Friday, February 17, 2006

There's More to Life Than Jake

Though it be blasphemous to say after this crazy week here at the blog (Most visits. ever) and on the site (that Oscar Symposium? Super Fun. Also Exhausting) There is more to life than my love for Jakey-poo. Today I have job interviews, personal errands, etc... so posting will be light. Jake is sweet enough to keep coming back for more. You be that too, OK?

There's also more to the Supporting Actor category than Gyllenhaal. He's only a fifth of it after all. The Supporting Actor Page is now updated with my theories, predictions, snub-grumbling, and more... And the trivia of course. They have five children among them. Well... by they I mean mostly William Hurt (who does get around, doesn't he? Mary Beth Hurt, Marlee Matlin, Sandrine Bonnaire, etcera. etcetera. etcetera.). Hurt is the tallest and the most wordly (works in foreign film, speaks another language, etc...). 80% of them hail from the North-Eastern corridor or thereabouts, etc...

[No, I don't know why I look all this up either]

17 comments:

Gerry said...

The first name I thought for "possible supporters in the Academy" for Hurt was Lawrence Kasdan!

Still, great to see inspired work even for an uninspired set of nominees.
And true about Daniels. :(

Kamikaze Camel said...

It, to be really honest, wouldn't even surprise me to see Hurt win. He's been around the longest and probably has many fans in AMPAS just wanting to give him another statue.

But, if voters are going for who will look best on the cover of People, then it's Jake or George. I'd like to see Dillon win because I've liked him forever (er, ya know) and thought he was great in the movie. Plus, he's been working it A LOT (more than any other probably).

And that leaves Paul. How many ways can a man such as myself loathe one like Paul? Let me count the ways... (DIEEVILSCUM)

NATHANIEL R said...

oh my

such strong feelings.

is it the schlubbiness? or do you actually think there's a 666 etched into his scalp somewhere?

adam k. said...

Um, sure there is more to life than Jake. There is also Heath.

Seriously, though, I could see any of them winning. But I have to agree with Nathaniel that it will probably be George. Simply because, when in doubt, they'll want to use this category to reward his year. Director and screenplay have obvious frontrunners (Haggis, Lee), but this category's up in the air. Also, they'll want a "hotness" counterpoint to Hoffman's schlubbiness, so I'm thinking Jake or george, and george makes far more sense in the grand scheme (though I'd much rather see Jake win).

adam k. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
david m said...

Try to imagine that your favorite hot young actor is rumored to be playing gay in the movie version of one of your favorite short stories ever written.

Then imagine that the movie actually gets made, gets some early critical buzz, turns out to be very, very good when you finally see it, gets nominated for more Academy Awards than any other film that year, becomes a surprise box office success and that your favorite hot young actor is suddenly everywhere you look and is himself nominated for an Academy Award.

On your computer screen every day he looks out longingly as his boyfriend rides away. He appears on talk shows and despite being young and a bit awkward says the love of these two cowboys is one of the most moving love stories he's ever read.

Then try telling me there's more to life than Jake!!

I know you don't believe it anyway.

Anonymous said...

Wow, steady on with the anti-Giamatti vibes Kamikaze! I had no idea it was legal not to like him!

I don't think Giamatti can do it, to be honest, SAG or no SAG. It would be impossible to NOT read it at as consolation award. And who wants to give the Oscar to a guy we all know has been been and WILL be better again?

Rob

Anonymous said...

Oh, and all this Oscar talk is making us miss something real here... Hope the job interviews went/go well!

Rob

Anonymous said...

Its pretty interesting that Heath Ledger turned his back on Jake, saying George Clooney should win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.

adam k. said...

When did he say that?

Gerry said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gerry said...

He said it the nominees' luncheon earlier this week.
Stuff like that- in addition to his year overall- makes it seem to me that George is really going to get it, in spite of the little man inside of me who keeps saying Giamatti.
Not that Ledger's endorsement in and of itself means much- just an indication of love for Clooney, even when you'd think support would lie with other films.

I'd frankly be very surprised if ANY of the others upset.
Gyllenhaal's day will come.
Hurt will have to work more if he wants his to come again.
Dillon strikes me as one of those Robert Forster/Burt Reynolds type of "tip of the hat- who thought a former pretty boy would still be acting and be able to stand out in such a big ensemble" nominations.

NATHANIEL R said...

david m -amen!

rob -thank u. i think they think i'm overqualified. But ya know... i need MONEY so that I can keep the roof over my head so that I can blog in peace. ;)

adam k. said...

So then, if Clooney wins, you do get what that means, don't you? Everyone?

It means the De-Glam cancer is NOT dead, it has only spread to the men!

NATHANIEL R said...

OMG -Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!

NATHANIEL R said...

OMG -Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!

Kamikaze Camel said...

At least Clooney lost spinal fluid!

And I'm quite adament that Paul Giamatti does indeed have a 666 etched into his scalp.

okay, he's not THAT bad the thing is everyone seems to be die hard in love with him and I just do not see it. I didn't think he was earth shatteringly brilliant in Sideways (his 'snub' was a pleasant suprise!). Plus... a schlub is a schlub is a schlub.