True Blood Season 4

I’m afraid of you, “True Blood.” Not of your Gothic horror or bloody fangs. But like Lindsay Lohan, the Pirates of the Caribbean film series, and the city of Detroit, I am afraid that my faith in you was misplaced. It used to be that declaring “True Blood” as a summer guilty pleasure favorite was justified by a cast of young ringers (including an Oscar winner) and multiple Emmy nominations. But now, “True Blood” has become snarky blogger bait. The hanging plotlines and ever-growing stable of characters, once hallmarks of its self-aware soapiness, now smack of desperation. The show, now almost finished with its fourth season, has adopted a method of throwing dozens of ideas at the wall at the beginning of the season, and deciding which ones stick as it goes along. This may be fun for the writing staff, headed by “Six Feet Under” creator Alan Ball, but it can be a frustrating experience for the viewers, left hanging on six or seven elements by the end of the season. With only 13 episodes a year, the collapsed timeline is alternately a chance for never a dull moment and an excuse to employ an ADD-style of drama.

While this season in particular is suffering, let’s not pretend that this hasn’t been an ongoing problem. Four seasons in, four full seasons in, and Sookie’s fairy “powers” are no less developed than when she put them to use in the first episode. That’s right; the very first episode of the series featured Sookie’s magical glowing hands, and despite plenty of wringing, they are no more a tool for the character than they are a sparkly deus ex machina, ready to jump into action only when a conflict has been written into a corner. What more frustrating is that the information the audience has been given about this power – that it comes from Sookie’s fairy bloodline – takes time and urgency away from whatever else is happening, not adding them. Done properly, Sookie’s journey of self-discovery should be just as important as defeating the big villain of the season. The end of the series should leave Sookie a stronger, more mature character. As of now, her romantic relationships have shuffled around but the audience can’t really tell what impact they’ve had on her. What does the shift from Bill to Eric mean?

This doesn’t mean the season hasn’t been without its highlights. In particular, the acting chops of the cast has never been showcased more thoroughly. The weak performers are few and far between, and despite the silliness of the plot there have been plenty of strong emotional notes throughout the show. Unfortunately, the cast has to constantly work around weak motivations, clunky dialogue, and only a few moments per episode. As the cast has grown, it’s allowed fringe characters like Arlene and Terry to have their own serialized drama, despite the fact that the characters may be well-rendered for glorified background extras but hold little to no emotional weight to the audience. Sookie and Eric, the main characters of the show, featured less heavily in the past three episodes than Arlene/Terry, Jesus/Lafayette, and Tara. All five of these characters could disappear in the next three episodes and affect the main plot only slightly. And with the exception of Lafayette, who was kept on the show despite being killed off in the first book, I can’t imagine much audience outrage. Fiona Shaw has been a breath of entertainingly over-the-top evil as the dual role of witch Marnie and ghost Antonia. She has played much the same role as Dennis O’Hare did last season as scenery-chewing vampire Russell Edgington. And, like O’Hare, Shaw probably will meet her end in the next few episodes. It will mark the end to another excellent guest performance, and I can only hope a change to the lack of clarity in Marnie’s motivations. But given “True Blood’s” track record, while Shaw will likely be given a magnificent exit, it will probably feel like somewhat of a cheat.

Season 5 of “True Blood” is inevitable, but the show desperately needs to pull up from this steep decline. I’d recommend a culling of the cast (last week’s death of Tommy was a good if unexpected start) and streamlining the plot. The first two seasons worked like gangbusters because there were two things the audience had to keep straight: the vampire plot and the Bon Temps plot. It makes sense. The vampires are the only supernatural creatures that really hold a tremendous amount of intrigue, because the human world surrounding them is alternately cruelly and appropriately afraid of them. Their status as an “out” species, while it allows for some clunky metaphors, generally means that there have to be consequences for their action. The werewolves or were-panthers, with their insular worlds, have no reason to maintain a positive image. Their group politics are boring, as the audience has not been given adequate time to care about any of their characters. A lack of external stakes is crippling the show’s watchability and its fun. With only two episodes left, I feel I am approaching a crossroads where I may have to quit watching this once entertaining romantic fantasy simply because I no longer care.

Pilot Fever Fall 2011

Despite the fact that the two pilots I am most intrigued by won’t appear for another few months, the fall TV season still does hold some interest for me. I like to start by watching almost everything, then shifting out the weaker offerings week by week. I’m naturally a bit more forgiving of comedies, sitcoms in particular, because there’s an interesting brand of anti-humor to a failed, muggy comedy, rather than the boredom that sets in after a few boring episodes of your typical procedural. Because of that, only the most cliché-ridden cop and doctor shows don’t make my list.

List of pilots was taken from Metacritic’s preview of the 2011-2012 season.

Already Exists: Rather than watching this this show, you might as well watch…
A Gifted Man: “Ghost Whisperer” reruns.
Hart of Dixie: “Doc Hollywood.”
Pan Am: “Mad Men.”
The Playboy Club: “Mad Men.”
The Secret Circle: “The Vampire Diaries.”

Anxiously Awaiting: I’m in for the entire first season at least, be it through actual potential or simply my own perverse tastes.
2 Broke Girls
Apartment 23
Awake
Up All Night

Critical Opinions: I may not be that interested, but critics are in bed with it.
Alcatraz
The New Girl
Person of Interest
The River
Suburgatory

Deep Into the Bench: The cast looks far better than the concept.
Free Agents
How to be a Gentleman
Ringer

Not interested: I’ll check out the pilot, but probably not much more.
Charlie’s Angels
Grimm
Last Man Standing
Once Upon a Time
Unforgettable

So Bad It’s Good: We live in a post-post-ironic world, where this is acceptable.
I Hate My Teenage Daughter
Revenge
Whitney

Pilot Fever 2011 - Midseason Edition

The fall 2011 TV season may be underwhelming, but compared to the bare-bones summer (bolstered only by the appearance of the nearly flawless “Louie”) anything is exciting. While there are many returning shows that have me on the edge of my seat thinking about how they’ll resolve hanging plot threads, I am also looking forward to adding some new shows to my usual weekly lineup.

With that in mind, there are two shows in particular that I cannot wait to watch this year. Surprisingly, both are delayed until midseason (albeit for what must be very different reasons). While midseason delays might usually be the sign of a troubled production or hasty rewrites, perhaps the success of “Parks and Recreation’s” third season, which came from a midseason delay to be nominated as one of the five “Best Comedy Series” Emmy contenders for the September 18th awards has removed some of the stigma. Many midseason shows never make it to the screen, but I hope against hope that that is not the case for either of these two shows.

The first is NBC’s “Awake.” The extended trailer makes it out to be a terse and tensely acted drama about a police detective (played by Jason Isaacs, also known as Lucius Malfoy) struggling to maintain his life and career in the face of a tragic – and confusing – car accident. While Isaac’s detective managed to make it out of the car unharmed, either his wife or his son was killed. But here’s the crux of the show – he doesn’t know which one. Each time he goes to sleep, he wakes up in a parallel universe, or a fantasy, or a dream world, where the other member of his family is dead. Sound complicated? It is, with a dense mythology that’s sure to take a turn into “Lost” or at least “Fringe” levels. Beginning with this tremendous difference, the two universes begin to grow slowly apart, with Isaacs in possession of two partners, two shrinks – two totally different lives. Where they overlap is where he hopes to find the clue as to which is real life and which is just a fantasy. In the meantime, he cannot fully grieve and heal because the death of his wife and/or son never truly feels real.

And it could be some of the most beautiful network TV I’ve seen since “Lost.” The picture was rich and saturated with subtle but engaging color and texture. The distinctiveness of the directorial style may evaporate after the departure of pilot director (and filmmaker) David Slade, but hopefully whoever replaces him will take note of his strengths. His approach actually seems borrowed from a small, quiet drama like “In Treatment,” with plenty of extreme close-ups and lovingly styled interiors, rather than the dreary gray pallor that hangs over so many procedurals.

It’s still unseen whether the show will turn to science fiction, philosophy, or psychology to determine the source of this dual world. It’s also unsure how much longevity the premise holds. It would be a shame to lose a show that seems to have so much promise if it feels as though it must spin its wheels in order to hold off its reveal of which universe is real. But the acting by Isaacs seems so strong, and so much attention is paid to his character’s pain even in the four minute teaser that I’m positive there’s something worth watching in “Awake.”

The other show I simply can’t wait to see is ABC’s obvious abomination “Work It.” “Work It” is the story of two incompetent, unemployed men who decide that the only way to get a job is to dress up as women and become pharmaceutical saleswomen. The patent absurdity of this premise is immediately evident. At least “Bosom Buddies” had a logic to it – not to mention the fact that it didn’t have an undercurrent of misogynist resentment. What is implied by “Work It’s” story is that:

1) Men are emasculated by a lack of work. Sure, this may be true, but in such a struggling economy it’s more possible than ever to feel a lack of responsibility – even a sense of helplessness – for one’s unemployment.
2) Women are responsible for men losing their jobs, and are given preferential treatment in the workforce. Not acknowledging that women are still not even paid equally to men is the backbone of “Work It’s” problems.
3) The two ugly lugs leading the show are in any way believable when dressed as women. In this day and age, with “RuPaul’s Drag Race” on basic cable and drag culture becoming more and more visible, the hack job on the hair, makeup, and casting smacks of 20 years ago.

It may seem counterproductive to anxiously await such an offensive and stupid show, but considering that I personally don’t contribute to Neilson ratings and thus have no bearing on how long ABC decides to extend its run, I feel as though I can enjoy the horror guilt-free, however long it lasts. My guess is less than ten episodes.

Perhaps (hopefully) it’s just fascinating to me. But there’s still hope that this show may serve as a cautionary tale for ABC and other networks. The 80’s are long past, and in this hyper-critical world there is little patience for such regressive sexual politics, and no appetite for such insipid humor. But until “Work It” is off the air, I might as well enjoy what will probably be hysterical in its tone-deaf attempts at something approaching humor.

Images are taken from NBC and ABC, respectively.

Mad Men

I’m worried about “Mad Men.”

The AMC drama may seem to be doing fine – in fact, it’s the frontrunner in the race for its fourth subsequent best dramatic series Emmy. But I fear that this year may be “Mad Men’s” last chance at that prize, and really this hiatus may have permanently damaged the show’s dramatic potential.

The show has been off the air for a full calendar year now. That type of hiatus smacks of backstage drama, and creator/showrunner Matthew Weiner has provided plenty, from demanding more money to threatening the size of the cast. It’s not entirely his fault – arguments with Weiner were the first of many AMC show troubles in recent news – but Weiner may not have realized that the fate of his show gets more and more perilous the longer “Mad Men” is off the air.

This may seem unfathomable considering that more than any other, “Mad Men” is the show that has executives scrambling to find a suitable knockoff. This fall, two new shows on NBC and ABC are attempting to capitalize on the 60’s fever with primetime dramas “The Playboy Club” and “Pan Am.” The latter is even airing on “Mad Men’s” traditional timeslot – Sundays at 10pm. Both shows seem to think that merely copping the time and place “Mad Men” takes place will result in similar critical accolades. So far, “The Playboy Club” has already been almost universally panned, with most reviewers citing the elements cribbed most directly from “Mad Men” as among its weakest. “Pan Am” has fared somewhat better, but the addition of a thriller angle has weakened the chance for the pilot to develop its characters. Conversely, BBC’s “The Hour” seems to take the best elements from “Mad Men,” incorporate a bit of “Broadcast News,” and get the espionage angle right. By all accounts, “The Hour” is a smart, stylish hour of tensely plotted, quickly moving television. How is it that three shows so radically different can all have the same comparison point? Nary an article about “The Playboy Club,” “Pan Am,” or “The Hour” have neglected to mention “Mad Men” as a primary influence and a barometer of quality. What is so indefinable about “Mad Men?”

Part of the problem may be that despite its capture of the zeitgeist, “Mad Men” is still not a popular show. Unlike, say “Lost” or “The Office,” both of which spawned dozens of imitators and launched the careers of several members of their large ensembles, “Mad Men” is not commercially popular. A critical smash, yes. But even its most highly rated episodes, such as its second season premiere, only draw 2.1 million or so viewers. Most of that has to do with its place on AMC, which generally pulls far lower numbers than a major network, which frequently average 10 or so million viewers on their most popular shows. Part of it also could have to do with its slow burn pacing, where plot developments refuse to pay off until the final few episodes of the season. But mostly I think it’s because “Mad Men” is exactly the type of show people say they’re watching without actually doing it.

“Mad Men” has permeated the culture, be it through the re-emergence of mid-sixties fashion, furniture, or attitude. But what hasn’t captured the public’s attention is the actual plot and characters. Interest in the actual drama of “Mad Men” has taken a backseat to the various aesthetics and nostalgia associated with the setting and fetishized time period. The cast of once no-name actors has been able to find steady supporting parts in film and theater, but undoubtedly the most successful breakout is the indefinable essence of leading character Don Draper. The “Draper” name evokes “Mad Men’s” first season, all about setting into place the careful hierarchy But while most pop culture literates probably recognize Don Draper’s name, less probably are aware of how profoundly Weiner and crew have been diminishing the idealization of his character. Leading man Jon Hamm, handsome as he may be, has been excellent when called to show the cracks underneath the Teflon Don exterior. Those who may claim to be fans possibly don’t even know that several seasons ago it was revealed that the man calling himself Don Draper is actually a fraud, a poor backwoods baby named Dick Whitman. The show, much as it may seem to be glamorizing Draper, actually is making a case that men like him aren’t from another place, aren’t from another time – they never existed at all. That assertion is far more profound than the show is generally given credit for. The elements of the plot – adultery, lying, illicit pregnancy, and the omnipresent “big account” tend towards the soapy. But they unfold so slowly and deliberately that there is plenty of time to be critical about the status of women in the working force, or the role a distant father plays in raising emotionally fragile children. It’s disappointing that “Mad Men” will likely live or die by how long the obsession with the midcentury culture lasts, and not the strength of the characters and writing.

Now, I’m not saying “Mad Men” should be given carte blanche to continue forever. The writers and actors (not to mention the brilliant production and costume designers) need to move on, and the brief interest in 60’s reflection will undoubtedly fade. But my worry stems from the threat that this brilliant, patient, rewarding show might be overlooked and left to wither and die just as the creative people behind it are starting to disarm the glamor and style of its era and really dig into those characters, making them real, tragic human beings. With that, I am left hoping that even if “Boardwalk Empire” dethrones “Mad Men” on September 18th, that AMC can stop being preoccupied with selling the show’s flashy exteriors and just enjoy the drama when it returns in 2012.

Black Swan (Old)

Black Swan

So, will Natalie Portman win her Oscar?

If so, “Black Swan” might very well go down as the greatest heist in cinema history.

Darren Aronosfky’s latest film, hot on the heels of his indie-inspired “The Wrestler,” draws from the director’s usual influences but adds a newer, schlockier air to create a dark psychodrama about the competitive world of a New York City ballet company.

“Black Swan” is campy horror produced with the quality of high art. That’s not a complaint — it actually gives the film the chance to shock, scare, and leave nothing unsaid. It’s all out there on the movie screen. If you have to think about it too much, it’s probably not there.

The film revolves around Portman’s character, the fragile ballerina Nina Sayers, as she takes on the role of Odette the swan princess in Tchaikovsky’s “Swan Lake.” Aronofsky states his intents early and often — not a single scene leaves Portman’s perspective, locking the audience into her shrill, overborne world immediately through a dream sequence. Though Nina wakes up, the dream never truly ends, as visions of sideways whispers and glances attack her with viciousness as the stress from the role piles up.

The movie bluntly references itself, drawing obvious parallels between the world of the ballet and the more abstract world of Hollywood ingénue. Portman may only be 29, but like Nina, she is quickly aging out of the world she has been a part of since her childhood. It has been 16 years since Portman’s first onscreen performance, and since then she has yet to truly make an impact. She has worked steadily, of course, and her name is big enough to hang this movie on. But her skills have always tended more to the precise; her roles have a practiced, rehearsed air — in the movie’s diction, they are white swans. This, this film, this performance, is her black swan. In the film’s final moments, Nina stares confidently into the camera, declaring “I was perfect. Perfect.” She might as well be addressing the Academy voters.

The rest of the film is cast accordingly — Aronofsky has always possessed a shrewd eye. Mila Kunis, a star on the rise, oozes effortless charm but lacks Portman’s discipline. Barbara Hershey had similar potential but never delivered a “black swan” performance. Her icy frustrations make her perfect as Portman’s unrelenting stage mother determined to keep her daughter a child forever. Vincent Cassel is the perfect choice for the exotic, foreign ballet director. The material he is given is somewhat repetitive, but each time he locks eyes with Portman, the whole theater shivers. But the smartest and sharpest decision was to cast Winona Ryder as Beth, the fallen prima ballerina. The character is hardly nuanced, but her fall from grace is given instant depth as Ryder’s drunken, deluded sobbing calls to mind her own, real-life collapse.

The film falters in a few places. The sound design can sometimes be overbearing — a lighter touch could have the audience jumping at every crack of a knuckle without cranking the dial up to eleven. And while watching the film unfold in two layers (the plot and the real life metaphor) was a delight, Portman’s performance may not have been as perfect as it needed to be.

Basic Instinct, Fatal Attraction—those were films about female sexuality that presented it as equally fun, unstable, and dangerous. “Black Swan” takes a similar path, showing off in Kunis’ character what Nina might have been were she not infantilized and tortured by her overprotective mother. The sex scenes in the film are cheap wish-fulfillment, an embodiment of all the virginal Nina knows to expect from it. And with a less canny director, the Kunis character wouldn’t have such a smart and confident sexuality of her own. It ensures that the film is a character study, not a comment on women in general.

The technical aspects hold up beautifully as expected. Aronofsky uses the cinematography and score to play on horror conventions like the cliché mirror-shadow scare to lead the audience deeper into Nina’s paranoid world. The CGI is sparse and well-used, mostly to blur faces or clean up the dancing.

The only fatal misstep comes in the abbreviated performance of “Swan Lake,” where Anonosfky lets the audience see the ballet. Nina’s performance there is as crucial as Portman’s is to the film. But she falls onstage, and badly, something that is clearly her fault. It makes sense in context of the scene — her fear and upset at that mistake propel her back into her fantasy world and ultimately cause her to take control of her inner black swan. In fact, that transformation is probably Portman’s best moment. It is as though she has been set free from the histrionics of the first two hours and can finally be comfortable in her skin, even as it shifts and changes visually. But that makes the final moment land with a bit of a thud. If Nina feels satisfied with her performance, feels as though it was “perfect,” than what about that first act? Regardless, “Black Swan” is enjoyable femme-horror that does its best to stay away from getting too self-consciously arty, delivering solid entertainment along the way.

Inception

Inception

Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” has only been out for a weekend, and already it seems to be single-handedly saving summer 2010. Why? It’s the rare blockbuster that’s actually an airtight science fiction thriller, full of good old-fashioned heist mechanics and a startlingly fresh, original concept.

The plot follows Leo DiCaprio’s travails as dream thief Dom Cobb as he builds a crack team of experts to assist him in “inception,” or the planting of an idea through a dream. The story begins slowly, but steadily gets more and more exhilarating, culminating in a climax that takes place in five different levels of consciousness. There’s something to be respected about an idea that can take ten seconds and stretch it into an epic fight for survival all taking place within a character’s mind.

Even the pieces that don’t necessarily stay watertight once the credits roll are convincing as they happen onscreen. I actually found my favorite part of the film was the fact that all of the internal logic of the movie (and, to some degree, all movies) operates the same way Nolan interprets dreams. For example:

1) Dreams have no beginning. Probably the most notable because that's what makes the last scene so intense. Movies have to feature smash cuts, jumps from one time to another, but by the end the audience is actively doubting the legitimacy of the story because of it.

For the record, I don’t believe that last scene was a dream. What I find the achievement to be is that even as I knew the movie couldn’t end with such a pat ending, I wanted it to. I was sitting at the edge of my seat. I had begun to doubt the reality in which I was immersed for the last two hours. And I was invested in DiCaprio’s character far more than I had realized. I wanted him to break free from Moll and rejoin reality.

2) In dreams, something might seem logical, even if it makes little sense afterward. The "one last job" structure of the story gets the audience immediately on board because of familiarity. But on second thought, there are many holes in the story.

Watanabe goes directly to DiCaprio and Gordon-Levitt, even though they supposedly work for a large corporation. This corporation tried to steal from Watanabe and failed, so he kidnapped one of their team members? And then was taken on as a client? (I'm sorry, the part with the helicopter made the least sense to me.)

The corporation (none of whom are seen throughout the whole film) employs DiCaprio despite the fact that he's a wanted man in the US, and also allows him to take bribes from clients (his freedom to return home).

DiCaprio claims he cannot see his children, but Caine (their grandfather) works in Paris. Where he speaks with DiCaprio. And presumably COULD BRING THE CHILDREN. Thus the circumstances of the domestic drama is somewhat forced.

3) Once a dream is created, the dreamer will fill it with a history. These characters are not particularly richly rendered. The performances are pretty strong across the board, but backstory is limited, even in the broadest sense. How does one become a dream thief? Caine’s character seems to be a professor, but of what sort? Does he believe DiCaprio killed his daughter? If not, then why does he endorse DiCaprio’s undercover life?

As the viewer, I filled in little details like this for myself, spending my time following the plot and being delighted at the touches of detail when it came to the dream extraction.

4) Sensation of time in dreams. Obviously, a movie that actually takes places over the course of two hours is a gimmick and not the norm. The average film compresses days/weeks/months into a two hour period. Nolan artfully juggled multiple compressed narratives while maintaining a great sense of pacing and timing.

I was impressed by “Inception.” I thought it worked as an action/science fiction flick and did have a little something to say about the nature of reality and accepting it, by using the way we accept the reality of a film world as his working example. Clever and interesting enough for me; the concept was probably the most surprisingly original one I've seen in a while.

Nolan returns to themes he usually favors. Obsession has pervaded from “Momento” to “The Prestige” to his Batman movies. Self-destructive heroes are blinded by their inability to relent. It is an idea borrowed straight from noir. It follows DiCaprio here, with Marion Cotillard as the femme fatale that just so happens to be dead. She haunts DiCaprio’s dream world with menace, destroying his ability to connect with the living; destroying his chance to reunite with the rest of his family. It’s a strong performance and a rich trope, but Nolan isn’t opposed to some subversion: in the climactic showdown, DiCaprio recognizes Cotillard’s lack of complexity, finally letting her go because she’s “just a shade” of his wife.

“Inception” has the buzz it deserves, and is probably the first movie of the summer (or even the year) to warrant multiple viewings. It fires on all cylinders and is the best mainstream hit since “The Matrix.” Nolan’s exploited his strengths and acknowledged some of his plotting weaknesses, drawing them back into the film with a knowing sort of workmanship. Hopefully a new American classic.

Oscars 2010

This is my first Oscars post.

The Oscars this year are likely going to be unforgettable in how forgettable they feel now. Though it’s considered a lukewarm movie year, several of the film out this year – most notably “Avatar,” “Up in the Air,” and “District Nine,” as I see it – really capture contemporary issues and really encapsulate just how far moviemaking has come in the last 100 years.

Actor in a Leading Role
Jeff Bridges in “Crazy Heart”: PREDICTION. This seems like an apology for ignoring Mickey Rourke last year.
George Clooney in “Up in the Air”
Colin Firth in “A Single Man”: PREFERANCE. Even though the movie was uneven, Firth has been stuck in awkward supporting parts in silly comedies for too long.
Morgan Freeman in “Invictus”
Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker”

Actor in a Supporting Role
Matt Damon in “Invictus”
Woody Harrelson in “The Messenger”
Christopher Plummer in “The Last Station”
Stanley Tucci in “The Lovely Bones”
Christoph Waltz in “Inglourious Basterds”: PREDICTION AND PREFERRED. Another standout performer in a less-than-perfect film. Nazis tend to come in two speeds: dead, or Ralph Fiennes. It’s always nice to see riffs on established movie traditions, and in four languages, to boot.

Actress in a Leading Role
Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side”: PREDICTION. As much as it pains me, it’s clear. Bullock has been humble, grateful, and seems to have the ability to honestly assess her career, all three things that endear her to voters. The movie surrounding her is less than prestigious, and that might (might) be her downfall, though.
Helen Mirren in “The Last Station”
Carey Mulligan in “An Education”
Gabourey Sidibe in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”: PREFERRED. Though more for her as a person, and less so for the movie as a movie.
Meryl Streep in “Julie & Julia”

Actress in a Supporting Role
Penélope Cruz in “Nine”
Vera Farmiga in “Up in the Air”
Maggie Gyllenhaal in “Crazy Heart”
Anna Kendrick in “Up in the Air”: PREFERRED. Girl survived “Twilight” and held her own against an Oscar winner and supposedly the latter-day Meryl Streep. Granted, there’s no way in hell she could take the prize (and if she did, she’d have hell to pay), but she gave sort of the opposite of the traditional overplayed “monster” role, and for that she deserves some props.
Mo’Nique in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”: PREDICTION. She’s somewhat of an outsider, made a small film into a big deal, got ugly, and has a history that relates to the tumultuous story. It’s Jennifer Hudson all over again (save the ugly).

Animated Feature Film
“Coraline” Henry Selick
“Fantastic Mr. Fox” Wes Anderson
“The Princess and the Frog” John Musker and Ron Clements
“The Secret of Kells” Tomm Moore
“Up” Pete Docter: PREDICTION AND PREFERRED. Nobody does animation like Pixar, and in a year full of strong children’s films, it was still evident how much farther they are ahead.

Art Direction
“Avatar” Art Direction: Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg; Set Decoration: Kim Sinclair: PREDICTION. With a Best Picture upset very possible, “Avatar” will probably rack up dozens of technical awards.
“The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” Art Direction: Dave Warren and Anastasia Masaro; Set Decoration: Caroline Smith
“Nine” Art Direction: John Myhre; Set Decoration: Gordon Sim
“Sherlock Holmes” Art Direction: Sarah Greenwood; Set Decoration: Katie Spencer
“The Young Victoria” Art Direction: Patrice Vermette; Set Decoration: Maggie Gray: PREFERRED. Every fork and spoon and curtain and earring takes thought in an extravagant period piece such as this one.

Cinematography
“Avatar” Mauro Fiore: PREDICTION AND PREFERRED. One thing that Cameron really accomplished was the ability to do more than a slow pan or zoom over CGI. And the depth of field achieved with the 3D was amazing.
“Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” Bruno Delbonnel
“The Hurt Locker” Barry Ackroyd
“Inglourious Basterds” Robert Richardson
“The White Ribbon” Christian Berger

Costume Design
“Bright Star” Janet Patterson
“Coco before Chanel” Catherine Leterrier: PREFERRED. It’s a film about fashion’s most unique and probably most influential mind.
“The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” Monique Prudhomme
“Nine” Colleen Atwood
“The Young Victoria” Sandy Powell: PREDICTION. It’s a period piece. They wear petticoats, etc.

Directing
“Avatar” James Cameron
“The Hurt Locker” Kathryn Bigelow: PREDICTION AND PREFERRED. Everyone wants to make history. Why do you think Halle Barry won that statue 8 years ago? When Sofia Coppola was nominated, it was still too soon. But backlash aside, it seems fitting that for a neo-war movie, the brave step forward was honoring the first female best director.
“Inglourious Basterds” Quentin Tarantino
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Lee Daniels
“Up in the Air” Jason Reitman

Documentary (Feature)
“Burma VJ” Anders Østergaard and Lise Lense-Møller
“The Cove” Louie Psihoyos and Fisher Stevens
“Food, Inc.” Robert Kenner and Elise Pearlstein: PREDICTION AND PREFERRED. I’ simply prefer to be right. It’s “The Jungle” of movies, and people are moved by finding that the things they trust – like supermarkets – aim to hurt them.
“The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers” Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith
“Which Way Home” Rebecca Cammisa

Documentary (Short Subject)
“China’s Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province” Jon Alpert and Matthew O’Neill
“The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner” Daniel Junge and Henry Ansbacher
“The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant” Steven Bognar and Julia Reichert: PREDICTION AND PREFERRED. I don’t watch too many documentary shorts, but this seems topical and relevant in a way that the others aren’t (for an American voting base).
“Music by Prudence” Roger Ross Williams and Elinor Burkett
“Rabbit à la Berlin” Bartek Konopka and Anna Wydra

Film Editing
“Avatar” Stephen Rivkin, John Refoua and James Cameron: PREDICTION AND PREFERRED. With so much CGI, there was precious little time for shaky camera tricks or epileptic cuts, and for that, someone should be commended.
“District 9” Julian Clarke
“The Hurt Locker” Bob Murawski and Chris Innis
“Inglourious Basterds” Sally Menke
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Joe Klotz

Foreign Language Film
“Ajami” Israel
“The Milk of Sorrow (La Teta Asustada)” Peru
“A Prophet (Un Prophète)” France: PREFERRED. This is a purely personal coice, enjoying films about criminals and their origins.
“The Secret in Their Eyes (El Secreto de Sus Ojos)” Argentina
“The White Ribbon (Das Weisse Band)” Germany: PREDICTION. It’s critically popular and critics make or break this award.

Makeup
“Il Divo” Aldo Signoretti and Vittorio Sodano
“Star Trek” Barney Burman, Mindy Hall and Joel Harlow: PREDICTION AND PREFERRED. The makeup was a little cheesy, but far superior to those horrible Klingon effects in the TV show.
“The Young Victoria” Jon Henry Gordon and Jenny Shircore

Music (Original Score)
“Avatar” James Horner
“Fantastic Mr. Fox” Alexandre Desplat
“The Hurt Locker” Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders
“Sherlock Holmes” Hans Zimmer
“Up” Michael Giacchino: PREDICTION AND PREFERRED. Giacchino had an excellent year – with “Up,” “Fringe,” and the superb “Star Trek” – and created a score that held much of the emotion in the film, particularly that beginning montage.

Music (Original Song)
“Almost There” from “The Princess and the Frog” Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
“Down in New Orleans” from “The Princess and the Frog” Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
“Loin de Paname” from “Paris 36” Music by Reinhardt Wagner Lyric by Frank Thomas
“Take It All” from “Nine” Music and Lyric by Maury Yeston: PREFERRED. The movie was a mess, but wasn’t Cotillard wonderful in it?
“The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)” from “Crazy Heart” Music and Lyric by Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnett: PREDICTION. “The Princess and the Frog” fell somewhat flat, as did “Nine.” “Crazy Heart” is already a sentimental favorite. Like the Best Actor prize, this should try and make amends for ignoring Brice Springsteen for “The Wrestler.”

Best Picture
“Avatar” James Cameron and Jon Landau, Producers
“The Blind Side” Gil Netter, Andrew A. Kosove and Broderick Johnson, Producers
“District 9” Peter Jackson and Carolynne Cunningham, Producers
“An Education” Finola Dwyer and Amanda Posey, Producers
“The Hurt Locker” Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Nicolas Chartier and Greg Shapiro, Producers: PREDICTION AND PREFERRED. This will probably go down as one of those “Worst Best” awards, with “Avatar” remembered as a far superior achievement. But right now, “The Hurt Locker” is still technically perfect, well acted, and just as topical. It will probably have less of an effect on films to come, but in March 2010, “The Hurt Locker” is the one to beat.
“Inglourious Basterds” Lawrence Bender, Producer
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Lee Daniels, Sarah Siegel-Magness and Gary Magness, Producers
“A Serious Man” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, Producers
“Up” Jonas Rivera, Producer
“Up in the Air” Daniel Dubiecki, Ivan Reitman and Jason Reitman, Producers

Short Film (Animated)
“French Roast” Fabrice O. Joubert: PREDICTION? I can’t say what people will enjoy, but this film was a bit of pure absurd genius.
“Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty” Nicky Phelan and Darragh O’Connell: PREFERRED. Angry Irish grandma for the win!
“The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte)” Javier Recio Gracia
“Logorama” Nicolas Schmerkin
“A Matter of Loaf and Death” Nick Park

Short Film (Live Action)
“The Door” Juanita Wilson and James Flynn
“Instead of Abracadabra” Patrik Eklund and Mathias Fjellström
“Kavi” Gregg Helvey: PREDICTION. I predict in favor of the sentimental pick.
“Miracle Fish” Luke Doolan and Drew Bailey
“The New Tenants” Joachim Back and Tivi Magnusson: PREDERRED. Seems interestingly edgy in its darkness, with too little time for a tacked on ending.

Sound Editing
“Avatar” Christopher Boyes and Gwendolyn Yates Whittle: PREDICTION AND PREFERRED. Do I know anything about sound editing? No. Do I think that some small attempt at a sweep will be made? Yes.
“The Hurt Locker” Paul N.J. Ottosson
“Inglourious Basterds” Wylie Stateman
“Star Trek” Mark Stoeckinger and Alan Rankin
“Up” Michael Silvers and Tom Myers

Sound Mixing
“Avatar” Christopher Boyes, Gary Summers, Andy Nelson and Tony Johnson: PREDICTION AND PREFERRED. Same as Sound Editing.
“The Hurt Locker” Paul N.J. Ottosson and Ray Beckett
“Inglourious Basterds” Michael Minkler, Tony Lamberti and Mark Ulano
“Star Trek” Anna Behlmer, Andy Nelson and Peter J. Devlin
“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers and Geoffrey Patterson

Visual Effects
“Avatar” Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham and Andrew R. Jones: PREDICTION AND PREFERRED. No one else is even in the race on this award.
“District 9” Dan Kaufman, Peter Muyzers, Robert Habros and Matt Aitken
“Star Trek” Roger Guyett, Russell Earl, Paul Kavanagh and Burt Dalton

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
“District 9” Written by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell
“An Education” Screenplay by Nick Hornby
“In the Loop” Screenplay by Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche: PREFERRED. The artful usage of not only profanity, but the hysterically unclear mumbling of politicians was executed perfectly. It might be a bit much for voters, though, especially if they only see the “For Your Consideration” bits and not the whole thing.
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Screenplay by Geoffrey Fletcher
“Up in the Air” Screenplay by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner: PREDICTION. Reitman’s film not win anything else (again), but this time he gets the trophy. He’s the epitome of what Hollywood wants. Cheap, “indie,” filmmakers that work with big studios and can turn A-Listers into artists.

Writing (Original Screenplay)
“The Hurt Locker” Written by Mark Boal: PREFERRED. Lawsuits aside, this other, equally radical war movie managed to be character-driven.
“Inglourious Basterds” Written by Quentin Tarantino: PREDICTION. The movie is a structural mess. The various plots are only tenuously strung together. But it shows off Tarantino’s ability to write dialogue. And it also was the rare war movie that had setpieces that revolved not around death and explosions, but slowly mounting dread.
“The Messenger” Written by Alessandro Camon & Oren Moverman
“A Serious Man” Written by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
“Up” Screenplay by Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Story by Pete Docter, Bob Peterson, Tom McCarthy