Lessons in Fighting for Attention as an Artist in the Digital World

Here. 

Cool Oscar Posts

http://flavorwire.com/373189/the-2013-oscar-telecast-by-the-numbers

http://nyti.ms/Z0pfAq

http://nyti.ms/13uxqFO

Let's have fun with math to see how it affects the movies.

And the winners are:

Tied for Runner-up: Joey McClatckey and Dr. Okie (78% correct)

And the winner is: Connie Flower (80% correct)

This week: finish up Oscar talks, finish reading "Best Years" article, The "Mama" Factor: Short Films and the New Art of Pitching, writing discussions (papers returned)

Falcon Punch! The 5 Biggest Oscar Oversights of 2013

Despite all of the stock we put into the Academy Awards here at the High School that Should Not be Named Film Institute (and for an education in the past seven years of film, search "oscar" on our blog...wow...what a run), Oscar is far from perfect.

In fact, this year the "O" in Oscar should stand for "Oversight" (No, Nick, it's not really an acronym). Here are  the Top 5 Oscar Misses of this Year!

#1: Ben Affleck: THE OBVIOUS:
Even my five-year-old knows Ben got hosed, but it's important to note that Ben's snub is when Argo re-caught fire. So, haters gonna hate, yea. But this year that hating may have ripped the Oscar from Lincoln, or as the Falcon calls it, "Old, Bearded White Dudes Talking About Important Stuff."

Besides, doesn't Ben seem like the guy in Hollywood you'd most want to be boys with?

#2: John Hawkes: THE MAN: The physical demands and complex emotions of his paralyzed virgin prove his genius. And no actor is as versatile. This performance comes after his frightening turns in Winter's Bone and Martha Marcy May Marlene. He deserved another nod, despite the fact that Day-Lewis is untouchable this year.

#3: Leonardo DiCaprio: THE OPPORTUNITY: Leo hasn't won. I know. That's just stupid. But this was the year to give it to him. He and Christoph Waltz WERE Django Unchained. Their performances made this movie. But Waltz won an Oscar for Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds. Why not Leo? Every other actor in the field has already won an Oscar. Instead of decorating Tommy Lee Jones for the 2nd time (his first for overlooking the one armed man in The Fugitive), this could have easily been Leo's hour.



#4: Tom Holland: THE DEBUT: Speaking of the Best Supporting Actor Category...why not also throw a bone to the physically-demanding, emotionally resonating performance of Tom Holland in The Impossible. Naomi Watts is being recognized for playing the stout-hearted, near-death-most-of-the-movie mom. But it's Holland's performance as her reluctantly courageous, care-giving son that holds the film together.

#5: Take This Waltz: This subtle, beautifully wrought film by Sarah Polley is aching in its themes of emotional unraveling. So few movies capture the nuances of a relationship crashing, gently and slowly, while showing the evils of perceived romanticism. Dreams yield to reality, and amusement rides end with a whimper. The camera tells this story masterfully. The metaphors are affecting and subtle enough to work. The film is well-acted and well-written (starring Michelle Williams and Seth Rogen), but it got no Oscar love. And that, my friends, is an oversight with an Oscar-sized "O."



Otherwise, here are the Falcon's annual predictions and personal choices:

Best Picture: Argo will win. Argo deserves to win.

Best Actress: Don't sleep on Emmanuelle Riva capitalizing off the split J-Law, Jess-Chas voting fervor.

Best Actor: Would the real Mr. Lincoln please stand up? No brainer! Day-Lewis will be whom I conjure when I think of Lincoln from now on. The way I am surprised when Ritchie Valens doesn't look like Lou Diamond Phillips.



Supporting Actor: See above. Should be Waltz. Will be Jones.

Supporting Actress: Hathaway gets a chance to be all breathy about her husband again. In our house, her most celebrating performance is with "Birdah" on "I Want a Snuffleluffaguss for Christmas." Try telling Buki that it's not her finest role.



Director: Ang might upend Spielberg...and no one will care either way. The Falcon will be fighting to stay awake. Birds rise early. You know the whole worm thing...it's true.

Beasts of Burden: My Oscar Eve Critique

"Give me liberty or give me death." Patrick Henry's impassioned speech to the Virginia House of Burgess convinced states to commit troops to the Revolutionary War effort. This included rousing a then little known Virginian planter by the name of George Washington. It's a pretty important speech.

Throughout Henry's diatribe, British tyranny over the colonies evokes imagery of "shackles," "chains," and "slavery." Yet, the "freedom loving" founding father, at the time of his speech, was holding no fewer than 65 African American slaves. When rivals called Henry out on this fact, he famously quipped, "it is too inconvenient to live without them" (Henry). Liberty, indeed, Pat! Give me liberty, or give me death...but don't make me fetch my own slippers...for the love of God!

In short, Patrick Henry was saying something very familiar to modern Americans. It echoes each time we uses paper towels to wipe our hands or buy Hummers so sixteen-year-old daughters can commute to jobs at Hot Topic! Patrick Henry was saying, "I'll face death, but I won't face inconvenience."

Liberty is funny that way. Today, many Americans have an equally complex and hypocritical relationship with the word. It's conjured by the Declaration of Independence. It's guaranteed in the Constitution. But is liberty about rights, or just conveniences?

When we speak of "liberty," we use words like defend, protect, uphold, and promote. But in truth, often, we use "liberty" to describe things we really, really, really "want" to do, but probably don't "need to do." We use liberty to defend thinking that is inherently dangerous or self-promoting. In short, liberty = want disguised as need.

Mama Short Film Inspiration and Pitch

Oscar Countdown Begins

Fill out your Oscar ballot here. 

The Best Years of Our Lives

The brillance of Greg Toland.

Key Points: Academy Award in 1946 (beats "It's A Wonderful Life").. sets off string of realism in Hollywood.

Essential Questions: 

1. How does Toland use similar techniques (Citizen Kane) to create a completely dissimilar thematic implication?

2. Is this an anti-war or protest movie? If so, could it be perceived as one of the boldest of all time (based on the subject and proximity to the actual event)? Or, is this NOT an anti-war movie?

3. How has post-war veteran assistance changed since WWII?