This year’s Oscars were boring and predictable. Simple as that. Also, the ceremony looked less glamorous than usual. Not that it’s a bad thing, but I was definitely surprised to see that.

In fact, I am surprised to hear good TV ratings and overall satisfaction with the Oscars night (the show as well as the winners). People actually liked it! They think it was the best show in years. Definitely not the way I saw it.

The show didn’t look like Oscars

The show itself was… nothing special. Sure, there were stupid host jokes, pointless show songs and the red carpet madness- but for some reason, it all looked plainer, uglier and much less glamorous than usual. The whole place simply looked so… small. With less people. It looked like many nominees were also presenters. I don’t remember this from the previous years.

Once again, the lack of glamour is not what generally bothers me, but it simply didn’t look like Oscars. Did they have a small budget this year? Or was there another reason behind it? Not sure. In any case, it didn’t look and feel like Oscars night. Which basically means it didn’t look important. (Now when I think about it, it’s actually ok, because Oscars aren’t- or should not be- that important anyway. And given the fact all the snubs and the way winners are chosen, especially in the recent years, I don’t think Oscars mean anything anymore). Still, it is considered THE most important movie award, so I expected it to look more important. On the other hand, I guess everybody just wanted to get to the parties and didn’t care about the show itself that much. Except for the winners. Maybe.

Oh, an another thing. Young stars. Yes, they actually decided to include many young stars as presenters (because we all know Zak Efron’s “talent” will effectively prevent him from ever being nominated). I don’t get this. It did look and feel a bit like MTV awards, or even teen choice awards. Yes, I know they wanted young people to watch the Oscars, but this was a cheap and degrading strategy, if you ask me.

The changes

There were some changes in this year’s show, that obviously worked for many people, but not for me. 10 nominated movies, for example. I simply don’t see any point behind this decision. Ok, we all know they decided to do this because of last year’s “Dark Knight” snub. But frankly, does this system really change anything? SF, fantasy, comedies, adventures, animated movies are still not going to win. All they will get is a nomination. If it’s all about being nominated, then fine, I have nothing against more nominees. But I don’t think these “additional 5″ will ever have much chance of winning. After all, we all know what an Oscar bait movie looks like, and it’s rarely a comedy or a SF film.

Another change I dislike is a new system of voting. If I understood it correctly, from now on it’s possible a movie to win for a best picture even if nobody thought it was the best . I mean WTF?

And one more thing I hated and everybody else seem to like: the new way of presenting best actor and actress awards. The system of 5 colleagues on stage, talking about the nominees might seem like a good way to personalize the presentation. But in reality, it sucks. Way too many cheesy compliments, way too many pointless anecdotes. What’s wrong with the good old clips of the nominated roles? After all, that’s why these people are nominated, not because they had fun on set with a presenter 15 years ago. I must admit I miss the clips. At least we got to see clips for supporting actors and actresses.

The winners!

Finally, the most important thing. Or, is it? I must admit it was predictable and I don’t actually have anything important to say here. I did like the fact Jeff Bridges won, and I disliked the fact Sandra Bullock won. I liked “Avatar” not winning, but I hated “The Hurt Locker” winning. That might be a great movie (artistically), but I must admit I loathe the subject (and propaganda) behind it so I can’t be happy about it being voted the best movie of the year. I am glad “Up” won for the best animated movie. And that would be about all, really.

All in all, just like I said in the title: the whole show was boring and predictable. We didn’t get any surprises, and I fail to see how the changes make the ceremony better. Oh, and please, bring back the live performances of songs and clips of nominated actors, if nothing else.

As you know, Bob, I was sick in the previous days, and I had time to watch many films. I got a Clive Owen movie collection. I’m not his greatest fan, but luckily, I watched two great movies: “Gosford Park” and “Children of Men”. But the one that got me thinking in the past few days is “Closer”.

I know, I know. It’s not a type of a movie I usually enjoy. But it actually got me thinking about Patrick Marber’s play. And that one is a world for itself.

Closer: A play

On stage, I’ve seen “Closer” in a rudimental form- as a student exam play. Still, it was surprisingly captivating. I say surprisingly, because I strongly dislike work that deals with male/female relationships.

However, Patrick Marber’s “Closer” is brilliantly written. It’s perfect the way it is. No other words to describe it. The plot and the subject, in this sense, are irrelevant. Yes, the play is THAT good.

Don’t get me wrong. The subject still isn’t my thing. People falling in and out of love, cheating, jealousy… Not my cup of tea. The play is, in fact, dark and very unsettling. I found all of the characters disgusting, almost sick.

Still, the way it’s written (and planned) is amazing. We see some scenes from the lives of four people- only selected, key scenes. For example, we see the first (and the last) time each of them meet. We see them flirt. We see them break up. But we don’t see anything in between.

Also, we are not informed about the time passing between the acts. In one moment, a guy meets a girl. In the next, he is flirting with another woman- a year has passed. We must fill in the blanks, and since we never see the actual relationships- just the starting and breaking points- it’s sometimes shocking to realize what’s going on in between. Still, that’s the play’s greatest strength. It makes you focused and immersed in their world.

The other brilliant thing, of course, is the writing itself. Every line is there for a reason. The excessive profanity marks some strongest points in the play. Explicit language just make it all sound cruel, not passionate- which is, in my opinion, appropriate for the story and the characters in question.

Marber knows his way with words, and he knows how to spark an interest with the audience. We find ourselves constantly changing allegiance between the four characters. We sympathize with one of them in an act, but hate him or her in the next. It’s a constant emotional and intellectual battle. The result, like I said, is exhausting, not pleasant; the play doesn’t offer any clear messages or answers. But it’s captivating, amazingly written and makes a great experience.

The film

As a movie, “Closer” is still interesting, but it loses some of its charm.

The main problem, I believe, was the fact they tried to stick way too close to the play (Marber wrote the script, after all). But what works on stage doesn’t necessarily work on film. Almost empty stage with only some hints of scenography, four people in total (with only one scene with all of them on stage at the same time)- it all suited the narrative. In the film, however, the proposed format doesn’t work that well. Sense of the time is different and, although I already knew the story, it was harder to keep the track on the time passed between the scenes.

The film, however, is not bad per se. The play was better, that’s all. The movie, on the other hand, has some strong points. The acting is very good. As someone who dislikes Julia Roberts and (a little less) Jude Law, I must admit I expected them to be distracting. They weren’t. Jude was convincing (yet, annoying) as Dan. Julia was ok- but nothing more-as Anna, and I do think her performance was the weakest. The other two, Natalie Portman as Alice and Clive Owen as Larry, were more convincing. Owen was particularly memorable, switching between sex-obsessed, moving, threatening and revengeful (mostly threatening though).

And when he shouts to Dan, near the end of the movie: “Have you ever seen a human heart? It looks like a fist, wrapped in blood! Go fuck yourself! You writer! You liar!” it is so powerful. The quote that could seem banal becomes one of the best you ever heard. And yes, he made “writer” sound like an insult. That’s acting.

So…

I’m having some Internet problems. Being a junkie, it’s not fun.
^^^
Hey, this could actually be a nice short story, don’t you think?

I was planning a post on great male voices (I stole the idea from Mariana), but I had to refresh my connection so many times, and start that post from scratch, that I finally gave up.

$%@#$ !!!

The last week wasn’t fun- I was sick. I had problems with my sinuses, which gave me headaches. I was sneezing the whole day, I was sleepy all the time and generally felt like shit. I am feeling better now, but I am still sleepy and sick. Which means I’m in a crappy mood, of course.

Good movie time?

Somehow, I managed to watch not one, but two great movies (and one average) and to appreciate their greatness (despite the headache). Two of those actually made my top 10 lists of the decade. (Speaking of which: You do realize, don’t you, that 2010 is the last year of the decade, not the first of a new decade? But 2000 had so many great movies that I included them on the list).

What’s up with all this movie talk? The Oscar season, of course! As you know Bob, I am not into globalization, Hollywood “glamour” and a all that crap… But I watch it anyway. Not that I believe it means something, of course. (After “Shakeaspeare in Love”, at least).

Her husband looks like… (read below)

I had less luck with books. The local library doesn’t have anything meaningful that I haven’t read before. So I ended up with- gasp!- chick lit. Yes, I know, I know. In my defense, I caught a cold and I feel like crap, you know. But you’re right: those books didn’t help.

One was particularly ridiculous, written in first person POV. On page 35 or something, she wrote: “There was my husband. He really looked like Jude Law”. No kidding. I stopped reading. It was way too much. How come this crap gets published? On the other hand, I’ve seen worse. (Read: Twilight). So yeah.

You’re online, but bored? You tried everything, but even bored.com is boring? Fear not, there are plenty of other quality sites. That is, if you don’t just get away from the computer and do something productive (socialize, for example).

These sites are great if you’re not really into playing games, reading blogs or chatting with other geeks Internet people. Also, to really appreciate their beauty, you have to be interested in the popular culture (and all of its forms) and decide to fight your boredom with some more serious stuff (I’m referring to top two sites here).

Note: Don’t expect any surprises here. You’ve heard of all of these sites. But since I’m their regular visitor (more or less), I thought it would be nice to show I’m a fan. And yes, it goes without saying- most (if not all) of these sites are highly offensive.

5. YahooAnswerFail.com

There are many quality “fail sites”, and this one is hardly any original or the best. However, it’s my current fail site of choice.

There’s a lot of rubbish there, but you can find gems such as “when will I get my period-I’m a boy” (just a mild example). The beauty is in the fact we all know people make these things up to amuse/confuse others, and yet, we all like to pretend the questions are genuine.

Link: http://www.yahooanswerfail.com

4. The Uncyclopedia

The once sharp and irresistible Uncyclopedia somewhat lost its charm, undoubtedly due to the fact anyone can edit it- even people with no sense of humor. Still, it’s a nice place to hang around, and the bonus is non-English content, that deals with local issues (at least in Serbian case, those local articles are one of the best).

Highly recommended articles: AAAAAAAAA!, HowTo Write a Progressive Rock Song, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Oscar Wilde, Twilight (book).

Link: The Uncyclopedia

3. Encyclopedia Dramatica

In lulz they trust.

They do. While Uncyclopedia is just a harsh parody of Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica takes one step further by focusing mainly on Internet phenomena. Not only that, but they do take lulz pretty seriously and do their homework. The site is also highly offensive and gross at times all the time.

Highly recommended articles: My Immortal (trust me), Internet celebrity, Twitard, Rule 34, TL;DR.

Link: EncyclopediaDramatica

2. Cracked

We’re getting serious now. How to describe Cracked’s seriousness and awesomeness in one paragraph? Impossible. It covers basically everything, but their articles (and lists) on movies are the ones I enjoy the most. It’s probably the best site on this list, and the only reason it isn’t on the top is because the number 1 site exists.

Highly recommended: Everything.

Link: Cracked.com

1. TV Tropes

I bet you didn’t see this coming (did you?) Seriously people: TV Tropes.org is probably one of the best sites on the Internet. It’s so fucking awesome that it’s unbelievable. Definitely my favourite site of the moment.

TV Tropes are dedicated to tropes (elements) in various works of fiction (mainly TV and films, but the site offers plenty of examples in other media). Yes, it’s simple as that. Which basically means it cuts, explains, analyzes, deconstructs, reconstructs every single element in a work of fiction you can think of, and hundreds more. And it does in a witty, yet incredibly entertaining kind of way.

What I love about tvtropes is the fact it can help me with my writing in so many crazy ways. Yes, I know it sounds cheap, but it’s the truth. The site is more serious than it seems (or exactly as serious as it seems) and offers short and to the point explanation behind a trope or a phenomenon. The only problem with this website is the fact it’s incredibly addictive. You can surf it for 5 hours straight and still crave for more. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.

Highly Recommended: Everything. Every single thing on this website is precious. But here are some of my favourites: Narm, It was his sled, IKEA Erotica, Ruritania, Uncanny Valley, Fan Fic.

Link: TV Tropes

Women often complain about not being treated as equals. And when I say “equals”, I do mean “fully human”- in all what it means to be, first and foremost, a human being.

In my opinion, it has a lot to do with buying- or refusing- gender roles. So we must look at those who are considered, in a way, to be “borderline cases”: the tomboys.

Tomboys are feminine. Yes, they are. Just because they don’t buy gender roles and double standards when it comes to behavior, attitude, clothes and hobbies of choice doesn’t mean they’re not fully female. Just because they don’t like wearing dresses (and don’t know anything about fashion) doesn’t mean they’re not feminine. And yes, sometimes it’s all what it takes to be considered a “tomboy” or “unfeminine”.

Also, sometimes, it looks like being considered a woman, a feminine woman, means not being human above all else. Yes, it’s the sad truth.

There are all those adorable little girls who hate playing with dolls and prefer their bicycles and tree climbing. There are also girly girls, proud of their pink dresses, dreaming about their mothers’ high heel shoes. (Yes, I know it’s a bad generalization but it’s made for the sake of simplicity). While the first group is rightfully labeled “tomboys”, it’s not an indicator of that’s going to happen to those girls once they grow up.

There’s a moment in every girl’s life, when she’s around 11 years of age, when she decides- subconsciously- whether she wants to play “the game” or not.

Those who decide to play it must stick to their decision for their whole lives. Yes, they will be considered “normal” and yes, they will get (male) attention and be recognized as true women. However, that comes with a price. The game you must play IS the price. Slowly, you begin to fake your manners and pay attention on things you never cared about before, and before you know, the price you’re paying is the fact society sees you as a female first, human second. In other words, your humanity is questioned. The problem is when you start doing this yourself, when you start seeing yourself more as a woman than as a human being. That’s bad.

On the other hand, there are girls who never learn how to play the game. The choice you made here is not conscious- you don’t know what you’re doing. You simply fail to change. Not in a way you don’t want to grow up- you do, and you become more mature, you are not a child anymore. However, you never properly learn the game (your gender role): you simply refuse or, more often, you don’t realize there’s a game to play, because you were comfortable about who you were, or you were asocial enough not to realize the consequences. Note that this could happen to all those sorts of girls: a 6 year old tomboy and girly girl both have a chance to go either way when they’re 11 or 12. You can never tell.

Why am I writing this? Because I am an adult tomboy, a woman who doesn’t know how to play the game? Because I hate Carrie Bradshaw type of behaviour? Well, yes and yes, but that’s not the point. I truly believe all human beings should be seen as human first- any other label, identification or identity comes second. It’s the only good way to go. And ironically, while tomboy (“non-feminine”) women suffer for not being seen as fully feminine, attractive or wanted, “girly girl” women often have to face a worse discrimination- they’re not seen as fully and equally human.