PRE/DICTION
New word for the day: hateronizing: acting hatefully while patronizing someone ("Oh, I just wish you would drop dead, you stupid idiot"). Cf. patroninzing ("you are a stupid idiot").
New slogan for the day: "If we don't outsource our port security to the terrorists, then the terrorists win!"
And now, for the moment not even I have been waiting for, my first Academy Awards predictions committed to cyberspace.
This Sunday's Oscar telecast constitutes the 78th Academy Awards (78 is also the same age as Harry "Birdshit" Whittington, who disproved Catherine Zeta Jones' and Renee Zellweger's line that "a moving target's hard to hit" (see Oscar broadcast # 75).
So, predictions (I'd love to write at length about this issue, but can't - here's the short and sweet):
Best Picture:
Should win: Munich
Will win: Chokeback Mountain, although at this point, one can no longer say "I'm surprised to hear you say that" when someone says "Crash may be the surprise upset."
Best Director:
Should win: Steven Spielberg
Will win: Ang Lee (will his sisters Home and Beast be attending?)
Best Actor:
Should win: I saw Capote, Good Night & Good Luck, pt. of Walk the Line, & Chokeback. Hoffman should win.
Will win: Hoffman, but it's not a sure bet. Terrence Howard had a great year (he was in "Crash" - need I go on?), he's a great actor, and many people are sick of how the race has seemingly come down to a Ledger-Hoffman showdown.
Best Actress: what a weak year (at least in terms of the people nominated):
Should win: didn't see Charlize, Judi, saw pt. of Walk the Line, didn't see Transamerica, or P&P
So, I can't say.
Will: going out on a slight limb, I'm going with Huffman because she is adored in TV and movies, as is her husband, she is tremendously versatile, I'm not sure how much the Academy likes Reese, and her part isn't that big in WTL (she doesn't appear until well over the 30-min. mark. She may have the least screen time of any Best Actress winner, if she wins, since Frances McDormand in Fargo - voters visualizing that fact may decide to look for someone else).
Best Supporting Actor:
Should win: Saw pt. of Cinderella Man - not Giamatti's best wk. Saw History of Violence, saw pt. of Crash (not Matt Dillon's best wk., and he is a seriously underrated actor), saw Chokeback and did not see Syriana. Some Academy voters may have cooled to Clooney a little (the only thing some of these voters may like more than "lib-rulism" is themselves and their show, and he has doubtless offended quite a few by having said, ad nauseum, that he "would only attend" when nominated. Also, "multiple nominees" have been shut out before).
So,
Should win: from what I've seen, William Hurt (fat chance)
Will win: Dillon (I have a hunch that voters will be looking to reward this movie any way they can, especially in a category where people who've been in the business in a long time who haven't been thought of as good actors but who really are have been rewarded).
Supporting actress: only one I didn't see was Frances McDormand.
Should win: An old rule of thumb states that, to decide who should win an acting Oscar, think of the five nominees for a minute (combined) and their performances, in no particular order. Then, do whatever it was you were doing before. Then, start thinking again. The first one that pops into your head is the one who should win. For this, and for many other reasons, the winner should be...
Should be: Amy Adams
Will be: Amy Adams. Predicting this category is a fool's errand. Most people think the race is between Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz (the former was quite good, the latter superb). Both CHARACTERS were essential to the respective films, but the parts could have been played by someone else. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that voters have seen Junebug, there's no way that they can get Amy Adams' performance out of their head. Her part does not feel like a supporting part; she has the trickiest job of acting of all 20 nominees and pulls it off superbly she is the emotional center of gravity to a degree that no other performance this year can touch.
New slogan for the day: "If we don't outsource our port security to the terrorists, then the terrorists win!"
And now, for the moment not even I have been waiting for, my first Academy Awards predictions committed to cyberspace.
This Sunday's Oscar telecast constitutes the 78th Academy Awards (78 is also the same age as Harry "Birdshit" Whittington, who disproved Catherine Zeta Jones' and Renee Zellweger's line that "a moving target's hard to hit" (see Oscar broadcast # 75).
So, predictions (I'd love to write at length about this issue, but can't - here's the short and sweet):
Best Picture:
Should win: Munich
Will win: Chokeback Mountain, although at this point, one can no longer say "I'm surprised to hear you say that" when someone says "Crash may be the surprise upset."
Best Director:
Should win: Steven Spielberg
Will win: Ang Lee (will his sisters Home and Beast be attending?)
Best Actor:
Should win: I saw Capote, Good Night & Good Luck, pt. of Walk the Line, & Chokeback. Hoffman should win.
Will win: Hoffman, but it's not a sure bet. Terrence Howard had a great year (he was in "Crash" - need I go on?), he's a great actor, and many people are sick of how the race has seemingly come down to a Ledger-Hoffman showdown.
Best Actress: what a weak year (at least in terms of the people nominated):
Should win: didn't see Charlize, Judi, saw pt. of Walk the Line, didn't see Transamerica, or P&P
So, I can't say.
Will: going out on a slight limb, I'm going with Huffman because she is adored in TV and movies, as is her husband, she is tremendously versatile, I'm not sure how much the Academy likes Reese, and her part isn't that big in WTL (she doesn't appear until well over the 30-min. mark. She may have the least screen time of any Best Actress winner, if she wins, since Frances McDormand in Fargo - voters visualizing that fact may decide to look for someone else).
Best Supporting Actor:
Should win: Saw pt. of Cinderella Man - not Giamatti's best wk. Saw History of Violence, saw pt. of Crash (not Matt Dillon's best wk., and he is a seriously underrated actor), saw Chokeback and did not see Syriana. Some Academy voters may have cooled to Clooney a little (the only thing some of these voters may like more than "lib-rulism" is themselves and their show, and he has doubtless offended quite a few by having said, ad nauseum, that he "would only attend" when nominated. Also, "multiple nominees" have been shut out before).
So,
Should win: from what I've seen, William Hurt (fat chance)
Will win: Dillon (I have a hunch that voters will be looking to reward this movie any way they can, especially in a category where people who've been in the business in a long time who haven't been thought of as good actors but who really are have been rewarded).
Supporting actress: only one I didn't see was Frances McDormand.
Should win: An old rule of thumb states that, to decide who should win an acting Oscar, think of the five nominees for a minute (combined) and their performances, in no particular order. Then, do whatever it was you were doing before. Then, start thinking again. The first one that pops into your head is the one who should win. For this, and for many other reasons, the winner should be...
Should be: Amy Adams
Will be: Amy Adams. Predicting this category is a fool's errand. Most people think the race is between Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz (the former was quite good, the latter superb). Both CHARACTERS were essential to the respective films, but the parts could have been played by someone else. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that voters have seen Junebug, there's no way that they can get Amy Adams' performance out of their head. Her part does not feel like a supporting part; she has the trickiest job of acting of all 20 nominees and pulls it off superbly she is the emotional center of gravity to a degree that no other performance this year can touch.
posted by EnterCenter at 6:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home