Yikes, the Golden Globes!! Popularity ensues.

Wow, I suck. I didn't realize the GG were so close. Off my game. Will be back on for the Oscars. Letsa Go-a! I'll do the SAGs and DAGs in another post. Color codes are same as last year and have somewhat relevance. Red means Strong. Grey means Dark Horse. You know the deal.

I left out the TV portion, because here's what I think: Modern Family should win. Anything that has to do with anyone from Deadwood should win. And The Walking Dead too. SUMMED.

I should probably state that I have seen very few of these. So I'm shooting for all Hollywood Foreign Press politics, which is all glam and no substance. (You want to know why there's no technical categories? It's because the GG have no idea how to judge those.) And of course, the GG have a lot of "WHAT!?" entries. Expect some snarky remarks along the way. (I love those.)


Cecil B. DeMille Award

Robert De Niro

Yeah, I'm talking to you.

Best Motion Picture - Drama
Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The King's Speech, The Social Network
I'm glad no silly names made it here. The big battle here is between the artsy, dramatic tale of Black Swan or the generational narrative of the Social Network. I think either one has a chance at the Oscars, as well as the King's Speech; since the GG tends to be more of a popularity contest, I'll say the Social Network. I labeled Inception as the Dark Horse because it is this year's Avatar, with the exception of its originality and non-cheesiness (basically, just the blockbuster factor is the same). I wouldn't be surprised to see the HFPA go in favor of the bucks.


Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Drama
Halle Berry – Frankie and Alice, Nicole Kidman – Rabbit Hole, Jennifer Lawrence – Winter's Bone, Natalie Portman – Black Swan, Michelle Williams – Blue Valentine
Natalie Portman is Hollywood's princess. She can do no wrong, even as the terrible Queen Amidala. Personally, as a viewer of a timeline of her works, I'm really not that impressed, but whatever, I'm a student so that doesn't matter. Halle and Nicole are popularity choices. I would love to see Michelle Williams pull this one out, but she won't. I don't know if you can tell, but I am not very enthused about this category.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama
Jesse Eisenberg – The Social Network, Colin Firth – The King's Speech, James Franco – 127 Hours, Ryan Gosling – Blue Valentine, Mark Wahlberg – The Fighter
Jesse, Mark, and James are really really popular guys. That might do to outweigh the outstanding Colin Firth, but I don't think it well. He's long overdue, will probably win the Oscar, so HFPA will probably just hand it over. I'm pissed that Leonardo Dicaprio isn't here for Inception. What the fizzle.

Best Motion Picture - Comedy Or Musical
Alice in Wonderland, Burlesque, The Kids Are All Right, Red, The Tourist
Also known as the "Bullshit"  "We Don't Care" "Space/Time Fillers" category. First off, I had no idea that Alice and the Tourist were considered comedies or musicals. That's news to me. Second, I had no idea Burlesque didn't tank at the box office and should be an award contender (sarcasm inserted here). The Kids Are All Right is fantastically well made film that is relevant to this generation; I say Red is a contender simply because of the surprise win for the Hangover last year.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Comedy Or Musical
Annette Bening – The Kids Are All Right, Anne Hathaway – Love And Other Drugs, Angelina Jolie – The Tourist, Julianne Moore – The Kids Are All Right, Emma Stone – Easy A
"Hey, let's shit on ourselves with more bullshit!"  I'd just like to state that half these nominees have no business here. I'm shocked that no one kissed Jennifer Aniston's or Katherine Heigl's ass this year. Julianne Moore is incredible talented, as is Annette Bening; but Moore is often overlooked and SHOULD win. Hathaway is just one of those favorites. So she might. Doubt it.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Comedy Or Musical
Johnny Depp – Alice in Wonderland, Johnny Depp – The Tourist, Paul Giamatti – Barney's Version, Jake Gyllenhaal – Love And Other Drugs, Kevin Spacey – Casino Jack
What a great example of ass kissing. Just highlighting Spacey because he's awesome. Not that I don't like Johnny... But I don't think he deserves to be here. And that's why the GG are never taken too seriously. They should just nominate Bed Intruder, for the hell of it.

Best Performance by an Actress In A Supporting Role in a Motion Picture
Amy Adams – The Fighter, Helena Bonham Carter – The King's Speech, Mila Kunis – Black Swan, Melissa Leo – The Fighter, Jacki Weaver – Animal Kingdom
Let me explain. It SHOULD be Helena. But Amy and Mila are incredibly popular in their respective films. Carter is just so often overlooked- I hope she pulls it off this year, even if she is a home wrecker. (Where the hell is Marion Cotilliard for Inception!?)

Best Performance by an Actor In A Supporting Role in a Motion Picture
Christian Bale – The Fighter, Michael Douglas – Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, Andrew Garfield – The Social Network, Jeremy Renner – The Town, Geoffrey Rush – The King's Speech
 Should be Rush, but everyone who doesn't work with Bale loves him. Renner is there because he was in the Hurt Locker. Douglas is there because 1> He's Michael Douglas and 2> He's married to Catherine Zeta Jones. Aaaand Garfield (as cute as he is) is a space filler. I'd rather see Joseph Gordon Levitt as a space filler.

Best Animated Feature Film
Despicable Me, How To Train Your Dragon, The Illusionist, Tangled, Toy Story 3
Toy Story 3 will win, because it's Pixar and is part of the Toy Story franchise. However, I do think Despicable Me was good enough to pull off an upset.

Best Foreign Language Film
Biutiful (Mexico, Spain), The Concert (France), The Edge (Russia), I Am Love (Italy), In A Better World (Denmark)
I'm saying Denmark just 'cause.

Best Director - Motion Picture
Darren Aronofsky – Black Swan, David Fincher – The Social Network, Tom Hooper – The King's Speech, Christopher Nolan – Inception, David O. Russell – The Fighter
Nolan has a huge chance of pulling an upset- just look at what he's done, and it will count as compensation for the Dark Knight. David Fincher and Darren Aronofsky are both names that have been around for a while and are long overdue with two immensely popular films, so either one will win. I'm going to say Fincher because of Network's mass appeal that has already stricken the public. But to be honest, I wouldn't mind if either of them won.

Best Screenplay - Motion Picture
Simon Beaufoy, Danny Boyle - 127 Hours
Christopher Nolan - Inception

Stuart Blumberg, Lisa Cholodenko - The Kids Are All Right

David Seidler - The King's Speech

Aaron Sorkin - The Social Network

Aaron Sorkin will win for his quick, witty dialogue that is sometimes ahrd to follow because Jesse Eisenberg spoke rapidly to come off as "smart." However, I really think it should go to the King's Speech or the Kids Are All Right- superbly paced and characters really fleshed out. Lovely.

Best Original Score - Motion Picture
Alexandre Desplat - The King's Speech, Danny Elfman - Alice in Wonderland, A. R. Rahman - 127 Hours, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross - The Social Network, Hans Zimmer - Inception
I like Hans. No surprise there. But I also love Reznor. As much as I didn't feel too much for the Social Network, the music was definitely outstanding. Rez, you've come a long way.

Best Original Song - Motion Picture
"Bound To You" – Burlesque, "Coming Home" – Country Strong, "I See The Light" – Tangled, "There's A Place For Us" – Chronicles Of Narnia: The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader, "You Haven't Seen The Last Of Me" – Burlesque
I'm going to say Tangled, just because Alan Menken wrote it. I refuse to support Narnia because it's a blatent, meaningless, cheap rip off of West Side Story. And Burlesque, you just suck. Why is Country Strong here? That came out last week. And if so, I would much rather see that nominated than Burlesque.

I can't wait for the real awards to roll around.

Lately...

... I've been in a self reflective mode, probably due to a mixture of the following: finals week, final grades, the recent death of an acquaintance (which I will get into a bit later), the cleansing of my room (also a semi-cleansing of my past), random conversations, and finally a class I took on theory that I took maybe a bit too seriously. (All three term papers utilized theory and pretty much all focused of Feminism- yeah, I'm one of those. And I've randomly decided I am a Marxist. But not modern day/Red China Marxism, I'm talking about Marxism from the man himself.)

Uhh, this might be really long. And yeah, it's a bit more formal than what I usually write. Still in grad school-mode, I guess.

Theory classes, though frustrating at some parts, have really opened up my eyes to my own philosophies and gave me strong insight to what I was passionate about- I encourage everyone to dabble in it at some point, though it may not be for everyone. Most of it is old men that like to hear themselves talk, but there are some incredible thoughts and perspectives upon art, literature, and thus society. Hegel ("The Master-Slave Dialectic") was one of those "old men," but he had some interesting points to make concerning the Individual and the Other.

I disagree with him in the Other always taking the position of the antagonist- I strongly believe that there are multiple human perspectives and the cliched "two sides to every story" is absolutely true. To somewhat quote myself, every human being has their own beliefs and their actions reflect that- we cannot fully blame them what they think or have been led to believe that what they are doing is right. There are more factors than right or wrong. Everyone is an Individual and everyone is an Other. Life, humanity, cannot be so black and white. Unless you are Voldemort.

However, his assertion that the Individual identifies him/herself through recognizing what he/she is not through the other is correct- but only to a certain extent. I do not deny this; but I do think that our related characteristics and what connects us also has a say in our individuality- which he does not address. We cannot possibly be expected to learn all there is to know on our own; we cannot live without the presence of and avoid other humans; and therefore, we cannot survive without correlating to each other. What makes us alike and different both have their own hands in our identification.

Perhaps that opens up a bit for what I am about to get into. If you see no link whatsoever, then maybe it will just provide some insight to my perspective of humanity. Or confuse you, which I will assist. Hegel was pretty good at that. Onwards. Put your thinking cap ON.

Less than two days ago, an acquaintance of mine (her name was Noelle) was hit by a car and passed away. Given the disposition of Mother Nature and her rage of ice and snow, I expected there to be a few accidents- I did not expect it to be someone I was familiar with. Though I was not very close with her (we're not even friends on Facebook!), I knew several people who were. Mourning began instantly, via the Internet (I capitalize that because, yes, I think it's become such an integral part of society that it deserves it). People openly grieved, left her personal messages on her wall.

Interesting, for I have always felt that grief and extreme emotions were something to be handled in the private aspects of life. I'm not saying that they should not openly grieve- the exertion of emotion is sometimes necessary and cannot be helped. I just see things differently. Maybe I am an ice queen or am one of the few that believes in the public/private aspects. Not the men/women thing, but there are faces one displays for everyone to see and others that only a few get to see. I, for one, am not so comfortable with open emotions- I think extreme displays of sentiments for other people should be kept between those; they are incredibly personal and the feelings I have are meant for just those people- I don't need random people knowing my business and I don't need strangers knowing what I might be upset about. (Of course, I personally also dislike the idea of being publicly vulnerable or weak, or imposing myself on others. That's not what some people are for.) I don't think this makes me disagreeable; just selective of who I trust wholeheartedly; after all, there are only a few true people one can trust throughout life.

Friends, romantic partners, and such, really they come and go quite frequently, though some are too stubborn to admit or acknowledge this. It is natural for people to grow together, shift apart, and then come back, maybe leave again. We cannot hope to hold on to everything at once- that just hinders human progress. We can only wish that our experiences change us for the better. I'm not saying it is wrong to mourn or to try and keep our connections- but if the tide is moving one way, we cannot fully avoid being swept in its currents. I've taken on the role of a pessimistic optimist; basically, I'm always the one saying, "Yeah, that sucks, but what can you do? Just go with it/Just move forward." It is impossible to control everything around us; the best we can to is to take a hold of things we know we have power over.

Most people see this as indifference. That's fine. I like the idea of building, of growing, as a person. Case in point: If I have a crappy relationship, I'm not going to sit and cry about it because it happened. I can't pull a Time Turner and pretend it didn't. I'm going to use it to my strengths: what not to look for, what to look for, what makes me happy, what I need to find in another, what I can do to build with someone when I find him. And I've always been like that, even from a young age; deeply reading my earlier years, I had some really terrible things happen to me (more than the average seven year old), none of which I've kept or taken to heart. They have changed me and I've used these changes for the better. It's not an easy process to accept the bad for the good, but maybe I'm just more hard headed and stronger than the average person.

However, the subject of Death takes on a different perspective. By all means, mourning is not objectionable; sometimes it is necessary. When something is taken so suddenly, one cannot help but feel left wandering. But I think more people harp on the loss rather than thinking, "How did this person help me grow? Why did I keep this person in my life?" In focusing on these qualities, it makes us more determined to seek out those things later, providing a personal resolve to fill those holes; as much as we lament the loss of someone, we can always find something to replace/remind him/her. It is just a manner of taking on the responsibility to find it ourselves; people must seek out their own happiness. It may seem selfish, but it helps us reflect on the good things about that person; it takes a bit of the pain away.

Then again, this is coming from someone who believes that the purpose of human connection is to provide personal growth. People change us, even if we do not know them. Someone bumps into a man, who then spills coffee on himself, changes his day. A random act of kindness can affect someone for a whole week. We must use these to our advantages.

The strong belief in this progression always prevents my personal emotion. Yeah, I'm kind of heartless sometimes; but it's in favor of building myself. Not such a loss. At the ripe age of twenty two, I would say this self belief has truly molded me as a person; I am much more aware of myself and who I am than the average young adult. I can identify myself and take a hold of responsibility with much more perseverance and assurance than many of my peers. A good thing. I like knowing who I am. It makes life a whole lot less confusing and keeps goals in check. Not many people can say that, so booyakasha.


I'm done writing and somewhat lacking in conclusion, so I'll leave you with the top two of My Bucket List (or something like that):

• New Zealand, or traveling in general. Haven't done enough of that.
• Meet /Get in touch with Peter Jackson and tell him how he saved me (You jest, but it's true).

Right-o.

Philosophy on Human Happiness

When you sit down and think about it, at the end of the day there are only three things in the world that matter: the way you feel about others, the way others feel about you, and the way you feel about you.

For really, what other than human connection and emotion is there to drive us day by day? What else is the constant force behind all actions, thoughts, and words? What gives us a purpose or motive? What makes us want to be better people, and thus create a more significant society?

The people we choose to surround ourselves with echo what we think of ourselves. If we are to be with or care for people who consistently bring our spirits down, who degrade us into nothing more than a shell, who leave us wondering what bit of good is left in them, then we are choosing not to be content. We are choosing not to be loved, simply because we think we do not deserve it. To be surrounded by people who love and support us and our own morals and beliefs is to be where we belong.

That being said, the way people think of you does matter; and we can still go through life thinking of ourselves as individuals. Caring about how we impress upon people is not shallow or conforming. To be one’s own person does not mean we need to rebel, be rude, or challenge the norm. If we think the best of ourselves, do we not wish that others judge us the same way? Would we rather like people to think of us as kind and happy, not rude? Is there a person in the world that is happy to be thought of as offensive and impolite? Is there someone who is happy to be that person no one else wants to be around? If we are to be treated with respect and pleasantness, then it is not a crime to treat others the same and we should. No one deserves respect outright: it is worked for and earned through our own measures; we must give people a reason to think we deserve it.

Lastly, we cannot burden others with the duty of our own happiness. We must look within and depend on those tools to create an atmosphere of comfort. We cannot depend on the opinions of others to create our own image. Self-confidence, self-respect, delight in one’s life can only be ensured, stabilized, and guaranteed by one person, and that is yourself. We cannot make others happy without making ourselves happy first. It is not selfish to think of yourself highly; no one else knows you well enough to do so, thus the duty is left to yourself. If you have the confidence to believe you deserve happiness, then you will grasp it for yourself; you will work towards the people and things that make you smile. It is the formation of our own mindset that gives us the power to express upon others our own confidence and contentment with ourselves. The choice of working towards that happiness is a choice of power; and the decision to take that power is to become responsible for ourselves as adults.

How do we treat others? Behavior towards one another is a self reflection of ourselves. As human beings, we cannot think or believe that someone is mistreating another of intended viciousness or contempt outright. With the exception of spite and revenge, we should not believe that actions are done for the purpose of hurting the other. There are far too many people in the world to think someone can be purely malicious; in everyone’s head, each person is correct by their own right. Things cannot be so black and white in a world so vast. Therefore, do we take action without listening, understanding, and perhaps sympathizing? To be a human is to feel and to have the ability to express those emotions; if we react without thinking, there is nothing that separates us from the creatures whose lands we have overrun. To understand the other is the strongest form of human will and emotion.

(Nothing really that exciting, just some scribbles while I'm supposed to be doing work.  Must admit, though, it sounds quite pretty.)

Announcement: The Buildup.

Winter of 2011 marks the ten year anniversary of when The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring hit the theaters and thus, changed my life forever. I will be working on a long blog of my love of the series.

For those who know me well, LOTR:FOTR has been a huge, unique, steadfast part of my life- and that isn't going away any time soon. Whenever I try to express my affection and appreciation, I always fall short of words. There simply aren't enough words in the dictionary to describe what feelings and joys it gives me. So for the next few weeks, months, whatever, I am going to try as hard as possible to put my emotions into words. The finished article will be led in by various articles of (perhaps) short bios of standout cast and crew members, as well as films and workers I feel have been strongly and obviously influenced by the series. I hope to have one of these per month to lead into the ten year anniversary, starting in July. This means there will be about 16 articles. That's a lot of work- but I will enjoy every minute of it.

I truly hope that these will do LOTR:FOTR justice as it has affected me. I know that many people aren't as flabbergasted or in awe of the series as I am, many people don't understand how I can watch it on endless occasions, many people don't take into consideration the amount of work and success put into these pieces of art. But perhaps if they, and you, read words from the heart on this beloved work, they will understand- even if it is a little bit- why and how LOTR has built such a strong and loyal fan base to match its legacy.

Up Next: A Short Bio On The Long Life Of J.R.R. Tolkien.

And then...

Did lots free writing yesterday in Washington Square Park. Maybe I'll take some time out to actually expand on it and type it up. Some of the more fun stuff, for free, just for you:

• How novel to think that the happiness of many can depend on and not burden the shoulders of one.
• Music- the utmost informal path to one's heart and happiness.
• If the world can be joined together by the simplest rhythms and melodies, we ought to have amplifiers set up in every corner of the world.
• I will never understand why more humans don't follow what their heart trusts and what they love.
• I imagine that even the most talented people suffer a moment of loss and confusion.
• Writing prose is writing lyrics for those without a musical bone.
• Every baby should be a leash baby.
• The most beloved man will be the one who creates a teleporter. He will be my favorite.

OH. AND I wrote a few Haikus because I like 'em; maybe I will turn them into sonnets, because I am capable of that; here's two Haikus:

Light little ditties
Sung of a nonchalant nature
Make strangers smile.
(inspired by random musicians in the park)

Dancing in the rain
The pitter patter of clouds
Gives its own rhythm.
(inspired by little kids running around in a fountain. Also in the park.)

... Moving on. I like parks. I hate parking. See the difference? Does anyone have any Rufus Wainwright I can borrow? I wish I could lick my elbow. Mojito Mint Orbit gum is delicious! Legal pads are the best things to write on. I probably should have pursued/stayed with music as a child and thusly as a teenager and adult. One day, I will read Anna Karenina; it is a novel of a large size. Justine Henin, she's so graceful. The most interesting/fun people to watch are the ones who do what they love and don't hide it. I love Titanic. I can't wait for football season to start. I should finish my scrap book, or at least get past the "start" point. Here's some artwork, because I am next to incapable of drawing and rely on a QWERTY keyboard as my tool:

______ That's a desert.
_/==\_  That's a plateau.
__/\__  Yup. Mountain. :)
_ iiiiiii_ Great Plains.

Have you ever found a book that you really really wanted, hardcover, at a great price, and felt so overwhelmed that you teared up and cried when you read the first page? No? I HAVE! Hooray! Went to Strands and found Teacher Man, the last book in the Frank McCourt "trilogy"  for six bucks and some change. w00t. Planning on going back there to pick up all the books I've ever wanted. Good deal. On the top of the list:
Holes. An Edith Piaf biography. A nice hardcover of Peter Pan. Any nice hardcover of Jane Austen, I like her. More Hemingway (can certainly be found).

I've been writing in an awful amount of fragments lately. Ah, the effect of Twitter. I miss my stylistic run ons. I should go back to those.

Aaaaaand that's my thought process for now. Cheers. Expect more organized patterns of speech in the somewhat near future. Meaning two weeks. Maybe more. Maybe less.

Oh jeez!

Twitter, like blogs, have become too public. There. I've said it.

Sometimes people just need to vent. You don't have to ask me what is going on in life. If I want to discuss it, I will let you know. Hell, I will bring it up myself. Otherwise, just let it be. Not all things are meant to be talked about.

I am seriously considering blocking many people from my Twitter, because some of them have no place in my personal life. Then again, there are some, but not many, people who I am considering blocking from Twitter because they are too close.

It's not that I hate these people or dislike them in any matter. Twitter for me is a quick outlet of short, superficial anger that makes me feel better. They're not things I take too seriously. (Unless I post about something ten times. Then that's serious. But other than that, just let me vent.) Don't think it's too important. After all, Twitter is a trivial matter that doesn't mean anything anyway.

Man, this is looooong Academy Awards. There's a color code to this, I promise.

Hey look, I came through with a post promise! Academy Awards predictions before Sunday! Whoo! This is really long and carefully written; I hope it makes up for the lack of posting lately.

Here we go, predictions for this Sunday's upcoming Academy Awards. Code?
Red-red means I strongly think it will win.
Deep red means they might win.
Black is the dark horse.
And white is a no.

Ok I'll admit: For Documentary (Short and Feature), Short Live Action, and Short Animation, I usually guess. By the name. Yup. Hey, I got The Mozart Of Pickpockets right last year. It works.


Mutation Stuff (Things the actors don to appear as not an actor)

Best Make Up: Star Trek. Is there any other?


Best Costume Design: Coco Before Chanel or Nine. I go with Chanel because, uh, it's Chanel. Nine, because Rob Marshall uses fantastic cloth to elongate Nicole Kidman's legs.

 
Sound Stuff (Not music)
 
Sound Mixing (different from editing, mixing is putting sounds together to create the effect): This will probably go to Avatar. I mean, nothing was real in that movie, might as well splice the sounds too. I would not be surprised if Hurt Locker won this though. ST and IB are longshots; if Avatar wasn't around, Star Trek would definitely walk away with this one.

Sound Editing (putting those sounds to the film): All films are fantastic for this, but I say HL, based on the sole fact that all the explosions and gunshots were perfectly synchronized. So basically, Avatar wins for creating sounds. HL wins for putting it all together. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see Avatar pull this one. Up is a great dark horse in this; it has some really nice effects. And this is another one ST would take if it were't for Avatar.


Music Stuff (Howard Shore is amazing)

Original Song: The Weary Kind from A Crazy Heart, exceptional. Perhaps one of the sings from The Princess and the Frog. Disney rules.

Original Score: If Avatar/James Horner wins, it would be a travesty and a slap to the face of every single composer in the world. Incredible repetitive. Sounds like all his other crap. On the other hand, Mr. Fox and HL could win- but I see Up flying away with this one. So simple. Achingly beautiful. Really incredible music that doesn't take any sort of booms or epic chaos.


Visual Stuff (Ok first off, I do think that anything visual will go to Avatar- and that is completely biased. Just because it's in 3-D does not mean it's the best in that category. Effects, yes. Editing? Cinematography? No. Though it was mindblowing in terms of effects, I don't see anything special in either of those two latter categories.)


Visual Effects: ... Okay, who didn't hear all the overhype about Avatar and how fantastic James Cameron is? (Sense the sarcasm?) I would LOVE to see District 9 take this one away. Incredibly realistic, not cheesy, very well done; but we know 3-D is the new fad right now. Either way it's a Weta win, and then eventually that ties to Peter Jackson, so I'm not complaining. Weta for the win.
Whoo hoo!!!! No Transformers 2!!!!

Art Direction: Avatar, for creating a world out of nothing. Good job, Weta! You win again! Sherlock Holmes is a strong contender, creating a simply gorgeous old London; IDP is just trippy. They love that stuff.

Film Editing: Mmm. Yeah, this is a good one. Honestly, I think Avatar's big win is Visual Effects; I really do think HL had some great editing in regards to the explosions (opening), action sequences (sniper scene), and even the simple grocery scene. The employment of hand held camera was done in a highly non-nauseting and effective way. As I said before, I think Avatar is a big visual clutter that (just because of it's 3-D blah blah blah) is a mess when you take out the sparkle. I really hope the voters look past that and see that the editing is not that fantastic. Of course, IB with it's multiple storylines is a strong contender. Again, I would love to see D9 take this- they did an excellent job with the flow of live news feed. My vote is going to HL or D9- but don't be surprised if Avatar takes it because people are blind.

Cinematography: HP's was really great; but I don't think it was good enough to win. IB was nothing too special in this category (except maybe the Mexican Standoff), so I would be surprised if either of those won. Avatar might win just because this is a visual category. However, I think the most successful film is this is HL, which captured the feel of the Middle East in a majestic, yet terrifying way.


Other Feature Stuff (meaning good, but not enough for Best Picture)

Animated Feature: Up. Up. Up. Up. Up. Coraline, ok, stop animation la dee da dee da. Same thing with Mr. Fox. But Up is so lovely to look at, such a beautiful story, so much more meaningful than half of the live action films out there. Up all the way.

Foreign Film: Uh, I dunno. The White Ribbon, because it's the only other film nominated for something (Cinematography). Why is Flammen & Citronen not included!?


Acting Stuff (... You know, those people you watch.)

Best Supporting Actress: Mo'Nique has been getting tons and tons of hype, which she rightfully deserves and she will definitely win. Maggie is adored; Anna is a n00b, which the Academy loves. Sorely disappointed that Amy Adams was left out of this. I don't understand the fascination with Penelope Cruz.
Missing: Amy Adams for Julie and Julia,  Melanie Laurent for IB

Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, unless someone rips it right from his Gestapo hands. I think Woody Harrelson is waaaaaaaaaaay over due. I would love to see him win, but Waltz is way too awesome. He's a bingo!
Missing: All the guys from HL, Michael Fassbender for IB, Mads Mikkelsen for Flammen & Citronen

Best Actress: I really don't like Sandra Bullock. I think she's an average actress. I don't think she's done anything special. But she'lll probably win. Damn her. Meryl Streep is very close though. And I think Mulligan is an incredible talent and huge dark horse. This will probably be Sidbe's only nomination; but what a break out performance, so she also might possibly win. Mirren is a space filler. I'll say Bullock just based on hype.
Missing: Emily Blunt for The Young Victoria. She's the next Kate Winslet and will be overlooked at every turn; Zooey Deschanel for (500) Days of Summer, Audrey Tautou for Coco before Chanel. Don't say Zoe Saldana; if Andy Serkis didn't get one, she shouldn't either.

Best Actor: Good race. I would be happy to see Bridges, Firth, Renner, or Freeman win. In that order. As long as it's not Clooney. Jeff Bridges. Overlooked and fantastic. Need I say more? Though I would love to see Colin Firth win. He's also often underrated, so subtley talented; I'd be happy to see either of them win, but I think it will go to Bridges. Renner had such a break out year. So good in HL. Such a young, talented guy; and he was on ANGEL! Would love to see him pull this one out. Clooney can't act his way out of a paper bag. I don't know how he keeps picking these up. Freeman, I love Azeem. In any other year, I would say Freeman, because him as Nelson Mandela is a freakin' dream come true. But Bridges. Phew!
Missing: Can I say Sharlto gorram Copely for D9 nine thousand times? And what about Ben Foster for the Messenger? Two truly underrated performances. Also Joseph Gordon Levitt for (500) Days of Summer, Mads Mikkelsen for Chanel and Stravinsky, Matt Damon (The Informant!). Not Sam Worthington; same rules as Zoe Saldana apply to him.

Writing Stuff (Bias always goes to this- usually given to fantastic, acclaimed movies that were not nominated or will not win in other areas; think Eternal Sunshine, Juno, Little Miss Sunshine)

Original Screenplay: Another fantastic race! This will go to either HL, IB, or Up. Up was wonderfully written and I would love to see it win; but it's already got a big award. HL is going big in other areas, so it probably won't win- though it did have some really snazzy dialogue. IB is the front runner and make up in this area. Tarantino knows how to write, I'll give him that. Though I don't think this was his best work, Waltz had some fantastic, memorable, and quotable lines and the Mexican Standoff was classic QT. A Serious Man is a dark horse, simply because it was written by the Coen brothers. And they're kinda cool.
Missing: (500) Days of Summer

Adapted Screenplay: Up in the Air isn't winning anywhere else. I can definitely see Reitman taking this one. He's that darling director that everyone loves. Makes films as amusing as Judd Apatow, but much more meaningful. Would love to see Neill Blomkamp steal this one for D9 though, even though over half the dialogue was improvised by the gorram overlooked Copely. Precious is another that might win this; An Education is a stretch, but I can see why it might win. Gotta give it to UITA though.


Big Stuff (Just a bit of trivia, Best Director and Picture rarely split! Last time was back in 05 when Crash won for Best Picture and Ang Lee won for Best D)



Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow for Hurt Locker, all the way. She did a phenomenol job. Completely gave the look and feel to this massive piece of art. I can see why James Cameron might win this one; he was the captain of a massive ship; but I think Weta mostly ran that show. The actual work on the screen was sub-par. I would have loved to see Blomkamp get a nomination. Much more than Precious. IB might walk away, because, come on it's freakin' QT. But as I said multiple times, not his best work. Reitman is a long long long (think football field) shot; he'll get one eventually though- look at Scorcese. Bigelow really deserves this and I really want her to win.

Best Picture: I'm glad they upped it to ten. It makes the race a bit more interesting and versitile. Ok, where do I begin? Avatar's visuals were great and made the film; however, outside of those, it was one big sloppy mess. I loved loved loved D9 and am SO glad it made it here. Up and UITA are quiet films that have their own following, but not loved by everyone. IB might have pulled this out during any other year (think the Departed- not too many films I would call amazing that year and it was a make up for Scorcese), but this year, HL just blew everyone away. I hope people look past the hype of Avatar and give it to the deserving winner. I'm frightened that people are getting pulled in a blinded by hype rather than quality. HL derserves to win; it is a completely wonderful piece of work, not just spotted in.







Ok, PHEW I'm done. I'd like to close with two things:

1; The reason why I'm so Anti-Avatar is because as a whole, it's not that fantastic. It's a lot of sparkle. People's breaths get taken away by visuals and they're blinded. Good visuals don't automatically make a good movie; just look at Star Wars Episode II. I won't mind if it gets some visual awards. But to win overall Best Picture, when all of the components didn't flow together hamoniously? I don't think it deserves it; there's better made and written films out there without the CGI.

2; While I think D9 should have made more money than it actually did, I'm extremely surprised and pleased that it made it into so many nominations. It shows me that the film industry is thinking of quality rather than sparkle (otherwise Transformers might have been in there) and this is one of the reasons I think HL (quality) will win out over Avatar (glitz); I think it was woefully underrated by the public. It's anti-Bruckheimer/Bay. No, you don't always need a hot girl/guy. You don't need tons of explosions.
Also, I see a ton of similarites between Avatar and D9; and dare I say I think D9 is the better made film. The CGI isn't breathtaking, but it's scaringly believeable. The story was well written/improvised. There's a startingly real feeling to it. And I enjoyed watching it. Absolute pleasure to watch. It really is a rare, well made sci/fi film. Breaks my heart to see that Blomkamp isn't working on Halo after seeing D9; I wish they had kept him on.
Though I don't think D9 will win any awards, though I would be genuinely shocked and happy to see it do so, I just love the fact that it was nominated for so much. Just goes to show that there is faith in a dying genre and people can prevail on true talent and artistry rather than glitter value.

Until Next year, Oscar!