Will the Real James Bond Step Forward Please!

The year was 1987. I sat in my bedroom, reading a book. My brain felt as if it were melting and leaking out of my ears. What was the title of the book that caused such a violent reaction? Casino Royale. Please understand: the James Bond I had known, until then, existed only in the movies. Sean Connery, Roger Moore and some guy named George Lazenby (who I had been told had one major flaw: he wasn't Sean Connery) inhabited, defined, lived-and-breathed this role from the age of...1! Yup! In surely one of the most bizarre moves in parenting history, Mumsy and Daddy took their 1 year old son to see Live and Let Die! Several years later, at the mature of age of six, my mother took me to see An Unmarried Woman; an R-rated film with graphic nudity, sex and adult themes...but, that's another blog.  Our subject is readin'!

Casino Royale, published in 1953, by Jonathan Cape, introduced the world to James Bond. Another 9 years would pass until Sean Connery would debut as the world's greatest secret agent, in the movie Dr. No (The Dangermouse theme music just popped into my head...but that's another blog!). The books sold fairly well until, in 1960, then Presidential Candidate John F. Kennedy listed his 10 favorite books, in a Life magazine interview. Last on the list, in 10th spot, and the only work of fiction, was From Russia With Love, by Ian Fleming. Bookstores (remember those?!) could not keep copies of the Bond books on the shelves. This explosion of interest led Harry Saltzman and Albert "Cubby" Broccoli (yes, his family genetically engineered the vegetable "broccoli" yonks ago!) to make films of the books.

What this little recap establishes is that the James Bond books were originally literary adaptations. Reading Casino Royale for the first time, I began to challenge everything I thought I knew about James Bond, as a character. The script writers lifted some of the plot elements and characters from Fleming's works. They even used his titles, until Licence to Kill in 1989. If you adapt a work of fiction, I believe the filmmakers have an obligation to make as literal a translation to the silver screen as they can. Fleming's James Bond is a very violent chauvinist... actually, he's a real bastard full-stop! However, he is REALLY good at his job. He is also, in my not-so-humble-opinion, a symbol of post-war Britain. The British had become somewhat desensitized from seeing so much death and destruction. Bond can distance himself from the act of killing. He is not a psychopath; he merely recognizes killing as a part of his job. He knows he should not dwell on the killing too much, or he would not be able to do his job. What is his job? He cleans up international messes that threaten British interests. He is the best at this job, because he can take more physical punishment than anyone else.

To cast an actor in this role, the producers needed to find someone who could embody all of these qualities and still be appealing to audiences. I believe this is nearly impossible, because Bond is truly an unpleasant character. I don't like him, as much as I am glad he exists in the fictional world he is saving; because no one else could do it better (cue Carly Simon music!) So, the producers softened some of Bond's hard edges. Even a softened Bond is a pretty scary mutha', and the producers went with their third choice, Sean Connery.

Now before we get to Connery, I want to establish a frame of reference. Raymond Benson's indispensable James Bond Bedside Companion, quotes Casino Royale, for Fleming's description of Bond:

"His grey-blue eyes looked calmly back [from a mirror] with a hint of ironical inquiry and the short lock of black hair which would never stay in place subsided to form a thick comma above his right eyebrow. With the thin vertical scar down his right cheek the general effect was faintly piratical." -Casino Royale

You can always argue that this description can be interpreted several different ways; and several different actors could, therefore, play the part. Allow me to dispense with all the arguments.

This is a portrait, sketched by George Almond, based on the above description, and others, in Fleming's writing. THIS is what James Bond SHOULD look like! Please refer back to this sketch, as we compare it with the actor's who have played the part on film.

But first, TV. It all began in 1955! "WAIT!", I hear you exclaim. "You wrote that 1962 was when the first film came out!"Ahhh, yes! Well, before Sean Connery ordered his first watered-down martini, he was preceded by the strange notion that he could be Americanized...yep!, you guessed it, Jimmy Bond! Barry Nelson, pictured above, played the role first in a TV movie called Climax! Ooooh, even sounds exciting. My biggest problem with Mr. Nelson is that he looks too much like a Chicago PI, instead of an assassin. NEXT!
Believe it or not, this was the best picture of Connery I could find, from before his casting in Dr. No, and without him smiling! Compared with Gregory Almond's sketch, Connery makes you wonder if Saltzman  and Broccoli had actually read the books...or could READ at all! Even Ian Fleming, BOND'S CREATOR, said NO to Connery on the basis of head-shots like these. He wanted Roger Moore; perfectly understandable, since Moore ACTUALLY looks a little like the sketch. However...

..."The Golden Smirk" was too busy prancing around in tights, playing Ivanhoe, to be a serious candidate. The producers convinced Fleming that Moore would not be a good choice to act in Dr. No, because he was too young. By the time Connery wanted to quit, Moore committed himself to The Saint and the world would have to wait a few years more for Ian Fleming's original choice to take the role. Connery eventually convinced Fleming he was the right actor for the role, after acting in a few scenes. Now I beg of you, kind readers, please hold your jeers and booing for our next actor!

As long as he isn't grinning or wearing that DAMN KILT!, Mr. George Lazenby actually, sorta, kinda looks the part. His interpretation of the character, much closer than Connery's to the text, is even more impressive when you realize THIS WAS HIS FILM DEBUT! He handled the fights brilliantly, acted tender and loving with Diana Rigg, and came across as a worthy replacement for Connery. Whether you think I am smoking crack or not, Lazenby would never be given the chance to reprise the role, which ultimately Diamonds Are Forever would suffer for. He was literally hounded off the set by the crew, who taunted him that he wasn't REALLY Bond! When the film did poorly at the US box-office, the producers, cowardly shit-bags that they were, blamed Lazenby. SCREW YOU! I wouldn't want to be in another Bond film, if I were treated like that.

Just...just...BATHE in the magnificence! Even without the stray lock of hair and the scar on his right cheek, HALLELUJAH! Finally Bond looks the way he's supposed to! This picture was taken from For Your Eyes Only, far and away Moore's best performance as Bond and the best film he was allowed to be in. A clever script that successfully adapted two short stories ("For Your Eyes Only" and "Risico", from the anthology For Your Eyes Only), Roger Moore spent two hours getting the living crap kicked out of him! just like in any Bond novel! It was not until my teen years, when I was immersed in Fleming's work, that I realized what a truly wonderful Bond film this is. The casting is perfect, the direction tight-as-a-drum, the soundtrack funky and modern, and, the ending, perfect! (SPOILER ALERT!) After successfully recovering the ATAC system, Bond throws it over a cliff, rather than surrender it to the Soviets. "That's detente comrade," Bond says. "You don't have it, I don't have it." (END OF SPOILER ALERT!) Wonderful stuff!

Handsome and one mean SOB, Timothy Dalton first played Bond just as I was finishing reading my last Fleming novel. Watching The Living Daylights was a revelation. My friend Doug Rau (who had also been reading the books) and I raced to be on time to see the film. We arrived during the credits, which turned out to be very fortuitous; because the pre-credit teaser is a mixture of the sublime and the ridiculous. The short story "The Living Daylights" has always been one of my favorites. Before Bond helps a defector across the border, he instructs his unsympathetic liaison, Captain Sender, in the rigors of his job:

 "'Look, my friend', said Bond wearily, 'I've got to commit a murder tonight, not you. Me. So be a good chap and stuff it, will you? You can tell [local commander] Tanqueray anything you like when it's over. Think I like this job? Having a Double-0 number and so on? I'd be quite happy for you to get me sacked from the Double-0 Section. Then I could settle down and make a snug nest of papers as an ordinary staffer. Right?' Bond drank down his whiskey, reached for his thriller- now arriving at an appalling climax- and threw himself on the bed." -"The Living Daylights"

It isn't so much that Dalton looks exactly like the sketch of Bond. By playing the character, as in the above excerpt, he became Bond more convincingly than anyone had before. The above speech was nothing new. In Casino Royale, one of the first scenes we find Bond in is deciding whether or not he should resign. This is a constant theme in Fleming's work: Bond's weariness from years of killing for Queen and Country. Dalton ABSOLUTELY nailed it; and, as a result, looks like Bond.

I like Pierce Brosnan as an actor...as Bond? Meh...He never fully escaped Remington Steele and he's just too nice. The World Is Not Enough is definitely his best film, and even then, he did not convince me of his Bond-ness. And thank God I'm not including Bond girls in this blog, because Christmas Jones...uhhhhhh...someone is going to rot in hell for that one...and the casting!

AND NOW! A DRUMROLL PLEASE! DRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

TAH-DAH! NAILLLLLLLLED IT! A Bond who bleeds! A Bond who indisputably kicks ass! A Bond weary from his job! A Bond in an ACTUAL adaptation of an Ian Fleming novel! Nothing held back, no pussy-footing around or endless smirking. I believe the tagline for Casino Royale should have been:

51 Years In the Making! We are proud to present James Bond as the author originally intended!

Casino Royale was the first movie I paid to see twice in over seven years. The dialogue was lifted from the novel! Jeffrey Wright was an interesting choice as Felix Leiter, which took a little getting used to: a six-foot tall Texan, with blond hair and a hawk-like nose, becomes a balding African-American... Thank-the-Lord Mr. Wright is an excellent actor! Giancarlo Giannini, as Mathis, was simply perfectly! Eva Green, as Vesper Lynd, divine! AND THEY FINALLY GOT THE GODDAMN MARTINI RIGHT!!! YES!!! I nearly cried when he ordered it! If you're wondering, it is named after Vesper in the novel, just as in the film! After 51 years of dumbing down James Bond into some kind of superhero, he is finally presented, warts and all! In some ways, I think Daniel Craig looks more like the description than the figure in the sketch! But, I'm being too generous!

The object of this blog was to demonstrate what the James Bond film franchise started with (Fleming's writings) and what they did with it. Along the way, they chose actors who did and did not look like the character; actors who did or did not play the character as written; and finally found someone who lock-stock-and-barrel did everything right! I would have hated to be a Bond fan in the 60's, because I may not have lived to see Daniel Craig and his PERFECT performance, in a PERFECT Bond film. It was definitely worth the wait!

This blog will no doubt raise a little controversy for whoever reads it. However, I still maintain that the Bond films were adaptations of books. The films must be judged by how well they translate those works into films. As for the films that bear no relation to any of Ian Fleming's work, they must be judged on whether or not they are in Fleming's spirit, ie could you imagine Fleming writing the novel? Oh, by the way, "Goldeneye" is not a weapons satellite. It is the name of Ian Fleming's house, in Jamaica, where he wrote the first drafts of each novel! Just thought I'd clear that one up! Thank you for reading, and don't forget: "Three measures of Gordon's, one measure of vodka, half a measure of Kina (White) Lillet. Shake it very well until it's ice cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon-peel. Got it?"-Casino Royale

Movies worth your time- Entry 2

Sunrise(1927) Dircted by F. W. Murnau Starring Janet Gaynor and George O'Brien b/w Silent

This is a love story.

For those of you unfamiliar with the movie idols of the 1920's, the cast sounds like a bunch of nobodies: Janet Gaynor, George O'Brien and Margaret Livingston. The names of the characters fail to evoke great romance novel names: "The Man", "The Wife" and "The Woman from the City". The director is more known today by a portrayal in a movie than for his life or career: F.W. Murnau, played by John Malkovitch in "Shadow of the Vampire". These facts are irrelevant.

Today, F.W. Murnau is primarily known by film scholars for directing five films: Nosferatu, The Last Laugh, Faust, Sunrise and Tabu. Directing during film's early days, he is not particularly known for innovative film techniques. Cross-cutting or the close-up or frantic chase scenes: D. W. Griffith invented them all. In my not-so-humble opinion, he perfected every technique for telling a cinematic story. In The Last Laugh, he placed a camera on a bicycle, eclipsing Griffith and creating one of the greatest tracking shots in film history. In Nosferatu, he used chiaroscuro (aka filming light and dark in contrast to each other, central to Hitchcock's black and white films and any detective thriller worth its salt) creating more menace  than The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari ever managed. All of these attempts to perfect cinematic storytelling reached their climax in what, despite its unassuming ingredients, must go down as the greatest love story on film.

Forget The Way They Were or The Notebook or The Bridges of Madison County: this one tops them all. The simple story of a farmer's seduction at the hands of a bored city girl, convincing him that the key to their happiness is to murder his wife and run away, fails to describe how moving, thrilling and astonishing this film executes its mission of entertainment. I'd better stop, before I get too sappy. Its universality and simplicity means wherever you come from or whatever your life experience, this film will become one of your favorites. If not, you need to check your pulse!

Availability on Netflix: Mail (Note: Faust, Nosferatu and The Last Laugh are all on Instant)

Library Availability: Highly probable

Green Street Hooligans(2005) Directed by Lexi Alexander Starring Elijah Wood and Charlie Hunnam color, British English

This is a hate story.

Matt Buckner takes the fall for his Harvard classmates and is expelled from school. He travels to England, to lick his wounds and decide where he wants to steer his life next. He stays with his sister Shannon and her husband Steve, who live in London. Steve wastes little time introducing Matt to his friends. While slamming back a few pints of lager, and making fun of Matt's accent and mannerisms, the subject of West Ham comes up. What is West Ham? A salty, smoky luncheon meat? No. It is a Premier League football club. "Oh you mean soccer," Matt chirps cheerfully. "We mean football!" Matt is taken to a match, but Steve seems less interested in the teams than in rival fans. He and his mates meet the opposing team's fans, or GSE, and a huge brawl breaks out. Matt throws a punch for the first time, gets bloodied and earns the respect, if not the admiration, of the West Ham GSE.

This is a story about hooliganism; the US media's favorite subject, when they want to feel superior to soccer. Despite the fact that United States sports are virtually invisible outside our continent, fan violence, as a sign of the corruption of the sport, gets majority airtime. Amazingly, this point is brought up by Pete, Steve's brother: "F***in' "journos." Look at this. West Ham wins three-nill in a blinding performance and our little scrap makes the headline. Bloody muckrakers." That statement came from a Brit, in his own country, where Football(soccer) is king!

My point in bringing this up is that fan violence is a problem everywhere: whether it's the Heysel Stadium disaster or Bryan Stow or Joel Henry Hinrichs III, the problem affects all sports. However, Football's(soccer's) problems have a unique twist. From my observations, American sports fans are similar to Romans, who support gladiators. The stadium or arena is their colliseum, where they go to see combat. In Europe, and most of the rest of the world, it isn't supporting the players/fighters that is important: it's the ground where the combat takes place.

Most of the rest of the world understands what it means to be invaded: for nearly 200 years, the United States has been invasion free. The last attempt to invade the United Kingdom happened in the 1980's. The Falkland Islands have been a territory of the UK since 1833. Even though it is half-a world away from Europe, they still fought a war, against Argentina, over this handful of land. Invasion is a key component to the psyche of most people around the world, in my opinion. The playing area in a stadium or arena symbolizes your country, neighborhood, home. Even if you are poor, you can buy a ticket for a few pounds and go see your local team defend the symbolic ground of your home. Think of the Kurosawa film Seven Samurai: a small village hires a group of wandering warriors to protect their village from invasion. When West Ham steps out on to the field, they are defending a symbolic version of the East End of London. Their opponents are invaders, who must be pushed back in defeat.

Green Street Hooligans is the story of what happens when you believe in nothing else except protecting your turf; and if your hired warriors can't do it, you and your friends will finish the job. This is by far the best protrayal of the joy and tragedy of hooligan culture I have ever seen.

Availability on Netflix: Mail, not available on Instant (6/3/11)

Library Availability: Highly probable

Movies worth your time- Entry 1

Depression: this is the best word to describe how I feel when I see an advert for an upcoming movie. My friends have suggested to me that these dark feelings probably stem from snobbery and an inability to have fun. And while they could be right, we live in a logical, if irrational, universe, so they're wrong. Just because I have a highly cultivated, built-in "bullshit detector" does not mean fun is foreign to me."Tron: Legacy", for example set off alarm bells. Ten seconds after the commercial ended, the thought that paying $10 a ticket to see that "film" seemed like a bad idea. Because of this warning, I did not need to later justify to myself why seeing a film with badly written characters, in a badly written story, pumped up with fake-looking effects (yes, I said fake), was a wise weekly expenditure. None of my friends, or any like-minded critic I keep up with, spoke highly of Jeff Bridges' return to cyberspace. I am sick and tired of crappy films. We live in an era of them, where getting you to fork over the price of admission is more important than entertaining you, the audience. I spent four years in film school watching and studying the films which taught Spielberg, George Lucas and Roland Emmerich how to make films. Those films were no more or less entertaining because they were made before I was born or without me in mind.

I have a very large collection of films and an overstocked Netflix account. My entertainment options are quite vast and I am never at a loose-end when, on Friday night, my wife and I want to be entertained and want to avoid the disappointment, of another $20 down the drain, at the local multiplex. This is a new column, which will appear in this blog-space when I feel like it, featuring movies I believe are worth your time. You may love them or hate them, but I guarantee you won't feel indifferently about them.

My wife often jokes that before I met her I knew nothing about films made prior to 1970; and all she knew were movies made after 1970. This is not true, all ribbing aside. I possess a very thorough knowledge of classic Hollywood cinema. I am also a very big fan of European and Asian films made up to the 1980's. However, I went to the movies regularly while growing up, and through college. I saw "Pulp Fiction" at an advanced preview and "Men In Black" an embarrassing number of times. For those chrono-phobes out there who believe anything in black and white is worthless or starring anyone but Robert Pattinson a complete waste of time, I will pick two films per entry; one film made before 1972 and one after 1972, the year of my birth. In my senior yearbook, from Boulder High School, many of my classmates wrote predictions that one day I would become a film critic. Well, here I go!

Rififi (1955) Directed by Jules Dassin Starring Jean Servais b/w in French

Did you like the "Italian Job", with Mark Wahlberg or the "Ocean's" films with George Clooney, Brad Pitt etc? Or how about "The Pink Panther" films? This is the movie that started it all. Four men plan a perfect robbery, taking every contingency into account that could foil them. Instead of black cats tripping alarms or a fly landing on someone's nose, causing them to sneeze or any other cliched movie device to cause the thieves downfall, the character's personalities begin to emerge. By being themselves, they cause everything to go wrong. What begins as a super-slick, quintessentially cool-French flick begins to resemble a Shakespearean tragedy, by the end. Stunningly acted and directed, this films is as thrilling as an of the modern incarnations it spawned. My favorite moment in the film? The heist, which takes place in almost total silence, jangling the audience's nerves to breaking point.

Availability on Netflix: Mail, not on Instant

Library Availability: Highly probable

About subtitles: If subtitles upset you, then I advise you to get over yourself; or become fluent in the language of the film's origin. In a multi-tasking society, I am vigorously impatient with anyone who believes they cannot possibly watch a movie and read at the same time. In my educated opinion, of the two greatest movies ever made, one is in English, the other French. Great cinema transcends the language it is made in. It's a visual medium! Get it? I'm glad you do!

Impromptu(1991) Directed by James Lapine Starring Hugh Grant, Judy Davis, Julian Sands and Emma Thompson

My father's taste in film is fairly limited: raucous comedies, the occasional sci-fi and a few thrillers. In 1993, he came up trumps, when he advised me to watch Masterpiece Theater. The weekend in question featured a film called "Impromptu" starring Hugh Grant. "Four Weddings and a Funeral" would not break box office records for another year. The public television institution was fortunate to take advantage of this future global celebrity by having him introduce this film, which had slipped under the radar two years earlier. I will attempt to retrieve some of his opening speech, from the dusty corners of my memory. 

"The film concerns among others the composer Franz Liszt, the brooding and brutal painter Eugene Delacroix, the poet Alfred de Musset and above all the Duchess Aurore Dupin, better known as George Sand. George is everything a 19th century lady SHOULDN'T be. She writes saucy romantic novels, she dresses as a man and she takes up men and discards them with the same ease, and almost the same frequency, with which she takes up and discards her cigars" "Sand and her companions make later artist sets, Andy Warhol's for example, look about as daring and avant garde as a Von Trapp family picnic" "No one expects [George Sand] to find her true passion in a man who is the very antithesis of everything she stands for. Frederic Chopin is modest, retiring, impeccably well-mannered and totally appalled by the bohemian artistic set of which she is the center. But, an artist he most certainly is. Paris's most celebrated composer in fact, and it is the sheer untrammeled sublimity of his music that draws her so relentlessly to him. Impromptu".

Cough! Cough! Cobwebs! Dust! Ack!

Anyway, when Hugh Grant has a great script to work with, he is more than a trembling pretty boy: the man can act! In fact, everyone is producing their best work here; and while it is not the most visually imaginative film I have ever seen, the story more than makes up for it. Each actor clearly researched their roles and performs them to the hilt. Not until "Immortal Beloved" in 1996 would we see as great a portrayal of a great composer as Hugh Grant's Chopin. It is not the best film of the 1990's, but it is my favorite; the film I think about without trying, and the DVD I will throw into the machine when I want to see an enjoyable period piece.

Availability on Netflix: Instant View (So what are you waiting for?!)

Library Availability: Possible, if your local library has a well-stocked AV department

A Love Letter to Japan. Please Give to the Red Cross.

A Love Letter to Japan:

Dear Japan:

I heard last night about the earthquake that has hit your shores. I heard about the hundreds of people who have died. I have heard about the devastation. I cannot imagine the pain and suffering your people have been through. I have never endured an earthquake, tsunami, typhoon(hurricane) or tornado. I do not know what it feels like to lose your home, your loved ones or your peace of mind, from such a disaster. I have been chased in a car by a tornado, as a child, but it never caught me. Something much worse caught you and all I can think to do is tell you what you have meant to me.

When I was eight, my father enrolled me in a judo class. Some bigger kids at school were picking on me. Scrawny and weak, my father wanted to make sure I could protect myself, if I fell, or maybe even flip somebody, if it came to that. I attended classes for a few weeks, until my father decided I needed to learn attacking skills. He then enrolled me in Tae-Kwon Do. This Korean discipline may have dominated my life for several years, but judo was my first. You never forget your first.

I learned to drive in a Toyota Corolla, at roughly the same time. My father's girlfriend, Heather Wicke, bought a two-door red model. My father wanted to trade in his old Plymouth Duster for one of the same, but had never learned to drive a stick-shift. Ms. Wicke drove around and explained to me when to change gear. She accelerated, pressed in the clutch and told me to move the gear stick. I became proficient at this. My father took turns driving Ms. Wicke's car, with me in the passenger seat. Nervous, I made him press in the clutch, while I changed gear. Once my father became used to the clutch, he then took over the complete operation of the car. He would accelerate and I would say, "now!" and he would change gear. He bought his own Toyota and I continued tutoring him in gear changes. One day he told me to stop and he drove on his own. Years later, my father enrolled me in defensive driving classes. He then sat in the passenger seat and watched me drive the same Toyota I had taught him to drive. I passed my driving test the first time. When I graduated from high school, my father gave me that Toyota as a graduation present. It served me well, until a few years later, when the axle broke. A tow truck hauled it away. You never forget your first.

First came Voltron, then Transformers and finally Robotech. Without Robotech, my childhood definitions of heroism and adventure would be incomplete; the first show with cool robots, laser guns and aliens, while simultaneously showing realistic human relationships. Rick Hunter became one of my greatest heroes. I cried when Roy Fokker and Ben Dixon died. I felt shock when the Zentraedi nearly destroyed the Earth. I cheered when Rick Hunter chose Lisa Hayes over Minmay. Nothing in my childhood, not even the triple threat of Star Wars, Star Trek and James Bond, could match the power of this series; bastardized as it was by Carl Macek, it still remains the epic story* of my childhood. I even still quote a line from it, as the founding principal I base on all my relationships: Rick Hunter, quoting his recently deceased brother Roy Fokker, once said, "Before you love someone, you have to like them." For a 13 year old boy to effectively hear "affection means more than lust or desire" shook my perceptions of reality and shaped who I am today.

Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, Laputa: Castle In the Sky, My Neighbor Totoro, The Castle of Cagliostro, Spirited Away, Ponyo: what would the world be without Hayao Miyazaki? It would be a very dull and boring place. Just as Akira Kurosawa had managed decades earlier, he placed his imagination on the silver screen and our lives are much richer for it. Rashomon remains my favorite foreign film of all time. Without Seven Samurai, the American Western may never have grown up; what price Clint Eastwood, without Yojimbo? But perhaps of all his films, Ikiru may be the most devastating, the most emotionally rich and rewarding. The story of a dying man deciding what his legacy should be after he dies, is as astonishing and beautiful as when it first amazed audiences over fifty years ago. The world of cinema feels anemic, without Takashi Shimura's overwhelming performance. On the other side of the spectrum, a world without Tokyo Story is not even worth contemplating. One of the greatest examinations of "the gender gap", and the abandonment of the elderly, Ozu's masterpiece shows the uncomfortable reality of daily, little tragedies: Thoughtless words and actions, which lead to isolation and loneliness. Thank you for them all.

On the day I turned 21, I worked a split-shift at Boulder's Dinner Theatre. This meant that I helped clean the dining room, after the first show, and helped set-up for the evening's performance. I would return by 7:45pm to run a spotlight and go home. Not expecting to leave earlier than 5:30, I unexpectedly received the order to leave as soon as I had finished cleaning up from the matinee. This meant leaving nearly an hour early. I suppose my manager felt guilty that I had to work a nine hour split shift on my birthday.  I sat for a few minutes, wondering what to with my time, my coworkers walking by, wishing me a happy birthday. I then decided I would treat myself. I usually ate my meals at the Dinner Theatre. They were free and I had very little spending money. With a hole burning in my pocket from my Dad's birthday cash, I decided to confront an old fear.

Years earlier, my father took me and his current girlfriend to Sushi Zanmai, adjacent to the Pearl Street Mall, in Boulder Colorado. For a 15 year old, I had adventurous tastes: but I drew the line at raw fish. My father made me try a piece of COOKED sushi. I finished it, and spent the next two days sick in bed. On my 21st birthday, I took the local bus to 28th street and Arapahoe and wandered around, trying to think of what I wanted as my first drink. I finally noticed a neon Budweiser sign and made a bee-line. Yes, I still needed to work for a few more hours. Yes, my boss would fire me if she found out I had been drinking just before a shift. No, I did not care. I stood in the parking lot, the sign bathed in a gentle red, when I saw the sign next to the beer logo: Sumida's: Fine Japanese Food. Oh crap! Here we go again! Well, wait, I told myself. Maybe things would be different. On nothing more than a whim, I entered. Frightened, I told the server what happened the last time I tried sushi. The server then gently explained every aspect of the menu and recommended a good selection for "my first time". I started with miso soup, something I had never tried. I liked it. I then ordered an appetizer of fried soft-shell crab. I really liked that! Then, with a slight tremor in my voice, I asked for sake. The server asked me for my ID. I pulled it from my wallet and waited. She nodded and handed me back the card. A few minutes later, I received a California Roll and an Eel Roll, along with a warm flask of my drink. Sweet, sour, salty, savory: for the first time, I had experienced them all in a meal. I loved it. I finished, paid, and jumped back on the bus to return to work. After the show, my coworkers made me a "Flaming Dr. Pepper". I slammed it back, and then they took me to me first bar; a little Irish joint destroyed by fire a few years later. That night, we toasted my coming-of-age, as I tossed back martinis. We then ascended Boulder Canyon, where we stared at the night sky and romped around like idiots on the hillside. I will never forgot that night and my first drink as an adult, which only I knew about.

You have fed my stomach, my mind and my heart.

You will heal, Japan. You will rebuild. You will be stronger, for enduring this catastrophe. For now the pain and loss are too immediate and raw. Those of us who love you, hope for the best and wish you a speedy recovery.

Love,

Christian Chapra

Please give to the Red Cross.

*'Epic Story': I use the definition given to me by Professor Bruce Kawin, from The University of Colorado at Boulder. "An 'epic' is the story of the founding of a tribe."

"You don't know what you're doing! You don't know what you're doing!"

This chant, frequently heard at English Football(Soccer) matches, speaks to a dissatisfaction fans have with how their beloved sport is protected and regulated. The person this chant is always directed at is the referee. First, I need to explain how football(soccer) officiating is different from other sports.

Football(soccer) officials use no instant replay technology. Basketball, and Football(American) have referees who work together, when necessary, to arrive at decisions. There is a head referee in each case, but if a particular foul is difficult to interpret, they confer with each other and make the best judgement, with the available facts. In baseball, each umpire is responsible for a section of the field of play. These systems accurately illustrate the different systems in play, in American sports.

In Football(soccer), there are four match officials: one referee, two linesmen and one fourth official. The fourth official's responsibilities include assuring substitute players are legally dressed, wearing authorized apparel. This official also announces how much stoppage time will be added at the end of each half. Stoppage time takes into account any significant stoppages in play, because the official game clock never stops. A goal scored or a substitution usually accounts for 60 seconds of game time. An injury depends on the seriousness and treatment required. I have seen injuries dealt with in sixty seconds and players stretchered off with oxygen after five minutes or more. The referee makes an estimate of how much extra time must be added, to ensure 45 minutes of action has elapsed. The linesmen are responsible for the offside rule. To ensure that an attacking player does not gain an unfair advantage, the linesman ensures that at least two defending players are between an attacker and their route to goal, when the ball is passed or headed to the attacker by a teammate. The referee is responsible for punishing violent conduct and unsportsmanlike behavior. They also decide who has possession of the ball, if it is out of play, and a linesman has not seen who correctly has possession.

Every football(soccer) fan complains about referees. If your memory extends deep into the last century, you might suggest that complaining about referees is an integral part of the sport. Without the referee to complain about, all our passion would encompass the players. This is patently absurd, because we already passionately love our teams. In my opinion, the general attitude towards referees is Victorian at best, medieval at worst.

It is truth universally acknowledged that referees get decisions wrong. When a referee makes a mistake, the fan or manager or teammate must console themselves by divine intervention. At some point, the referee will get a decision wrong for the opposition and things will balance themselves out. You are not hallucinating and I am not drunk: that is an accurate description of referees and how you are supposed to regard them.

Does this mean if a referee makes a wrong call that the reciprocal call will benefit your team equally, to the call which damaged you? That implies that if a referee called a penalty kick, gifting the opposition a goal, that the next time you attacked the opposition, the referee would give you a penalty kick, in return for their earlier error. As every real fan knows, this never happens: NEVER EVER EVER EVER! The game is over and you lost because of the referees decision: what then? You are supposed to further console yourself that at some point in the season, you will win a game because of a referees decision; a game your team did not deserve to win, any more than your team deserved to lose the earlier one.

Why do referees make mistakes? I can assure you that 'diving' and general cheating is the result of bad refereeing, not the dishonesty of the players. For example, a player is kicked hard in the knee. The player hobbles off the field and imploringly looks at the referee, who shrugs his shoulders and waves for play to continue. There is no situation in the official rules that sanctions kicking a player in the knee. However, if the referee did not see it, they cannot take a player's word that a physical foul has been committed. If the ref didn't see it, it didn't happen. The player is still left with a throbbing knee and a sense of injustice. The physio determines if the player is fit to continue and, if they are, sends them back onto the field.

How does this player respond? Does the player approach their opponent, who committed the unseen foul, and foul them in kind, hoping the referee will turn a blind eye? The rush of blood to a player's head usually makes subtle acts of violence, such as this, nearly impossible. The player can always claim, "well ref, you missed the tackle on me. What was I supposed to do? Just sit and take it?" After a yellow card caution is issued (which comes with a mandatory $1,500 fine, in England), does a referee make any form of restitution? No. If the ref didn't see, it didn't happen.

To put it succinctly, most sport's referees are judges; Football(Soccer) referees are high priests. They are never to be questioned or disobeyed. They have nothing in their possession to help them except their senses and a knowledge of the rules. They must enter the field of play with a sense of infallibility. No rational person believes that they are incapable of making a mistake, yet football(soccer) referees behave with a piousness and all-knowing attitude that borders on the psychotic. In the 14+ years I have been a football(soccer) fan, only one referee ever showed the level of competence that warranted this other-worldly superiority: Pier Luigi Collina, from Italy. From 1991-2005, Collina refereed at the highest levels of Italian football(soccer).  From 1995 to the end of his career, he entered FIFA's ranks and eventually rose to the lofty heights of being assigned to the 1999 Champions League Final and the 2002 World Cup Final. He attempted to explain his magnificent gifts to Skysports, a UK news channel and to several newspapers, His efforts were all in vain: to own such superb gifts is to perhaps not fully understand them yourself. Suffice it to say, the two biggest games he refereed perfectly illustrate his prowess with a whistle. If you have not seen either of these games, they are perfect examples of good refereeing, regardless of the excitement between the two teams playing. Catch them if you can.

Contrast these shining example with the farce that took place this past Tuesday, March 1, 2011, and the differences between the sublime and the ridiculous become glaringly apparent. Chelsea Football Club hosted visitors Manchester United in a clash billed as a potential title decider. With a game of such importance, you would think the powers that be (the FA, which sometimes seems to stand for "F*** All", but in fact stands for Football Association), would assign the very best referee, at their disposal, to ensure the two teams, who desperately want to be crowned champions of England in 10 weeks time play as sportingly and legally as possible. Unfortunately, Howard Webb was not available; the recent veteran of the Champions League Final and the World Cup Final, in the same year; a privilege even Collina was never given. Instead Martin Atkinson took charge. An average referee (i.e., prone to mistakes), he had never been controversial enough to warrant much attention, in the newspapers, until now.

Graham Poll was England's top referee for several years. He controversially lost his status as an international referee after issuing three yellow cards to one player in one game. Two yellow cards are required for a red card and ejection from the game. Now he writes a column for the UK newspaper The Daily Mail, giving the referee's perspective on hotly debated football(soccer) matches. Recently involved at the highest levels of the sport, his insights are occasionally illuminating, despite frequently aligning himself with the referees, despite managers, players or common sense objections (the instant replays the TV audiences get to see, but the officials do not). What he wrote about this game, and in particular the referee, bears repeating:

"Referees are remembered for their big decisions in big games. Unfortunately Martin Atkinson got some wrong last night and they cost Manchester United.Atkinson failed to deliver consistency in similar incidents, the basic requirement for match officials.

In the first half, Manchester United were denied a penalty when John Terry handled a shot from distance. Although his hands were by his side, the ball travelled a long way and Terry ensured that the ball did not pass — a clear offence. Nothing was given.

However, when Yury Zhirkov took the opportunity to go over Chris Smalling’s outstretched leg, Atkinson had no hesitation in awarding the home team a spot kick. It was soft, but just about the correct call. An even clearer example came when David Luiz deliberately tripped Wayne Rooney off the ball — a clear cautionable offence.

As he had already been cautioned, Luiz should have been dismissed. Nemanja Vidic was not afforded such tolerance later in the game.

Last Saturday, Manchester United coach Mike Phelan asserted that ‘you can’t dispute a referee’s decision’. After this display by Atkinson, Sir Alex Ferguson is unlikely to agree."

-2 March 2011

To understand the implications of this article, it is important to understand that Graham Poll criticized Sir Alex Ferguson, while working as a referee, for how he tried to bully and intimidate the officials and the media. Here, as you can see, he is agreeing with Manchester United's boss, as to the negative influence Referee Atkinson had upon the match. Manchester United lost 2-1; a game that would have ended 1-1, with most competent referees. Now, Manchester United have been handed a defeat, allowing their closest rivals a chance to catch them in the points race for the Premier League title. If they do not win the title this year, this game and its psychological effect on the team will be sighted as a major contributor. The Red Devils need to shake off the sense of injustice they must feel, and try to win their next game; away from home against their arch-rivals Liverpool.

Manchester United's grievance is the entire sport's grievance. Teams are relegated from leagues (kicked out of their respective leagues for finishing as one of the bottom three teams), careers are altered, titles are lost, because the powers-that-be-FIFA cannot humbly admit that their policy towards referees (which every country in the world that plays football(soccer) (which means pretty much everybody) are required to follow) is archaic and adds nothing to the sport.

The referee does not need to take advice from any of their assistants. The referee does not need to listen to players and can punish them, or coaches, for "perceived" foul play. And, possibly worst of all, no player can run as fast as the ball can travel. Coaches and players know this; and yet, referees sometimes must make crucial decisions, regarding actions forty or fifty yards away.

It is time the sport grew up. Too much money, too many careers and too much anguish is at stake. I want to see athleticism, teamwork and creativity. If I want controversy, I'll get into politics...which will never happen.

Note: On the use of the term "football(soccer)": I refuse to out and out call this sport "soccer", as the name is an outdated term from the 19th century, used by only a few countries. Remember the power of the majority? I am  forbidden from calling it "football", because of the majority of the United States public. To paraphrase the Alabama-born comedian Vic Henley: "The rest of the world calls it "football". (Pointing downwards) That's a foot. That's a ball. Apparently this is too complicated for the rest of us."

The World of Leonard Maltin part 1: What if he picked the Oscar for Best Picture?

Leonard Maltin is one of the most respected film critics in the United States. His Movie Guide, released every August, has been a regular fixture for movie fans for over 20 years. I have owned a copy of his movie guide since the early 1990's. His reviews led me to watch the films of Fellini, Hitchcock, Bergman, Ray (Both Nicholas and Satyajit), Renoir and many more. This does not imply slavish devotion. I disagree with him, in particular, about many films made after 1970. However, our opinions are in perfect harmony regarding roughly 98% of films pre-dating the 1970's. I must clarify, however, that my disagreements are usually about him not giving certain films the praise and accolades they deserve. We are going to conduct an experiment, with Leonard Maltin at the heart of the matter.

The Academy Awards will be telecast this Sunday. The 83rd edition of this venerable old film award has not been without its controversies and politics. Awards are sometimes given for political or personal reasons. As I discussed in my second blog, there is a difference between personally liking something and trying to give an intellectual assessment of quality, justified by scholarly knowledge.

Assuming Leonard Maltin's expertise as a film critic, with over 20,000 entries in his latest guide, I posit the following question: What if Leonard Maltin picked the Academy Award winners? 42 of the 82 current Best Picture winners did not receive a **** rating, Maltin's highest. If this respected film critic decided which film won Best Picture, certainly the automatic pre-requisite for consideration would be a **** review. If he had ten films to choose from and only five of them had **** reviews, he wouldn't pick a ***1/2 or *** film as the Best Picture. Those ratings are given as not only a mark of opinion but also of quality.

Therefore, if a Best Picture Oscar was given to a film without a **** rating, I am changing it to a film with said rating. Of the 40 **** Best Picture Winners, I am invoking a power of veto over five of them which, despite receiving **** ratings, I believe needed to be awarded to other films. Plus I am also invoking a special VETO for the year 1994. For uncontested films, there are brief notes following each one. I will note if enough **** nominees existed for each year for the Academy's nominees. I will then briefly speculate as to how the course of film history could have changed because of my (or Leonard Maltin's) alterations. This blog therefore falls into that category of "If you could change history, would you?" Speaking of history, I am changing the weird way the Academy's first years were numbered, i.e. the first awards are referred to as 1927/1928; the second, 1928/1929, etc. No politics. No "compensation awards" (example: giving Henry Fonda a Best Actor Oscar 40 years after he genuinely deserved it!). No favoritism. Just a great film critic and my tweaking. Let's see how the history of film would look.

1927: Wings **1/2(Official Winner)/ Sunrise****(Altered Winner (given "Outstanding Artistic Achievement, whatever the hell that means!))

Nominations: 3/ Available **** films: 6

Hollywood Changed?: Instead of a puffed up special effects film winning the top prize, a sublimely powerful masterpiece would have convinced studio heads to not always defer to empty spectacle. Artistic, emotional, dramatic films, become the norm. And we don't have to deal with the lunacy of "The Greatest Show On Earth" winning in 1952!

1928: NA (Remember, 1927/1928)/ The Crowd****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: NA/ Available **** films: 7

Hollywood Changed?: King Vidor's masterpiece catapults him from obscurity into Frank Capra-esque or Alfred Hitchcock-esque fame. A great director, he struggled to make a film of this quality ever again.

1929: Broadway Melody**1/2 (Official Winner)/ VOID(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 0

Hollywood Changed?: Chalk this year up to the transition to sound. Some very good films were released, the year the stock market crashed. Perhaps the lack of a **** film reflected the panic about to grip the world. As a default, but not an official endorsement, I'd pick Alfred Hitchcock's "Blackmail" as the Best Picture of the year.

1930: All Quiet On the Western Front****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 3

Note: Devastating, beautiful, timeless!

1931: Cimarron **1/2(Official Winner)/ City Lights****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 4

Hollywood Changed?: "Rocky" received the Best Picture gong because of the struggle to bring that particular boxer's tale to the big screen. Chaplin had "director's block" for over a year. When it broke, he completed this irresistible comic masterpiece. C'mon show the love!

1932: Grand Hotel****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 8/ Available **** films: 4

Note: Rockin' movie! Turned into an awesome musical!

1933: Cavalcade****(Official Winner)/ Queen Christina****(VETO!)

Nominations: 10/ Available **** films: 12

Hollywood Changed?: "Duck Soup" would have been a great winner, but the loss of Greta Garbo in 1941, to premature retirement, may have been partially due to never winning a Best Actress Oscar. "Queen Christina's" triumph would have led to Garbo's; and the Hays Code would have been on a less secure footing. 1933 was the height of the Pre-Code era in Hollywood and the Best Picture winner should have reflected that!

1934: It Happened One Night****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 12/ Available **** films: 7

Note: Quality choice! No complaints...I do love "The Thin Man", however...

1935: Mutiny On the Bounty****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 12/ Available **** films: 11

Note: A bit weird, as it won nothing else! Still a good movie!

1936: The Great Ziegfeld***1/2(Official Winner)/ Mr. Deeds Goes to Town****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 10/ Available **** films: 8

Hollywood Changed?: This is a REALLY tough choice. Flawless comedy "Libeled Lady" or peerless adult dramas "Dodsworth" or "These Three"? And then, there's "Modern Times". Add four more powerhouse films and you have probably the most difficult choice in this experiment. I had to go with "Mr. Deeds" because it is not a comedy or a tragedy: it transcends both. Now that's what I call a Best Picture!

1937: The Life of Emile Zola****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 10/ Available **** films: 12

Note: "Lost Horizon" may be exotic, but this is as solid a bio-pic as you'll ever see!

1938: You Can't Take It With You***1/2(Official Winner)/ Bringing Up Baby****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 10/ Available **** films: 5

Hollywood Changed?: I know it bombed on first release! I know it needed repeated showings on TV to become popular! And I know Oscar is afraid of looking to the future! "Bringing Up Baby" may possibly be the most brilliant, multi-layered, sophisticated comedy in film history. And how did the Hays' Office miss, "Then why are you wearing these clothes?" "Because I just went GAY all of a sudden!" Priceless!

1939: Gone With the Wind****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 10/ Available **** films: 11

Note: In a great year, this over-the-top movie became its poster-child.

1940: Rebecca****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 10/ Available **** films: 11

Note: Yes, "The Grapes of Wrath" and "The Philadelphia Story" are better. But it's Hitchcock! He never got a Best Director award! Bite me!

1941: How Green Was My Valley****(Official Winner)/ Citizen Kane****(VETO!)

Nominations: 10/ Available **** films: 6

Note: If you need to ask why this VETO needs to be made, you are not a film fan! The only truly bad potential consequence of Orson Welles' triumph would have been the inevitable retreat by William Randolph Hearst, as he continued to slander the film, and Hollywood. So distracted, he might not have later become the one major US news magnate who covered the holocaust in Europe, as it happened. To his credit, he played it up, while other papers played it down. Who knows what would have happened to this coverage or Hearst's insistence on creating a homeland for displaced Jews after the war had ended. Anyway, on a positive note, it would have shut that bitch Louella Parsons up!

1942: Mrs. Miniver***1/2(Official Winner)/ In Which We Serve****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 10/ Available **** films: 7

Hollywood Changed?: 1942 & 1943 are the two goofiest years in Oscar history. The only reason "Mrs. Miniver" did not compete with "Casablanca" is that the latter did not open in both New York City and L.A. by December 31st of the competing year. If it did, "Casablanca" would have won, and "Mrs. Miniver" would not have gathered as much public sympathy, precipitating America's involvement in WWII. Therefore, I picked a **** film about the British Armed Forces, capable of drawing on an audience's sympathy. It's also a bloody good film!

1943: Casablanca****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 10/ Available **** films: 4

Note: A classic...even if Ilsa loses her convictions towards the end. Tragic romance or the screenwriters terrified what the audience would have said if she shot Bogey? You decide. "You'll have to think for both of us". Seemed perfectly capable of thinking for herself!

1944: Going My Way****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 6

Note: This is a mixed blessing. The acting awards were well deserved, but this movie helped bring an end to the "big band" era. A successful musical without a big band orchestra; just Bing and a piano.

1945: The Lost Weekend****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 12

Note: Rarely equaled, never surpassed!

1946: The Best Years of Our Lives****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 13

Note: Everything a best picture winner should be and more!

1947: Gentlemen's Agreement***(Official Winner)/ Bicycle Thieves****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 6

Hollywood Changed?: A watery, unconvincing indictment of anti-semitism in American society? Or, a film made in a war-ravaged fascist hellhole, trying to put itself back together? Oscar had the opportunity to give a golden seal of approval to re-emerging Italy. They blew it and Italy's film industry would spend the next thirty years making films that smoked almost everything coming out of Hollywood.

1948: Hamlet****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 9

Note: Rewind to senior year high school english: "To be or not to be". Ohhh! I understand now! Thanks Olivier!

1949: All the King's Men****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 9

Note: Broderick Crawford! Broderick Crawford! Broderick Crawford!

1950: All About Eve****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 5

Note: Whether it is Hollywood raked over the coals ("Sunset Boulevard") or Broadway raked over the coals ("All About Eve"), who cares! They're both great! "Fasten your seat-belts! It's gonna be a bumpy night!" "Sunset Boulevard" winning the toprize would have been undeniably interesting!

1951: An American In Paris***1/2(Official Winner)/ A Streetcar Named Desire****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 7

Hollywood Changed?: Marlon Brando completes the acting sweep for the first and only time in Oscar history. As great as the final ballet in "An American In Paris" is, losing the Best Picture award in this year would clear the way for the following year.

1952: The Greatest Show On Earth***1/2(Official Winner)/ Singin' In the Rain****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 6

Hollywood Changed?: The greatest movie musical of all time! No contest! Period! End of Sentence! Move on! Next year please!

1953: From Here to Eternity****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 9

Note: Montgomery Clift, Burt Lancaster, Deborah Kerr and Frank Sinatra...holy crap!

1954: On the Waterfront****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 9

Note: Even though "Rear Window" came out the same year, marvelous choice! "Yo Terry!"

1955: Marty***1/2(Official Winner)/ Rebel Without A Cause****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 8

Hollywood Changed?: "Marty" was ultimately a good choice except for one minor fact. James Dean starred in 2 of the 8 **** films this year. To send a definitive statement to all "the squares", "Rebel" winning would have sent a clear message as to what young people were really upset about: feeling alienated from their parents and the American dream. Sound familiar?

1956: Around the World In 80 Days**1/2(Official Winner)/ The Searchers****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 7

Hollywood Changed?: This year enters the category of "WHAT THE F*** WERE YOU THINKING?" The greatest western ever, with the first sympathetic portrayal of Native Americans, but it has an unsympathetic hero. Therefore, we ignore it! One, two, three: BOOT TO THE HEAD!

1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 10

Note: I REALLY WANT TO USE A VETO! I REALLY WANT TO! But I won't. Rock on Sir Alec!

1958: Gigi****(Official Winner)/ Vertigo****(VETO!)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 7

Hollywood Changed?: "Vertigo" was like an intellectual bullet-train, before bullet-trains existed. With a Best Picture award, people would have gone back to  the theater, re-watched this film and might have reached the same conclusion I reached over 20 years ago: "Vertigo" is the greatest film ever made; and, at the rate we are going, ever will be made.

1959: Ben-Hur***1/2(Official Winner)/ Some Like It Hot****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 7

Hollywood Changed?: I will defer to the AFI on this one. In order for this to work, WE MUST ACCEPT CROSS-DRESSING INTO OUR HEARTS; that, and Marilyn Monroe.

1960: The Apartment****(Official Winner)/ Psycho****(VETO!)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 7

Hollywood Changed?: "Psycho" revolutionized how we attended the movies. It revolutionized what expect from movies. It revolutionized how movies were made. Funny: the same thing was said about James Cameron, just before they gave him Best Picture for "Titanic".

1961: West Side Story****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 8

Note: Only in Amer-I-ca!

1962: Lawrence of Arabia****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 8

Note: I love this film winning, except for Peter O'Toole's snub. Oscar! Are ya' blind? Yes, I love Atticus Finch! But, come on!

1963: Tom Jones****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 8

Note: Good year. Decent year. I could make a case for Fellini or Steve McQueen...but I'm not going to.

1964: My Fair Lady***1/2(Official Winner)/ Dr. Strangelove****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 10

Hollywood Changed?: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. The entire title is important. So is its message. Don't bring us to the brink of nuclear war again, or we will make a film that makes world leaders look like delusional jackasses; at least, that's how I imagine it!

1965: The Sound of Music***1/2(Official Winner)/ Repulsion****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 7

Hollywood Changed?: This one is just to piss off the Roman Polanski witchhunt crew. He served his time for statutory rape. The judge changed his mind after the sentence had been fulfilled, wanting to make an example of him. The charges are bulls***, if you can read. Giving Best Picture to one of his films would have changed how this whole California miscarriage of justice would have played out.

1966: A Man for All Seasons****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 4

Note: Nice slice of English history!

1967: In the Heat of the Night****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 8

Note: "They call me Mr. Tibbs!" Yes sir, Mr. Tibbs, sir!

1968: Oliver!(Official Winner)/ 2001: A Space Odyssey****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 9

Hollywood Changed?: In a psychedelic decade, there should have been at least one psychedelic film to win Best Picture. The best way to describe Kubrick's masterpiece is a science fiction film on acid. If you tell me being stoned does not feel the same as being weightless, and I will tell you you've never been stoned. Add in the trippy ending, it would have reflected how high Hollywood was at the time. Plus, it would have paved the way for "Star Wars".

1969: Midnight Cowboy****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 4

Note: The only X-Rated movie to win Best Picture...and it isn't even dirty! It is one of the richest, most rewarding films of the 1960's!

1970: Patton****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 9

Note: George C. Scott and Karl Malden in their finest hour. I love MASH but...DAMN!

1971: The French Connection****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 4

Note: The first full-fledged modern cop movie! Bravo! YES I'VE SEEN "BULLITT", DAMMIT!

1972: The Godfather****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 5

Note: HEY! FUGGEDDABOUTIT!

1973: The Sting***1/2(Official Winner)/ Mean Streets****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 5

Hollywood Changed?: Martin Scorsese gets the award he always deserved. Maybe he doesn't spend his entire career chasing it!

1974: The Godfather II****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 9

Note: HEY! FUGGEDDABOUTIT! part 2.

1975: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 6

Note: Nothing to add. Brilliant! The right choice! Rock on!

1976: Rocky***1/2(Official Winner)/ Network****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 7

Hollywood Changed?: There was a collective "huh?" in Hollywood, when Stallone and co. won. "Network" is the film that for so many reasons should have won. Everyone knew it, except Oscar!

1977: Annie Hall****(Official Winner)/ Star Wars***1/2(VETO!)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 4

Hollywood Changed?: NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! You raised the ratings for "The Godfather" and "A Christmas Story". This movie has had the most influence on Hollywood since "The Jazz Singer"! Wake up Leonard Maltin! It's a **** film! You may love Woody Allen, but "Annie Hall" is damn-near-unwatchable! With the win, George Lucas' grip on Hollywood is lessened, from respectability. There is a chance he directs the sequels, which means he doesn't make the prequels; a blessing on us all!

1978: The Deer Hunter****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 4

Note: Christopher Walken and Robert DeNiro: rarely has so much acting craziness been trapped in one room. My only problem with this film: Coppola the following year!

1979: Kramer vs. Kramer****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 4

Note: I come from a broken home. Therefore, this film is sacrosanct. However, "Apocalypse Now***1/2" should have probably beaten it. Can't give Best Picture to two Vietnam War Movies in succession! People will start to think we didn't like the war! DUH!!!

1980: Ordinary People****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 7

Note: I like this film. "Raging Bull" does create a few problems...so does "Kagemusha"...

1981: Chariots of Fire***1/2(Official Winner)/ Circle of Deceit****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 3

Hollywood Changed?: The Germans are coming! The Germans are coming! And it's about bloody time too!

1982: Gandhi***1/2(Official Winner)/ Tootsie****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 10

Hollywood Changed?: Dustin Hoffman's masterpiece, Sydney Pollack's masterpiece, Jessica Lange's masterpiece, Terri Garr's masterpiece, Bill Murray's masterpiece, Charles Durning's masterpiece, Dabney Coleman's masterpiece...are you getting the picture yet? Also, I suffer from "E.T." burnout. Yes, "Gandhi" was an important man. Plus, Dustin Hoffman is the most convincing transvestite, until Eddie Izzard... or is he just funny...anyway...

1983: Terms of Endearment****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 5

Note: There is not enough kleenex in the world to watch this movie. "A Christmas Story", "El Norte" and "Fanny and Alexander" possibly warrant a VETO!, but I have bigger films to fry(?).

1984: Amadeus**1/2(Official Winner)/ Stop Making Sense****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 2

Hollywood Changed?: The play "Amadeus" is much better than the film. Plus, wouldn't it have been awesome to hear David Byrne's acceptance speech?!!!

1985: Out of Africa***1/2(Official Winner)/ Shoah****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 2

Hollywood Changed?: "Night and Fog" is the short holocaust movie, "Shoah" is the long one, making "Schindler's List" seem a little superfluous...which it is.

1986: Platoon***1/2(Official Winner)/ Laputa: Castle In the Sky****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 2

Hollywood Changed?: Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli become the vanguard in feature length animated films, at a time when Disney was in the doldrums. "The Little Mermaid" still in development, it would have meant the end of the Mouse! Anime arrives to the US earlier than expected.

1987: The Last Emperor***1/2(Official Winner)/ Moonstruck****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 3

Hollywood Changed?: Cher's dress not-withstanding, this should have been Norman Jewison's triumph. "Babette's Feast" nearly trumps this wonderful New York City character study. But, as my wife pointed out, very few of the cast ever gave such good performances again. They would not have such a wonderful script; and Norman Jewison seemed perfectly at home; perhaps more-so than any film he had ever made. As for "The Untouchables", there were 13 of them, not 4. Some of them got injured, but none of them were ever killed in the line of duty; hence why they are called THE UNTOUCHABLES! And I know Sean Connery's Oscar was long overdue, but his is the WORST Irish accent in film history. Connery is officially inducted into the "Dick Van Dyke club" for that one. Loved DeNiro, loved Costner. The movie should simply have been called something else, as so many of the facts were distorted.

1988: Rain Man***(Official Winner)/ The Unbearable Lightness of Being****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 3

Hollywood Changed?: This change has been made out of shear bloody-mindedness! "Unbearable" is the only film Maltin has demoted from **** to ***1/2, that I have encountered. Lenny: you can raise the ratings, but you can't lower them! Not much in Hollywood changes, because of this film's fictional triumph. Daniel Day Lewis still runs away with Best Actor the following year. Maybe the Oscars would have recognized his Hawkeye from "The Last of the Mohicans", if "Unbearable" had won the big prize.

1989: Driving Miss Daisy***(Official Winner)/ Glory****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 1

Hollywood Changed?: Greatest War movie ever made, featuring African-Americans with empowerment vs. black servitude during the 50's. You decide.

1990: Dances With Wolves****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 1

Note: The coolest part about this film: Watching this movie in a theater, the floor rumbling during the buffalo stampede. "Dick Tracy" winning would have been interesting; but all in all, a good choice. It's a pity Kevin Costner only has one directing project in him!

1991: The Silence of the Lambs***1/2(Official Winner)/ Raise the Red Lantern****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 1

Hollywood Changed?: "Raise the Red Lantern" was the best film made in the entire decade of the 90's. Don't believe me? Watch it! And for God's sake, read the sub-titles! Dubbing into English is the Devil's work!

1992: Unforgiven***(Official Winner)/ Howard's End****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 1

Hollywood Changed?: I love "Unforgiven". But "Howard's End is weird and ambiguous, especially for an Edwardian bodice-ripper...which doesn't rip much, except morals and ethics.

1993: Schindler's List****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 1

Note: "Night and Fog" that lasts 3 hours? The film really gets moving in the last forty minutes. The rest is a thinly disguised, self-indulgent mess-of-a-portrayal of Spielberg's life as a director. Ralph Fiennes is good, though.

1994: Forrest Gump**1/2(Official Winner)/ Little Women****(Altered Winner)/ Pulp Fiction***1/2(VETO!)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 1

Hollywood Changed?: Big ol' freakin' veto! Yes "Little Women" should out-and-out win. I don't care! This is a VETO I can't ignore! "Pulp Fiction" always has and always will be the Best Picture of 1994. DEAL WITH IT!

1995: Braveheart***1/2(Official Winner)/ VOID(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 0

Hollywood Changed?: This is ridiculous! Collectively the best year in film since 1982 and not a single film (Braveheart, iL Postino, Se7ven, The Usual Suspects, Persuasion, Babe) got ****?!!! I'm out of VETOES! And, because a **** film is not involved, I technically can't use one. SCREW-IT!! I hereby give the film Persuasion ****, because it is the entire book beautifully condensed into 105 minutes. Flawless acting, directing and writing. Best Picture winner! Suck it Lenny!

1996: The English Patient***1/2(Official Winner)/ VOID(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 0

Hollywood Changed?: "Fargo" is only worth ***1/2? In older editions, Leonard Maltin's guide contained a "100 must-see movies" list, which contained "Casablanca", "Dr. Strangelove" and "Fargo"! I will leave that thought with you all...

1997: Titanic**1/2(Official Winner)/ 4 Little Girls****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 1

Hollywood Changed?: It is my pleasure and privilege to say to all of you who love DiCaprio and Winslet's schmaltz fest, WATCH "A NIGHT TO REMEMBER" AND GET ON WITH YOUR LIVES!!! "Malcolm X" should have copped the lot. "4 Little Girls" would have made up for that.

1998: Shakespeare In Love***1/2(Official Winner)/ VOID(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 0

Hollywood Changed?: This year looked to be a showdown between two war movies. Because Terrence Malick has NEVER received the accolades he deserved ("Days of Heaven"- hello?!!), I am unofficially giving this year to "The Thin Red Line". If you're curious why I did not choose that OTHER war film, skip to 2009 and find out.

1999: American Beauty***1/2(Official Winner)/ Cider House Rules****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 1

Hollywood Changed?: Tobey Maguire is in a Best Picture winner and maybe doesn't do the Spider-Man movies; which would be a bad thing, except for the hugely disappointing third film.

2000: Gladiator***(Official Winner)/ VOID(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 0

Hollywood Changed?: What the hell? Really? Nothing? I'm giving this one to "Shadow of the Vampire" just to be kinky. Also, no one today outside of a film classroom knows who in the hell F.W. Murnau is; and that should be a crime against society!

2001: A Beautiful Mind***(Official Winner)/ Songcatcher****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 2

Hollywood Changed?: Celebrating American folk music or a soft gloved portrayal of a half-cracked mathematician? American music has always trumped math, for me.

2002: Chicago***(Official Winner)/ The Fast Runner****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 2

Hollywood Changed?: Come on people: the Inuit tribe is not exactly known for their prolific cinematic output. This film is in some ways a corrective to "Nanook of the North", which did not exactly need correcting in the first place. This is when achievement should have trumped glamour.

2003: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King***1/2(Official Winner)/ The Barbarian Invasions****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 3

Hollywood Changed?: This is an unfortunate casualty of this experiment. Because the Oscars and Leonard Maltin cannot acknowledge "Star Wars'" greatness, this last film version of Tolkien's trilogy is the only fantasy film to win the big prize. But the conditions of the experiment means that Lucas wins by altering history and Jackson doesn't. And for that, nobody wins.

2004: Million Dollar Baby***(Official Winner)/ Motorcycle Diaries****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 4

Hollywood Changed?: "Motorcycle Diaries": Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Song? Really people?! Really?!!! Are you off your tree or something?!!!! Sheesh!

2005: Crash***1/2(Official Winner)/ VOID(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 0

Hollywood Changed?: Probably should have been "Brokeback Mountain", but the conservative element in Hollywood wouldn't stand for it...did you just laugh as loudly as I did?!

2006: The Departed***1/2(Official Winner)/ Little Children****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 1

Hollywood Changed?: Kate Winslet gets her Oscar ahead of schedule. We can all get on with our lives. Don't believe me? "Little Children" was the only **** of 2006 and didn't get a single nomination...in anything!

2007: No Country For Old Men***1/2(Official Winner)/ No End in Sight****(Altered Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 2

Hollywood Changed?: A rarity, even for this experiment: a documentary winning Best Picture. If it had won, it would have been a bold statement from the entertainment capital of the world: this can never happen again; and if it does, we will smoke you!

2008: Slumdog Millionaire****(Official Winner)

Nominations: 5/ Available **** films: 3

Note: Saw this one coming a million miles away, which seems appropriate.

2009: The Hurt Locker***1/2(Official Winner)/ VOID(Altered Winner)

Nominations:10/ Available **** films: 0

Hollywood Changed?: Maybe "District 9" should have won. However, I need to thank Kathryn Bigelow and her extraordinary film. After the opening antics of "Saving Private Ryan", I doubted whether I could ever watch another war movie ever again; not because it was impressive, but because no film has ever made me feel so physically ill. Spielberg figuratively shot himself in the foot with that film, in my opinion. I felt so disgusted after the first 15 minutes, I have refused to watch the rest of the film ever since. Ms. Bigelow's film conveyed the full horrors of bomb disposal, without resorting to every cheap, visceral, cinematic trick in the book. Spielberg's film resembles a horror film, which is not what I paid to see. Ms. Bigelow gave me my money's worth. I don't want a film to ever fully convey the horrors of war. As soon as a film can do that, we have trivialized the true horrors of war into a piece of entertainment. Thank you Ms. Bigelow and shame on you Spielberg!

So, there you have it: what would the Oscars and film history have looked like if Leonard Maltin chose the winners. Some very positive changes would have been made. "Citizen Kane" would have made a mockery of William Randolph Hearst, but it might have proved to be too distracting from the important work of reporting on the holocaust and the creation of Israel. "Laputa" would have legitimized Japanese animation a decade sooner. "Vertigo" would not have needed to wait twenty years for the critical acclaim it deserved, and Hitchcock might not have pulled it and four of his greatest films from circulation, in disgust with his audience for not understanding him. John Wayne could have won his Oscar for his Best performance and favorite character he ever played. Plus it would have given the Civil Rights movement an early boost. Who knows how much violence would have been created or avoided by that.

Unfortunately, changing history in the manner of this experiment does not fix all of the injustices committed by Oscar. 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1946 are so congested with masterpieces, it is impossible to give them all Best Picture awards. The rise of the Hays code and unofficial censorship was inevitable, and changing the 1933 Best Picture winner would have delayed their influence, but not stopped it. Women's roles would have dried up, as they did after the code came into full effect, and Garbo would have probably prematurely retired anyway. "The Lord of the Rings" films would not have received the official recognition they deserved, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" would still have the misfortune of competing against Marlon Brando and "Forbidden Planet" would still duke it out with The Duke! Therefore, what does this experiment tells us about the Oscars? Hollywood is a very complex world, full of politics, favoritism and commerce. Thankfully, with all of these threats to creativity, at least 45% of the time, they pick a really good film for the Best Picture of the year. Let's hope they do a good job this year.