The Borgnine Effect
“Maybe you’re waiting for the Oscars with the casual interest of a movie fan, or perhaps you’re tracking every dip and shift in the races with the obsessive mania of the doomed. Either way, your office Oscar pool is coming up, and you’re hoping to pick the winners. Thing is, reading Oscar’s mind isn’t that easy, and the Academy doesn’t look that much like the modern landscape of film fans. I always tell people that to predict the Oscars, all you have to do is think like an elderly white man who’s worked in show business his entire life, respects the dim, dull glow of longevity more than flashes of brilliance, and has the kind of “liberal” politics you get from being a multimillionaire who doesn’t ever talk to actual people or go out into the real word.
In short, you have to think like Ernest Borgnine. Borgnine, at 93, is the oldest living Best Actor Oscar winner . So he’s an outlier, to be sure, but exactly the kind of man you should think of, and think like, when trying to predict the Oscars. With that in mind, here are the imagined Borgnine Picks (with Borgnine-mind-set commentary) for the big races:
Best Supporting Actress: “I really feel like Mo’nique really dug deep to portray the kind of person I would never, ever meet or know; also, I admired how ‘Precious: Based on a Something Blah Blah’ really blew the lid off of social problems in New York over 20 years ago.”
Best Supporting Actor: “Wow, this one’s tricky. But Christoph Waltz has already won a lot of awards, which is a real time-saver when I’m filling out my ballot. At the same time, Chris Plummer’s never won one and Waltz is just a kid; he’ll have plenty of time later. I say Plummer, just because Hollywood loves Hollywood.”
Best Actor: “Is ‘Crazy Heart‘ Jeff Bridges‘ best film? Who can say? I don’t even think I saw it. But that kid’s got a great-looking body of work, and I’m more than willing to reward that over an actual performance.”
Best Actress: “And speaking of bodies of work, check out that cutie-pie Sandra Bullock. Can you believe that kid’s never won an Oscar? Besides, ‘The Blind Side‘ really reminded me of — what was it? ‘Erin Roberts’? ‘Julia Brockovich’? — so I feel very comfortable rewarding something I’ve kinda-sorta seen before. Plus, that movie really gave me an insight into poverty, insofar as ‘poverty’ is something that only affects one person who grows up to be a multimillionaire.”
Best Picture: “Look, my producer and executive friends love ‘Avatar,’ and even though I didn’t get it — who’s the blue guy again? — I totally get their logic. First, it made a bunch of money. Second, if a 3-D movie wins Best Picture, that totally validates making more 3-D films, so that you people go to the theater paying a higher ticket price so you can see Spider-Man or Abe Lincoln or whoever leap off the screen instead of waiting for the less-profitable DVD. Also, it’s at the top of the ballot, alphabetically, and, really, with 10 nominees, my eyes just get tired. “”
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Robert Moore 03.01.10 at 6:55 pm
Just found you by way of another film review site, and your comments on Shutter Island. Then caught your piece here on Charlie Wilson’s War. I will enjoy working my way through the rest of your stuff.
John Carawan 03.05.10 at 5:42 am
I’ve always found your reviews insightful and for the most part exact. There are many critics that choose to side with the popular vote and decide not to be outspoken just for the sake of assumed integrity. I’ve found you move “against the grain” as it were. I applaud that. I was happy enough just to read your work. This is the very reason I write to you. Your critique of Tim Burton’s Alice lacked perspective. Not everyone can grasp Dogson’s satire or comprehend the manic fantasy made in his novels. You bashed it like some common thug without thinking. The film will draw audiences to look closer at Lewis Carrol, maybe even read his work for themselves. You took an advancement for literature and destroyed it because you didn’t think it fit right with your ideal. Well done. Burton took something people have been looking at for years, in cartoon and page, then put it on a big screen with names people recognize and relate to, perhaps because he’s a moron. In his style and finesse he’s given a greater audience the better looking glass into something most don’t see. You fail to understand the importance of this film and in doing so will, in this case, find yourself down the rabbit hole. The movie is inspired. Not everyone has read what we have read. Hopefully, after seeing a 3D representation of something quasi fantastic they’ll find the original story and understand what Burton was trying to portray.