- As stated, the debate tonight at 8pm is major. With Edwards out of the race, there will be no "teaming up" and hopefully Obama and Clinton will be allowed to debate each other. Unfortunately, it will be "moderated" by Wolf Blitzkrieg, so I'm sure Clinton will be allowed some cheap shots. The Snub is this debates Race War and I expect an awkward hand-shake or hug between the two.
- The two major endorsements to be expected are Edwards and Richardson (I doubt Gore endorses because he has nothing to gain) and they could happen between now and Tuesday. I believe a Richardson endorsement is more important because of the influence he supposedly has in the Latino communities of CA, NM, and AZ. An Edwards endorsement is less important now because his supporters are ideologically inline with Obama, though this could change if his delegates are needed in the convention.
- As Poblano suggests, the most likely situation is the nomination being open with the media calling a slight frontrunner.
- Most of the states will probably be close, and the proportional delegate distribution is the main factor in the likely closeness of the race. However, I think the Kennedy endorsement is underestimated in MA and CT and Obama will make up more ground there.
- Momentum is definitely going for Obama - it was just announced that he raised a staggering $32 million in January alone. Aside from a Richardson endorsement of Clinton, I don't see this changing (unless the debate is really nasty). Momentum will be a key decider for the undecided voters in these states.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Super Tuesday Predictions
Over at Daily Kos, diarist Poblano has written an excellent state-by-state breakdown of Super Tuesday/February 5th. I had planned on doing something similar, but the graphical analysis in that post is comprehensive. I have a few comments, however:
Sunday, January 27, 2008
A South Carolina Thumpin' and the Momentum Swings
Barack Obama - 55%
Hillary Clinton - 27%
John Edwards - 18%
Pretty amazing. Soon after polls closed, it became clear that the only question left would be how large the margin of victory would be. I was legitimately worried that "only" a 10% victory would let the Clintons spin this into a win. However, you can't shine shit, and losing 2-to-1 is never a good thing. The CNN exit polls show that Obama won across demographics, and the media narrative has thankfully focused on that. Also, it looks like Noam Scheiber's "reverse Bradley effect theory" was proven, at least in SC: black voter preference for Obama was under-reported because of a desire to appear colorblind.
On the heels of the win came major endorsement news: Ted Kennedy would be announcing his support for Obama at a rally at American University on Monday (which I cannot attend due to work!). This should hopefully seal the MA primary and put a nail in the "Obama the Reaganite" story being pushed by Camp Clinton. Plus, the media will now have a day to cover both the victory and the endorsement before the Florida primary.
Hillary Clinton - 27%
John Edwards - 18%
Pretty amazing. Soon after polls closed, it became clear that the only question left would be how large the margin of victory would be. I was legitimately worried that "only" a 10% victory would let the Clintons spin this into a win. However, you can't shine shit, and losing 2-to-1 is never a good thing. The CNN exit polls show that Obama won across demographics, and the media narrative has thankfully focused on that. Also, it looks like Noam Scheiber's "reverse Bradley effect theory" was proven, at least in SC: black voter preference for Obama was under-reported because of a desire to appear colorblind.
On the heels of the win came major endorsement news: Ted Kennedy would be announcing his support for Obama at a rally at American University on Monday (which I cannot attend due to work!). This should hopefully seal the MA primary and put a nail in the "Obama the Reaganite" story being pushed by Camp Clinton. Plus, the media will now have a day to cover both the victory and the endorsement before the Florida primary.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
When Hillary Attacks
There are many reasons why I don't believe Hillary Clinton should be the Democratic nominee for president. Chief among these is the deep well of hatred ("the vast right-wing conspiracy") that will rear its ugly head and work against the Democratic wave, possibly delivering the presidency and countless down-ticket races to an outmoded, foundering GOP. Furthermore, the insider-first, triangulation model of government that Hillary strives to uphold is the opposite of what the party should be working for: the real change that Americans want.
The worst thing about Clinton, however, is the tone that her campaign has taken in attacking Barack Obama. Until a few months ago, the Clinton campaign attempted to deflect any of Obama's criticism by mocking the "politics of hope," a cynical knock on something that many people feel passionately about. But after losing Iowa and substantial momentum (even after winning in NH and NV), the campaign has gone on a full-throated offensive, spreading lie after lie about Obama's works and words. By using President Clinton as just another surrogate, the campaign teamed up on Obama in a way much worse than any Obama/Edwards parternering ever could be. The ugliness continued at the last debate in South Carolina, which found Hillary at her most shrill and angry.
This is scorched-earth politics at its worst, and it comes from Clinton being unprepared or simply shocked that someone would have the audacity to challenge her inevitable run. A new radio ad once again takes Obama's words about Ronald Reagan and the Republicans out of context. Obama was making a point about the conservative movement and how Democrats should emulate his success in crafting a governing supermajority. He definitely wasn't praising his policies; you will not find much common ground between the two. Obama was simply reiterating a strength of his campaign: reaching out to a large group of Democrats, independents, and Republicans.
Will the attacks work? Obama will probably win by a large margin in South Carolina, which no doubt will be spun as black voters choosing "one of their own" rather than a clear win for a candidate who made a nearly 20-point net gain in just a few months. This conclusion gives Clinton the rest of the week to start hitting Feb. 5th states with this crap, negating any bump Obama should receive from a solid SC victory. If her tactics don't change, hopefully the media narrative will, focusing on her dubious claims and petty politics.
EDIT: I alluded to it in the last paragraph, but the race card has been played by the Clintons, and it may be what eventually dooms Obama. If they can cast him as "the black candidate," emphasizing his win in SC, its no longer a post-racial candidacy. Plus, by Clinton ceding the black vote for the Latino one, she positions herself better for Feb. 5 but plays off racial tension.
The worst thing about Clinton, however, is the tone that her campaign has taken in attacking Barack Obama. Until a few months ago, the Clinton campaign attempted to deflect any of Obama's criticism by mocking the "politics of hope," a cynical knock on something that many people feel passionately about. But after losing Iowa and substantial momentum (even after winning in NH and NV), the campaign has gone on a full-throated offensive, spreading lie after lie about Obama's works and words. By using President Clinton as just another surrogate, the campaign teamed up on Obama in a way much worse than any Obama/Edwards parternering ever could be. The ugliness continued at the last debate in South Carolina, which found Hillary at her most shrill and angry.
This is scorched-earth politics at its worst, and it comes from Clinton being unprepared or simply shocked that someone would have the audacity to challenge her inevitable run. A new radio ad once again takes Obama's words about Ronald Reagan and the Republicans out of context. Obama was making a point about the conservative movement and how Democrats should emulate his success in crafting a governing supermajority. He definitely wasn't praising his policies; you will not find much common ground between the two. Obama was simply reiterating a strength of his campaign: reaching out to a large group of Democrats, independents, and Republicans.
Will the attacks work? Obama will probably win by a large margin in South Carolina, which no doubt will be spun as black voters choosing "one of their own" rather than a clear win for a candidate who made a nearly 20-point net gain in just a few months. This conclusion gives Clinton the rest of the week to start hitting Feb. 5th states with this crap, negating any bump Obama should receive from a solid SC victory. If her tactics don't change, hopefully the media narrative will, focusing on her dubious claims and petty politics.
EDIT: I alluded to it in the last paragraph, but the race card has been played by the Clintons, and it may be what eventually dooms Obama. If they can cast him as "the black candidate," emphasizing his win in SC, its no longer a post-racial candidacy. Plus, by Clinton ceding the black vote for the Latino one, she positions herself better for Feb. 5 but plays off racial tension.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Review: THERE WILL BE BLOOD
Yesterday, I re-watched There Will Be Blood at the E Street; my initial vantage point of somewhere under the screen didn't really do the film justice, necessitating another viewing.
There Will Be Blood is Paul Thomas Anderson's oilman epic starring Daniel Day-Lewis, who simply dominates the film as Daniel Plainview. Much like he did with Bill the Butcher in Scorsese's Gangs of New York, Day-Lewis creates an unrelenting, monomaniacal man obsessed with advancing himself and his ideals. Ironically, it takes a British actor to capture these two monuments to the American character.
The film is a character study set against the desolate background of the turn-of-the-century West. The barren land, dotted with derricks, ranches, and near ghost towns lets the film focus on Plainview and those with whom he interacts, removing all but what Anderson wants the viewer to see. When all that was known about the film was the people involved and that it was based on an Upton Sinclair novel Oil!, I expected a more complex film involving the Teapot Dome Scandal and the politics of the oil fields: something resembling Boogie Nights or Magnolia in the sense that it would weave together a diverse group of characters and their story lines. Instead, the film is more in line with Punch-drunk Love, decidedly smaller and more personal. As PDL was my favorite Anderson film until this one, I was surprised but pleased by the similarities.
While the easiest comparison to Plainview is Bill the Butcher, I also saw in him shades of Patrick Bateman, but drawn without irony for a satire. Here is a man who only sees others as impediments to his success; business, and his life, are zero-sum games in which only he can prosper. For this reason, he thrives on his hatred for people. The only person he loves is his adopted son HW, whom he immediately casts aside when he no longer fills a convenient niche. And when a grown HW attempts to stake out on his own, entering Daniel's sphere of business, Daniel renounces him, re-imagining his parentage as a business maneuver of great foresight.
The central conflict of the film is between Daniel and evangelist Eli Sunday (Paul Dano). Daniel views Eli and his faith with great contempt, especially as his control of the town through the church rivals Daniel's control through the oil. Daniel spurns Eli at every point - refusing to pay him a promised amount, beating him up, and even undercutting him by blessing the well himself. Dano is definitely skilled and keeps up with Day-Lewis as well as he can, and Eli is a challenging character. However, he cannot outlast the fierceness of his rival, and is ultimately consumed by the worldly pursuit of wealth that leaves Plainview a tragic, drunken waste.
Watching There Will Be Blood you cannot help but feel that you're watching something important, and not just another pretentious independent film that strives for past greatness by making vague, symbolic gestures. Not to overstate this film's importance or significance, but I couldn't help but think of Citizen Kane at many points, especially as we see how far Daniel has fallen in his Xanadu-esque mansion. Anderson's script is sharp (and gets a few nervous laughs) and his directing is masterful, the performances are deep and expressive, and Jonny Greenwood's score is vibrant, exciting, and new. The contrast between the expansive setting and the narrow focus of the film lets every piece of work together, drilling home some cinematic Oil.
My Rating: 5 out of 5 Milkshakes (I drink it up!)
There Will Be Blood is Paul Thomas Anderson's oilman epic starring Daniel Day-Lewis, who simply dominates the film as Daniel Plainview. Much like he did with Bill the Butcher in Scorsese's Gangs of New York, Day-Lewis creates an unrelenting, monomaniacal man obsessed with advancing himself and his ideals. Ironically, it takes a British actor to capture these two monuments to the American character.
The film is a character study set against the desolate background of the turn-of-the-century West. The barren land, dotted with derricks, ranches, and near ghost towns lets the film focus on Plainview and those with whom he interacts, removing all but what Anderson wants the viewer to see. When all that was known about the film was the people involved and that it was based on an Upton Sinclair novel Oil!, I expected a more complex film involving the Teapot Dome Scandal and the politics of the oil fields: something resembling Boogie Nights or Magnolia in the sense that it would weave together a diverse group of characters and their story lines. Instead, the film is more in line with Punch-drunk Love, decidedly smaller and more personal. As PDL was my favorite Anderson film until this one, I was surprised but pleased by the similarities.
While the easiest comparison to Plainview is Bill the Butcher, I also saw in him shades of Patrick Bateman, but drawn without irony for a satire. Here is a man who only sees others as impediments to his success; business, and his life, are zero-sum games in which only he can prosper. For this reason, he thrives on his hatred for people. The only person he loves is his adopted son HW, whom he immediately casts aside when he no longer fills a convenient niche. And when a grown HW attempts to stake out on his own, entering Daniel's sphere of business, Daniel renounces him, re-imagining his parentage as a business maneuver of great foresight.
The central conflict of the film is between Daniel and evangelist Eli Sunday (Paul Dano). Daniel views Eli and his faith with great contempt, especially as his control of the town through the church rivals Daniel's control through the oil. Daniel spurns Eli at every point - refusing to pay him a promised amount, beating him up, and even undercutting him by blessing the well himself. Dano is definitely skilled and keeps up with Day-Lewis as well as he can, and Eli is a challenging character. However, he cannot outlast the fierceness of his rival, and is ultimately consumed by the worldly pursuit of wealth that leaves Plainview a tragic, drunken waste.
Watching There Will Be Blood you cannot help but feel that you're watching something important, and not just another pretentious independent film that strives for past greatness by making vague, symbolic gestures. Not to overstate this film's importance or significance, but I couldn't help but think of Citizen Kane at many points, especially as we see how far Daniel has fallen in his Xanadu-esque mansion. Anderson's script is sharp (and gets a few nervous laughs) and his directing is masterful, the performances are deep and expressive, and Jonny Greenwood's score is vibrant, exciting, and new. The contrast between the expansive setting and the narrow focus of the film lets every piece of work together, drilling home some cinematic Oil.
My Rating: 5 out of 5 Milkshakes (I drink it up!)
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Review: JUNO
Last Saturday, I saw Juno from the second row of a sold-out E street auditorium.
The retro look of the cell-shaded credit sequence reminded me of that of You can't Do That on Television, the first of many 80s references. The tone is immediately set with a scene between Juno (Ellen Page) and a convenience store counter jockey (Rainn Wilson): with lines like "this is one doodle that can't be undid, homeskillet," it's clear that the dialogue will be stylized hipster-ese. Luckily, I think the script balances the hypercool jargon with enough realism, preventing it from falling over the cliff of self-parody like Napoleon Dynamite.
The tight script is held together by great performances from nearly everyone involved, which is definitely a testament to the casting. Ellen Page is a developing star with range, as evidenced by the contrast between this role and her breakout one in Hard Candy. Arrested Development alumni Jason Bateman and Michael Cera (who are never on-screen together, unfortunately) both play guys affected by pregnancy who have difficulty adapting to the circumstances. Bateman, as the castrated former rocker, is too nice to root against, even if the character is less than admirable. If anything, Cera is underutilized, leading the love story element of the film to be a bit unfulfilling. Allison Janney and JK Simmons are the Best Parents Ever, quickly getting beyond the hangups of teen pregnancy and looking out for their daughter. Even newcomer Olivia Thirlby contributes, going beyond the typical best friend role.
The lone exception to the skilled casting and acting, and the film's glaring weakness, is Jennifer Garner as mother-to-be Vanessa. Her bad acting distracts, especially against everyone else, and it unnecessarily complicates matters. Whether or not she actually has an unquenched maternal drive, or if she justs feels compelled by the pressures of suburban adulthood, is unclear due to a particularly flat performance (its probably the former). I would have loved to see Amanda Peet in this role, or anyone able to both emote and deadpan.
Jason Reitman turns in another solid satire, albeit one with a less biting script than Thank You For Smoking. While I don't recall any specifics about his directorial style, I attribute the balanced structure of the picture to him. Keeping it grounded in character and story gives the film a lot of heart.
The press coverage of Juno has focused on the hype ("it's the next Little Miss Sunshine!"), reading into it pro-choice/pro-life arguments, and comparing it to Knocked Up (from the girl's perspective). However, I think that all misses the point: at it's core, Juno is a simple, sweet story about less-than-perfect circumstances with an irreverence that is endearing and not mean-spirited. I'll definitely be looking forward to the next efforts from everyone involved.
My Rating: 4 out of a possible 5 Fetuses
The retro look of the cell-shaded credit sequence reminded me of that of You can't Do That on Television, the first of many 80s references. The tone is immediately set with a scene between Juno (Ellen Page) and a convenience store counter jockey (Rainn Wilson): with lines like "this is one doodle that can't be undid, homeskillet," it's clear that the dialogue will be stylized hipster-ese. Luckily, I think the script balances the hypercool jargon with enough realism, preventing it from falling over the cliff of self-parody like Napoleon Dynamite.
The tight script is held together by great performances from nearly everyone involved, which is definitely a testament to the casting. Ellen Page is a developing star with range, as evidenced by the contrast between this role and her breakout one in Hard Candy. Arrested Development alumni Jason Bateman and Michael Cera (who are never on-screen together, unfortunately) both play guys affected by pregnancy who have difficulty adapting to the circumstances. Bateman, as the castrated former rocker, is too nice to root against, even if the character is less than admirable. If anything, Cera is underutilized, leading the love story element of the film to be a bit unfulfilling. Allison Janney and JK Simmons are the Best Parents Ever, quickly getting beyond the hangups of teen pregnancy and looking out for their daughter. Even newcomer Olivia Thirlby contributes, going beyond the typical best friend role.
The lone exception to the skilled casting and acting, and the film's glaring weakness, is Jennifer Garner as mother-to-be Vanessa. Her bad acting distracts, especially against everyone else, and it unnecessarily complicates matters. Whether or not she actually has an unquenched maternal drive, or if she justs feels compelled by the pressures of suburban adulthood, is unclear due to a particularly flat performance (its probably the former). I would have loved to see Amanda Peet in this role, or anyone able to both emote and deadpan.
Jason Reitman turns in another solid satire, albeit one with a less biting script than Thank You For Smoking. While I don't recall any specifics about his directorial style, I attribute the balanced structure of the picture to him. Keeping it grounded in character and story gives the film a lot of heart.
The press coverage of Juno has focused on the hype ("it's the next Little Miss Sunshine!"), reading into it pro-choice/pro-life arguments, and comparing it to Knocked Up (from the girl's perspective). However, I think that all misses the point: at it's core, Juno is a simple, sweet story about less-than-perfect circumstances with an irreverence that is endearing and not mean-spirited. I'll definitely be looking forward to the next efforts from everyone involved.
My Rating: 4 out of a possible 5 Fetuses
Sunday, January 13, 2008
More Endorsements
I would be remiss if I did not post about two more high-level endorsements: Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO). Another two superdelegates from states with February nominating contests (Missouri has a Feb. 5 primary and Nebraska a Feb. 9 caucus) add to the momentum. As for message, this allows the campaign to stress the "working across the aisle" and "working for change" memes; Nelson is a noted conservative Democrat and McCaskill is the first woman elected to the Senate in Missouri, a 2006 freshman.
Once again, I believe endorsements are most important as a piece of the press narrative. However, it would be nice to have some push-back against Clinton surrogates like former Sen. Bob Kerrey, former NH Chair Billy Shaheen, and even Bill. Thankfully, Dick Durbin has called out the former President on his assertion that Obama wasn't really pro-war, but I don't see the campaign engaging Clinton's in such slash-and-burn tactics.
As a side note, I believe Richardson will stay neutral when it still matters. However, if/when Edwards loses in NV and SC (and runs out of money), I really hope he bows out and throws his support behind Obama before Florida and Feb. 5. Uniting the two change candidates against Clinton could really help, and I have a suspicion that Edwards may see his last chance to get to the White House on an Obama ticket.
Once again, I believe endorsements are most important as a piece of the press narrative. However, it would be nice to have some push-back against Clinton surrogates like former Sen. Bob Kerrey, former NH Chair Billy Shaheen, and even Bill. Thankfully, Dick Durbin has called out the former President on his assertion that Obama wasn't really pro-war, but I don't see the campaign engaging Clinton's in such slash-and-burn tactics.
As a side note, I believe Richardson will stay neutral when it still matters. However, if/when Edwards loses in NV and SC (and runs out of money), I really hope he bows out and throws his support behind Obama before Florida and Feb. 5. Uniting the two change candidates against Clinton could really help, and I have a suspicion that Edwards may see his last chance to get to the White House on an Obama ticket.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Kerry Endorsement Starts Paying Dividends
Endorsements of presidential candidates are tricky. I doubt voters ever cite specific endorsements as their reason to vote for or against a candidate, but they can add to the a campaign's momentum or sense of viability. Like with much of these campaigns, it's not what happens but the reaction to what happens that matters.
With that in mind, I was a little apprehensive at first when John Kerry endorsed Barack Obama. Gore's endorsement of Dean in 2004 did not protect him from his eventual downfall, and John Kerry is neither a symbol of change nor a true icon of the Democratic Party. However, I thought that when a Senator like Kerry came out for Obama, it would lead other superdelegates to do the same and further tarnish Clinton's "aura of inevitability."
Today, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano endorsed Obama. This is a good one for the press to be talking about: popular, two-term Democrat, in an ostensibly Republican state, in a key region. Her gender will no doubt be seen as a sign that there are powerful women who aren't falling in line behind Clinton because of their chromosomes. Plus, she would make a great VP candidate, if like me you believe in the reinforcement over balance theory being kicked around. In this vein is Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who could endorse soon, hopefully before the Feb. 5 Kansas caucus.
With news of the Kerry endorsement came an endorsement from Pelosi lieutenant George Miller (CA-07), the chairman of Education and Labor. Much was made of whether or not this is the closest Pelosi will come to endorsing, which lead to a lot of regrettable crap about a Pelosi vs. Clinton powerplay. Either way, it is a powerful Democrat sending signals to the liberal base.
Most intriguing, however, is a NYT piece suggesting that James Clyburn could break his promise and endorse a candidate, predicated by the nasty tone the Clintons have taken against Obama. Specifically, Hillary's remark that MLK really wasn't that important after all, but also Bill's "fairy tale" garbage. Black leaders have been hesitant to back Barack for a variety of reasons, and a respected Congressman like Clyburn giving his seal of approval before the SC primary would be choice.
The benefit endorsements actually contribute is debatable, but their strategic use can no doubt help Obama's campaign, dampening the effect of NH and regaining some of the momentum before SC and NV.
With that in mind, I was a little apprehensive at first when John Kerry endorsed Barack Obama. Gore's endorsement of Dean in 2004 did not protect him from his eventual downfall, and John Kerry is neither a symbol of change nor a true icon of the Democratic Party. However, I thought that when a Senator like Kerry came out for Obama, it would lead other superdelegates to do the same and further tarnish Clinton's "aura of inevitability."
Today, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano endorsed Obama. This is a good one for the press to be talking about: popular, two-term Democrat, in an ostensibly Republican state, in a key region. Her gender will no doubt be seen as a sign that there are powerful women who aren't falling in line behind Clinton because of their chromosomes. Plus, she would make a great VP candidate, if like me you believe in the reinforcement over balance theory being kicked around. In this vein is Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who could endorse soon, hopefully before the Feb. 5 Kansas caucus.
With news of the Kerry endorsement came an endorsement from Pelosi lieutenant George Miller (CA-07), the chairman of Education and Labor. Much was made of whether or not this is the closest Pelosi will come to endorsing, which lead to a lot of regrettable crap about a Pelosi vs. Clinton powerplay. Either way, it is a powerful Democrat sending signals to the liberal base.
Most intriguing, however, is a NYT piece suggesting that James Clyburn could break his promise and endorse a candidate, predicated by the nasty tone the Clintons have taken against Obama. Specifically, Hillary's remark that MLK really wasn't that important after all, but also Bill's "fairy tale" garbage. Black leaders have been hesitant to back Barack for a variety of reasons, and a respected Congressman like Clyburn giving his seal of approval before the SC primary would be choice.
The benefit endorsements actually contribute is debatable, but their strategic use can no doubt help Obama's campaign, dampening the effect of NH and regaining some of the momentum before SC and NV.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
My Golden Globes Picks
I wanted My First Post to be about something important. Unfortunately, I've opted instead for breadth over depth.
The ongoing WGA strike leaves the Golden Globes reduced to a press conference on Jan. 13. I think most people can agree that the Globes are a pretty superfluous awards show, allowing studios and networks to squeeze a little more free advertising ("press") out of their prestige pieces. I don't remember ever watching the awards ceremony on purpose, and I can't recall specific winners. With that in mind, a press conference is a bit disrespectful for the winners who actually deserve awards for their craft. But I'm sure true artists don't need the validation of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (yes, I did look that up). And anything that keeps Bruce Vilanch out of work is good in my book.
So, here are my picks for most of the categories, omitting those for which I can't make a well-informed choice; apparently I didn't see many leading women films last year. These are personal favorites, and not my guesses at the winners. I'm curious how much overlap there will be in 3 days.
MOTION PICTURES
The ongoing WGA strike leaves the Golden Globes reduced to a press conference on Jan. 13. I think most people can agree that the Globes are a pretty superfluous awards show, allowing studios and networks to squeeze a little more free advertising ("press") out of their prestige pieces. I don't remember ever watching the awards ceremony on purpose, and I can't recall specific winners. With that in mind, a press conference is a bit disrespectful for the winners who actually deserve awards for their craft. But I'm sure true artists don't need the validation of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (yes, I did look that up). And anything that keeps Bruce Vilanch out of work is good in my book.
So, here are my picks for most of the categories, omitting those for which I can't make a well-informed choice; apparently I didn't see many leading women films last year. These are personal favorites, and not my guesses at the winners. I'm curious how much overlap there will be in 3 days.
MOTION PICTURES
- Best Motion Picture - Drama : There Will Be Blood, American Gangster, Atonement, Eastern Promises, The Great Debaters, Michael Clayton, No Country for Old Men.
- I actually saw 6 of 7 in this category, and while they were all very well done, none had the gravitas of the epic PT Anderson flick (expect a review after a second viewing). I'd be happy with any of these winning, except for Atonement and The Great Debaters.
- Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy : Sweeney Todd / Juno, Across the Universe, Charlie Wilson's War, Hairspray.
- And it only takes 2 awards before I'm equivocating. I'm reserving judgment until I see Juno, because of my anticipation and the buzz. I did enjoy Sweeney Todd, but I think Juno will be more up my alley. Only in the GG does an Aaron Sorkin picture end up with this company. It's moot - CWW was disappointing on all fronts.
- Best Actor - Drama : Daniel Day-Lewis, George Clooney, James McAvoy, Viggo Mortensen, Denzel Washington.
- Once again, Daniel Day-Lewis dwarfs the competition in a role more intense, determined, and sadistic than Bill the Butcher.
- Best Actor - Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy : Johnny Depp, Ryan Gosling, Tom Hanks, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, John C. Reilly.
- Johnny Depp nailed the title role, but this ridiculous category doesn't put up much of a fight.
- Best Actress - Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy : Ellen Page, Amy Adams, Nikki Blonsky, Helena Bonham Carter, Marion Cotillard.
- Placeholder vote - I need to see Juno!
- Best Supporting Actor : Tom Wilkinson, Casey Affleck, Javier Bardem, PSH, John Travolta
- This is a toss-up between him and Bardem, and while Bardem hulked and killed his way through No Country, Wilkinson's role actually surprised me and punctuated a rather methodical film.
- Best Supporting Actress : Amy Ryan, Cate Blanchett, Julia Roberts, Saoirse Ronan, Tilda Swinton.
- Helene McCready is the "white trash Southie broad" for the ages - compare that to the sedate Beadie Russell and you can't even tell it's the same actress. By the way, does Horse Teeth get everytime she wanders on screen?
- Best Director : The Coen Brothers, Tim Burton, Julian Schnabel, Ridley Scott, Joe Wright.
- Where is PT Anderson? Not very often does a film get mentioned in the same breath as Citizen Kane and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, even if only for scope and subject matter, not significance. The Coens get it by default for putting sweltering West Texas on film and ending up with molasses and whiskey.
- Best Screenplay : Aaron Sorkin, Diablo Cody, The Coen Brothers, Christopher Hampton, Ronald Harwood.
- This is a homer pick, straight-up. The dialog was sharp enough but the film fell flat for whatever reason. This might end up being Diablo Cody if I actually like Juno as much as I anticipate.
- Best Drama : Big Love, Damages, Grey's Anatomy, House MD, Mad Men, The Tudors.
- I'm abstaining here but thought it was worth mentioning. I've heard good things about Mad Men, but can't pick it by process of elimination. No Dexter, Sopranos, Shield, Rescue Me, The Riches, or Brotherhood is just unacceptable. TV drama is in a new Golden Age and this is the best they can do? Good job guys!
- Best Musical or Comedy : 30 Rock, Californication, Entourage, Extras, Pushing Daisies.
- This is definitely more acceptable. Pushing Daisies is charming, as if Tim Burton decided to do a crime procedural, and it's a close second. But 30 Rock is the funniest thing since Arrested Development, and it might actually have network support.
- Best Actor - Musical or Comedy : Alec Baldwin, Steve Carell, David Duchovny, Ricky Gervais, Lee Pace.
- Alec Baldwin takes his role in Glengary Glen Ross and turns it into a deadpanning straight man. Jack is one of the best roles on television while illuminating its worst aspects. The fact that your typical Hollywood Liberal plays a market-testing, soulless corporate shill like Jack is just another layer on the meta cake that is 30 Rock.
- Best Actress - Musical or Comedy : Tina Fey, Christina Applegate, America Ferrera, Anna Friel, Mary-Louise Parker.
- And it's 30 Rock for the trifecta. Weeds has fallen into a funk and Mary-Louise suffers for it. For a comedic role, Liz Lemon is just sad, but she is best leading lady in a comedy since Mary Tyler Moore (That's an example of a reference that I pull directly out of my ass, because it sounds right).
- Best Actor - Drama : Michael C. Hall, Jon Hamm, Hugh Laurie, Bill Paxton, Jonathan Rhys Meyers.
- Dexter is the role of a lifetime, and Hall brings the cynical detachment of David Fisher. Instead of being a homophobic gay man, he's a charming serial killer - with a heart of gold. Sadly, I don't know which one most Americans find scarier.
- Best Actress - Drama : Minnie Driver, Patricia Arquette, Glenn Close, Edie Falco, Sally Field, Holly Hunter, Kyra Sedgwick.
- File this with Amy Ryan. Seeing an actress capture a character that we don't often see on screen, yet making it feel vivid and real is always award worthy. Plus, its The Riches only nod.
- Best Supporting Actor : Kevin Dillon, Ted Danson, Jeremy Piven, Andy Serkis, William Shatner, Donald Sutherland.
- This is a surprisingly weak category, and while Johnny Drama will probably split votes with Ari, only one of the characters is still entertaining. They should end Entourage and spin-off a show for Johnny Drama, but instead he'll have to carry a show from a supporting role.
Taking the Plunge
It's finally come to this. I've graduated from marble notebooks to an actual blog. I'm a late adopter on certain things, and a technology with such a regrettable name and an equally annoying user base is no exception. I was hoping I could survive the wave, even as I watched it from a distance. But with no creative outlet to speak of, and grad school an inefficient & costly way to satisfy my drive, I've decided to collect my rants on a myriad of interests in this format. I'd expect film, television, music, politics, and sports commentary to fill this space very shortly.
Rest assured that neither the minutia of my daily life nor a dairy of my feelings will end up on the Internet. While that seemed like a good idea in 11th grade, it was a ephemeral experiment in emotional exploration. Much like excessive alliteration, which I will also be avoiding.
Rest assured that neither the minutia of my daily life nor a dairy of my feelings will end up on the Internet. While that seemed like a good idea in 11th grade, it was a ephemeral experiment in emotional exploration. Much like excessive alliteration, which I will also be avoiding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
