WEEKEND EDITION - And the OSCAR goes to?

BEST PICTURE NOMINEES


my boatAVATAR (click to see movie trailer)
With Earth an ecological disaster, a corporation sets its sights on the distant planet Pandora, which possesses a mineral that can be used as a valuable energy source. To overcome the resistance of the planet's indigenous population, the Na'vi, former Marine Jake Sully is sent to infiltrate the society as a part-human, part-Na'vi avatar who can operate on Pandora while Jake himself remains in a twilight sleep.




my boatTHE BLIND SIDE (click to see trailer)
African-American teenager Michael Oher has been in and out of the foster care system throughout his difficult childhood. When suburban mom Leigh Anne Tuohy, whose children are Michael's schoolmates, discovers him living on the streets, he gains a home with the Tuohy family and receives the stability and encouragement he needs to develop his talents as a football player.





my boatTHE HURT LOCKER (click to see trailer)
As the war in Iraq continues, Staff Sgt. William James carries out one of the most dangerous of all military assignments: bomb defusing. While James thrives on the job's risks, the head of his support team, Sgt. JT Sanborn, becomes increasingly worried by what he feels is a growing recklessness in James's behavior.





my boatPRECIOUS (click to see trailer)
Sixteen-year-old Precious Jones is overweight, nearly illiterate, and the victim of horrific physical and verbal abuse at the hands of her mother and father. Facing a seemingly hopeless future, Precious transfers to a new school, where a dedicated teacher and fellow classmates offer the unhappy young girl a chance for a new life.






my boatINGLORIOUS BASTERDS (click to see trailer)
Shosanna, a resourceful young movie theater owner fighting to stay one step ahead of the Nazis in occupied France, plots her revenge on the man responsible for her family's death, the flamboyant Col. Hans Landa. Her plan soon draws the attention of Lt. Aldo Raine, who leads a group of Jewish soldiers known as the Basterds in a savage campaign behind enemy lines.




my boatA SERIOUS MAN (click to see trailer)
In a series of escalating personal catastrophes, physics professor Larry Gopnik finds himself facing an unfaithful wife, ungrateful children, a troubled brother-in-law and poison pen letters at work. But Gopnik is a fundamentally decent man, and he tries, with increasing despair, to respond rationally and fairly to trials befitting a modern-day Job.





my boatUP IN THE AIR (click to see trailer)
Ryan Bingham is a corporate downsizer who spends his days in hotels, airports, and airplanes as he travels around the country laying off other companies' workers with polished finesse. His pursuit of a life without emotional connections is called into question, however, by his interactions with two women, one a sophisticated fellow traveler and the other an inexperienced young colleague.









AND THE OSCAR GOES TO...THE HURT LOCKER

The Oscars are political... AVATAR was nominated because of it represents a step forward in the evolution of Hollywood... It might just win in other years (or, this year for that matter as it's probably neck and neck)... Producer & Director James Cameron, though, has already been awarded his crowning achievement with 'Titanic' (which tied Ben-Hur for the all time Oscar rake)... He is already self proclaimed "King of the World"... The 'message' of Avatar seems to be a little soupy & pandering at this point...THE BLIND SIDE was a wonderful "true" story which was the "feel good" nominee... Most likely Sandra Bullock will be honored with a "best actress" award for her role in this... INGLORIOUS BASTERDS was nominated because every damn film that ever has "the holocaust" somewhere in the theme or background will always get nominated (God's chosen people in Hollywood will see to that)... It also doesn't ever hurt if Quentin Tarantino's name is on something... PRECIOUS is another "critical acclaim" nominee because it's fashionable to have such nominees, will likely have to settle for minor awards such as "Adapted Screenplay" and Supporting Actress... Trust me, if "The Blind Side", which is an uplifting treatise doesn't win, this isn't going to win...A SERIOUS MAN was the Coen Brothers again... It's difficult to see them winning two years out of three (after No Country For Old Men)... UP IN THE AIR was a great film... Clooney could be in the running for an award, but frankly, with most Americans now believing that the American job market is actually improving, this will probably get pushed aside...

THE HURT LOCKER will be left standing... This is what Hollywood will want to draw attention to...










BEST ACTOR NOMINEES


my boatJEFF BRIDGES - Crazy Heart
Jeff Bridges portrays Bad Blake, a washed-up country-western singer whose meeting with a young journalist may help him to turn his life around.











my boatGEORGE CLOONEY - Up In The Air
Ryan Bingham is a corporate downsizer who spends his days in hotels, airports, and airplanes as he travels around the country laying off other companies' workers with polished finesse. His pursuit of a life without emotional connections is called into question, however, by his interactions with two women, one a sophisticated fellow traveler and the other an inexperienced young colleague.





my boatJEREMY RENNER - The Hurt Locker
As the war in Iraq continues, Staff Sgt. William James carries out one of the most dangerous of all military assignments: bomb defusing. While James thrives on the job's risks, the head of his support team, Sgt. JT Sanborn, becomes increasingly worried by what he feels is a growing recklessness in James's behavior.







my boatCOLIN FIRTH - A Serious Man
In a series of escalating personal catastrophes, physics professor Larry Gopnik finds himself facing an unfaithful wife, ungrateful children, a troubled brother-in-law and poison pen letters at work. But Gopnik is a fundamentally decent man, and he tries, with increasing despair, to respond rationally and fairly to trials befitting a modern-day Job.






my boatMORGAN FREEMAN - Invictus
Morgan Freeman portrays Nelson Mandela, the South African president who seizes on the chances of the national rugby team in the World Cup as a means of uniting his troubled country.












AND THE OSCAR GOES TO...JEFF BRIDGES - Crazy Heart

Besides being political, the Oscars often "make amends" by awarding a statuette to a "body of work:... JEFF BRIDGES certainly qualifies... Besides being a lifelong Hollywood Insider (son of Dorothy & Lloyd Bridges, & brother to Beau), Jeff has been at it for as long as anyone can remember (garnering 4 nominations along the way, his first clear back in 1971 opposite Cybil Shepherd in "The Last Picture Show"). He could have won this award many times before... Thunderbolt & Lightfoot, Starman, The Fisher King, Fearless, The Morning After, The Fabulous Baker Boys, or clearly, in one of his best roles, "The Big Lebowski"... CV actually was IN a film with Jeff Bridges "8 Million Ways to Die" (1986) where CV has a role as a dice shooter...GEORGE CLOONEY keeps knocking on the door for best actor, but so far has only achieved a "supporting actor" statuette for "Syriana"... Sooner or later I'm sure GC will win one (because Hollywood likes to keep it's liberal politicked "glam" boys & girls in the spotlight... But Clooney has to stop mixing up roles like this & Michael Clayton, with "Men Who Stare at Goats"... JEREMY RENNER would be a "darkhorse" here in any other year, but it's going to be tough to get past Jeff Bridges body of work... Pretty much the same goes for COLIN FIRTH... Being in a Coen Bros. film doesn't hurt his chances, but you have to think that "The Big Lebowski" was also a Coen Bros film... Ostensibly, Bridges could be winning for the "other" role, not this one (so it's sort of a silent hat tip to the Coen Bros)... MORGAN FREEMAN sort of slides in as a hybrid of some of the things I've said before... He has the "legacy" & the resume of Jeff Bridges, but he, like Clooney, has already grabbed a supporting actor statuette (Million Dollar Baby)... He also has a best actor credit for "Driving Miss Daisy"... From a political perspective, some of the "energy" of playing a role like Mandela has dissipated... The pressure cooker is now gone after the US has elected a black president... The Academy, which for many years seems to think that it is it's solemn duty to right every injustice in the world (such as race, homosexuality, physically or mentally challenged), may finally turn the other way (if for only a year).

JEFF BRIDGES ought to win this... Besides being "his time", it's the perfect chance for The Academy to get a monkey off it's back... In a year of "tea parties", there has been increasing backlash against Hollywood for inflicting it's liberal bias on America... So here is the perfect chance for The Academy to give an award to a red neck white guy (in a film whose main character is, of course, totally broken down and practically worthless - like ALL white guys are)... Once The Academy gets this one off their conscience, next year they can go back to showcasing the fact that the only "good" in the world comes from either minorities, homosexuals, or handicapped tree huggers who survived the holocaust...










BEST ACTRESS NOMINEES


my boatSANDRA BULLOCK - The Blind Side
Sandra Bullock plays Leigh Anne Tuohy, a suburban mom who takes in a homeless African-American teenager and encourages his talents as a football player.










my boatHELEN MIRREN - The Last Station
As Sofya, Helen Mirren portrays the wife of author Leo Tolstoy, a woman locked in a battle with her husband's admirers over the disposition of his royalties.











my boatCAREY MULLIGAN - An Education
Carey Mulligan plays Jenny, an English schoolgirl who is seduced by the charms of an older man.












my boatGABOUREY SIDIBE - Precious:Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire
As Precious, Gabourey Sidibe plays a pregnant teenager who struggles to overcome years of abuse at the hands of her parents.









my boatMERYL STREEP - Julia & Julia
Meryl Streep portrays cookbook author Julia Child, whose years in France with her husband inspire her to study the art of French cooking.













AND THE OSCAR GOES TO...SANDRA BULLOCK - The Blind Side

Besides being political & honoring legacy work, The Academy always has some other ulterior motives going on at any given time... It doesn't always happen this way, but SANDRA BULLOCK is being set up on a platter here... It's not that she doesn't deserve it... She gave a wonderful performance in a wonderful "true story" role, in a movie that everyone liked... I don't have to say much more about it... I personally am a big fan of Sandra Bullock and will be happy to see her win here... HELEN MIRREN is also a fine actress who I admire very much... Her performance as Tolstoy's wife here is not only a credit to her her work (here come the "ulterior motives"), but Hollywood always likes to toss in films about either actors, writers, or other artists... So very often, they'll get around to honoring their own greatness by showcasing these types of things (like "Shakespeare in Love", or "Chicago")... It's an extra special bonus if the theme has something, anything, to do with either socialism (vis-a-vis the Tolstoy era here), or the holocaust, and the lead actor or actress is also a liberal political activist... Of course, the "wet dream" for Hollywood would be a film like "The Way We Were" which featured the jewish Barbara (I'll move out of the country if Gore isn't elected) Streisand & Robert (Sundance) Redford, playing the roles of a political activist, & a socialist screenwriter... As for Hollywood, it's basically the "Way They Still Are & Will Always Be"... Back to Helen, she is fresh off a win in "The Queen", so it's unlikely that she wins here as well... She's in there to give a Sandra Bullock win more credibility (not that it needs it IMO)...CARREY MULLIGAN is a set up... Hollywood needs to plant seeds for the future, so they're clearly going to put Carrey in a "head to head" with Anne Hathaway going forward... You can already see this happening... Sometimes a nominated role covers other bases as well... There is a deep cast in this movie...Alfred Molina & Olivia Williams aren't household names in America, but they have deep resumes (as does Peter Sarsgaard - who is also married oes Peter Sarsgaard - who is also married to Maggie Gyllenhaal, who I think stands a good chance to win in the best supporting actress category this year)... GABOUREY SIDIBE, hmm, what can I say? The film, "Precious: based on the novel PUSH by Sapphire"... If you didn't know, that should tell you everything you need to know right there... This is the "Oprah's Book Club" nominee... It was made into a film, then became critically acclaimed at Sundance... Sometimes things feed on themselves (no pun intended)... Some are actually giving this performance a chance as a "dark horse" winner... To me, Gabourey IS NOT Forrest Whitaker, & I don't want to get into Oprah bashing so let's move on... MERYL STREEP is the perfect nominee to round out this field... I can't even count the number of nominations she's received (and probably deserved)... She has, however, been recognized many times over... This is yet another nomination (like Mirren), to give the field some credibility... It's as if to say to Gabourey "see - look who you were nominated with - now be happy and don't bother us", or to Carrey "your time is coming soon but you have to keep Anne Hathaway off your ass"... To Sandra it makes her win more credible... The movie "Julia & Julia" is actually very funny and modern... It deserves recognition... perhaps even more "seeds" are being planted here because Amy Adams could take the podium some day with under the right circumstances...

SANDRA BULLOCK ought to get called up to the podium here. I'm sure she's capable of giving one of those classic ditzy acceptance speeches... If nothing else, she'll probably look a little better in her Oscar gown than some of the other nominees (assuming they don't have to resort to potato sacks - you know, for comfort)...











BEST DIRECTOR NOMINEES - CV's favorite category


my boatJAMES CAMERON - Avatar
With Earth an ecological disaster, a corporation sets its sights on the distant planet Pandora, which possesses a mineral that can be used as a valuable energy source. To overcome the resistance of the planet's indigenous population, the Na'vi, former Marine Jake Sully is sent to infiltrate the society as a part-human, part-Na'vi avatar who can operate on Pandora while Jake himself remains in a twilight sleep.




my boatKATE BIGELOW - The Hurt Locker
As the war in Iraq continues, Staff Sgt. William James carries out one of the most dangerous of all military assignments: bomb defusing. While James thrives on the job's risks, the head of his support team, Sgt. JT Sanborn, becomes increasingly worried by what he feels is a growing recklessness in James's behavior.






my boatQUENTIN TARANTINO - Inglourious Basterds
Shosanna, a resourceful young movie theater owner fighting to stay one step ahead of the Nazis in occupied France, plots her revenge on the man responsible for her family's death, the flamboyant Col. Hans Landa. Her plan soon draws the attention of Lt. Aldo Raine, who leads a group of Jewish soldiers known as the Basterds in a savage campaign behind enemy lines.





my boatLEE DANIELS - Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire
As Precious, Gabourey Sidibe plays a pregnant teenager who struggles to overcome years of abuse at the hands of her parents.










my boatJASON REITMAN - Up In The Air
Ryan Bingham is a corporate downsizer who spends his days in hotels, airports, and airplanes as he travels around the country laying off other companies' workers with polished finesse. His pursuit of a life without emotional connections is called into question, however, by his interactions with two women, one a sophisticated fellow traveler and the other an inexperienced young colleague.








AND THE OSCAR GOES TO...KATE BIGELOW - The Hurt Locker

This is always one of my favorite categories... Any movie you see, you "see" through the eyes of the director... As everyone knows, oftentimes the same movie pops up in several of the major categories (Dirctor, Actor, Actress, Best Picture)... Much of the credit goes to the director (because good actors tend to like to work with good directors, and good directors can bring out the best performances in actors)... Sometimes this category is "legacy", or "political", but more often than not, GOOD WORK is recognized... This is probably going to come down to JAMES CAMERON (Avatar), & KATHRYN BIGELOW (The Hurt Locker)... Incidentally, these two were married for about 2 years in the late 80's (something that the Oscars announcers are sure to be all over when the time comes to present this award)... What it really is going to come down to is the "extravaganza" effect of Avatar, vs. raw filmmaking on "The Hurt Locker"... Both pack in a lot of "success" ingredients... Avatar, it's political message about resource utilization and the behavior of civilizations to that end... The Hurt Locker is basically an "on the ground" reality treatise which has some of the same elements spinning around it... Avatar, is big budget... Unless the movie is a bomb (and this one ISN'T), Hollywood actually likes blockbusters... They get press, and keep the wheels greased... James Cameron is well known for this type of film (all the Terminators, The Abyss, Aliens, Strange Days, Rambo, and of course, "Titanic" - which tied "Ben-Hur" for the largest rake of Oscar Awards ever)... Cameron was also Producer of "Point Break" which Bigelow directed... Cameron is a money maker... Hollywood LOVES a money maker... However, in this particular case, since he has already declared himself "King of the World", the Academy might be hesitant to declare him "King of the Universe" just yet, and instead give the the honor to his ex-wife... If for no other reason than just to say "behind every successful man stands a woman... The other nominees, QUENTIN TARANTINO, LEE DANIELS, JASON REITMAN probably don't stand a snowball's chance in hell here... I love Tarantino movies (and QT is sure to have many more nominations in his future), but I'm still wondering how many different ways Hollywood can tell the "holocaust" story... For crying out loud, how can Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not recognize it? They must not have any TV in Iran because every other Oscar nominated film has IT as a backdrop... Also ran... Daniels & Reitman... Reitman is starting to put it together here with "Juno" also to his credit... This is Daniels first big "director" gig, but he was also on the production end of "Monsters Ball" which won Halle Berry an Oscar a few years back... Fine work, you two, but you're up against a buzz saw...

KATE BIGELOW, I think, will edge out her "ex-husband" (James Cameron) here because that's the way the world works (if you're a woman, you always move past that stupid man who held you back & someday shove it in his face - especially when he just spent $300 billion to try to beat you to the podium)... I don't want to make it sound all THAT phony because "The Hurt Locker" is really a taught and well paced movie... KB's most noteworthy effort before was "Point Break", which despite having the "roll your eyes" quotient of Keanau Reeves & Patrick Swayze, wasn't that bad a film, was nicely paced, and featured incredible footage and camera work... Bigelow's art background has translated well to the big screen...










BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE


my boatMATT DAMON - Invictus
Matt Damon plays Francois Pienaar, the captain of the South African rugby team that becomes a surprising unifying force for a divided nation.











my boatCHRISTOPHER PLUMMER - The Last Station
Christopher Plummer portrays Tolstoy, the great Russian writer who finds himself torn in his final years between his wife and his devoted admirers.










my boatWOODY HARRELSON - The Messenger
As Captain Tony Stone, Woody Harrelson plays a military officer struggling to maintain his sobriety as he delivers news of soldiers' deaths to their families.











my boatSTANLEY TUCCI - The Lovely Bones
As George Harvey, Stanley Tucci plays a serial killer who murders his neighbors' 14-year-old daughter.












my boatCHRISTOPH WALTZ - Inglourious Basterds
Christoph Waltz plays Col. Hans Landa, a sinister Nazi officer with a talent for seeking out people in hiding.











AND THE OSCAR GOES TO...CRISTOPH WALTZ - Inglourious Basterds

I'm going to turn the SNARK OFF for a moment here... OK, first it's going to sound snarky, but that's not my intention... I'm just going to lay out the bare facts, then get to the performances... What's utterly odd is that ALL of these nominees achieved such for performances which EXACTLY embody what I've described above as the classic Hollywood political labels (CV doesn't make this stuff up)... Let me refresh your memory if you've forgotten:
- MATT DAMON as the "white apartheid dude" that eventually only finds glory & "goodness" after he comes to terms with, and does the bidding of, the new black President of South Africa (who, of course, was a formerly oppressed racial prisoner)...
- WOODY HARRELSON playing the role of another troubled white guy (this one an alcoholic). In this case, the character is in the guise of a military officer having the unenviable and heart wrenching task of bringing the bad news to regular people of loved ones who died in wars that nobody wants in the first place ostensibly started by a white President that everyone hates... The "face" of bad news and all bad things...
- CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER, well, he represents nothing special, except a historical "artist" (writer), who is mainly interesting because of the socialist revolution era he came to fame during... Sounds like the PERFECT TYPE to delve into their flaws (he probably 'wronged' some female in this case)...
- STANLEY TUCCI, another BAD white guy villain (they all suck, don't they)... This one lives next door & rapes and kills your teenage daughter...
- CRISTOLPH WALTZ, not only a BAD WHITE GUY... But a BAD WHITE SUPREMACIST NAZI!

Even though it doesn't sound like it so far (I'd said SNARK OFF before), I want to express that ALL of these performances are absolutely riveting... If not for anything else, simply the themes they operate under... All 5 of the films are actually wonderful films... Perhaps that's what's being acknowledged here (and perhaps that's why I decided to try to do SNARK OFF for this)... It must just be a coincidence that Hollywood chooses to honor & portray all white males as the scum of the earth... When you get beyond that though, it's hard NOT to acknowledge that these performances (by these scumbag males) are in fact superb, or make a case that anyone was undeserving of the honor. Besides the actors themselves, all these films have extraordinary pedigree... (Clint Eastwood/INVICTUS [which also featured Morgan Freeman] Peter Jackson [Lord of the Rings Trilogy]/The Lovely Bones [which also featured great performances by Mark Wahlberg & Rachel Weisz], The Messenger [with Jena Malone], The Last Station [with an impeccible cast]...

CRISTOPH WALTZ I'm going to say receives the merit here... Quentin Tarantino probably could not have done this film without him... Or, if it's difficult for you to understand it that way, just think that it's for no other reason than because in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king... In the land of the SCUMBAG WHITE GUYS, the "scumbaggiest" of all should take the honor... It can't be Matt Damon (because he eventually heeds the wishes of the black President and therefore gains redemption for his scumbag existence)... It can't be Harrelson (because despite the fact that he's a drunk officer of a military that is doing his duty because of that bad war that George W Bush got us into, he's just "The Messenger" [so don't shoot him]... It can't be Plummer (because he's Tolstoy for Gods sake)... It could very well be Tucci (but that kind of "creepyness" hits too close to home [literally])... So it's GOTTA BE WALTZ... It's Hollywood's way of saying to Obama "Dammit! We helped get you elected, don't forget about this stuff over here and stop throwing Israel under the bus!"...














BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE


my boatPENELOPE CRUZ - Nine
Penélope Cruz portrays Carla, the passionate mistress of a married film director.












my boatVERA FARMIGA - Up In The Air
As Alex Goran, Vera Farmiga plays a business traveler who begins a no-strings-attached affair with a man she meets in a hotel bar.











my boatMAGGIE GYLLENHAAL - Crazy Heart
Maggie Gyllenhaal plays Jean Craddock, a journalist whose love and admiration for a broken-down country-western singer may change his life.











my boatANNA KENDRICK - Up In The Air (No link because they're LAME)
As Natalie Keener, Anna Kendrick plays an ambitious but inexperienced young woman who is sent on an eye-opening series of trips with a veteran colleague.










my boatMo'NIQUE - Precious: Based on the novel "Push" by Sapphire
Mo'Nique portrays Mary, an abusive mother whose cruel behavior has had a devastating effect on her pregnant teenage daughter.












AND THE OSCAR GOES TO...MAGGIE GYLLENHAAL - Crazy Heart

It's not always cut and dried as to the "politics" of an Oscars recipient... Whether or not my previous selections in the other major categories were correct or not, this is the hardest one for me to decide upon "strategically"... Ironically, I probably have the order somewhat REVERSED here (as the "Actress in a Supporting Role award usually comes EARLIER in the Oscars telecast - Best Actor & Actress awards are near the end, and Best Director & Best Picture are inevitably last)... So if I get this one WRONG (which I may), you might tend to start to want to dismiss my other selections out of hand)... This one is "easy" in some ways and "hard" in others to figure out... I'm going to start by attempting to dismiss the obvious (if I'm WRONG about this, I'll look like a TOTAL FOOL even before the ceremonies begin - you'll find me, then, getting drunk on champagne in the waiting room, or heading out to Spagos on the sly for an early dinner)...

I'm going to dismiss PENELOPE CRUZ right off the bat... Understand, that's NOTHING against the movie itself... I mean, when you pack Daniel Day-Lewis, Kate Hudson (CV used to train her mom & dad, and CV remembers 'ol Kate as a pre-teen), Judy Dench, Sophia Loren, Nicole Kidman, & Marion Cotillard together into a cast, you've got to expect something good right? Especially when it was directed by Rob Marshall (who has numerous dance/musical Tony's on Broadway like Cabaret, and a "best director" nomination for Chicago, which won "Best Picture" in 2002)... But that's just it! "Nine" is like taking Chicago, Cabaret, Moulin Rouge, The Talented Mr. Ripley, & Roman Holiday and mixing them all into one... Nothing new here... Spectacular, but move on... I hate to say it (or LOVE to say it, for that matter), but Penelope Cruz, as lovely as she is, is becoming the TOKEN "latina"... She's "Spanish" for crying out loud (so I suppose that qualifies as "hispanic", but Americans tend to more associate that with Mexican or Central American)... In any case, with a dearth of films with "latina" or "latino" nominations, they have to throw her into the mix to fill the gap... Didn't I say before that this was all POLITICAL? "Up In The Air" has two supporting actress nominations from the same film... It's kind of a shame because CV "really" does like VERA FARMIGA... I took a look at those eyes over a decade ago (in a small role she played in the movie "Autumn in New York") and knew I'd see her again... But The Academy has seen fit here to cancel her out by putting her together with "Twilight" ANNA KENDRICK... It's a subtle way of saying, "girls don't even THINK about having to write something down on a cocktail napkin but we adore your pretty faces in the audience while you await your disappointment"... FWIW - Kendrick "bugs" me personally... She's obviously being groomed for a spot, but it's something beyond my comprehension... Those of you with teenage daughters who are into the "Twilight" saga could probably clue me in... For my "talent scout" eyes, I'd be banking on Kristen Stewart instead (you heard it here first - remember me in the future)... Of course I'd also take Vera Farmiga (and if she happens to win here, against odds, CV will be extremely happy)... But... if say, you have to toss those three out, then you're mathematically down to two... Those two are MO'NIQUE & MAGGIE GYLLENHAAL... I'm going to say right off that I've been a fan of Maggie Gyllenhaal for a long time now... Mo'Nique I'd never heard of before, but I can't, or WON'T EVEN TRY to discredit her in any way because her nomination performance was powerful ... I'll be open and bias and tell you flat out that the content of "Precious" bothered me... It also bothers me that this is some more "Oprah Winfrey" concoction crap (which CV tends to toss into the rubbish bin of American Idol, Dancing With the Stars, Survivor, Jerry Springer, Regis Philbin, or, if you even want to go back, Phil Donahue, Geraldo Rivera, and all the other daytime TV crap that has become "cult" in American society - Frankly, it's part of what I think has helped tear this nation down and apart for a generation or more - there, I said it)... Nevertheless, how can I POSSIBLY blame Mo'Nique for simply playing a role in an OUTSTANDING way?... Answer: I can't... She did what any artist would do in this situation... She took a role that was handed to her, and she made an outstanding performance out of it... If she wins, she deserves FULL CREDIT... My "CRAZY HEART", though, goes with Maggie Gyllenhaal here... The first time I ever saw her was back in 2002 in a film called "The Secretary" (opposite James Spader)... For those of you who have never seen "The Secretary", if you then go decide and watch it, don't think WEIRD of CV... It's just one of those things... I found her performance in that to have been absolutely RIVETING, and she was immediately etched into my psyche... She's been on my radar screen ever since, & therefore I really hope she wins here...

MAGGIE GYLLENHAAL, then let's say, isn't exactly my PICK, but she's who I hope will be honored (actually I guess she IS my pick, WTH?)... But if she doesn't win, so be it... She's definitely the type that will bounce back to this podium time & time again IMO... Her skills speak for themselves... She doesn't need the help of being "hispanic" (in a dearth of hispanic years), or casual "put two FUTURES together this year and cancel them out", or the "Oprah effect"... She's just Maggie (the "Secretary" in my mind, but now the journalist)... For me, in the end... This is the category that I'm LEAST sure of, but the one I WANT the most to win (Sandra Bullock being a very close second)...

But for the record... In a strange way CV often gets his hearts delight in this category as in the past CV has "willed" the following Oscars in this category into being:

- Penelope Cruz - Vicky Cristina Barcelona
- Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton
- Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener
- Renee Zellweger - Cold Mountain (but it was a re-pay for Jerry Maguire)
- Jennifer Connelly - A Perfect Mind (flawless)
- Juliette Binoche - The English Patient
- Dianne Wiest - Hannah & Her Sisters

BUT... It's not perfect as I missed on...

- Minnie Driver - Good Will Hunting
- Natalie Portman  - Closer
- Julianne Moore - The Hours
- Kate Hudson (my old friend) - Almost Famous

My solemn promise to all those ladies is that it is the JOB OF CV TO WILL THEM TO THE PODIUM (one of these days)... And probably, CV's favorite of all... AMY ADAMS... You 'should' have been nominated this year for 'An Education'... Don't worry... CV's "psychic powers" will put that soft gold statuette in your hands one of these days...


Remember... Actor & Actress awards are "emotional" choices (that's why I like Bridges, Gyllenhaal, Bullock, &, hell, actually "emotionally" I'd take Matt Damon)...

Picture & Director are "critical" awards... I gotta go with Kate Bigelow & "The Hurt Locker" there...

Morning Audibles 3.5.10 - Time Can Melt Your Brain

I've been talking about this too long... The term "long" itself infers a need for measurement... Today, TIME is the thing we're going to be measuring... You're going to have to go back & review some of the charts I've been putting up for the past few weeks... You're going to have to do your own homework this... um... TIME...


If time IS a component... an actuality... then it is becoming quite relevant as we speak... Calibrated thus, we're probably talking about the next 13 hour trading TIMEFRAME... Draw your own conclusions, but beware... TIME CAN MELT YOUR BRAIN!


The Persistence of Memory - Salvador Dali (1931)

If you have TIME, read and find out what it's all about:



If time IS a component... an actuality... then it is becoming quite relevant as we speak... Calibrated thus, we're probably talking about the next 13 hour trading TIMEFRAME... Draw your own conclusions, but beware... TIME CAN MELT YOUR BRAIN! (see what it did to these poor fellows)... 


Note: The video clip is the alternative for those of you with NO TIME TO LOSE, or, you could skip below. The choice is yours.



IT IS the invisible presence that governs your world. Trailing you like an unshakeable shadow, it ticks and tocks incessantly - you can sense it in your heartbeat, in the rising and setting of the sun, and in your daily rush to make meetings, trains and deadlines. It brings order to our lives through the categories of past, present and future.

Time. There is nothing with which we are so familiar, and yet when you try to pin it down you find only a relentless torrent of questions. Why does time appear to flow? What makes it different from space? What exactly is it? It's enough to make your neurons misfire, then sizzle and smoke.
  
You are not alone. Physicists have long struggled to understand what time really is. In fact, they are not even sure it exists at all. In their quest for deeper theories of the universe, some researchers increasingly suspect that time is not a fundamental feature of nature, but rather an artefact of our perception. One group has recently found a way to do quantum physics without invoking time, which could help pave a path to a time-free "theory of everything". If correct,
the approach suggests that time really is an illusion, and that we may need to rethink how the universe at large works.

For decades, physicists have been searching for a quantum theory of gravity to reconcile Einstein's general relativity, which describes gravity at the largest scales, with quantum mechanics, which describes the behaviour of particles at the tiniest scales. One reason it has been so difficult to merge the two is that they are built on incompatible views of time. "I am more and more convinced that the problem of time is key both to quantum gravity and to issues in cosmology," says Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada.

According to general relativity, time is stitched together with space to form four-dimensional space-time. The passage of time is not absolute - no cosmic clock ticks away the hours of the universe. Instead, time differs from one frame of reference to the next, and what one observer experiences as time, another might experience as a mixture of time and space. For Einstein, time is a useful measure of things, but nothing special.

Not so in quantum mechanics. Here time plays a key role, keeping track of the ever-changing probabilities that define the microworld, which are encoded in the "wave function" of a quantum system. The clock by which the wave function evolves records not just the time in one particular frame of reference, but the absolute time that Einstein worked so hard to topple. So while relativity treats space and time as a whole, quantum mechanics splits the universe into two parts: the quantum system being observed and the classical world outside. In this fractured universe, a clock always remains outside the quantum system.

Something has to give. The fact that the universe has no outside, by definition, suggests that quantum mechanics will be the one to surrender - and to many, this suggests that time is not fundamental. In the 1990s, for instance, physicist Julian Barbour proposed that time must not exist in a quantum theory of the universe. All the same, physicists are loath to throw out quantum theory, as it has proven capable of extraordinarily accurate predictions. What they need is a
way to do quantum mechanics in the absence of time. Single quantum event

Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of Marseille in France, has found just that. In the past year, he and his colleagues have worked out a method to compress multiple quantum events in time into a single event that can be described without reference to time (Physical Review D, vol 75, p 084033).

It is an intriguing achievement. While Rovelli's approach to dealing with time is one of many, and researchers working on other models of quantum gravity may have different opinions on the matter, nearly every physicist agrees that time is a key obstacle to finding an ultimate theory. Rovelli's approach seems tantalisingly close to surmounting that obstacle. His model builds upon research into generalising quantum mechanics by physicist James Hartle at the University
of California, Santa Barbara, as well as Rovelli's earlier work on quantum systems.

The idea is this: suppose we have an electron characterised by its spin, a quantum property that is either "up" or "down" along whatever direction you measure it. Say we want to make two consecutive measurements of its spin, one in the x direction and one in the y direction. The probabilities of the possible outcomes will depend on the order in which we perform the measurements. That's because a measurement "collapses" the indeterminate state of the wave function, forcing it to commit to a given state; the first measurement will change the particle's state, which affects the second measurement.

Say we already know the electron's spin is up in the x direction. If we now measure the spin in the x direction followed by the y direction, we will find the x spin up - no change there - and then there is a 50:50 chance of finding the y spin up or down. But if we begin by measuring the y spin, that disturbs the spin in the x direction, creating a 50-50 probability for both measurements.

If reordering the measurements in time changes the probabilities, how can we calculate the probabilities of sequences of events without reference to time? The trick, says Rovelli, is to adjust the boundary between the quantum system under observation and the classical outside world where measuring devices are considered to reside. By shifting the boundary, we can include the measuring device as part of the quantum system.

In that case we no longer ask, "What is the probability of the electron having spin up and then spin down?" Instead we ask, "What is the probability of finding the measuring devices in a particular state?" The measuring device no longer collapses the wave function; rather, the electron and the measuring device together are described by a single wave function, and a single measurement of the entire set-up causes the collapse.

Where has time gone? Evolution in time is transformed into correlations between things that can be observed in space. "To give an analogy," Rovelli says, "I can tell you that I drove from Boston to Los Angeles but I passed first through Chicago and later through Denver. Here I am specifying things in time. But I could also tell you that I drove from Boston to LA along the road marked in this map. So I can replace the information about which measurement happens first in
time with the detailed information about how the observables are correlated."

That Rovelli's approach yields the correct probabilities in quantum mechanics seems to justify his intuition that the dynamics of the universe can be described as a network of correlations, rather than as an evolution in time. "Rovelli's work makes the timeless view more believable and more in line with standard physics," says Dean Rickles, a philosopher of physics at the University of Sydney in Australia.

With quantum mechanics rewritten in time-free form, combining it with general relativity seems less daunting, and a universe in which time is fundamental seems less likely. But if time doesn't exist, why do we experience it so relentlessly? Is it all an illusion?

Yes, says Rovelli, but there is a physical explanation for it. For more than a decade, he has been working with mathematician Alain Connes at the College de France in Paris to understand how a time-free reality could give rise to the appearance of time. Their idea, called the thermal time hypothesis, suggests that time emerges as a statistical effect, in the same way that temperature emerges from averaging the behaviour of large groups of molecules (Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol 11, p 2899).

Imagine gas in a box. In principle we could keep track of the position and momentum of each molecule at every instant and have total knowledge of the microscopic state of our surroundings. In this scenario, no such thing as temperature exists; instead we have an ever-changing arrangement of molecules. Keeping track of all that information is not feasible in practice, but we can average the microscopic behaviour to derive a macroscopic description. We condense all the information about the momenta of the molecules into a single
measure, an average that we call temperature.

According to Connes and Rovelli, the same applies to the universe at large. There are many more constituents to keep track of: not only do we have particles of matter to deal with, we also have space itself and therefore gravity. When we average over this vast microscopic arrangement, the macroscopic feature that emerges is not temperature, but time. "It is not reality that has a time flow, it is our very approximate knowledge of reality that has a time flow," says Rovelli. "Time is the effect of our ignorance."

Cosmic time

It all sounds good on paper, but is there any evidence that the idea might be correct? Rovelli and Connes have tested their hypothesis with simple models. They started by looking at the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation that pervades the sky - relic heat from the big bang. The CMB is an example of a statistical state: averaging over the finer details, we can say that the radiation is practically uniform and has a temperature of just under 3 kelvin. Rovelli and Connes used this as a model for the statistical state of the universe, tossing in other information such as the radius of the observable universe, and looked to see what apparent time flow that would generate.

What they got was a sequence of states describing a small universe expanding in exactly the manner described by standard cosmological equations - matching what physicists refer to as cosmic time. "I was amazed," says Rovelli. "Connes was as well. He had independently thought about the same idea, and was very surprised to see it worked in a simple calculation."

To truly apply the thermal time hypothesis to the universe, however, physicists need a theory of quantum gravity. All the same, the fact that a simple model like that of the CMB produced realistic results is promising. "One of the traditional difficulties of quantum gravity was how to make sense of a theory in which the time variable had disappeared," Rovelli says. "Here we begin to see that a theory without a time variable can not only still make sense, but can in fact describe a world like the one we see around us."

What's more, the thermal time hypothesis gives another interesting result. If time is an artefact of our statistical description of the world, then a different description should lead to a different flow of time. There is a clear case in which this happens: in the presence of an event horizon.

When an observer accelerates, he creates an event horizon, a boundary that partitions off a region of the universe from which light can never reach him so long as he continues to accelerate. This observer will describe a different statistical state of the universe from an observer who doesn't have a horizon, since he is missing information that lies beyond his event horizon. The flow of time he perceives should therefore be different.

Using general relativity, however, there is another way to describe his experience of time. The geometry of the space-time he inhabits, as defined by his horizon, determines a so-called proper time - the time flow he would register if he were carrying a clock. The thermal time hypothesis predicts that the ratio of the observer's proper time to his statistical time - the time flow that emerges from Connes and Rovelli's ideas - is the temperature he measures
around him.

It so happens that every event horizon has an associated temperature. The best known case is that of a black hole event horizon, whose temperature is that of the "Hawking radiation" it emits. Likewise, an accelerating observer measures a temperature associated with something known as Unruh radiation. The temperature Rovelli and Connes derived matches the Unruh temperature and the Hawking temperature for a black hole, further boosting their hypothesis.

"The thermal time hypothesis is a very beautiful idea," says Pierre Martinetti, a physicist at the University of Rome in Italy. "But I believe its implementation is still limited. For the moment one has just checked that this hypothesis was not contradictory when a notion of time was already available. But it has not been used in quantum gravity."

Others also urge caution in interpreting what it all means for the nature of time. "It is wrong to say that time is an illusion," says Rickles. "It is just reducible or non-fundamental, in the same way that consciousness emerges from brain activity but is not illusory."

So if time really does prove to be non-fundamental, what are we to make of it? "For us, time exists and flows," says Rovelli. "The point is that this nice flow becomes something much more complicated at the small scale."

At reality's deepest level, then, it remains unknown whether time will hold strong or melt away like a Salvador Dali clock. Perhaps, as Rovelli and others suggest, time is all a matter of perspective - not a feature of reality but a result of your missing information about reality. So if your brain hurts when you try to understand time, relax. If you really knew, time might simply disappear.

From issue 2639 of New Scientist magazine, 19 January 2008, page 26-29
--
Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


SPX WEEKLY (with bollingers)

Morning Audibles 3.4.10 - Dumpster Dive? Well it IS 'Oscar' week!

Bears have been undoubtedly been saying to themselves this past week. "How long can this charade last"? I'm speaking of the time it takes for the market to reach certain levels that seem to be PREORDAINED when you combine sophisticated computer ALGOS with printed money that the central banking system effective "steals" from the US taxpayer.


Answer to the above question... As long as it takes... Even though it's tedious (as it is very visible when all sorts of technical indicators start to look "toppy"), it is sort of amusing at the same time. Some like to call it the "Dash for Trash" (where all the crappy little stocks get bought up, such as Ethan Allen up 25% yesterday). Or, I just equate it to that other great American pastime DUMPSTER DIVING.


Mom... the bulls are into the trash again!
Would you like me to erect some apparatus to help you improve your technique?

And in a world with collapsing commercial real estate loans, unemployment, soverign debt default... Well, remember JOHNNY is in the room too...


And I have some charts to add to this thread, but I wanted to get it started first. The charts will give you my next best guess as to when this all might end.


Here's the model I'm working on at the moment. The times are getting tighter. This wedge, (any wedge) can be broken at any given moment, but if what bumps it off is just NOISE, the ALGOS will catch it... Expiration point is the key. After that, and you're ALICE IN WONDERLAND...

Of course even ALICE needs a place to go. So if the previous pattern remains correct (BTW - it is the pattern I've been discussing for 3 weeks now). Here's where we might fall... SOON... Instead, if it continues to wander around, UPWARDS, there's a PLAN B in effect (roughly 1137 on OPEX Friday)... What I like about this idea is that I feel some of the risk that bulls faced getting "short" the market last summer does not hold water here. I'm LESS worried about an explosive move upwards... If there are any bears left, they're completely exhausted by now... Time & boredom are the only real enemies...

Morning Audibles 3.3.10

When I prepare these "Morning Audibles", I basically like to find one simple and key area of focus. One theme that says, this here, more or less accurately describes what's going on. This key unlocks many doors.


Sometimes everything seems to be on cruise control (you find that one thing) and sometimes it doesn't. Lately, (actually for a few weeks now), I've been talking about the idea of the SPX to backtest in the 1116-1126 areas (as there were "chart gaps" to fill). One of them is now filled, the other may be soon.


While it makes you feel good to make a "correct" call on something (especially if you either traded it for profit, or hedged AGAINST it), it also sometimes makes you nervous when the moment of truth arrives. It's like that golfer that has played a wonderful tournament, and a scintillating back 9 on the final day, and he comes up and has to simply 2-putt from 40 feet. In that exact moment, all of a sudden, you can't feel your hands, you see imaginary snakes and alligators between your ball and the hole, and the hole itself shrinks down to about the size of a shot glass.


In golf, you have to WILL yourself to make those two putts. You have to call on every discipline you've ever learned, or practice to make it happen. With the markets, (or your positions) you can't act that way. You can't MAKE something happen. You have to begin to prepare to have a PLAN B in mind. It would sort of like being the golfer and starting to think "well if I three putt this, at least I'll still be in a playoff". That would be the WORST THING EVER for a golfer to think, but might be a handy idea for a TRADER.


I've said before, that I believe the "time" element on reaching (now 1126, or even a throw over to 1130, as was discussed yesterday in this blog), is coming quickly. Most likely either by the end of this week, or at latest by next Monday. But instead of just sitting around and WAITING for that outcome. I'm starting to put some PLAN B's together. The chart WRAP's last evening were very interesting. Good traders, like McF & Amen have been bubbling a lot lately about metals and, of course, the Euro. (I even had an extensive feature on the Euro on this blog over this past weekend). I asked AMEN RA to start "wrapping" the GOLD:EUR cross candles for a time going forward. That ought to tell a story that you don't typically see if you're just watching the dollar price in GOLD.


This thread is without a chart or image thus far. I'm going to add some as the morning progresses. On my mind are the following:


- Some simple "old fashioned" technical patterns on GLD and what it looked like after the March '08 top.
- The "follow through" on yesterdays EUR-DOL candle
- Of course, what happens in equities.
- Reaction to ADP number


Start blogging and stay tuned. I expect to have more questions than answers by the end of the day.


VERY SIMPLISTIC OVERVIEW OF LONG TERM GLD TREND
(Sometimes "simple" is good)


SPX - SCENARIO 1 & 2 ILLUSTRATIONS


USO - Weekly (Hypothetical)
Note: I'm very shy about posting oil charts because they can get so hijacked by GEO-POLITICAL actions beyond the control of anyone. So what you see here is simply a look at what 'seems' to have been the GRAVITY LINE sine 2006 (while the S*** in the world economy was only flying through the air and hadn't introduced itself to THE FAN just yet). If I were trading crude right now, I'd be very watchful that something, ANYTHING, couldn't pull that level right up to the area in the chart indicated in RED... But neither would I expect that to happen. Sometimes the best trade is NO TRADE. If it WERE to reach that red area, by May, on poor fundamentals, then I'd probably convert to a willing "short". 

Disclosure/Warning

This blog should not be interpreted as investment advice of any kind. The authors are NOT representing themselves CTAs or CFAs or Investment/Trading Advisor of any kind. The authors may or may not trade in the markets discussed. The authors may hold positions opposite of what may by inferred by this blog.The information contained in this blog is taken from sources the authors believes to be reliable, but it is not guaranteed by the authors as to the accuracy or completeness thereof and is presented here for information purposes only. Commodity trading involves risk and is not for everyone.