And the Oscar Goes to. . . .Yawn

 The trees are blooming, the weather is warming, and I'm all loge-y from the shift to Daylight Savings Time (FROM Daylight Savings Time? Daylight SavING Time?  Oh, who cares!).  This can only mean one thing: It's time to pick the Oscars!  So without further ado, here are the Solipsist's GUARANTEED* winners!

(*Winners not guaranteed.)

The usual caveats: I have not seen all the nominees, and these picks are based on a combination of (limited) familiarity with the films and cynical guesses about where the Academy will land.  Onward!

Best Picture

Many people think "West Side Story" could make history as the first remake of a Best Picture winner to win Best Picture. It won't make such history.  Not because it won't win--I mean, it won't--but because, even if it does, it won't be the first remake to achieve such a distinction.  That honor belongs to "Schindler's List," which anyone will tell you was a thinly-veiled remake of "The Sound of Music," only with less singing and more whimsical Nazis.

"The Power of the Dog" seems to be the favorite.  I thought the movie was OK--the parts of it that I saw, anyway, in between naps.  You know, much has been written about the impact of streaming on the movie industry: Is a movie a movie if it basically only plays on television?  Maybe, maybe not.  What it IS, though, is an invitation to drift off during the boring bits without feeling the guilt one would feel after spending a small fortune on a movie ticket.  And when a movie is ALL boring bits--Benedict Cumberbatch's naked dance notwithstanding--well. . .

What I'm saying is, "Dog" is a beautiful, heartfelt film that I'm sure anyone who stays awake through it will appreciate.

"Belfast": Haven't seen it.  I like Kenneth Branagh and all, but I don't think it will win. 

"CODA": I can't see this winning.  Well, OK, I can't HEAR it winning.  Sorry.

"Don't Look Up": They say satire is what closes on Saturday night, so this climate change allegory/satire faces long odds.  It's an enjoyable little movie, but it, too, suffers somewhat from its streaming nature.  It comes across as a really well-done and entertaining TV movie, but not a great piece of cinema.

"Drive My Car": Haven't seen it, but everything I've heard about it makes me think this is actually a sort of dark-horse contender.  Not sure if another foreign-language film will win best picture so soon after "Parasite," though.

"Dune" was a very good movie.  HALF a movie.  Maybe it can win half a best picture award.  And maybe in the second half Zendaya will get to talk.

"King Richard": Haven't seen it. I resent any movie that tries to make Richard Williams into a sympathetic figure.  (For the same reason, Will Smith won't win Best Actor.)

"Licorice Pizza": Love me some Paul Thomas Anderson.  "Magnolia" was spectacular (if for no other reason that it introduced scads of people to the music of Aimee Mann).  I have not actually seen "Licorice Pizza" yet, so I can't say whether it stands a chance.  But if it somehow did win, it would make me happy,

"Nightmare Alley": Also haven't seen it.  Also love me some Guillermo Del Toro.  He's already won, though, so . . .probably not.

All things being equal, with no clear and obvious lock, I'm just going to play it safe and go with the favorite. . . 

PICK: Power of tnjxsabcjdbdsvdzf.  Sorry, drifted off again: Power of the Dog

Best Actor

I'm thinking this is basically a two-man race between Benedict Cumberbatch and Denzel Washington ("The Tragedy of Macbeth").  Will the Academy officially "anoint" Cumberbatch one of the greatest actors of his generation (he is) or, alternatively, will they strengthen Denzel's claim to being the greatest actor of all time?  I also enjoyed Andrew Garfield in "Tick, Tick. . .Boom"; I don't think he'll win, but his performance did convince me to forgive him for his awful "Spider-Man."

PICK: Cumberbatch. Either this will be part of a "Dog" sweep, or this will be the "big" award the movie gets. 

Best Actress

Olivia Colman, Penelope Cruz, and Nicole Kidman have all won before, and I don't think any of them are in "showy" enough roles to merit another Oscar this year.  The phrase, "And the Oscar goes to. . .Kristen Stewart" would unseal the gates of Hell and unleash plague, war, and natural disaster upon the earth. . .  Well, OK, MORE plague, war, and natural disaster.  So. . . 

PICK: Jessica Chastain, "The Eyes of Tammy Faye."

Best Supporting Actor

My personal favorite of the nominees is J. K. Simmons, but since he's already won, I think he's a long-shot here--as was the case with the Best Actress nominees, Simmons' role in "Being the Ricardos" isn't really exciting enough to merit a second Oscar. I haven't seen "Belfast" or "Coda," so I'll go with Kodi-Smit McPhee--who was, undeniably, one of the more interesting elements of "Power of the Dog."

PICK: Kodi-Smit McPhee

Best Supporting Actress

I think "West Side Story" will win at least ONE of the biggies.

PICK: Ariana DeBose, "West Side Story."

Best Director

As much as I'd love to see Paul Thomas Anderson or Kenneth Branagh walk away with an Oscar, I'll go with the "safe" choice of picking the director whose movie I think will win Best Picture.

PICK: Jane Campion, "Power of the Dog"

And now, for everything else:

Animated Feature Film: "Encanto."  (Is this even a question?)

Cinematography: "The Tragedy of Macbeth" (The black and white movie always wins.)

Costume Design: "Dune" I actually have opinions about this one.  I'm not an overly technical-minded moviegoer, but while watching "Dune," I really did find myself thinking, "Man, those are some beautiful costumes," particularly the sort of formal attire worn by the Atreides clan.

Documentary Feature: "Summer of Soul" (Go with the one you've heard of.)

Documentary Short Subject: "Three Songs for Benazir" (Go with the one with the funniest name,)

Film Editing: "Dune" I often think that, when a big fantasy/science-fiction movie is in the running, it will take home a lot of the more technical awards, so "Dune" will be my pick for a lot of these.  I also find it hilarious that "Power of the Dog"--an over-long slog--gets nominated for "Best Editing."

International Feature: "Drive My Car" (It's nominated for Best Picture, for Pete's sake!)

Makeup and Hairstyling: "The Eyes of Tammy Faye" (You hear "Tammy Faye Bakker," the first thing you think of is hair and make-up.)

Original Score: "Encanto."

Original Song: "Dos Oruguitas" (And we won't talk about why we're not talking about Bruno.)

Production Design: "Dune"

Animated Short Film: "Bestia" ('Cuz I like animals?)

Live-Action Short Film: "The Long Goodby" ('Cuz I closed my eyes and pointed a finger at the Oscar ballot?)

Sound: "Dune"

Visual Effects: "Dune"

Adapted Screenplay: "Power of the Dog"

Original Screenplay: "Don't Look Up" (It'll win SOMETHING.)

Enjoy the show, everyone!

And Now for Something Completely Not Different

 I confess to having a problem with the #OscarsSoWhite movement.  In years past, when it comes to the Academy Awards, the Motion Picture Academy has certainly snubbed any number of worthy performers and other theatrical artists, and, despite the growing diversity of the American population, the most visible Oscar categories (e.g., acting, directing, "Best Picture") have often displayed a conspicuous uniformity in terms of race and ethnicity (i.e., a whole bunch of white folks).  The snubs are often inexplicable, such as Jennifer Lopez being overlooked for her performance in "Hustlers" despite ubiquitous praise and early expectations that she would win the award, never mind being nominated.  And it's this very inexplicability that leaves the Academy open to charges of unconscious (or, indeed, conscious) racism.

Still, whenever the #OscarsSoWhite hashtag would start trending, I would always wonder.  First, while people could certainly take issue with the lack of Black or Brown faces among the nominees, the nominees themselves were generally not objectionable.  That is, one couldn't necessarily point to any of the (white) actors who were nominated and say, "Well, SHE certainly doesn't deserve a nomination. . .  He didn't really do a good job."  With a limited number of nominations (generally five per category), you will always have some deserving people left out.  Second, the fact that people expressed outrage when all the nominees were white could cause a certain backlash if and when more people of color were ultimately nominated: Are they being nominated because of the excellence of their work or is there some Hollywood quota system being employed?

The issue, of course, is not a lack of talent among communities of color, but a lack of opportunities.  And ultimately, one of the good things to come out of #OscarsSoWhite was an attempt to diversify the Academy, to provide more support for films that portray the experiences of communities of color and to broaden the pool of those honored beyond the usual suspects.  And one could argue that last night's Academy Awards represented a sort of triumph for this movement.  Of the 20 acting nominations, nine went to non-white actors.  Of the eight films nominated for Best Picture, only two featured white male protagonists (three if you count the mostly-white ensemble cast of "Trial of the Chicago Seven").  But even here, we see some "snubbing": Eight films were nominated for Best Picture, but up to ten films could have been.  And among the non-nominated pictures were such critically acclaimed and Black-centered movies as "One Night in Miami" (three other nominations), "Da 5 Bloods" (a Spike Lee Joint), and "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom"--probably the most inexplicable oversight, given its prominence on Netflix, its provenance as a somewhat well-known play, and its two lead-acting nominations.  Including any two of these movies wouldn't have entailed bumping any other nominee (all of which seem more or less deserving), yet they were left out.  Why?  (Yes, I'm sure there are arcane rules around voting and nominations and yadda yadda yadda. . . But again, this is as much about perception as anything else.  The perception is problematic.)

And then, of course, despite the diversity of the nominees, the two big acting awards went, surprisingly, to two old white Hollywood veterans--Frances McDormand and Anthony Hopkins--both of whom had won Oscars already (twice in McDormand's case), to boot.

This is a disappointment.

I feel I should stipulate that both Frances McDormand and Anthony Hopkins are brilliant actors--giants in their field.  I haven't seen either "Nomadland" or "The Father," but I have absolutely no doubt that both actors give flawless performances.  This is not about that.  Because let's be clear: The Oscars are not an acting competition.  The awards are not given on the basis of some judgment that Anthony Hopkins gave a better performance in "The Father" than, say, Riz Ahmed did in "Sound of Metal."  How would one make that judgment, exactly?  They performed different roles that called for different skills and preparation.  The only real way that the Oscars could be an acting competition would be if each nominated actor were given, say, a monologue to perform--the same monologue--and then judged on the execution. There would still be a certain level of subjectivity involved, but at least then you'd be comparing apples to apples, so to speak--performing apples to performing apples.

(DIGRESSION: I think we have a premise for next year's ceremony! Mr. Soderbergh, call me! END OF DIGRESSION)

No, to the extent that the Oscars are a competition, they are a marketing competition, the winners a reflection of which studio did the best job of promoting their product.  But quite often, the Oscars are also an opportunity for Hollywood to make a statement.  And in this year Black Lives Matter and white nationalists parading proudly through American streets, the voters of the Motion Picture Academy could have--should have--made a clear statement about the value of diversity in the world of film. A clear statement that the movies can look like the best vision of a multicultural America. Instead, the statement that Hollywood made by bestowing the highest honors on representatives of the status quo is that the Academy is still largely stuck in the past.

*****

I said "surprisingly" about the wins by McDormand and, especially, Hopkins.  The Award ceremony producers clearly expected something different, as evidenced by the otherwise inexplicable decision to announce "Best Picture" before "Best Actress" and "Best Actor."  Presumably, Steven Soderbergh (along with any number of other people) thought Chadwick Boseman would receive a posthumous Oscar.  The announcement of his win would certainly have been a highly emotional moment--not a dry eye in the house--a moment which would have rendered the award for Best Picture anticlimactic, no matter which film won.  But from a television-production perspective, the Oscars got the absolute worst result.  Boseman would have been perfect.  Ahmed or Yeun would have at least been seen as young, exciting avatars of Hollywood's next generation.  Gary Oldman would have at least been there to make a speech!  Instead, the award went to a highly respected previous winner, who wasn't even at the ceremony in any of its 92 locations; word is, he had to be woken up to be told he had won. 

I suppose the one positive to take away from all this is that, in case you were wondering, even the producers of the show do not, in fact, know the winners ahead of time.  Three cheers for integrity?

*****

Can we please, please, PLEEEEEASSE never again do extended introductions of each nominee.  Seriously, I don't need to hear biographical details about each of these people or hear Laura Dern emote over everyone's "bravery" or what have you.  If I want biographical details, well, that's why God gave us Wikipedia.  That's how I know that Carey Mulligan is a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. . . 

. . . OK, maybe I shouldn't rely on Wikipedia, but still! Let's keep the show moving people!  Give us a clip from the movie and get on with it!

And the Oscar Goes to. . . Something You Most Likely Haven't Seen

 It's that time again! Time for the Solipsist to issue his wholly uninformed, yet guaranteed-correct--

(DISCLAIMER: Predictions not guaranteed to be correct. END OF DISCLAIMER)

--predictions for the 2021 Academy Awards.

It has been, to put it mildly, a strange year for the Academy Awards.  For the first time, the Best Picture winner will go to a made-for-TV film.  Because ALL the films were made for TV.  Oh, sure, the studios may have made big deal of abiding by the "rules" of making their films eligible for Oscar consideration by releasing them in theaters for at least a limited release, but given Covid-restrictions, these films could only be viewed by three people at a time--and these three people had to be tested for the coronavirus, quarantine for 14 days prior to the screening, sign a waiver absolving the studios of any responsibility for future infection, and wear level-five protection Hazmat suits to the theater.  Which, let's face it, seems like a helluva lot to go through to see "Minari."  Far better to stream the nominees from the comfort of one's own home, where the screens might be smaller, but the snacks are generally cheaper.

Whether this is the first year of a new normal for prestige film remains to be seen.  People do seem somewhat eager to get back into movie theaters.  The trades were all giddy over the boffo box-office business done by "Godzilla vs Kong"--not likely to be nominated for any awards (which is a shame, really, because MechaGodzilla gave a thoroughly heartwarming performance #OscarsSoNon-Kaiju)--but was this surprising?  Of COURSE it cleaned up at the box office!  Newly vaccinated people are so eager to get back into their old entertainment habits, they would have paid money to sit in front of an IMAX screen to watch paint dry! Or to watch "Wonder Woman 1984"!  (Not that I recommend the latter.)  At the same time, though, for the mid-budget "prestige" films that make up the bulk of the Oscar contenders, there really isn't much to be gained from watching on a big screen.  I love Anthony Hopkins, but I'm sure I could get the same emotional impact of "The Father" on a small screen as I could if I experienced it in a format where Hopkins' nostril is the size of my whole body.  Indeed, it might be preferable.

But these are considerations for another time.  For now, let's get to the picks!

(DISCLAIMER: I have seen only three of the films nominated for Best Picture: "Judas and the Black Messiah," "Mank," and "Trial of the Chicago Seven."  Not that this will stop me from pontificating on everything else. END OF DISCLAIMER)

Best Picture: Let's get the big one out of the way first.  "Nomadland" is apparently the favorite, having received universal critical acclaim and also winning the Golden Globe for Best Drama.  I've also heard a lot about "Minari," and it would be interesting if the Oscar went to a Korean movie for a second year in a row, making Korea the new Tom Hanks.  There's always something to be said for betting on the movie with the most nominations, which would be "Mank," which also has the advantage of being a movie about Hollywood, a genre that generally does well at the Oscars, but I kind of feel that the strongest competition might just be "Judas and the Black Messiah," a very timely entry in the age of Black lives Matter.  Still, I'm gonna go with the "safe bet" here: Pick: Nomadland

Best Actor: Let's strike Gary Oldman: He's won his Oscar already.  Similarly, I think we can strike Anthony Hopkins, who may be one of the greatest actors in film history, but who won't win for a movie ("The Father") that nobody has seen.  Furthermore, in an Oscar year that has featured the most diverse set of nominees ever, I don't see the award going to an old, white guy--an old white BRITISH guy, at that.  So this leaves Riz Ahmed ("Sound of Metal"), Chadwick Boseman ("Ma Rainey's Black Bottom"--RIP, King T'Challa! Wakanda Forever!), and Steven Yeun ("Minari").  The sentimental pick, of course, is Boseman, whose life and career ended far too early.  He did win a Golden Globe for this performance, and his widow gave one of the most wrenching speeches I've ever seen.  But posthumous wins are rare--if for no other reason than that it's rare that someone dies between the time their movie opens and the Oscars are distributed.  Will Boseman follow in the footsteps of Peter Finch, Heath Ledger, and Meryl Streep?  (It's true: Streep died shortly before winning the award for "The Iron Lady."  Every performance since then has been computer-generated.)  Possibly, but I think I'm going to go in this case with. . .  Pick: Riz Ahmed

Best Actress: Frances McDormand ("Nomadland") is probably the front-runner here, but, again, she's already won--twice, in fact.  Viola Davis ("Ma Rainey. . . ") is probably her stiffest competition, along with Carey Mulligan ("Promising Young Woman").  Since "Ma Rainey" was somehow snubbed for a Best Picture nomination, I think this will be the consolation prize.  Pick: Viola Davis

Best Supporting Actor: Daniel Kaluuya ("Judas and the Black Messiah").  It's the wrong category, though: Kaluuya was the lead in this movie.  Indeed, that was probably the biggest flaw of the movie, really more a biopic about Fred Hampton than about Hampton's betrayal by one of his lieutenants (as implied by the title).  Not that there's anything wrong with a biopic of Fred Hampton, but, as at least one critic has pointed out, the film does not do a particularly good job of presenting the psychological and ethical dilemmas confronted by the "Judas" of the title.  Lakeith Stanfield (also nominated for Best Supporting Actor) is a fine performer, and does a decent job as the tormented Bill O'Neal, but his story is largely overshadowed by that of the charismatic Hampton.  As I mentioned, this is one of the few movies I saw, and, really, what I remember from this movie is Daniel Kaluuya,

Best Supporting Actress: A couple of years back, I predicted that Glenn Close was a mortal lock to win her first Academy Award for "The Wife."  As I stated then, this would be not so much recognition of her typical brilliance in that little-seen movie, but rather a belated acknowledgment of her status as the second greatest American film actress of the last fifty years (and of course, the greatest living American film actress, #RIPMerylStreep).  And so, of course, she went on to lose to Olivia Colman.  Well, tonight is the rematch!  Close is up for Best Supporting Actress ("Hillbilly Elegy"), squaring off against her nemesis Colman ("The Father").  There is no way in Hell that Colman beats her twice.  Glenn Close is about to cap off her brilliant, breathtaking career.  Pick: Maria Bakalova ("Borat Subsequent Moviefilm")

Best Director: Conventional wisdom usually gives the edge in this category to whatever film ultimately wins Best Picture.  There's a good chance, then, that the award will go to Chloe Zhao ("Nomadland").  The other nominees are Thomas Vinterberg (Who?!?) for "Another Round" (What?!?), Lee Isaac Chung ("Minari"), Emerald Fennell ("Promising Young Woman"), and David Fincher ("Mank").  I'm gonna say that this might be an award where the voters reward a Hollywood lifer.  Pick: David Fincher

Those are the biggies.  Here, just 'cause, are my other picks, which are mostly pure guesses:

Animated Feature Film: "Soul"

Cinematography: "Mank" (When there's a black and white film up for consideration, pick it.)

Costume Design: "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom"

Documentary: "My Octopus Teacher" ('cause I've heard of it)

Documentary Short: "Colette" ('cause it was the first one listed)

Film Editing: "Nomadland"

International Feature: "Another Round" (I mean, its director got nominated!)

Make-up: "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom"

Music (Original Score): "Soul"

Original Song: "Fight for You"

Production Design: "Mank"

Animated Short: "Burrow"

Live Action Short: "Two Distant Strangers" (I have no idea.)

Sound: "Sound of Metal" (It's in the title!)

Visual Effects: "Tenet" (OK, I saw this one, too.)

Adapted Screenplay: "One Night in Miami"

Original Screenplay: "Trial of the Chicago Seven" (Because Sorkin.)

Enjoy the show, everyone!

F**k 'Em If They Can't Take a Joke

I am really pissed off about Seth MacFarlane's performance as Oscars host.  To be specific, I am pissed off about the response to Seth MacFarlane's performance, which has put me in the unwanted position of having to defend Seth MacFarlane.

Was MacFarlane crude?  Sure.  Were some of his jokes tasteless?  Yes.  At the same time, though, after reading many critiques of his performance, I can't help but think some people are taking the whole thing way too seriously and ratcheting up their indignation to protestething-too-much levels.

First, what were people expecting?  It's Seth MacFarlane, for God's sake!  The man's major claim to fame is "Family Guy," which--love it or hate it--is one of the most consistently offensive (fans will say "irreverent") shows on television. Indeed, MacFarlane's reputation preceded him to such an extent that, unless he had stepped totally out of character and comported himself as the second coming of Cary Grant, he was all but doomed to receive the very condemnatory reviews he has, in fact, received.  But looking at what actually transpired last night, I have to say that, really, MacFarlane was if anything too well behaved.  Indeed, his major problem may have been self-imposed restraints that did nothing to mollify his critics while having the effect of essentially divesting him of potential sources of jokes.

Let's start at the beginning: One of the, shall we say, memorable moments occured during MacFarlane's opening shtick.  He is visited from the future by none other than Captain Kirk, who warns him that, unless he quickly reconsiders his plans, he will go down in history as the worst Oscars host ever.  What "will" he do that is so bad?  Well, for starters, he will perform an elaborate song and dance number entitled "We Saw Your Boobs," in which he rhapsodizes over all the times major actresses have appeared topless.

Now, much has been made of the fact that, in several of the movies named in the song, the women appear topless during rape scenes; I admit to cringing slightly when he name-checked Jodie Foster in "The Accused."  But the song itself does not mention the context of the toplessness, and the main targets of the joke are not the women but the sort of adolescent simpletons who get all geeked out over seeing boobies.  (Stop looking at me!)  I would also point out that the whole set-up of the bit was that this song was supposed to be outrageously tasteless.  I admit that even if something is intentionally tasteless it is still tasteless, but we should at least acknowledge that part of what makes the joke "work" (to whatever extent it does work) is MacFarlane's attempt at self-deprecation: "I'm such a clueless, immature jerk that I would actually have thought this was a good idea."

A joke he made about Kim Kardashian's facial hair also sparked outrage.  To which I say, Seriously?  People are seriously offended on behalf of Kim Kardashian?  This is a woman who, born with the proverbial silver spoon in her mouth, chose not to do something worthwhile with her life, but to cash in to the tune of several million dollars by releasing a videotape of herself having sex with a semi-famous singer.  She's off-limits?  An attack on Kardashian is not misogyny: It's common sense!

One of the most indignant critiques about MacFarlane's misogynistic performance stated, "MacFarlane loves women! As he said about Salma Hayek, it doesn’t matter if we can’t understand a word the native Spanish-speaking actress is saying — we’re just staring at her sweater puppies anyway."  Except here's the whole joke (paraphrasing):  "We've reached the point in the show where usually Javier Bardem or Penelope Cruz or Salma Hayek comes out and says something that we can't understand a word of, but it doesn't matter because they're just so damn good looking!"  Is that misogynist?  Kinda racist, maybe, but not misogynist.

Then there was the infamous Rihanna joke.  By way of introducing "Django Unchained," MacFarlane quipped, "This is the story of a man fighting to get back his woman, who's been subjected to unthinkable violence. Or as Chris Brown and Rihanna call it, a date movie."  Tasteless?  Well, yes, but from a comedy standpoint, I would argue that the bigger problem is the joke doesn't really make sense.  Better would have been something like this: "This is Quentin Tarantino's movie about a man fighting to get back his woman, who's been subjected to unthinkable violence.  Oh, and Quentin? Chris Brown's lawyers are backstage.  They want to talk to you about unlicensed use of his image."

MacFarlane also drew boos for this one (paraphrasing): "You know, Daniel Day-Lewis is not the first actor to get a nomination for playing Abraham Lincoln.  Raymond Massey was nominated for 'Abe Lincoln in Illinois.' But I think the actor who most successfully got into Lincoln's head was John Wilkes Booth."  Now, I would argue that that is a perfectly well-constructed joke.  Not only that, but any number of comedians have probably made similar jokes and/or could/would have made the joke at last night's ceremony.  You think Robin Williams wouldn't have said that?  Or even the much-venerated Billy Crystal?  If Crystal had made the joke, though, everyone would have called it edgy.

What other sacred cows did MacFarlane attack?  The fact that there are many Jews in Hollywood?  Gasp!  The fact that musical theater has a somewhat "gay" image?  Shocked, shocked!  I recall Neil Patrick Harris doing a whole (hilarious) song and dance number at the Tony's about how Broadway is "not just for gay people anymore!"

And what about the jokes he DIDN'T make?  There was ample material: He had a nine-year-old Best Actress nominee, but the most edgy thing he said about her was that her first name (Quvenzhane) looks like something you'd see on an eye-test; yes, he did say it would be "sixteen years until she's too old for Clooney," but that was at Clooney's expense, not hers.  I don't recall him saying anything remotely tasteless about the other clear target among the leading ladies, Emmanuelle Riva, the oldest nominee ever.  And, come on, if he wanted to go for pure over-the-top crudity, here's a fastball down the middle that he just let sail by: Adele's last name is Atkins?  Guess the diet is named after someone else.

Yeah, same to you!

The bottom line?  Last night's ceremony wasn't a Papal installation. It wasn't a 9/11 memorial service.  It was the freakin' Oscars!  And consider this: Everybody in that theater went absolutely apeshit during a performance from "Les Miserable" when a group of gorgeous millionaires decked out in tuxedos, evening gowns, and probably a million dollars worth of borrowed jewelry, sang a song glorifying the impending revolution of the lower classes.  And people were offended by Seth MacFarlane's boobie jokes?

The Solipsist Picks the Oscars! (Mostly by Copying Nate Silver)

It's Oscar-time again!  Once more, I have seen almost none of the contending films, but I won't let a little thing like that stop me from prognosticating.  After all, I've never read a book, but that doesn't stop me from writing this thing every day.

This year, for help in making my calls, I turn to Nate Silver, the New York Times' guru of statistical prognostications, who has taken his talents for predicting electoral outcomes and turned them to the even more politically charged field of the Hollywood awards circuit.  Silver applies a fairly logical method to picking the Oscars.  Essentially, he looks at various awards that have already been distributed, and uses these results to "weight" the likelihood of films winning an Academy Award.  Since "Argo," for example, has been racking up awards left and right, and since many of the people who voted for "Argo" to win these other awards are also among those who will vote on the Oscars, it makes sense to pick "Argo" as the winner for "Best Picture," which Silver does, and so will I.

Best Director gets tricky.  Generally, the director of the Best Picture is a solid bet to win Best Director.  Of course, Ben Affleck, who directed "Argo," was not even nominated.  I'm not entirely sure why he was snubbed.  Some might say he wasn't snubbed at all.  Simple math means some deserving directors will not receive nominations. When the Academy expanded the field of Best Picture candidates from five to as many as ten, it did not expand the number of nominees for Best Director (or actor or any other categories).  So with nine films competing, at least four directors will go un-nominated.  Whether you consider Affleck's non-nomination a snub depends largely on how likely you consider it that "Argo" would have been nominated in the old days of five nominees.  I consider it very likely, and thus a serious snubbing.  Not sure why.  Ben Affleck seems like a perfectly likable guy and at least as capable as other middling actors-turned-directors who have previously been nominated.  (I'm looking at you Kevin Costner!)  The other big snub, by the way, would be Kathryn Bigelow ("Zero Dark Thirty"), but we can attribute that to her less-than-condemnatory representation of torture, which will be frowned upon by Hollywood liberal types.

So, getting back to the actual nominees: Silver gives a VERY slight edge to Steven Spielberg ("Lincoln"), but I'm going to go ahead and take his close second, Ang Lee ("Life of Pi").  My reasoning?  "Life of Pi" was nominated for a ton of awards, so the Academy will want to give it one of the "biggies."  It won't win Best Picture, and it wasn't nominated for any of the other "Big Six."  (Why the computer-generated tiger didn't get a nod for Supporting Actor escapes me, but there it is.)  Spielberg's already won twice, and "Lincoln" will win in the Best Actor category.

Best Actor is a total lock.  Daniel Day-Lewis is the male Meryl Streep, and if she could win last year for playing Margaret Thatcher in a movie that nobody bothered to see, he's effectively guaranteed his third win for transforming himself into Abraham Lincoln in a movie that was actually a hit.

Jennifer Lawrence is Silver's pick for Best Actress. I'm almost positive this has nothing to do with the fact that she's in a film called "SILVER Linings Playbook."  I'll accept that pick.

This category has a couple of interesting storylines: There is Quvenzhane Wallis ("Beasts of the Southern Wild"), who would be the youngest winner in history, and Emmanuelle Riva ("Amour"), who is very very old.  As DOS pointed out, giving Wallis the award would be ridiculous: A five-year-old does not study a script and create a character; she listens to a grown-up (the director) who tells her to make believe she's doing whatever it is he wants her to do.  She's not acting: She's playing.  As for Riva, I know nothing about her, and I'm sure she's wonderful.  Some think she could contend simply based on her longevity (I guess she's big in France)--that this will be sort of valedictory moment in a successful career.  But the fact that she is old and has never won an Oscar is insufficient reason to give her one now.  To put it another way, if Peter O'Toole's never won an Academy Award, why should she?

Best Supporting Actress is another absolute lock: Anne Hathaway will win.

Best Actor, on the other hand, is the real toss-up.  Even Silver is more or less stymied on this one.  He gives a slight edge to Tommy Lee Jones ("Lincoln") over Philip Seymour Hoffman ("The Master") and Christoph Waltz ("Django Unchained").  "Django," incidentally, is the one nominated film I HAVE seen, and I will attest that Waltz is--to use the technical term--fucking awesome.  He did, however, just win an Oscar three years ago ("Inglorious Basterds"), and I doubt he'll win another one so soon (and for another Tarantino film at that).

(DIGRESSION: Honestly, if I were to give anyone an acting nomination for "Django," it wouldn't have been Waltz, good as he is.  And, no, it wouldn't have been Jamie Foxx or Leonardo DiCaprio, either, good as they both were.  No, the truly remarkable performance in that film belongs to none other than Mr. Samuel L. Jackson, who plays a--I believe the polite-ish term is "House Negro," with a perfect combination of Uncle-Tom sycophancy and pure malevolence.  Tasty! EOD)

As for Philip Seymour Hoffman (who, I was under the impression, was actually more of the lead in "The Master"), I'm sure he, too, was terrific.  Let's face it, though, there are too many Scientologists in the Hollywood elite to expect an award to go to someone who essentially played L. Ron Hubbard--and not in a flattering way.

I think this award will go to Robert De Niro ("Silver Linings Playbook").  Silver gives De Niro only the slightest chance of winning, but I think he's got this one wrong.  In a field where there is no overwhelming consensus, no obvious choice--and in which all the nominees have previously won Oscars--I think this award WILL be a valedictory for a man who has long been a Hollywood icon and who hasn't won an award in thirty years.

So there you have it, folks.  Who will do better, the Solipsist or the Silver Man?  And, if I do better than Silver, do I get the job calling the next presidential election?  Only time will tell.

The Tree of Wha?

Last night, I watched “The Tree of Life” (2011), Terence Malick’s Oscar-nominated, beautifully filmed, phantasmagorical meditation on life, death, and the relationship of man to the Almighty. I sat mesmerized as the history of the universe unwound before me, stately, majestic, the finely-tuned vision of a master craftsman. And so it is with near-breathless awe that I say, simply. . .

What the hell did I just watch?!?

OK, confession: I only made it through about 45 minutes of this thing. I kind of gave up right after the raptor-type thing stepped on the face of the dying other-dinosaur-type thing and then stepped off it and went on its way. (And I couldn’t help but notice that this CGI raptor--unlike those in less “prestigious” films--didn’t seem to disturb the pebbles over which it “trod.”) I suppose this was meant to represent mercy or salvation or merely the ineffable workings of the deity the point is WHO CARES?!?

I could be wrong, but it seemed the main message of the movie is that the entire history of evolution culminates in Sean Penn--which is more than enough to put me off my feed for awhile. Speaking of Sean Penn, what’s the point of getting A-list actors like him and Brad Pitt if all they’re going to do is whisper in voice-over and look tortured? I could do that! Not that I would: I have my principles.

Look, call me a philistine, but if I’m going to sit through a lengthy meditation on God and death, I’ll just re-watch the last season of “Dexter”: All the philosophy plus a little something that Terence Malick would do well to include in future cinematic endeavors: A plot.

Here endeth the rant.

A Story Seldom Told

The interesting thing about "The Fighter" is that the title character, "Irish" Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) is probably the least interesting part of the movie. After watching the movie, we feel little sense of connection to Wahlberg's character, nor do we see what the big deal about his story is. For those who want a plot summary, here's a link to Micky Ward's Wikipedia entry.

The movie won two Academy Awards. Melissa Leo, as Micky's mother, won Best Supporting Actress. We don't exactly understand why: She's fine, but she plays a thoroughly unlikable character whom we thoroughly unliked. Where's the challenge?

Best Supporting Actor Christian Bale, on the other hand, is worth the price of admission (well, especially since we Netflixed it and pretty much paid nothing). As Micky's brother, crack-addicted former boxer Dicky Eklund, Bale is spectacular. Forget how you've seen him before: This is not Bruce Wayne.

Boning Up

Don't you hate when you get to the end of a book or movie, and you feel like you've missed something? You feel like you should go back and rewatch (-read) the thing to see if there was some essential clue along the way that you didn't pay sufficient attention to. Unless, of course, you don't really care, in which case it's not that big a problem. Such was the case with "Winter's Bone."

Academy-Award-nominated "Winter's Bone" tells the story of Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence, a Best Actress nominee), a 17-year-old girl in the Ozarks, who needs to find her deadbeat dad, Jessup. Jessup is out on bail, having been arrested for cooking meth. He has an impending court date, and, at the beginning of the movie, Ree finds out that Jessup has put the family's house and land up as collateral; thus, if he doesn't make it to court, the family loses what little they have. Ree sets out on a quest to find Jessup.

The first half of the movie feels like an Ozark Odyssey, as Ree journeys from house to house, visiting people (all of whom she is related to in one way or another) who may know something of Jessup's whereabouts. At each house, she is invariably told to drop it. Of course, she can't. As she gets cl0ser to unraveling the "mystery" of what happened to her father (which frankly doesn't seem like much of a mystery), she finds herself in greater and greater danger.

If it's any indication of the interest-level of this movie, we found ourselves thinking of the film as an interesting anthropological dramatization: We noted that, at each house Ree visits, a sort of ritual is enacted: First, the women-folk come out to size up the visitor; if the women decide Ree's purpose is valid, she will be allowed into the presence of the men-folk; if not, she is expected to leave or suffer the consequences. We also learned that mountain-folk eat squirrel and are introduced to guns at a young age. Who knew?

The movie also features an Academy-Award nominated performance by John Hawkes as Teardrop, Ree's uncle. His is an interesting character, first acting as a barrier to Ree's quest, but ultimately feeling that the bonds of family are more important than the rules of society (so maybe we should see the movie as a sort of "Antigone" story?).

But getting back to what we were saying at the beginning of today's post: At the end of the film, we are left with two questions: One: Who put up the money to help bail out Jessup, his land not being sufficient collateral; and two. . . . Well, we won't ask the second one, as it may be considered a spoiler, although the answer to the two questions may be the same. We suspect that the answers are there--Teardrop certainly seems to know the answers at the end--but this viewer, again, feels like he missed something. If members of the Nation have seen--or see--"Winter's Bone," let's comapre notes.

And while we're at it, we can discuss why the movie is called "Winter's Bone."

Money Can't Buy You Friends

Mark Zuckerberg's story drips with irony. Zuckerberg, a Harvard undergrad so desperate to be liked that he created Facebook, the ultimate "killer app" for online socializing, is so socially inept that we find ourselves wondering if anyone will accept his friend requests.

Yes, Nation, we have officially begun our annual getting-around-to-it of watching the Oscar nominees. We watched "Inception" awhile ago, and last night we took in the David Fincher-Aaron Sorkin extravaganza "The Social Network." The film tells an interesting story with a terrific script and good acting. We learn that Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is a nerdy genius, who gains our admiration for creating something that pretty much everybody loves, even while being a generally unlikable human being. It is to the credit of Jesse Eisenberg, who plays Zuckerberg, that the main character comes across as even mildly sympathetic. And while Zuckerberg is surely a bright guy, we suspect that a good deal of his genius affect comes from the fact that he is speaking dialogue written by Aaron Sorkin. Everybody sounds like a genius when speaking Sorkin; Sarah Palin would sound like a genius if Aaron Sorkin wrote her material. (Well, OK, the man's not a miracle worker, but she'd sound a lot better.)

The screenplay was based on a book called The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich. Assuming Sorkin's screenplay sticks to the story in the book, we can guess who cooperated with Mezrich and who didn't. Eduardo Saverin (played by Andrew Garfield), who co-founded Facebook and served as the company's first CFO, comes across as the most sympathetic figure in the movie. Zuckerberg's level-headed superego, Saverin engages in battle with his id, represented by Napster founder Sean Parker (played by Justin Timberlake); the superego loses. Parker comes across as a fast-talking manipulator of Zuckerberg's essential naivete. And Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (twins played by Armie Hammer), who unwittingly inspired Facebook by recruiting Zuckerberg to design an exclusive Harvard social networking site, are spoiled rich kids who feel entitled to a piece of the Facebook pie.

We're not sure why this should be: The film gives no indication that Zuckerberg "stole" anything from the Winklevi. They wanted to create a Harvard social-network; they wanted Zuckerberg to design it; they gave him neither money nor code; and Zuckerberg went ahead and created the network for himself. It's not as though any of these people invented the concept of social-networking sites; Zuckerberg just tapped into a public desire that already existed--and was already being popularized by sites like MySpace and Friendster--and built a better mousetrap. Where do the Winklevi Twins fit into this? Who knows? Again, though, they may have been less accommodating to Mezrich and/or Sorkin than, say, Saverin was, so all these interpretations may be hopelessly biased.

We can't find any major fault with "The Social Network." At the same time, though, we don't see what all the fuss is about. The film moves along briskly, which is unsurprising with someone like David Fincher at the helm. There's nothing especially "cinematic" about the movie, though. No scenes stand out as exceptionally visually interesting; the settings are mostly dorm rooms and offices. We watched the movie on TV and can't imagine that we missed anything on the big screen.

***************************************
Incidentally, since we've been burned in the past couple of years when we tried to "outwit" the Oscars, our picks this year are just going to be the favorites (and, remember, we've only seen two of the movies):

Best Picture: The King's Speech

Best Director: Tom Hooper (under the theory that the "Picture" director wins--although, of the nominees, we suspect that Darren Aronofsky ["The Black Swan"] did the most "directing." And, we're sorry, but how could Christopher Nolan ["Inception"] not be nominated? Did David Fincher really do a more impressive job with "The Social Network"--where he basically just had to point the camera and say, "Action!"--then Nolan did?)

Best Actor: Colin Firth (While it would be fascinating to see what would happen if James Franco, who's HOSTING the Oscars, won the award, it'll be even more fascinating to see what happens when he loses.)

Best Actress: Natalie Portman (We think this one's a lock.)

Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale (Again, from what we've heard, this is a lock.)

Best Supporting Actress: Hailee Steinfeld (We don't really know anything about the nominees, and we think we've heard that Melissa Leo is a heavy favorite, but this category seems to go to little girls a lot [see Tatum O'Neal and Anna Paquin].)

And we'll go with "The Social Network" and "The King's Speech" for the screenplay awards (adapted and original, respectively).

If you win your Oscar pool with these picks, be sure to send us our cut.

And the Oscar Goes to. . .

All right, let's get our picks in before the ceremony starts.

Disclaimer: We have seen a grand total of THREE of the movies under consideration for best picture ("Avatar," "District 9," and "The Hurt Locker"). These ill-informed picks are, therefore, for entertainment purposes only, and should not be used for the purposes of gambling--unless you want to lose your shirt.

Best Picture: "Avatar" has the most nominations, and it won the Golden Globe award for Best Drama. But you need to remember that the Golden Globes are awarded by the Hollywood FOREIGN Press Association. Presumably, a large number of their constituents are non-English speakers, for whom "Avatar" is a perfect movie: beautiful to look at; immersive 3-D; spectacular battle scenes. And THEY don't have to deal with Cameron's clunky dialogue.

The two other top contenders in a standard year would have to be "The Hurt Locker" and "Up in the Air," the former a compelling (and surprisingly apolitical) war movie, the latter a well-crafted human-interest vehicle for George Clooney. "Precious" is the perennial "dark horse" sentimental favorite. "Up" is the beautiful movie that won't win because it's animated.

The other five movies wouldn't even have been nominated last year, when there were only five nominees, so they merit little discussion, except insofar as they will siphon votes from the other nominees. Thus, for example, if we were voting, we might be tempted to vote for "District 9," not so much because we think it's superior to "The Hurt Locker" (which it isn't) but because we would want to send a message to all the "Avatar" groupies that it IS superior to THAT film. In a year when the "Best Picture" could garner as little as 11% of the vote, who's to say what's going to happen. That being said, the Solipsistic pick is: "The Hurt Locker."

Best Director: Although James Cameron DOES deserve some props for putting "Avatar" together, we'll go the safe route. If "Hurt Locker" is going to be the best picture, then the best director will be: Kathryn Bigelow (James Cameron's ex-wife, by the way).

Best Actor: This is a lock. Jeff Bridges has been nominated four times--and egregiously NOT-nominated two other times ("The Fisher King," "The Big Lebowski"). He's a popular, likable Hollywood veteran, and there really is no major competition. George Clooney would be the other likely winner, but he's already won an Oscar ("Syriana"), and he'll have loads of future opportunities. Morgan Freeman, similarly, has already won an Oscar, and he won't win another for a movie nobody saw. Colin Firth was also in a movie that nobody saw. And as good as Jeremy Renner was, unless it's a TOTAL "Hurt Locker" sweep, he won't make it. The Dude will abide with an Oscar after tonight: Jeff Bridges.

Best Actress: Meryl Streep may well have given the best performance of the year. The problem for her is that she's not really competing against the other actresses; she's competing against herself. Meryl Streep is the best actress of her generation and arguably the greatest film actress of all time. If you ask who the best actress of 2009 was, the answer is Meryl Streep. The answer HAS been Meryl Streep since "Sophie's Choice." But because of this, Academy voters may be less inclined to vote for her: Sure, she's great, but is her performance in "Julie and Julia" worth an Academy Award, given that we all know she's going to be transcendent in anything she does? We doubt it.

Let's skip over Carey (who?) Mulligan and Helen (already won and in a movie that nobody saw) Mirren. That makes this a race between newcomer Gabourey Sidibe ("Precious") and box-office babe Sandra Bullock ("The Blind Side"). It is a testament to the dearth of meaty roles for women that Bullock gets nominated for what is essentially a Hallmark Hall-of-Fame type role. Let's assume that she's good in the movie--she probably is--the movie and the role themselves are not Oscar caliber. On the other hand, Sidibe is playing an indisputably meaty role. The fact that she's a newcomer might work against her. Academy voters like people to pay their dues (see Jeff Bridges). At the same time, while many first-time nominees provoke justifications along the lines of, "I didn't vote for her THIS time, but she'll be back," will that really be the case for Sidibe? Let's face it, she is something of a "type" unto herself. To put it another way, while just about any competent actress of a certain age could have played Bullock's role in "The Blind Side," not even Meryl Streep could have pulled off "Precious." (Oh, who are we kidding? Of course she could have!) We're going to vote our hopes instead of our fears: Gabourey Sidibe.

Supporting Actor: We know virtually nothing about any of the movies under consideration, except that every reviewer absolutely raved about Christoph Waltz in "Inglourious Basterds." Thus, that is our pick.

Supporting Actress: See above: Mo'Nique.

Mark your ballots now, folks.

(Image from imdb.com)

An Honor to Be Nominated?

So, all right, let's get our initial Oscar thoughts out of the way. The 82nd annual Academy Awards will be broadcast March 7, and much prognostication will occur between now and then. We will refrain from any predictions for now and wait to see how the odds shape up. For now, then, just some thoughts on the nominations.

This year, the Academy has nominated ten films in the "Best Picture" category--up from five in prior years. It should be noted that, during the 1930s and early 1940s, ten films were nominated for Best Picture, so this is not so much an innovation as a throwback. Still, one can't help but feel that the abundance of nominees somehow diminishes the honor just to be nominated. At any rate, the nominees are:

Avatar
The Hurt Locker
An Education
The Blind Side
District 9
Up
Up in the Air
Precious
Inglourious Basterds
A Serious Man

The obvious parlor game is to try to guess which five films WOULDN'T have been nominated under last year's system. We hate to be obvious. But since you KNOW we hate to be obvious, then the least obvious thing we could do would be the obvious thing. So here goes:

Without a doubt, "Up in the Air" and "The Hurt Locker" would have been nominated. As would "Avatar""--while not a GREAT movie, it is certainly a great MOVIE, i.e., a great cinematic experience, and as such is worthy of an Oscar nod. Which other two films would have made it? Probably "Up," despite the fact that it's animated--no critic had anything but effusive praise for that one.

(Digression: And don't you think a case could be made that "Avatar" should have been nominated for "Best Animated Feature Film"? EOD)

For the fifth one, we're going to go with "Precious": This would have been the Awards' official dark horse small film that nobody saw but everybody talked about.

We absolutely refuse to believe that "The Blind Side" is THAT good. "A Serious Man" is probably terrific, but Coen Brothers' movies need to be "bigger" (see "Fargo" and "No Country for Old Men") to attract that kind of attention. We don't know much about "An Education." The buzz we always heard around "Inglourious Basterds" was that Christoph Waltz, who plays the main Nazi badguy (and who received a "Supporting Actor" nomination), is fantastic but that the rest of the movie is good, but flawed. Finally, we were pleasantly surprised to see "District 9" nominated: In many ways (e.g., plot and characters), this is a superior movie to "Avatar," but we are under no illusions that a second science-fiction movie would have made the cut in a five-film field.

And while you would think an expanded field of ten films would minimize the incidence of deserving-but-overlooked movie, we can't help but wonder where the "Wild Things" are. No, we haven't seen it yet (full disclosure, of the nominees, we've only seen "Avatar" and "District 9"), but this, like "Up," was a universally hailed film. Is it really not as good as "The Blind Side"? And also, if you're going to nominate TWO science-fiction/fantasy films, why not a third?

Or a fourth? A case could be made for "Star Trek," as well. Not quite as visually spectacular as "Avatar," but, again, from a plot and character standpoint, arguably superior.

We'll get to the other awards in future posts. And maybe we'll even see some of the movies.

And the Oscar Goes to. . .

All right, all right, settle down, good readers.  Of course, the Solipsist is going to give you his Oscar picks.  He apologizes for his tardiness, and he hopes you still have time to use this information to clean up on those office pools.

Now, a disclaimer: The Solipsist has seen NONE of this year's Oscar-nominated films.  This shouldn't pose too much of a handicap, but you should take this into account when placing your bets.

Herewith, the Solipsist's picks in six major categories:

Best Supporting Actress:

Amy Adams (Doubt)--The title of the film sums up the Solipsist's opinion of her chances.  (Well, who knows, she's probably fine.  But it's kind of a clever line, no?)

Penelope Cruz (Vicky Christina Barcelona)--Does the hottest chick ever win?  Hmmm. . . .Kim Basinger won.  So did Angelina Jolie, but she wasn't all hot in that film.  Oh, and of course there was Judi Dench!  Maybe.

Viola Davis (Doubt)--The title of the film sums up . . . . You get the point.

Taraji P. Henson (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button--henceforth, "Button")--Well, maybe, if only because the Solipsist is going to go out on a limb and say that "Button" is going to turn out to be an Oscar bust.  An award in a prestigious but not huge category like this could be a sort of consolation prize.

Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler)--She won for "My Cousin Vinny."  Somehow the words "Marisa Tomei" and "Multiple Academy Award Winner" don't go together.

Solipsistic pick: Penelope Cruz.

Best Supporting Actor:

Josh Brolin (Milk)--"Milk" is the Solipsist's dark horse pick for a big night, so this could be a possibility.

Robert Downey, Jr. (Tropic Thunder)--An honor to be nominated.  And this is one of the few things YNSHC actually saw.  Downey WAS hilarious: "I don't read the script!  Script reads me!"  Still, he won't win.

Philip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt)--The title of the--Oh, stop it already!  Seriously, folks, Hoffman is one of YNSHC's favorite actors.  He's fantastic.  But he's already won once, which might work against him here.

Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)--Well, this is the proverbial gorilla in the room for the Oscars.  The questions: Was he really THAT good in "The Dark Knight"?  Yes, he was.  Would he have been nominated if he hadn't died?  Maybe, maybe not--but he should have been.  Will he get the award because he died?  Or will he NOT get the award because he's dead?  These questions make this category the most fascinating of the night.

Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road)--Ummm. . . .Who?

Solipsistic pick: Heath Ledger

Best Actress:

Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married)--YNSHC knows NOTHING about this movie and very little about Anne Hathaway.  She was the girl in "The Devil Wears Prada," right?  Kind of funny that she's up against Meryl Streep, who played her antagonist in that previous film.  Then again, considering Oscar history, virtually any woman who's been nominated over the past thirty years or so has been up against Meryl Streep.  (And let's not forget 1987, when Streep received all five nominations!  But enough about Meryl Streep--well, until we get to Meryl Streep.)

(Digression: Try repeating "Streep" over and over--it's really quite a mantra.  End of digression.)

Angelina Jolie (Changeling)--Possibly.  She's won before, but it was for supporting actress.  This would seem to be a natural progression.  And it's always looked on favorably when the hot chick makes herself look frumpy.  This year, her performance in "Changeling" is the closest thing we have to that.

Melissa Leo (Frozen River)--Ummm. . . Who?  In what?

Meryl Streep (Doubt)--Streep Streep Streep. . . Streepy Streepy Streep. . . Oh!  Sorry!  YNSHC went away for a moment there.  Well, Meryl Streep is the most nominated actress (or actor) in Oscar history, and she's already won a couple.  Plus, "Doubt," being an adaptation of a play, has a certain literary cache, and it suggests that this is probably the most "actor-y" part.  Even money.

Kate Winslet (The Reader)--Nope!  The Solipsist takes it back.  Winslet has been around for long enough and been nominated enough times (like, thirty-two or something) without winning.  This is her year.

Solipsistic pick: Kate Winslet

Best Actor:

Richard Jenkins (The Visitor)--See Melissa Leo

Frank Langella (Frost/Nixon)--Langella is a veteran.  A Tony Award winner.  A proverbial actor's actor.  Plus, this role has the same stage-play, actor-y cache as Streep's. . . .Streep Streep Streep. . . Streepy Streepy Streep. . . Gah!  Sorry!  A solid pick.

Sean Penn (Milk)--From everything the Solipsist has heard, Penn won the award before the film was even released.  Another solid pick.

Brad Pitt (Button)--No.  His nomination, though, does raise the question about whether the "actress" rule mentioned above (the award goes to the hottest woman who makes herself look the most unattractive) goes for men, too.  (It worked for George Clooney in "Syriana.")  Not that Pitt looks BAD in the movie, but he does have to look pretty ancient for awhile.  Then again, if this rule were in place, he would've won for "Twelve Monkeys."  Not that the Solipsist thinks this will happen, but what happens if "Brange" wins an award but "Gelina" doesn't?  Or vice versa?  Trouble in paradise?  Or will they just go on a shopping binge for Ghanaian orphans to soothe their feelings?

Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler)--The sentimental pick.

Solipsistic pick: Tough call, but Sean Penn.

Best Director:  The Solipsist will simply cop out and choose the Director of the Best Picture (See below.)

Best Picture:

Button--It's generally considered a safe bet to pick the movie with the most nominations, which this year is "Button."  But the Solipsist doesn't think it's going to work out that way.  He's heard too much snarkiness around it.

Frost/Nixon--Come on!  While the acting is probably solid, this is basically just a filmed version of a stage play which was basically just the transcripts of an interview!  This is cinema?  This gets nominated over "The Dark Knight"?!?

Milk--The dark horse.  Nobody has anything bad to say about this movie, and, at least here in the Bay Area, you would think it's the second coming of "Citizen Kane."

The Reader--Well, it's a Holocaust movie and, by law, there has to be a Holocaust movie nominated for best picture every year.  But that's about all this has going for it.

Slumdog Millionaire--The feel-good movie of the year!  You'll stand up and cheer!  It's like Rocky!  Well, except with a skinny Indian kid. . . .  And, y'know, not about boxing so much as, well, "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?"  The Indian version. . . . No, YNSHC just can't go for all this "feeling good" nonsense.  Who needs that?!?

Solipsistic pick:  Go with the dark horse, "Milk."  (And, by default, Gus Van Sant for Director.)

You're welcome!