Rethinking the Oscars

I watched the Oscars last week. It was the most disappointing Academy Awards Show I have ever seen. The best Movie of the Year was clearly True Grit, the story of a young girl's struggle for justice. The original movie version of the book won an Oscar for John Wayne. That was a movie which failed to capture the quality of the book by Charles Portis. The 2010 movie by the Coen brothers was extremely well made and both Jeff Bridges and Hailee Steinfeld deserved Oscars. Jeff Bridges won an Oscar last year and Hailee will no doubt go on to win many herself.

The real tragedy of the Oscars was the praise dumped on the King's Speech. I'm upset about the movie because it seems like a really minor event blown way out of proportion. Let's get our facts straight. Albert, King George VI, was the dull brother of the rightful heir to the British Crown, Edward VIII. He only became King because his playboy brother abdicated. During his reign, Britain went from a global leader to its current status. George was not a great leader and, as the movie explains, a poor speaker.

The idea that King George VI inspired anyone is total rubbish. All of the inspiration among the British came from Winston Churchill. Moreover, Churchill had an American mother and right to US Citizenship. He used this to gain support with President Roosevelt and bring America into the war and that saved England. The speeches by King George VI make good reading if you are a person who stutters but the reality is he was a dull and uninspiring leader. The movie attempts to remake history and create the sense that King George VI inspired Britain. It did not happen and the movie is much ado about nothing.

Finally, the Social Network was a great movie that provides insight into the creation of Facebook. I loved the movie and the portrayal of the Winkelvoss idiot brothers. Clearly the social network was better than the King's Speech. I think the same people who rig the Super Bowl are rigging the Oscars.