Countdown to the Oscars: Best Picture

the nominees for best picture are:

black swan
the fighter
inception
the kids are all right
the king's speech
127 hours
the social network
toy story 3
true grit
winter's bone

well, tonight's the big night. gay christmas. the 83rd annual academy awards. or as they call it in billy crystal's house: passover.

it's a busy day for me so i tend to short-shrift best picture a bit. but there are some easy disqualifications to make.

you cannot take a best picture nomination seriously if they do not have a corresponding best director nod. so.... say bye-bye to inception, the kids are all right, 127 hours, toy story 3 and winter's bone. without a director... it's just not gonna happen.

i think the 10 nominees is idiocy.... but we have them. the only upside is that brilliant films like winter's bone can snag a nomination when they might normally be too small for the academy to remember.

so we're left with five serious nominees. of those, only the social network and the king's speech have a chance.

the social network has won every. single. critic's. award. you. can. win.

it is the best film of the year. as i said last night.... it's fresh, it's solid... it's of our time. it's built on one of the best screenplays we've had in years. (by the way, aaron sorkin will win best adapted screenplay for network. just watch the first 8 minutes of the film... pure word masturbation. it's genius.)

but the king's speech has won the one award (well, two) that might matter the most. the big one is the producers guild of america award. the PGA winner has most likely always gone on to win best picture at the oscars. (in fact, they've matched up 75% of the time over the years.)

hooper also won the director's guild and, as previously discussed, that generally means he'll go on to win the best director oscar. the winner of the best director oscar almost always takes home the gold for best picture, as well.

they do differ from time to time. but in the past 30 years, the picture/director split has only occurred SIX times. the last time was 2005 when crash undeservedly won best picture but ang lee won director for brokeback mountain.

i'm reading a lot of chatter about a picture/director split this year. it's not normally predicted but the theory appears to have a following this year.

i adore the king's speech. i think it's a nearly perfect film. i will be thrilled if it wins best picture. but i simply see the social network as the better film.

but.... i don't see it taking home both director and picture.

so.... a split. (just to make things even more interesting.)

will win: the king's speech
should win: the social network

and i leave you now with my beloved liza minnelli singing my favorite oscar song: "oscar! everybody loves ya, oscar! everybody wants to get ya, grab ya, hug ya... hold you tight!"

happy oscars!

e.

Countdown to the Oscars: Best Director

the nominees for best director are:

darren aronofsky, black swan
david o. russell, the fighter
tom hooper, the king's speech
david fincher, the social network
joel & ethan coen, true grit

okay, kiddies... it's getting late and i still have a shitload to accomplish this evening in pre-prep for tomorrow.

so let's just cut to the chase, shall we? (get it? "cut"? director...? nevermind.)

so the coen brothers just recently won for no country for old men. (great film. seriously... check it out.) too soon for them to win again. as awesome as true grit is. (and you'll probably never hear me say this about any other film: better than the original.)

darren aronofsky remains too out there, i think, to win. plus.... it's his first nomination. david o. russell stunned a lot of oscar watchers with his nomination. also... first one. won't win.

this is really a two way race: fincher v. hooper.

now. this is fincher's second nomination for best director. he was last nominated for the highly overrated the curious case of benjamin button.

this is hooper's first nomination.

so i seem to want to discount first-time nominees, right? wrong! i mean... it happens. especially if you were an actor first. (see redford, costner, eastwood, gibson.)

BUT. and this is a HUGE "but." hooper won the director's guild award for the king's speech. the DGA, people.

in the 63 years of the director's guild, the winner has NOT gone on to win the oscar only.....SIX time. six, people.

now, this has happened twice since 2000. the first time in 2000 when ang lee won the DGA for crouching tiger, hidden dragon but lost the oscar to steven soderbergh for traffic. and the last time in 2002 when rob marshall won the DGA for chicago but lost the gold to roman polanski on oscar night for his direction of the pianist.

so all indications would lead one to think hooper has the oscar in the bag, yes?

well..... david fincher has won every single critics' award leading up to the DGA for his superb direction of the social network. he won the golden globe. he even won the BAFTA (the british equivalent of the academy award...) over brit, hooper.

i don't really know what to say? both films are exceptional. both directors are worthy. i.... well, i lean towards the social network and fincher. i find the direction fresh and inventive. it feels very much of our time. and... it's flawless.

so... while the safe money is on hooper, i'm going out on a limb here, people. "no guts, no glory," as the man says. i'm predicting fincher to take home the oscar. yes.... a split from the DGA and, perhaps, a split from the ultimate winner of best picture.

but that's tomorrow.

will win: david fincher, the social network
should win: david fincher, the social network

e.

Countdown to the Oscars: Best Actor

the nominees for best actor are:

javier bardem, biutiful
jeff bridges, true grit
jesse eisenberg, the social network
colin firth, the king's speech
james franco, 127 hours

a little old.... a little new in this category. we have jeff bridges scoring his sixth nomination and, of course, he won for the first time in last year's crazy heart. bardem has scored his third nomination and firth scored his second. of course, barden already won for 2007's brilliant no country for old men. firth's first nomination came just last year when he lost to fellow nominee, jeff bridges.

meanwhile..... jesse eisenberg and james franco both score their first nods.

let's go ahead and count out the two, first time nominees. i think franco is very good in a small film very few people could stomach the idea of watching. it's a nomination to reward his talent... and for not nominating him previously for milk.

eisenberg could win if there's a big push for the social network. but it appears the king's speech has taken the wind out of facebook's sails. (more on that in another post.)

i also don't see jeff bridges winning a second oscar the year after just winning his first. only nine actors in the 83 year history of the academy awards have won two best actor oscars... and only two in consecutive years (spencer tracy and tom hanks).

javier bardem also has an uphill battle if he hopes to win for biutiful. not only has he already won an oscar recently.... but the last and only time the best actor statue went to a foreign language film performance was 1997. roberto benigni upset the entire oscar telecast (and, more importantly....me!) when he won for that piece of shit film, life is beautiful. i'm still trying to figure that one out and occasionally wake up with lingering night terrors recalling the moment.

(incidentally, the only other foreign language film performance to win an oscar is sophia loren, best actress - two women. some consider robert deniro's supporting actor win for the godfather, part 2 a foreign language performance win. which it is... except for one line he exclusively speaks italian. but the film is not considered a foreign language film.)

but i digress.......

if i was comfortable calling any category a lock, it would be best actor. sooooo.... i'm saying it's a lock. and it appears to be a lock like most acting categories. even though i've said the other categories could very possibly see an upset. however... this appears to be the most solid lock and the one i'd put the most money on.

colin firth..... long overlooked for a long career of great performances, has scored his second oscar nod this year. a year after he probably should have won for a single man but.... well, who could say "no" to finally awarding jeff bridges his oscar? crazy heart wasn't great.... but it was time. (see it like al pacino finally winning for the pretty awful film, scent of a woman.)

but colin firth has been on a roll winning awards for the king's speech. not only has he won every british award, he's also picked up critics awards from chicago, florida, kansas city, L.A., san francisco, D.C. and the golden globes. he also snagged the much coveted screen actors guild.

and most importantly: he deserves to win for this performance this year. firth's king is cold and prickly... but he's also endearing and afraid... he is all of us. and we want him to succeed and that is the driving force and the power behind this film. without the audience wanting firth to say that next word without hesitation is the key to the entire film. and firth makes us all want that.

it's an amazing performance. both emotionally and technically. beyond his stuttering. his perfect timing in line delivery. pay attention to his lazy r's. the soft pallet of a man with a speech impediment. it's masterful.

firth should and will win. so.......

will win: colin firth, the king's speech
should win: colin firth, the king's speech

e.

Countdown to the Oscars: Best Actress

the nominees for best actress are:

annette bening, the kids are all right
nicole kidman, rabbit hole
jennifer lawrence, winter's bone
natalie portman, black swan
michelle williams, blue valentine

poor annette bening. poor, always-the-bridesmaid-never-the-bride, annette bening.

sorry, i'm getting ahead of myself.

best actress appears to be another two-way race with an obvious front runner. could there be an upset? perhaps? but at this point it seems unlikely. unless... well, again. i'm getting ahead of myself.

let's start again with who will not win:

nicole kidman already has an oscar for the hours.... it's an award she didn't really deserve but it was to recognize a larger, overlooked body of work. (keep this in mind.) an award for a body of work does happen from time to time. (but it used to happen much more often than it does now.) rabbit hole was a quiet little film that nobody saw and kidman will not win again for this film. nobody saw the amazing performance michelle williams delivered in blue valentine either. both kidman and williams delivered layered, heartbreaking performances in both of these films and deserve the nominations.... but they will not win.

jennifer lawrence carried winter's bone and her performance at such a young age promises many great things from her in the future. winter's bone was feared to be overlooked come the oscar nods - but it did very well scoring three very big nominations. the film was not widely seen but critically adored. lawrence, in particular. some might say she's a dark horse but i see this more as a nod to her talent and encouragement to continue.

no... the race comes down to bening and portman. poor, unrewarded annette bening.

bening has three previous nominations under her belt: 2004's being julia, 1999's american beauty and 1990's the grifters. the grifters (a movie i adore... check it out) was her only supporting nod. the other two previous nominations were in the lead category. both years bening appeared to be a lock for best actress. then hillary swank came along and delivered performances in million dollar baby and boys don't cry that not only deserved to win the oscar.... but did. upsetting bening both times.

now we have the young natalie portman delivering a tour de force performance in black swan. portman is so very good in swan. her metamorphosis is haunting and terrifying... it doesn't hurt that she spent a year training for the role.... losing weight, toning a dancer's body, learning ballet itself. the academy eats up this shit. (think of bobby deniro packing on the weight for raging bull.) pushing your body for a performance is highly regarded and often rewarded. especially if the performance is worthy.

having said all this.... there is a moment in the kids are all right when annette bening slowly sits down at a dinner table after the "revelation" of the film. the full understanding of everything that has proceeded this moment washes over her face and registers in her eyes, her mouth, her skin. without saying a word... bening delivers a moment more powerful than the entire portman performance in black swan. and i should point out... i'm not a huge fan of the kids are all right. but bening is perfection.

bening is pitch perfect and at the height of her craft in kids. she deserves to win this year. not like those other years when she was really, really great.... but not as good as..... this year should be her year.

but she will most likely lose to another young actress, ms. portman. portman’s role is simply more showy, more dramatic, more the academy’s speed (despite the bizarre nature of the film).

portman has picked up awards from the boston, chicago, dallas-fort worth, florida and kansas city critics. she has also picked up the golden globe and the biggie: the screen actor's guild. bening, of course, also picked up a globe but in the comedy/musical category. rarely as highly regarded as winning in the dramatic category.

the academy could decide bening has delivered over 20 years of incredible, indelible performances. perhaps an acknowledgement of her body of work will catapult her to a victory? i hold my breath with anticipation.

but i'm also allowing myself to gasp for air from time to time because, well.... i'm a realist.

will win: natalie portman, black swan
should win: annette bening, the kids are all right

e.

Countdown to the Oscars: Best Supporting Actor

the nominees for best supporting actor are:

christian bale, the fighter
john hawkes, winter's bone
jeremy renner, the town
mark ruffalo, the kids are all right
geoffrey rush, the king's speech

okay, so i teased about a lock in the best supporting actress category yesterday... and it does appear to be a lock there. well, here... in supporting actor.... i think we pretty much have a lock.

let's knock out those we know aren't winning first, shall we? in order of least likely to win....

jeremy renner's nomination for the town seems residual glory from last year's the hurt locker phenom. sometimes the academy is so impressed by an individual one year their every subsequent performance (for a time) seems to be on their radar. renner is very, very good in the town. but it's no a gold-worthy performance and this is more of a further nod to his acting chops.

first time nominee john hawkes is extremely good in winter's bone. his teardrop epitomizes everything great about the film: he's at once terrifying and heartbreaking. you fear him one moment but are surprised by his humanity the next. in a bigger film, he would be a stronger contender... but winter's bone is the little movie that could and has done well with several nominations in the big six categories. but hawkes will not win here. but look out for this actor in the future.

the kids are all right seemed to be the juggernaut earlier in the year... but the film has cooled (rightfully so, in my opinion) and ruffalo's star has darkened. another first-time nominee, ruffalo gives the type of performance the academy does love. charming and lovable but, ultimately, a cad..... in a weaker year he could have been a bigger part of the conversation. and if the academy is looking for a way to reward the film, ruffalo is a possibility.

but what we really have here is a two-way race with what looks like a near lock for christian bale.

geoffrey rush turns in another type of performance that oscar loves. rush's lionel logue is extraordinary. warm, funny..... he provides strength for the other characters and, well, supports them. it is the quintessential supporting role. and it doesn't hurt that rush is genius in it. if the king's speech sweeps through the academy awards this year, rush could easily win for this performance. it would be rush's second win (he won best actor for 1996's shine) and it's his fourth overall nomination (he was also previously nominated for shakespeare in love and quills). many would argue, me included, that this talented performer deserves a second oscar.

but then there's dicky.

christian bale has long been admired as a versatile actor. he's been able to successfully tackle smaller, dramatic roles along with big box office action films. he has turned out one memorable performance after another.... yet the fighter is his first nomination. and it's one helluva performance.

dicky is charming and charismatic.... he is also pathetic and frustrating. bale steals the show in a film overpopulated with memorable characters. he has won the critic's choice awards from boston, chicago, dallas-fort worth, florida, kansas city, the national board of review, the broadcast film critics (the actual "critic's choice award"), as well as the golden globe and the screen actor's guild.

bale will become another stat in a long list of first-time nominees who win for a long-overlooked career on the screen.

will win: christian bale, the fighter
should win: geoffrey rush, the king's speech

e.

Countdown to the Oscars: Best Supporting Actress

the nominees for best supporting actress are:

amy adams, the fighter
helena bonham carter, the king's speech
melissa leo, the fighter
hailee steinfeld, true grit
jacki weaver, animal kingdom

i wanted to start with my favorite category this year: best supporting actress. this category has always provided some of the biggest surprises and upsets in oscar history. marisa tomei over judy davis. anna paquin over winona ryder and rosie perez. juliette binoche over lauren bacall in what looked like a certain lifetime achievement win.

but this year..... best supporting actress seems almost a lock.

all signs point to a melissa leo running away with the award for her frenetic turn as alice, the controlling and not-so-lovable mother in the fighter. she has won several major critics awards including the new york film critics and the broadcast film critics (or critic's choice award). most recently she's won the golden globe and the screen actor's guild.

she even has a previous nomination under her belt in the best actress category for 2009's frozen river. and academy members love to vote for nominees when they feel have earned their win by having one or two prior nods.

so how could she not win when all momentum seems behind her.....?

well, supporting actress could easily offer another upset this year. how is this possible, you ask? well, there's a lot of talk about another potential upset due to...... splitting the vote.

the one individual who does not seem to be in this discussion is aussie, jacki weaver. her janine is a slow burn through much of animal kingdom but she really turns out a brilliant and terrifying performance if you stick with it and truly understand everything her characters has done by the end of the film. but despite a couple of very high-level critic's wins (including the LA film critics) the film was not widely seen and her character does fly under the radar for most of the movie.

but let's looks at how vote splitting could work.

there's helena bonham carter. could vote splitting between two nominees from the same movie, combined with the momentum of the king's speech, carry her to victory? it's possible. carter does have a prior nomination for 1997's wings of the dove (best actress) and she is the stoic weight of the king's speech. and there's always this: the academy loves the supportive spouse.

amy adams could win if steinfeld and leo, the two contenders seen as the most likely winners, split academy votes. and adams does have a track record with the academy and gives a very solid performance in the fighter.... most importantly stretching her acting chops with a character outside her normal cute and naive range.

but adams and leo could also split the fighter votes which might lead to steinfeld winning for her magnificent debut performance in true grit. steinfeld could join the likes of tatum o'neal and anna paquin..... two young actresses who appear in every scene of a movie (or nearly every) but are relegated to the supporting ranks because of their age. the lead-ness of their performances also help bolster their potential win.

i would also argue that steinfeld deserves the win. she delivers a nuanced and understated performance far beyond her years. at fourteen, she could become one of the youngest oscar winners in the 83 year history of the awards.

(for trivia lovers: 10 year old tatum o'neal remains the youngest winner for her 1973 best supporting actress win for paper moon. the aforementioned paquin comes in second at 11 years old for her supporting win in 1993's the piano.)

steinfeld's performance is not as showy and leo seems to have all the momentum heading into the oscars..... but look for a very potential upset here. however, my gut tells me all signs point to one eventual winner. so.....

will win: melissa leo, the fighter
should win: hailee steinfeld, true grit

e.

I Suck...

i shall try to do better.

e.

p.s. blame facebook.

Opening Night

tonight is opening night.

tonight begins the four performance run for the 2010 10x10 festival of new plays. my nerves are steady. but then i'm still at work. a volunteer brought me "good luck" opening night flowers. lovely....

so my nerves are in check.

i have finally seen my piece... at dress rehearsal on tuesday.

i see it again tonight.

i'm the second play in the second act (bad position... i'm just sayin').

i COULD give you my opinion of the play now. the acting. the direction. but i want to see it in front of an audience. audiences can always make a HUGE difference on how a piece plays.

as a professor told me once: "without an audience, theatre is simply masturbation."

so you shall read my thoughts late tonight or, hopefully, tomorrow. no later than saturday (i promise).

and, as always, i'll post my thoughts on all ten plays after the run.

okay... my throat is starting to close up. maybe my nerves aren't in check.

breathe.

e.

AAAH! Scorpions!

sooooooo...... my director asked me for musical suggestions to open my play at the 10x10. it takes place a few days after a hurricane... a couple sit, hot, no electricity... no wine. a conversation begins about the direction of their relationship.

i instantly thought of "stormy weather." why not? weather. storms. kinda lazy..... sent her the lena horne version and an even better billie holiday version.

i always think of old jazz pieces for my comedies. classical for my dramas. it's the same genre of music i use to write each.

so guess which piece my director decided to use.........?

"wind of change" by scorpions.

.......?

ummmmmmmm....... sure, okay. i can see the thought process. i mean... billie holiday to a heavy metal band is quite an easy jump, right?

one song is a bluesy ode to a lost lover... the other is a cheesy 90s rock ballad about war and the fall of communism.

i mean, she's clearly interested in carrying through with MY vision, right...?

oy vey... so quickly forgotten are the opening remarks of our initial 10x10 meeting: "directors are here to honor the vision of the playwrights."

i still haven't seen it. maybe tomorrow night...?

(i may develop an ulcer.....)

e.

Please Welcome to the Stage....

claire madelyn.

yes.... younger brother and kelly the second welcomed their second daughter into the world on wednesday.

apparently the delivery was fast. i assume that's good for the woo-woo... but, really. what do i know?

so the specifics people want: claire weighed in at 8 pounds even. 20 inches long. dark hair. apparently, the exact opposite of my other niece, leah.

claire is skinny with long fingers and toes. apparently, as i'm informed by my parents, she has some of my features.... this mostly including the long fingers and toes.

now, before i begin the official mourning period if, vishnu help us! she looks like me! i assured my brother i had nothing to do with it.

oh... and i guess she "poops" a lot. apparently i shat a lot when i was a baby too. (there's actually a story and a nickname there but... fuck you!)

so i'm an uncle again.

i still adore leah..... and now claire.

will i adore her too? will i develop a favorite? what if claire's dark hair indicates a dark and twisty demeanor later? she could become my favorite?

and the second born is often the gay one... so she could be the dyke of the family. but then there's my friend steven's theory that all leah's are lesbians. and i can't imagine my brother being responsible for two lezzies in a row.

still......

so congratulations, mom & dad. lesbian or not....

mazal tov!

e.

New Experiences

so i think i mentioned that i've entered the cock-sucking realm of producer... yes, that horrid individual that is responsible for money and worrying about what works and doesn't work....

and essentially sucking the life out of art.

well... fuck that noise. i'm a new kind of producer. allowing everyone to create and express........ while still worrying about money and making a profit and casting and rehearsing and.... ganesha help me! it never ends.

but i've had some new experiences over the past couple of weeks as we really hit hard on advertising our production.

press releases
my father was a newspaper man his entire adult life. a copy editor for most of that time. i grew up knowing every copy editor mark for the editing process.

so you would think press releases would be easy for me...!

no.

first task? write a long press release. okay.... so i had to dissect a video for quotes. listen to sentences over and over again to make sure i got the exact words. i had to fish through synopses and construct the story of the production, the plays... all in a coherent fashion that would make people interested in possibly writing a story about the production.

then i had to create a calendar/event listing press release. short and to the point. this is the show. here. when. how much. done.

and then a third press release which is a shorter version of the long one but a longer version than the short one... for those that want a bit more than the bullet points for the listing but not a graph on every play.

it was... exhausting. and i've spent the last week or two sending them out, tracking down email addresses and submission ports for websites and generally spending all hours of the evening doing this.

fucking crazy. and a lot of late nights.

but i've learned a lot. (and i feel good about what i created.)

logos
yes... now i'm neck-deep in graphic design. two of the other producers have been working with an artist on the poster/program design. i haven't even seen anything.

so i approached a friend to design a logo for our production company. we have a website... but it needs some serious work. i told him we were looking to rush...and he rushed. came up with three good graphics.

LOVE the first one.... but it needs some tweaking.

the second one is a bit corporate for my taste. not creative enough.

third one is good... the graphic could be better but the concept (with some tweaking) could make a fabulous letterhead.

anyway.... trying to get feedback from the other three producers. trying to send the designer the feedback.... then receiving even more feedback from someone who isn't even part of the production company.

and it's been crazy, as well.

but all these new experiences.... marketing. branding. networking.... these have been fucking great lessons for me.

in the matter of a week i've had two individuals (now three, actually) ride my ass about marketing myself better and getting my name and my work out there. i'm taking this seriously.

i need to make a move. going to work everyday and doing work that i believe in but don't necessarily love anymore... while all this exciting theatre work is out there for me. when i'm casting and rehearsing and seeing my plays performed.

it makes that day job hard.

so... i'm trying to do what it takes. i even got (hold on to your hats...) some better pictures of myself taken so i can have a decent headshot to send out. (and you know i hate having my picture taken.)

i'm working on getting a website. i'm updating my resume. and i'm getting my fucking name and work out there.

it's a lot of work and it's stressful. but it's also...... incredible.

and i still have so much more to tell you!

more. soon. (i promise, my lovelies.)

e.

Disconnected

okay, so.... i entered the scriptwriters/houston annual 10x10 festival of new plays again this year.

i know, i know.... i swore after last year's debacle i was through with the 10x10. but i had several friends entering and they encouraged me to enter and we would take over the 10x10!

plus.... they changed artistic directors. brought in someone younger. brought in younger directors. it felt like something new. like it had promise this year.

so i entered.

and somehow, quite beyond explanation, i was accepted. yes... my profane-laden plays have made it into the 10x10 festival for five straight years.

now, the 10x10 felt very different from the beginning. the old troll was replaced and the new artistic director was brought in. yes, she seemed a bit full of herself. she was bossy. but one of the first things she said was "we're returning to the 10x10 to serving the vision of the playwright."

hallelujah!

yet.... after that initial meeting. after the auditions... things started to slip. most of the directors are new but most of the playwrights are repeat winners. and i know most of them.

and most of them have told me the same thing: "i attended the initial read-through but i haven't been to a single rehearsal since."

well... i went to the first read-through but haven't been to a single rehearsal since.

my director - who i have great faith in - has pulled together a fabulous cast for me. top notch, from what i can see. and both actors were our top choices. the director seems to understand the play. the actors seem to understand it and agree with the direction.

at least, from what i can tell... but this is well over a month ago. and now we're just over a week away from tech week. in fact, the show opens two weeks from TONIGHT!

so i'm feeling a bit disconnected from the entire process.

my director has scheduled rehearsals for 1pm every wednesday. my director nor my two actors work. i work. 8am-5pm, monday - friday. so i haven't been able to make rehearsals.

so i'm feeling a bit disconnected.

what have they been doing? do they understand the characters fully? have they found the humor in the piece? what direction have they taken my creation?

i have one last chance to see a rehearsal before tech week... that would be this coming wednesday. i'd have to take off work. my director asked me to come an hour late to a three hour rehearsal to give the actors a chance to warm up....


fuck it.


i'm waiting for tech week... i'll go in and see what they've done. it might be horrible? it might be the best 10x10 i've had! who knows...? but i know i haven't been stressing over it.

but i also know i've been wondering why a director and actors wouldn't want to take advantage of their play's author when the author is available. i don't want to direct. i don't want to give line-readings. but i'd like to be involved.

even if it just means being there to watch. to answer questions. to affirm my director and her direction of my play.

but i'm disconnected.

so.... i'd like to make a promise now (and i hope i can keep it) - that i'll blog about the first run-through, tech rehearsal on tuesday, august 24th. (the 23rd will be cue to cue and i'll have NO idea what they've done. cue to cue is along, boring, horrible rehearsal.)

luckily the show i'm helping to produce is taking up all my time and stress.

so more on THAT... soon.

e.

Damn My Jewish Guilt!

okay.... so i'm not really jewish. but fuck it all, i should be. i mean, i suffer guilt like nobody's business.

i learned a hard lesson in theatre tonight. and i hope it's ended with me backing the right horse.

and i'm using a lot of cliche's in this post. for that i apologize (because i feel guilty).

i don't have a lot of experience in producing a play. i've always been the writer. i've helped with casting. i've provided feedback to the director who then filtered it down in a more palpable way to the actors.

i'm about to have my 7th play produced. i've had two other readings. september will see another play plus a prior play produced. so a total of 9 produced plays.

yet i've always only ever been the writer.

in september a group of three other fabulous writers and myself are self-producing a night of short plays. and fuck me: producing is hard.

we've actually had a rather smooth time of it so far. no major battles of picking the final scripts. no fights over which directors to ask. we even have suggestions of actors for each other's plays.

and even when the directors sent along their top three choices, it appeared everyone would get their top choice.

then i ran into one of the directors tonight. i adore this man. i've worked with him before and i think he's amazing.

the man is fucking talented. and, in all honestly, will be the houston theatre NAME attached to the project. he is well known. well regarded. quite often referred to as one of the best actors working in town.

he did not number his choices. he said he would direct anything by me (i brought him into the project) and then would enjoy directing these other two. well, i thought he was being kind to me and seemed more interested in the other two.

but i ran into him tonight. told him which plays he would probably direct. he was. not. happy.

he wants to direct one of my plays. he feels i brought him into the project and thought he made it perfectly clear that he wanted to direct one of mine.

problem.

i sent an email out to the other playwrights... at this point, also known as the co-artistic directors.

the way i guess i made the email sound made the director sound like a prima donna which he isn't. so i felt guilty that the other playwrights now think he's a dick and basically want to tell him to "fuck off."

but i told them i dropped the ball with the correspondence with the director and, really, i'm the amateurish idiot. and i felt guilty talking to the director tonight and feeling like i screwed up.

but fuck, my lovelies.... my co-producers are amazing. they refuse to allow me to blame myself. in fact, they are making sacrifices in order to appease the director they want to tell to " fuck off."

so i feel guilty about that.

and i told them i didn't want to leave a bad taste in their mouth... about me or the director. because he's not doing it as some favor to us - he wants to work on the project. he's excited about the project. and, yes, he wants to work with me again.

yet i have guilt.

the other playwrights have now all called me since our big group conference call to try and alleviate my guilt. as one put it: i have this cyclical emotion of feeling bad about one thing or another.

i told him: bad feelings and guilt are a huge part of my life.

and i think this is why i'm a writer and not a producer.

and fuck! producing is hard.....

e.

Warning! (and Apologies...)

it's been over four months since i've posted here.... my apologies.

but i plan a return.

soon.

and i plan to refocus the blog back on its original intention: theatre.

talk to you soon, my lovelies.

e.

The Cocktail Conundrum

this past weekend i had a friend in from dallas for my annual participation in the houston AIDS walk. when i see this particular friend it's about the only time i partake of the bar scene anymore.

so friday night... after seeing a very poor paul rudnick play... we hit the bars.

nothing odd in that.

but sunday... after the AIDS walk... one of my houston friends was all "i'm feelin' kinda sexy... let's go out and have some drinks." well, that just kicked in my dallas friend's chicken hawk senses and he was all "yeah, yeah, yeah" - certain to find some willing post-walk-exhausted twink to take back to his swanky hotel room in the galleria.

so..... we went out. on a sunday afternoon. for cocktails.

that...is odd for me.

anyway.... we hit the first bar and found some really good seats overlooking the rather small crowd.

and, yes, we enjoyed ourselves. we were laughing and cutting up....

but out of the corner of my eye i thought i saw a guy checking me out. but i wasn't sure... there were four of us. only... i was the only one he could really see.

and he kept looking.

we decided to hit another bar so i thought i'd use the clean, safe bathrooms at the current establishment before trudging over to the less-than-sanitary digs of the other bars.

he followed. i thought i caught him looking at me... IN THE MIRROR! there was no "i'll show you mine if you show me yours."

but i ignored it. i'm not good at this sort of thing... at least, not anymore.

i return to the table and find another round of drinks. so i'm all, "what this? i thought we were leaving." and my friends are all, "this guy bought us a round of drinks." so i'm, like, "what guy?" and they say "that guy" and point out the one that just followed me to the bathroom.

so we all wave and smile and thank him. and we start to drink our cocktails.

(please pause for dramatic effect.)

now... here's my question. because here... we differ.

what should have happened?

one of my friends thinks someone should have gone over to him and personally thanked him. and they all decided it should've been me.

but why me? "because he likes you," was the reply. but how do you know? (i mean, i knew it was me. i saw him checking me out plus.... well.... i was ten times more desirable than the three friends with me... but nevermind!)

so, really! how do we know?

he didn't buy a cocktail just for me... he bought one for all of us. well, not one drink for all of us. four.. one for each of us. (nevermind.)

what if i hadn't noticed him checking me out? or maybe i just caught his eye because he caught me catching him checking out one of my friends? (but, i mean... it was me. trust me.. i'm much hotter than my three friends.)

so i didn't go over there.

my argument was that he should have come over to us and introduced himself and chatted up the one he was interested in. right? besides... he was the aggressor with the proffered cocktails... why shouldn't he follow through?

eventually, after we finished our drinks... we all left and one by one we introduced ourselves to him and thanked him for the cocktails. no indication on his part as to which one he wanted to talk to more. he didn't address one of us anymore than the other. he asked where we were heading to next and that was that.

now, i can't remember if anyone has ever bought me a drink before. i want to say yes. (probably...) but much more likely: they just offered me drugs and got me in the sack that way.

i mean... back when i did drugs and drank like dorothy parker... i would've gone over to him. (or just laid one on him after the initial key-bumps of cocaine in a joint bathroom stall.)

but this is now... i'm not like that anymore. so i was lost.

what should have happened?

it bothered me the rest of the day. from that bar to the next bar. back to the original bar. and then to another bar.

should i have talked to him? i mean, he was attractive... i mean, kinda. i mean... he wasn't a troll.

okay... let me put it this way: neither of us are any longer in our prime.

so the guilt kicked in. and i kept playing it over and over in my head.

what should i have done? what would you have done? and here... i open the floor to you, my loyal readers.

....?

e.

p.s. today the fourth friend with us randomly found a picture of the guy online... dressed as a slave boy complete with horse reigns à la madonna's confessions tour from this past weekend's madonnarama.

and, well, shit... wouldn't'cha know it? my guilt over the whole situation just melted away at the equestrian sight.

but i still want input. for next time. because, well... you know it'll happen again. (i'm hot...)

Countdown to the Oscars: Best Picture

happy oscar day, my lovelies! let's get right to the big one...

the nominees for best picture are:

--avatar
--the blind side
--district 9
--an education
--the hurt locker
--inglourious basterds
--precious: based on the novel 'push' by sapphire
--a serious man
--up
--up in the air

okay.... i'm taking time out from cooking for my big oscar to-do. so i gotta make this short and sweet, my darling readers. it's not that i don't love you... it's just there's spinach & artichoke dip and stuffed mushroom caps to make.

let's begin my knocking out the obvious (and stating the obvious). ten best picture nominees is stupid. take the five without a corresponding director nod out and you have your five REAL best picture nominees left.

so take away up, a serious man, an education, district 9 and the blind side. no directors. no way they're gonna win.

(interesting side note: up is only the second animated film to be nominated for best picture. the first? nope... not snow white & the seven dwarfs. it was 1989's beauty and the beast.)

so let's look at the five remaining best picture nominees.

precious. out. sorry...just not gonna win.

up in the air... i've gone on and on about the loss of momentum for this film. at one time, i really thought it was the winner. and i hated that idea. not that it's a bad film... it's just not best picture material.

inglourious basterds? i think tarantino is still a bit too outside the box for academy voters. he may be a scorsese.... a couple of decades worth of nominations before he and his picture win.

that leaves us with the horse race (kinda).

avatar vs. the hurt locker.

the hurt locker should win... it's the superior film. but an odd new oscar voting system may give avatar a leg up. if a picture does not win over 50% of the first ballot... then the academy moves on to people's second choice. and so on and so on until somebody has over 50%.

it's idiotic. i think i'll change next year.

it gives avatar a chance.

but i still think the hurt locker will take home the big prize tonight. it's already won a string of awards including the biggie: the producers guild for best picture.

keeping it short and sweet, my lovelies.

will win: the hurt locker
should win: the hurt locker

e.

p.s. oscar! everybody loves ya, oscar! everybody wants to get ya, grab ya, hug ya... hold you tight!

Countdown to the Oscars: Best Director

the nominees for best director are:

james cameron, avatar
kathryn bigelow, the hurt locker
quentin tarantino, inglourious basterds
lee daniels, precious: based on the novel 'push' by sapphire
jason reitman, up in the air

okay... i don't want to take up a lot of your time here. and i can't even be sly because once i begin using pronouns to dance around my prediction, you'll know...

so let's just say that kathryn bigelow has two... no three.... BIG things going for her this year: 1) she's won the director's guild award (DGA). 2) she'll make history as the first woman to ever win best director and the academy loves to make history. and 3) she deserves to win!

lee daniels is out. let's get that out of the way. yes, precious: based on the novel 'push' by sapphire is very good. but he won't win. a black man can be president... but in this category, a woman can win first.

tarantino needs to win an oscar and will soon.... but he won't here. he is still glorified more for his writing than his directing. but he's superb at both.

jason reitman appeared primed to win for up in the air. he was just nominated recently for juno and it looked as if all momentum was pushing his film to multiple wins... including best picture.

that momentum has flat-lined.

really.... the race is between james cameron and his ex-wife, bigelow. cameron won the oscar for best director for the last feature film he directed: 1997's titanic.

he could win for avatar. but i see everything pushing bigelow into the gold on sunday night.

bigelow becomes only the fourth woman to be nominated for best director..... in over 80 years of best director nominations! sofia coppola was nominated for 2003's lost in translation. italian director lina wertmüller was nominated in 1976 for seven beauties. and new zealand's jane campion was nominated for the piano in 1993.

as i mentioned... the academy loves to make history. and finally crowning a woman as best director would be a HUGE statement.

bigelow also won the DGA. since the DGA was first given out in 1948, only SIX TIMES has the DGA winner differed from the eventual best director oscar winner.

but beyond all that... bigelow deserves to win. the hurt locker is a brilliant study of the tension inherent in a war zone. and bigelow shows an immense patience in telling her story.

most directors today would have a lot of quick edits and shaky, steady-cam shots zooming in and out and around the action. here... bigelow allows her camera to tell the story.... not pump up the story.

take the amazing scene where the soldiers come across snipers in the middle of the desert. there's a fire fight. lives are lost. then all grows quiet. a lesser director cuts away. or only stays briefly.... providing all answers immediately. but that's not war. and that's not what bigelow has shot.

here.... she leaves the camera on the soldiers. waiting. unsure. are the snipers still alive? are we safe? should we even move?

she has the patience to play the scene out. allow the tension to rise. let the soldiers suffer, wonder and fear.... just as we do.

she has made an action movie that is not in a rush to tell the story... but is interested in its characters and the slow revelations of the story. and, yes, of the danger.... and the tension...

it is confident and thrilling filmmaking. and bigelow deserves to take home the oscar as the first woman to ever win best director.

will win: kathryn bigelow, the hurt locker
should win: kathryn bigelow, the hurt locker

e.

Countdown to the Oscars: Best Actress

the nominees for best actress are:

sandra bullock, the blind side
helen mirren, the last station
carey mulligan, an education
gabourey sidibe, precious: based on the novel 'push' by sapphire
meryl streep, julie & julia

this year's best actress category is a two-way race. unfortunately.... that race is between the two wrong women.

the two best performances given this year among these five nominees is between the two new faces: carey mulligan and gabourey sidibe.

sidibe is heartbreaking as precious. but she also shows a strength in the character that always seems to peek through all the abuse, the ignorance and the sadness. in almost any other year she would be my choice for best actress...

but this year there's carey mulligan. her jenny is this year's poppy (sally hawkins in happy-go-lucky) for me. luckily... the academy didn't fuck up this year and nominated mulligan for an education. (yes, i remain bitter over the hawkins snub.)

mulligan's jenny experiences her social, intellectual and sexual awakening on screen before our very eyes...... and we experience and feel every one of those journeys with her. she brings a depth of character rarely accomplished by older actors. joy, pleasure.... the exhilaration of the first-time. not just with sex... but with jazz and paris. it's all there... in mulligan's damn fine performance.

she is both smart and naive. sly but innocent. she is easily my choice for best actress...

but she is not in the race.

neither is helen mirren who seems to have luckily snagged a nomination for her tedious work in the last station. and, mind you, i don't blame mirren... there's only so much you can do with that role.

and let's not forget: mirren just won an oscar for 2006's the queen. so it's also too soon for her to win again.

so who does that leave? oh, yes... the two least deserving winners in the bunch: meryl streep (scoring her 16th nomination) for julie & julia.... a movie that would have been twice as good without the julie. and sandra bullock for the blind side.

(okay... streep would possibly rank third out of these five. before mirren & bullock.... who can fight it out for the bottom slot in my head.)

let me begin by saying streep is not bad as julia childs. in fact, she's quite good. unfortunately, she's in a very unfortunate film. but even without nora ephron's schlock.... streep would not deserve to win here.

and for a long time she appeared poised to win her third oscar (after her best supporting actress win for kramer vs. kramer and her best actress win for sophie's choice).

but then came the broadcast film critics shocking tie between streep and sandra bullock. suddenly, the mediocre film that wouldn't go away was garnering even more oscar talk for bullock.

and then she won the golden globe. and the screen actors guild.

and now bullock scores her first oscar nomination.

bullock has been adored and turned in solid work since she blew audiences (and critics) away in speed. and she has always done well in supporting roles while taking on some truly awful leading roles. but not always awful.

this year also saw a fine performance from bullock in the surprisingly winning the proposal.

so the stars started to align. and now bullock will very likely win what i have termed: "the julia roberts erin brockovich oscar." that is to say... it's not the best performance of the year, but it's a respectable performance. and you know what? gee-golly.... we really like sandra bullock. so let's give her the oscar!


again... bullock's work in the blind side is not awful. it's good, in fact. but it's not oscar-worthy. and vishnu knows the film isn't best picture material (but more on that later).

bullock is much loved. and we love to reward young, beautiful, american actresses the best actress oscar (a long-standing tradition until the last three years).

so here we are... and i have to grit my teeth, try to smile.... and have more wine.

will win: sandra bullock, the blind side
should win: carey mulligan, an education

e.

Countdown to the Oscars: Best Actor

the nominees for best actor are:

jeff bridges, crazy heart
george clooney, up in the air
colin firth, a single man
morgan freeman, invictus
jeremy renner, the hurt locker

this year's best actor winner could be seen as a potential winner for several reasons:

1) with this year's oscar nomination he has five under his belt and the academy loves a nominee who has paid his dues.

2) while he's not terribly old by peter o'toole and christopher plummer standards... he has been in movies for over four decades.

and most of all.... he probably simply deserves the fuckin' thing.

but i want to back track first. let's quickly eliminate two nominees for the sheer fact that they've both recently won. george clooney won best supporting actor for 2005's syriana. and morgan freeman won best supporting actor for 2004's million dollar baby.

is five or six years too soon to reward these actors again? does it make a difference that this year they're nominated for best LEAD actor?

this is freeman's sixth nomination. two of the six have been for supporting. the other four for lead. so can it be argued that freeman is due a best LEAD actor award?

and what of clooney? this is his third nomination in acting (he was also nominated for both directing and writing good night and good luck). and since his win in syriana, i think there's no doubt clooney is a leading man.

and there was a time when up in the air had all the momentum and clooney appeared on his way to another oscar.

but i think the academy is secure in both freeman's and clooney's supporting statuettes.... for now. and time will come for them both again.

then you have two first time nominees in the veritable unknown, jeremy renner, and the always a bridesmaid never the bride, colin firth.

it is too early for renner. despite the paternal world we live in... men have to work harder for their oscars than women. the academy wants a man to EARN his award. pay dues. put in his time.

it is not yet time for renner.

firth has been very good for a very long time... but he's often overlooked by the showier performances in his films. his work in a single man, however, is superb and cannot be overlooked. he has taken the restraint we've come to know from him and used it to weave a deep pathos throughout his character's ups and downs. you always sense some stronger emotion just under george's surface... but firth will not let you in. and the role of george demands it.


yet firth is able to emote everything without saying much of anything. you hurt with him and you laugh with him... you even long with him.

i'm torn between who i think should win the best actor oscar this year...

i lean heavily towards firth. and on any given day i might tell you he is my choice for best actor.

but more often than not... my head tells me to go with the actor i think the academy will also reward this year: jeff bridges.

bridges garnered his first oscar nomination in 1972 with the last picture show... best supporting actor. he has been nominated three more times for thunderbolt and lightfoot (best supporting actor), starman (best actor) and most recently, 2000's the contender (best supporting actor).

here we have his fifth nomination.... once again for best actor. and his bad blake is amazing in crazy heart and has already brought him a golden globe, a los angeles film critics award, a broadcast film critics award and a SAG for best actor.

it's true that the movie, and maybe even the character, is formulaic... but there is nothing ordinary in bridges' performance. he's charming, pathetic, lovable, frustrating.... he is very much.... human.

and on top of all that.... the man can sing.

bridges has long been overlooked and underappreciated in hollywood. he has turned in performance after excellent performance. and he is adored by his peers and the public.

plus... he's the dude!

the big lebowski has endeared bridges into our hearts more than any film i can think of for most any actor.

bridges has paid his dues. he has put in his time.

it's time to give him his oscar.

will win: jeff bridges, crazy heart
should win: jeff bridges, crazy heart (with colin firth just edged out into 2nd place)

e.

Countdown to the Oscars: Best Supporting Actress

the nominees for best supporting actress are:

penélope cruz, nine
vera farmiga, up in the air
maggie gyllenhaal, crazy heart
anna kendrick, up in the air
mo'nique, precious: based on the novel 'push' by sapphire

as i mentioned when discussing best supporting actor, the best supporting actress category appears to be a lock.... possibly even more so than supporting actor.

and many of the old rules can be thrown out quite quickly.

there is no nominee who could be seen as a lifetime achievement winner. but, as discussed, that rarely even holds true for the supporting categories any more.

you have the "give the award to the actress who has been nominated before" award... and that would be penélope cruz. with nine, cruz snags her third nomination. but after winning just last year for vicky cristina barcelona... it's too soon to award her with another oscar (no matter how incredibly sexy she is).

so that brings us to our four, first-time nominees.

maggie gyllenhaal finally joins her brother, jake, in the realm of the oscar nominated with her nod for crazy heart. and she has long been overshadowed by her brother who was nominated in the supporting ranks for brokeback mountain. but gyllenhaal has turned in a string of stunning performances, including her recent role in sherrybaby, which many people thought deserved a nomination.

this year gyllenhaal was more of a surprise nominee, possibly pushing out one-time nomination fave julianne moore for her work in a single man.

but after several films and a number of critics awards for her work in sherrybaby and secretary, this nomination is more of an acknowledgement of gyllenhaal's talent and the promise of an oscar to come.

at this point in the race, up in the air co-stars kendrick and farmiga most likely cancel each other out... for a time, kendrick seemed the talk of the oscar statuette. and both seemed to be strong candidates for the ultimate win. but up in the air seems to have lost most of its momentum.

and then came a movie with the pretentious title: precious: based on the novel 'push' by sapphire.

and then came mo'nique's shocking and horrifying performance as mary, mother to precious.

to my knowledge, nothing prepared us for mo'nique's turn in precious. her performance is bare-knuckled ugly and she holds nothing back. mary is evil and mo'nique embraces it.... and then hurls it at her daughter's head.

mo'nique's performance is brave enough to leave all glamour at the door. and she creates one of the most despicable characters ever to be captured on celluloid. and if you don't believe... be brave enough to watch until the very end. just when you think mary can be no more pathetic, mo'nique is there to peel back another layer... and sink even lower into her character's darkness.

mo'nique, even after a potentially destructive and obnoxious start to an oscar campaign, has gone on to win nearly every critics award... including the golden globe and the screen actor's guild.

there is no stopping mo'nique with this powerhouse performance. it's monstrous. it's sickening. it's the best performance of the year.... and without question, deserving of the win and a lock for the gold.

will win: mo'nique, precious...
should win: mo'nique, precious...

e.