Movies

The Oscars are three days away tomorrow and there’s not a carbohydrate in sight in Hollywood. Luckily we don’t have to squeeze into an Armani Prive because, yes, alcohol counts as a carb and we’re already drunk with anticipation. Or maybe we’re drunk with gin. Either way, we’re drunk.

You are invited to get drunk with us on Sunday, February 27th, for a liveblog of Oscar night, starting with the red carpet arrivals on E! (6 ET/3 PT) and switching over to ABC when the Academy Awards ceremony begins (8 ET/5 PT). We’re dying to see what Sandra Bullock wears on the red carpet and whether her hair stylist is smart enough to lose the heavy bangs. We’ll save that discussion for our fashion rundown, coming soon. In the meantime, you know the drill: we’re handicapping the nominees.

Today’s category: Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role

Last year, Sandra Bullock won for The Blind Side, which we still cannot believe, because that was some Lifetime Movie bullshit, but whatever. We don’t hold it against her: that girl needed some validation to get her through the complete tabloid clusterfuck that exploded days after the 2010 Oscars.

Nominee: Annette Bening for The Kids Are All Right

Advantage: Wouldn’t she be fun to get drunk with? We love Bening and have been disappointed to see her lose – twice – to Hilary Swank. We have a thing against chipmunk teeth. That’s one of the many reasons why we detest Miley Cyrus so much, but we digress. This is about real actresses. Bening is always terrific and we felt she turned in the best performance in this mediocre movie.

Disadvantage: She has no chance. Zero. This is not an Oscar-worthy performance, nor is it an Oscar-worthy film. We hope she gets drunk at the Vanity Fair party after the ceremony and tells Jack Nicholson to stop mugging for the cameras from his front-row seat.

Nominee: Nicole Kidman for Rabbit Hole

Advantage: Kidman’s performance was nuanced: as a grieving mother, she was neither sappily sympathetic nor acidic and abrasive, but moved between emotional extremes with ease. She’s making a gradual career comeback by choosing smaller movies and roles (almost always playing a tormented mother).  By laying off the Botox and lip filler and ditching the harsh blonde hair for a more natural red (please write this down, LiLo), Kidman seems poised to once again dazzle us with her abilities instead of distract us with her other “work.”

Disadvantage: This film barely registered on the radar. Kidman is a capable actress, but is sometimes better known for generating Oscar buzz for her couture than her performances. The Academy does love a depressing film and performances fraught with pain and angst, but this movie has little traction and we suspect voters want to wait for a bigger film to reward Kidman with another Oscar.

Nominee: Jennifer Lawrence for Winter’s Bone

Advantage: Winter’s Bone is the little meth-fueled engine that could, chugging through awards ceremonies and generating a lot of buzz along the way.  Lawrence buried her sexpot body under layers of dirty clothes and backwoods depression, delivering a raw, understated performance in a country film noir that might have won her an Oscar in a non-Swan year.  She learned how to fight and skin squirrels for the role – can you see prissy Portman doing that?  We raise our glasses to you, Jennifer Lawrence.

Disadvantage:  Say it with us, Jennifer: “It is an honor just to be nominated, especially among such talented actors.” We hope Lawrence doesn’t get too commercial, a real worry given that she’s appearing in the next installment of the X-Men series. She’s proven she can handle tougher roles – if she makes good choices, she might be back at the Oscars again.

Nominee: Natalie Portman for Black Swan

Advantage: This bitch has it locked down and she knows it.  Pregnancy glow?  We think not. That’s pure superiority shine, with a touch of gloating gleam.  Portman is insufferable and self-aggrandizing, which makes her our idol, but her year of preparation for this role served her well. Her performance was more than physically demanding: Portman was able to maintain the emotional tension and uncertainty of a ballerina struggling with her grasp of reality in this psychological thriller.  Bitch deserves it and we’ll have a celebratory drink for her pregnant, tiny ass.

Disadvantage: Portman is insufferable and self-aggrandizing.  Did we already mention that?  Her Golden Globes acceptance speech gave us a preview of Oscars night and this new equation: self-centered actress + self-satisified pregnant lady + award recognition = awkward celebratory ego masturbation on live television.  We don’t want to see that again. But we will watch one of our favorite memes again:

Nominee: Michelle Williams for Blue Valentine

Advantage: If you ever see Michelle Williams in a zombie-alien-superhero-save-the-earth summer blockbuster, stock up on pork-n-beans because the end days are nigh.  Her delicate beauty and easy smile belie the raw emotion she brings to each role. If you’ve ever loved someone passionately, only to have that love erode over time while still clinging to the shell of the relationship and the memories of what was (as in, have you ever been married?), Williams’ performance in Blue Valentine may be hard to watch.

Disadvantage: Williams has made her film career by choosing tough roles in smaller pictures and, as we cautioned for Geoffrey Rush for Best Supporting Actor, being consistently good can be bad at the Oscars.  Blue Valentine lost some traction in a prolonged fight with the Motion Picture Association of America over an NC-17 rating. Williams will be back, though probably not for her next role as Marilyn Monroe. We’re not drunk enough to see that working.

Our pick: Natalie Portman for Black Swan.  She deserves it for her excellent work.  Being both insufferable and in possession of an annoying laugh doesn’t hurt one’s chances at the Oscars.  Just ask Julia Roberts.

What do you think?  Is Portman for Best Actress the most obvious “lock” this year? Might there be an upset?  Would Portman give the naming rights to her child for an Oscar?

 

Maybe this is being considered in other threads by other people, but is there any thought of holding an organizational meeting for all the crasstalk stakeholders? Like now, before it gets too big and too out of control? Let’s just maybe meet each other and really do some work on what each of is willing to bring to the table, which of us is good at x, y or z. Oh, and just as importantly, who among us knows the people who can get the word out and get a bright light shined on this little space? And then of course, there’s money and owenership and copyright and first use and and all of that legalsese mumbo jumbo that would be much better discussed now and have agreements in place and responsibilities delineated and compensation spelled out. What????
Yeah, well ya never know, this funky joint could be a real comer one day I’m just saying it seems like it is going great and has had a wonderful first week. But we are all potential right now. We are not where we could be if we don’t mess this up. And to me that requires a few givens: a number of great writers to pump out the content. Space and love and respect for thCommenteriat Community that uses the posts as the bricks and mortars of the permanant site community. So–quality writers and quality commenters.
Maybe this is being considered in other threads, but is there any thought of holding an organizational meeting for all the crasstalk stakeholders? Like now, before it gets too big and too out of control? Let’s just maybe meet each other and really do some work on what each of is willing to bring to the table, which of us is good at x, y or z. Oh, and just as importantly, who among us knows the people who can get the word out and get a bright light shined on this little space? And then of course, there’s money and owenership and copyright and first use and and all of that legalsese mumbo jumbo that would be much better discussed now and have agreements in place and responsibilities delineated and compensation spelled out. What???? Money? We’d get paid for writing this? Yeah, well ya never know. This funky little joint this way-way-way off-Broadway bash could be real big time one day. I’m just saying it seems like it is going great and has had a wonderful first week. But we are all potential right now. We are not where we could be if we don’t mess this up. And to me that requires a few givens: a number of great writers to pump out the content. Space and love and respect for the
Commenteriat Community that uses the posts as the bricks and mortars of the permanant site community. So–quality writers and quality commenters.
Beyond that, we need a couple marketing types, a business manager, an administrator or two, and a comuter tech guy or two. And some cheap space, unless everyone works remote. In the end that’s not a lot of seed money crasstalk would need to get going. The biggest expense might be advertising, and so much of that would come free because of the “war” with the Nick Denton gang over at Gawker. Media would eat up a story like that. Pageviews would come and ad rates would follow—but only if we are crystal clear on quality of the writing and the protection and support of the Commenteriat, who would be the true essence of a site like this. They are its breath, they are its air. A site goes mad and decays without its most loyal followers. the Commenteriat.
But, yes, shouldn’t someone write all this down? Don’t we need a business plan, a constitution, a way forward

Maybe this is being considered in other threads by other people, but is there any thought of holding an organizational meeting for all the crasstalk stakeholders? Like now, before it gets too big and too out of control? Let’s just maybe meet each other and really do some work on what each of is willing to bring to the table, which of us is good at x, y or z. Oh, and just as importantly, who among us knows the people who can get the word out and get a bright light shined on this little space? And then of course, there’s money and owenership and copyright and first use and and all of that legalsese mumbo jumbo that would be much better discussed now and have agreements in place and responsibilities delineated and compensation spelled out. What????

Yeah, well ya never know, this funky joint could be a real comer one day I’m just saying it seems like it is going great and has had a wonderful first week. But we are all potential right now. We are not where we could be if we don’t mess this up. And to me that requires a few givens: a number of great writers to pump out the content. Space and love and respect for thCommenteriat Community that uses the posts as the bricks and mortars of the permanant site community. So–quality writers and quality commenters.

Maybe this is being considered in other threads, but is there any thought of holding an organizational meeting for all the crasstalk stakeholders? Like now, before it gets too big and too out of control? Let’s just maybe meet each other and really do some work on what each of is willing to bring to the table, which of us is good at x, y or z. Oh, and just as importantly, who among us knows the people who can get the word out and get a bright light shined on this little space? And then of course, there’s money and owenership and copyright and first use and and all of that legalsese mumbo jumbo that would be much better discussed now and have agreements in place and responsibilities delineated and compensation spelled out. What???? Money? We’d get paid for writing this? Yeah, well ya never know. This funky little joint this way-way-way off-Broadway bash could be real big time one day. I’m just saying it seems like it is going great and has had a wonderful first week. But we are all potential right now. We are not where we could be if we don’t mess this up. And to me that requires a few givens: a number of great writers to pump out the content. Space and love and respect for the
Commenteriat Community that uses the posts as the bricks and mortars of the permanant site community. So–quality writers and quality commenters.

Beyond that, we need a couple marketing types, a business manager, an administrator or two, and a comuter tech guy or two. And some cheap space, unless everyone works remote. In the end that’s not a lot of seed money crasstalk would need to get going. The biggest expense might be advertising, and so much of that would come free because of the “war” with the Nick Denton gang over at Gawker. Media would eat up a story like that. Pageviews would come and ad rates would follow—but only if we are crystal clear on quality of the writing and the protection and support of the Commenteriat, who would be the true essence of a site like this. They are its breath, they are its air. A site goes mad and decays without its most loyal followers. the Commenteriat.

But, yes, shouldn’t someone write all this down? Don’t we need a business plan, a constitution, a way forward?

This is what I’m thinking, anyway? What do you all think?