2013 Academy Awards

The thing you have to understand about the Oscars is that I understand the Oscars. It's a big media fest that movie producers invented as a combination circle-jerk and advertising generator.

I'm OK with this.

You see, I like the Oscars. I like the fashions; I like the song and dance numbers; I like the speeches; I like the whole bloated excess of it. I even liked Seth MacFarlane. Was he a misogynistic asshole? Oh yes. Did I still laugh at his jokes? Oh yes.

What can I say - I can find something funny while also finding it offensive. This isn't surprising: it is the main philosophy behind every one of his programs. I generally only watch episodes of Family Guy/American Dad/The Cleveland Show once, because the shocked surprise of some of his jokes can only be conveyed once.

The trick to enjoying rude things? Knowing where you are. I've told some awfully prejudiced jokes in my time and my defence of that is simple - what happens in bars should stay in bars. It's a little like enjoying Las Vegas - you really need to accept the wrongness of it if you are to have any hope of enjoying yourself. Some people can do it, others can't. But make damn sure you're not inadvertently offending those around you.

I enjoy the Oscars by holding an annual Oscar party. Some years hardly anyone shows (I think there were three people at the "party" last year and I once had only two, back in the days of Ggothic Towers), others I get a full house. This year was a full house. Possibly this was due to the promise of exotic cheese and liquor, but I don't think so. Everyone seemed to have a great time and I like to think they'd have shown up even if the offerings were Bud Light and Velveeta-on-saltines. Or rather, they'd have been there, but they wouldn't have consumed anything quite that awful.

So how were the Oscars as compared to ceremonies past? I'd say this one was solid. It benefitted from a lot of the streamlining that has been tried over the last ten years to keep the show on time. Seth MacFarlane did what he was hired to do - generate some controversial buzz in a way that made him the designated target over the Academy itself. Will they use him again? Possibly, he does have the stage presence, good looks and a resonant voice that any decent emcee should have. They won't do it this year though - there's a lot of other people whom they'll want to try first - for example, Tina Fey and Amy Poelher, or Neil Patrick Harris. Hell, I'd like to see Hugh Jackman and Ann Hathaway co-host. Or George Takei!

In the end, there will never be an Oscar as good as they'd like because they don't know who's going to win. That element of surprise is always going to bite you in the end. At the same time, it's what gives the Oscars it's memorable moments that are talked about for years to come. But there's an upper limit to how much that will help since they want those golden moments, but not the risks associated with real controversy. Sure, you can do one-handed push-ups on stage, but god help you if you're a minor award winner attempting to talk about something controversial - the first few rows might hear you, but all the billion or so TV viewers are going to hear is a swelling orchestra.

And so my enjoyment of the Oscars is akin to playing offensive card games - something you do in private with a lot of like-minded friends who are also in on it. Last night I had a lot of like-minded friends - to the point where we missed about 30% of the show because people were gabbing or laughing so loud - and that made it a great night.

Chivalry?

On Facebook, a friend asked what was chivalry. This started a fairly interesting discussion about how it applied to the SCA. My only quibble with the discussion? 1) It included a notion that fighting prowess was a necessary component. While that is certainly true for the SCA's Order of the Chivalry (aka Knighthood), I certainly don't think it's a requirement to be chivalrous. 2) The idea that "Wheaton's Maxim" (Don't be a dick) was sufficient. Necessary, certainly, but we can do so much better than a basic civil standard of behaviour.

Looking it up on Wikipedia, I found the following Ancient Code of Chivalry:

• Believe the Church's teachings and observe all the Church's directions.
  
• Defend the Church.
  
• Respect and defend all weaknesses.
  
• Love your country.
  
• Do not recoil before an enemy.
  
• A single coward could discourage an entire army. Even if the knights knew death was near, they would rather die fighting than show weakness.
  
• Show no mercy to the Infidel. Do not hesitate to make war with them.
  
• Perform all duties that agree with the laws of God.
  
• Never lie or go back on one's word.
  
• Be generous to everyone.
  
• Always and everywhere be right and good against evil and injustice.

I certainly think that someone who is interested in persona-development could do a lot worse than this. Which is to say, if you're a Templar in the SCA, you would certainly be expected to go on about the church and pushing the infidels out of the holy-land. If you're not one of those balls-to-the-wall always-in-character types, you might want to lay off talk about infidels - it's rude. Still, I think we can do better if we look at this with modern eyes and a modern understandings of civil rights.

Church and country can easily be generalized to your community or to humanity in general. We can add in those modern ideas of equality. And we can make an attempt to explain why the rules are important, and not just some arbitrary rules from an age of sexism.

• Defend your family, friends and community.
  
• Respect one another, both those like you and those who are different.
  
• Fight the good fight, even if it means defeat.
  
• Be honest.
  
• Be generous.
  
• Be merciful.
  
• Understand that courtesy - both in small and large things - is done for the sake of doing it, and not because you think others are less capable.

I think this is a decent start. I've known people who follow these rules (albeit, not formalized as such) and they are all people I would respect or admire. I strive for it, but often fail.