I’ve been reading Ebert’s journal regularly since last year. It’s compelling, thoughtful writing, and some of his entries — my favorite being his struggle with alcoholism — don’t even concern movies. And that he’s capable of doing this kind of writing makes this statement from the Esquire article all the more true:

We have a habit of turning sentimental about celebrities who are struck down — Muhammad Ali, Christopher Reeve — transforming them into mystics; still, it’s almost impossible to sit beside Roger Ebert, lifting blue Post-it notes from his silk fingertips, and not feel as though he’s become something more than he was. He has those hands. And his wide and expressive eyes, despite everything, are almost always smiling.

There is no need to pity me, he writes on a scrap of paper one afternoon after someone parting looks at him a little sadly. Look how happy I am.

But there’s an interesting inclusion here: Up, last summer’s Pixar darling. It’s the first time an animated film has been nominated for Best Picture since 1991 — almost twenty years — since Beauty and the Beast was last put up for the prize. It’s about time; I’m reminded of this article from last year by John Gruber, in response to Wall-E’s nomination snub:

But why does [the best animated film] category even exist? Animated as opposed to what? Photographed? Animation is merely a technique. Cinema is cinema. The Academy’s rules state that films nominated for best animated feature are still eligible to be nominated for best picture, but don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen. The whole point of this award is to establish a ghetto where “cartoons”, no matter how good, are relegated. Putting WALL-E up against Bolt and Kung Fu Panda rather than letting it compete against Slumdog Millionaire and Benjamin Button is like requiring a 13-year-old chess prodigy to compete only against other children, regardless of whether he could stand his own against adult grandmasters. It’s a dismissive pat on the head.

Not to expect Up to take it this year, but I’ll be rooting for it.

Bonus Oscar Linkage! Some famous Oscar snubs, because I’m a sucker for lists like this.

Yes, I watched them, partially out of desire for the cheap thrill I get in predicting awards in the arts, but also for that time-tested disparity in quality. Actually, I think I have watched them for the last few years, though most of the shows are so forgettable and disjointed that I have a hard time remembering anything notable related to the festivities. That’s in contrast to, say, the Academy Awards, which, regardless of whether or not I agree with the award winners, usually have at least one memorable comedy bit, as well as a host who can bring the show cohesion.

The Grammys don’t have that, but luckily, they do have live music, and sometimes that makes it worth sitting through. Some of it was great, actually, and as usual the collaborations (Lady Gaga and Elton John, who despite their differences are both weird enough that a duet record would be sorta neat) managed to bring together artists I don’t mentally pair up (or listen to) and eke out some really nice performances. Even the curmudgeon in me who disliked the 3D novelty of the Michael Jackson tribute “mini-film” was able to enjoy the song that accompanied it, which was solidly performed¹. That’s the Grammys’ appeal, and easily their best asset: big, grandiose live performances and interesting musician pairings. Cheap thrills, and that’s not a bad thing.

But the awards themselves are, and this year they continued to highlight the ignorance that defines the nominating committee. I mean, that the the winners are mostly determined by Billboard chartings and popularity is nothing new, but some of the choices this year brushed with absurdity. Let’s consider the “Record of the Year” award, which apparently is different than “Song of the Year” because “record” implies “single,” which itself means “song that was released in 2008 but can be rereleased in 2009 and qualify for the 2010 awards.” Maybe that’s being unfair to the idea of singles, but it’s probably how the Grammys select winners so expertly. Consider this: of the five songs that were nominated for Record of the Year, only one was actually recorded in 2009 — the Black Eyed Peas’ “I Gotta Feeling.” It didn’t win, either; that was Kings of Leon, whose song “Use Somebody” came out in September of 2008. Really, guys?

Even if one were to defend the selections for the awards, the ones that are granted placement in the three-hour block aren’t a fair representation of the diversity of music awarded. Why two country performances and two rap performances, when it’s possible to take out one of each and replace them with world or jazz selections? The argument, I’m sure, involves ratings and demographics. I argue classing the Grammys up to cater to a more diverse set of musical interests would help, not hurt, their popularity, and that most people aren’t actually aware in advance of who plays at the show, watching it anyway out of hope they’ll see someone they like. Then again, I’m not the Grammy board.

Whine about it or not though, nothing is going to convince the committee to change their criteria for awards, barring some massive anti-pop sentiment. But if they’re not going to do that, then they should still play up their strengths and improve the presentations and performances. Again, they’re good, sometimes great, but never outstanding. Musically, some of them were, but none were particularly shocking or humorous. That Stephen Colbert won an award for “Best Comedy Album” and didn’t perform seems like an oversight considering how dry the show was. And the brief moments of opera that followed Robert Downey Jr’s appearance were faint but promising traces of what the Grammys could be, if jacked up with humor. For a show that takes itself so seriously, a degree of unorthodox thinking could go a long way in making the non-musical aspects much more enjoyable.

That being said, unorthodox thinking could probably help the musical aspects as well. Consider the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame tribute from last October. Yes, another case of music industry self-indulgence, but a damned well performed one at that. Famous bands backed other singers’ songs, performances naturally segued in and out of each other, and there were surprise veteran musicians joining in for effective pairings². It’s true that the Grammys and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame look in two different directions — one celebrating recent accomplishments with newer artists, the other lauding its past ones with older acts — but rock and roll has a history of stealing and borrowing from its past to help give it a gentle push. Now’s the time that the Grammys got a good, hard shove.

1. The occasional moment of brilliance: Smokey Robinson. The man turns 70 years old this month — at least 40 years the senior of some of his fellow musicians onstage — and he sang the living hell out of that song.

2. Guaranteed best way for the surprise musical guest to make people gasp? Two words: Mick Jagger.

The iPad as a particular device is not necessarily the future of computing. But as an ideology, I think it just might be. In hindsight, I think arguments over “why would I buy this if I already have a phone and a laptop?” are going to seem as silly as “why would I buy an iPod if it has less space than a Nomad?”

Even if you’re fed up hearing about this thing, like I am, read this anyway. Some of Steven’s points have already been picked at by other writers, but his analysis is the most cohesive and succinct. Oh, and just so everyone remembers:

It’s a gamble to be sure. But if Apple wins the gamble (so far it’s going well), they are going to be years and years ahead of their competition. If Apple loses the gamble, well, they have no debt and are sitting on a Fort Knox-like pile of cash.

Disgusting and fascinating at the same time? Why, yes, that would be an apt description for some of the food sold in other McDonalds across the world. I’m amused by almost all of it (but saddened at the same time — a bacon roll? Triple Mac? Really?), but the very last item listed is a real eyebrow-raiser.

As one YouTube commenter states, “subliminal bacon ftw.” Sir, I couldn’t agree with you more.

(via Boing Boing)

(via Dan Benjamin)

Though, okay, in this genre’s defense, I have fond memories of Kindergarten Cop. And don’t you dare pretend to look like That One Guy who didn’t like it when he was eight years old.

Not having to do “The Tonight Show” could allow Conan to loosen up and do the absurdist show he used to, and besides, Fox is on crack — it’s not like the network of Jack Bauer and More to Love is going to tell Conan he can’t do a nipple-slapping string dance, among other things.

Bonus Conan Linkage! A decade-old gem of Mr. O’Brien addressing the Harvard Class of 2000. Because ten years past, it’s still flippin’ awesome.

(via kottke)