Thursday, December 15, 2005

Awards abstinence

This is the time of year that critics and other groups get very hot and bothered about handing out accolades and prizes for the best in entertainment. Normally I get into the act to a disturbing degree (and, in future weeks, I will lay out some personal favorites), but this year I've chosen to sit out the overhyped awards season. There are reasons:

1. I don't have as much time. I haven't mentioned this yet, but I've been toiling away at a non-law job these past few weeks, because even non-Christians can use some holiday money. The real job search continues, but now I don't feel as passive about it. (In case you're curious, I work in a cashier cage in an old casino that's soon to close. Working at my parents' convenience store in years past was far more stressful, so doing this is a comparative breeze. Plus, it gives me time to let my mind wander in the inevitable heist direction, though I've decided I will not follow through because I don't know ten cohorts I trust enough.)

2. I feel my tastes are changing. I think having retired parents live under the same roof tends to do this. Just as your tolerance toward syndicated episodes of Everybody Loves Raymond starts to slowly rise, so does your taste for edgy cinematic fare begin to fall. I'm at a point in my life where I feel less inclined to handle a movie experience that I know is going to depress me. This makes me a more guarded viewer, and one not as likely to protest mainstream choices as I have in the past.

3. I'm not sure I would enjoy it. The Oscars in particular have become a bit formulaic in what gets a win -- it usually involves star power, a heavy-handed message, and a costly awards campaign. Where in the past I would regard a Best Picture winner as something worth seeing, their choices these past few years have been disappointing. (I saw A Beautiful Mind and didn't care for it. I liked Chicago, but my enjoyment at its cleverness diminishes in future viewings. I'm boycotting The Lord of the Rings movies, and after three opportunities to watch it for free, I still haven't seen Million Dollar Baby.)


Julie said...

What is the reason behind the LOTR boycott?
The only awards show I watch is the Tonys - and that is just to see the performances from the shows.

Angry Pregnant Lawyer said...

You can trust me--I want to be a part of Mehta's 11! I can do reconaissance. Or demolition. Your choice, of course.

K-Lyn said...

I join with APL...Not sure what you want me to do but doesn't there have to be a redhead somewhere?

Although the LOTR thing? Silly. But suit yourself...You're the only one hurt by that boycott.

Neel Mehta said...

Julie: I started to answer your question here, but decided it merited a full post, seeing as how I'm low on content these days.

I always wondered who watched the Tonys. It always struck me as something similar to a Mets-Yankees series: why is something so regional getting national attention?

APL and K-Lyn: Seriously, the brain started percolating with ideas on my first day of training. I mean, the casino is closing down. No one seems to care. And while the haul here is slim compared to Terry Benedict's vault, it ain't bad.

I'd feel more comfortable talking about this next month, when it's over, and all money has been properly accounted for.

K-Lyn said...

As another who watches the different from a Mets/Yankees series in a few ways:

1. Not so much regional interest as group kinship. There are drama nerds from all regions, of all ages, and from all walks of life.

2. The Tonys are entertaining.

3. I rarely feel the need to kill half the people invovled in the Tonys.

4. Better lighting.

5. No warm beer at the Tonys.

6. Less spitting at the Tonys...but not by much.

Angry Pregnant Lawyer said...

And reason No. 7 the Tonys are different:

No audience chanting of "Red Sox suck!"