THE LONG SHOT: Jawellnofine

Posted by · 10:10 am · January 13th, 2011

(Updated Oscar predictions here.)

It’s six years this month since I left Johannesburg for the sodden streets of London, so it could just be that I’m in a commemorative mood, but the endlessly useful South African idiom “jawellnofine” (mostly redundant translation: “yes… well… no… fine”) has been on my mind rather a lot this week. It’s a versatile Frankenstein term that, like a more finely calibrated “whatever,” can express everything from dispassionate approval to passive-aggressive indifference to reluctant acceptance — or any combination of these at once.

How am I currently feeling about the Oscar season, you ask? Jawellnofine.

It’d be churlish for me to complain too vigorously about the current state of the race. After all, five of the films currently sitting in the “most likely” pile for a Best Picture nomination — “The Fighter,” “Black Swan,” “The Kids Are All Right,” “The Town” and “Winter’s Bone” — placed in my own Best of 2010 list last week: hardly an unhappy stat, even if my and the Academy’s respective Top Tens will have only a 20% overlap.

No, increasingly likely victor “The Social Network” wasn’t among them, but it’s a fine enough film. And if I continue to dislike potential spoiler “The King’s Speech” with some intensity, well, that’s okay too: we all need an enemy in the Oscar race.

Meanwhile, I continue to root keenly for a number of superb performers, and potential nominees, I’ve been cheering on from the bleachers for months now, from Ryan Gosling to Jennifer Lawrence to Mila Kunis. Add to that the thrill of seeing a once-sidelined wunderkind (okay, graying wunderkind) generation of filmmakers — Aronofsky, Russell, Nolan, Fincher — finally being admitted to the establishment for films that, if not their finest, haven’t lowered their reach, and there’s plenty to nourish my inner Pollyanna.

So why, still 12 days away from even the nominations, do I feel so prematurely tired of the proceedings? I can’t blame “The Social Network”‘s admittedly monotonous precursor spree; I certainly wasn’t complaining when “The Hurt Locker” exerted the same dominance last year. Neither is it entirely a predictability issue: plenty of categories, most prominently Best Supporting Actress, have a lot of fight left in them. Rather, what’s bothering me is the feeling that the assorted voting bodies shaping the season may be in a bit of a “jawellnofine” mood themselves.

This was certainly the impression left by critic Michael Wilmington’s report on the National Society of Film Critics’ voting, in which he bemoans his group’s failure to elect a Best Production Design winner because, in his words, “[s]ome of my colleagues argue back that it’s late, they’re not sure how to judge it, and besides, why bother?”. If that’s the level of apathy expressed by passionately cine-literate critics who see innumerable films a year, we should hardly be surprised when industry groups and guilds offer up their own lazily identikit awards lists.

Take some of this week’s Guild announcements, which suggest busy professionals hurriedly filling out their ballots with easy-to-recall season staples, not necessarily offering a thorough consideration of their own craft. Since I just brought up Best Production Design, why not segue to the Art Directors’ Guild: were its members genuinely bowled over by the contemporary design work in “The Town” and “127 Hours,” or did they merely feel obliged to maintain those films’ consistent presence in the season?

On a similar note, the American Society of Cinematographers surprised many by nominating “The Social Network” and “The King’s Speech.” The lensing in each film may have its admirers (though the latter has a sizable number of detractors too), but are they there because many voters felt they represented the year’s very best work in the field, or simply because they are the presumed Best Picture frontrunners? One likes to imagine that a group of professional peers would have a distinctive perspective on the work they do, but such awards increasingly imply that’s not the case. (It’s enough to make you doff your hat to the Academy’s makeup branch for recalling such invisible films as “Jonah Hex” and “Barney’s Version.”)

Of course, this oppressive groupthink sets in every year, but this season seems particularly claustrophobic, and the selection of films in the conversation particularly narrow. When the Academy doubled the size of the Best Picture category a little over 18 months ago, there was talk of the move making the race more competitive and inclusive: yet for the past month, we’ve been tediously playing musical chairs with just 11 films for 10 seats.

I imagine that when they greenlit the change, AMPAS bosses had more exciting tussles in mind than, Can “Winter’s Bone” edge out “127 Hours?”. Alas, for all the desired diversity in the eventual shortlist itself, The Ten has mainly succeeded in vacuuming tension from a process that already lacked for it.

This is less damning of the Academy than it is of an overlong season, overstuffed with irrelevant precursors less interested in notions of “best” than of their own contribution to the season’s momentum (hey, did you know the BFCA awards are this weekend?), that culls the pool of contenders down to this lonely if respectable few.

Last week’s BAFTA longlists are a case in point: with 15 slots in 16 categories voted upon by individual branches, you’d expect a veritable smorgasbord of clashing titles from the year past, yet a paltry 37 films are named across the board, many of them in categories they patently have no business entering. (Hey, get a load of those visual effects in “The King’s Speech!”) I’m trying to curb my emotional responses to such ill-thought decisions these days, since it’s increasingly clear to me how they happen in the first place: the powers that be are as placidly weary of the season’s pageantry as we are.

[Photos: Warner Bros. Pictures, Columbia Pictures and Roadside Attractions]

→ 38 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Filed in: The Long Shot

38 responses so far

  • 1 1-13-2011 at 10:17 am

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    Sound perspective.

    Though I’ll stick up for the art direction of “127 Hours.” That so many were flummoxed by its inclusion in the ADG fold, thinking it all a location shoot, only serves to justify the nomination. Crafting a tight, weathered canyon on a Utah sound stage is, after all, no small feat.

  • 2 1-13-2011 at 10:30 am

    JJ1 said...

    I agree with you, Guy. I love looking back on years past where there was such a variance of nominations from different bodies. I’d get a notion of “oh, wow, I forgot about that film. Yes, it DID have a great supporting actress and art direction contender that year” etc. – even when the film would have showed up nowhere near the Oscars.

    This year, as you say, there is a laziness. i.e., for as much as I love ‘Black Swan’, BAFTA’s longlist has Kunis AND Hershey AND Ryder in their Supporting Actress contention. Come on.

  • 3 1-13-2011 at 10:45 am

    Matthew Starr said...

    Voters don’t watch enough movies is basically what it boils down to. I don’t think the members of the ASC saw the same amount of films Guy Lodge did this year. I doubt they attended any film festivals.Thus King’s Speech is nominated for cinematography.

    The problem is with the system and it is difficult to fix. For starters they need to release more prestige films from March-September. Smaller films can’t compete with the likes of True Grit, King’s Speech and Black Swan so why even try.

    Stuff like Never Let Me Go and Another Year should come out in the spring or summer. There also shouldn’t be an oscar “season”. There should be guild screenings, Q and A’s and all that year around. When you squish everything into two months of course you will end up with a handful of films dominating all the awards.

    Kudos to Fox Searchlight for pitting Tree of Life against Hangover 2 and Kung Fu Panda 2. Good to see an art studio showing some backbone.

  • 4 1-13-2011 at 10:47 am

    red_wine said...

    The way you spell it out, the 10 seems to be an unqualified failure for the academy and I agree. This entire season is just so stale, there is literally nothing to talk about. Anne said while introducing the Top 10 podcast that you get in a loop, get set in pattern and keep talking about the same thing over and over again.

    There’s Sasha Stone at Awardsdaily mightily trying to keep up the pretense that the season is extremely exciting with her 3476th article about Social Network’s Best Picture chances. Its the exact same article she wrote two days ago which in turn was the same as the one she wrote two days earlier. Everybody is talking in circles, there is literally nothing to talk about.

    And the worst thing about the minutiae of it all is the fact that repeat something a 100 times and you will almost believe it is true. These 11 films that are mentioned ad nauseum, they have taken such a hold over the people that they have actually started considering them the best the year has to offer.

    It outright pains me to see innumerable adventurous film-buffs and even most main stream critics drowning their Top 10’s in these very titles, narrowing an already narrow conversation further and further.

    Its literally that these titles become set in stone and any dissent against any of them is likely to draw ire from many quarters. Its just that people have become so comfortable and so used to the idea of these films being the best of the year that they feel irritated when somebody else mentions some other films or disses one of these.

    I don’t believe this was what Oscar-watching was meant for, it was a platform, a medium based on a prestigious institutions choice to open an entire forum of conversation about the year’s best cinema. It has boiled down to anything but. The most damaging take-away surely is how utterly it has crippled people’s imagination and maybe even their instincts and judgment.

  • 5 1-13-2011 at 10:52 am

    John G said...

    What it all comes down to is the big question:
    What is the purpose of the precursors?

    Is it

    1. To try to give an objective idea of what films are the year’s best?
    2. To indicate a unique group’s point of view on the year in film, hence the regional focus?
    3. To forecast the Oscars?
    4. To champion certain films for the Oscars?
    6. To try to get people to watch certain movies?
    7. To give a pat on the back to particular friends and colleagues?
    8. Or, as this column suggests, out of obligation?

    Until the precursors establish their identity, there’s no reason for them to exist.

  • 6 1-13-2011 at 10:59 am

    Alex in Movieland said...

    I thought the thing about the NSFC was funny :D hi hi, lazy duded.

    and I also found ur predictions to be rather interesting, but that being said: I think you went a bit too far from the SAG line-up, cause you know it usually matches like 18-19 (at least lately), so that’s to be considered…

  • 7 1-13-2011 at 11:02 am

    Maxim said...

    “Smaller films can’t compete with the likes of True Grit, King’s Speech and Black Swan so why even try.”

    That’s a stunningly narrowminded perpective if I’ve ever heard one. True Grit and, especially Back Swan could’ve ended up being small too. Nothing was given for either one. Something must have given those films edge and I for one, don’t think that it’s just the names of the filmmakers behind them.

    It’s not that I’m arguing that everyone is playing on a level field. Far from it. It’s just that it’s easy to assume certain films are shoe-ins based on what are absolute, rather than relative characteristics.

    I am also willing to bet that had the Academy increased the number of film nominated for an Academy Award to 20, you’d still have only 21 or so films fighting for those spots. Think about it. The number of contenders does not magically grow faster than than the number of spots.

    The point I am trying to get at, and it’s an insight I’ve had for a while no matter what happens people always tend to group around favorites in ordinal fashion. I bet there’s a bell curve out there that could put this into concrte terms.

  • 8 1-13-2011 at 11:04 am

    Pope said...

    That’s quite an intersting word : jawellnofine.

    I’ve actually been feeling this way as well trying to relate to The Social Network. I thought it was a good film, but not spectacular. I decided to watch it a 2nd time to see if I may have missed something. Felt the same way after watching it the 2nd time. Then with all the precursors showering it with praise I started to feel this sort of frustration. I thought “What am I mssing/not seeing/understanding?” I began to ask is this the film from 2010 that truly represents the whole year in filmmaking the best? Will it age the best and have long jevity? I was biased to saying no because I wasn’t crazy about it and then thought how much I’d hate if it won BP. Then I remembered once again thats its probably one of the top 10 most universally praised films of the century and thought who am I to argue with that? I think the idea of critics group being lazy and just going along with the trends may have crossed my mind briefly, but I never gave any serious thought to it but now that I know sum1 else might feel the same way I’m thinking about it again. Interesting perspective Guy.

    I still hold the same opinion I have of the film but the at this point, after the landslide the film has been having and its BP chances looking firmer and firmer, I think “jawellnofine” has set in.

  • 9 1-13-2011 at 11:18 am

    Pope said...

    btw, good post red_wine

  • 10 1-13-2011 at 11:25 am

    Matthew Starr said...

    “That’s a stunningly narrowminded perpective if I’ve ever heard one. True Grit and, especially Back Swan could’ve ended up being small too.”

    Maxim, that you say they could have ended up being small makes me think that you gather I am talking in terms of box office results only. Small is an ambiguous and relative word. What I meant was that those films have name directors and actors and studios that are marketing the hell out of them. Between television and the theaters I must have seen the trailer for True Grit fifty times.

    I can’t recall seeing the trailer for Another Year, The Illusionist or Rabbit Hole on television even one time. These are small films compared to Black Swan and True Grit. It’s all relative really. Black Swan and True Grit are small compared to other films.

    My main point was that films like Another Year, Never Let Me Go and Rabbit Hole should be coming out between March and July.

    You are right in that people tend to group around favorites but I believe a major factor in that is that the voters have seen so few films. They are thus boxing themselves in and essentially forcing themselves to vote for the favorites.

    I would bet there are a number of elder voters out there who just got back from vacation and have to either make sure they catch Paula Abdul’s dancing show or be in bed by 8P and they have enough time to watch their screeners of Social Network and King’s Speech so Another Year and Illusionist will have to be put on the back burner.

  • 11 1-13-2011 at 11:31 am

    tdr said...

    I think Maxim is right in saying that the contenders don’t grow faster than the number of spots. Thinking back to 2008 when Slumdog won, outside of the 5 nominated there were 2 more films with a realistic shot at a BP nom: The Dark Knight and Wall-E. So i think we should adjust our expectations. Also every year we see small, independent or foreign films that become a critics’ favourite, but don’t have the money for an awards campaign, even if they are the best movies of the year and go on unnoticed.

  • 12 1-13-2011 at 11:33 am

    Matthew Starr said...

    Also besides my 9-5 I have a decent amount of time to watch films and I have only seen about eighty or so films from 2010. So the voters that are not as interested as us in actually watching movies have surely seen far fewer.

    It makes me wonder if all their ineligibility rules just exist to spare them from watching more movies. God forbid they actually have to watch Fish Tank and The Killer Inside Me! They would never be ready to vote.

  • 13 1-13-2011 at 11:43 am

    Maxim said...

    “Maxim, that you say they could have ended up being small makes me think that you gather I am talking in terms of box office results only.”

    Actually, I wasn’t talking about that at all and I appologize for not being specific enough. Seeing as how so far they are the only ones to have weighted in, I was talking strictly about the reception those fims received from critics. Thing is, no matter how you rotate it, Never Let Me Go never took hold, wheres something like The Social Network probably would have been just as acclaimed had it been released at any point during the year.

    Another point that you didn’t address is how someone like Aronofsky became a name director in the first place? Wasn’t it only two films ago that he delivered an expensive flop (even if it’s IMO still his best work)?

    But then all of these are weak insight compared to what I think is the single most important thing I have ever said on this blog:

    There is no escaping ordinance – and attacking it by itself is futile both psychologically and mathematically. Taking it as a sign of herd metality by itself (I will repeat, BY. ITSELF.) is a tragic logic flaw.

    Arguing that certain films don’t an have a equal chance to be seen and thus can’t make their way to the top of that ordinance is a different thing and is PERFECTLY VALID and is entirely different matter altogether. Not an easily solvable one, but different.

    Red_wine, I encourage you to try to understand how those two things are different and stop complaining about the overlaps that you see. I could prove it, and do so mathematically that given an even a relatively small number of critics chances of overlap will be huge. And given the logistical issues I have outlined above they only get larger. So attack them instead :) .

  • 14 1-13-2011 at 11:56 am

    Matthew Starr said...

    Never Let Me Go may not have been received well by critics at any point this year but perhaps if it came out during the summer more people, specifically industry members, may have seen it and perhaps it could have gotten something like an ASC nomination over King’s Speech.

    Or perhaps I am just selfishly hoping for a more well rounded release calendar.

    The ordinance that you speak of. How is it even established? At what point in the season is it established what the official contenders will be? I recall earlier this year a few reviews of Social Network leaked early (Peter Travers and Scott Foundas) and all of a sudden we had a best picture favorite. Ordinance established in an instant, in the time it takes to tweet a link.

    Perhaps WE (the oscar bloggers and its followers) are substantially responsible for creating this ordinance? This reminds of of an article Brad Brevet (Rope of Silicon) had earlier this season about whether bloggers have a duty to bring attention to films that are not getting any attention.

    Oscar season is difficult to fix. That is for certain.

  • 15 1-13-2011 at 12:14 pm

    Maxim said...

    Matt, I was afraid this would happen but what I said totally flew over your head. It’s alright it make take a few minutes for it it settle in.

    But first, let me start with something else:
    “more people, specifically industry members,may have seen it and perhaps it could have gotten something like an ASC nomination over King’s Speech”.

    This falls under logistic and is not something that I disagree with at all. Exposure is always beneficial. That isn’t what I was talking about.

    “The ordinance that you speak of. How is it even established? At what point in the season is it established what the official contenders will be? ”

    You are confusing two distinct things here. The ordinance isn’t established by anyone. It just is. It exists by virtue of the voting system (it’s a little more complicated than that but stay with me) If you were able to poll people at ANY point in time you will find that you will be able to get a top ten no matter what because you should be able to order the results in relative ordinal fashion. This should be obvious and closeness of certain picks should not prevent it from happening as long as you distinguish between something that gets, sas 10034 votes vs something that gets 10035.

    Ties would still be possible but the probability would go up as you get higher up the ranks (meaning you’d be more likely to see a tie at #14 than at #2) and would decrease with the number of people voting. As I’ve said, there is probably a curve that can explain that.

    But that’s really not the main point you are asking me to prove (even if you don’t do it directly). What you are really asking is there a mathematical foundation for distinct groups of critics picking similar things over and over? I say that there is, and it’s related to what I talked about above. I know there’s a curve for that outhere if someone ever bothered to find it. If you’d ever studied collisions and hashing you might have an intuitive notion of why it is so.

  • 16 1-13-2011 at 12:19 pm

    Maxim said...

    “You are confusing two distinct things here. ”

    I never discussed what the other thing is. As I’ve said, the ordinance itself isn’t established by anyone but bloggers and others may, ultimately have an influence on how it is established (meaning what places higher and what gets pushed down lower).

  • 17 1-13-2011 at 12:22 pm

    JJ1 said...

    It’s true. To think that 6,000 people really see all the films that are necessary to be seen is a pretty crazy notion when you step back to think about it. They “should” see them, of course, but I’m sure they all don’t.

    Also, on a better note, let’s say 600 people of the 6,000 WANTED to see ‘Never Let Me Go’ and saw it and liked it a lot. There may not be a big campaign for it, but that movie could be in, and we have no idea that it could pop up in places.

    I have hope that there are incidents like that above.

  • 18 1-13-2011 at 12:33 pm

    Matthew Starr said...

    You say “The ordinance isn’t established by anyone” and then say “It exists by virtue of the voting system”. From that I can say the people voting establish the ordinance no?

    This will probably forever fly over my head but I can’t see how we can explain the same films being awarded in every category by every institution and critics circle by using mathematics. Perhaps you’re John Nash or something but you still have to explain to me why that first group voted for those 10-11 films and not another set of films.

    Perhaps you should make the curve yourself? And no I never studied collisions or hashing. Your theory is quite confusing actually.

  • 19 1-13-2011 at 12:56 pm

    Maxim said...

    Can I ask you a very simple question Matthew?

    Would you agree with me that Oscars could theoretically be held on any day of the year? The implied condition here is that people WILL vote for something (that’s what I meant by voting procedure, by the way)? Fairness aside, could those votes not be talled, somehow?

    There’s your ordinance right there.

    Please understand it that I am trying to put this in the simplest terms possible.

    As for the other thing, well, it helps it if you have some foundation in statistics or computer science.

    Have you ever heard of the birthday paradox? If not look it up, because it’s something that seems very counterintuitive to most people but makes perfect mathematical sense. Plus it’s related to collisions.

    Let me see if I can give you an inuitive notion, somehow, though. The bell curve is repeated througout nature and is used is sociology, economics, etc. It tells us that, when you have a relative small sample size (and something like 40 is a lot), when asked to make a choice there is always going to be one thing that is ultra popular, two things that are a little less popular, four things that are slightly less popular still, etc.
    (I hate that I’m putting a distincly continous notion in descrete terms, by the way).

    As applies to critics, that means there is nearly always going to be a film that for whatever odd reasons will be in contention on every ballot. From there on you could take an inductive step and assume the same property will hold true but with LESSER probability. This is why by the time you get to ten, there is more wiggle room (the wiggle room I am referring to is strictly limited to how flexible in terms of being overtaken by some other pick – the ordinance still holds and the spot itself remains).

    Now, let me take a leap, that is not much of a leap and say that, on the whole (again sample size dwarfs regional desparity in a relatively unoform country like the United States), it makes little difference if critics are voting in different groups or the same one. It may seem counterintuitive but it is actually true.

    And the curve you asked about, I don’t have to even look for it. I bet it’s a bell curve. The only thing that needs to be established is how concave it is. The only prediction I can make is that compared to normal you’d still find a lot of picks even a few standard deviations away from the center.

    Interestingly enough, the Oscar curve may not be a bell curve because the preferential ballot may have an effect on what wins. I need to think about it some more.

  • 20 1-13-2011 at 1:25 pm

    Joe W said...

    Unstoppable over TRON in the sound categories?

  • 21 1-13-2011 at 1:38 pm

    Scott Coleman said...

    Here we go again, the token argument after every post. You guys are almost as predictable as the award season.

  • 22 1-13-2011 at 1:41 pm

    Scott Coleman said...

    Maxim you sound far too pretentious to be taken seriously. Think this is the type of snobbery that Tapley is trying to get away from.

  • 23 1-13-2011 at 1:53 pm

    Maxim said...

    Scott, in case you haven’t noticed I was having a conversation with Matthew (or at least, writing a response to him). If you can point out something specific in what I was saying that you think is wrong I’ll be glad to hear it. Otherwise, feel free to get lost.

    And snobbery? On an Oscar blog??? (nevermind the fact that my argument was, largely an arguiment against it). Sorry for trying to look at things from a largely unexplored angle.

  • 24 1-13-2011 at 2:00 pm

    Matthew Starr said...

    People have been throwing around the word pretentious here a lot late. I think someone labeled Guy as such the other day. I don’t think anyone here is assuming importance or putting on a show.

    I don’t see Maxim has coming off as pretentious or snobbish although I certainly think his theory is pretty radical. He is just presenting his opinion on the problems with the circuit that Guy brought up in his post.

    Also what token argument? I don’t recall ever having this specific discussion on this blog. If this conversation bothers you we can all head over to the Oscar Talk thread and ask for the hundredth time whether Olivia Williams has a shot at best supporting actress or whether people think Annette Bening will get the sympathy vote. Interesting stuff.

  • 25 1-13-2011 at 2:15 pm

    matsunaga said...

    Ryder and Page over Knightley in the Best Supporting Actress longlist?

    There must be a typographical error or something…

  • 26 1-13-2011 at 2:18 pm

    Guy Lodge said...

    I’d pick Ryder over Knightley.

  • 27 1-13-2011 at 2:24 pm

    JJ1 said...

    Gosh, I always feel like there is a 30/70 split to people who don’t like and like Knightley. I don’t really get it.

    I think she gave genuinely stellar performances in Pride and Prejudice, Atonement, The Duchess, and Never Let Me Go. I don’t get the hate (of her) or the argument that she’s a bad/one note actress, etc.

  • 28 1-13-2011 at 2:48 pm

    Sam C. said...

    Great write-up which also echoes my feeling on this Year’s race. I’m underwhelmed by a lot of the critical darlings and frontrunner performances.

  • 29 1-13-2011 at 3:16 pm

    Guy Lodge said...

    I like Knightley. Just not in Never Let Me Go.

  • 30 1-13-2011 at 4:01 pm

    julian said...

    I like Keira Knightley too…man, she looked gorgeous in that green evening gown in Atonement! (a little on the skinny side, but hell…) James McAvoy…that lucky bastard!

    Ok, stop it. Could we please discuss something more relevant than a 70/30 dislike for Keira Knightley…?…;)

  • 31 1-13-2011 at 4:45 pm

    Scott Coleman said...

    Yeah lets discuss Maxim

  • 32 1-13-2011 at 4:58 pm

    JJ1 said...


  • 33 1-13-2011 at 5:02 pm

    matsunaga said...

    Well I’m not expecting her to be nominated for Never Let Me Go performance but it’s just weird that Mulligan even made it to the top 5 and Garfield was longlisted and she was not…

  • 34 1-13-2011 at 5:13 pm

    Kevin K. said...

    “There is no escaping ordinance – and attacking it by itself is futile both psychologically and mathematically. Taking it as a sign of herd metality by itself (I will repeat, BY. ITSELF.) is a tragic logic flaw.

    Arguing that certain films don’t an have a equal chance to be seen and thus can’t make their way to the top of that ordinance is a different thing and is PERFECTLY VALID and is entirely different matter altogether. Not an easily solvable one, but different.

    Red_wine, I encourage you to try to understand how those two things are different and stop complaining about the overlaps that you see. I could prove it, and do so mathematically that given an even a relatively small number of critics chances of overlap will be huge. And given the logistical issues I have outlined above they only get larger. So attack them instead :) .”

    Truer words were never spoken.

  • 35 1-13-2011 at 7:18 pm

    Sam C. said...

    But seriously…the Art Direction in 127 Hours is fantastic…even you, Guy, thought it was real!

  • 36 1-13-2011 at 7:21 pm

    Glenn said...

    I’ve had the same issue this season, Guy (as you know via Twitter). “The Social Network” is a great movie and I don’t begrudge its wins, the field of contenders feels awfully narrow.