WHO'S HOTTER: Marlon Brando or James Dean?

All right. Time to get serious. I assume the contestants need no introduction. Previous men in this series have not necessarily been famous for their cuteness/hotness, but this time's different. This is a clash of the titans.

I expect passionate endorsements of your choices. If you can't get enthusiastic about one of these men, then... well, then there's something wrong with you. Sexual orientation is not even relevant with these two. Their hotness knows no bounds; it transcends all.

Vote once. Vote well. Explain your reasoning (unless it's just one of those gut feelings/attractions that cannot be explained in words... but come on, try, there's plenty to worth with here). Debate. Argue. Get specific. We have here two white-hot icons of 50s brooding and angst. Which one does it for YOU? Brando or Dean?

And the hotter is...

(a week passes)

James Dean. Not as much participation as I'd hoped, plus the two people who DID vote seemed to base their choice on the fact that Dean died before he could become old and ugly (that's not really fair to Brando). Still, I can't really argue with the result. Brando's hotness tears through the screen, and he's got that animalistic male thing going on... but his voice is kind of terrible. When he speaks, I get turned off. Not a great trait for an actor. James Dean, on the other hand, is just... well...

GRATIANO in The Merchant of Venice

Here I am with our costume designer, Aviva. She's really just measuring me or something, although it really looks like she's giving me a blowjob.




































Here I am goading Antonio in Merchant's first scene.




























I think this is when I'm taunting Shylock about his not having any money.




































This is either when I'm being guided offstage by Lorenzo in scene one, or when I'm miffed by his description of his girlfriend's "page's suit." I'm not sure which.

Sometimes I hate being a Mac user.

So, I just learned of yet another disadvantage of having a Mac.

This is probably old news to most, but I just learned that Netflix has a new "Instant Viewing" feature, where you can basically just watch anything they have, right there on your computer, without waiting 2 or 3 days for them to get your old movie and send you a new one. When I saw this on their website, I was ECSTATIC, since I hate that 2-3 day grace period between films... but then I tried to use it, and it said you need a Windows computer.

DAMMIT!!!

I thought most of these issues with Macs had been worked out. I LOVE my Mac, and would never consider switching, but these kinds of issues are incredibly bothersome. It kind of makes me wish I just had Windows, superior performance and aesthetics be damned. Sigh.

...because I like to sing along.

So I just saw The Host again... sort of.

OK, so I went to see The Host again tonight, since I kinda loved it the first time. And the wierdest thing happened. It was 20+ minutes SHORTER! Yes, that's right. Somehow, 20+ minutes were just cut right out of the film. Right when it was getting really good, they just skipped a whole huge chunk that was A) the best part, and B) kind of crucial to the plot. I don't get it. But I swear, that was what happened. It's a two hour movie, but this time, after starting at midnight, the film was DONE at 1:38, with credits rolling. I couldn't figure out whether this was some kind of legit shorter cut of the film (maybe the A.D.D. American version?) or if the projector just somehow skipped over 20+ minutes of footage. In any case, it was very weird, and HIGHLY unsatisfying. Thank god I'd seen it before, the real way.

Maybe I should've tried to get my money back? I did after all not get what I paid for. But I am too mild-mannered for such heroics. And I don't think the other people noticed anything wrong.

I thought of putting like 1.8 next to the title now in my sidebar, (the number of times I've seen it), but that'd be too cheeky... or would it?

Anyway, the first cut is still great, even if the second makes very little sense. I think this thing deserves oscar nods across the board (cinematography, score, sound, editing, visual F/X, directing, and best picture), and it's probably the best thing that's been in theaters so far this year... I can't compare it to Grindhouse, Zodiac or The Lookout, but I'd be VERY surprised if those were as good as this.

The Host is just so cinematic in its building of suspense, and so operatic in its drama... it also plays as rather quirky, partially I think due to cultural differences, but partially cause it just is. Humor is found in unlikely places, and some of the music is rather odd, though beautiful. The film is also delightfully subversive in its mixing of genres: it's mainly action/horror, but dabbles in absurdist comedy and straight-up drama. But its masterstroke is the fact that the true source of its horror is not found in the fantastic spectacle of its big mutant monster, but rather in very real societal ills such as abusive of the environment, inefficiant beaurocracy, government scandals, etc. Like another horror fave of mine (the brilliant Carrie), The Host uses superficial, visceral scares to illuminate REAL problems that are truly and deeply scary, and that's a big part of why it's great.

But damn, a film sure does get screwed up when you just cut out a big giant chunk of it. All that masterful pacing just thrown out the window. Has this happened to anyone else? Seriously. I have vague memories of being a little kid watching the same movies and shows on TV and stuff several times, and thinking they were different each time (Zoobilee Zoo in particular... don't ask). It totally freaked me out. Like, it throws the whole universe askew. I'd always just chalked it up to my being a little kid and a little bit delusional, but now... I really don't know.

I got into film school!

University of Miami School of Communication Motion Pictures Program, MFA in Production (Directing), here I come!

this and that, and other things

So, posting will continue to be light this coming week, cause I'm in a show that goes up in... well... one week, exactly. And it will demand most of my time. Rehearsals are going fairly well, though the director is rather annoying to many of us (actors), and we still don't have a space secured (the show performs outside). I'm sure it'll all be fine, it's just stressful right now. But my role (Gratiano) is fun.

The Ivy Film Festival was fine, though I barely did anything for it. I actually ditched the latter of my volunteer shifts (since I was totally superfluous at the first one) in order to spend more time at IMPROVidence's 28-hour marathon show. That whole weekend was totally stuffed with rehearsals, parties, improv, movies, and the like.

I saw both A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints and a new documentary, Third Monday in October, at the festival. I still don't care much for the former; the director is a nice guy, and I give him props for getting his film made HIS way... I just don't appreciate the final product at all. The latter is a yet-to-be-released documentary about middle school students elections in October 2004, set against the backdrop of the 2004 U.S. presidential election. I liked it well enough - it's got it's share of laughs and involving moments - but the production values are nearly non-existent, and it looks awfully pedestrian in comparison to Spellbound, another (superior) doc about kids in competition. For those reasons, I can't give it any more than a soft recommendation... but it was fun to see it before everyone else.

Let's see, what else? Who's Cuter? will be a weekly feature (every thursday) as long as people continue to participate. It's all for shits & giggles, but I'm having fun with it. The best part is just coming up with the match-ups. I have some nice ones all planned already. This week's contest is kind of a foregone conclusion, but I like the match-up anyway... and for the record, MY vote would go to Paul Dano. Anyway, look for more of those, more Streepathon, more Altmanathon, and more reviews of current films, as I continue to discover the future of Crumb by Crumb.

I should make a banner.

And do labels.

Sigh... I am feeling oddly torn between this online life and my real life... and between performance and criticism. And the serious and the frivolous. And other things. What are my priorities? What do I really wanna do? Do I really want an acting career? Or maybe more of a singing career? I've been trying to write a musical for a while, but that hasn't been happening. I just auditioned for The Pillowman here, the final show I'd have had a chance to be involved in, and I was not cast. I'm not surprised, but it did put me into that familiar lull of theatrical rejection, even as I prepare to perform in another show in a week. Sigh. It's gonna be weird to be out of college and doing different things. Though I suppose I'll have time to blog more. Oh yeah, and I'm STILL waiting to hear from grad school. That's quite annoying. I wish I knew where my life were headed. I've got a weird couple of years ahead.

Okay, so this post has turned oddly personal. But that's OK. I think I should do more personal posts.

But that's all for today. Back to real life! I'm all behind now.

WHO'S CUTER: Paul Dano or Jamie Bell?

The "Child Stars: All Grown Up" edition. Which do you prefer, little pederasty victim Paul (Franklin) Dano (L.I.E.) or little ballet boy Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot)? The above photos are the newer, hotter versions, but for a refresher, here are Paul and Jamie as wee tots:


Vote once. Vote well. And then discuss... Paul or Jamie? Who's cuter?



And the cuter is...

(a week passes)

Jamie Bell, unsurprisingly.

Though I myself am a big fan of Paul Dano. Sure, Jamie's charming, rugged, and sexy, but Paul has a quiet mystery about him, and I find him uniquely attractive. I'd have voted for him if it had come to that. Between L.I.E. and LMS, Paul has proven his acting ability AND his unconventional sex appeal, at least to me.

But then, Jamie looks like THIS... so I see where y'all are comin' from.

WHO'S CUTER: Joshua Jackson or P. T. Anderson?

OK, I lied, there WILL be more blogging before next week.

Anyway, Nat's comment on the previous Joshua Jackson & P. T. Anderson post has prompted a brilliant idea for a series: Who's cuter? The idea is simple. I post images of two celebrities who may or may not look similar, but are in the same general league of hotness. You, the readers, tell me who's cuter. Each person gets one vote, and after a few days, I tally the results, and determine a winner. In the case of a tie, I get the tie-breaking vote.

It's all very shallow and high-school-girlish, and for that reason, I think I love it. It's also a great way to encourage casual reader participation from people who might not ordinarily leave comments. So please vote, and don't be discouraged from starting lively debates/fights. Let's see if this series takes hold.

So... Josh or Paul? Who's cuter?

(a week passes)

And the cuter is...

Paul Thomas Anderson, by quite a margin.

Looks like I was wrong... Josh ain't got nothin' on PTA. It seems brains, pizzazz, and genius auterial skills outdo TV stardom with this crowd.

Ivy Film Festival this weekend!

This weekend, Brown is hosting the annual Ivy Film Festival, a gathering of student and professional filmmakers from around the country and the world, complete with screenings, talkbacks, celebrity guests, and an awards ceremony for winning student films. Here is the Ivy Film Festival Wikipedia entry.

Unfortunately, this year is a bit lacking in quality celebrity guests. No one truly famous will be here (though one year we had Adrien Brody), and the industry professionals present include the people behind Mr. and Mrs. Smith, X-Men: The Last Stand, A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints, and Oldboy. Suffice it to say, I am not particularly fond of any of those titles. In fact, A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints, the big screening/talkback centerpiece of the festival, is (so far) my least favorite film of 2006, barely edging out World Trade Center for that honor. I will be ticketing for it, and presumably watching the screening and talkback as well, so maybe I'll change my mind about it, or at least get some insight into what exactly Dito Montiel was thinking.

There's also lots of other stuff happening in my life this weeked: a 28-hour improv marathon (of which I'd like to watch at least a few hours), two student theatre productions to see, rehearsal for Merchant both friday and saturday, major parties both friday and saturday nights, and another midnight screening of The Host if I'm so inclined... all while I'm supposed to be volunteering for this festival AND hosting a guest student in my suite. Oy.

So yeah, no more blogging 'til next week. Peace.

Random realization:Joshua Jackson and P. T. Anderson look alike.

Maybe it's just cause they're both really scruffy, but I see a definite resemblance. Sure, Josh is cuter and Paul is skinnier, but other than that, they basically look the same. At least to the extent that Josh could play Paul in a biopic. If anyone were into that idea. Anyway, for some reason I found this noteworthy. Maybe I'm alone here. But that's OK.

Sophie's Choice: Best Actor of 2006

Sure, Forest Whitaker was great and all, but for me, Best Actor of last year was all about these two fine hunks of man. Both were fantastic, albeit in very different ways, and I really don't know who I prefer. First off:

HUGH JACKMAN in The Fountain. Can we say "wow"? As if it weren't already hard enough to be the film's emotional anchor while also being a hovering bald Buddha figure, turning into trees, and fighting off Mayan demon things, Jackman also did it all in a spot-on perfect American dialect... old news for him, but just think about the layers upon layers of work he's doing here, without ever showing the effort. He's arguably the best thing about a film with LOT of great things, and it's indisputably his career best performance (at least on film). Jackman reveals new emotional depths in his three related roles as a Spanish soldier, a contemporary doctor, and the aforementioned bald Buddha figure, and for me, what it all added up to was one of those truly iconic performances... a dynamic and all-encompassing portrait of man in all his frailty, strength, intellect, love, and need. It seals the deal on Jackman as a GREAT actor, and great leading man. And I can't help but give bonus points for all the other fine work he did last year. Think about it: if you include The Fountain as three roles and then add in his three other live action and two other voice-over perfs, that's EIGHT great performances last year. That sure says "actor of the year" to me.

I have of course been raving about Jackman's Fountain perf ever since I saw it, and was shocked upon shocked to learn that it only placed a paltry 5th in the '06 FiLM BiTCH best actor category. I'd thought it had my own personal '06 win locked up... but that was before I saw:

RYAN GOSLING in Half Nelson. Here is a performance that's great in such a totally different way. While Jackman's performance serves a great film, Gosling's elevates a good film into something more. Half Nelson is all about people, their inner lives, and their relationships, and there's no person in it as compelling as Gosling's Dan Dunne. Jackman's performance is epic, operatic, and romantic, but Gosling's is straight out of the Penn/Brando brand of tortured naturalism, and he works that style to perfection. He has nothing but a script and a camera to work with, but still manages to create a fully realized character, one who you identify with and care about even when he does terrible things. His pathos transcends the "junkie" cliché. In the words of many a reviewer: "Dan feels like someone you'd know." Gosling creates a whole universe of backstory and inner torment for this man whose life has fallen slightly off the rails. He too slides effortlessly into a (subtle) dialect, and uses that and every other tool at his disposal to fall totally into the character of troubled inner city teacher Dan Dunne. His nuance and precision are a marvel to behold. Strong chemistry with co-star Shareeka Epps (also great) doesn't hurt either. Gosling may well be the heir to Penn and Brando. His presence onscreen is THAT potent. He has a great career ahead of him.

Now, Glenn managed to find an easy way out, leaving Gosling's greatness out of contention altogether. But I am determined to choose between these two. Or maybe I should just pull a Sophie and choose neither? There's always Forest Whitaker to fall back on.

I am just posting this because it's lovely... and because I somehow found it under a google image search for "Out of Africa Meryl Streep." Weird.

WHEN CRAZY DREAMS STRIKE: Little Miss Sunshine has a new ending.

OK, I actually just remembered another dream I had that would be perfect for this series (last night was very active in dreamland).

You know how many film fans have complained that there's something not quite right about Little Miss Sunshine's ending? That it's a little too dumb and inconsequential, and something else should happen instead? Well, my dream fooled me into thinking something did. In it, I re-enacted Little Miss Sunshine (as Dwayne... sort of) in a version where, after the infamous dance sequence, the family continues to drive, and after some time Dwayne and Frank get involved a little bit (oh come on, you know it was coming, after the little talk on the pier... and they're not related by blood, you know). And since I was sort of Dwayne, this part was VERY fun for me, since Steve Carrell is HOT (this dream is undoubtedly Glenn's fault).

Anyway, eventually the Dwayne/Frank romance petered out (DAMN!), at which point, Dwayne got involved with some girl, and ended up sort of eloping with her in some big exotic city somewhere, but then breaking up with her via some kind of massive mortal-combat-like fight (crazy). And then later (at least I think it was later), the girl and her parents discovered Dwayne still using the hotel room they had paid for. Expecting to be thrown out and threatened with violence, Dwayne was pleasantly surprised when they gave him adequate time to gather his things and claimed they were all "moving on" in a healthy way. There's a real ending for you.

Seriously, though, there was a part where Frank (hotter than in the real movie) and Dwayne (me) were sort of making out in the back of the yellow van, and it was AMAZING. So good.

WHEN CRAZY DREAMS STRIKE: ...oh, nevermind.

I was gonna post another entry in my insane "When Crazy Dreams Strike" series, but I think last night's series of dreams verges on the "too deeply horrifying and personal even to write about on a blog" level of insanity.

To give you a quick sample, my dreams involved my dog getting decapitated (but continuing to live for a few minutes anyway, inspiring a kind of Mexican "Day of the Dead" celebration involving the ghosts of my dead ancestors), my mother thinking I'm a terrible person because of something I said at a gathering of her friends, my sister not showing up at her dance school graduation, and some woman teaching me a way to treat hair loss involving hand cream and a blender. Don't ask.

But you know, if there's one thing all these recent dreams have taught me, it's that I really need to be a writer. There's a lot of shit in my head that just needs to get out. Seriously.

Altmanathon Stop #2: McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971)

TRIVIA

Stars Warren Beatty and Julie Christie were lovers at the time of filming; this was their first time working together on a film.

The film was shot almost entirely in sequence; the order it plays is the same order in which it was shot.

The film negative was "flashed" (exposed to light) in order to get a grainy, lived-in look.

Leonard Cohen's music was added to the film in post-production, and though he was a personal fan of Altman and gave him permission to use the songs, Cohen disliked the finished film upon first viewing. A year later, he called Altman and told him that after seeing the film again, he'd had a change of heart and realized he loved it.
AWARDS

1 Oscar nomination (Best Actress: Julie Christie)

1 BAFTA nomination (Best Cinematography)

WGA award nomination (adapted)


REVIEW

McCabe & Mrs. Miller is not your typical love story, nor is it your typical western, but it is your typical Robert Altman film. It features the trademark Altman ensemble feel, overlapping dialogue, and genre subversion to which fans of the director have become accustomed. What is new and interesting (at least to me) is seeing these techniques used in a Western. In many ways, the genre suits Altman incredibly well; his realistic, unvarnished approach serves to bring out the ruggedness of the old west, the way things actually were, rather than how their remembered. The story is framed around John McCabe and Constance Miller, but the true star is the environment; the film brilliantly evokes a specific time and place, and immerses the audience in its specific atmosphere. There are so many details in the set design, the photography, and the supporting actors' performances that the central love story is almost unnecessary.

And as I said, the love story is not really the point. The actual story would be rather unsatisfying, were it not for the lovely details the filmmakers throw at us, and the sheer pleasure of watching life in this environment unfold. Much between Beatty's McCabe (the film's true lead) and Christie's Mrs. Miller remains unconsummated and unfinished right through to the end; these are not two people who were made for each other, just two people who encountered each other and saw some sparks fly. The actual plot, or what there is of it, involves McCabe and Miller's joint business venture - a whorehouse - and the events that take place when McCabe refuses to sell it. But as I've said, this film's pleasures are not in the plot but in the details, the little things here and there that give authenticity to this little Western town.

I think the most notable aspects of the film (other than the Altman's signature direction and the performances by Beatty and especially Christie) are the production design, cinematography, and music. The town was apparently built from the ground up on location in western Canada using lumber from local trees, and the film just wouldn't succeed without a great town in which to shoot. Also, the film's distinctive grainy and softly lit look was achieved by "flashing" the negatives of the film after it was shot, a dangerous process that might've resulted in all the film being ruined, were it done wrong. It was all worth it, though, for the resulting film was rich and beautiful visually, with many impeccably composed and gorgeously lit shots. And the look of the film was perfectly complemented by Leonard Cohen's song score, which added poetry and lyricism to already wonderful visuals. Altman claims he didn't know what he was going to do for music while shooting; he'd put musicians in many scenes as a way of having diagetic music, but he didn't want a traditional underscore. Later, he realized that a recent Leonard Cohen album had songs that set the perfect tone for the film, and he added them in post-production. Between the soft, sad music and the film's distinctive look, McCabe had truly won me over in the first frames.

I won't discuss individual plot points or performances, because that's honestly not what I remember about the film. What I do remember, and what I'll take from it, is a rich sense of atmosphere and a fully realized world, created by the director, actors, and designers together, with nothing feeling wrong or out of place. I think I preferred this film to M*A*S*H, due to its quiet confidence, cohesion and ease of sustained mood, but both are undoubtedly great. I'm so glad I took the time to investigate Altman... and I have a feeling the best in the marathon is yet to come.

Next in the marathon: Nashville

I saw Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc today...

...for filmmaking class. In complete silence (the music wasn't working for some reason).

And yeah, it's pretty great. But I don't feel like I've really absorbed it, partially because it's a silent film and I watched it in complete silence, with no sound whatsoever, and partially because it's very old and it's always harder for me to relate to older films, especially silent ones. So it's not like I have all these brilliant and insightful things to write about it. Sure, Falconetti's awesome. But that's about all I have to say. I should really rent the Criterion DVD and watch it again and check out all the special features. I'll probably do that at some point.

In any case, everybody should see this, probably more than once (including me). It's just one of those milestones. Falconetti's performance alone makes the 80 minutes of cold, dark silence worth enduring. I have a feeling I may grow obsessed with it after close, repeated viewing. But for now, I'm just sort of appreciating it intellectually, from afar. Do with that what you will.

Jennifer Holliday's E! pre-Oscar interview

I know my readers don't really share my enthusiasm for Jennifer Holliday (aka God), but that's just tough. She is to me what Michelle Pfeiffer and Julianne Moore are to... some people. Anyway, here is her E! interview (which I missed when it originally aired) where she talks about her history with Dreamgirls and her subsequent depression and renewal. It's inspiring.

WHEN CRAZY DREAMS STRIKE: I am a ghost who can fly.

Another crazy dream to report. All I did was take a little 20-minute catnap, but that was plenty of time to get some action. My subconscious never lets me down.

This time, a hurricane/cyclone struck my gradparents' house (it didn't really look like my grandparents' house, but whatever, that's what it was in the dream), where I was doing work at the second-story window. It caused a bunch of my stuff to fly out the window onto the ground, so I went to go pick it up.

Then, when I was outside, some big ugly cat chained to the house next door looked like he was gonna attack me, so in a sudden rush of "fight-or-flight" hysteria, I learned that I could float off the ground, and then fly. It felt distinctly like I was being lifted in a harness or something, like in a movie shoot with special flying effects. That was the sensation I got. Anyway, soon I was flying through my house, going up through ceilings and stuff, freaked out as all hell. I just wanted to stop and be normal, but I couldn't.

Then I found my sister sitting at her desk, and she looked like a ghost/creepy dead person with no face (even though I was supposed to be the ghost). Somehow I sort of entered her body, as ghosts tend to do (at least in the movie Ghost), and I heard her say something sexual, like "I've never come right after before" (somehow I knew that was meant sexually). And since my sister is a 14-year-old baby, this was the scariest part of the dream. So scary, in fact, that I woke up. Phew.

I don't really know how I came up with this dream. It doesn't relate obviously to things happening in my life, like the last one. But I did hear my sister say the word "penis" for the first time the other day (totally unnecessarily, too... I think she was just trying to sound grown up), so that might account for the random sexual insert. And I suppose I was looking at a new special edition of the movie Ghost on amazon recently. And the cat looked a little bit like my roommate's cat, Myles, whom I hate (they're both black cats, but the one in the dream was big and freakish-looking). And I guess I'm sort of perpetually scared of hurricanes (as a Miami dweller) and fascinated by cyclones (as a fan of The Wizard of Oz).

Anyway... like, whoa. Again.

Jennifer Holliday at the oscars

Here is a clip of the best female singer in the world, Jennifer Holliday, singing "The Way He Makes Me Feel" from Yentl at the 1984 oscars. I was unaware of any direct JHoll/Oscars connection (other than JHud and Effie), but there is one, so YAY! My two favorite things in one!

Unfortunately, between the 200 odd pounds of extra weight and that ridiculous hat and dress she's wearing, she looks pretty heinous in this clip (this was not the best time for her), but the performance itself is amazing. Check it out.

April Fools Oscar Predictions!

So I decided to try and officially beat Nathaniel to the punch this year in the April Fools year-in-advance game. Of course, I got most of my info on upcoming releases from his studio rundown page, so I can't take too much credit for anything I get right.

The omissions I feel worst about are Charlie Wilson's War (in every category) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt in The Lookout (I predicted the film in other categories but figured the best actor field would be too competitive). I don't feel too bad about leaving out Sweeney Todd... I just have a feeling it'll be a big miss... I didn't predict it in any category but best supporting actress for Bonham-Carter (I have an inkling she might actually steal the film and be the only one praised... plus I couldn't think of anyone else to predict instead).

My ballsiest prediction: Unconventional Bob Dylan biopic I'm Not There gets several major noms, including Best Picture. I think it's high time a Todd Haynes film got some oscar love. His last three films ALL deserved nominations for oscar's highest honor, and were all overlooked, but I think this time might be different, due to the combo of:

1) biopic of VERY famous and revered musician (Ray & Walk the Line were oscar hits)

2) lots of major stars (Bale, Blanchett, Brody, Gere, Ledger, Williams, etc.)

3) Harvey Weinstein (who, incidentally, wanted to distribute Haynes' last film, the oscar-worthy Far From Heaven)

If it's brilliant (highly likely) and they're able to sell it and campaign it effectively (also likely, with Weinstein onboard), it could be a major event. And if it's placed in comedy/musical at the globes, that can only help... LOTS of room there for stars to get noms if some go lead, and of course for the pic itself to grab a spot.

Anyway, predictions are all laid out on the sidebar (right below the new "favorite actors" lists, and above "the usual suspects"); you can scroll down to see them. I've chucked the old system of linking to each category's page, and just made everything visible on the sidebar instead. I'll only change these only every few months, probably, until waaaaaay later in the year.

UPDATE: Here are official year-in-advance predictions, to be preserved until nomination day and then uncovered to check my success rate:

BEST PICTURE
The Golden Age
I'm Not There
Lions for Lambs
There Will Be Blood
Youth Without Youth
(probably should've predicted: Atonement, Rendition)

BEST DIRECTOR
Cronenberg (Eastern Promises)
Haynes (I'm Not There)
Redford (Lions for Lambs)
P. T. Anderson (There Will Be Blood)
F. F. Coppola (Youth Without Youth)
(probably should've predicted: Joe Wright for Atonement)

BEST ACTOR
Bale (Rescue Dawn)
Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood)
Ganz (Youth Without Youth)
Joaquin Phoenix (Reservation Road)
Denzel Washington (American Gangster)
(probably should've predicted: Clooney, Gordon-Levitt)

BEST ACTRESS
Blanchett (Golden Age)
Cotillard (La Vie En Rose)
Jolie (A Mighty Heart)
Moore (Savage Grace)
Streep (Lions for Lambs)
(probably should've predicted: Christie, Knightley)

SUPPORTING ACTOR
Bosco (The Savages)
Daniels (The Lookout)
Dano (There Will Be Blood)
Owen (The Golden Age)
Ruffalo (Reservation Road)
(probably should've predicted: Redford, or someone from I'm Not There)

SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Blanchett (I'm Not There)
Bonham-Carter (Sweeney Todd)
Garai (Atonement)
Morton (The Golden Age)
Redgrave (Evening)
(probably should've predicted: Redgrave for Atonement)

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
I'm Not There
Lions for Lambs
The Lookout
Margot at the Wedding
The Savages
(probably should've predicted: Rendition, Michael Clayton)

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Atonement
The Kite Runner
Reservation Road
There Will Be Blood
Youth Without Youth
(probably should've predicted: Evening, Charlie Wilson's War)

ANIMATED FEATURE
Ratatoille
Shrek the Third
The Simpsons Movie
(I really think these three'll actually make it)

Note how I'm already second guessing myself... one thing I forgot to do is think about each separate studio and how they'll all try to have a big film in play. Focus' Atonement will probably be bigger than I'm assuming. But these were my original predictions and they are official. Enough with this insane exercise. In 9 months, we'll see how I do.

Questions? Agreement? Dischord? Leave all your thoughts down in the comments.