Introducing...The Sullivan Award

On his blog, Andrew Sullivan likes giving out awards, which he names for people whose opinions he despises. An example would be The Sontag Award, given to the comment that reflects the most dubious liberal handwringing, or some such nonsense.

The whole thing is unfortunately fairly clever. It's unfortunate because his wit occasionally causes people to listen to things Andrew Sullivan says, and most of the things he says are of the "bomb Iraq-Ronald Reagan was our greatest president-liberals are out of touch with America-give Bush a chance" school of thought.

But today on his blog, Sullivan has written arguably the most wrong-headed item of his entire blogging career. Certainly the leading idiotic quote about 2004 movies I have thus far seen. I will copy it here in its entirety, links and all, so you can more fully absorb the many subtle nuances of lameness:

When I read this A.O. Scott piece on the over-rating of the movie, "Sideways," I was relieved. I wasn't nuts, after all. It's great to see a reviewer finally copping to reviewers' own biases - in favor of movies celebrating older, dweeby, neurotic characters who unsurprisingly resemble ... many critics. Don't get me wrong, the movie was far better than most - and was superb at times. Charles wasn't crazy. But it was too long, a little too precious, and the halleluia chorus greeting it far too loud. (It also reaffirmed my own pet peeve with many movies: that male characters are almost always far less attractive then the women they date and/or marry. Again: that's surely a function of the fact that many movie producers and directors are aging neurotics and movies are their way of reversing reality.) Maybe the encomia for "Sideways" are primarily a function of just how truly terrible most movies now are. But I'm glad to see this little film knocked down a few pegs. Still, compared to "National Treasure" ... I did, however, finally get to see "Garden State" on video. Maybe it's a generational thing, but it was one of the few movies last year that seemed to me in touch with reality. The reality I see around me anyway.

Wow.

I loved Sideways, and feel that Sullivan's complaints don't really make good sense. The movie was sometimes superb, often far better than most, but didn't make the grade because it goes on too long (it's 2 hours flat), Paul Giamatti isn't attractive enough and lots of critics liked it. Eh? I don't think Sideways drags at all, and though I agree that the very last scene is a bit too precious for my tastes, and I would have preferred a more sad, "realistic" ending, this is a minor quibble with a fantastic piece of entertainment.

But if this quote was just a rebuke of Sideways and the praise it has received from critics, it would be tolerable. Wrong, but tolerable. It's in that last comment, about how much he loved Garden State, and then, unbelievably, how realistic it was, how in touch with the reality he sees around him!

Now, maybe he's kidding. I think maybe he's kidding. I hope. I mean, Garden State could be the least realistic movie ever made, just beating out Star Wars and Head of State for the title. Did you see my Worst Movies of 2004 list? Garden State beat out White Chicks! Guess what? It's less realistic. I believe the Wayans could pass as white girls more than I believe Andrew Largeman getting the girl and making peace with his father, alright?

So, I'm introducing this blog's first ongoing award, The Sullivan Award, or The Sully, given to the most foolish film-related opinions on the Internet. Feel free to leave nominees in the comments section below, or e-mail them to me. I'll post them if they're stupid enough. (Obviously, Sullivan's original quote wins the title for 2004...we're currently accepting 2005 nominations).