Democracy

Elections in a couple of years again no doubt...

There are four top Likud members (Livnat, Neve, Katz and Shalom) who are actually blaming Netanyahu for Likud's bad result in the elections. When PM Sharon brought forward his plan for disengagement to be voted upon in the keenest, three of those four together with Netanyahu, demanded that Sharon holds a national referendum about disengagement, threatened to resign, and ended up, together with Sharon, completely betraying their principles and voters by voting for disengagement.

Democracy at it's best in a way. Likud and Shinui disappointed their voters, and suffered the consequences - they are answerable to the voters.

They just don't let go

I saw a bit of a re-run episode of the tonight show, with President Jimmy Carter as one of the guests. They talked about him being a better former president than president. If being a former president is the bar for how good a president he was, thank heavens he isn't president any more. Besides the undermining of the current administration that he has done, he was talking about a new policy of invading countries that we don't like their leaders. All I can say is: Mr. President, don't you think that it is somewhat irresponsible to belittle the situation by referring to the threat that countries and terrorists hold over the existence of the world, as "we don't like their leaders?".

Majority Rules

There is something that's been bothering me. I've heard in several places people talk about these elections as being a sort of referendum for disengagement. This talk refers to the idea that if Kadima wins, then the people have decided they want disengagement. Sorry to inform you all that this is absolutely wrong. A referendum would require a majority of 50% + 1 usually. The Knesset contains 120 MP's (when they come), so 61 is a majority. Even in the most optimistic of polls, do Kadima come no where near 61 seats. If you want to look at the elections as a referendum, then accept the fact that unless Kadima gets 61 seats or more, then the people have voted against disengagement.

I voted this morning for a conventional party, forgetting my plans to perhaps put some monopoly money in the envelope, or perhaps a statement call for Rudolf Giuliani for leader.

I have to add at this point, that I've noticed, that oddly enough, the spell checker seems to want to change the word "Kadima" into "Saddam".

Well, the main happening is indeed, the fact that the country, so tired of going to the polls 15 times in the last 5 years had decided to make a real good time out of the holiday. Shops are offering special deals while people are out and about enjoying the nice whether. At least one good thing has come out of the elections.

Surprise, surprise

While bird flu has been officially discovered in Israel, there seems to have been a less life threatening, but just as contagious disease going around - nonvoteisitis.

Most polls predict a sure win for Prime Minister Sharon's party Kadima, a second place for The Labor Party and third for Likud. All this is very well, but there are many, many, many people who have not yet decided who they are going to vote for (or if they are going to vote at all), me included.

I expect a couple of (perhaps big) surprises on election day. These "floating votes" represent a large percentage of the voting population and could cause many things to happen. A small party could suddenly get very big, a big party could suddenly get bigger, the percentage of the floaters could be proportionally equally deviated and nothing could change, or the floaters could not vote, and a low turn out would be a winning party.

There are a lot of people who are sick of the whole situation, especially the part where we have elections every two years without changing anything. I wouldn't be at all surprised, to be surprised come the 28th of March.

Links:
The Knesset official website

The greatest ODI ever

Everything is possible. I always say it. The outcome of a cricket match is not over until it's official, and today it was proved.

With no team ever having passed the 400 mark in a one day cricket match, Australia stunned my beloved South Africa with a gigantic 434, this world record was held by Australia for a few hours only.

South Africa came out to bat, and lost a wicket straight away - Thank heavens. I love all the players on the team, but Herschelle Gibbs, one of the best opening batsmen in the world should open the batting for South Africa, I haven't for one second agreed with the decision to push him down the order. Gibbs made a point. Virtually opening the batting in the end, he made 175, bettering Australian captain Ricky Ponting's innings earlier of 164.

South Africa won by one wicket with one ball to spare, scoring the new world record for the highest total in a one day international: 438.

South African selectors and captain - swallow your pride, Herschelle Gibbs belongs in one place in any form of the game - Opening the innings.

The joy overwhelms me, although unfortunately I didn't get to see the match as the series isn't broadcast here, I followed the scorecard live on the internet. Even more unfortunately I won't get to celebrate, how I wish I was in Johannesburg right now.

Links:
South Africa VS Australia, 12th of March 2006 - Scorecard

It just is cricket

I can imagine the bouncing shoulders, being very amused when he met batsman Salman Butt.

How delighted I was to see that US President George W. Bush experimented in something other than the usual experiments politicians get themselves into. While this just shows the lack of knowledge in the world regarding cricket (I should know), it was nice to see the Americans using the longtime favorite cricket expressions for – cricket: Bowled over, stumped, it's just not cricket etc.

Cricket probably suits President Bush very well – it's a sport for gentlemen combined with quite some banter, plus he loves baseball.

I have one question left unanswered – Inzaman, who the hell bowls President Bush a bouncer?!

Links:

7 Pictures on BBC News
8 pictures on The Sidney Morning Herald

Pro life?

I read a short piece in the time magazine's Notebook section written by Jeremy Caplan about a bill passed to ban the abortion procedure in South Dakota.

While I'm not going to take a stand on abortion, and I suspect that this latest controversy is just a regular ping pong game in American politics and law, I would like to talk about protecting human life, referring to the comment Governor Mike Rounds made.

"I believe we should protect human life" the governor said. "If this bill accomplishes that, I am inclined to sign it."

In these comments, the governor revealed his vanity in thinking and to some extent acting upon this thought, that he is the judge, the jury and the executioner. While I don't know the governor's politics very well, I know that being an American and moreover a Republican I can assume that he most likely supports the death penalty - and if not than he is unique and this argument still stands to many, many people who are so vain. So, I ask the governor - will you protect the human life of a person on death row? Would you sign a bill that is against the death penalty? The separation of church and state elected you as a lawmaker, as a political leader - not a god.

Apparently, there is a large amount of people, who will protect the human life of one, but not of the other. This is nothing less than judging at it's worst.

The known expression regarding abortion, one of the ongoing heated American discussion is "pro life or pro choice". Pro life being against abortion as an option, and pro choice being for the option of abortion. These people who are against the option of abortion but are for the death penalty should look again at the term "pro life". If you are pro life than you are PRO LIFE, and you do not have the right to choose when to give it, and when to take it away. This is hypocrisy at it's highest, vanity and megalomania.

Links:
Andrew Sullivan's good points on the matter

Bang bang, my baby shot me down

A crash has taken place. While I watched the Academy Awards with my friend, we were a bit annoyed at the predictability of the awards - all the awards were going according to the polls, in fact the only surprises were the awards Memories of a Geisha won - and then - boom. The last thing we expected after Ang Lee won for best director is Crash winning best picture. The American society prevailed, Crash was awarded best picture. I don't say crash is a bad movie - I liked it and enjoyed it, but I desperately feel that there were four better movies, three of them in a different class by far.

It's true that one of the things that make the Academy Awards special is the surprise factor - but it's still disappointing. I wish I would have been surprised to see George Clooney win best director (the most deserving award in my opinions), Amy Adams winning best supporting actress etc.

The show itself was very good. John Stewart was great as expected, everyone loved Meryl Streep and Lilly Tomlin presenting Robert Altman with a lifetime achievement award and everyone loved his speech and confession - but everything was topped by one person, the person of the night - George Clooney. Clooney's speech was the best acceptance speech I've ever heard, starting with his boldness of declaring that he now won't win best director, his suttle combination of the positives and negatives of Hollywood glamour, and his true, true, true admiration of the group he was nominated with, which I am sure he was referring both to his fellow supporting actors and his fellow nominated movies.

What more can I say... I now want to see Brokeback Mountain again even more, read "In Cold Blood", and do a thesis on Good Night, and Good Luck. I'll probably end up buying the DVDs of Brokeback Mountain, Capote and Good Night, and Good Luck. I can make a shelf for them with the title "the masterpieces of 2005". Whatever happens - Cinema, as it always is, for it can be in no other form - is at it's peak.

Questions from a daily quiz from IMDB:

Who was Tom Hanks cursing at as he walked onstage to present Best Director?
Who was Joaquin Phoenix talking to when the camera was on him during the Best Actor presentation?
Why was Keira Knightley seated next to Jack Nicholson?
Why did the Academy stage a musical zombie-burning car number during "In the Deep"?
What, exactly, makes it hard out there for a pimp?
Why is the music branch of the Academy the only one dedicated to awarding "edgy" winners?
Why does Ryan Phillippe always look like a sad little boy whose tricycle was just stolen?
Just exactly how small is Dolly Parton's waist?
What caused Jennifer Garner to slip and almost fall on her way out to present an Oscar?
Why was Philip Seymour Hoffman using the Best Actor envelope as a visor?
Who was Catherine Keener calling/texting within the first five minutes of the show?
What was that thing on Charlize Theron's shoulder?
Who was the tech person who misspelled Will Ferrell's name as "Farrell" on the big stage marquee?
Why can't Lily Tomlin and Meryl Streep host next year's Oscars?
Where did the March of the Penguins guys keep their stuffed penguins during the show?
How much did George Clooney pay for all those Clooney-centric jokes?

What's the buzz

The heat is on. The Academy Awards are presented this coming week with the usual front runners and dark horses. I feel that there is definitely some competition going on, especially in the acting categories. When I bet and predict I usually back a bet that I want to win and that I think should win, even if the chances are slim – I find that's the best part of predictions and bets, taking a bit of a risk because you feel your horse's victory is warranted, not always because it's your best chance of winning and being correct, for if your horse wins your triumph will be all the more glorious.

At the BAFTA Awards, Lord Puttnam received the highly regarded Academy Fellowship Award and gave the most outstanding and tear jerking speech. The right honorable gentleman talked about the type of movies that although he hoped would be made, doubted their popularity. Nevertheless, these movies that are entertainment combined with "having something to say" are being made today much to his, and my, own happiness. I found that this year, while there weren’t many movies that I was looking forward to their release a few months ago, there were some outstanding, brilliant, political and entertaining movies which will without a doubt be an important part of movie history.

A usual, there are nominees that one doesn't necessarily agree with – for me, I don't see why Reese Witherspoon should be considered a lead actress when Jake Gyllenhaal is considered a supporting actor, but this is the way these nominees are presented by their produces and that is the way the are accepted by the academy. Like every year, there are always a few nominees in each category that could win, and then there are the ones that you don't really know how they got there. I predict, and hope a good night for Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night, and Good Luck. and hopefully – Amy Adams. Here is my take on the nominees and their chances after watching most of the movies.

Best motion picture of the year

In my original guesses, I didn't put Munich in for a nomination after seeing it for which I am very ashamed. I was, like most people, surprised to see Walk the Line not get a nomination, but after seeing it I can accept that. I feel that there were a couple of misses, like A History of Violence, which showed in a wonderful way the physical and mental struggle of dealing with a loved one who has another life – a life of crime, a history of violence. I'm still looking forward to watching The Squid and the Whale, but overall I feel that this category contains the best films of the year.

Crash: I definitely feel that Crash is overrated. It has a well known cast and deals with current important issues, but I feel it's trapped between the Academy big movies, and the more quiet movies that burst out suddenly. It's a street movie and is a stranger in the top five of the Oscar's, but it is immensely popular, and is the most likely to win if Brokeback Mountain doesn't.

Munich: While it is controversial in Israel and in the Jewish community, I thought it was excellent, and instead of getting into it's controversy I'll focus on the movie. Munich is very powerful, uncomfortable at times with it's boldness, and most of all makes you really think. What I got out of it politically is plain – there are no simple solutions. Unlikely to win, Munich represents top class movie making that is also popular – Steven Spielberg's unique talent and skill.

Capote: This wonderful film depicts Truman Capote writing the book "In Cold Blood" through the relationship he established with the murderers who were the subject of the book. The movie focuses on the advantage both the writer and the subject take of each other, the relationship they form and the amazing art that can be produced from it – like the book changed literature, the movie might to some extent change cinema, or at least the way we look at it and at literature, this was a masterpiece. Capote is not likely to win even though it is one of the best movies of the year, it's too smart for it's time, and too much like a book.

Good Night, and Good Luck.: Unusual and in fact one of it's kind, this is an amazing film. In fantastic detailed cinematography, the movie represents the recent history which a lot of movie makers would run away from. In one word, I would have to say Bravo! A possible winner, it has to compete with two very popular movies and will hopefully be recognized for something else.

Brokeback Mountain: The film's strength as a love story is tear jerking, and it's political power is doubtless. Although it was probably meant to be more emotional than political, it is a movie that comes at a very good time for it. This is the hot topic right now, and through love and hurt, it represents the wave that is overtaking the bigoted surfer. Brokeback Mountain is my selection for best motion picture of the year.

Actor in a leading role

Most people were surprised not to see Russell Crow nominated for Cinderella Man, and I had my eye on Eric Bana for Munich and of course Ralph Fiennes for The Constant Gardener, but the nominations were pretty fair.

Terrence Howard: I started watching Hustle and Flow, but didn't finish for different reasons. It is a surprising nomination, but I will guess that he won't win.

David Strathrin: While he was very good and it's nice to see a good actor who's been around for a while recognized, I feel that he was helped a lot by an outstanding film. David Strathrin is not likely to win, but he definitely deserved a nomination.

Heath Ledger: He was very good in a film that looks to be the best picture of the year. You really believed him and felt his pain, and did play a role that could potentially win an Oscar, but he has a tough battle.

Joaquin Phoenix: Being a popular actor is helpful, and being very popular in a specific role is a big advantage. His devotion to his character is huge, and add to that his singing. Joaquin Phoenix could win.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman: He seems to be the front runner and rightfully so. The justice he gave to the story – the capturing of the screen while translating the script perfectly from words into action, was breathtaking, it's cliché but he became Capote. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is my selection for best performance by an actor in a leading role.

Actress in a leading role

The contest is definitely on here with fantastic performances from all five actresses, what ever is said about them when the award is presented, will be 100% accurate and more.

Charlize Theron: She was good as usual, but the role didn't turn out to be as big as it could have. To win for a movie like North Country, she would have to do something extra-ordinary – like she did in Monster, and like Felicity Hoffman did this year in Transamerica.

Keira Knightley: When she got her nomination, although I hadn't yet seen Pride and Prejudice I was shocked at myself for not even considering her. I thought she was very good, and in my opinion is the real dark horse that could end up in front.

Reese Witherspoon: Like her co-star Joaquin Phoenix, she is very popular, and after all this is Hollywood, and Hollywood likes actors who play other show biz characters. Hollywood also likes big loud characters, which Witherspoon did well, not to mention her being an American sweetheart and playing one and of course singing. Although she could be considered a supporting actress she is most people's bet and could very well win.

Dame Judi Dench: In my opinion, she played a role that could have been an Oscar winning one. The magnificent lady was her usual brilliant self, although her character didn't keep her wonderful style throughout the film and became more a regular character then an Oscar winning one – more a supporting role winning criteria. For me, if Felicity Hoffman wasn't nominated this year, Dame Judi Dench would be my winner, I would not have any problems with her winning.

Felicity Hoffman: Felicity, who is currently very hot, was absolutely outstanding in nailing an extremely difficult role to play. When I first saw a clip from the movie even before the Golden Globes, I picked her to win. She was outstanding (which is the criteria for winning after all) in captivating a role which develops so much through the movie, one of several similarities to Charlize Theron in Monster two years ago. Felicity Hoffman is my choice for best performance by an actress in a leading role.

Actor in a supporting role

There was probably room for the likes of Bob Hoskins here and others, but the supporting categories are usually competitive and thus interesting.

Matt Dillon: Someone had to be nominated for Crash I suppose. In a cast full of supporting actors supporting each other, Matt Dillon was one of the best, but he was not nearly enough to compete with George Clooney and Paul Giamatti.

William Hurt: Knowing that Hurt was nominated when I watched A History of Violence, with only about half an hour left of the film when the main character goes on a trip to see Hurt (which was the first time Hurt appeared in the movie), I sort of got a feeling of expecting Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, though Hurt did not live up to that expectation.

Jake Gyllenhaal: Although I felt that Jake Gyllenhaal was somewhat fake in his role in Brokeback Mountain, he really was a lead (in a romance) in an outstanding movie with excellent acting, and could very well win.

George Clooney: Unfortunately I haven't seen Syriana yet, but from the buzz, George Clooney seems like he is the front runner and might win.

Paul Giamatti: Giamatti was excellent in Cinderella Man, and the Academy sometimes awards actors when there is a opportunity to, just because they are very good and haven't won yet. Paul Giamatti is my choice for best performance by an actor in a supporting role

Actress in a supporting role

Frances McDormand: She was her usual fabulous self in a movie that isn't very big. Frances won a best actress award for Fargo, and isn't likely to win here.

Rachel Weisz: Honestly, I don't see what the big fuss is about here. She was good as she usually is, but I would hardly say she was outstanding, and definitely not better then all the other actresses nominated.

Cathrine Keener: I thought she was very good, and we all just love it when an someone plays a fellow celebrity. She was in complete command of her character and didn't over play her role, just what it should have been. I think she could win, although her chances aren't huge.

Michelle Williams: Playing a sympathetic betrayed wife in Brokeback Mountain she had quite a job to do, because one of the aspects that Brokeback Mountain looks at albeit not too closely is the marriages that are created due to the social course of things that are caught between reality and delusion, and she did it very well. She has a very good chance of winning and I think she just might.

Amy Adams: Whether it was because she was so fabulous or because of the script, Amy Adams definitely did not seem to be a supporting actress in Junebug. She lit up the screen and became the main character – I cared only for her and wanted her in every scene. Nominating her will get much more people to watch Junebug, and as a result many people will fall in love with her.

This category was by far the hardest for me to pick a winner. Michelle Williams gave a fine, real dramatic performance while Amy Adams gave a fun, lively, breathtaking one. My choice for best performance by an actress in a supporting role is a tie between Michelle Williams and Amy Adams (with Cathrine Keener a close third). I have to admit that by a fine margin, Amy Adams gets an extra half a vote from me, but oh how I wish for a tie.

Best Achievement in Directing

Paul Haggis: Crash was nicely directed, and there is no doubt of Paul Haggis's skills in writing, but as I've said already, I feel that crash isn't an Oscar movie, and the competition is too big for it to win director.

Bennett Miller: While Capote was a fantastic movie, the directing to me was regular. There is definitely a case for a nomination, but not a win.

Steven Spielberg: I loved Munich, and Spielberg did an amazing job. Munich is full of ingeniousness and suspense, I would definitely rate him in the top two or three directors of the year, but he is unlikely to win.

Ang Lee: He created a masterpiece in Brokeback Mountain, and he very well might win, I can just see it now – "Ang Lee, best achievement in directing", but while the directing was outstanding, I personally felt that there is at least one better directed movie nominated here.

George Clooney: The direction work of the year – no doubt in my mind. All that I wrote about Good Night, and Good Luck. in the best picture category is true about George Clooney, what a project, what a masterpiece, what direction. My choice for best achievement in directing is undoubtedly George Clooney.

Best screenplay - original

Syriana: Although I haven't seen it yet, Syriana is supposed to be too complicated, and there are really only two front runners in the category.

The Squid and the Whale: Unfortunately I haven't seen it yet, although I am looking forward to.

Match Point: Although it's supposed to be Woody Allen's best in a while, there are really as I said only two front runners in this category.

Crash: The safe bet, but I still think it's overrated and too far fetched to make a point.

Good Night, and Good Luck.: As I have said already, a masterpiece and a revelation, different (like Lost in Translation) and outstanding. My choice for best screenplay written directly for the screen is Good Night, and Good Luck.

Best screenplay - Adapted

One must be careful not to fall into the trap of looking at the adaptation, but rather at the screenplay without any connection to what it's based on. The two front runners, Brokeback Mountain and Capote are easy to fool you, while Brokeback Mountain is based on a short story which makes it impressive, and Capote is based on a book about an author writing a book.

The Constant Gardener: Confusing a bit, but still enjoyable, I definitely think that the movie could have been much better than it was, and here also there are only two real front runners.

Munich: As I've said, I love the movie, but the screenplay was somewhat prolonged, although it must be said that it was a careful screenplay from a successful writer who is known for political opinions. However, Munich was a "directing film" and is unlikely to win.

A history of Violence: A very good film, written very well but is unlikely to win.

Capote: An overwhelmingly intelligent screenplay, Capote is ahead of it's time, and maybe it will always be. I'm not picking it to win, but I am doing so half heartedly.

Brokeback Mountain: I felt that the screenplay was wonderful, not missing anything and not over stating anything either, it is after all the movie of the year, and so it is my choice for best screenplay based on material previously produced or published.

The following are guesses and assumptions more than anything:

Best achievement in cinematography
Good Night, and Good Luck.
Best Achievement in Editing
Munich
Best Achievement in Art Direction
King Kong
Best Achievement in Costume Design
Mrs. Henderson Presents
Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
Brokeback Mountain
Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song
Transamerica
Best Achievement in Makeup
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Best Achievement in Sound
Walk the Line
Best Achievement in Sound Editing
War of the Worlds
Best Achievement in Visual Effects
King Kong
Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
Wallace and grommit in the Curse of the Were-rabbit
Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
Tsotsi
Best Documentary, Features
La Marceh de l'empereur
Best Documentary, Short Subjects
God Sleeps in Rwanda
Best Short Film, Animated
The Moon and the Son
Best Short Film, Live Action
Our Time is Up

Although I wasn't looking forward to too many movies this year a few months ago, it turned out that there are four outstanding movies that I find it hard to separate them. When I saw Munich together with a very good friend we never imagined that we would rank it at the bottom of four films this year, yet in the end we do so albeit half heartedly. Munich, Capote, Good Night, and Good Luck. and Brokeback Mountain are superior. Of course there were also outstanding individual performances that will be remembered. Every year, every award show one agrees with some of the nominations, with some of the outcomes, and disagrees with others. On Sunday night, Monday already in Israel, I will watch the Academy Awards with its preview and after show with great anticipation. There is much to see, and much to celebrate.

Good night, and good luck.

Links:
The Internet Movie Database
The 78the Annual Academy Awards
Hebrew - My good friend's cinema blog