For Your Consideration: Hijacking the Oscar Season

By: Ed Gonzalez On: 12/09/2006 12:21:00 In: Oscars Comments: 120

The most depressing season of the year officially begins in late November and carries over into the early part of the new year, during which the Hollywood studios bait the public with Oscar pabulum, appealing to critics and journalists with screeners and other promotional junk, hoping we'll become complicit in their obscene corruption of film culture. For some, though, the Oscar season begins as soon as another one ends, and this disturbing trend to predict nominations before films have even finished filming illuminates how most pundits work, almost unconsciously, to empower the soul-sucking Oscar process.

Journalists like Tom O'Neil and Dave Karger accept without question that the studios will release Oscar's brightest prospects in December, and as such make their nomination predictions around a studio's winter-release schedule. Everyone knows that getting an Oscar nomination is largely a matter of Power of Suggestion, and every time someone like O'Neil or Karger makes a prediction for a film sight-unseen, they essentially perform pro bono publicity work for Hollywood studios. Which is to say, they're shills. Fox doesn't need to launch a for-your-consideration campaign for Judi Dench because Gold Derby and Entertainment Weekly have already done so.

Oscar history tells us that an actress like Sandra Huller, who gives the best female performance of the year in the film Requiem, cannot score an Oscar nomination against heavyweights like Dench and Helen Mirren whose prospects are bankrolled by big studios. This is the sad reality of the Oscars, which doesn't reward the biggest talent so much as the biggest campaign—a reality that has become especially apparent ever since the Weinstein brothers stopped making films that mattered and started making films only to win awards. (This is not unlike our political system, which does not have room for a poor third-party candidate.) But Oscar pundits could change things around by turning the system against itself, only pushing films that have opened, bringing great performances to the attention of the public even if they don't stand a realistic chance of getting an Oscar nomination, thus restoring a sense of legitimacy to our ever-crumbling popular film culture.

How easy it was for some people to scoff at the sight of David Lynch parking himself all over Hollywood, promoting Laura Dern's great performance from Inland Empire using a cow and a sign that read "Without Cheese There Would Be No Inland Empire." But this stunt was profound—a performance piece that not only commented on Inland Empire's distribution model but one that held a two-way mirror between the director and the Hollywood system that boosted his career. It also illuminated the disadvantage of Inland Empire, a visionary but intimidating juggernaut of ideas and feelings, in a market that prefers the trite, condescending banalities of films like Little Miss Sunshine and Babel. This may be the best for-your-consideration campaign anyone has ever mounted for an actor, because it's the only one that has come to us live (for most, via YouTube) and with a heart.

A white elephant might be an appropriate animal to advertise Dreamgirls, which, if it had been released in August, would have already been forgotten. Instead it opens in December, when it's still every bit of a failure but for some reason has more Oscar value because the industry and people like Karger tell us it does. Notice how Karger, in the November 17 issue of Entertainment Weekly, states that Eddie Murphy is "said to be nothing short of stunning" in Dreamgirls, implying he hasn't seen the film, only to then say that Bill Condon is the "creative force behind the eye-popping musical" and that Jennifer Hudson scene-steals her way through the movie. (Fact: I say Murphy is nothing short of unwatchable, the film doesn't pop, and the only reason Hudson steals the movie is because the terrible actors around her are incapable of stopping her from doing so.) These bold, presumptuous statements coming from a person who hasn't seen the film confirms Karger's already transparent agenda to be in bed with Oscar (it's as if he were performing for one), and his preferences (no mention of Gong Li for her fierce performance in the so-so Curse of the Golden Flower; a glowering recommendation for Rinko Kikuchi's victim from Babel) reveals even more.

I won't lie and say that Slant Magazine doesn't care about the Oscars, but we certainly don't take them seriously as a barometer of good taste; those who do would appear to be holding their breath or probably don't care about movies very much as vehicles for truth (probably the same people who think the writers at Slant Magazine deliberately give negative reviews to movies in order to curb their enthusiasm; if that were true, then we nominate ourselves for an Academy Award!). Call us bullies, but we can't think of another group that matters less and deserves to be called out more for the dangerous precedents it sets. (For us, the Oscars are just an excuse to have a party and possibly win some money.) In October, we should be hearing that actresses like Huller are the frontrunners—not Hudson, whose performance may as well not exist since the film hasn't even come out yet. So, to any pundit with good taste who may be reading this: Why not hijack the process by predicting seemingly un-nominatable films and performances? Give it a try. After all, a guerilla for-your-consideration campaign, if it picks up enough traction, can create a ripple-like effect and benefit legit underdogs like Fiona Shaw (The Black Dahlia), Jessica Lange (Don't Come Knocking), Daniel Craig (Infamous), and Jesse Garcia (Quinceañera).

This harangue is my way of venting for what has been an especially brutal Oscar season where the best films (The Queen, Venus, The Painted Veil) have been, at best, mediocre ones and the worst ones (Blood Diamond, Little Children, The Last King of Scotland) reach for condescending lows unseen since Crash seemingly hit rock bottom last year. And the month isn't over yet! In Notes on a Scandal, which could have been a camp classic if Richard Eyre had regarded his material with a smidgen of patience, we are asked to buy a Sister George lesbian in 2006. Worse, though, is Chris Noonan's sequel to Babe, Miss Potter, in which Renée Zellwegger, as Beatrix Potter, makes a fortune after inventing Peter Rabbit and buys the entire English-fucking-countryside. Academy voters at the screening I attended embraced this crass real-estate porn with disturbing gusto.

I didn't think it could get worse after The Dead Girl, but The Good German, a soulless pastiche that props George Clooney, an unspeakably irritating Tobey Maguire, and Cate Blanchett against WWII-era newsreels, is as embarrassing a failure as Steven Soderbergh's Solaris. Also set during the same time period is the colossally banal The Good Shepherd, which is every bit as insignificant as its trailer promised, and though it's been a little over a month since I've seen Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, I'm almost tempted to give the Tom Tykwer film an upgrade simply for being the sort of catastrophe that refuses to go down without a fight.

Which brings me to the National Board of Review, whose winners were announced on Wednesday. The victory for Forrest Whitaker was a given (I pretty much called it in my Last King of Scotland write-up), as was Djimon Hounsou's, Helen Mirren's, and Martin Scorsese's, and after seeing Letters from Iwo Jima earlier in the week, I could see why they rewarded the Clint Eastwood film over The Departed: For one thing, the film is better, but Eastwood had confirmed that Flags of Our Fathers was just a fluke disappointment. There was one surprise though: Catherine O'Hara, whose performance in For Your Consideration seems to go against everything that a middlebrow award group like NBR represents.

I finally caught up with For Your Consideration last week and I was surprised by how critical it is of the Road to Oscar. It doesn't make a lick of sense why a studio would bankroll a Jewish-themed comedy, but Christopher Guest and company carefully trace how an Oscar campaign is born, from unsubstantiated hype on the Internet to an actor's disappointment over not getting a nomination and what the entire process can do to a person. In-between we see how trashy TV magazines like Entertainment Tonight feed on the hype that gutter-level shills bring to their attention, lavishing actors with effusive praise only to turn their back to them as soon as AMPAS does. O'Hara's transformation from a serious, doddery thesp to a Jocelyn Wildenstein-like media-monger is an alternately funny and devastating commentary on how Hollywood and elitists like O'Neil and Karger conspire to dictate (bad) taste without any semblance of fair play or regard for how it makes casualties of people like Marilyn Hack. Though some of the National Board of Review's winners illuminate the group's problems with race, the award for O'Hara feels like an acknowledgement of blame for partaking in the business practice anyone who writes about the Oscars and is serious about the movies should be actively working to defeat.

Comments

Great piece, and painfully on-target.My whole body wilts at the very mention of "Oscar season"; I still have to catch up with many of the nominees-to-be, which is pretty much like looking forward to a whipping.I wasn't a fan of For Your Consideration, but the main premise was cutting. Lynch's sublime stunt remains the definite satire, though.

"...but Eastwood had confirmed that Flags of Our Fathers was just a fluke disappointment."Thank Christ. When I found out Haggis didn't write this second part, I nearly squealed with delight. You just added about ten more choices to my Netflix list, too, so thanksabunch! Hope to be in the city within the next week or two to catch Inland Empire at the IFC center.

I doubt any so called "professional" prognosticators are going to take you up on your dare to predict quality just to see if it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I always get the feeling that, with their credibility as "experts" wrapped up in their year-to-year accuracy rates, these people quickly start to get their own opinions of what makes a good movie confused with those of the 68-year-old retired screenwriter in Palm Springs that they're constantly trying to anticipate. And even if they still can discern the difference between a well-made movie and a well-sold one, why risk being wrong if the folks who hire you for your "expertise" never are going to figure out how much contempt you really have for the people you're trying to influence?

While I'm basically in agreement with your argument, the priorities of the prognosticators seem reflected on this site as well, regardless of the diverging assesments of merit. Clicking through to Slant's reviews shows that Requiem has far and away the shortest write-up of any film (and unless I misused the search function, hasn't been written up on the blog), while Dreamgirls and Babel hover around a thousand words apiece. This isn't meant as a gotcha; I understand that such things are set in advance and who can tell when something unheralded will prove remarkable. But the attention a given film receives is by and large dictated long before the talking heads start gabbing on ET or Inside Edition, in Slate no less than another "middlebrow" or "gutter-level" forum. The Oscar race, being a mainstream endeavor, merely focuses on the loudest and least avoidable squeals in the feedback loop.

What does Karger's preference for Rinko Kikuchi over Gong Li say about him, exactly? I need to know, since it says the same thing about me.

Brian: Regarding prognosticating, I would say that the majority of the people who work to hype the whole for-your-consideration process are mostly working on the Internet, and the majority of them are doing this sort of work for free. I understand that Karger is just doing his job, but there is a vast community of others who do exactly what he's doing and whose only compensation is the thrill of getting as many predictions correct as possible. But what sort of pleasure is this? It seems so useless and damaging, and all the more offensive when the ones making these predictions seem to actually care about movies. We make Oscar predications on this site, but mostly as a platform for guerilla debate; we don't care about who's-wearing-what, only the what-the-fuck choices and what they mean. And the funny thing here is that I think people would be open to change: We get a lot of emails from people who enjoy our prediction articles but who are nonetheless taken aback by the tone of our commentary—simply because they're accustomed to such resistance.

Bruce: I didn't discuss the role critics play in this whole process simply because I didn't have time, so let me touch on that here. We've all heard about how print publications seem to be suffering because people are getting most of their entertainment information online. I've had conversations with other people who run big sites about our escalating traffic and how we can pool our talents to steer the conversation about film in interesting, healthy directions. A lot of writers in the blogosphere are already doing this, but I think some of the bigger e-zines are still playing catch-up. Though there are a lot of writers who don't have the free reign to say anything they want (or the space to do so), others do, and we should be cognizant about what we can do with our power. Who knows if this will be fruitless, but one of the reasons I wrote this blog entry was because I was entertaining the idea of intermittingly doing activist for-your-consideration columns for films and performances as a means of affecting a sense of fair play.

Yesterday, The New York Film Critics Online picked their winners, which I won't reprint here since it's been reported in different places. I also won't reprint the nominees we had to choose from in all the categories, simply because most of you would be embarrassed by the choices. (Let's just say that films like Dave Chappelle's Block Party stuck out in categories like saplings in steaming piles of dung.) I don't want everyone to push the same agenda or share the same taste I do (that would be fascistic), but there are a lot of critics out there who don't seem to be pulling their weight. Fuck if I care if a critic shares my opinions—some of my favorites hate most of the movies I do—but it's infuriating that there are too many groups with not enough David Edelsteins and too many Kurt Loders, ones who simply make no effort to seriously sample the wide spectrum of the year's movies, from Apocalypto and Dreamgirls to Syndromes and a Century and Old Joy. I'm not saying everyone should see 300-plus-movies, but some sort of effort would be nice. It all seems so undemocratic and unfair that people who have only seen 20 movies a year and whose best-of choices seem to be dictated by the recommendations on the backside of their for-your-consideration screeners can so easily sway the movie electorate.

A great piece reflecting how I feel this time of the year. The whole Oscar circus just leaves a bad taste in the mouth of a true lover of the cinema. If only such a change as you suggest were to occur.

Bah. Humbug.This is my favorite time of year. And I love the cinema.A big part of loving Oscar Season is simply to accept it for the circus it is.And hype or no hype, bad co-stars or good co-stars, Jennifer Hudson gives a great performance in Dreamgirls.

Yeah, okay, so I'll cop to loving both Dreamgirls and The Good German, but I have definitely been feeling the futility of plowing through the pile of for-your-consideration screeners and dragging myself to as many for-your-consideration screenings as possible when almost all of these year-end movies have the exact same tone and are at best mediocre. And although I am unable to consider movies like Old Joy, Inland Empire and Requiem simply because they haven't played in my area and aren't blanketing critics groups with screeners, I will be championing plenty of movies from much earlier in the year and with small or nonexistent Oscar campaigns.But it seems like such shouting in the wilderness when, like Ed, I am in a critics group (the Las Vegas Film Critics Society) that has far too many people voting for nothing but what they've seen in the last month and have been told to vote for. The last few days have seen a long email discussion of the relative awards prospects for Rocky Balboa. Rocky fucking Balboa.I am just ranting at this point, probably, so I will stop and add just one more thing: The Dead Girl is possibly the worst movie of the year.

It might surprise y'all to know that I loved this post and hear it loud and clear despite being, presumably, one of those people being berated.But I have to tell you. When you start getting general to the point of 'true lovers of cinema don't care' you've lost the argument.The Oscars were how I found my love for cinema... and I've met many other people who've experienced similar baptisms. Who know rail at the Academy choices, like me, because they see everything. Or at least a lot.So they'll always be tied together for me, the Oscars and cinema, for better and worse. My family rarely went to movies and one year I watched the Oscars on TV and I became obsessed with seeing the movies that I saw in the clips and eventually the obsession mutated into a cinema fixation first and foremost and a fascination with Oscars as a reflection of American mainstream taste, industry prejudices, and a bunch of other ingredients in a big weird pot. Even if they'd never even look at Requiem they're still fascinating. But you have to take them for what they are and always have been.

Oh and also... it does hugely suck that critics groups are now only trying to push a horse rather than state their preference.That is an atrocious development.

Ed sounds bitter he does not write for a better known publication. Do not let it eat away at you mate. Oscars are a bit of fun and nothing else, no need to jump on the tired "Oscars do not represent true art" argument that pretentious "art" critics have been boring us with for years.How are you going to hate on the legend Eddie Murphy? And Beyonce, only a gay man can hate that beautiful and humble creature. Jennifer Hud, only a man with a heart of stone would deny her her coming out party. You are turning into Armond White.Oscar season is always fun, those left out of the loop start crying and throwing their toys out of the pram. If Any of these major outlets threw Ed a bone he would hop on that tail quicker than Roger Friedman taking credit for the success of something he had nothing to do with.

Nathaniel: You weren't mentioned by name in this blog entry, and though I won't lie and say that you didn't come into my mind while I was writing it, I've got no beef with you. (That should be evident from the link to your blog on the side of this page.) You may feed the machine, but you lob wrenches into it from time to time, countering your Oscar reportage with coverage of alternative media that you won't see people like Tom O'Neil and Dave Karger ever talk about. I think everyone's initial relationship to the Oscars was more or less the same, but it sounds like defeatism to say "take them for what they are and always have been." If even the good guys believe in change then, yeah, we really are doomed. Mike: Fuck you.

May I humbly second Ed's comment to Mike, and also congratulate you for your recent appearance in the film section of the Voice (another reason for hope in addition to Nathan Lee). For those who prefer Oscar promotion to serious criticism, there are more than enough places to find it.Is it just me or is this the worst Oscar season in recent memory? Other than Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima and maybe Pan's Labyrinth, there is no major holiday release I look forward to seeing this year. I just saw the amazing Inland Empire. Nothing could top Mulholland Dr. for me but, although I wouldn't rank Empire #1, I wasn't bored for a second. That it doesn't stand a chance of an Oscar nomination is a testament to Lynch's originality and artistic integrity and the Academy's virtual lack of those qualities.

David Lynch is the Nas of directors. Even though what he is feeding you is psycho bable hogwash, you better praise and associate yourself with him if you want to be seen as credible and intellectual.As for the gig at the Voice. Congratulations, although that is the premier institution for death by overanalysis of things the layman just finds regular. But hey, us laymen are too dumb to see the layers of observational and analytical genius that these films are employing.I wouldn't be surprised to see a 5 page editorial on why Soul Plane is the most important film of all time. Oscars hurry along, I can't wait. All those gowns and glamour, yep, sign me up. You can all enjoy your Village Voice Pazz and Jopp best movies of the year.I bet most of the people replying in this blog are NYU Film Review dropouts.

Mike, if I'm deluding myself into liking Inland Empire to appear intelligent, then what does your presumptuousness about my resume, what I'm jealous of, and what I'm willing to sell out my ethics for reveal about you? (You don't know shit about me so don't call me mate.) Who knew someone could like the Oscars so much to bring out such a juvenile spectacle of retribution? You could learn a thing from a gentleman like Nathaniel Rogers, who knows how to stay on point even when we're in disagreement. I'll do you a favor and help you out by clearing up some of our madness: the Pazz and Jop poll's contributors come from all over the country (not just from The Village Voice staff), and they rate the best albums and singles of the year, not movies; and NYU's curriculum doesn't currently include a major in Film Reviewing. As soon as you ludicrously and borderline-homophobically said that only a gay man would hate the "beautiful and humble creature" that is Beyoncé (confusing my distaste for the singer's performance in Dreamgirls for something more personal), your obviously delusional self proved that you didn't merit anything more considerate than a "fuck you" from me. I guess, then, I should apologize for having gone on so long here. So, with that, here's another one: Fuck you!

Er, It reveals that I understand you guys. You guys being faux rebels against the er, system of mainstream movies. You know, cause we all know those mainstream pop commentators need to be taken down before the world we live in is destroyed.You do not have to like DreamGirls, but you came across as bitter, and I think to myself, goodness, it is just a movie, a great Christmas movie that the whole family can see and that is it. If it wins Oscars or not, I could care less. If it has all this hype so what. Good I say. Lets celebrate. Everyone knows the Oscars is not about true art anyway, a lot of crap has won and a lot of great stuff has been overlooked, we know that, so we take it for what it is. And if Jennifer Hudson can have the ride of her life why would anyone begrudge her that by saying she is only memorable because everyone else in the movie stinks?You said something in your review about a certain british actress being more black than the 3 dreamettes. How do you figure? And was that called for? Thats just seems like a spiteful thing to say as if the 3 actresses in Dreamgirls autered the movie. If yiou are throwing the barb at the director fair enough, but those 3 women are just trying to progress with this acting thing.They were given an opportunity they would have been stupid to turn down. That is why I compared you to Armond White cause that is the kind of mean spirited bait he throws out there all the time when no one is paying attention to him. To this day he still hates on certain black actors for no reason that I can think off. He is still mad at Denzel, still mad at Samuel Jackson, still mad at Will Smith although he gave a weird review of his new movie which i cannot tell if it is positive or negative. Not because of their acting, but because of some kind of betrayal of their race that he has got into his head.David Lynch is alright, I like some leftfield weirdo movies now and again, but just because I do not understand what he is talking about in his movies does not mean we should automatically say its the only thing in town worth a damn.I apologise for the gay if you took offense but the comment was meant it as it was said, ie, do not read between the lines, ie which straight man doesnt like Beyonce? it was juvenile but i was trying to be funny, not homophobic. Just replying to the DreamGirls backlash. Isn't this the kind of film people cry for, all black casts that have no rappers in the movie or rapsploitation flicks, doesn't mean we should automatically deem it great if it isn't, and even though it is only a black movie up front, i was still happy to see it.Think about it, DreamGirls, Beloved, Color Purple. You try and progress then the same people who been having your back all this time, automatically switch and rebuke the thing they been crying or all this time. Seem's like some attention seeking fix to me. Either that or they just got a messed up perspective.

Uhm, I'm about as straight as they come, and Beyonce is a long way off from getting my freak on. She ain't bad, but she looks more plastic than skin and flesh. I like my people like I like my movies: more texture than formula. Give me Janeane Garofalo or any day.

Rob, you missing the point, Thats Ok though.

I saw "For Your Consideration" also, and I thought the point of it was pretty damn good one, but other than that I didn't enjoy it as much as others did. I agree with ED'S argument also. I saw the beautifully dark "Requiem", and I agree with you that Sandra Huller was great. Lynch's "Inland Empire" was second on my top 10 list (1= "Army of Shadows")and I still want to see it for the third time. I think that while the films nominated for oscars aren't always necessarily bad, it's usually independent film, or foreign that lands on my top10 list. All in all, I agree with Ed.

Mike: Uhm, I "get" that you were trying to make a joke. I also "get" that it wasn't funny, except maybe to the same demographic that tends to find Carlos Mencia uproarious.

Hey! Carlos Mencia is funny!

Kind of wierd but I agree with Ed. And with Mike. At the same time. Really, their comments aren't very different from each other.Love Slant magazine, Ed. Keep up the good work. But I'll admit I was a little bit down when I didn't see Eli Roth's brilliant, fucked up masterpiece Hostel in your Top Ten for 2006. Sniff!

The thing I continually love about this site and its writers is the overall constant denial of expectations. I guess I'll have to re-evaluate my perceptions on humor's diverse demographics, so I do take that comment back, Ed (and I'm sure you know I meant no real offense anyway). Even though the genre is about as subjective as they come (just as you don't get Monty Python, I doubt I'll ever be able to tolerate Eurotrip), however, I think we can all agree on the need for Tim Allen's immediate retirement.

I 100% agree on Allen's inmediate retirement. Hahaha! Another thing that I also love about Slant is their love towards genre films. Mainly horror. Most of the "greatest" American critics out there seem to have a natural born aversion to the genre. It seems plain snobbery to me.

I love the genre, although not everything of the past few years has been my cup of tea. When I finally got around to Cabin Fever I liked it quite a bit, and Wolf Creek was phenomenal (of the past decade, Blair Witch has to be my favorite). As for Saw and its kin, not so much, although I have a strange fondness for the first one: it was the first movie I saw after Bush was re-elected, and all things considered, it was a pick-me-up.

I remember how frightened I was the very first time I saw The Blair Witch Project. The final 10 minutes, when they go to the abandoned house, scared the shit out of me. A cult classic all the way and a favorite of my that decade for sure.

Horror has been terrible the past couple years. Get this: from all the horror films I've seen this year I think the only one deserving of a second viewing is the Pulse Remakle. Yup. The Pulse Remake. Horror has been terrible and hasn't been taking any creative chances. Eli Roth has to be the king of disappointments, and he has only made two of them so far.

Let me disagree with you. As any period where the U.S. has been involved in a foreign war, the years running from 2002 to 2006 have brought some of the sickest, most fucked up, nastiest, darkest jewels of the genre. Especially 2006. Geez! There are films that I went happily to see and was so repulsed and shocked that didn't want to see them again in a while. Or ever.The thing so great about this period for horror films, is the fact that you don't have to go to a underground movie theater or to a midnight showing to enjoyed them, because finally mainstream Hollywood has embraced the nastiest subgenres with full commitment to it: slasher, gore, explotaition, splatter; you name it. For that matter as an aficionado of the genre, I can only express grattitude.

Ok, so, I can dig on Ed's liking Mencia, even though I don't get it in the slightest. However, I can not dig on my ENTIRE family repeatedly singing along to his ditties within range of my hearing (it doesn't help that they like Larry the Cable Guy too, who I tend to place about three rungs down from mephistopheles on the ladder of evil).Pointless comment, I know. Thought it might be an amusing contribution.

And by the way... When did Clint Eastwood admit to Flags' failure? He seemed to be pretty proud of both films on Letterman. And even if he did say anything, it doesn't automatically make it a bad film. Gus Van Sant said his Psycho was bad. Is it? Not really. Mark Wahlberg said The Truth About Charlie was bad. Is it? Not really. Flags is an amazing film, one that not even its own creator can fully comprehend.

Stefan V: I noticed your comment and went back to see where it came from. Based on Ed's statment, I think what was meant that Eastwood's work itself on Letters confirmed that Flags was - for those who didn't like it (myself included) - just a fluke disappointment. In fact, Letters so impressed me that I'm willing to give the first film another go-around.

Please complete the form below to submit a comment on this article. A valid email address is required to submit a comment though it will not be displayed on the site.

HTML has been disabled but if you wish to add any hyperlinks or text formatting you can use any of the following codes: [B]bold text[/B], [I]italic text[/I], [U]underlined text[/U], [S]~~strike through text~~[/S], [URL]http://www.yourlink.com[/URL], [URL=http://www.yourlink.com]your text[/URL]

For Your Consideration: Hijacking the Oscar Season

Comments

Leave a comment

Categories

Archive

Links

For Your Consideration: Hijacking the Oscar Season

Comments

Leave a comment

Categories

Archive

Links

Website