rangers.

I don’t know what this year has in store, but if I had to bet on it, I would say Caps-Rangers goes the distance. If only because that’s the way it seemingly always is. I know that with every minute of game time, my stress levels increase twofold and it’s probably not healthy. But it doesn’t matter. It never matters. The Stanley Cup Playoffs are the be-all end-all of postseason sports. One of these days, hopefully, the Capitals will prevail four series in a row and Alex Ovechkin will hoist the Cup and I’ll be there for the parade. Maybe they never will. But I’ll always come back, year after year, game after game.

Let’s go Caps.

On Lena Dunham, The Hipster Generation, and the Awful Second Season of Girls

A few months ago, for my first blog post, I wrote about the Show of the Year in my book, Girls. Lena Dunham's witty, self-deprecating social commentary on upper-middle class post-graduate life debuted on HBO last year and I have to say, it was one of my favorite shows to watch each week. The show was called 'Girls', but felt relatable, even as a male a few years younger than the people on the show. It was funny because Dunham was making fun of us. She pointed out what's wrong with thinking the way we sometimes do - entitled and lazy. Her main character Hannah, an aspiring writer, never actually wrote anything, and her failures were humorous as we saw her try and 'find herself'. The show subtly told us that sitting on our asses complaining wasn't going to bring us to where we want to be, and our problems aren't our parents, or our boyfriend/girlfriend's fault. They're ours and we should deal with them instead of complaining.

Then Lena Dunham got famous.

And then Girls won a bunch of Emmys.

And then the show became everything it was making fun of.

I don't know what happened, really. The first season ended on a fantastic note of self-deprecation. Hannah and her faults are hung out to dry by her boyfriend Adam before he gets hit by a truck. Hannah rides the subway and eats a cupcake at Coney Island in one of the most lovably pathetic pieces of television I've ever seen. But by the time the second season rolls around, Hannah hasn't learned anything. She blames absolutely everything on Adam, or her new boyfriend, or her roommate, or Marnie, or Jessa's dad, or her publishing company, and then, nearing the end of the season, as Hannah runs out of people to blame, slips into a frighteningly awkward relapse of obsessive-compulsive disorder and blames that.

In the first season, as Hannah found causes to blame, there was always somebody there with a witty monologue to keep her and the viewer in check. That person, whether it was Adam or the scintillating, tongue-in-cheek Ray, provided much of the comedy of various episodes. Ray, mostly withdrawn from the love life and day-to-day plot lines of the first season, could always be counted on to show up during a situation and pick it apart, piece by piece. But in the second season, Ray is fully part of the circle, dating Shoshanna. And over the course of the ten episodes, we see him become detached and then ultimately, clingy. No character on any TV series can keep his sympathy if he's a clingy boyfriend. It was just sad by the end. And that sucked. Ray's there-but-not-really-there demeanor during the season left a huge void that was just crammed with Hannah's complaining. Or Jessa being ridiculous.

Jessa. Now there's a character. We see her impromptu marriage fall apart, as expected. But Lena Dunham won't let the character just learn from it. Instead, the viewer is taken away from Brooklyn for the second time during the season as we meet Jessa's dad. Oh, there's a surprise! Crappy parenting! I guess we can all forgive Jessa for throwing everybody in her life under the bus, acting selfishly, and not caring about the well-being of literally anybody but herself because her dad "isn't coming back. He never does."

Yes, Girls is a TV show. The actions of the characters shouldn't be taken so strongly, because it's just a show and doesn't actually affect anybody. And normally, the moral compass of a character does not affect my judgement. The Lannisters are my favorite house in Game of Thrones. Don Draper is one of the greatest television characters of all time. But I think this situation is different because Girls is hailed as 'real'. And its influence comes from the belief that life is portrayed accurately by the show. It's considered a 'phenomenon' because it's just so brutally honest. But once Lena Dunham became aware of her success, she just turned the show into a mouthpiece for how it's all everybody else's fault, delivering a season with more black people (1) than quality episodes.

I don't know if I'm going to watch Season Three. I may, in hope that the show turns itself back around, or maybe out of the belief that Dunham can put together ten episodes with half of the wit of the truly fantastic first season. But Season Two is five hours I'll never be able to get back and unfortunately, I don't hold my hopes too highly for TV in the near future if this is the best we can do. I guess all that's left is watching re-runs of Enlightened.

That was indeed a subtle hint to watch that show, because I'd really like somebody else to talk about it with.

Ranking Every Black Keys Album Ever

In 2010, I had just begun my Rolling Stone subscription as I attempted to inculcate myself with sub-mainstream pop culture and music knowledge. The hipster train was just starting to leave the station, and I, while decidedly NOT one of them, still found their tastes in culture to be suited to my own. Rolling Stone was a good magazine for me, because while it is decidedly at the fore-front of pop culture in America, it constantly gives a nod to the toiling indie generation of music, without casting shame on the bands that make it big, like Pitchfork does. One of the first articles I read was on the Ohio-band The Black Keys, who had just released their album Brothers and, as the magazine fortune-told, were on the brink of becoming an A-List, arena-filling act. I, as an eager teen looking for an edge in pop-culture conversations, watched the video for "Tighten Up" on YouTube and decided they were my new favorite band. This occurred approximately two weeks before "Tighten Up" could be heard on your local radio station every hour. Thus, I officially "was a Black Keys fan before everybody else", and I had accomplished my first mission of liking a band "before they became popular". My pretentiousness about them, and the rest of pop culture pretty much, has died down gradually since I've entered college, but The Black Keys remain my default answer for my favorite band of my generation. I've listened to every one of their songs countless times, and their live show at Merriweather last May was the finest concert I've ever been to.

With that introduction, here's my rankings of each of their albums. It's in order from least-favorite to favorite, not worst to best. Because The Black Keys have never made an album that could be considered "worst" - so this is only my personal preference of each of them in relation to one another.

7. thickfreakness (2003)

Thickfreakness is one of the band's bluesiest albums. And I do love it - some of the riffs on this album are my favorites that they've done. "Thickfreakness" and "Set You Free" are two fantastic songs, but like other albums in the band's repertoire, the album is pretty front-loaded.  I absolutely love the first three songs on the album, while the rest of it dips down a level. It also lacks the power of their debut. That said, while it lacks the excitement that others deliver, this album is one I could listen to over and over again without complaint.

6. The Big Come Up (2002)

The debut of The Black Keys, The Big Come Up is thirteen songs of raw, unrefined energy. It's straight-up blues produced in a basement, giving the album - and the band - its trademark garage sound. While the explosive, pure energy is fantastic, it also lacks the experience of their follow-up albums, but is still a great listen from start to finish. The songs are a bit shorter on this album than most of the other albums as well, and I'm personally a greater fan of their ability to stretch songs to four and five minutes. But if The Big Come Up was a stock, I would have invested it due to the clear potential of the band evident in 2002.

5. Attack & Release (2008)

Attack & Release is the clear turning-point of the band's transition into the mainstream. This was the first instance of their collaboration with producer Danger Mouse, and the result is a much smoother sound with some of the catchiest riffs the band has done. "I Got Mine" is one of their best songs, and watching them stretch it to eight minutes live was an amazing thing to see. "Strange Times" is another great track. The album lacks flow from start to finish and the best songs occur at the beginning, but Attack & Release shows the flashes of mainstream music that catapulted the band to stardom on their next albums.

4. Brothers (2010)

The album that launched The Black Keys into the mainstream, Brothers is one of the best albums of the decade so far and proof that great rock music can still be popular. The band ditched Danger Mouse for the lyric-heavy, darker album about love and friendship, with the exception of "Tighten Up". It's a great listen, though my only real problem with it is its length of 16 songs, some of which on the b-side aren't as fantastic as "Tighten Up", "Next Girl", and "Howlin' for You". "Black Mud" is a brilliant instrumental song as well.

3. Magic Potion (2006)

So I was actually going to rank Magic Potion at the bottom of the list. But then I listened to it again today. The major-label debut of the band, Magic Potion delivers some of the most underrated music the band has ever made. "Your Touch" and "Goodbye Babylon" are two of my favorite songs, and the rest of the album provides the steady blues that makes The Black Keys great. The album loses its way in the middle I think, but once "Goodbye Babylon" comes on, the album finishes extremely powerfully.

2. El Camino (2011)

If Brothers is the album that got people to notice The Black Keys, El Camino is the album that made people stay. It's their acknowledgement of being in the mainstream and their roaring success to appeal to the masses. It's much less outwardly bluesy and highly produced (Danger Mouse came back for this one), but the band keeps to their roots and delivers a tour-de-force of an album from start to finish. "Little Black Submarines" is a hell of a song, and was maybe the best performance of a song I've ever seen live.

1. Rubber Factory (2004)

Rubber Factory isn't as built for the masses as El Camino. It's back before the band made it big, when they recorded in an old, abandoned tire factory. But the album is a true masterpiece from start to finish. What Rubber Factory lacks in high fidelity sound, they make up with catchy riffs and strong, bluesy lyrics. It's definitely the most listenable of the band's independent era, and lord knows what it would have sounded like if recorded in a professional studio. But the actual rubber factory gives the album its soul - its sound is authentic and real. It may not be for everybody, but Rubber Factory is pure dynamite and one of my favorite albums of all time.

My Final Oscar Predictions Post and why Award Shows Don't Matter

I realize it has been quite a long time since my last blog post. When I sat down the first time to start writing it, my goal was to document the awards season in movies and offer my opinions on the biggest films of the year. While I went to see multiple highly-touted movies this past year, I haven't really gotten around to watching the award shows that I always do. I just haven't been into it like I usually am. This is probably because Kathryn Bigelow's exclusion from the Best Director race for external political reasons is the straw that broke the camel's back, after many, many shocking exclusions and "victories" in these award ceremonies for movies that didn't deserve them.

I mean, let's look back in recent memory. The Artist won last year. I still haven't seen that movie. It's black and white and silent - pretty much a parallel of the excitement about film in 2011.

But then, there's the droll and boring King's Speech winning over The Social Network, a movie I didn't really enjoy, but was still the most relevant and hard-hitting film of 2010. And Bigelow's own Hurt Locker winning over Inglourious Basterds (not really in the conversation as other years, but still the wrong decision nonetheless) in '09 and Crash over Brokeback Mountain in '06 when post-9/11 social conservatism wouldn't let a better movie win because there were two men kissing in it. The list goes on and on.

And you know what? It doesn't matter at all. Everybody else has known this for a long time. I just haven't come to terms with it yet. Just because some producer gets handed a golden statue at the end of a boring, three hour celebration of the A-List doesn't make his movie the best of the year. It's just the opinion of a bunch of old white men. And as for my now former policy of watching every Best Picture nominee, I'm done with that too. I'm glad I didn't waste the hours it would have taken to get through Life of Pi, Amour, and Beasts of the Southern Wild, because I guarantee I would have hated all three of them.

With that, here is my final set of predictions for the Oscars (Only doing major categories this time):

Best Supporting Actress Nominees:
Amy Adams - The Master
Anne Hathaway - Les Miserables
Helen Hunt - The Sessions
Sally Field - Lincoln
Jacki Weaver - Silver Linings Playbook

Who Should Have Been Nominated: Frances McDormand (Moonrise Kingdom)
Who Should Win: Amy Adams
Who Will Win: Anne Hathaway

Amy Adams is unfortunately guilty of appearing in a movie that happened to come out a few months before Hathaway's Les Mis. It sucks, because she gave the best performance in a career littered with unbelievable supporting roles. Her Machiavellian, Lady MacBeth-like Peggy Dodd in The Master was one of the truly underrated characters in cinema of the year. Adams has always had a great presence on screen, and stood up to the overpowering Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman with a wicked ease. As for Anne Hathaway, she was pretty fantastic, but come on, I can rub some dirt on my face, cry for fifteen minutes of screen-time, and sing a song too. I don't think Hathaway did anything any other actress on her level couldn't do. And Amy Adams separated herself from every other actress in her generation in The Master.

Best Supporting Actor Nominees:
Alan Arkin - Argo
Philip Seymour Hoffman - The Master
Robert De Niro - Silver Linings Playbook
Tommy Lee Jones - Lincoln
Christoph Waltz - Django Unchained

Who Should Have Been Nominated: Leonardo DiCaprio, for Christ's Sake
Who Should Win: Hoffman
Who Will Win: Christoph Waltz

This is probably the most up-for-grabs category in the whole she-bang. Each of the nominees is a former winner, also an interesting point. I'd like to see Hoffman win for similar reasons as Amy Adams - his undaunting, truly scary presence on screen was completely unmatched by the other actors in this list. But for God's sake, I don't know who Leo scorned in his past life, but the man gets no gratitude from the Academy. He was brilliant, as he has been in his storied career. His exclusion, after playing one of Tarantino's finest characters ever, is a travesty.

Best Director Nominees:
Michael Haneke - Amour
Benh Zeitlin - Beasts of the Southern Wild
Steven Spielberg - Lincoln
David O. Russell - Silver Linings Playbook
Ang Lee - Life of Pi

I don't want to talk about it. If Kathryn Bigelow doesn't just go up on stage and take the award, the terrorists win. Spielberg's name will be in the envelope, though.

Best Actress Nominees:
Emmanuelle Riva - Amour
Jennifer Lawrence - Silver Linings Playbook
Jessica Chastain - Zero Dark Thirty
Naomi Watts - The Impossible
Quvenzhane Wallis - Beasts of The Southern Wild

Who Should Have Been Nominated: Kara Hayward (Moonrise Kingdom)
Who Should Win: Jessica Chastain
Who Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence

Ok, so I've only seen two of these movies. But the two I've seen are the important ones, and the award is either going to Chastain or Lawrence anyway. I'm going with Jennifer for the win, because she's got the momentum from the other awards and is riding the hot hand. People really, really like her because she pretends to be a lovable loser. She's relatable. It makes sense. Her Tiffany was also really, really well-acted. There's a lot of substance in her role and her performance was one of the best of the year. But she got to play off of a fantastic Bradley Cooper, Robert De Niro, and Jacki Weaver. The whole movie didn't revolve around her ability to be great at acting. It's just different for Chastain. The film depends on her ability to be as captivating and intense as she is. If she cracks even a little bit, the whole movie collapses. The final shot of Zero Dark Thirty, that's just the stuff of legend. I'll never be able to forget it, even if it is just a movie.

Best Actor Nominees:
Bradley Cooper - Silver Linings Playbook
Daniel Day-Lewis - Lincoln
Denzel Washington - Flight
Hugh Jackman - Les Miserables
Joaquin Phoenix - The Master

Who Should Have Been Nominated: Jared Gilman (Moonrise Kingdom), Logan Lerman (The Perks of Being a Wallflower)
Who I'm Glad Wasn't Nominated: Jamie Foxx (Django Unchained)
Who Should Win: Joaquin Phoenix
Who Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis

I know my 'should' category is getting a little bit predictable here. But you have to see The Master to get it I think. The three main actors were really something else. But Phoenix, like Adams and Hoffman, has no chance. Day-Lewis will win, and I guess he was alright. I just really didn't like Lincoln and the man nearly put me to sleep. Just let me know when he decides to make another movie in four years.

Best Picture Nominees:
Amour
Argo
Beasts of The Southern Wild
Django Unchained
Les Miserables
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty

Who Should Have Been Nominated: The Master, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Moonrise Kingdom, maybe even Skyfall
Who Should Win: Zero Dark Thirty
Who Will Win: Argo

Argo, at the beginning of awards season, was a non-factor. And then it won the Golden Globe. And the BAFTA. And everything else. And now it's the heavy favorite for Best Picture. And it was ok. Not a bad movie by any means, entertaining certainly, and filled up an hour and a half on an otherwise quiet Friday night. But this is the kind of Best Picture that will fall slowly into obscurity. It's an Ordinary People, a Dances With Wolves, a How Green Was My Valley. Zero Dark Thirty is Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Citizen Kane. It will live on, because the Oscars don't matter. What's in the hearts and minds of cinema-lovers for generations carry movies on, not a golden statue. And I've come to terms with that.

Why Taylor Swift's I Knew You Were Trouble is the Song of 2012

I've been writing quite a bit about movies lately with award season in full swing. I'm in the midst of watching the three Best Picture nominees I haven't seen yet, and after I'm done with that I'll be writing the Top Ten movies of the year list as well as the Oscar prediction post. However, in the mean time, I figured I'd write another "...of the year" post.

I know there has been a lot of music released this year, and I've quite enjoyed a lot of it. Mumford and Sons came out with a new album that was just as good as the last one, Green Day unleashed a triple album of awesomeness, and The Lumineers released one of my favorite debut albums ever. But the biggest album of the year, regardless of what genre we all listen to, was definitely Taylor Swift's fourth studio album, Red. I'll readily admit that I enjoy Taylor Swift, but her recent departures from country-pop to producing straight-up pop music on Speak Now wasn't something I enjoyed as much. Speak Now disappointed in my opinion, but I was interested to see what she would do on Red - go back to her roots or continue to distance herself from country.

I think that on Red, Taylor Swift officially mastered pop music and captured pretty much all of the biggest elements needed for a successful pop album in 2012. Her songs were always catchy, which is why she's been successful. But on Red, she really brought her music to the next level. I'm not someone who dislikes pop music just because it's popular, and frankly, the songs on Red are all quite good. But one song, I Knew You Were Trouble, the third single, definitely sums up where we are in music today, and in my opinion is the song of 2012.

The first reason is its catchiness. As I said, Taylor Swift is a master of writing the catchiest songs ever. She didn't get lucky by being picked to sing a pre-written, formulaic song and become famous that way. She writes her songs herself and has helped to create the template for catchy songs as we know them. Taylor Swift has had a much bigger impact on music than is seen on the surface. Music executives are trying to capture her formula to put in other, less talented pop singers' songs. She is the spearhead of the industry. I Knew You Were Trouble, without even considering who wrote or performed it, is so catchy that after three listens, you can instantly sing the chorus. And unlike a song like Call Me Maybe, the song doesn't tire with repeated listens. This is because it's catchy, but it's also really, really good.

I Knew You Were Trouble isn't just the song of the year for it's catchiness, though. It's also Taylor Swift's foray into dubstep. Obviously, it's not a dubstep song, but it includes a bit of it to compliment the song. I took this as Swift's acknowledgement of the impact that dubstep has had recently in the music industry. It's an entirely new and revolutionary genre and even though I don't really enjoy it, I still know it has permanently impacted music. House music is so much different today than it was as recently as five years ago. Dubstep isn't a fad and it isn't going away, and I Knew You Were Trouble utilizes it better than any other pop song I've heard. It's a perfect harmony of pop and dubstep and frankly, if dubstep is used in this way more often, my opinion on it might change.

I think the powers that be will be trying to capture what Taylor Swift brought us with I Knew You Were Trouble for quite some time. But nobody can do what Taylor Swift does. She knows something we all don't. By the time they give us something that scratches the surface of this song, she'll have delivered something even greater. She's a step ahead. Taylor Swift is not going away, and I'm happy about that.

The Best Director Paradox, and Why the Academy is Terrible

I was going to write a full reaction to all of the Oscar nominees, but since the nominees were announced some time ago and the Golden Globes have just passed, I feel that the only category I have anything else to say about at this point is the Best Director nominees. Don't be sad, because I'll be breaking down the other categories in the Oscar predictions post, which will come closer to the actual award show.

The reason I chose the Best Director category for this post is because it is a pretty accurate summarization of the year in movies, and gives us evidence of how strong criticism from outside parties have already affected the Oscar race. Best Director is also an extremely subjective award, and this year, more than any other year in recent memory, we have a shift from including five strong nominees to excluding fantastic films based on pre-conceived ideas about them. In addition, there are only five slots for a Best Director nomination, as opposed to a maximum of ten for Best Picture, which creates a maddening paradox.

Why is this so? Just take a look at history. Over the past 26 years, 21 films have won both the Best Director Oscar and the Best Picture Oscar. Since 1999, only three Best Director winners have failed to see their film win Best Picture. The recent exceptions were ones I agreed with. In 1999 Steven Spielberg won the directing award for Saving Private Ryan, arguably his finest film outside of Schindler's List, but lost Best Picture when Harvey Weinstein bribed the Academy to vote for Shakespeare in Love. The other exceptions include Roman Polanski's 2003 victory for The Pianist (Chicago won BP) and Ang Lee for Brokeback Mountain in 2006 (Crash won BP).

Why does this matter? Because outside of five exceptions, the seeming definition of a Best Director winner is the person who directed the best film of the year (the Best Picture winner). They don't nominate the finest direction of a film, but rather the merit of the film itself. This is drastically unfair, especially in the past few years, when there have been more Best Picture nominees than Best Director nominees. We can basically cancel out the chances of an Argo, Zero Dark Thirty, or Les Miserables Best Picture victory because the Academy has already chosen their five best films for the Best Director nomination. The other three are included in the Best Picture category for entertainment purposes for the awards show itself, not because they stand any chance of winning.

The Best Director award is thus a severely flawed one for this reason. As I said, the films are not nominated for being finely directed, but for being good movies. Best Director should literally mean "Best Director", not "Person who's name comes last in the opening credits for the Best Picture winner". Let's look at Les Miserables. The movie had its problems, yes. It's been rightly criticized for bland in-your-face cinematography. But lest we forget, Best Cinematography is also an Academy Award. Best Director is an entirely different award. Tom Hooper took the risk of letting his actors sing live (which, in my opinion, paid off very well), and adapted the stage musical into a powerful, riveting film version. He directed this extremely difficult adaptation, something an ordinary director could not do. His ability to do so should have earned him a nomination.

The two most maddening and perplexing exclusions from the category, however, are those of Django Unchained's Quentin Tarantino and Zero Dark Thirty's Kathryn Bigelow. These exclusions did not happen because of concrete, technical issues like Les Miserables, but because of pressure put on the Academy based on the films' content. Tarantino's choices in Django Unchained (outside of letting Jamie Foxx play the lead) were all fantastic. Every element of the movie was absolutely sublime. He utilized the little things (soundtrack, staging, costumes, his own personal style) better than anybody in film this year. If not for the direction of Tarantino, Django Unchained would not have been as good of a movie as it was. However, it seems that the older, white voters of the Academy (average age in the mid-60s) didn't feel comfortable allowing Tarantino to be nominated for a movie about a slave killing slave owners. Tarantino is white, and made a movie that uses the N-word 109 times, and so he must be punished for it, plain and simple.

Last but not least, there's Kathryn Bigelow. My thoughts on Zero Dark Thirty and its exclusion have been made, but no words can really express how big of a travesty it is that she wasn't nominated (sealing the movie's fate for Best Picture, but that's beside the point). The movie was stunningly directed. I know there's a raging debate about the film's depiction of torture, but that doesn't matter. Frankly, a movie could contain nothing but a woman making grilled cheese sandwiches for an hour and a half, but if it's the best directed movie of the year, it should be nominated. And regardless of the subject matter, ZDT was brilliant. Federal lawmakers such as John McCain and Dianne Feinstein are taking the floor in Congress not to solve our fiscal cliff issue, but to criticize the finest film in a long while about it's torture scenes, which they HAVE NOT EVEN SEEN. And the Academy members are reading the "Does Zero Dark Thirty Promote Torturing Prisoners?" articles and have made the decision that they'd rather reward Lincoln, a three-hour self-congratulations for white people saving black people from slavery, than start a national controversy by nominating Kathryn Bigelow for the Oscar.

You suck, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and you should be ashamed of your cowardice.

Zero Dark Thirty and the Politics of the Oscars

It's been quite some time since my last blog post. I haven't really had much to say over the past few weeks, and now that I'm back in Pittsburgh, I am settled in and ready to begin writing more stuff, especially with the Oscars coming up. I'm planning on an Oscar reactions post later this weekend, but I wanted to hold off on commenting on the nominations until I had seen Zero Dark Thirty. Normally, I would have been all over the nominations from the second they were announced, but I couldn't do that until I saw the highest-acclaimed movie of the year.

Highest-acclaimed. 94% on Rotten Tomatoes. Universal praise from everybody, including Grantland writer Andy Greenwald, who said that ZDT made The Hurt Locker look like an episode of the Cleveland Show. So last night as I sat in my seat at the midnight showing, I knew this movie had to be incredible for me to like it, because I always have problems with my pre-viewing expectations. Especially with Kathryn Bigelow directing. I liked The Hurt Locker, but I loved about seven movies in 2009 and 4 of them are in or around my top ten films of all time. So going in I had the idea that Bigelow was overrated.

Well, I was wrong. Zero Dark Thirty is head and shoulders above every other movie I have seen this year. Everything about it was mesmerizing. From the opening scene, the viewer is dropped into the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and Bigelow does an outstanding job making you feel emotion with every bit of action. You end up feeling bad for everybody. The detainees, the CIA operatives, everybody. It's just such an engaging movie-going experience. One would expect to be rooting for Seal Team Six, but by the time the actual raid of Bin Laden's compound is happening, the intensity has been so encapsulating that there's no more emotion to do so. Instead, you're captured in the whirlwind of maybe the most visceral movie of all time, hoping that killing Bin Laden leads us to some sort of inner resolution. And after the final scene, which, in it's own right, contains the best final shot of any movie in recent memory, you're shaken to the core. I left the theater in stunned speechlessness and it took a solid ten minutes to put together a fragment of my emotions, which were left shattered in pieces on the theater floor, into words.

I would have no problems with Zero Dark Thirty winning every award it is nominated for. It is completely deserving of a landslide Best Picture, and Jessica Chastain should absolutely win Best Actress for the finest performance of any actor this year. But just as the Oscar race settled into a Lincoln -vs.-ZDT-for-Best-Picture affair, Kathryn Bigelow was shockingly left out of the Best Director nominations. Recent Oscar trends show that Best Picture and Best Director tend to fall hand in hand, and the Academy has seemingly made a statement that Lincoln will win both awards and sweep the Oscars.

I saw Lincoln a week ago, and didn't feel like I should write a blog post about it. It's just not my kind of movie. Daniel Day Lewis! Slavery! Freedom! It was boring to me, as I knew it would be when I sat down to watch it. It's a fine film, but it's pure Oscar bait, and frankly, I don't think it's that hard to make a great movie when you've compiled a bunch of A-listers debating over the most important events in American History. And I can see why people are loving it - because it's the kind of movie where you feel happy and accomplished at the end. That's the kind of movie that wins Best Picture.

Maybe it's the torture scenes, or that the events of May 1 happened too soon ago, or that Bigelow won the Best Director/Picture package in 2009. But simply put, Zero Dark Thirty was the best movie of the year. It was also the most important and the most engaging and frankly, I haven't had an experience like that in the theater for a long, long time. Five stars, and a pantheon-level movie for the ages.