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.

An Open Letter to CBS

To CBS:

I love watching many of your TV series: CSI, CSI: NY (You can flush Miami down the loo), NCIS, NCIS: Los Angeles (ie, NCIS: Bromance), The Big Bang Theory, Blue Bloods, The Mentalist, et al. However, your decision to cut short "S*#! My Dad Says" has prompted me to remind you of a simple fact: your shows are watched around the world. How you choose to develop or stifle a show affects how audiences watch it around the world. You are responsible for the resurrection of William Shatner's career. A man seemingly destined to be remembered for only one great role, you gave him Denny Crane. Treating his sole attempt at a sitcom as some kind of chew-toy, does not reflect well on your network and the decisions you make. On behalf of the fans out there, who believe you have ended "S*#!" too soon, let me remind you of the achievements of one of your principle foreign markets: Great Britain. Since the late 1950's and early sixties, British TV has fostered the talent and produced the following:

Absolute Power, Absolutely Fabulous, After You've Gone, Al Murray, 'Allo 'Allo, Are You Being Served, As Time Goes By, At Home With the Braithwaites, The Avengers, Beautiful People, The Beiderbecke Trilogy, Bergerac, A Bit of Fry & Laurie, Black Books, Blake's 7, Bless Me, Father, Bless This House, Blue Murder, Bob & Rose, The Booze Cruise Series, Bottom, Brideshead Revisited, Cadfael, Campion, The Catherine Tate Show, Chef!, City of Vice, Cold Feet, Coupling, Cracker (Robbie Coltrane's (Hagrid from Harry Potter) finest hour), Cranford, Crime Traveller, Dad's Army, Secret Agent aka Danger Man, Danger Mouse, The Darling Buds of May (Ever wonder where Catherine Zeta Jones came from?), The Day Today, The Deal (Part 1 of "The Tony Blair Trilogy"), Desmond's, Doc Martin, Doctor Who (Classic and revival), Dorothy L. Sayers Mysteries,  Downton Abbey, The Duchess of Duke Street, Dylan Moran, Eddie Izzard, Edge of Darkness (You're welcome, Mel Gibson), Enemy at the Door, Ever Decreasing Circles, The Fall & Rise of Reginald Perrin, The Fast Show, Father Ted, Fawlty Towers, 55 Degrees North, A Fine Romance, The Fixer, Foyle's War, Garth Merengi's Darkplace, Gavin & Stacey (Remade as 'Mad Love', this week), George and the Dragon, George & Mildred (remade as 'The Ropers'), Good Neighbors (aka 'The Good Life'; a much better title!), The Grand, Green Wing ('Scrubs' on crack!), Hamish Macbeth, Hardware, Harry Enfield & Chums, Have I Got News For You, Hillsborough, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Hotel Babylon, How do you Want Me?, Hustle, I, Claudius, The Inbetweeners, The Inspector Lynley Mysteries, Inspector Morse, The Irish R.M., The IT Crowd, It Ain't Half Hot Mum (Yes, it's racially distasteful; it's also damned funny!), Jeeves & Wooster, Jonathan Creek, Keen Eddie, Keeping Up Appearances, Kingdom (Speaking of bad choices, WHERE THE HELL IS SERIES 4?!), The Kumars at No. 42, Lark Rise to Candleford, The Last Detective, Last of the Summer Wine (After more than 30 years, we miss you!), Lead Balloon, Lee Evans, Lee Mack, Lewis, Life On Mars, (Whatever Happened to) the Likely Lads, Little Britain, Look Around You, Lord Peter Wimsey, Love Soup, Lovejoy, Luther, MI-5 (aka 'Spooks'), Maigret, Man About the House (remade as "Three's Company'), Mapp & Lucia, Marple, Men Behaving Badly, Michael McIntyre, Midsomer Murders (Thank you John Nettles!), Mock the Week, Monty Python's Flying Circus, Moving Wallpaper/Echo Beach (Despite British popular opinion, I loved this duo!), Mulberry, Murder In Suburbia, My Family, Neverwhere, The New Statesman, New Tricks, The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency, Northern Lights/ City Lights/ Clash of the Santas, Not Going Out (The Best sitcom on TV, period!), The Office, The Omega Factor, Omid Djalili, On the Buses, On the Up (Ended far too soon! What a masterpiece!), One Foot In the Grave, Only Fools and Horses (Voted by the British public as the best sitcom ever!), Open All Hours, Our Friends In the North, Outnumbered (The Best depiction of parents and children ever!), Oz and James's Big Wine Adventure/ Oz and James Drink to Britain, Peep Show, The Palace, The Persuaders, Phoenix Nights, Poirot, Porridge/Going Straight, Porterhouse Blue, Press Gang, (All Quiet On the) Preston Front (The show that probably started it all, for me!), Pride and Prejudice, Prime Suspect, Primeval, The Prisoner, The Protectors, Pulling, Q.I. (My favorite TV show of all time!), The Queen (part 2 of "The Tony Blair Trilogy"), Raffles, Randall & Hopkirk(deceased) (Original & revival), Rebus, Red Dwarf, Rising Damp, Robin's Nest (remade as "Jack's Place"), Roman Mysteries, Rosemary & Thyme, The Royle Family, Rowan Atkinson, Rumpole of the Bailey (Still probably the best character in the history of British TV), Russell Howard, The Saint, The Sally Lockhart Mysteries, Sapphire and Steel, The Sarah Jane Adventures, Second Thoughts, The Secret Diary of a Call Girl, Sensitive Skin, Shakespeare Retold (Awe-inspiring remakes!), Sherlock (A brilliant re-imagining of a classic), Sherlock Holmes (Jeremy Brett, naturally...if you're not sure why, read a Conan Doyle story, then watch his portrayal. 'Nuff said!), Skins, The Special Relationship (The Third film in "The Tony Blair Trilogy"), State of Play (You're welcome, Russell Crowe), Steptoe and Son (Every British comedy made after it, owes everything to it; remade as "Sandford and Son"), The Street, The Sweeney (The first modern cop show!), Terry & June, That Mitchell & Webb Look, Thick as Thieves, The Thin Blue Line, To the Manor Born, Top Gear (If you're not watching it Mondays at 9pm est...what in the hell is WRONG WITH YOU?!), Torchwood, A Touch of Frost, Touching Evil, Two Fat Ladies, Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps (Almost a decade old, the pilot was written by an 18 year old!),The Two Ronnies, Two's Company, Ultraviolet, Up the Elephant & Round the Castle, The Vicar of Dibley, Waiting For God, Waking the Dead, Who Do You Think You Are?, William & Mary, Wives and Daughters, Yes Minister/ Yes Prime Minister, You Rang M'Lord & The Young Ones.

If you are a member of the American public, and any of these shows or people are not familiar, get off your ass! CBS, you have a lot to live up to! If you bring back "S*#!", give it more support than hoping Shatner can carry it alone. Remember! We're watching you!

Favorite and Best: Establishing Quality

Person #1: "You know what my favorite movie is? Hellraiser!"
Person #2: "That's a stupid movie. You know what the best movie ever is"?
Person #1: "Now that you've insulted my choice, I don't know if I care; but, go ahead"!
Person #2: "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"!
Person #1: "Original or remake"?
Person #2: "Remake! I don't watch movies from the stone age"!
Person #1: "Dude! The Original is Better"!

I can state with a degree of certainty that everyone has had a conversation similar in tone and topic, sometime in their lives. After getting caught in these situations one too many times, I reached a philosophical conclusion I want to share with you, my readers: we, as a society, bandy about the terms "favorite" and "best" without thinking about their implications. There is room in everyone's life for both terms, if we establish they do not mean the same thing, and to what each specifically refers.


The 1983 edition of Webster's Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary, defines "favorite" as, "a person or thing regarded with special favor, preference or affection": you like something or someone. There is nothing in this definition to suggest expertise or profound knowledge. You like something for personal reasons. A favorite is chosen because of a specific set of criterion which apply to the person selecting. These feelings and beliefs do not need to be justified to assert conviction.


The same dictionary defines the term "best" as, "the most excellent thing, condition, circumstance, action, etc.". To "excel" at something implies achievement. Some things in life are easy to judge for what they achieve. If two people line-up and run 100 yards, whoever reaches the finish line first covered the distance the fastest. This is an easy circumstance to judge, but many things in our lives are much more complex.


The presence of computers and endless TV shows, featuring hours of information, can convince the average individual, that they are more educated than they really are. It is one of the conceits of contemporary life.


A casually formed opinion does not require evidence to make it valid. This is what identifies it as a favorite. Many news pundits, reality show contestants and ordinary folks spout their opinions; and if they share them loudly or with seeming authority, we take their opinions as from an authority. We assume, even if the opinion is not a fact, it must be a well-reasoned one, from a credible source. This is not true.


So, what are we left with? Should everyone just keep their mouths shut and never express an opinion, unless they are an expert on the subject? I am suggesting that there are two kinds of opinions: "Favorites" and "Best". They divide themselves into 3 categories.

"Favorites" type #1 (casually formed opinions; no deep knowledge or expertise required):I am not an expert on horror films. I have not watched "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" nor do I have any plans to, in the near future. I have never seen a "Saw" film and have no desire to. Horror films form one specific subdivision of Film Studies. Bruce Kawin, my Film History professor, and one of the most respected in his field, wrote a serious, scholarly essay entitled, "The Mummy's Pool". I do not suggest by my ignorance of this subdivision of film studies that horror films are unworthy of study. I am simply not interested in studying them.


This does not mean I have never seen a horror film. I am a fan of James Whale and F. W. Murnau. I have seen the first three "Friday the 13th" films and the first four in the "Nightmare on Elm Street" series. It just so happens that I like Wes Craven's third entry in the series. As a result, I can never claim that "Dream Warriors" is the best horror film ever made, because I have not watched enough to make a judgment on quality. I do believe that this is one of my "favorite" horror films I have seen. No one has the right to disagree with that statement, because I do not expect it to be anyone else's favorite. This is the crux of the issue: if you expect people to agree with your likes and dislikes, you want homogeneity. Variety is not the spice of life: it is the meat and potatoes. If someone happens to list "Nightmare 3" as one of their favorite horror films, that is a happy coincidence. If someone wants to debate "Saw IV" is a better film, I respectfully decline, because I have not seen it.


The first step in respecting other people's beliefs lies in accepting the limitations in your own knowledge. If you don't like how limited your knowledge is, learn more. Simple. Knowing another person's favorites tells me less about how much another person knows, and more about what kind of person they are. If you love "The Hills Have Eyes", it does not mean you are a shallow person who dislikes thoughtful cinema: you enjoy the thrill of being shocked and have a fascination with the unknown. If you like bad horror films (Ed Wood, schlock 50's films), you probably have a very off-beat sense of humor. If you believe the only films you like are of the aforementioned category, believing no one will ever make a film you enjoy as much, we probably need to talk about your obsessive single-minded focus. I would also worry about their intellectual stability.

Anyway, "favorites" of this type are more symbolic descriptions of an individual's personality than about their worth as a person. If someone tells you they love "snuff films", they are worthy of your contempt. Watching and enjoying fake violence, without accepting it is fake, is a psychiatric condition, which we have pills for. Watching and enjoying fake violence, knowing it is fake, and enjoying the conventions of this particular genre is as healthy and as enjoyable as being a fan of romantic comedies, westerns or Franco-era surrealist cinema; and you do not need to be an expert to have an opinion. The trick is to know when you are not an expert, but merely an enthusiast. Nothing wrong with that!


"Favorites" type #2 (Knowledge and expertise gained and happily ignored):I have a degree in Film Theory from the University of Colorado at Boulder. When I tell friends and acquaintances this, I usually hear this statement: "It must have been so much fun to sit and watch movies all day and get a degree in it"! At thousands of dollars per semester, that is not bloody likely! I read dozens of books on film theory, film history and film production. I made simple student films; and, while I do not know how to generate CGI, the principles of filmmaking are exactly the same, whether you spend $200 or $200 million. I wrote many term papers, which demonstrated my understanding of film theory and where I presented some of my own theories for scrutiny. Taking all of my grades from every film class I completed, my overall GPA is 3.61. In other words, I know what I am talking about and can form cogent arguments about films and their affect on an audience, i.e. me.


Question: When I finished my degree, did I reject every film I had seen before my studies began; because, when they were analyzed, the were nothing more than trash dressed up with the golden tinsel of nostalgia?! Of course not. "Smokey and the Bandit" may not be a film of very high quality, but I still try to watch it once every few years, fondly remembering when, as a five year old boy, Burt Reynolds's laugh made me smile.


Some things defy expertise and knowledge. We like something, even when others tell us we shouldn't; and we know perfectly well what the reasons are. I have almost been driven to pull my hair out by the roots, because of the number of times I have encountered family, friends and total strangers, who have a disdain for expertise; as if it makes you forget who you are and pretend you are something you are not. This is all nonsense, and partially jealousy. Expertise does not beget snobbery and the abandonment of "roots", unless the person acquiring knowledge wants to abandon those "principals". Expertise merely brings the ability to explain yourself more clearly, and in greater detail. For some people, the end of school marked the end of learning, or at least pressurized learning, with demands to prove yourself to others. The truth is, the day we stop learning is when we die...literally. Whether you consciously engage in your own learning or not will determine how knowledge affects you.


Patricia Hitchcock once claimed that two of her father's favorite movies were "Smokey and the Bandit" and "Benji". Alfred Hitchcock, the greatest filmmaker of the 20th century, liked Burt Reynolds and a scruffy little dog? This man made the first sound film in the UK, was trained at arguably the greatest film studio ever built (UFA) and worked with an extraordinary array of writers, editors, painters, sculptors and actors. He collaborated with Salvador Dali in creating the dream sequence in "Spellbound". His friends and casual acquaintances included some of the best filmmakers in the world. He should have known better than to love two films of such low artistic standards. That's the trouble with favorites: sometimes we know, and can't help ourselves!


Best (Opinions defended by deep, self-conscious knowledge):"Vertigo" is the best film I have ever seen. I have written about it in classes and been given approval for my arguments. I could spend several hours walking you through every scene in the film, stating what standards of excellence this film has met better than any other I have ever seen. However, that is for another blog entry...actually, I may never write it, to protect those who have never seen this touchstone of 20th century art. I have walked a few of my friends through this masterpiece, and they found my arguments very compelling. However, we could not have a debate, because their expertise did not match my own. I have seen the complete film more than 30 times, read a dozen articles and books exploring it and have seen most of the major films according the distinction of being "the best". I have found most of them lacking. Only 2 other films challenge "Vertigo" in my mind and imagination. Neither have beaten it to the top spot. One day, I know I will enter a debate, in which someone will challenge my arguments with their own. It will be an interesting discussion.


Arguing the worth or quality of a work of art, a bridge, a suit, a three course dinner or a political decision requires knowledge. Otherwise, your position stems from feelings, which may fill you with conviction, but are easily swayed, and usually "jangle like wires in the wind". Thoughts from scholarly, historical sources are much more stable and do not sway as easily. This is not about who is best: it is about who has more to give to the understanding of a subject.


A Practical Demonstration:Almost from the moment we met, my wife and I disagreed about the merits of film director Ingmar Bergman. One day I realized what had caused our schism. She tried to watch the film "Persona" twice and had barely finished it. Each time resulted in her nearly running screaming from the room. "That isn't a film". "Don't ever show that to me again". "How can you like that"? She loves "Wild Strawberries", "The Seventh Seal" and "Smiles of a Summer Night"; all bona fide Bergman classics. Two other films brought out even more enthusiastic approval: "The Virgin Spring" and "Autumn Sonata". The second of these two films, in particular, brought her to tears and led to her declaring that "Autumn Sonata" was the best film she had ever seen. So how could someone who obviously loved the great Swede's films hate, what was for me, his greatest achievement? Expertise.


The first time I saw "Persona", it left me bewildered, but haunted. I did not return to it until the second semester of Film History; when my professor, Bruce Kawin, chose it as the single example of Bergman's oeuvre he would show. With everything I had learned thus far, I saw "Persona" in a new light. I watched it again at least a dozen times. I took classes with the great Marion Keane, the single most intelligent person I have ever met. We discussed the film and my understanding of it grew. I studied Bergman's films for an entire semester with another luminary in my education, Professor Saranjan Gangulay. By the end of the class, "Persona's" place in my esteem was firmly fixed.


"Persona" is an extremely challenging film. I have shown it to friends older than my wife, who also detested it; and one former colleague, nearly ten years younger than I was, who declared it the greatest film he had ever seen. My conviction about its merits required intensive study, thought and writing academic papers. The result: I can claim it is the best film Bergman ever made. Will that assertion ever change? I do not think so. However, I do not know everything about Bergman's films, despite my expertise. I must admit to the possibility, however unlikely.


When I presented all of the evidence for giving "Persona" its fair due, my wife was not interested. She did not like it. Then I realized: she did not have to. "Persona" is no danger of being ignored or forgotten. Enough people have loved it and studied it, to ensure it will remain in the vanguard of our understanding of Bergman's contribution to cinema. I breathed a sigh of relief. Her dislike of the film would not damage it, and maybe one day, she might want to watch it again, as her understanding of life and her relation to reality grows with age; key subjects in "Persona". Meanwhile, we could share our love of "Autumn Sonata". It is not Bergman's best, but the struggle between child and parent strikes a chord with both of us; and we might be more inclined to throw it into the DVD player than "Persona". "Persona" may be the best, but "Autumn Sonata" is our favorite.

To review:
Every person, all 100% of every person who has every lived, is alive now, and ever will live has a right to declare what are their "favorites". Those choices are sacrosanct, to be taken for what they are, without need for justification or expertise. Just because you "travel away from home", does not mean you do not look forward to going back. "Hey Bandit! Hey Bandit! Listen to 'dis! You hear that?! That's the ol' Evil Kinevil"! However, it is the experts who must justify their views. We live in a time when the line between "favor" and "expertise" has been blurred by overzealous individuals, who want fame and attention, without doing the hard work of becoming worthy of attention; just ask Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck!


I find making the distinctions I have laid out extremely useful in my life and relationships. I offer them to you all and hope they will be useful.

Greetings Blog-o-philes!

In the year 2011, I, a humble (don't you believe it), aspiring writer (20 years and still trying), is finally dipping his toe into this strange world called "blogging". Perhaps I finally decided to create this blog frustrated by my attempts to become a published writer. It is too early for me to decide.

On my career as a writer: Dating back more than 20 years, I have written over 200 poems, a dozen short stories, one novel and two books of non-fiction. My poetry is mostly confessional and/or experimental. I promise not to bore my prospective readers by posting all of them; just the occasional one, when warranted. My short stories are science fiction and reality based. Most are psychological thrillers or experimental point-of-view stories. My novel is about a man confronting uncomfortable truths, when the death of a grandmother reveals family secrets. My first non-fiction book is about the books I had been expected to read, before I entered college. I read an enormous number of books, in addition to my class work, after encountering numerous professors flabbergasted at how little I had read in high school. I also include books no professor asked me to read, that added to my class work. I provide a way of approaching these works, in the same way you read a science fiction novel. Learn about the world the story takes place in first, as most great literature took place in a time and culture as foreign as anything Arthur C. Clarke wrote. The second non-fiction book is about my life as a soccer fan; when, at the age of 24, I suddenly banished virtually every sport from my life and began a single-minded obsession with "the beautiful game". I graduated with a Bachelor's Degree in Film Theory, from the University of Colorado at Boulder; a degree which, as anyone who has one will tell you, is next to useless in the "real world"; whatever that is. I wrote extensively on film, during that time. My high school yearbook, senior year, reveals that most of my classmates believed I would one day become a film critic.

On likes and dislikes: I draw absolutely no distinctions between male and female interests. I am absolutely heterosexual (my first prostate exam clinched that one), but I love fashion, when it is not trying to make women look like strippers. I also love certain sports, which will no doubt fill many of these entries. Contrary to what Craig Ferguson said a few days ago, I love going to the ballet and opera. I also found the Green Day musical "American Idiot" one of the most thrilling theatrical experiences of my life. I am a highly skilled chef, capable of making the simplest comfort food or the most complex dishes. I can perform basic car maintenance and have a "first degree red belt" in Tae Kwon Do. I enjoy a fine wine, as much as a good beer or single malt scotch.

On Self-Definition: I hate manly men and overly feminized women: I believe we are human beings first, male or female second. I have spent the majority of my life refusing to treat people on the basis of preconceptions and stereotypes. I believe you can only judge yourself or anyone else by self-definition. This occurs through actions and words. You are the sum of everything you say, do and aspire to be; and I will treat you on the basis of that definition. If you want to portray yourself as a simple person (ie a manly man), I will treat you that way, and try to provoke more complex facets from you. I provoke everybody, but always with the best intentions. My wife has called this tendency my greatest weakness. We are all much more, than we give ourselves credit. I never settle for people "only" being a certain way. Potential leads to change leads to being.

On an example of my writing: As this is a kind of introduction, I will end this first entry by sharing a poem my British Literature teacher asked me to write, at the age of 16. Mrs. Carol Matthews asked our class to write our own epitaphs, in conjunction with studying Thomas Gray's "Elegy Written In a Country Churchyard". I believe the following is an accurate summary of how I live my life and the spirit in which this blog will be written.

An Epitaph to an Ordinary Man
A man of imagination: of narrow-mindedness,
A man of change: of stagnation,
A social man: a quiet man,
A physical man: a mental man,

A connoisseur of the arts: of the cinema,
A gentle man: a coarse man,
A realist: a fantisizer,
A lover of Mozart: of INXS,

A man of self sacrifice: of selfishness,
A master of mimics: A mimicked life,
A man of love: A man of hate,
This was an ordinary man.
March 6th, 1989

In Closing: This entry is a little short, but I promise the others will be more in depth, and hopefully more interesting. I hope you will enjoy this attempt at self-definition.
Warmest regards,
Rumer O Cook