A case for 'The Social Network'

It's not just coming back for 30%. It's coming back for everything. Maybe.

But wait, isn't the Oscar race "over"? Hasn't The King's Speech virtually locked Best Picture after winning the PGA, DGA, and SAG? Statistically, it sure has. But for those of us still holding out hope, still trying to find some conceivable way to imagine a scenario where The Social Network at least wins Best Director if not Best Picture.

And no, I'm not buying the "different voting bodies" argument, which goes something like this: The people who vote on the PGA, DGA, and SAG are not the people who vote on the Oscars. True. But some of the people who vote on the guilds vote on the Oscars, and none of the people who vote on the Globes vote on the Oscars. So, given statistics and history, I refuse to ever use that as an argument.



Even though the storyline of this year is "the return of the Oscar movie," those emotionally pleasant period dramas that are all about prestige and less about complexity, recent Academy history has completely balked at traditional choices: The Departed, No Country for Old Men, The Hurt Locker, even Slumdog Millionaire in its form less than its content -- none of them seem like traditional "Oscar winners." Sooner or later, the pendulum always swings back. After The Godfather Part II and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest won Best Pictures, Rocky beat Network. After The Deer Hunter and Annie Hall won Best Pictures, Kramer vs. Kramer beat Apocalypse Now. In many ways, The King's Speech represents that metaphorical pendulum swing, while The Social Network continues the trend of bolder, more non-traditional films with strong directorial visions winning the top prize.

Okay, okay, so these are all arguments that actually give preference to The King's Speech. BUT, think of this: The majority (or close to it) of the 9,000 member voting body of the Directors Guild of America works on television. Who else spent most of his career on television? Tom Hooper. Remember, The King's Speech is only his second theatrical feature film; he built a name for himself on plenty of British shows and miniseries. Doesn't it make sense that television directors would want to reward him over David Fincher? Besides, the DGA has no concept of "career wins" or "being overdue" like the Oscars have.

Even if The King's Speech is, as I've said, "destined" to win Best Picture, can we conceivably imagine a split based on this evidence alone? Fincher is a prior nominee -- it's much more difficult for a young director to win than a more vetted director.  He has a reputation.  And with The Social Network winning virtually every single award between the NBR and the Golden Globe, does it make sense to imagine Academy voters looking at a ballot and thinking, "well I loved The King's Speech, so I want to vote for that, but I know this Social Network movie is important and I really respect David Fincher"?

We have three weeks to figure that out.