2000 Words

I haven't had much time to write lately. I've been busy looking for a job, finding a job, working, quitting, and looking for a job again -- more on that (and the crazy lady I briefly had the misfortune of working with) later, time-permitting. But I heard a picture's worth 1,000 words, so I thought I'd make up for the recent dearth of prose with 2,000 words worth of comedy in the form of my favorite two photos found online this week.

The first goes out to all those worried about the current lackluster state of our beloved country:



The second is a rare look behind the curtain at genius, as we examine the craft of one of our finest thespians:

Near Perfect

If you were following my Oscar predictions, and didn't put some money on them in Vegas or with your bookie, then you missed out. I went 7 of 8 on the major awards, missing only Sean Penn. I was pretty sure about Mickey Rourke, but Hollywood preferred a referendum on gay rights to the coronation of a prodigal son.

Missing a perfect night by what was probably only a handful of votes is frustrating, but knowing I beat Nate Silver (6/8) and my wife (5/8) cushions the blow. The big winners tonight besides Penn: 'Slumdog Millionaire', Danny Boyle, Kate Winslet, Penelope Cruz, Dustin Lance Black, and Simon Beaufoy. The biggest loser was Rourke, but the most acclaimed role of your career can never really be considered a "loss".

Oscars... For The Ladies II

Just sneaking in this last preview so I can be officially wrong about one more thing tonight...

BEST ACTRESS

Anne Hathaway in 'Rachel Getting Married'
Angelina Jolie in 'Changeling'
Melissa Leo in 'Frozen River'
Meryl Streep in 'Doubt'
Kate Winslet in 'The Reader'

THE NOMS: Pretty good. Since I didn't see two of them ('Frozen River' and 'The Reader'), I can't say for sure, but the other three were all great performances.

WHO SHOULD WIN: Probably Winslet. I know, I didn't see it, but she's supposedly the only good thing in it, and she was also great in 'Revolutionary Road'. She's been nominated six times, she deserves it.

WHO WILL WIN: Winslet. The Academy knows she's due.

The Oscar Goes To... Some Writer II

Because I'm too lazy to even watch the DVD's of the Oscar winners I have sitting on my entertainment center, I thought I might as well do these last couple previews in case I don't get to them by 5pm tomorrow.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Courtney Hunt for 'Frozen River'
Martin McDonagh for 'In Bruges'
Mike Leigh for 'Happy Go Lucky'
Dustin Lance Black for 'Milk'
Andrew Stanton and Jim Reardon for 'WALL-E' (Story by Stanton and Pete Docter)

THE NOMS: I haven't seen two of them -- though I'm still hoping to watch my DVD of 'Frozen River' (no, this is not a recording), which was a big winner at the Independent Spirit Awards tonight -- but the ones I saw ('Milk', 'WALL-E', and 'In Bruges') were all exceptionally written. I'd have loved to see Charlie Kaufman's 'Synecdoche, NY' -- another winner tonight at the Independent Spirit winner -- but without seeing all the nominees I can't exactly cast stones. Well, I could, but they'd be very uninformed stones.

WHO SHOULD WIN: 'WALL-E' will make a strong case with its style, substance, and message. 'Milk' also has a message, and a great performance by Sean Penn to carry it. The other three are low-budget, independent films. That's great for the Independent Spirit Awards, but at the Oscars, it probably won't fly. I say 'Milk' edges out 'WALL-E' based on the timeliness of its issue, Penn's performance, and the whole live-action thing. If so, it'll be the second straight year a writer's first produced screenplay wins them an Oscar (after Diablo Cody's 'Juno').

WHO WILL WIN: I liked 'Milk' quite a bit, and admired 'WALL-E' even more, but 'In Bruges' was the best surprise of the year for me. And I think it announced Martin McDonaugh as a great voice to watch for in the future.

Oscars... For The Ladies

Only a couple more left after this, which I'm holding off on in hopes of still seeing 'Frozen River' and 'Rachel Getting Married' before the Oscars...

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Marisa Tomei in 'The Wrestler'
Viola Davis in 'Doubt'
Amy Adams in 'Doubt'
Taraji P. Hensen in 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Penelope Cruz in 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona'

THE NOMS: I like 'em. No complaints at all. All the women were great, and I got to see Marissa Tomei parade around topless. What's to complain about?

WHO SHOULD WIN: A really tough call. All the performances were great, but we can narrow them down with some quasi-logic. Tomei showed too much skin to win -- strippers don't win Oscars. Davis and Adams will split votes from 'Doubt'-lovers (not really, but it sounds good). Cruz and Henson were the meatier of the roles, so I'll call it two-horse race. It's not much more than a coin flip, but I'll go with Hensen, just because she gave 'Button' its badly-needed heart.

WHO WILL WIN: I mentioned earlier that I disagreed with Nate Silver on one category, and this is it. He likes Hensen, and she was great. But I'm going with Cruz.

Giants Diary: The Rites of Spring

In my first baseball post last week, I mentioned a few of the things we'd undoubtedly see around the Giants spring training in near future -- things we see every spring. Already, less than a week later, several have have come to pass:

I wrote: "It means sore hammies, and tendonitis, and various tweaks and turns which will worry me that they'll become the next catastrophic year-ending injury". Within 24 hours, Noah Lowry, who missed all of last year with arm woes, experienced soreness in his shoulder. Now he says he's doing much better, but until he takes part in an organized game -- something he hasn't done in about 18 months -- I'm not expecting anything from him this year.

I wrote: "we will soon be deluged with reports out of Scottsdale about the dazzling skills and bright futures of some Giants prospects as well as the always-popular "He's in the best shape of his life" and "Last year's bad season was actually die to an unreported injury" stories."

Today, MLB.com Giants beatwriter Chris Haft obliges, with both a story about the triumvirate of young infield prospects vying for the starting 2B job, and another about the "leaner and meaner" story of new Giants SS, Edgar Renteria. Henry Schulman of the Chron also chips in with a "leaner and meaner" piece on Matt Cain.

I'm still waiting for a good "unreported injury" story. I'll keep you posted.

Wonderlic Me

Over at Niners Nation, Fooch has done a post about the Wonderlic test, which has been famously used by NFL teams to gauge the mental capacity of college players at the combine. He links to a sample of the test, where you can test yourself. Like Fooch, I got 9 out of 10 questions right in the time alloted (I ran out of time before I could answer the last one), which gave me an estimated score of 45. As Fooch points out, that's pretty good:

A generic breakdown of the scoring looks like this:

50 = highest possible score, superior intelligence
30 = Very bright, you're shouldn't be living at home
20 = average intelligence (similar to IQ of 100)
15 = Equivalent to unskilled worker
10 and Below = Moron, barring unique circumstances

He also lists some scores of interest among QB's:

Drew Henson 42
Alex Smith 40
Eli Manning 39
Brian Griese 39
Tony Romo 37
Drew Bledsoe 36
Matt Leinart 35
Kellen Clemens 35
Tom Brady 33
Steve Young 33
John Beck 30
Philip Rivers 30
Troy Aikman 29
Brady Quinn 29
Drew Brees 28
Peyton Manning 28
Ryan Leaf 27
Ben Roethlisberger 25
Brett Favre 22

Notable Low Scores:
Tarvaris Jackson 19
Derek Anderson 19
Vince Young 16*
Dan Marino 15
Terry Bradshaw 15
Donovan McNabb 14
David Garrard 14
Kordell Stewart 13
Marcus Vick 11
Jeff George 10
Chris Leak 8

Want to test yourself? Go here.

The Oscar Goes To... Some Writer

Anyone who's read this site for any length of time has read me whine about his screenwriters get the shit-end of the stick, so I'll try to keep it a minimum here. But remember this: Judging a screenplay based on the finished film made from it is a dicey call -- there are a lot of hands which shape a film from screenplay to screen. And that's not to mention the others in development who shape the screenplay from the first purchased draft to the shooting script. As many screenwriters have said before, writing a script and allowing someone else to shoot it is like giving birth to child then having someone else raise it.

It can go both ways -- development execs, actors and directors can add to, or detract from, the original script. When you see an Oscar-nominated screenplay, the film probably turned out pretty well, so before you try and judge the screenplay, you have consider what to examine -- the dialogue (except for obvious improv stuff), the characterizations, the plot points -- and what to ignore: the acting, the cinematography, the music, etc. Since there's no way to knwo who contributed exactly what, it's an almost impossible task. That being said, I didn't read any of the nominated scripts this year, so I'll just have to do what I just you shouldn't really do. That's just how I roll.

In this first of the two screenwriting awards, there's yet another uncertainty to factor in -- since they are adapted, a lot of the credit for dialogue, characters and plot points have to go the original author. Although this year that's a little less of a problem, because two of the screenwriters (Shanley and Morgan) adapted their own plays for the screen -- and one, Shanley, directed as well.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Eric Roth for 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
John Patrick Shanley for 'Doubt'
Peter Morgan for 'Frost/Nixon'
Simon Beaufoy for 'Slumdog Millionaire'
David Hare for 'The Reader'

THE NOMS: Once again, I have to recuse myself on 'The Reader' because I refuse to see it haven't seen it yet, but the others seem reasonable.

WHO SHOULD WIN: Beaufoy and Hare both adapted novels, so it's hard to know just what they brought to the table. I like Roth's work in 'Button', and it's much different than the short story, but its similarity to his own previous work ('Forrest Gump'), and the fact the story is a bit overshadowed by David Fincher's visual wizardry leave it a bit short in my mind. Morgan and Shanley adapted their own plays, so they're the auteurs, and both shooting scripts were tight, with rich character, and crisp dialogue. In a close race, I'll take Morgan.

WHO WILL WIN: Shanley and Morgan each have a decent shot, but I say Beaufoy takes the prize on what will likely be a landslide night for 'Slumdog'.

The Silver Oscars

The great Nate Silver, of Five-Thirty-Eight.com and Baseball Prospectus fame, has come out with his Oscar predictions. If you saw his uncannily accurate predictions of the Presidential election -- he was one of the first to champion Obama's candidacy, correctly predicted a blowout early on, and got 49 of 50 states correctly -- or have paid attention to the rave reviews for PECOTA, the baseball statistical projection system he invented, you'll know he's a man worth listen to when it comes to predictions. I don't know if I've ever had a man-crush on a nerd before, but what I feel for Nate Silver is wrong, I don't want to be right.

So far, Nate agrees with me on all four my predictions -- 'Slumdog' (at an astonishing 99%), Danny Boyle (99.7%!!!), Heath Ledger (only 85.8%), and Mickey Rourke (77.1%). Soon, I'll be finishing off my own predictions, and we'll see how close the rest of our picks are. I guarantee there's already one pick we disagree on. (Can you guess it?) Also, Nate didn't do the screenplay awards, which I of course will do. Maybe next.

The Dodged Bullet Heard 'Round the World

The harmonic convergence of the A-Roid press conference and the latest installment of Ken Burns' "Baseball" documentary on the MLB Network -- about the 1950's -- both airing today gave me an idea. Everybody knows all about "The Shot Heard 'Round the World", Bobby Thompson's pennant-winning HR against Ralph Branca and the Dodgers in 1951 to complete the amazing comeback known as "The Miracle at Coogan's Bluff", but Alex Rodriguez going to the Yankees instead of the Red Sox in 2004 might be the greatest dodged bullet of all time. While we all know about the "Curse of the Bambino", I'm beginning to think that turn of events might come to be symbolize the dawning of "The Curse of A-Rod".

If you recall, back in that off-season of 2003-4, Boston had a deal in place to acquire A-Rod from the Rangers (along with Magglio Ordonez as part of a three-way deal) in exchange for Manny Ramirez and Nomar Garciaparra. But to make the deal work for the Sox, A-Rod needed to give back a significant chunk of cash off his record-breaking contract. He signed off on it, but the Union didn't, and the deal was dead. It was then that the Yanks jumped in and made a deal to acquire him for Alfonso Soriano and others.

At that point, the Yankees had won 27 world titles since acquiring Babe Ruth from the Red Sox in 1918, and Boston had won zero. Before that, the Sox had won five titles and the Yankees had zero. The change of fortune which Ruth brought to those two franchises by moving from one to the other can't be any more immediate and glaring than what A-Rod has brought. In the five years since he arrived in New York (instead of Boston), the Yankees have won zero titles (after winning four of the previous eight). During the same time, the Red Sox have won two titles, including breaking an 86-year championship drought in Year One of the A-Rod Era by becoming the first team to come back from a 3-0 deficit in the playoffs -- against A-Rod's Yanks.

What's more, in both their championship years, Boston leaned heavily on the bat -- and carefree personality -- of Manny Ramirez, the man almost traded for A-Rod. Meanwhile, A-Rod has consistently failed to come through in the postseason in New York, a city which loves to judge its players on how they play in October. He's never been embraced as a "true Yankee", and now with the admission he's done steroids (though conveniently, not as a Yankee, according to him), it's fair to think he never will. Of course, A-Rod is hardly the first Yankee to run into steroid controversy. In fact, since his arrival, they've also been deluged by it -- Giambi and Pettitte admitting their use, Clemens uncnvincingly denying his.

So the fates of the Yankees and the Sox have seemed to once again trade karmic places in cosmos around the acquisition of a future Hall of Famer. Who knows, if this keeps up much longer, we may begin to see books, and signs and movies about "The Curse of A-Rod" popping up as we did with "The Curse of the Bambino". At least one guy had an inkling it could happen way back in '04. Someday, we might even see the kind of strange ceremonies and makeshift exorcisms around New York which became popular in Boston before they broke their drought. Burnings of A-Rod's jersey and likeness may become commonplace. Hell, it's New York we're talking about -- it might happen next week.

Mo' Oscars, Mo' Problems

Onward with my crowd-pleasing series looking at the Oscar nominations. You can find previous installments here.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Philip Seymour Hoffman in 'Doubt'
Robert Downey Jr. in 'Tropic Thunder'
Josh Brolin in 'Milk'
Heath Ledger in 'The Dark Knight'
Michael Shannon in 'Revolutionary Road'

THE NOMS: Maybe the most accurate and intriguing group of nominations this year. One of the best ever, really. Downey gets the rare comedy nod for his amazing and groundbreaking performance. Shannon gets a nom despite only a few minutes of screen time with a great performance. Brolin and Hoffman are among the best character actors working today. And Ledger, well, what can I say that hasn't been already regurgitated 1,000 times by everybody in the entertainment media?

WHO SHOULD WIN: Brolin and Hoffman were great, but probably only nom-worthy. Shannon was special in his role, but is out-classed by deeper performances which had much more screen time, and carried their films to a much greater degree. I'd love to pick Downey, who in any other year would deserve it, but honestly, a nom for a broad comedy is as impressive as a win. I'll never know how much Ledger's death had to do with my enjoyment of his performance, but there's no way it wouldn't have ben recognized as great no matter the circumstances. As soon as I heard he'd be the Joker, I knew it had a chance to be special, and it blew my expectations way out of the water. He has to be the pick.

WHO WILL WIN: Are you kidding? The only mystery is who will pick up Ledger's statuette. Vegas has Christopher Nolan at even money.

The Bay Area Baseball Club

For years now (since at least 2000, and probably a couple years before that), I've been compiling an annual All-Bay Area with my old friend John (Code name: Cyborg). He's an A's fan, who still lives in the Bay Area and therefore sees quite a few Giants games. I am, of course, a Giants fan, who sees a lot of every team -- that's what happens when you're a) perpetually unemployed, b) still obsessed with a child's game, and c) subscribe to the baseball package. Every spring as baseball season is getting warmed up, we trade a few e-mails to compare notes, and come up with the best possible team derived from only Giants and A's players.

As you can imagine, the last few years have been a little lean in terms of talent -- the recession hit Bay Area baseball a bit sooner than the rest of the country. After years of looking at the team we'd put together and thinking "They could easily win the world series", the last couple teams would need to catch some breaks just to compete for a playoff spot. This year's club is a slight improvement -- the Giants pitching and half-decent slap hitters matching up fairly well with the A's middle-of-the-order power hitting -- but it's still a far cry from years past when the lineup was filled almost from top to bottom with prodigious power hitters (albeit, steroid-powered).

So I thought we'd take a quick look at both this year's squad, and also a classic team from recent years. First, 2009's modest pre-season All-Bay Area Team. I took the first shot at composing it with this e-mail:

Here's my preliminary shot at this year's team:

RF Lewis/Winn
SS Renteria
IB Giambi
LF Holliday
DH Cust
CF Rowand
3B Chavez
C Sandoval
2B Ellis

Rotation:
Lincecum
Duchererererer
Cain
Johnson
Sanchez

Bench:
Winn/Lewis
Buck
Crosby
Suzuki

I don't know the A's relievers too well, but it looks like based on last year Devine, Ziegler, and Springer might join Wilson, Affeldt, Romo, and maybe Howry, Hinshaw, Casilla or Wuertz.

Cyborg respoded with a few minor changes:

Is Sandoval good enough defensively to be an everyday catcher? If so, this year's BA team is loaded at that position. How is he at third base? Chavez is a huge health question mark. Is Molina getting to old?

Maybe do this...

C Sandoval/Suzuki....
3B Chavez/Sandoval

One of the big debates on the A's blog is who will be better in 2009, Travis Buck or Ryan Sweeney. Last year it was clearly Sweeney. Since Ryan is better defensively, I'd take him over Buck as a utility player.

As for the bullpen, Zeigler and Devine were amazing (although in a non playoff pressure atmosphere. I wouldn't trust anyone else from Oakland but maybe include Gallagher or Eveland as a long/mop up reliever.

I agree with your starters

I don't think Molina is too old, I just wanted to get Sandoval's bat (which I'm very high on) in the lineup. Placing Suzuki on the roster was more a nod to his being younger, and likely better defensively, which would be important off the bench -- especially if Sandoval was the full-time starter. But I like Cyborg's idea to platoon Pablo at 3B with Chavez, and also behind the plate. However, If that other catcher is going to get significant AB's, I'm choosing Molina over Suzuki based on his better offensive numbers last year (Molina: .292/.322/.445, 16 HR's, 95 RBI's, Suzuki: .279/.346/.370, 7 HR, 42 RBI's). Also, that ay, once Chavez suffers his inevitable serious injury, Molina can play every day.

So, with that in mind, along with Cyborg's other notes, here is the final roster:

RF Lewis/Winn
SS Renteria
IB Giambi
LF Holliday
DH Cust
CF Rowand
3B Chavez/Sandoval
C Sandoval/Molina
2B Ellis

Rotation:
Lincecum
Duchererererer
Cain
Johnson
Sanchez

Bench:
Winn/Lewis
Sweeney
Crosby
Molina/Chavez

Bullpen:
Wilson
Affeldt
Romo
Springer
Ziegler
Devine
Eveland

Not too shabby, but certainly no match for the juggernaut squad in 2000, when both teams made the playoffs:

CF Terrence Long
SS Miguel Tejada
LF Barry Bonds
2B Jeff Kent
1B Jason Giambi
RF Ellis Burks
DH Ben Grieve*
3B Eric Chavez
C Ramon Hernandez

*Or you could put JT Snow at 1B at first, DH Giambi, and put Grieve on the bench.

Tim Hudson
Mark Mulder
Barry Zito
Gil Heredia
Livan Hernandez
Shawn Estes

JT Snow/Grieve
Bill Mueller
Marvin Benard
Rich Aurilia
Randy Velarde

Robb Nen
Jason Isringhausen
Felix Rodriguez
Jeff Tam
Alan Embree
Doug Henry

Now that is an impressive roster. Steroidtastic, even. One could argue the 2002 team was even better -- the Giants came within five outs of a title (D'oh!), and the A's again made the playoffs after winning 20 in a row during the season. Though Giambi and Burks were gone, they still had Bonds, Kent, Chavez, and Tejada (in his MVP year), and devastating pitching. Zito had his Cy Young year, Schmidt was just as good, and Hudson and Reuter also had great years. In the 'pen, the Giants had Nen, Worrell, and F-Rod, while the A's got a dominant year from Billy Koch, and good work from righty specialist Chad Bradford.

It's enough to make a Bay Area baseball fan long for the good old days.

Skipping Around

After Best Picture and Best Actor, the next logical category is Best Actress, but I've only seen two of the movies/performances and hold out hope of seeing one or two of them before the Oscars (I've even gone so far as to rent the DVD of one -- 'Frozen River'). So, in the meantime, let's go to a category I can write about intelligently (at least in theory):

BEST DIRECTOR

David Fincher for 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Danny Boyle for 'Slumdog Millionaire'
Ron Howard for 'Frost/Nixon'
Gus Van Sant for 'Milk'
Stephen Daldry for 'The Reader'

THE NOMS: Looks good except for 'The Reader' (again), which as I said before, I have not seen, yet manage to dislike anyway. I would've liked to see Martin McDonagh for 'In Bruges', Darren Aronofsky for 'The Wrestler', or Charlie Kaufman for 'Synecdoche, New York'.

WHO SHOULD WIN: Van Sant did a great job, in the most straight-forward cinematic approach he's ever taken, but it comes down to Boyle and Fincher. Boyle was inspired and unique, while Fincher displayed his usual technical mastery. It's a close call, but I give the nod to Fincher, who gives us his warmer, most introspective work to date, while wowing with the visuals.

WHO WILL WIN: Fincher may have told a warmer, more inviting story than he has before, but Boyle made something no one can compare to anything else. While Fincher stands an outside chance, Boyle will be riding a wave of hype along with his film, which could sweep the non-acting awards as a tribute to the film's achievement (voters knowing they can award their favorite performances from the other multi-nominees like 'Button', 'Milk', Frost/Nixon', etc.)

Random Rant & Video: Baseball vs. Football

Over at Niners Nation, Fooch wrote a post about pitchers and catchers reporting, and opening up the discussion about baseball vs. football. One guy (at least, I think he was a guy. Aw, who am I kidding? He was on a football blog, of course, he's a guy) who was new to baseball made a case in favor of football based on the oldest argument in the book -- "baseball is boring".

I responded, in long-winded fashion (as is my custom), to debate him. I thought I'd re-print it here. Because my comment was filled with misspellings and typos (as is also my custom), I've cleaned it up a bit:

Baseball's boring when you don't truly understand it.

I don’t know of anyone who’s new to baseball who doesn’t think it’s boring. Why? Because it’s a game which needs to be understood to be loved. And I don’t just mean the rules — strikes/balls, force plays, etc. — but also the ever-present strategy. What pitch will he throw? Does the hitter have the green light? Should they bunt? Is the pitcher getting tired? These are all key components experienced baseball fans are constantly thinking about during a game, often while there is no “action” on the field. It’s a game of the mind, and if you’re spending the time between each pitch bored because nothing’s happening, then it’s probably because you’re ignoring all the inherent strategy of the situation. It’s built for thinkers.

Most people love football from the moment they start watching because you don’t need to know anything to enjoy it. You can put a little kid in front of the TV and they’ll immediately take to it, because you don’t even have to know the rules to enjoy the athletic ballet of hitting, throwing, tackling, etc. You can enjoy a game even if you have no idea what a zone blitz or a pulling guard is. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot more a thoughtful, knowledgeable fan can pick up during a game, but it’s built for the masses to enjoy easily.

Think of it like food — every kid loves a McDonald’s hamburger, or mac and cheese, or something easy and simple like that, but it takes a more mature pallet to enjoy the nuance of something like a fine wine, or pate, or something complicated like that. That doesn’t mean those complicated things are for everybody — many adults still prefer burgers and fries to gazpacho and quail, just as many people who know both sports prefer football — but you can’t say for sure until you’re at least able to recognize the many subtleties and nuances of baseball.

For me, it might be too close to call. Football was my first love, and like many, I thought baseball was boring as a kid. But now that I feel I have a good understanding of both sports, I think they’re about equal. Of course, I love them for completely different reasons — baseball for its intricacy (the best idea for a game I know of, and also the most perfect rules (notice how they’ve barely changed in 100 years), its strategy, the razor-thin difference between a hanging slider and an unhittable one, and the fact that each side has a completely equal chance at scoring (no clock or field position to hinder their efforts). I love football for its brutality, acrobatics, and pace, its many moving parts, the race against the clock, the gladiator-like specatcle, its immense preparation necessary to succeed (game-planning, film-watching, scout teams, etc.), and the fact the athletes are so good they literally have to change major rules every year just to keep the game fair.

So that’s my long-winded way of saying: it’s a draw.

Since that wasn't very funny, please allow me to make that up to by closing with a much more entertaining take on the Baseball vs. Football debate -- the all-time classic bit by the late, great George Carlin:

More Oscar Thoughts

The next in our award-winning series on the Oscar nominees...

BEST ACTOR

Richard Jenkins in 'The Visitor'
Frank Langella in 'Frost/Nixon'
Sean Penn in 'Milk'
Brad Pitt in 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
Mickey Rourke in 'The Wrestler'

THE NOMS: Right on the money here. You could quibble with Pitt's selection, and some have, but although I think his was probably the weakest performance of the lot, he did have a very difficult role and nailed it. He had to play someone from childhood to old age, only in reverse -- acting young while looking old, and vice versa. The rest are all not only nomination-worthy, but Oscar-worthy, and the choice of Jenkins was a surprising bullseye by a group that often misses the target altogether on small indies and the performances within.

WHO SHOULD WIN: I adore Jenkins' performance, and was truly touched by its grace, subtlety, and nuance, and I very much admire Langella's non-impersonation of Nixon, but this is a two-man race. It's a tough call between Penn and Rourke -- the latter playing a role so close to himself it morphs beautifully into something between art and life, the former playing as far against type as ever and still delivering a typically great performance. The degree of difficulty of Penn's performance is higher, but the result is so moving in Rourke's, I have to go with that. Besides, Penn already has an Oscar.

WHO WILL WIN: Rourke. Come on, it's too good a story for Hollywood to pass up.

MY Oscars

Okay, it's been quite awhile since the Oscar nominations, but I was busy at the time, and haven't gotten a chance to discuss them. Until now. With the show only a week away, I thought I'd take a look at each of the categories -- what I think of the nominations, who should win, and who will win. I'm going to try to squeeze in as many of these as possible before the big day, but you never know, so rather than hold off on the major awards, I'm starting with the biggie:

BEST PICTURE

'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
'Frost/Nixon'
'Milk'
'The Reader'
'Slumdog Millionaire'

THE NOMS: These look pretty good, with one glaring exception. I haven't seen 'The Reader' -- the only nominated film I missed -- mainly because the buzz around it was so bad, but I still feel pretty safe in saying it's a bad choice. Why? Well, for one, some people are calling it the worst Holocaust film ever. Another: Harvey Weinstein. He's known for pimping his films more tenaciously during Oscar season than any other mogul, and calling in all the right favors. Without his push, I doubt this film is nominated. Lastly, both 'The Wrestler' and 'The Dark Knight' were great, and really deserved a nomination, as did 'In Bruges'.

WHO SHOULD WIN: In my opinion, of the noms, 'Button' and 'Milk' were the best films in the traditional Oscar sense, but 'Slumdog' was one of the more unique films I've seen in a while. I understand the buzz it's generating, but my choice is 'Button'.

WHO WILL WIN: 'Slumdog'. It might be manipulative, and a bit un-Oscary, but it's too much of a feel-good hit to lose in a year without a slam dunk Oscar-type lock.

A-Roid Link Dump

'The Onion' is always a good place to swing by anytime a big story hits it the world of sports, especially since their website has devoted an entire section to The Onion Sports Network. They've predictably been having a lot of fun with the A-Rod fallout, highlighted by a cover story reporting his death.

There's this little gem discussing all the new, unflattering nicknames he will now get (yet completely ignores the obvious, and my choice, "A-Roid"), and they also delve into what Curt Schilling thinks of the situation. But the my personal favorite is the breaking news from the Elias Sports Bureau, revealing the best clean player of the steroid era.

'The Onion' isn't the only place A-Rod is taking snipes from. Joe Torre, his former manager, didn't just rail on him in his new book, now he's calling A-Rod's numbers "tainted". Meanwhile, the publishers of a new tell-all book about him, written by Selena Roberts, the author of the SI article which outed him as steroid user, have announced they're moving up the release date. And just to put the ironic cherry atop the bad timing cake, the University of Miami just happen to choose this week to re-name their baseball field "Alex Rodriguez Park".

It Begins...

It may not officially be spring yet, but the Giants pitchers and catchers reported to spring training today, which is close enough for me. That means we will soon be deluged with reports out of Scottsdale about the dazzling skills and bright futures of some Giants prospects -- whether they be accurate, or cobbled together out of sunbeams, optimism, and the laughter of children -- as well as the always-popular "He's in the best shape of his life" and "Last year's bad season was actually due to an unreported injury" stories. Not to be confused with the slightly less exciting "If you squint just right it looks like the Giants might have actually chance at contending" and of course, the de rigeur "5 Questions about the Giants" stories.

Soon (11 days), there will be actual games, which means cracks of the bat, pops of the glove, and Jon Miller, Duane Kuiper and Mike Krukow on the radio. It also means some prospect/reclamation project will become the dazzling phenom who hits .460 and fools you into thinking they might contribute this year (see: Ellison, Jason). It means sore hammies, and tendonitis, and various tweaks and turns which will worry me that they'll become the next catastrophic year-ending injury a la Kevin Frandsen (Note: If a season-ending injury to Kevin Frandsen can be reasonably termed "catastrophic", your team may in fact suck").

This baseball season, the first since I started this blogamajig, I plan on writing something about the Giants each and every day -- however short and superficial it may be -- as a type of Giants Diary (or Gaints Dairy, if I'm feeling dyslexic). That likely won't start until the regular season (let's be honest, it likely won't happen at all if my prior inconsistency and lack of sticktoitiveness is any clue), but since I'm going to at least attempt to do it, I thought I should try to ramp up to that during spring training. That means posting something nearly every day during the spring to get into writing shape. I may interrupt those posts with something about entertainment -- I've been wanting to write something on the Oscars, and also the fact that 'Damages' is making a serious run at being the best show on TV this season -- but I'm going to do my best at coming up with at least one Giants-related (or at least baseball-related) piece per day. For reference, Vegas has the odds of me keeping this up all season at 1,500,000 to 1.

Baseball

Last week, I wrote about the NFL Films' show, 'America's Game', and said, "If you've never seen it, and you like football, you're missing out." Well, that goes double for Ken Burns' documentary, 'Baseball'. If you're a baseball fan, it's mandatory viewing. It's definitely the best documentary on baseball -- the history of record for the sport, really -- it might be the best documentary ever, period. Granted, it's 18 freakin' hours long (and about to get longer).

It airs on the MLB Network, one inning a week (the first covering the invention of the game and its history prior to 1900, each successive one covering a decade (2nd inning = 1900-1910, 3rd inning = 1910-1920, etc.). Tonight, I'm watching the 5th inning, about the 1940's, which might be the best one them all. Ted Williams and .406 (and the triple crown), Joe DiMaggio and the hit streak, World War II, Jackie Robinson and the color barrier, etc. The episode begins with a scene from a World War II movie where one group of soldiers overseas tests another with questions about what a "Texas Leaguer" is, and how the Brooklyn Dodgers did the previous season.

The next bit, just before the opening credits, which are always accompanied by a different rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner, really resonated with me. Baseball historian Robert Creamer describes a moment when in the army, he was listening to a World Series game, and a sargeant blew cigar smoke in his direction, and the smell took him back to Polo Grounds: "It smelled of cigar smoke, it smelled of urine, it smelled of stale popcorn. But it was my place." It's not often you hear an educated man of letters speak nostalgically about the smell of urine, but I could really relate to it. It's sort of like I feel about Candlestick Park -- it was windy, cold, ill-suited fro baseball, and the seats were too far from the field. But it was mine, and I miss it sometimes.

I think this might be representative of a larger truth about life: If you hate something hard enough, and long enough, you're bound to miss it once it's gone.

Yes, Pecan!

That's right, Ben and Jerry have done it again, perfectly capturing our country's zeitgeist in a pithy ice cream title. Yes, they have joined the crowd in saluting this new and historic era we've entered by naming an ice cream flavor after President Obama. On his show, Keith Olbermann quoted from an e-mail suggesting some names for a George Bush-inspired flavor. here are my favorites:

"Abu Grape"
"Credit Crunch"
"Heckuvajob Brownie"
"W-M-Delicious"
"George Bush Doesn't Care About Dark Chocolate"

In all seriousness, it's crazy how many people are going out of their way to salute Obama in some way, naming food and drinks and babies and whatever they can think of after him, appearing on the covers of magazines like 'Entertainment Weekly', which never features politics, etc. When I was in Boulder, my buddy was drinking a batch of coffee he bought called "Obama Blend" which supposedly had beans in it which came from his father's home country.

I can't remember this much interest in any president. I don't know if that matters much -- or if the country's morale can have a real effect on tangible things like the economy -- but it sure is different. The only historical comparison I can think of is John F. Kennedy, but that's a total guess since not only had I not been born during his presidency, but my father hadn't even met my mother when he was elected (though my father was an economic adviser to JFK while he taught at MIT).

WTF?!

Remember how Roberto Alomar went from being really good to really bad in like 15 seconds? Well, we might've found a pretty good explanation. It's hard to maintain a .300 average when you have FULL BLOWN AIDS!!!

Are you kidding me? I can't believe this hasn't come out yet. How does a future Hall of Fame-type player get full-blown AIDS, have to leave the sport abruptly, have his skin turn purple, foams at the mouth, gets sores on his face, and reveals he was once raped by two Mexican men after a minor-league game, the media completely misses it until now? Are they so wrapped up in the steroids no baseball fan I know cares about, that they didn't have five minutes to spare in the last three years to run down a teeny, tiny little story about all-time great who's career was derailed by AIDS, was warned by team doctors of this, and insisted on not getting tested?

Nice going, Mainstream media! Pedro Gomez should've been all over this one. Of course, that's easy for me to say -- an unemployed guy sitting on the floor in his boxers, paging through Alomar's stats on baseball-reference.com to find the exact moment when the AIDS set in (I'm going with 2002).

A-ROID!!!

It's official -- everyone in major league baseball has taken steroids at one time or another. Today, A-Rod admitted he did steroids from 2001 to 2003 (no way to know if thats the actual extent of his use or not). Whether that's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, we'll probably never know, but even if true, it's hard to say what effect this had on his career -- past, present, or future. It's a little easier, however, to discuss what impact this revelation will have on his P.R. profile.

I think the way this was handled thus far has been a master stroke by A-Rod. Or, more precisely, whatever P.R./crisis management firm he employed to advise him. He didn't let the S.I. story claiming he tested positive fester for days while he looked like a fool (kind of like his recent playoff performances for the Yankees). Instead, he acted fast, came (at least relatively) clean, and shouldered the blame. Except for one weak moment, where I felt he tried to cop out by saying the pressure and the climate at the time in baseball were factors in his decision to cheat, and that he had merely been "naive", I thought he performed strongly. Given a chance to blame the player's union for keeping the samples and letting the positive hit the news, he demurred, taking all the blame himself for creating the positive sample in the first place. In short, I think he hit this situation out of the park. So, for once, A-Rod came through in the clutch.

That being said, this might be the toughest situation involving drugs any athlete has ever had to deal with. We've seen future Hall of Famers like Bonds and Clemens have to deal with the accusations towards the end of their careers. We've seen very good players like Jason Giambi and Andy Pettitte admit to steroid use (though Giambi never actually said it). But we've never seen a future Hall of Famer admit to steroid use in the middle of his career. A-Rod will likely play 10 more years, and approach or break all kinds of records. How will fans deal with this? Like Bonds, he's not the most adored superstar out there -- even by his own home fans. Speaking of Yanks fans, how do you think they'll react to A-Rod coming to the plate at the new Yankee Stadium on opening day? I think it's safe to say there will be at least a few boos.

But how will fans as a whole react? I'd imagine somewhere between Bonds/Clemens, who are pariahs outside their long-time fans, local area and small circle of friends, and Pettitte/Giambi, who continue to play with nary a boo or steroid chant to be heard when they take the field. But which side will it lean towards? I'll say closer to the Pettitte/Giambi treatment, though it could be a little rocky at first. I think the first few times around the league, he'll hear quite a few boos and chants, and see some embarrassing signs -- and not just about Madonna. But within a few years, people will concentrate more on how good he still is (presumably without drugs, but you can't assume anything anymore -- he could be on any number of untestable drugs), and how he at least admitted it, which is what everyone claims Bonds and Clemens (and Pete Rose before them) should've done. You can't say dirty players should just come clean, then refuse to forgive someone who does just that (presumably).

As he said himself in the interview with ESPN's Peter Gammons, he's got a 14-year sample to show what he's done without steroids (presumably) -- the five he's already had, and the nine more he's got on his Yankee contract. But A-Rod has been called "A-Fraud" before these whispers of his steroid use even began. He's been hated for his lack of clutchness, his selfishness, his pretty boy persona, etc. How will this affect that? Will it slow the forgiveness? Stop it altogether? Or will this, along with his admission he's been selfish and immature up until this point, open people up to him? As crazy as it seems, there is an outside possibility this could be just the thing to personalize A-Rod to people. To be perfectly honest, I actually like A-Rod more today than I did yesterday. Not by much, but just a little bit. That's all he needs -- for people to soften towards him ever so slightly. Even if it takes years. In this case, I think A-Rod has time on his side.

Words of Wisdom

"Fight on my men, Sir Andrew said
A little I am hurt, but not yet slain
I'll just lay down and bleed awhile
And then I'll rise and fight again"

That quote from an unnamed old Scottish warrior, was used as an inspirational tool by former Buffalo Bills head coach Marv Levy. That was one of many interesting, touching, and surprising nuggets to be found in the episode of 'America's Game' about the 1990 Bills. For those who don't know, 'America's Game' is a great show by NFL Films which airs on the NFL Network. The first edition featured all the Super Bowl winners, and the second edition, titled "Missing Rings", chronicles great teams which fell short of a title. If you've never seen it, and you like football, you're missing out. The Bills episode is especially good, mostly due to Levy, who's one of the great character's in the history of football.

Levy was a master of inspirational quotes (Winston Churchill was his favorite source), but this one stuck out to me. The poem is sort of apropos to how I feel after the whole Boulder debacle -- I feel a bit deflated, and disappointed, but I also know I have to re-group. The trip out there was fun, and nostalgic, and an adventure, and while it had quite a cost -- in terms of money, time, maybe even a friendship -- I can't afford to dwell on the past. I have to move forward, and that means interviewing for work and looking at new apartments in LA traffic. May God have mercy on my soul.

Update: Back to LA

Remember all that stuff I wrote about moving to Boulder? Well, that might've been a tad premature. Really, it was more of a test drive than anything else, and as it turns out, I'm not buying. Although I'll always love Boulder, and visit as often as I can, all things considered, LA has more for me right now -- in terms of career opportunities, friends, and of course, my wife and kids, er, pets. So now I'm headed back this week, and looking for work. If you hear of something, you just let me know.

It's amazing what a little taste of something new can do to remind you of the upside of what was old. It's like the backup QB for an NFL team without a stud starting QB. Every time the starter stumbles, you imagine the backup might be better. But when the backup plays, you usually see pretty quickly why he's the backup. After living apart from my wife, my home, and my routine for a week and a half, I'm ready to get a big ol' heaping of the old.