For a full, but abbreviated version of my predictions, see today’s paper on online at contracostatimes.com.

BEST PICTURE
It’s so strange; you look at “Michael Clayton” and think, in years gone by, this should be the front runner. It’s so classy, smart, slick and loaded with great acting, just the kind of film Hollywood should be proud of making. But 2007 was a great year for film, and I don’t think Tony Gilroy’s film can win.

“Juno” is charming and beloved, but I doubt it has “Shakespeare in Love” breakout potential (although, that’s what I said about “Crash,” so who knows?) “Atonement” is one of those movies that can’t quite stand up to mockery; you see a mash up of this and start to think, okay, it was lovely and moving, but I see their point.

In contrast, no matter how much anyone makes fun of what I consider the two front runners in this race, “There Will Be Blood” (“I drink your milkshake!”) and “No Country for Old Men,” I might laugh, but my respect and admiration for them remains unwavering. Both will be classics, but on the grounds that more people (and therefore, likely more Academy voters) seem to have problems with “Blood,” I give the Coen brothers’ flawless film the edge.
Should Win: “No Country for Old Men”
Will Win: No Country for Old Men.”

I’m teasing you a little, with a gradual roll-out of my predictions in the six major Academy Award categories. An abbreviated version will run in the paper on Friday Feb. 22. Look for Best Picture chatter in this space tomorrow.

BEST DIRECTOR
I feel sorry for Tony Gilroy. He didn’t just direct “Michael Clayton,” which is also up for Best Picture, he wrote it. And it was his first time at the helm. Major achievement. But looking over the list of director nominees, I tossed him out almost immediately, and I bet Academy voters did as well. Then I did the same with “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly,” Julian Schnabel (too much of an outsider, plus, alleged jerk) and “Juno” helmer Jason Reitman. Generally described as a “small” film, “Juno” has made more than any of the other best picture nominees, which does count for something (hello James Cameron).

But let’s face it, this year, it’s a prestige-off between the well-oiled machine of Ethan and Joel Coen and Paul Thomas Anderson, the brash 37-year-old who convinced Daniel Day Lewis to clamber into various baths of oil. Much as I love “There Will Be Blood,” and believe it will be a classic for years to come, Anderson is, in the end, responsible for the pacing problems in its last third. Meanwhile, I still can’t find a single thing the Coens did wrong with “No Country for Old Men.” And while Ethan Coen was nominated for directing “Fargo,” they’ve never won this category.
Should win: The Coens
Will win: The Coens

I’m teasing you a little, with a gradual roll-out of my predictions in the six major Academy Award categories. An abbreviated version will run in the paper on Friday Feb. 22. Look for Best Director chatter in this space tomorrow.

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

Sorry “Juno’s” Ellen Page, I think you are a treasure, but out of your league here, nominated under the We Love Her policy, not the No One is Better. “Elizabeth: The Golden Age’s” Cate Blanchett can’t possibly win for starring in such a lame sequel. Laura Linney was marvelous in the under seen “The Savages,” but I fear she’s going to be a mere runner up because her character was considered hard to like. Someday, I hope this mega-talent wins the Oscar she deserves. But not, I doubt, this year.

And while I fear the wrath of the World Cheekbone Assoc., I believe we tend to get all swoony over Julie Christie because she’s a) so gorgeous and b) so elusive. Still, she’s the front runner here, with SAG, Critics Choice and Golden Globe wins in her favor.

However, I can’t fathom giving the award to anyone but “La Vie en Rose’s” Marion Cotillard, who gave a performance so fiercely committed she reminded me of Daniel Day-Lewis in “There Will Be Blood.”
Should win: Marion Cotillard
Will win: Julie Christie

I’m teasing you a little, with a gradual roll-out of my predictions in the six major Academy Award categories. An abbreviated version will run in the paper on Friday Feb. 22. Look for Best Actress chatter in this space tomorrow.

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
If you’ve read anything I’ve had to say on the topic of “There Will Be Blood” you already know exactly how I feel about this category. I’ll never forget Daniel Day-Lewis’ portrayal of oil prospector Daniel Plainview, megalomaniac, misanthropic and vibrating with life. Beyond compare. This is his fourth nomination, and would be his second win (he won 19 years ago for “My Left Foot”).

But if I could give out two Best Actor Oscars this year? DDL wouldn’t be sharing with Johnny Depp, who only managed to stay afloat in “Sweeney Todd,” or George Clooney, who was pitch perfect in “Michael Clayton,” but my hunch is, not all that tremendously challenged by the role. Nor Viggo Mortensen, even though, as far as I’m concerned, he can make an “Eastern Promises” sequel any time he wants.

No, that second Oscar would go to 3rd time nominee (and winner in ’93 for his supporting role in “The Fugitive”) Tommy Lee Jones, who gave the impression of measuring out his emotion by the thimbleful in “In the Valley of Elah,” but in truth, gave in buckets.
Should Win: Daniel Day-Lewis
Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis

I’m teasing you a little, with a gradual roll-out of my predictions in the six major Academy Award categories. An abbreviated version will run in the paper on Friday Feb. 22. Look for Best Actor chatter in this space tomorrow.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Only Tilda Swinton gives me pause on my mad dash to throw roses at Cate Blanchett’s feet. She lifted Todd Haynes’ Bob Dylan-biopic “I’m Not There” into the realm of classic, and not just because she managed to look and sound and act so much like Dylan. It was the way she exposed his arrogance, childishness and boorish tendencies and then fixed the camera with a mischievous yet wise stare reminded us why we as a culture will never get over Dylan.

The fact that she’s also up for Best Actress for “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” could hurt her chances. And I’m notoriously bad at this category, which always seems to go to someone random. I haven’t even really considered Amy Ryan, who was an early favorite; she could still pull it out (although unlikely). Certainly if Academy voters went with Tilda Swinton, another elegant, accented, off-beat beauty who never seems to make a wrong move, I wouldn’t fault them. Just as long as they don’t pull a SAG and give it to Ruby Dee; neither she nor “American Gangster” were all that.
Should Win: Cate Blanchett
Will Win: Cate Blanchett

I’m teasing you a little, with a gradual roll-out of my predictions in the six major Academy Award categories. An abbreviated version will run in the paper on Friday Feb. 22. Look for Best Supporting Actress chatter in this space tomorrow.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Given how many awards (BAFTA, Critic’s Choice, Golden Globe, SAG) Javier Bardem has already picked up for his dazzling work as the ultimate soulless assassin in “No Country for Old Men,” I wouldn’t place odds against him. I loved Bardem; he was perfection within perfection. “Michael Clayton’s” Tom Wilkinson, often lauded, but generally missing out on the actual laurels, is right up there for me as well.

Philip Seymour Hoffman won too recently for “Capote” to have much of a real shot for his hilarious turn in “Charlie Wilson’s War.” I found Casey Affleck fascinating for the first 10 minutes of “The Assassination of Jesse James” and tedious for the next 150.

But honestly, in the last few days I realized that if I had an Academy ballot in front of me, I’d check Hal Holbrook’s name for “Into the Wild.” He just turned 83, he’s never been nominated before and not only did he moved me tremendously, he genuinely stood out in a remarkably good ensemble cast. Plenty of people get nudged into the winner’s circle for sentimental reasons, why not give a classy veteran like Holbrook an honor he deserves?
Should Win: Hal Holbrook
Will Win: Javier Bardem

Here’s my whole Ryan Reynolds interview. WAY longer than in the paper. If you’re passionate about this guy, this is my Valentine to you. And yes, he is that cute.

In the Valentine’s Day release “Definitely, Maybe,” Ryan Reynolds plays a newly divorced advertising executive who finds himself on an extended flashback to his youth when his 10-year-old daughter (Abigail Breslin) demands an unusual bedtime story, the tale of how he met and married her mother (yes, like the TV show, but much shorter). The candidates are played by Rachel Weisz, Elizabeth Banks and Isla Fisher.

Whose first name, by the way, is definitely pronounced Eye-La. Reynolds corrected us when we said Is-La. We also learned a few things about him: He’s an admirer of Jimmy Stewart; he wears a vintage pocket watch on a chain that looks like something Stewart would have owned; spending half his life acting has killed his visual reflexes to the point where he barely seems to squint in the sun. Also, if you are going to ask about Scarlett Johansson, his alleged fiancée – replacing Alanis Morissette, his former fiancee – try to slip her in subtlety because this guy would rather talk politics than the personal.

Q: My nephew loves “Van Wilder” so much he demanded I watch it with him. I kept thinking about him during “Definitely, Maybe.”
A: (Laughing) He’d be so horrified
Q: It’s definitely more of woman’s movie.
A: I thought that too when I was shooting it, but now I’ve seen the reactions from men and they are so incredible. It’s ostensibly romantic comedy but told from a male perspective, so I think it’s something that a lot of guys can relate to. I think it explores an interesting topic which is that for a lot of men, when it comes to meeting the one, it’s a question of When, and for women it’s a question of Who. And for a lot of guys I think they’re finding it fascinating, to be watching the movie thinking that’s me, I went through this.
Q: I don’t think I’ve ever heard a guy articulate that, although we women sit around talking about that all the time. It’s like a switch goes off for men. Did the film help you develop this theory or did you have it before?
A: Oh, in every act of the film there’s something about this. That was one of its drawing points, definitely. The other was the fact that it was a romantic comedy but it was completely unpredictable, something I had never seen or heard about before. Its this romantic whodunit kind of film.
Q: But have you seen ‘How I Met Your Mother?’
A: I’ve heard about but I’ve never seen it.
Q: The movie opens in 1992, with your character playing an idealistic young volunteer working for the Clinton campaign, and as his life unfolds, so does the Clinton era, with particular emphasis on the negatives. I seriously kept thinking the Hillary Clinton campaign will be toast if this movie is big.
A: I’m sure they would be upset if it was coming out before Super Tuesday. But yeah, we relive that in the film like no one’s business. It’s right there in all of its horrifying glory.
Q: It was indeed horrifying to revisit. So much so it might make even a Hillary supporter want to run out and vote for Barack.
A: I didn’t think it vilified the Clintons as much as it examined the disillusionment of young people, young idealistic people who really felt like that was their President. I think it really makes you want to run out and vote for true change. For me the scariest thing in politics right now is two families running the white house for three decades.
Q: But at least one of them came from nothing
A: Oh yeah, he wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Listen, I think Bill Clinton was a fantastic president. Did he handle the scandal well? No, not at all. But if you look at his track record, if you look at the economy, he went miles, not inches, leaving a surplus like that.
Q: On set did you discuss what impact this movie might have?
A: We were shooting it a year ago, and Barack Obama wasn’t even on the radar, it was really kind of a Hillary question. We shot in Brooklyn and we set up this building to look like in 1992, the Bill Clinton headquarters and people would walk in off the street to volunteer thinking it was Hillary’s campaign. So it was definitely something very much within our consciousness. But we had no idea that life would imitate art in this way. We have this character in the movie who wants to be first black president as well, Derek Luke’s character. Now we’re all sitting around going wow, this is a well timed film.
Q: Now can you vote here?
A: No, I’m Canadian, I can’t vote. I’ve got residency, just not citizenship. It’s not a question of if, it is a question of when. I’m eligible for it as of this year. So this coming summer I’ll apply for it.
Q: Do you still spend much time in Canada?
A: I used to go back and forth a lot more than I do now. I had a house there up until about a year ago, but now I’m exclusively in Los Angeles and New York.
Q: It’s probably silly, but I always feel kind of sorry for celebrities, being just nomads, seemingly without a home base. It seems like you’re all always selling houses you’ve barely lived in.
A: There is that. But celebrities are a certain type of people. They are probably a bit more restless. They are also exposed to a tremendous amount of stimuli, like flashing light bulbs, the paparazzi issue and just the amount of attention they get. It’s got to be a pretty weird type of scene to try to navigate your way through in a healthy way. I really try to stay away from that stuff as much as possible.
Q: I do see stuff about you on the trashy web sites I visit though. You are a presence.
A: I guess so, yeah, you can’t avoid it. But not to the extent, when someone has that crush of media out in front of their house all day. Where you have 14, 15, even 50 paparazzi teeming away outside your house, I think there is something to be said about that person, to some degree, welcoming that into their lives. If you don’t want to be photographed eating lunch, don’t go to the [expletive] Ivy. I think there’s a way to curb some of that. But to a certain degree you can’t avoid it, it’s a celebrity obsessed culture, the news media is kind of infotainment now. It’s pervasive, everywhere, it’s inescapable. I’ll be on my motorcycle and stop somewhere to pick up something at the store and I’ll look up and I can’t believe that there are four guys in the shooting me from across the street. I just can’t believe that someone does that for a living. These people survey you. You’re under surveillance. It’s pretty violent.
Q: It feels more frenzied now than ever before. Like our culture is actually driving Britney Spears crazy.
A: I think a lot of that has to do with the emergence of the Internet, allowing people to not just be a voyeur but to take part in it now. it’s a much more interactive blood sport now than it used to be. Also you’re dealing with psychological issues. A lot of people are projecting good and bad on celebrities and it’s very easy to do that. To make yourself feel better because you can tear down a celebrity really easily, in print or you can write a blog about them. You can do anything you want.
Q: I’ve seen pictures of you, very grainy ones, from the set of the latest Woody Allen movie, alongside a certain starlet who recently dodged the question of whether she was engaged to you by saying she was engaged to Barack Obama.
A: I’m actually engaged to Mike Huckabee. We’re taking things really slowly right now.
Q: Is it only because he lost the weight?
A: Yeah, he’s looking good. He’s fit as a fiddle. He’s generous with his time and affection
Q: But do you think he’s a fan of ‘Van Wilder?’
A: Oh yes, he’s told me so.
Q: So in a situation like that, when you’re on the lunch line in Spain, are you even aware you’re being photographed?
A: I’m not aware of anything. I don’t pay attention to any of those things. I mean, if I see something while I’m standing in line at the grocery store, then so be it.
I don’t actively seek that stuff out. And certainly not on the Internet, you can go out at night and then the next day if you really want to, be a voyeur to your own life. It’s weird.
Q: I’d say tragic.
A: Well I’m not speaking to the fact that they seek it out, I’m speaking more to the possibility that you can, go out to dinner go have a drink somewhere, do whatever it is that normal people do, and then the next day you can actually log on to the Internet and see where you went. It’s kinda sad.
Q: So all this celebrity stuff seems exhausting. Where is the joy?
A: I love finding a script where some element of it scares me to a certain degree. I love reading a script and finding something that speaks to a side of me I’ve really tried to avoid. I also try to focus on living a full, balanced life outside of show business.
Q: What do you in you real life?
A: I do a lot of trips, a lot of solo motorcycle trips. Like I went across Australia by myself. And this year I was in Africa for three weeks with my friend John August who directed a movie I did called ‘The Nines.’ We went to Malawi TK and spent three weeks there. It was amazing. A friend of mine started this organization called FOMO, which is Friends of Malanje Orphans and she single-handled saved 4,000 kids herself. I went and volunteered at her orphanage. Dug holes and made wells and painted nurseries. They don’t need us to do that necessarily, but it emotionally invests you in it and you leave with kind of feeling that you’re really a part of this and you have an unshakeable care for these people.
Q: I don’t remember seeing photos of you with a paint brush in your hand.
A: But this wasn’t done as one of those benevolent peace keeping missions. I write on Huffington Post sometimes, but I haven’t yet to publish anything on there about this. I love sharing my experience, but it was such a personal experience. And I’m very wary of actors in particular airing out their laundry. I’m very sensitive to that stuff. You see so many actors and you don’t want to know what their religious preference is or who they are dating, you just want to see them on screen. I’m still trying to reconcile that before I do anything with that particularly piece.
Q: Okay, it’s cheesy, but what’s the most romantic thing you’ve ever done? I read on imdb.com that when you first started dating Rachel Leigh Cook, you left the set of some movie to surprise her on her set.
A: Oh that imdb is so wily. Hmmm. Most romantic thing I’ve ever done…
Q: Or that someone has done for you?
A: It’s so hard to say…
Q: Without revealing secret parts of your life? You could change the names when you tell the story, the way your character does in ‘Definitely, Maybe.’
A: Okay, I do have one. I was once on a motorcycle trip in the middle of nowhere in Australia and someone sent a Chinese food dinner, I couldn’t believe this, to the only motel around, which they guessed that I would be staying in. It was the only restaurant around, a Chinese restaurant in the Outback. And they had called ahead and got them to deliver to this seedy little motel on the side of the road. It was there waiting for me in my room and it was still warm. I thought it was pretty romantic.
Q: But if that was the only restaurant in town, presumably you might have made it there on your own?
A: I would have had to, yes, so either way I would ended up throwing up that night.

Read the rest of this entry »

Anyone who wants to come fight over such important matters as Marion Cotillard vs. Julie Christie for Best Actress, PLEASE come on over to the Oakley Library tonight, FEB 13. where I’ll be hosting an Oscar-chat. 7 pm. 1050 Neroly Rd. 925-625-2400 for more information.

Last night I sat down with my fat new Atlantic Monthly, which I just started getting at home a couple of months ago, convinced that I needed more super smart writing about the world in my life. I couldn’t stop myself from digging right into a story that seemed completely out of place in these fancy pants pages, Lori Gottlieb’s piece about why women should just marry the first dork that seems halfway decent, so they can have a nice, safe, thoroughly boring family life. Settling is the smart thing to do, says Gottlieb, and she weighs in as an authority on the subject, having had a child on her own and then, apparently, spent the following months and years having mate-envy at the park. See, if she had a husband, he would watch the kid for 20 minutes while she ate lunch and chatted with the other moms. And that, apparently, is worth compromising what she now considers rather foolish standards in mate selection. This includes seeking someone at least as intelligent as yourself who is decent to waiters.

Full disclosure: I’m a single mom, never married, who passed on a couple of opportunities to settle. And my kid is almost four years old and I have no regrets. Mostly I look at the mated Moms and Dads at the park and think, huh, is he having an affair? Or is she? And who will instigate the divorce? I know, cynical right? And really, only half of marriages end in divorce.

But because I’m so happy with my choice, Gottlieb’s piece was particularly grating to me, both the point it was making and its fluffy, girly, pop culture tenor. Also, I have a memoir coming out in June on single motherhood, and I was struck with the fear that if I were so lucky as to be reviewed in the New York Times, they’d probably choose Gottlieb to do it. And she’d impose her own Daddy-lust on my very different story and trash me. Because that’s what critics do. I should know.

In that spirit, the first thing I did this morning was send an irate email to my friend Sara Catania, a journalist — and of late, a memoirist, working on a book for Farrar, Straus and Giroux — in LA. I knew she’d have something smart to say once she read the piece, but I didn’t realize she’d already written it and posted it on her blog, SeeHowWeAre. And it’s a great read. So check it out here.

You know how every year the Oscars roll around and there’s this entire section of nominees you know nothing about? That’s right, the Live-Action Shorts and the Animated Shorts awards, the time when you usually go bury your head in the freezer for that possibly hidden pint of ice cream. It’s hard to be vested in a bunch of movies you’ve never seen.

It doesn’t have to be that way. Magnolia Pictures and Shorts International have put together a full program of the 2007 Academy Award nominees in both Short Films categories, to be screened theatrically, via digital projection no less, in 50 U.S. cities (meaning there’s hope for the flyover states then) beginning February 15, including several local theaters.
And here’s what you’ll be seeing, descriptions courtesy of Magnolia and Shorts International.
Live Action Shorts (total running time for the program is 137 minutes)
AT NIGHT; Denmark, Nominees: Christian E. Christiansen & Louise Vesth. Three young women share their problems while spending the holidays in a hospital cancer ward.
IL SUPPLENTE (THE SUBSTITUTE); Italy, Nominee: Andrea Jublin. The arrival of an unusual newcomer galvanizes the students in a high school classroom.
LE MOZART DES PICKPOCKETS (THE MOZART OF PICKPOCKETS); France, Nominee: Philippe Pollet-Villard. A pair of unlucky thieves find their fortunes have changed when they take in a deaf homeless boy.
TANGHI ARGENTINI; Belgium, Nominees: Guido Thys and Anja Daelemans. A man who must learn to dance the tango in two weeks asks an office colleague for help.
THE TONTO WOMAN; United Kingdom, Nominees: Daniel Barber and Matthew Brown. A cattle rustler meets a woman who is living in isolation after being held prisoner for eleven years by the Mojave Indians.

Animated Shorts (total running time for program is 90 minutes)
I MET THE WALRUS; Canada, Nominee: Josh Raskin. In 1969, 14-year-old Jerry Levitan snuck into John Lennon’s hotel room with his tape recorder and persuaded him to do an interview.
MADAME TUTLI-PUTLI; Canada, Nominees: Chris Lavis and Maciek Szczerbowski. A timid woman boards a mysterious night train and has a series of frightening experiences.
MEME LES PIGEONS VONT AU PARADIS (EVEN PIGEONS GO TO HEAVEN); France, Nominees: Samuel Tourneux and Simon Vanesse. A priest tries to sell an old man a machine that he promises will transport him to heaven.
MY LOVE (MOYA LYUBOV); Russia, Nominee: Alexander Petrov. In 19th Century Russia, a teenage boy in search of love is drawn to two very different women. (This makes the fourth nomination for Petrov, was up for the Oscar in 1989 for THE COW, in 1997 for THE MERMAID and won in 1999, for his animated short THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA.)
PETER & THE WOLF; United Kingdom & Poland, Nominees: Suzie Templeton and Hugh Welchman. A young boy and his animal friends face a hungry wolf in Prokofiev’s classic musical piece.
Locally at: Landmark’s Embarcadero Center Cinema in San Francisco Francisco (415) 267-4893 and Shattuck Cinemas in Berkeley (510) 464-5980 and the Smith Rafael Film Center in San Rafael. For those to the North and South, also at the Nickelodeon Theatres in Santa Cruz and Rialto Cinemas Lakeside in Santa Rosa. Check here for showtimes at Bay Area theaters and here for a full list of theaters across the country that will be playing the program.