A Big Hot Mess.

Oh no.

I had heard about this on tv this morning and I didn't want to believe it was true. But it now seems confirmed that after next season, Project Runway will move from Bravo to (duh duh duh DUUUHHH) LIFETIME. That's right...television for women.

Of the deal, which she and Tim Gunn have already signed on to, Heidi Klum said:

"Fashion is about change, so we're looking forward to saying hello to Lifetime, our new fashionable home for our fashionable series," said Klum in a statement. "We're excited to bring Project Runway to the #1 network for women."

Thanks Heidi. Because obviously fashion is for women...like Michael Kors. Who, for the record, is still in negotiation as is Nina Garcia. This is nerve-wracking.

My dilemma is this: programs on Lifetime suck. I like PR on Bravo...and how did Bravo ever give them up? AND, Lifetime is partially owned by the Disney Corp...if we thought product placement was bad before just hang on to your themed-challenges...I think we've got things in store we never could have imagined.

I can't handle this drama. And there's not even sequins involved.

Catching Up Vol 1: Dexter

Wow. It's been awhile since I've put anything up here...but not for a lack of things to say. Motivation was the problem, but I've been watching a lot of TV, gearing up for the return of my favorites (The Office and 30 Rock start up again tomorrow night!) and catching up on a couple shows I've never seen and feel guilt and embarrassment every time I have to admit it.

So, here's a rundown of what I've been watching and why anyone in or out of their right mind should do the same.

Dexter: Good god in heaven, this is one of the best shows I've seen in a long time. Featuring Michael C. Hall of 6 Feet Under fame, this Showtime offering jumped to CBS to re-run season 1. This is what initially caught my attention...we're not likely to see Weeds hit the "big 3" in primetime anytime soon, so when something bubbles up from cable, I'm curious.
Thank god I decided to watch. This is likely the most compelling, innovative, interesting, (insert superlative adjective here) television since I watched Damages last fall on F/X. The story is basically of a closeted serial killer (Dexter) who has integrated himself into "normal" life seamlessly. Yes, he still kills. But he kills "the right people." ("What?" you might say...exactly...like I said, compelling). In his non-serial killing hours, he works as a bloodspatter analyst for the police department where his sister (but remember Dexter's adopted...that's important), Deb, has just gotten a promotion from vice (where she was posing as a hooker) to homicide. Deb does not know he's a killer. He's also in a serious relationship with Rita who was violently, brutally sexually abused by her husband who is just on the verge of being released from prison. Rita has two kids that love Dexter as he does a lot of child care and basic "watching out" for Rita's whole clan. Why does Dexter like Rita? Because she doesn't want sex due to her personal trauma. Intrigued yet? Oh, you should be. There's so much more that I can't even capture in words.

This is what I mean about this show...so many layers of "what's going on here?" I've watched the whole 1st season (available on Netflix...also on CBS Sunday nights) and I cried during the last episode; the story was good, but I cried because it was ending. My favorite part of this show is the evolution. From the point of meeting Dexter in the 1st episode to the way the last episode ends, there's been so much change in this scenario that the show is really about Dexter adapting (sometimes not gracefully...he does kill people) to these changing relationships but driven at the core by his psychopathy. I know...I sound crazy for watching. But I love this show. More disturbing, I have sympathy and like (possibly love) for Dexter himself. He's just your average good-guy with a dicey secret. Okay, okay...he kills people.
You've got till the fall to catch up on this one.

The Essence of Sociological Inquiry and Pop Culture

Per Meghan's blog and the Sociological Images blog these images are hi-LAIR-ious and capture so well the agony and ecstasy that is sociology when it comes to popular culture. We're just trying to make sense of things...with charts.

For my non-vegetarian friends:

Alanis' Hand Locations.

Kelis can be difficult to breakdown...consider it a gift.

Nothing like a timeline to help with "I Will Survive."
And we've got a little Simon and Garfunkel for ya. It's tough to keep up in this song, really.
There's something about this I find so annoying, only because I didn't think of them. They're brilliant. Find the whole set here and enjoy.

Top Model is Back!!!...again...no, again

Hey...look what's goin' on tonight!

New judge (Paulina Porizkova), new girls, new city (NYC).

Next future staple of MTV Marathon Saturdays. I'm totally watching.

Mark Your Calendars!

Returns On Wednesday, March 12 on BRAVO!!!
From CHICAGO!!!

Check out the new Cheftestants here.
And also here.

And some delicious hints about what we can expect from this season.

Survivor Micronesia: Fans vs. Faves

Well frick.

Gladdened by the end of the WGA strike but still woefully aware of its reality by the number of new shows on recently (um...that would be ZERO), CBS wooed me by putting on a new Survivor season. I couldn't help myself...just pleading for something that wasn't a re-run I gave it a shot...and now, of course, I'm hooked.

This is the 16th (yes...16th...which means this show actually started when college was a recent memory for me) season and I was certain it had absolutely nothing to offer me. I watched the first couple seasons (I witnessed the wonder that was Richard Hatch and watched Sue Hawk give the now famous "The Snake and the Rat" speech) but I grew weary of what was just new and inventive ways of being evil and back-biting. Then of course, Mark Burnett and his production crew threw in a couple of really wretched seasons (remember the racially divided season? What about the all-stars?...BIGOTED and BORING, respectively) AND magically launched the career of arch-conservative and The View ruiner Elizabeth Hasselbeck, cumulatively making me think I'd never go back.

But television writers' strikes do weird things to one's soul: alas I found myself interested by this format which pits one tribe of "favorites" (those who have competed in past seasons and have been voted fan favorites) against the "fans" (new people). I'm not sure this is necessary, but by tonight's show I'd say it's working just fine.

But despite the formulaic 1-hour show, obviously so well rehearsed (by 15 other seasons) and the utter gutsiness of Jeff Probst who has absolutely no career except this show and is now a gazillionaire because of it, I still got hooked and here's how: the Newbies (Fans) go to Tribal Council tonight and it's pretty clear that there's this major alliance that's going to vote off Chet. (Who's Chet?...DETAILS ARE NOT IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW...PAY ATTENTION.) When Jeff goes to tally the votes, sure enough, Chet gets one vote. Get's two votes. Ope...yep...Chet's gone. Then Tracy gets a vote. Then Mary. Wait...Mary....Mary's part of the huge alliance supposedly voting Chet off. Then another vote for Mary. Three votes Mary. Oh my god...what the...? Four and Five. Mary's gone and these two stupid, gulumphish men who think they're running this major alliance are sitting there like apes trying to figure out what in the name of all that is holy happened.

Chet lives to see another tribal council and I'm thinking that the Survivor I remember and somewhat respect is back. And I'll surely be sitting here next Thursday, waiting to see what the gulumphish men have to say about the transpiring of the rail thin but conventionally beautiful Mary who wore the skimpiest bikini being voted off. And slowly coming to realize that they may actually be next.

Oh Survivor...I've kinda missed you.

Project Runway--Onto Bryant Park

Holy mother of god...what a great final "trial runway" show before Bryant Park.

Leading up to this, I was really surprised (and actually kind of delighted) that Sweet P managed to hang in there this far. For the past three weeks, she's been crying, whining, bitching and moaning about running out of time, having construction disasters, and a lack of imagination. Eventually, that's gotta catch up with ya and it finally did for Sweet P tonight. While I enjoyed watching her this far, I was glad to see her go. If she was still in, someone who deserved it more would've been out and that's just not right.

As for the remainders, here's what I think:

Rami: Dear, sweet Rami. If you drape anything...ever again...I will lose all respect for you. Listen man, how many times do you have to hear--from Nina Garcia, nonetheless (the very judge who singlehandedly brought Santino Rice to his knees)--that you keep doing the same thing over and over again. No more excuses. Push your limits for the love of god...it's Bryant Park now.

Jillian: I think Jillian is brilliantly talented...I just cannot handle listening to her say anything. Which may be the mark of a good designer...good designers should be seen and not heard, perhaps. Having said that, every week she's come through with new and innovative designs that always seem attuned to the level of drama, understatedness, or wacky-crazy that the challenge requires. She seems well-rounded: able to do haute couture as well as commercial. Go Jillian go. I'd love to see her take it all.

Christian: Little dude makes me angry with that spiked out asymmetrical haircut and Tinkerbell voice. On the other hand, he seems like the only idiot-savant in the group. So we're not sure whether or not he's made it out of his teens...so what? His designs are probably the most cutting-edge and with that ever-elusive "point of view" that everyone always talks about. He's probably the front runner right now although something about that feels wrong.

Chris: You lucky, large man you. Austin Scarlett (the most famous costumer ever) never made it as far as Chris and if ever an underdog existed, you are it buddy. But I like Chris a lot; he's already been revived once, having been brought back after Jack had to bow out much earlier in the season...wouldn't it be awesome to see him show at Bryant Park? I say yes. The commentary on this last show was right on...he's got the drama to bring something really interesting. I want Chris to at least show.

And, before I make my predictions for the finale, let me just hand it to PR on two fronts. First, the judges this season have been nothing but In-Cred-i-ble. I'm sorry, to stand there and have Roberto Cavalli tell you that you could show in Paris--that's got to be incredible. Michael Kors is always bitchy-fabulous but they really put together a top-notch panel of guest judges this season. I also want to salute them on this creative, thrill-filled ending compromise. When Heidi say to Chris "you're in," I literally lost my breath...I couldn't believe that Rami was out and I momentarily felt conflicted because it didn't seem that he deserved THAT. So the fact that they're still basically competing I think is the best of both worlds...they now have months to show what they're made of. Bravo...well...Bravo; you've done good.

So, who is it in the Finals?

I say, the final 3 will be : Jillian, Christian, and Rami (sorry Chris, you're my emotional favorite but Rami's been scared shitless now and he's gonna bring it).

Winner: Jillian.
I'm gonna call a repeat of Season 3. Going in to Bryant Park, Santino was the star and "genius" while Chloe and Daniel were consistent all season. Chloe's consistency and solidity of vision and temperment paid off. The same will happen here. Christian will implode with the weight of possibilities and all the time. Jillian's gonna pull out all the stops and now she has the time she needs to do what she knows best. Rami will beat Chris to show because his taste and point of view (again...and I hate that phrase) are more cohesive and refined. However, he believes so steadfastly that he's right that, ultimately, he'll present a collection full of drapery and will end up in 3rd.

There it is. Can't wait to see who prevails.

You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet

Just to avoid being partisan, I thought I'd include this in addition to will.i.am's "Yes I can" video produced to support Barack Obama.

Yes We Can

Sesame Street Intros

First Sesame Street Theme Song


1970's Theme


1993 Theme


Season 35 Theme (2005)


Season 38 (2007)

Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Silver Fox

While I have eluded to the fact that I really love this show, I've never actually written about it seriously. I started watching this VH1 creation expecting the usual from VH1--exploitation of B-list stars for the reason of laughing at them and their stupidity (see: The Surreal Life (1-2098781), Rock of Love with Bret Michaels, Flavor of Love, Celebrity Fit Club, etc... and my own personal favorite...My Fair Brady). While it's not nice, these shows are dirtily fulfilling because we all know these people are stupid...VH1 is finally giving our opinion some empirical evidence and, thus, validation.

BUT...Celebrity Rehab is not the typical show on this channel and I have to believe it's because of Dr. Drew. We all know and love him from Loveline and we're fascinated by him for his frank discussion of often embarrassing topics with seemingly no personal judgment injected. He's, in fact, the exact opposite of Dr. Phil (who's not really doctor making him just Phil). For that, we love you Drew.

There is so much potential for this show to be a trainwreck exploitation and yet I'm eerily drawn to the television for the full hour, compelled to watch not the horror of withdrawl or the general sadness of seriously drug-addicted people*, but to watch the personal transformation that occurs as they wean themselves off chemicals and how much work rehab actually is. There's nothing "horrific" in this show in terms of tastelessness or ugliness towards the people; in fact, it's so life-affirming, I'm curious to see whether VH1 will actually keep it.

Most surprising to me is that I'm fascinated most by the staff: Dr. Drew's competence as a doctor, an addictionologist (I've never heard of that before so see, this is a learning experience), and a human is really something to behold. Of course, these episodes have been edited to within an inch of their lives, but after watching this show I can understand why he's been so very effective in treating people. I wanna give him a call and go to lunch. He's personable and professional and relatable--how does he do it? But the "resident techs" are the most interesting. All of the people working in his facility (on the show at least) are recovering addicts themselves and they crack me up, both in their ability to handle seriously addicted individuals who are out of control while also being counselors and mentors with great senses of humor and insight into their own lives. Shelley, the most familiar one on the show, looks like 92-pounds of kick-ass woman with a 400 pound heart of gold (and I love her hair...what?).

I'm disappointed to know that the entirety of the show is only 8 episodes--for the journey that some of these people are on, there's just no way we'll see any kind of resolution. For many, the rehab process seems profound and long. But now that I've started this journey with them, I feel like I want to see it through--I'm weirdly personally invested. I think it's a fascinating process to watch as celebrity is stripped away. We see so many stars "being born" in the media everyday that to see a celebrity returned to their original humanity is humbling but refreshingly real. In my estimation, there's nothing exploitative here...just the ability to watch people reclaim their lives and to undo the price of fame.

It leaves me wondering if I can somehow construe my television watching as an addiction requiring Dr. Drew's attention. If it's possible, I'd really like to get into his rehab. Please.

*The rehabbers are:
1) Jeff Conaway: You might know him as "Kinicky" in the movie Grease. He was also on the tv series Taxi. Addicted to alcohol, coke, and opiates. Going through the most comprehensive rehab of anyone on the show.
2) Daniel Baldwin: Yes. Of The Baldwins. Alec and Billy's younger brother, Stephen's older brother. Likely, the most talented of all of them. Never heard of him? Because he's been busy injecting, snorting, and smoking anything not nailed down. Comes into this rehab already sober but obviously still recovering.
3) Chyna (Joanie Laurer): She was a wrestler on WWF. She bills herself as actress...I'm not sure why. Doesn't know why she's in rehab. OK.
4) Brigitte Nielsen: Was married to Sly Stallone during which time she made several crappy movies with him. Always played this amazonian Communist character...even though she's from Denmark. OK. Now married to an Italian normal person (relatively) and lives in Italy. An alcoholic.
5) Jaimee Foxworth: She was on Family Matters...y'know...the show with Urkel. A seriously addicted pot smoker. Dr. Drew says her rehab will likely be the most difficult.
6) Mary Carey: Porn star and gubernatorial candidate in the California recall election...also ran: Gary Coleman. An alcoholic and pill popper.
7) Seth "Shifty" Binzer: Lead singer of Crazytown. Candidate for my favorite rehabber on the show. Rehabbing from crack, heroin, and pills...and alcohol. According to Dr. Drew, his withdrawl would likely be the most physically painful.
8) Ricco Rodriguez: A UFC heavyweight champ; the first to be suspended for cocaine use (and to be suspended from UFC...I imagine that takes a lot). Addicted to cocaine and alcohol.
9) Jessica Sierra: Not an American Idol. That's seriously why she's a celebrity...well except for all of the drug-related arrests. An alcoholic and cocaine addict.

A Runway Rewind

I'll be very honest--I'm amazed and appalled at my own lack of commentary on one of the few shows actually giving us new episodes every week. So let me begin with a rundown of what I've thought of this season so far:

Insight #1: I'm amazed that these are listed as "the best designers" so far. Personally, I don't see it. When I think back to some of the designers of the past seasons--Kara Saun, Jay, Santino, Chloe, Daniel...even Andre ("Where's Aaaahn-dre?")--they weren't fooling around. They were awesome. And while there are clearly some break out superstars in this season, on a whole, there seems to be a wide array of "hot mess" present as well. They may be more accomplished in terms of their own businesses (Rami and others actually have previously put out their own lines of clothes and some have actually dressed celebrities for minor awards shows), I can't say from my amateur standpoint that they're bringing a higher design acumen to the show.

Insight #2: Project Bore-way. After nearly every show, I find myself longing for the days of Santino Rice, Jay McCarroll...hell, even Wendy Pepper. They had personality, they had spunk. We might have hated them, we might have loved them--at least we felt something about them. As much as I love Jillian's designs, listening to her is like scraping my nails across an emery board. Victorya (now booted) was at best puzzling and annoying. And Christian, who appears to be the poster-child for personality this season, screams "I would really rather be Paris Hilton" to me. I don't want to be on Christian's side. I don't want to be on anyone's side. Problem.

Insight #3: Guest judges are getting better. Oh, I remember the days of PR when a Betsey Johnson or Cynthia Rowley (who interestingly is actually an automaton, apparently) was a "special" day. The guest judge for the Season 1 FINALE was Parker Posey, for chrissakes (if you don't watch Christopher Guest movies, you have no idea who this is. Even if you do watch, you have no idea why she's able to judge fashion--I'm still in the dark myself). So, to see the veritable list of designers trot through that fourth chair has been really impressive. You know exactly what Michael Kors and Nina Garcia are going to give ya. But that 4th chair is like the knowledgeable and respected wildcard...and offsets Heidi's growing weirdness.

And now, My Official PR4 Rant: What is with the blatant, shameless product placement this season? While we've always had to contend with "The Tresemme hair salon and the l'Oreal Make Up Room," and then last season we tacked on the "BlueFly Accessories wall" (which, incidentally, used to be something else which I cannot recall at the moment), I've not remembered this incessant bowing to the gods of capitalism. Past challenges were for the US Postal Service or Banana Republic (okay, that last one's iffy). But the Hershey challenge could not have been more tacky, really. While the designs themselves didn't scream Hershey, watching 45 minutes of designers unwrapping Reese' cups and Twizzlers made me long for some chocolaty goodness and I felt manipulated. Then last night's challenge was nothing but idol worship of jeans juggernaut Levi's. At least Levi's is clothing and, therefore, has a logical connection to fashion. But c'mon. All the judges do is lean on the designers to be less mainstream, more imaginative, and then in the same breath say--But how really does this say Levi's? I don't like it. Let's not box in the designers by trying to give us more commercials for brands during a telecast that is already laden with too much commercial time. Because, if you're Rami, how really do you drape denim and twizzlers wrappers?

All I have to say about last night: What the eff. Ricky winning? I'm sorry...did somebody slip Michael Kors a crazy pill while we were blinded by Levi's branding? On the other had, seeya Victorya. Good riddance.

Definitely more to come in the future. Next week: picks for top 3.

Academy Awards Spectacle

Ooh...Oscar nominations are in. Usually, I could really care less as I think these nominations are normally more about marketability and less about talent. But since the writers are still striking (and I'm not complaining...they deserve their residuals), and there's nothing else to really comment on...I'll give you my rundown and picks. Remember, all my picks are 1) based strictly on nothing but my opinion...I haven't seen nearly all of these movies 2) assume that these people would win if I ruled the world. These choices are in Blue while I have speculated on who I think will actually win in Red. Just something to keep in mind.

BEST PICTURE
"Atonement" (Focus Features)
"Juno" (Fox Searchlight)
"Michael Clayton" (Warner Bros.)
"No Country for Old Men" (Miramax and Paramount Vantage)
"There Will Be Blood" (Paramount Vantage and Miramax)

All I really ask here is that "Atonement" not win. I have a problem with movies adapted from books this excellent (okay, except Harry Potter). I'd love Juno to win...the whole story of how this movie got made is mystical and somewhat anti-establishment. TWBB will win, however, because of its 1) timely political undertones and 2) Daniel Day Lewis who is always playing some butt-ugly character who is given the assumption of deep social resonance. And in the commercials he has a vein clearly popping out of his forehead. Julia Roberts had that same vein when she won for Erin Brockovich. Let's face it...the Academy loves vein-popping performances.

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
George Clooney in "Michael Clayton" (Warner Bros.)
Daniel Day-Lewis in "There Will Be Blood" (Paramount Vantage and Miramax)
Johnny Depp in "Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street" (DreamWorks and Warner Bros., Distributed by DreamWorks/Paramount)
Tommy Lee Jones in "In the Valley of Elah" (Warner Independent)
Viggo Mortensen in "Eastern Promises" (Focus Features)

This is a toughie b/c all choices are hot (yes...even TLJ in that kind of "craggy" way) so that does me no good. I'd love to see Viggo bring this one home. From what I could tell, he nailed the Russian accent of his character that's somekind of hitman in the Russian Mob. He also sports a body full of sweet tattoos, delivers what I believe is the first full-frontal nudity scene by a male in a mass-released movie (and in that scene, he's actually fighting...hmmm...I'm not sure how I feel about that), and has recently strung together some excellent performances that have gotten exactly zero notice. Even though he's not young, he's standing on the brink of "stardom" akin to that of Harrison Ford, Tom Hanks, Denzel. This could tip the scales in his favor. Despite all of this, DDL will win b/c of the vein-popping. Mark my words. (P.S.--I wouldn't mind if Johnny got this nod either...who else could really play the Demon Barber of Fleet Street on the big screen?)

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Casey Affleck in "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" (Warner Bros.)
Javier Bardem in "No Country for Old Men" (Miramax and Paramount Vantage)
Hal Holbrook in "Into the Wild" (Paramount Vantage and River Road Entertainment)
Philip Seymour Hoffman in "Charlie Wilson’s War" (Universal)
Tom Wilkinson in "Michael Clayton" (Warner Bros.)

This category: much easier. Casey Affleck--too young. Hal Hobrook--too old...seriously, I thought this dude kicked it ten years ago. Philip Seymour Hoffman--too weird and this movie is too commerical and was a colossal flop at the box office...and I was actually surprised he wasn't nominated instead for his role in The Savages which would have made my estimation much different. I'd love to see TW win: his body of work in supporting roles is huge and he's ALWAYS good. Can I tell you what he's been in? No. And that's the point of this category. He's the greatest supporting actor ever known. Unfortunately, Javier Bardem has more superficially going for him. He's a Spaniard (and we loooove those...look at Antonio Banderas: talented? We don't know. Spanish: yes. Award winner: yes) and he had this wacky, Dorothy Hamill haircut in this movie. In the same vein as Daniel Day-Lewis previously (pun shamelessly intended), the Academy loves these "method" performances. The haircut will win.

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Cate Blanchett in "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" (Universal)
Julie Christie in "Away from Her" (Lionsgate)
Marion Cotillard in "La Vie en Rose" (Picturehouse)
Laura Linney in "The Savages" (Fox Searchlight)
Ellen Page in "Juno" (Fox Searchlight)

This is a seriously difficult category on the "I wish" side of things. Laura Linney should win one of these one day...and she will, but not this year. Too much other compelling competition. Ellen Page...I have to assume this is really an emotional pick and illustrates, in my estimation, the value in releasing a movie almost immediately before noms are in. People got all caught up in Juno without thinking more objectively about the performance. (See more in the screenplay category for this conversation). Marion Cotillard should win this. Albeit a newcomer, from what I read she absolutely nailed her recreation of Edith Piaf on screen. And I just want to listen to her accept the award (if she is going to be a scab and actually cross the WGA picket lines). Unfortunately, Julie Christie is an emotional favorite here. She's an old lady playing someone struggling with Alzheimer's--or some mental disorder. As Michael Caine's pageant-trainer so famously says in Miss Congeniality, "The winner was a deaf-mute...you can't beat a deaf-mute." Same scenario: Not even Edith Piaf can beat and old, decrepit character dying of a debilitating mental disease. And Julie Christie was Lara in Dr. Zhivago and Madame Rosmerta in Harry Potter. She's been waiting a long time. Oh, and if Cate Blanchett wins in this category, I'll kill myself...okay, maybe not kill...but I'll seriously consider maiming...something that's temporary.

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Cate Blanchett in "I’m Not There" (The Weinstein Company)
Ruby Dee in "American Gangster" (Universal)
Saoirse Ronan in "Atonement" (Focus Features)
Amy Ryan in "Gone Baby Gone" (Miramax)
Tilda Swinton in "Michael Clayton" (Warner Bros.)

Actually, both of these are hopes, but I'm confident Tilda will take it. If Saorise Ronan wins, I'll know people are smoking crack. This Irish Dakota Fanning needs to put in more time before she gets recognized with this award. I'd argue it's the character as it's written, and not as performed, that's striking--a product of the author and not the actor. Go back to 7th grade and maybe we'll see ya next year, hon. Amy Ryan plays a coked out, wrong-side-of-the-tracks but make-good mom has a lot of appeal...we want to root for the underdog, don't we? I have absolutely no knowledge of American Gangster at all, so Ruby Dee could really deserve this and I don't know. Sorry Ruby. I hope for Cate Blanchett here b/c she's nominated for playing Bob Dylan in one of the craziest movies I've ever heard of...how cool would it be for a woman to win an award for playing a iconic male weirdo-slash-genius? Very cool. Tilda, however, will win b/c she plays an "ugly" woman on screen; she's dressed in conservative corporate wear, sporting no make-up and stringy blond hair. She's today's unwaxed woman and the Academy loves those "gritty" performances. It takes courage to look "normal" on screen. She sewed it up with those conservative too-low but still high black pumps and a skirt that hits her mid-shin.

DIRECTOR
Paul Thomas Anderson - "There Will Be Blood"
Ethan Coen & Joel Coen - "No Country For Old Men"
Tony Gilroy - "Michael Clayton"
Jason Reitman - "Juno"
Julian Schnabel - "The Diving Bell And The Butterfly"

Having not seen the movies, this one's tough to comment on. However, Jason Reitman is Ivan Reitman's son. To me, anyone who can count Ghostbusters as part of their ancestral legacy should win ANY award. Who cares about his actual, individual merit? Nepotism is not always bad. The Coens will win because nobody has forgotten their awesomeness that includes and Fargo and O' Brother, Where Art Thou? And, they were the purveyors of "the haircut" (previously discussed) which only gives them another strong check in the "plus" category.

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Brad Bird - "Ratatouille"
Diablo Cody - "Juno"
Tony Gilroy - "Michael Clayton"
Tamara Jenkins - "The Savages"
Nancy Oliver - "Lars and the Real Girl"

I'm going to out on a limb here and say that this will be the category where what is ideal and real will meet. I think Diablo's absolutely running away with this here. Why? 1) Her name means "Devil"= deliciously cool 2) She used to be a stripper = street cred 3) She used to be poor = ultimate rags to riches story 4) She wrote a hamburger phone into the screenplay as a major character = original 5) She created Juno = feminist but without the angry edge 6) Did I say her name means "devil"? Of all of these, I think her work is most witty, cynical, and cutting edge, which seems to be the tone of all of these movies. The only exception is Michael Clayton which might steal it for that only reason. Then I'll be angry. Go, Diablo!

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Paul Thomas Anderson - "There Will Be Blood"
Ethan & Joel Coen - "No Country for Old Men"
Christopher Hampton - "Atonement"
Ronald Harwood - "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"
Sarah Polley - "Away from Her"

Same phenomenon here, but for different reasons: These two actually wrote this script and directed the movie. Who doesn't love multi-tasking? And furthermore, Christopher Hampton should be ashamed of himself--he surely destroyed what is the ultimate best book I've ever read. Leave it alone Christopher...move to a small, tropical island and seek refuge there. I'll stop hunting you down in a year or so.

ANIMATED FEATURE
"Persepolis" - (Sony Pictures Classics) Marjane Satrapi and Vincent Paronnaud
"Ratatouille" - (Pixar; Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Distribution) Brad Bird
"Surf’s Up" - (Sony Pictures Releasing) Ash Brannon and Chris Buck

I don't care about these animated movies at all this year. But given that Ratatouille 1) Is a French movie 2) about a culinary rat 3) that's the only one of the three I can remember 4) because Disney spent bajillions of dollars promoting it...it'll win. It does mark the selling out of Patton Oswalt who I will never forgive. Ever.

Hope you don't mind but I left out all the other categories because, let's face it, those are the ones we use for bathroom breaks and snack-making ventures anyway, proving that we could really all care less. You can thank me later.

Reality TV Takeover

(Harumph). I'm starting to feel the weight of this writers' strike as my lack of posting is really due solely to the fact that THERE'S NO NEW TELEVISION ON except for reality shows that are even starting to show the stress of lack of creativity. I'm stuck in an endless cycle of re-runs and marathons which were fun for a few weeks but are now making me feel lifeless and lethargic. So, in an attempt to save the pop culture tent from it's dearth of television, I'll give you a quick up date on the shows I have been watching...and re-watching...and re-watching....and re-watching...oh, sorry--I fell into the endless loop again.

Project Runway (BRAVO): I do look forward to this show b/c it's still able to maintain some sense of newness. Finally (half-way through the season), I feel like the people left make sense. I just want to know what kind of good luck potion Ricky's been taking...he should have been gone weeks ago. Everyone else at least creates compelling designs. And Michael Kors just makes me happy. He's just powerful enough to say whatever he wants and people listen, no matter how bitchy. And Tim Gunn, although for awhile seemingly a robotic version of himself, has managed to wittily regain my loyalty. That man does have a big ol' compassionate heart, albeit with a starched collar.

Make Me a Supermodel (BRAVO). No. No I won't. Because this is an awful show. If you want to know how bad, I'll tell you. It makes me regularly think, "Tyra Banks really is talented." Niki Taylor and Tyson Beckford--two of the weirdest, boring-est, plastic animatrons I've ever seen. And who are these dregs of model hopefuls who they found? Bad.

Jon and Kate Plus 8 (TLC). These two (Jon and Kate) wanted three kids and ended up with 8. It's fascinating to watch what family chaos really looks like. And the kids are cute. And Kate's crazy. Not a bad way to spend an hour on Monday evenings.

America's Next Top Model Marathons (MTV, VH1). These have been running non-stop since Christmas and I'm officially running out of desire to watch them. I know every episode now and I do have my favorites, so given the marathon format, I can tune in at certain times to watch my favorites. Serves as a great reminder of just how bad the afore-mentioned modeling show really is.

The Office Rerun's (TBS). I'm just new enough to the series that these reruns are like little gems on Tuesday nights. Like Forrest Gump's box a'chocolates, ya never knaw what yure gonna git.

Scrubs Reruns (Comedy Central). This has been my one savior as I never watched this show when it was actually running on primetime, so it's like a new series to me. JD and the crew--love 'em.

Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew (VH1). Despite it's title and the fact it's on VH1, I haven't found this show necessarily exploitative or disgusting. It's fascinating to watch Dr. Drew Pinsky (of Loveline fame) treat these "celebrity" clients (Joanie Laurer--Chyna Doll--is a stretch on *celebrity* I think) who are withdrawing from a variety of drug addictions. As Dr. Drew says, the point is not to make "trainwreck" tv but to display the reality of rehab and I think this show does that. Is it "iffy" that the star's get paid to do this--yes, but it's VH1--they pay for celebs to lose weight, to live in a house together for no reason, to get married. It's what they do. Of all of these shows, Dr. Drew brings a little credibility and reality (truly) to a painful experience.

And while I'm reaching a point of desperation there are some shows I absolutely refuse to watch no matter what. No condition makes it ever okay to watch:

Rock of Love II with Bret Michaels (VH1). We had to suffer through RoL I and now there's another. The women on this show are disgusting. Bret Michaels is disgusting-er. No. No. No.

American Idol. When will this show go away? A parade of sucky singers being sold as what Americans should want to hear.

Almost anything on E! Now that Ryan Seacrest has his manicured, curiously feminine hands all over that channel, it's like American Idol lite.

Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader? Not if you watch this show.

There's a whole list, but they all look basically the same. Let's just say this: I've never appreciated television writers more than I do at this very moment. Please writers, come back soon!

Miss America: Maybe Not all Change is Good

Oh effing no. I was totally pumped about this show...the prospects, the hope, the change, the fact of de-plasticization. Oh, woe is me. After the 2nd episode, I have very serious doubts about this. Here's a laundry list of the reasons why in reverse order of importance:

1. A lame attempt at reality show format. So they have these contests...that are lame...and with zero apparent consequences. "Why" I ask, "Why?" TLC--you cannot just throw out any old drivel and assume that tv-watchers are idiots. We are now highly evolved and used to watching shows with a complexity rivaling that of disarming a highly dangerous explosive. You can't take us of Lost and 24 ilk and hand us not only a stupid but inconsequential series of "trials" and assume all with be hunky dory. In fact, it is neither hunky nor dory.

2. Michael Urie. Annoying. Un-funny. Overly-perky. Overly quirky. Overly unknown. Did I already say, "Not funny." This dude's part of the bain of the whole existence of this show. Maybe someone who looks like they didn't just come off a stint at band camp would help thing. I don't know.

3. "Expert" consultants. Under what rock did they un-earth these gems? I find it very hard to believe that these B-list, no-name, tranny look-alikes that they've brought in to "make women modern" know anything about making women modern. I find them bitchy without the reputation to support the bitchiness. And without a huge amount of talent or appeal. Not good.

4. And, finally, the judges. Admittedly, I thought this might be the deal breaker and sure enough, it is. Their advice is fleeting, confusing, and a bit off. Their critiques are uneven and, in my estimation, also have nothing to do with a real or a modern women or even the actual situation at hand. And consider the source, I suppose. A "stylist" (which seems to be code for "I flunked out of design school"), the West Coast editor of "US Weekly"(the job for the gossipy Queen Bee of high school clique-dom), and the male photographer. All super-great candidates to decide what the modern American woman should be.

5. The editing. Yikes. TLC is no Amazing Race that's for sure. By the looks of the show, there are 6 women in the competition--3 who know what's up and 3 who should be mocked shamelessly. And what we see from these 6--just bad. It's so clearly edited to make us think one thing while the truth is the opposite that it's not even fun. Trying. Too. Hard. Strangling. Me.

I'm so disappointed because the promise of relevant change was dangled not so far from my pop culture nose, leading me to a mirage in the old-fashioned desert. Miss America is a classic symbol of the American woman (whether or not it's right is another debate). It needs a change because it simply does not represent women at all but instead forces modern competitors into roles that are so out-dated they're laughable. But the driving force behind the change seems no more savvy or modern than women prancing around in bathing suits and singing bad versions of operatic arias; it's just different. At the height of the problem is that we never even know the contestants real names--they're all "Miss [insert state here]." Would anyone really stand for that anymore? Just because we watch them to discuss at dinner one night stale and prosaic "debate topics" (contraception, abortion, etc), we still also witness the judges hold them to unreal fashion standards and berate them in they're not wearing enough eye-liner. The ones who really challenged others on the debate questions were edited to look aggressive and angry. And there are an awful lot of tears being shown. It's a reality check--but who's reality and how real is it? At this point, all of this still has absolutely nothing to do with me, which means I'm tempted to go surfing and give up on Miss America altogether.

Even after the 2nd episode, it's clear no change will actually be happening here. Yes they cut some hair and made some "suggestions", but they're all superficial; it seems that works on both the literal and the metaphorical level. Oh well. I'm really pinning my hopes on the state costumes now.

Miss America: She's a-Changin'

Confession: I love the Miss America pageant. I always have. There's nothing quite like hunkering down on a Saturday night with a bowl of popcorn and a diet Coke and making fun of the parade of states that opens every pageant, requiring that each beautiful albeit plastified state contestant don a costume representative of her state. Please...that's entertainment. From there we go directly to swimwear (boring) to talent (fascinating in a train-wreck kinda way) to evening-gown-slash-interview (usually embarassing). Hey, I never once said I was a fan of this event. No-no...I just like to watch and laugh.

But, this year there's a massive change underway over at this famous "scholarship program." Basically citing a complete lack of cultural relevancy and threat of extinction, the Miss America Pageant has undertaken what can only be considered a revolutionary re-vamping this year. Normally shown on network tv (ABC in the past) in primetime, this year's pageant will air on TLC (of all cable channels...this is the group that brought you Little People, Big World and Trading Spaces) only after all 52 contestants (including Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico) have participated in a reality show called Miss America: Reality Check also on TLC. The whole premise of the show is to update and basically de-pageantize the "girls" (some of whom are upwards of 25 years old) who have sunk a lifetime of money, time, and effort into looking and acting like Barbie. In an effort to retain what we cultural sociologists call "cultural resonance," the pageant now seeks a modern woman. I think this means one who doesn't use AquaNet and lists furniture rearranging as a talent. Alas, I'm still getting to the bottom of this.

I watched the first episode on Friday and it was absolutely delicious. It opened with Stacey and Clinton from What Not To Wear randomly opening contestants suitcases and critiquing the wardrobe they brought along. Three regular judges (a stylist, a fashion editor, and a photographer) spend their time trying to rid the contestants of any remnant of old pageant ways including too much make-up, too-big hair, and any item of clothing that's polyester, rhinestone-studded, or neon in color. Meanwhile, the girls are slowly having meltdowns (the most ingrained in pageant culture going first) as everything they've ever known or done to make it to this point has been thrown in the dumper and called weird, gross, and wrong.

Admittedly, there are parts of this show that are absolutely clunky. It's clearly supposed to operate as other "contestants live together" shows ala America's Next Top Model, Big Brother, The Real World. However, with no one getting "voted out," this could become really heinous and ugly. (I lived with 4 other girls once and I nearly lost my mind...I cannot imagine living with 51!) The judges are totally illegitimate--I don't know them and they sound crazy, especially Dina Sansing who, based on various talking-head specials on VH1 and E!, appears to have a single-digit IQ. You can check out the whole crew here if interested. (And who the hell is Michael Urie?). I also have this gut feeling of sorrow and perhaps pity for those contestants who a clearly not "game" for this change. Some have obviously been competing in the pageant circuit for years, have finally won their state pageant looking like a tranny playing an extra in "Hairspray," and now they have to (gasp) look NORMAL! If it were me (and it wouldn't be, but if it were) I might feel like the rug had been ripped out from under me. Now they're being mocked by a known-by-nobody cast of judges including Michael Urie (again, who the hell is Michael Urie?).

On the flip side, this is going to be really interesting from a sociological standpoint. Now on TLC (of all places), we can watch a classic American symbol change under duress and sometimes force. Even more fun, the results of the television show will somehow impact the actual pageant (though I'm not totally sure how--another TLC-riffic detail). Built in are assumptions about gender and popular culture and even in the first episode the contestants faced off on issues surrounding religion, politics, and sex. This is the treasure trove of which I've always dreamt. I just wonder if they'll keep the state costumes--those seemed harmless enough and always good fun. And I can't wait until the talents come slithering out of their shadowy little corners. That will be a great day. Only time will tell.

Watch it...I'm tellin' ya, it's gonna be awesome. Fridays at 9pm (CST) on TLC. I'll be there.

Harry Potter Quandry

Nothing says "the holidays" like a good overdose of Harry Potter in whatever form available; thus, over the past week I've watched all the movies and begun to re-read many of the books. It's a wonderland. But given this thorough re-examination of the stories, the relationships of the characters, and the major plot points (and even the minor and sub-minor ones), there's been a question rattling around in this mindtrap of mine for a while, nagging, constantly tapping me on the shoulder, and yes, even cajoling me to come up with a good answer for it and I have none, so I throw it out there to the wider public (of 4 readers several of whom are non-Potterophiles) for consideration:

Why is it important to know that Albus Dumbledore is gay?

A couple weeks (months?) ago, J.K. Rowling "outed" Dumbledore in a Q&A she was doing to promote the 7th and last installment of the series. I was somewhat ambivalent then, not really paying attention. But at the risk of sounding politically incorrect, I ask why this move was necessary. To be honest, I'd never once (literally--never) considered Dumbledore's sexuality at all: he's possibly hundreds of years old (I'm serious) although I don't think we know exactly how old he is, he's a famous and powerful wizard, and he's the headmaster of a school and a lifelong teacher. All of these social roles in some way allow us to not really need to know his sexuality. In some ways, they're a-sexual roles in and of themselves; surely, they have the potential to be considered in sexual ways if that's part of the story. Hence the beginning of my beef.

When I heard about Rowling's announcement, I thought, "Huh...never even though of that." mostly because there's no reason to...it's not an important detail in the story. We know Ron and Hermione like each other, we know Harry has a crush on Cho while at Hogwarts and marries Ginny in the end, but we don't know any other teacher's sexual preference and frankly I don't want to. Do I need to know that Snape has a girlfriend who lives in Hogsmeade? Is Minerva McGonigle a lesbian? I think the answer is "no." Their social relationships in the book are to their students, making the sexuality of the teachers irrelevant to this story. So, it's weird to me that we need an official proclamation, outside of the scope of the story, that Dumbledore is gay.

[Pause while I go back to check the actual transcript].

Okay, I see why she did it--you can read it here if you want--and it was very nonchalant and answers a very specific question, but to add another layer, that's not the story you get if you follow the massive news coverage of this announcement. And even though I can understand it in its context, I'm not sure what we're supposed to do with the information. Worse, I'm not sure what pea-brains will do with it.

I'm conflicted. On one hand, Dumbledore is an absolutely beloved character and, to be honest, makes sense as a gay man (now that I think about it). On the other, in the scope of this story which is a battle between Good (capital G) and Evil (capital E), sexuality seems a minor detail as does race, gender, and class (all categories that are touched on but not dwelt on in the story); Harry is a symbol of the good of Humanity (capital H...getting the gist?) and Voldemort is the opposite of that. Would the story change if we knew Voldemort was gay? The answer should be "no," but ultimately it is "yes." It would change things in ways that move us away from the human question at hand which is a good and important question.

I always find it interesting that in the midst of these deeply rich, human characters who are fighting an "Ultimate" symbolic war of souls and "eternity" (sounds like religion, huh?), these are the questions we need answered. We can accept that Harry might die as a sacrifice for others in the greater meta-narrative of good/evil, but we have a burning need to know whether Dumbledore is gay and if Neville ever gets married. Maybe that's the greatest insight here: good and evil are not the meta-narrative but instead its the human narrative, sketched out through these deeply decisive, meaning-making social details. Dumbledore might be Good and Wise and True (all capitals) but knowing whether he's ever "found love" and with whom are much more central, real questions. What can Good and Wise and True mean unless we know his reality and see how and if it matches our own? They somehow mean more if he's found love because that's meaningful to us. It makes us feel better to know that Ron and Hermione get married. We drool over Harry marrying Ginny and having a son who's headed to Hogwarts. And, oh yeah, he saved the world.

So, I guess I've talked myself into an answer that I can live with. Just as I needed the context to understand the question, we all long for the context within which we can understand the trials of being Good, Wise, True, Friends, who are Loved. Without the concrete reality of those abstractions, they do become only something of dreams and a world that exists only on paper or celluloid. But if we know Dumbledore's gay (which really means he loved "in that way") and we know Harry and Ginny live happily ever after next door to Ron and Hermione, then they could be our neighbors and, by that same extension, we could save the world--if a dark and evil wizard should ever appear and threaten humanity as we know it. I know my wand's ready.

But, despite my infant answer to this question, I still have a beef: Dumbledore falling in love with Grindewald? Really? I was convinced it would be Nicholas Flammel. Oh well.

A Very Merry Top Chef Christmas

Admittedly, I'm a couple weeks behind on my tv watching, so last night amidst the pathetic television re-run fare (especially given the seemingly never-ending writers' strike), I hunkered down to watch the Top Chef Christmas special. Shot in Chicago and featuring some of my favorite "oldies but nasties" like Marcel, Stephen, Tiffany, and Betty, this Christmas special was a nice shot of a good show that I miss in its off-season. Here's a list of the "naughty" and "nice" of the event:

Nice

• It was great to see all the usuals--although I'll admit it was a weird band of minstrels. Tiffany, Stephen, and Marcel have now done about 4 of these specials and now are starting to appear as TC whores, but I still love them and they make things interesting. They were joined by CJ, Trey, and Sandy from this past season and Betty and Josie from who cares when. It was nice to watch and know what people were gonna bring.
• A slightly new format. Three courses total with 2 chefs eliminated after each course. The real kicker: the Chefs didn't know who was eliminated until they appeared to serve the next course. So all 8 started: Sandy (no surprise) and Stephen (surprise) went first; Josie and Betty next; Marcel and CJ next, leaving...
• Trey and Tiffany as the finalists. If any two chefs have gotten equally screwed on this show, it's these two, so it was nice retribution for both. Having said that, I still think Harold was the rightful winner of season 1 (in which Tiffany came in 2nd). These two had to cook a surprise 4th course in 30 minutes with the leftovers. Ah, glorious Top Chef shenanigan through and through.
• Tiffany won. The first woman to ever win one of these eff-ers. She deserved it and went home $20,000 richer. Meanwhile, Trey took home a pile of autographed cookbooks. Really, just like $20,000 only on glossy paper (not.) Ahh, poor Trey screwed again, but least this time it was 2nd place and not 9th.
  
• The guest judges. I'm not a "foodie" (thank god) so i don't know their names but they're a group of my favorites from season's past. Even though the group of cheftestants (just to be clear, that's Bravo's word) appeared kinda random and not equally talented (c'mon, we all knew Sandy was out first and Josie and Betty would follow close behind), these judges were the cream of the crop. Bravo...Bravo.
• CJ's joke about the nutcracker. In the QuickFire, they played "Nasty Santa" or whatever that game is where other people can take your presents, with each contestant drawing one "secret ingredient" for a challenge that would earn someone a "free pass" for one round of elimination. CJ kept drawing awesome ingredients and people kept taking them until he finally got walnuts which were presented in a Nutcracker to which Tiffany responded, "That's appropriate." Hilarious. For those unaware, CJ had testicular cancer and in his "talking head" moment said something to the effect of, "The last time I had nuts someone took them and kept them. This time, they're mine." Mmmm-mmm--nothing like a good double-entendre nut joke to make my Christmas merry and bright.
  
• Tom Colicchio--he's like "tough guy" of food. I miss him. AND...I think Tom has always pulled for Tiffany to win. He seems to really respect her and I think that's really good to see evident on television. He falls all over her food (and he did in Season 1 as well). Good for you Tom--endorsing the woman who deserves respect and acknowledgment for beatin' the boys fair and square.
  

Naughty

• No Tony Bourdain. Or Rocco Dispiritu. Together. God that would have been awesome.
• Padma and CJ are definitely doing it. And even if they're not, the editors are trying to make us all think they are. We all remember the "Breakfast" episode last season when she wanders in to wake them all up to make her breakfast and she and CJ just completely drool all over each other. C'mon. We know. Honestly, I don't blame Padma one bit.
• Giving Trey cookbooks as 2nd prize. HOW LAME. And he has to play it off all, "Oh this is great." No, it's not great. It's cheap and hokey and self-serving especially when Padma puts hers in there--how she gets lumped in with some of the best chefs in the world I don't know.
• Josie overcooked the turkey. Sandy screwed up mushroom soup. Really? HOW does one actually do this and keep getting invited to these shows? Where are Harold, Sam, Elia...some others of the AWESOME chefs who really could have been interesting to watch. Instead we get stupid Betty who just makes up food (last night it was some crappy and ridiculous "Pork Baklava" or something which just means pork tenderloin wrapped in puff pastry) and calls it great. She's always wrapping something inappropriate in puff pastry. (Do with that entendre as you will, but I'm referring to her season's ridiculous and disgusting looking savory portobello and onion "napoleon." C'mon...A Napoleon is a DESSERT...BETTY! Even my non-foodie self knows that!) And I've had it! Ted Allen totally called her out, but its just not fun to laugh at Betty anymore because she's such a food dolt. (Hands smack the table top) I JUST WANT TO SEE THE TOP CHEFS ON THIS SHOW!
  

All in all, no complaints here. It was just the perfect taste of Top Chef at the mid-way point of its dormancy for the winter. In March it returns for the next season, completely filmed in Chicago, and I'm already counting down the days. It'll be delicious...literally.

Golden Globes: Television World According to Katie

There's really nothing I hate more than awards "season"--it's self-serving, usually wrong, and somehow depressing, I think because it's a lot of mediocre people thanking "God" for their mediocre but slap-me-on-the-back success. Anyway, of all of the shows, the Golden Globes are the most normal and the nominations are just out. So of course this is the perfect time for me to weigh in on what would happen if the world was right. So, here we go (my picks are starred).

BEST TELEVISION SERIES – DRAMA:
BIG LOVE (HBO)
**DAMAGES (FX NETWORKS)
GREY’S ANATOMY (ABC)
HOUSE (FOX)
MAD MEN (AMC)
THE TUDORS (SHOWTIME)
I'm not gonna lie...none of these even came close to the awesomeness of Damages this season. Nothing...nuh-thing. While Big Love and House are also favorites of mine, Damages set a new bar this season with awesome writing, an excellent cast, and the meter of the show that forced...*forced*...you to obsessively cling to the television on Tuesday nights simply longing for just one more piece of information...just one more...begging for it...and nope, we'll have to wait til next week. Man, I already miss that show. And if effing Gray's Anatomy goes home with this award, I'm going to hurl.

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A TELEVISION SERIES – DRAMA:
PATRICIA ARQUETTE - MEDIUM
GLENN CLOSE - DAMAGES
MINNIE DRIVER - THE RICHES
EDIE FALCO - THE SOPRANOS
SALLY FIELD - BROTHERS & SISTERS
HOLLY HUNTER - SAVING GRACE
**KYRA SEDGWICK - THE CLOSER
I'm not going to lie (again)...this is a tough category, but Kyra really *created* this character. The whole show rests on her ability to sell Brenda--if she doesn't do it, everybody sinks. She did it. And in what was somewhat of a revival. This show came into its own this season and it's because of Sedgwick. Edie Falco's always a good choice and Minner Driver is excellent in her series, but Sedgwick keeps me comin' back for more every Monday. And, if there is any justice, Holly Hunter will never, ever win for her character that has been plugged as this "tough, street-smart but lovable woman"--frankly she's mannish and one-dimensional...and unappealing in every way. Hunter plays the role well, but it's not well written or conceived. Thus, she ends up looking like Kyra Sedgwick's ugly younger sister (the shows air back to back on Mondays) who didn't get enough attention in her formative years.

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A TELEVISION SERIES – DRAMA:
MICHAEL C. HALL - DEXTER
JON HAMM - MAD MEN
HUGH LAURIE - HOUSE
JONATHAN RHYS MEYERS - THE TUDORS
**BILL PAXTON - BIG LOVE
Bill Paxton needs to win this. I absolutely love Hugh Laurie as House, but that character has become sadly stale and static. On the other hand, you've got Paxton who's juggling 3 wives and families as one in his fundamentalist Mormon family on the brink of disaster. It's luscious and he's the lynchpin here too. If he bites it, so does the show, and he's made that show into a smashing success.

BEST TELEVISION SERIES – COMEDY OR MUSICAL:
30 ROCK (NBC)
CALIFORNICATION (SHOWTIME)
ENTOURAGE (HBO)
EXTRAS (HBO)
**PUSHING DAISIES (ABC)
Another close call, but it's gotta go to Pushing Daisies which is by far the most inventive, unique half-hour comedy & musical (and I'm not kidding) on network television. It's just so good--story, acting, conception...everything. Like watching a fantastical, Tim Burton movie every week and feeling fuller and better for it at the end. It's just so fulfilling. Well done, Pie Maker. Well done.

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A TELEVISION SERIES –COMEDY OR MUSICAL:
CHRISTINA APPLEGATE - SAMANTHA WHO?
AMERICA FERRERA - UGLY BETTY
TINA FEY - 30 ROCK
ANNA FRIEL - PUSHING DAISIES
**MARY-LOUISE PARKER - WEEDS
I'm gonna pick MLP because she's the bomb on this show, but really anybody but America Ferrera could win this and I'd be happy. I find AF annoying b/c that, like Grey's, has become stale and "been there" but she keeps winning because it seems like she "should." I say NO MORE. Let's call it like it is...please.

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A TELEVISION SERIES – COMEDY OR MUSICAL:
**ALEC BALDWIN - 30 ROCK
STEVE CARELL - THE OFFICE
DAVID DUCHOVNY - CALIFORNICATION
RICKY GERVAIS - EXTRAS
LEE PACE - PUSHING DAISIES
Alec Baldwin may be a total jackass in real life, but that dude has the *ultimate* comedic talent and it's time to give him a nod for this show. He's got such an unsavory part--he's evil but ya love him (huhn...kinda like in real life)--but he's brilliant. I'd love to give my approval to Steve Carell, but that's such an ensemble cast project that this is not the award for him. And Lee Pace is just a little too green--but he is the Pie Maker and I love him for that.

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A SERIES, MINI-SERIES OR MOTION PICTURE MADE FOR TELEVISION:
ROSE BYRNE - DAMAGES
RACHEL GRIFFITHS - BROTHERS & SISTERS
KATHERINE HEIGL - GREY’S ANATOMY
SAMANTHA MORTON - LONGFORD
ANNA PAQUIN - BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE
JAIME PRESSLY - MY NAME IS EARL
To be honest, I could care less. Rose Byrne was okay in Damages but she seemed miscast to me from the beginning. I really despise both Rachel Griffiths (whiny, calls acting "her craft") and Katherine Heigl (utterly, absolutely can we chant it together basketball-style "Ov-er-RA-ted (bah bah BAH BAH BAH). I didn't watch the other two. So to whomever wins this: Bully for You. If it's Katherine Heigl, reference the prior chant and go find some acting lessons.

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE IN A SERIES, MINI-SERIES OR MOTION PICTURE MADE FOR TELEVISION:
**TED DANSON - DAMAGES
KEVIN DILLON - ENTOURAGE
JEREMY PIVEN - ENTOURAGE
ANDY SERKIS - LONGFORD
WILLIAM SHATNER - BOSTON LEGAL
DONALD SUTHERLAND - DIRTY SEXY MONEY
Ted was awesomely evil and delicious in this show...and c'mon...can I really deny Sammy (Cheers) my vote? Naw....

So, there it is. If I ruled the world, all of the most deserving and talented people will get the acclaim. Let's hope the Hollywood Foreign Press is on board with my vision.

It's a Bravo Reality Couple!

I know I'm usually vigilant about keeping things quasi-intellectual over here (or at least *saying* that that's what I do) but I was browsing the reality-show websites today and found out this little tidbit: Dale Levitski, runner-up of Top Chef #whatever fame, and JackMackenroth of Project Runway 4 are a couple!

Dale












Jack


Awww. Supposedly they met unrelated to Bravo (on Myspace) but I think I'm not going to believe it. I'm gonna have to look at the numbers and see how badly Project Runway is doing this season. Especially because they set it up so perfectly with the end of Top Chef--I think on the reunion show, one of the main segments was talking about Dale's single-ness. Obviously, many people were bothered by this but, more importantly, many people knew about it. So, could it be that just weeks after we meet Jack on PR, touted as "the HIV-positive designer," these two winsome bachelor's make a *random* love connection? Oh...come...on.

Those writing about it have been making Jack's HIV+ status a huge talking point. I read about four interviews that in a polite and round-about way asked "how that's all working" (my polite and round-about way). He responded in the same "PSA style" to all of them as if to ensure the masses that Dale's in no danger. No one really seems to be inquiring about his health which, I'm sure, Jack appreciates. ("Hey guys, I'm over here...")

All I know is, thank god these two got together...I was wondering what we were going to do now that Lance Bass (of Backstreet Boy and 'I almost went into space because I paid the Russians $1 million' fame) and Reichen Lehmkuhl (of Amazing Race infamy) are kaput. Just in the nick of time, I'd say. That place the media sets aside for "the gay couple" was getting a little dusty.