Why The Social Network Should Win Tonight But Won't

We all know that the Oscars haven't always been about merit. Many a film has been critically praised and financially successful yet still ignored by the Academy (The Dark Knight comes to mind). As we look back on nearly a century of Best Pictures, the first thing that comes to mind as to what an Oscar-winning film should be is relevant. Not necessarily relevant in the sense that people talk about it, although that helps, but the film should define the time in which it's set while examining the era in which it is made. Most importantly, it should reflect upon its targets. I can't think of a better example, in many years in fact, of a film that does just this than David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin's The Social Network.

Typically a 'relevant film' we agree on is about our country's wars - WWII, Vietnam or the Middle East (Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, Three Kings, The Hurt Locker). Or it will deals with the modern family (American Beauty, Mystic River). This year we finally had a film that stared into the face of an entire decade, illustrating the monster of technology and its fiendish conspirator, ambition and greed. At the same time, it presented us with a true film of the modern college experience and with only one vomit gag. More than that, it showed us the true fragility of friendship and the choices we make in life.

So why won't The Social Network win Best Picture? Well, obviously it's complicated by nine other films in the category. And it's not a safe film. It doesn't easily fit into a particular genre. Nobody dies, nobody goes to war, nobody dresses in period attire, nobody loses a child and most importantly, nobody overcomes a crippling disability. Every other year or more, there seems to be a need for the warm comfort of a crowd-pleasing historical film, replete with affable dialog, cozy scenes of non-fictional retrospect and of course, the touching performances of British thoroughbreds.

We're talking about The King's Speech. It has the vibe of Howard's End as well as The Queen which gave Helen Mirren her first Oscar, and it will be the same with Colin Firth. While no doubt deserving on every level, Firth (and perhaps Bonham-Carter and Rush) should be winners in this film. It is a thespian's film, but not a story-driven film. It's just not a film that we'll look back on as a defining film. It's Rocky with studdering. It's The Karate Kid with studdering. It's a feel-good movie, one where every beat hits its perfectly played-out note. You never doubt that the good Duke is going to triumph over his tongue-tied torment.

The Social Network, on the other hand, does not play to the grandeur of a world on the bring of war. It does not deal with the triumph of the human spirit, nor does it contain a single British character (just a few very talented young British actors). For those of you who keep score, Oscar loves it some Brits. Just ask Harvey Weinstein, who knows when to play the Union Jack card come campaign time in January.

What Fincher's film does is draw the curtain on the young 21st century mind and its unabashed pursuit of creating an idea that nobody else can touch. We can barely crack the surface of how the internet has changed modern society, let alone the impact Facebook has had on how we communicate and represent our daily lives to one another. This film explores our love affair with success, technology and Faustian complexity while still delivering grade-A entertainment. And in doing so, the film delivers 2010's finest dialog, cinematography, a rapturous modern score by Trent Reznnor and Atticus Ross, starmaking performances by fresh actors and a window into America when a few group of young minds changed the face of modern communication. These young upstarts did all of this under the noses of the wealthiest businesses and greatest educational institutions in the world. Shakespeare by way of Pinter and Mamet. In this case, Sorkin.

Decades from now, people will remember The Social Network as a generational film, the way they remember The Graduate, Midnight Cowboy, All the President's Men. (Sheer coincidence those three films all star Dustin Hoffman!) They will remember The King's Speech as the well-done Oscar winner of 2010.

Game Show Kid Turns Actor in Sandra Bullock Comedy

By not being a 'wizz' kid and soiling his pants on television like the character from 1999's Magnolia, whiz kid Tom Horn, who won $32,000 on Jeopardy, has landed a starring role in an upcoming Sandra bullock film.

Full story here.

Cruisin' for a Bruisin'

By special Mung Hour contributor, Double-S

Why do they even have to spin the fucking box office receipts? Just print the fucking list and shut up.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/toy-story-3-sandler-are-hot-tom-cruise-not-ap

I don't know why I give a fuck, probably because I liked the Cruise movie and simply do not find Sandler and his cronies funny. Just never have.

I'm not saying the couch trip didn't hurt Cruise's career. To blame a weak opening on it is unfair. As I've already noted, the release date was stupid and so was the last minute change to Wednesday. Other factors played into the weak opening too.

• Cruise is almost fifty and his leading lady is almost forty. They're twenty and thirty years older than the stars of Eclipse respectively. People simply cannot expect teens to want to see films featuring actors as old or older than their parents.
• Tastes have changed. Audiences expect super heroes from May through July now. if you're doing the kind of film studios have been doing since the eighties, release it in August.
• Everyone knew going in that Cruise had PR baggage. The painfully forced attempts to make him look 'normal' in publicity efforts failed four years ago, so why try it again? Look at how much fun Tom and Cameron are having on set! He's so normal! I'd have tried to get the guy to do some type of mea culpa. The guy could've gone back on Oprah and fixed it in five minutes.
• Stop spending $120M on films that don't need to cost $120M. Iron Man needs expensive effects. Neither K&D or A-Team can say that. When films like Death Race, Taken, and the first Bourne movie had more compelling action sequences at a third to half the budget. Point is, the cost of the film elevated expectations to an unrealistic level.

This has been the weakest summer in decades from both a commercial and content perspective. Lots of marginal films underperforming. And by 'marginal' I mean worse than the films we used to decry for making money despite being shitty.

If I'm Cruise, and I'm not, I try to push the Les Grossman thing through then try to focus on more artistic stuff. People talk a lot about MI4 being in danger as a result of this film. It likely is unless Paramount's already sunk too much into prep and would owe too many people (Abrams) for pay or play contracts if they pull the plug.

Happy 49th, George!

In honor of Sir George's 49th birthday, let's watch the trailer for his latest film, The American. As it appears to be a throwback to a time when you could actually release a movie into the theaters that didn't involve CGI and formulaic plots, this film will probably bomb ...

Keanu, Please Do This

We all are waiting for Bill & Ted's Mid-Life Adventure. It could be your Color of Money at Oscar time, know what I'm saying?

De-Evolution of the Leading Man

Defending Tequila Sunrise. Yes, Tequila Sunrise.

(By special Mugn Hour guest contributer, Double-S)

Today', we're going to defend the little seen noir film from the 80s, Tequila Sunrise? Why should we defend this piece of fluff? Go to any saturday night party, and you'll see a few loudmouths, sloshing their vodka cranberry in the kitchen, bashing films of a certain era. The young folks all live in the present, so they'll criticize anything that wasn't aimed at them. The old folks hate anything that was made in color. The film school snobs hate anything made after 1979, etc. Lately, the target of a lot of criticism seems to be the 1980s.

This is why film buffs between roughly 38 and 45 have such a unique perspective on the art of the movie. We were there for the changing of the guard. We were in the middle of our movie going youth when 'B' movies evolved into tentpoles, when Bond went from escapism to studio foundation. We were there when John Wayne made way for Clint Eastwood. We were there when Harrison Ford, Mel Gibson, Kurt Russell, Arnold Schwarzenneger, and Sylvester Stallone became huge commercial stars while Havey Keitel, Robert DeNiro, James Caan, and Al Pacino pretty much didn't.

People already at or near adulthood in the mid-70's don't get it. People born after about 1973 don't get it. Upon its December release in 1988, Tequila Sunrise was an oddity. Not a drama, not an action film, not a romance. Though people would balk today, none of its stars were at the time proven box office winners. Though famous, Gibson had enjoyed only one legitimate domestic hit. Pfeiffer had been part of one real hit and one critical darling. Russell was, and still is, the one kiddie star who moved into adult roles. The film was written by Chinatown's Robert Towne, and it wasn't good enough to win at Oscar time.

Mel and Bob may jump out of cyberspace to blow my theory, but Gibson's character was doomed to pay for his past transgressions from the start and the tacked on happy ending existed to make a failed attempt at Oscar bait commercial. Like Payback eleven years later, it worked. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Gibson didn't draw from his Sunrise experience when he took Payback over from booted director, BrianHelgelund. So, to shit on the movie is just lame. The 1980's were an incredibly transformative decade for the medium. More so than even now when the 'movie' experience is being challenged from so many different directions.

It's easy to crap all over stupid audiences today, but I'd be very surprised if something like Twins would enjoy three times the box office receipts of Tequila Sunrise this Christmas. Look at the eighties. DeNiro was a non-factor until his first 'commercial' effort in 1988 and he pretty much hasn't looked back in the two decades since. Pacino effectively did not work from Scarface to 1989's Sea of Love. Keitel was relegated to supporting work in Judge Reinhold and Joe Piscopo vehicles. Caan took the decade off. Why? Because they made movies no one saw.

Again, give DeNiro credit for cashing in. He figured it out a good decade ahead of Pacino and hasn't been forced into DTV because of it. What does all this have to do with Tequila Sunrise? Damned little, save for the fact very few 'insiders' in 1979 would've predicted that Sly, Arnie, and Mel would be the big dogs in the eighties while folks like Bobby, Al, and Jimmy were poised to relative obscurity in that time frame.

We'll discuss the 80s further at a later time. Sure, there is plenty of room for criticism, but to write the decade off is just not cricket man, particularly Tequila Sunrise. Not a great movie, but definitely worth another look.