no country for old men?

This year's Oscar ceremony is being reported to be the lowest rated one...ever. That makes me sad. And, I have some opinions about it.

Saturday night, my gf and I decided to go watch one of the Oscar nominated films before the big show. (It's no longer a movie once it gets nominated. It becomes a film.) So, we were at the movie theater (Or, "film complex", since they had more than the usual number of nominated films.) trying to decide what to watch.

Wow. The choices were dismal. Atonement. No Country for Old Men. Juno. Now, we already saw Juno. I confess, I liked it. But, the other choices just looked so depressing! How do you choose between deep depression (Atonement) or sordid disturbing violence (No Country For Old Men)? Reluctantly, we decided to watch No Country For Old Men. Little did we know we were about to see the "Best Picture". Keep in mind, this movie won many of the top honors like Best Director(s), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Picture. So, you would expect this to be an incredible movie that simply blows you away....right? Um...not exactly.

First, the movie ambles along, taking you in one odd direction after another. Certain events happen that have no discernible meaning and no resolution. Sure, there are some tense and/or exciting moments. Yes, the acting is above-par. Yes, it is artfully made. There were a few points when I actually got bored. that NEVER happens to me! I can sit through almost anything. I've seen lots and lots of obscure movies. And this one BORED me at times!

And then...the ending. I won't ruin it for you. But, let me say...what an incredible let-down. I left the theatre thinking "there's NO way this movie is going to win anything." And, it won all the big ones!!! No wonder this year's Oscars didn't connect. No one cares.

I appreciate the movie. I understand that it's based on a good novel. But, this movie isn't even a satisfying one. A nomination? Sure. Best Picture? HA! No way.

But I'm not even done yet. The Coen brothers accepted Best Director(s), Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Picture. WORST and LEAST GRACIOUS Oscar acceptances I've ever seen! (except Michael Moore). I mean, they seemed drunk, or something.

As for the rest of the show, it felt as if everyone was simply going through the motions. Maybe Hollywood is still trying to recover from the strike, and recovering from the untimely death of Heath Ledger. Maybe Hollywood just wasn't in the mood this year. And, it shows.

Oscars official site

Andrew Jackson

Early in American history, the "people" didn't really decide the Presidency. Washington DC was a self-sustaining political machine that promoted and elected their own. Henry Clay was a powerful political figure in the 1800's. As Speaker of the House, he schmoozed and corroborated with politicians. Clay basically got John Quincy Adams in office. Back then, general concensus was basically ignored in Presidential races.

Enter Andrew Jackson. He was rough. He was headstrong. And, he was somewhat insane. He was a tough military leader who didn't have any formal education. He went down to Florida and basically went on a rampage, killing and executing Brittish soldiers without warrant. he owned slaves, and he was known for being quite savage and cruel to them. So, when Andrew Jackson's name came up as a possible Presidential candidate, the big wigs (literally) in Washington just shook their heads in disgust. They probably even laughed at the idea. But, Jackson's name technically was on the ballot during the election of John Quincy Adams.

When Adams was elected president, the people at large (the American public, made up of gritty rough farmers and hunters), revolted. They were angry that Jackson had been ignored as a viable Presidential candidate. But, Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams hadn't even given that a thought. Andrew Jackson hadn't even managed a general store, much less worked in an office. Much less the highest office in the country. John Quincy Adams was much better equipped (on paper, anyway) because he had so much political experience in Europe. He was a soft, intellectual type who was accustomed to "the good life." He was the polar opposite of Andrew Jackson in many ways.

context
This was during a time when Napoleon had recently conquered France. So, the well-to-do politicians in Washington feared that Andrew Jackson had enough support from the public and military power to overthrow the American government! it's hard to imagine today, but that's what they feared. Jackson had acrued quite a following over the years.

Low and behold, the people of America stood up for themselves and elected Andrew Jackson to President of the United States. He turned out to be pretty good. His extreme stubborness proved useful in DC. Jackson fired tons of beauracrats on the Fedreal level (some of which had been in their cushy jobs since George Washington was Pres!) He cut the size of the Federal Government and established the Democratic party over the course of his Presidency. He was strong. He had convictions. I want a President like that. He was a man of the people.

Yeah, he was half-crazy. Yeah, he did things that were appauling in today's context. But, it's important to understand where America comes from, ugly or not.