I’ve been closely following the Oscars for years now, much closer than I should and taking it far more seriously than it deserves. After a while, you age and mature enough to realise (a) it really doesn’t matter in the long run, and (b) that it’s their show, their game, their rules, their statues for their films in their industry – my opinion don’t enter into it. Further to this point is (c) the fact that no matter what happened in late March, 1991, there is nothing that will ever make Dances With Wolves a better film than GoodFellas. The former is perfectly nice; the latter is one of the greatest films ever made. A lack of statues on Irwin Winkler and Martin Scorsese’s mantle doesn’t change that fact, and never will.

Most of the lame-ass media coverage for the awards is not about who won, but who wore what. Then Richard Wilkins will get some facts wrong and make me want to punch a dolphin in the face. Just another day at the office.

A well-informed fellow film geek is – to this day – still pissed off about what happened at the 1976 Oscars – Network, Taxi Driver, All the President’s Men and Bound for Glory were all nominated for Best Picture, and when all the votes were in, the winner was Rocky. His point of contention? They picked the lesser of the five, when among the other four were three modern classics.

But it was their game, and their rules.

It really doesn’t matter that Forrest Gump won big in 1994, I still think Pulp Fiction is the best film of that year, and no amount of cutesy ‘ignorance is bliss’ bollocks will take away the fact that Tarantino’s is a startlingly good, revolutionary film. The Usual Suspects was better than Braveheart; The Royal Tenenbaums was better than A Beautiful Mind. Citizen Kane was better than How Green Was My Valley. 2001 was better than Oliver! There’s 65 or so of these.

Truth be told, all that really happens is that a film is added to a list, and we all go about our days. The winner gets a sticker on the DVD box and a heightened sense of self worth. As Jon Stewart once said, “Before we start handing out gold statues, let’s give ourselves a round of applause.”

There was outrage – OUTRAGE I says – surrounding the 2005 nominees and eventual winner. Five very, very good films were up for the prize, and I would have been happy if any of them won Best Picture: Brokeback Mountain; Capote; Crash: Good Night, and Good Luck (my choice); Munich. Brokeback Mountain had all the momentum going in, was the cultural talking point and had all the guilds and critics awards behind it. Then Crash won and there was huge calamity. Homophobia, they cried. In Hong Kong, racism, they (bizarrely) cried (even though Ang Lee won director and the losing producers were white, it was still anti-Chinese and racist, apparently). But these things happen, Crash got added to a list and we all went about our day.

So our attention of late has been on the awards race in 2010-11, and how the front runner for so long, The Social Network, seems to be destined for second-fiddle status come 28 February when the crowd pleasing The King’s Speech will in all likelihood scoop the pool. The former has received an unprecedented amount of love from critics, winning untold numbers of awards for best film. But the critics don’t vote for Oscars. Actors, directors and producers do. 5700 of those folk just gave 12 Oscar nominations to The King’s Speech, eight to The Social Network, and the Actors, Producers and Directors guilds all voted The King’s Speech the best film of 2010.

Two things need to be noted here: one, The King’s Speech is a fine, fine film. A stirring, old fashioned crowd pleasing cinema with several superb performances, a great script and a unique eye in its direction. Bravo, we all say. Two, The Social Network is a zeitgeist-defining film. It’s an outstanding piece of screenwriting, coupled with a note-perfect director, in a film that could not more perfectly speak volumes about modern life in a digital age. Where we could easily have payed 25c to see The King’s Speech in 1966, The Social Network is wholeheartedly a film of this moment, this decade, this epoch. It was a no-contest winner of best film of 2010 from my own perspective, easily.

It probably won’t win the top prizes at the Oscars, but that does not and will never detract from how good this film is.

The DVD special features are interesting and insightful, and its one of those films to own so you to appreciate its hidden gems over and over.

This DVD is also one of the more beautifully presented packages I’ve owned. If you like geeking out over layout and design, there’s another reason to not download this from a torrent file sharing site. Also, if you pay money for this, they’ll make more films like it, because its popular and it makes money, so it’s therefore a market worth exploring. You know, the ‘smart, educated, looking for challenging entertainment, not interested in dopey crap’ market? We’re out there, and we watch TV too. And not the Biggest Loser, 20-to-1, Two and a Half Men type of TV. The good stuff that has to be actively sought out, gets played out of sequence late at night and is eventually purchased as DVD box sets. That stuff.

I really want The Social Network to clean up at the Oscars. I think David Fincher is well overdue for some Oscar love, I think it’s a film better suited to represent the best of 2010. But it’s just another name on a list. And no result in any forum, anywhere, ever can take away from the film’s greatness.