The only way to one-up Saddlesore Canyon for Best Picture or Al Gore for his fictional documentary slideshow would be to give Best Actor to Sean Penn (for anything but Ridgemont High) as a tribute to his anti-Bush activities.

More and more I believe George C. Scott had the right attitude.

I just discovered that if I fastforward through all of one of your own’s spam in every comment section here on PJM I can get through the comments in about 10 seconds. Nice.

I think we need an IQ test for commenters.

TomJW, there is something you’re still not grasping. All the pictures, as I noted, were Best Picture winners. As I also noted, they nominate different pictures every year. That includes Bet Picture nominees. Sooooo, none of the pictures I listed were from the same year.

Tomorrow we tackle “how to carry the 1.”

While I’m at it, here’s one for #32 class clown, who writes . . . “They deeply resent that they actually have to depend on the public to earn their living.” . . . Anybody here who doesn’t rely on the public to make their living? As for “self-indulgent vanity projects on patronage for the wealthy”, we already have that. It’s called the EIB Network.

(Geez, this is exhausting.)

Commercials: They present ideals that digest me as the wonderful part of the movie, or simply it’s about something I don’t care about. Next, dreck reviews for the movies. This could be a bad review from a critic I respect or a gushing review from an idiot critic.

How many of the movies you listed where from the same year? A good movie every once in a while doesn’t mean the Oscar show is worthwhile. Patton: that’s a different era in movie making. I still think ‘The Lion in Winter’ is the best movie ever. Nowadays there is too many dreck movies and the industry prefers movies I can’t stand.

No reason to waste more of my time on it.

Such slander! I loathe musicals and song and dance numbers.

But then, I don’t much like the insipid word “gay”: not because “we” are “not happy” but because it makes me think of kindergarten, with its primary colors, smiley faces, and mandatory happiness adjustment training.

A much more interesting question might be, is “gay” an improbable, politically-correct rewrite of “homosexual”, or is “gay” a subclass of obnoxious, politically-correct homosexuals nobody else wants to sleep with?

This is a much more pressing question for intelligent libertarian queers like me.

I’m watching Alec Guinness movies this weekend anyway.

These are the considered opinions of someone who doesn’t really give much of a flying fig who wins and who loses tomorrow night’s Oscars:

MY PICKS:

Best Picture: It’s a tossup between “Milk” and Frost-Nixon.” Hollywood will be sorely torn between effectively honoring one of its own, dead gay guy Harvey Milk, and slamming a favorite pinata, dead President Richard Nixon. Will love or hatred win the night? My guess would be “Milk,” since so many Hollywoodians can identify with Harvey and with Sean Penn.

Best Director: Ron Howard for “Frost/Nixon.” Opie wins if he loses for best picture. It doesn’t matter, anyway, since Clint Eastwood should have won for “Gran Torino” but he never made the ballot for some reason. Howard chose a great vehicle for his picture and Eastwood made the mistake of choosing a true-to-life vehicle and movie which demonstrated that even conservatives can have hearts. That absurd concept had to have repulsed the Oscar committee.

Best Actor: Mickey Rourke in “The Wrestler.” Rourke has been in recovery for 23 years after his strenuous efforts in “Nine 1/2 Weeks” and Hollywood can relate to extended rehab. (His co-star in the latter film, Kim Basinger, may have been exhausted as well and she is still in recovery, whether from that 1986 film or from her marriage to Father of the Year, Alec Baldwin.)

Best Actress: I’m betting on Kate Winslet for “The Reader” since they owe her one and because I can’t stand the sight of Meryl Streep. Winslet, however, may have inadvertently voided her Actor’s Equity membership by announcing she would never again appear nekkid in a movie; Streep could appear nekkid on my lawn and I’d throw rocks at her and sic the squirrels on her.

Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger as The Joker in “The Dark Knight” because he was good in Mel Gibson’s “The Patriot” which was before he was seduced by the drug culture, the prime outlet for actors and actresses trying to make sense of their lives. Josh Brolin only has a shot if Babs Streisand reminded the Oscar people of “Funny Girl.” Robert Downey, Jr. has a chance if people are into Al Jolsen’s black face, not likely with President Obama in office. Philip Seymour Hoffman could snag the award if Hollywood one again wants to humiliate the Catholic Church.

Best Supporting Actress: Hands down, Amy Adams in “Doubt,” because she’s cute even if she does play a nun. Ever since her association with Seinfeld’s George Costanza, Marisa Tomei lost points in my book. Black actresses Viola Davis or Taraji P. Henson could cop the statuette because of their race, which also puts them in contention.

Best Whatevers: Does anyone really care?

(http://genelalor.com)

Here’s an alternate interpretation of Hollywood for you: They deeply resent that they actually have to depend on the public to earn their living. Unfortunatly for them , making movies is so expensive that it can only be financed by the public (at 200 million plus per picture, who else but the public could every afford it?). They are angry that we, the people, won’t pay for their pet projects.

I suggest that Hollywood should split into two entities. One makes movies that people actually want to see. The other makes self-indulgent vanity projects on patronage for the wealthy. Think of it like the Medici Family, except that instead of Michaelangelo’s sculptures, they get to watch Che and Milk in their own drawing rooms and salons.

And then they get to give each other awards. Oh, they’ll still sneer at us regular folks, but at least we don’t have to hear it.

NO MORE AWARDS SHOWS!!!!!!!