We disagreed on Best Supporting Actress. The Academy selected Tilda Swinton for Michael Clayton, who was my #3 selection behind Cate Blanchett & Amy Ryan. When I heard her name called I was really surprised! Judging by her reaction I think she was really surprised as well. =)

As for the show itself, Jon Stewart did an excellent job as usual - I hope they continue to bring him back. As for me, I’ll probably go quiet for a few weeks as I move back to Seattle. So close your browser and go out and see No Country for Old Men, and Juno. =)

#5 - Atonement

#4 - Michael Clayton

#3 - There Will Be Blood

#2 - Juno

#1 - No Country for Old Men

The Oscars air at 8 PM, starting with the red carpet arrivals, then the actual ceremony begins at 8:30. Should be fun!

#5 - Jason Reitman, Juno

Juno is a fun movie to watch, and I’ve hard from many people that they left the theater more upbeat, happier about live and love. Perhaps its these qualities are the reason behind Jason’s nomination… If not, then I’m a bit confused - I thought the movie was told in a straightforward manner and didn’t see much evidence that this film was pushing the definition of the art. So it’s my #5 selection.

#4 - Tony Gilroy, Michael Clayton

Among other things, I was struck by how this movie was able to build such tense moments. The very beginning of the film throws us directly into the fire with an intense, passionate narration from Tom Wilkinson - there isn’t much on the screen so we gravitate towards the madness in his voice. This is juxtaposed against the out of breath, sweaty Tilda Swinton which immediately starts your mind racing. Tony rewinds to four days earlier and uses much of the film to build the tension back up to, then passing this level. It was a really effective technique and keep my interest in the film peaked throughout.

#3 - Julian Schnabel, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is a movie about a man (Jean-Dominique) who has a stroke that leaves him paralyzed. He’s only able to blink one eye, which is how he communicates with the world. The directing in this movie was really amazing and very different from anything I’d seen prior. The movie begins with a blurry picture, it’s hard to focus and recognize people, and then you realize that it isn’t a story about some character, it’s a story about YOU. YOU ARE Jean-Dominique. The first half of the movie is told entirely from your perspective. You try to speak with others, but you can’t move our mouth. The narration (if you can call it that) is actually what you’re thinking. This technique is so effective that during the last half of the film, which is focused mostly on Jean-Dominique’s family, we know exactly what Jean-Dominique is feeling. He’s completely motionless, except for his eye, yet we know exactly what must be going on in his head.

#2 - Paul Thomas Anderson, There Will Be Blood

There Will Be Blood begins by showing us just how difficult mining was back in the late 1800’s. There’s no dialog for the first 15-20 minutes as we simply absorb the struggle and determination of Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis). The movie also has humor at unexpected moments, and creative musical elements during important scene transitions. Although long (2 hours 40 minutes) the pace is steady and keeps our interest (unlike the unnecessarily long & slow moving Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford from Andrew Dominik).

#1 - Joel & Ethan Coen, No Country for Old Men

This year my pick goes to the Coen brothers for No Country for Old Men. This film is an amazing, modern western. Watching the film, I was surprised by the lack of music. There is absolutely no music throughout the entire film. This leaves it up to the director & actors to produce all the drama seen on screen. This might tank other films, rendering important scenes as comical or scripted - yet in this movie the pacing & characters bring the film to life. Some scenes are bleeding with tension, others evolve with a sense of discovery - actions & reactions seem more genuine, more visceral. The film was amazing to watch, and I think the directorial vision was the biggest reason why.

#5 - Tommy Lee Jones, In the Valley of Elah

Tommy Lee Jones plays the role of Hank Deerfield, a former military officer who investigates the disappearance of his son who has returned from Iraq. When his son is found murdered, he helps a local detective Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron) investigate. The story has a mild set of twists and turns, but nothing overly surprising. Eventually they piece together what happened the night his son was murdered.

As explained during the movie, the title refers to the valley where David fought Goliath. Hank uses this story to illustrate that much is possible when you conquer your fears, also that things aren’t always what they appear. In many ways, this is an analogy to many parts of the plot line. Hank has a shrine to his Army son at home and believe’s he’s every bit the respectable soldier that he was. Yet this reality falls apart the more Hank investigates exactly who his son was. Just like David, Hank must push past his fear that his son was not completely honorable. Tommy does a good job with this, but I felt the role was fairly straightforward, and others could have played the part just as well. Tommy’s role as Sheriff Ed Tom Bell in No Country for Old Men was a much better performance.

#4 - Johnny Depp, Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Johnny Depp is Benjamin Barker, a barber falsely arrested by the evil Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman) who has the hots for his wife. After returning from imprisonment he adopts the name Sweeney Todd and plots his revenge against Judge Turpin. He’s unable to capitalize on an opportunity to murder the Judge and instead takes out his anger on innocent visitors to his barber shop. Eventually the Judge does return and Todd is able to get his revenge. As you probably already know, the entire film is a musical - there’s little direct dialog from Depp, nearly all his of his lines are sung.

I was impressed that Johnny Depp did all his own singing in this film. His songs are very moody and draw you into his character. The lack of direct dialog means we’re drawn more to his eyes, body language and mannerisms - all qualities that Depp is skilled at (think: Captain Jack Sparrow, or Willy Wonka). As a result this role is an excellent fit for him and the result is quite memorable.

#3 - Viggo Mortensen, Eastern Promises

Viggo Mortensen plays the role of Nikolai, a driver for Kirill (Vincent Cassel), the son of a Russian mob boss Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl). They operate out of Semyon’s restaurant in London. Nikolai is the cleanup man for the operation and handles the disposal of bodies as well as the protection of Kirill. When Kirill kills a rival Chechen leader, Semyon hatches a plan to save his son from their revenge. He promotes Nikolai (giving him the same distinctive tattoos) then tells the Chechen’s that Nikolai is actually the one they’re looking for. This culminates in a brutal fight scene in a Russian bath house.

I think Viggo is a strong actor, he played the role of Aragorn in the Lord of the Rings series, and was the star of A History of Violence. In this role he has a really interesting character - the movie unfolds showing him as an integral part of the mob - he has a thick Russian accent and a slew of tattoos that attest to his rank. Yet as we follow the escapades of Kirill, who brings Nikolai everywhere he goes, we learn that Nikolai has a good & pure heart. The conflict leaves you feeling uneasy, as if you don’t really understand what Nikolai is all about, yet he’s confident in his actions. When it’s later revealed he’s an undercover police officer things drop into place. I found myself rethinking many earlier parts of his performance as a result… Ohh, and that brutal fight scene? It’s very intense. Roger Ebert says it "sets the same kind of standard that The French Connection set for chases. Years from now, it will be referred to as a benchmark." You’ve been warned.

#2 - George Clooney, Michael Clayton

George Clooney is Michael Clayton, an attorney at a large New York law firm who’s often called upon as a ‘fixer’. He will go anywhere at anytime to help important clients and important cases with difficult issues. One such case is the U-North case. The lead defense attorney, Arthur (Tom Wilkinson), has gone off his medicine and caused a scene during a deposition. Michael tries to help Arthur, who’s also a longtime friend, but a few days later Arthur mysteriously dies. Michael breaks into Arthur’s apartment and finds that he was actually building a case for the prosecution. Michael suspects foul-play, and when his car is also blown up (luckily not harming him), he finishes the job Arthur began by confronting U-North with the incriminating evidence Arthur found.

George Clooney does a really good job in this film - his character has just the right balance of affection for his friend Arthur, aspirations for a better career, bad habits, and moral integrity. George plays the role without going over the top in any one these areas, which makes him very relatable. He has a commanding presence in many scenes, forcefully dishing out his agenda & taking control of key moments - such as advising an important client who’s hit a jogger, and in the final scene where he confronts a director at U-North. For all these reasons, he ranks highly in my picks this year.

#1 - Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood

Daniel Day-Lewis is Daniel Plainview, an oil speculator in the late 1800’s, early 1900’s. After doing the digging & striking oil on his first well, he goes on to manage his own oil prospecting company. One day he’s approached by a man named Paul Sunday (Paul Dano) who tells him that he knows where oil is so plentiful, it seeps out of the ground. Daniel follows his lead to the small town of Little Boston, and after confirming his claim buys up all the land he can and begins drilling. Many things happen during his quest for oil in Little Boston, his adopted son loses his hearing due to a drilling accident, a man claiming he’s Daniel’s brother is revealed as a fraud, and Daniel must play nice with an influential local resident, Eli Sunday (Paul’s twin brother), to keep up appearances. This is a really broad summary of the movie (which is almost three hours) - there’s much more going on here than I can write in a paragraph.

Anyway, Daniel Day-Lewis is my pick for best actor this year. His character is dedicated to his business. He cares about nothing else (not even his own health as shown in the beginning) - he’s 100% focused on being absolutely the best oil man possible. This personality trait comes into conflict many times during the movie. What’s interesting is how Daniel resolves each of these conflicts in different ways. One common theme is how the intensity at which he deals with these conflicts increases as his oil business grows. By the end of the film, he’s developed such a distaste for others that he ends up disowning his son and killing another almost as if to only amuse himself. It’s an amazing and eerie performance.

Next up - best director, then best picture. Hopefully I can get both posted before the Oscars begin tomorrow night.

#5 - Cate Blanchett, Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Cate Blanchett plays Queen Elizabeth I. The film begins in the year 1585 and Elizabeth has yet to marry or have a child. She’s under pressure to find a husband because if she does not, her imprisoned cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots will be heir to the throne. There are many suitors, but she’s only attracted to Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen) who has just returned from the New World and is eager to return.  Meanwhile King Philip II, King of Spain has built the Spanish Armada in order to invade England, and Mary organizes an attempt to assassinate Elizabeth. The assassination attempt fails, and Elizabeth must sign the order to execute Mary. The invasion attempt also fails as Elizabeth leads the battle to defend England from the approaching armada.

While the movie was entertaining, I didn’t find her acting really exceptional. Perhaps a big reason is because it’s the second time she’s played the same character (she played a younger Elizabeth I in the 1998 film Elizabeth). She faces a slew of trials in this movie and is able to act the part in each, but the movie is just a glorified soap opera. In the end I don’t think the performance is Oscar worthy. Her performance as Jude Quinn in I’m Not There was better.

#4 - Laura Linney, The Savages

Laura Linney is Wendy Savage. Her father, Lenny (Philip Bosco) has grown elderly and has dementia. He was living in Arizona with his longtime girlfriend, but after she dies, Wendy and her brother Jon (Philip Seymour Hoffman) decide to bring him back to Pennsylvania & put him in a nursing home. The story mostly focuses Wendy, an aspiring playwright who’s been unsuccessful at finding love or success in her career. It seems she’s been spinning her wheels for awhile, not really making any progress on either front. But this changes after spending time closer to her brother & father.

Laura’s performance was interesting to watch – there’s a definite transition in her character through the course of events with her father. At the beginning, she seems confused with life, not really grasping onto any one thing in particular and lying to everyone around her. It’s as if she’s told so many white lies, she doesn’t know what she wants out of life anymore. But this changes when she puts her father into the nursing home. She desperately wants her father to have the best home and for him to be comfortable. Yet, because he has dementia he doesn’t recognize her efforts, or even who she is – he thinks she’s just another annoying caregiver. Laura plays the part well, balancing the jumbled set of emotions and priorities with her longing for success and desire for appreciation from others. Yet the performance wasn’t quite as good as my next pick.

#3 - Ellen Page, Juno

Ellen Page is Juno MacGuff, a high school student who accidentally gets pregnant with her longtime friend Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera). Paulie’s clearly in love with Juno, yet Juno isn’t sure if she loves him. Juno contemplates getting an abortion, but eventually decides that she will have the baby and give it to a needy family. Through a newspaper ad (Pennysaver FTW!), she finds Mark & Vanessa Loring (Jason Bateman & Jennifer Garner) and signs the paperwork to give her baby to them. During the remaining months before giving birth, Juno forms an odd friendship with Mark, developing a crush on him. When Mark decides to leave Vanessa, Juno has second thoughts about handing over her baby. But in the end, Juno realizes that Vanessa will provide a good home for the baby & also decides she really does love Paulie.

I really liked this film, and Ellen Page is a big reason why. Her character begins as a confident high school student, who knows exactly what she likes and why others are the way they are. But this perspective shifts during her pregnancy. Many different elements evolve Juno. Her friendship with Mark makes her realize there’s room to explore her musical interests. Her "stupid step-mother" becomes one of her best friends. After getting to know Vanessa better, she realizes that she should try not to judge others. She learns her father is wiser than she gives him credit, and that she really does love her best friend Paulie. Ellen strings all these experiences together into a character that evolves as the movie unfolds without seeming like she’s going through the motions. Her narration also helps us understand how her perspectives evolve. In the end, not only do you leave the movie feeling good about Juno, you leave feeling better about yourself (wow that’s corny, I can’t believe I just wrote that).

#2 - Julie Christie, Away from Her

Julie Christie plays Fiona Anderson, an older woman who’s begun losing her memory due to Alzheimer’s disease. Before it gets too bad, she convinces her husband Grant (Gordon Pinsent) that it would be best for the both of them if he were to place her in a nursing home. He reluctantly does, even though he doesn’t like the nursing home’s policy that prohibits him from visiting for the first 30 days (supposedly so she will adjust to her new surroundings). After 30 days, he visits for the first time and finds that she’s forgotten who he is, and has become affectionate for another resident. Grant’s saddened, but he keeps visiting her, often just to watch her from across the room. He tries to read her books to remind her of the past, but although she seems to recognize him as a kind person, she doesn’t seem to recognize him as her husband any longer. In the end, Grant’s efforts turn towards making her happy rather than trying to fight her disease.

This movie was really touching and very emotional to watch. Julie’s performance was amazing. At first, she slowly transitions her character as the disease sets in. It begins with momentary lapses of concentration, then episodes confusion, then scenes of bewilderment. It becomes more serious as she becomes mentally detached from the importance of her surroundings such as her home and mementos. Things change a bit after she moves into the nursing home & bonds with another patient - she seems more up-beat, less isolated. Yet when Grant tries to make her happy (mostly by reading to her) you can tell inside she really is very unhappy - she clearly longs for memories that escape her grasp. Julie does all this with a very genuine touch, without seeming corny. It was really an amazing performance.

#1 - Marion Cotillard, La Môme (La Vie en Rose)

Finally, Marion Cotillard stars as Édith Piaf in La Môme (AKA "La Vie en Rose" here in the US). The movie covers Edith’s entire life, interweaving her childhood & adolescence, with that of her career at its peak. The movie ends with the final years of her life. The film is a dramatized documentary of the life of Édith Piaf, an extremely popular French singer. We watch her early years unfold as a child, then singing on street-corners, then advancing to sing in a popular nightclub, then advancing into full-fledged international celebrity as a highly regarded music hall singer. Throughout nearly all of the movie she’s shown as a heavy drinker, which has consequences for her health later in life.

Marion’s performance wasn’t as touching or emotional as Julie Christie’s, but I was amazed at her technical ability and extreme range. Marion’s performance stretches nearly all of Édith’s life. Marion’s able to capture Édith’s drunken & insecure adolescence - singing on street corners and in nightclubs, often with wild mood swings. She’s able to capture her love/hate relationship with her celebrity during her rise to fame. After falling in love with a boxer, there’s an extremely emotional scene when she finds out he won’t be visiting her any longer. In her last phase of life, she’s shown completely deteriorated, and unable to care for herself as a result of her youthful excesses and extreme arthritis. During each of these phases Marion is absolutely excellent - I was astounded that she performed so well during all these different phases of life. Which is exactly why she’s my selection for Best Actress this year.

Expect posts for Best Actor, Best Director & Best Film soon. I’ve only have one film left to watch before the Oscars on Sunday!

#5 - Tom Wilkinson, Michael Clayton

Tom Wilkinson plays the role of Arthur Edens, an attorney who has spent the past few years of his life building a defense for a multi-million dollar class action lawsuit against an agricultural products company, U-North. His life takes a turn when he has a mental breakdown during an important deposition. He decides that he’s been living a lie defending a company he knows to be guilty. He knows U-North knowingly produced cancer causing chemicals and his new found fondness for one of the victims causes him to pursue U-North rather than defend them.

Tom’s my #5 pick because I didn’t see Arthur’s history in much of Tom’s performance. Arthur is supposedly the law firms most experienced lawyer, someone who has been working the U-North account for quite some time, but also known to be a bit erratic when not taking his medication. But all this is spoken too and doesn’t really seem evident in his performance. Instead we’re introduced to him after he’s off his medication, so we only see his eccentricities. Such a strong and capable lawyer surely would be struggling to balance a mental instability with the logical & reasoned application of the law. I was also disappointed that his character never really explores his affections for one of the victims.

#4 - Philip Seymour Hoffman, Charlie Wilson’s War

Philip Seymour Hoffman plays the role of Gust Avrakotos, a frustrated CIA agent eager to help congressman Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) fight against the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan. With Charlie’s help to obtain congressional funding, Gust and a small group of CIA agents help fund the local Mujahideen fighters. Their (US funded) resistance is a success and the Soviets withdraw, but Gust is left disappointed that the US government is not willing to assist the Afgans with rebuilding their society.

Usually I’m a big fan of Philip Seymour Hoffman. I thought he was amazing in The Talented Mr. Ripley, Love Liza, and especially Capote (where he won the Oscar for Best Actor, as I predicted two years ago). I’m not sure who I would cast for this role, but it would not have been Philip. It’s not that he did a bad job - he had the best acting (by far!) in this movie. The problem here is that I don’t think the role is very unique (how many frustrated government employees in bad moustaches have we seen before). His character is entirely predictable, he has no bonds to others, no intriguing morals, no real personal depth. Winning an academy award demands an amazing character and performance, and the character just isn’t Gust.

#3 - Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild

Hal Holbrook plays the role of Ron Franz, an older gentleman living by himself with no immediate family. He meets the movie’s main character, Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch) when he spots Chris hitch-hiking and offers him a ride. Chris has been hitch-hiking across the country in a heroic effort to seek personal truth, a reconnection with nature, a freedom that can only be realized through poetic ideals unencumbered by the motions of modern life. Chris’s encounter with Hal is especially memorable because of how Chris challenges Hal’s unconscious assumptions & for the strong bond formed between the two.

Ron is an especially interesting character because he arrives at a turning point in Chris’s travel to Alaska. Chris has already been on the road for some time, and has planned to leave society forever and head to Alaska. Ron is the last person he befriends on that journey. When Ron first meets Chris, he’s clearly confused. He doesn’t understand why a well educated young person would want to ignore his potential and ‘live in the dirt’. Yet as the two get to know one another, it’s clear Ron begins to question who’s actually living the better life - the young traveler, or the old man set in his ways. Their relationship ends on an especially poignant moment - a moment Hal delivers exceptionally well, leaving us wondering what happened to Ron after Chris heads to Alaska.

#2 - Casey Affleck, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Casey Affleck plays the coward Robert (Bob) Ford. Yes, apparently every time I mention Robert Ford, I must also remind you that he was a coward for shooting Jesse James (Brad Pitt). The movie moved at a snails pace, chronicling Bob’s affection for Jesse James & for his outlaw lifestyle. Bob’s eager to join his gang of outlaws & be just as much a celebrity as Jesse. Yet his eagerness turns against him as Jesse jokes about his seemingly childish affection. Bob never earns the complete trust of Jesse and his desire for celebrity ultimately causes him to assassinate Jesse. Jesse was considered by many to be the Robin Hood of the wild west, and Bob is forever branded as a coward.

Casey was impressive in this role. At first he’s in awe of Jesse, eager to prove himself worthy of being a member of the gang. He completely idolizes Jesse & trembles when in Jesse’s presence. Yet his obsession turns resentful when his brothers tease him about his admiration, and he fails to gain Jesse’s trust. Gradually we see Casey’s resentment turn into a desire to prove himself better than Jesse, which leads to his assassination. Afterwards his character transitions once again, to that of someone haunted with extreme guilt & resentment. Casey managed to make all these transitions believable - transparent to the viewer, yet complex when viewed by other characters.

#1 - Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men

Javier Bardem plays the role of Anton Chigurh, a professional hitman, hired to collect a bag of money that’s been found Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin). He follows the signal from a tracking device hidden in the bag as Llewelyn tries to escape traveling city to city. He’s quick to eliminate people he believes are sinners (those trying to steal the loot), and he uses the flip of a coin to determine if the innocent should also be dispatched.

This movie was incredibly captivating, largely in part to Javier’s performance. He’s ‘the hunter’, methodically chasing after the stolen money. He’s has no problem murdering those in his way. Yet he’s not a mindless killer - as we follow him, we learn he believes he’s principled in his ways. He uses the flip of the coin to decide what to do with innocents. The tension and randomness of the flip introduces some tremendously tense moments in the film. His encounter with a gas station attendant is especially captivating. I was left holding my breath the entire scene, completely entranced by his performance as he asked the attendant to call the coin-flip without knowing the consequences of being wrong. Javier commanded my attention and put on an amazing performance which makes him my pick for best supporting actor.

I’m down to 6 films left to watch - hopefully I can get through them before the award ceremony!

This year, there were a total of 19 films nominated for the acting awards, best picture & best director. I had only seen a few of the films before they were nominated (Atonement, Juno, No County for Old Men) - so it’s been a mad scramble to try and watch all 16 other films. Although I still have a few to watch, I have finished a few categories. So let’s start out with my pick for best actress in a supporting role.

My selection, in reverse order:

#5 - Ruby Dee, American Gangster

Ruby Dee plays the mother of self-made drug lord Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington). She has very little screen-time in this film - Denzel Washington (Frank Lucas) & Russell Crowe (Detective Richie Roberts) dominate the picture, but her character plays a very important role in Frank’s life. Although Frank runs a heroin empire, he built his business on a foundation of family-first thinking and a strong work ethic. It’s evident that his mother is a very important figure in his life - she’s possibly the only person he actually respects & honors.

I imagine this must be a very difficult role to cast. Imagine looking for an actress that could command the respect & devotion of a drug-lord son played by Denzel Washington. In the end, Ruby did just that. In particular - while it doesn’t look it from the still above, she towers over Denzel with fiery emotion & conviction in that scene. But, in the end, her lack of screen time & importance to the plot mean she’s my #5 selection.

#4 - Saoirse Ronan, Atonement

Saoirse Ronan plays the role of 13 year-old Briony Tallis, the younger sister to Cecilia (Keira Knightley). Cecilia and the housekeeper’s son Robbie (James McAvoy) seem to have a ‘thing’ for one another. One night, Robbie asks Briony to deliver a note to Cecilia. He thought he gave Briony an apology note (for breaking a vase earlier in the day), but he accidentally gives her a sexually explicit love letter. Briony reads the note, but delivers it to Cecilia without a word. Later that night, she catches Robbie & Cecilia making love. Then, before the night is up she also finds her cousin being raped by someone who flees into the darkness. She tells the police it must have been Robbie and shows them the love letter as evidence of his ‘crazed sexual urges’. Robbie is taken from Cecilia, put in jail then shipped off to war. Only later does she realize she had jumped to conclusions and that Robbie was innocent. Much of the movie follows Robbie & Cecilia during this time, how they long for one another, and the guilt Briony feels for separating a couple in love.

Although I didn’t enjoy the film (I’ll save that commentary for my post on best picture nominees), Saoirse does a good job with this character. She makes it quite clear what an imaginative & active mind young Briony must have, writing screenplays, carefully analyzing others, and yet she remains somewhat of an introvert. However, if I were forced to make a best supporting actress selection from this film, I would have selected Romola Garai for her role as the 18 year-old Briony. I think the 18 year-old Briony was much a more emotionally conflicted & complex character.

#3 - Tilda Swinton, Michael Clayton

Tilda Swinton plays the role of Karen Crowder, a director of a large agricultural products company, U-North. U-North is the target of a multi-million dollar lawsuit, alleging that their products are actually toxic. When the lead lawyer representing the plaintiffs discovers a damaging internal U-North memo & has a mental breakdown, Karen tries to cover it up in an all out effort to save U-North and solidify her reputation as a top company official.

I’ve been a bit vague in my description, since I do not want to spoil anything for those who haven’t seen this movie. If you haven’t seen Michael Clayton, I do recommend it. As for Tilda’s role, it was quite good. Her character is put under tremendous stress given how important winning this case is to both her company and her professional reputation. As the tension in the movie escalates, I found it really interesting to watch her character push her personal comfort zone. It takes a unique skill to portray her character’s goal of outward confidence in the face of ever increasing internal distress when making decisions. In the end, these tensions clearly shake her character to her core.

#2 - Amy Ryan, Gone Baby Gone

Amy Ryan plays the role of Helene, mother to a child who’s gone missing. Casey Affleck plays a local private investigator (Patrick), hired by Helene’s sister to help find her niece. Ed Harris & John Ashton play detectives under the command of Morgan Freeman. The story has a fair number of twists and turns, following Patrick as he uncovers a tangled web of relationships between pimps, drug dealers & crack heads. The movie also presents many morally ambiguous situations which I imagine could spark much heated debate among viewers.

Amy’s role in this film was pretty amazing - she’s a selfish, low-income crack-addict of a mother. She’s so preoccupied with satisfying her own interests that she completely neglects her child. During the investigation into her daughters disappearance we begin to see this attitude shift — she begins to realize how much she loves & misses her daughter - yet in the end she returns to her old selfish ways. This spectrum of motherly devotion is what Amy delivered so well in this movie and makes her my #2 pick.

#1 - Cate Blanchett, I’m Not There

Finally, Cate Blanchett plays the role of Jude Quinn in I’m Not There. The movie is meant to show the different stages of Bob Dylan’s life. It does this by using six different actors, all playing different characters, all meant to portray a unique part of Bob Dylan. Not knowing this, the movie can be confusing to take in. I’m not a Bob Dylan fan, and I don’t know his history so it was even more confusing for me. While watching the movie, I was constantly trying to think about how these characters connected and how to make sense out of the film.

In fact, I had become so distracted by trying to sort out the plot and meaning of the film that I had forgotten to pay attention to the actors themselves. When I caught myself mid-film and realized that I had been watching Cate all along, I was taken aback. I had been so distracted that I hadn’t picked up that Cate was playing the role of a man. I was so completely sucked into the lifestyle, mannerisms and personality of her character that I hadn’t thought to evaluate the actress behind the character. I was even more amazed when I had a “wow” moment thinking about how she had been nominated as the best supporting actress for playing the role of a man. Overall, I was completely impressed by her acting in this film and she gets my pick for best actress in a supporting role.

Over the next few days I’ll post my picks in the other major categories. Hopefully I can finish everything before the big night - next Sunday, Feb 24th.

I’ve setup a set of URL rewrite rules so links to gameadsblog.com will continue working. I’ve also mapped the Game Ads Blog RSS feed to syndicate any future blog posts on in-game advertising. If you’re reading this in your Game Ads Blog RSS, then I’ve done everything correctly. =)

I’ve accidentally broken any existing links or your RSS reader, please drop me a line.

The announcement did get some press - I saw it mentioned on Gamasutra & Kotaku - but I was expecting more in-depth coverage. What I found most interesting about the announcement was that the technology is solely focused on delivering dynamic in-game ads to PlayStation Home (at least for now).

Adding advertising to the Home environment is a no-brainier - Sony has been hinting at this possibility since the Home announcement @ GDC earlier this year. But constraining the new team by focusing solely on delivering Home may neglect opportunities to build a more attractive platform for PS3 publishers. To my knowledge, there is no in-game advertising technology serving dynamic ads to PlayStation 3 games.

Without building a large network of games (which provide a variety of content and experiences) they place a constraint on the reach and demographic of their customer base. You could make the analogy to the web by thinking of Home as a single web site. Selling ad opportunities on that site will be generally more difficult than selling a network of sites that provide customers with different experiences. A network size of one limits the potential set of advertisers interested in your product.

What was also interesting to me was the appointment of a former VP of Publishing for Adscape. I think this supports much of what I’ve blogged previously - that Adscape was acquired primarily for its technology (and possibly patent) portfolio - and not for its industry relationships.

On that topic - I’m interested in hearing more from Google about what’s going on with Adscape these days. http://www.adscapemedia.com/ no longer forwards to the Google acquisition FAQ and I haven’t heard any news since the July appearance at the Seattle Casual Connect games conference (link). Anyone know what’s going on over there?

Sources:

• Sony Creates In-Game Advertising Business Unit
• SCEA Creates In-Game Advertising Group

It’s Tails! … doin what he does.

Today Massive released a study revealing that in-game advertising is surprisingly effective. It was conducted by Nielsen Entertainment and examined various ad campaigns that ran in games that use Massive. The study found:

• Average brand familiarity increased 64%
• Average brand rating increased 37%
• Average purchase consideration raised 41%
• Average ad recall increased 41%
• Average ad rating increased 69%

Before digging in further, here’s how the study was conducted. Over 600 North American gamers were recruited and divided into two groups - a control group and a test group. They both played the same game (Need for Speed, Carbon). The control group played the game but was NOT shown ads. The test group played the game (on Xbox 360 or PC) and was shown ads. Then the same questions were given to both groups. The questions asked gamers about the ads and brands included in the study. The difference between the two groups is what we considered “lift”. So when we say “brand familiarity increased x%” we mean that users in the test group were x% more familiar with the brand than users in the control group.

With that out of the way, here’s what some of our different types of advertisers saw:

• Automotive advertisers achieved a 69% increase in purchase consideration among likely car buyers.
• A consumer packaged goods (CPG) client saw a 71% increase among gamers who considered their snack food a “cool brand”. Among males 18-24 brand familiarity rose 63%.
• A fast-food restaurant ad saw its rating (those who liked it a lot vs. liked it a little) rise 39%.
• A technology tools client saw a 70% increase in brand rating.

I’m really glad our company is sharing data like this with the public and I’m glad the research was done by Nielsen - they’re getting increasingly involved with this market (see my recent post on their GamePlay metrics) and have a lot of experience conducting studies like this. While I would have liked to see the study conducted across more games, I’m impressed that there were so many participants - over 600 in total and over 300 in each group. This is a VERY large sample set for a study of this nature. I’m also excited that the study was conducted across both Xbox 360 and PC gamers.

Related: Massive In-Game Ad Effectiveness Study (Aug-8)

Console Usage Report Trend - June 2007

Console Usage Report Trend - May 2007

At first, these numbers were really surprising to me. I didn’t expect to see PS2 and Xbox so far ahead of the 360. But a quick check of console sales records at VG Chartz shows this is probably to be expected. PS2 has such a mammoth install base, that it’s only natural for that platform to have so many minutes.

But, let’s look at the other consoles as well. The most recent data on VG Chartz is from March, so it’s not ideal to compare the two, but it’s the best we can do for now. Here’s the American sales data from March next to the Nielsen data from May:

LTD percentages are calculated against only the five consoles listed.

The Xbox 360 and GameCube differences are interesting. Why is the comparatively small install base of Xbox 360 responsible for twice as many gaming minutes? Does Nielsen monitor too few GameCube households? Was there a surge of 360 sales in April/May? Are Xbox 360 games more engaging? Did GameCube owners transition to the Wii during April/May? These and other explanations are plausible… It’s impossible to know exactly why this is.

What I’d like to see are console #’s in the Nielsen report. This would help us understand if oddities like this are a result of a skewed console distribution.

Sources:

• “Nielsen GamePlay Metrics Launched by Nielsen…” - news release from Nielsen (Jul 26 2007).
• Worldwide Hardware Shipments as of Mar-2007 from VG Chartz.

In April, eMarketer released a 14 page report that examined video-game related advertising from a number of angles. Disclosure: I’ve read the report, but I’m going to avoid quoting from it directly (since it is a paid download). Overall they paint a rosy market picture. They cite positive comments last year from Joanne Bradford (Microsoft) and from Google on their acquisition of Adscape Media. They also claim the continued strength of the gaming market as a whole (and recently the increasing appeal to casual gamers) will also fuel advertising growth.

So let’s get to the numbers - their press release predicts that worldwide spending will rise from $692M today to $1,938M in 2011. They believe the US market contributes 50% of that figure.

Wowza! That’s a 22.9% CAGR (compound annual growth rate).

Parks Associates has more optimistic numbers. In June they released a 190 page report (I haven’t read all of this one =) that predicts market growth from $370M in US generated revenue in 2006 to $2,051M in US generated revenue in 2012.

Double wowza! That’s a 33% CAGR.

What I find most interesting here is that one of the authors of the report dismisses the idea of advertising in casual games. Speaking about the report to GamesIndustry.biz, Yuanzhe Cai says “I think the casual game genre is not very appopriate for in-game advertising.” Personally I disagree with him, so by his assessment $2B may be an underestimate.

Up next, PricewaterhouseCoopers. In their June “Global Entertainment and Media Outlook” report (which I haven’t seen), they expect a 9.1% CAGR for the games market overall, but much faster growth in in-game advertising. They expect US revenue growth from $80M in 2006 to $950M by 2011, which works out to a 51% CAGR. Triple wowza!

Finally, the Yankee Group. This month they released a report (which I haven’t seen) that predicts growth from $77M worldwide in 2006 to $971.3M in 2011. These are the most conservative numbers of the bunch, but I can only assume that’s due to the scope of the report. It’s titled “Advertising and Games: 2007 In-Game Advertising Forecast.” So I presume it doesn’t include estimates for advergaming (which others typically break out separately).

Even though these numbers seem much lower than the other reports, the growth rate is through the roof. $77M to $971.3M in 6 years represents a 52.6% CAGR. Wowzatacular!

By all accounts we have a bright future ahead of us.

Sources:

• “Video Game Advertising: Getting to the Next Level” - report by eMarketer (Apr 6 2007)
• “Electronic Gaming in the Digital Home: Game Advertising” - report by Parks Associates (Jun 29 2007)
• “Global Entertainment and Media Outlook: 2007-2001” - report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (Jun 23 2007)
• “Advertising and Games: 2007 In-Game Advertising Forecast” - report by Yankee Group (Jul 6 2007) (paid membership required)

Related:

• On the strength of the game industry: “This year, people will spend more money on games than they will on music.” - Peter Moore @ E3 2007 (skip to 14:38)
• Jun 7 - Got game - Economist.com
• Jun 18 - Beyond in-Game Ads: Nissan Takes Growing Market to Different Level - AdAge.com
• Jun 21 - Video Game Industry Growth Still Strong - HollywoodReporter.com on the report by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
• Jun 22 - Analyst: Games Industry To Reach $49 Billion by 2001 - Gamasutra.com
• Jun 28 - Parks Associates: Game Advertising to Pass $2 Billion by 2012 - GameDaily.biz
• Jun 28 - Game advertising to exceed $2 billion by 2012 - report - GamesIndustry.biz
• Jun 29 - In-game ads can be “double-edged sword”, says analyst - GamesIndustry.biz
• Jun 29 - In-Game Advertising To Top $800 Million by 2012 - Slashdot
• Jul 7 - Analyst: In-Game Ads Grow To $971 Million By 2011 - Gamasutra.com

Few people live in Rapture today. But those that remain (and those brave enough to explore what remains) will see many advertisements would have been common during better times.

This and other examples of poster advertisements in Rapture can be found on The Cult of Rapture blog.

PS: If you haven’t seen the X06 trailer for Bioshock, I highly recommend it.

Marketing in Second Life doesn’t work… here is why!
From GigaOm, this is a really insightful post. Although the survey referenced is quite small (only 200 respondents), and I find the survey’s assertion a bit odd (“72% disappointed with the activities of companies in Second Life”) – the results are to be expected.

Wait… what? Results are to be expected?

Right. Wagner makes some great points – seeing an advertiser’s presence, or interacting with them is an extremely opt-in experience. In SL you have to go out of your way to interact with many advertiser presences. And because many advertisers choose to set up shop on virtual islands, there’s little incentive to pay them a visit. Users are more likely to check out where everyone else is hanging out, and go there to join the party. As a result, many advertiser presences have been abandoned, leaving users with the impression that the advertiser is uninterested. For a world that values shared experiences and personal interaction so highly, this approach is doomed to failure.

In-Game Immersion: IGA and Massive execs sound off on the ad strategy’s evolution
Wow that’s a long title. Justin Townsend (CEO IGA), and Alison Lange (VP Marketing, Massive) contribute a lot of information – especially if you’re just getting up to speed on our industry thinks. However, for me it wasn’t the background that was most interesting, it was the statistics referenced:

• 400 million eyeball hours are attributed to gaming, while only 143 million hours go towards watching television (unknown source).
• 12% of “the male demographic” is watching less TV and have dedicated 20% more of their time to playing video games (“A Nielsen report”).
• 40% of the gaming population is female, retirees and seniors are a growing demographic. And the late teen to 20-year-old age range is playing the same games as the 18-34 male demographic (Justin Townsend).

One request – if you’re going to spout off statistics like this, please give us some proper sources! Some of these claims are pretty amazing. Like - gaming accounts for 280% more eyeball time than TV?! Riiight. I’ll believe that when I can analyze the underlying study thank-you-very-much.

On a positive note – the gamer in me appreciates that everyone agrees in-game advertising can be most effective when it’s complimentary to the game experience and unobtrusive. In fact, Eric over at Marketing.fm posted about this in detail:

The Right Formula For In Game Advertising
According to Eric, the right formula for in-game advertising is:

(Information + Authenticity) + (Entertainment + Engagement) – Intrusiveness = Effectiveness

This is a really useful way to think about things and rings true to both the gamer and the professional in me. The example that Eric provides is also a good one. The Red Bull logo on the sides of creates isn’t disruptive to the gameplay experience – it dovetails with the game setting and seems like something you might naturally see piled up in a warehouse. The screenshot he uses isn’t from a Massive game, but certainly could be. The shot Eric uses is from an older game, Judge Dredd: Dredd vs Death. It was integrated by Hive Partners who were later acquired by IGA.

Speaking about IGA, they recently announced (pinky to mouth):

One Billion Ad Impressions Per Week…

In a press release released 3/20, IGA announced that it expects to hit several milestones in March:

• 50 titles and 150+ countries in the IGA ad serving network.
• 200 million impressions generated per week by end of March.
• 10 millionth consumer expected to receive ad content by end of March.
• CPM’s are higher than broadcast network primetime – reinforce premium of in-game advertising medium.
• “This supports the general expectation that the market will grow by between 40 and 50 percent in 2007, with the latest market-size estimates for 2010 averaging $1.3 billion.” – Justin Townsend (CEO)

Wow! These are all great milestones! Congratulations.

Other reading:

• Massive poised to make large portion of “$700 Million Market” (GigaGamez.com)
• Massive Gains Momentum on In-Game Ads (TheStreet.com)
• Home is Where the Ads Are (GameDaily.com)

Well, it’s all for naught. To Microsoft’s knowledge, there has been no compromise of the Xbox Live network. No credit card or other personal information was exposed. We treat the security of our users and networks very seriously and are constantly evaluating and our security policies and procedures in this regard.

So what was all the fuss about? As far as our security investigation shows, this was a social engineering attack. Made famous by Kevin Mitnick, social engineering is the art of deceiving others into performing actions or divulging information. You know, like calling a phone company and convincing them to cancel the service for your neighbor who parks his car in front of your driveway. Using his name, phone number and address you might convince the phone representative that you’re really him - once that’s done you could wreck all sorts of damage. Another way would be to call your neighbor, convince him you’re the support representative for his phone company and you need him to confirm some important account details. Shoot, you don’t even need to call him - a convincing email or phishing website will do just fine.

In my opinion (this is my personal opinion, not that of Microsoft), there are (at least!) two things that can be improved upon here:

Xbox Live support representatives need better training

It was reported that when contacting Microsoft technical support, a representative said that “Hackers have control of Xbox Live and there is nothing we can do about it.” A support professional should not be making statements like this. First and foremost, they do not have the tools and access to the inner workings of the Xbox Live network, so it would be impossible for them to know if that statement were true or not. Secondly why would you ever say “there is nothing we can do about it?” Perhaps the “we” was intended to refer to Microsoft Support, but to everyone else on the planet it sounds like “we” == Microsoft, and of course Microsoft could do something about it (if it were true). We built the thing, we know how it works, there are many things we could do if anyone were to compromise our security.

Industry reporters should vet stories better

Sorry to blame the messengers here, but all the reporting I saw today was completely one-sided. Look - there was a report that security might have been compromised. Microsoft issued a statement saying that it would investigate. Then suddenly reports are everywhere that Xbox Live has been hacked. (I’m looking at you Kotaku!) What? How do you know? We get these reports practically every day, and I’ve yet to hear about one that turned out to be real.

I honestly believe our industry is being hurt by this lack of balance and bias within our most popular gaming blogs and news sites.

All in all, this whole shebang just reemphasizes how important it is to keep your personal information secret! Never share your password with anyone! Even if they claim they are from Microsoft. We don’t need your password! We will never ask for it. Protect other valuable information as well, like your name, phone number, credit card number, secret account question and answer, etc. These are only required if you call us for support - never share them with anyone via email, via voice chat, on forums, etc. Also, try to use a strong password, one that uses both letters and numbers. Use both uppercase and lowercase if you can. And finally, don’t use the same password on every website you visit! Who knows how other sites keep your information secure? A hacker could attack the site with the weakest security to get everything they need to steal your account.

- Official Microsoft statement (GamerscoreBlog.com) (MajorNelson.com)

… we are so stoked to join Google — because these guys get it, and are committed to helping us continue our mission. [Source]

A FAQ has been posted, but doesn’t offer financial details.

But, there are two interesting items:

Q. Do you already have deals signed with game developers?

A. We have been in discussions with many in the game development community and hope to partner with both large and small game publishing companies.

… This seems to be a step backwards from June 6, 2006 when CEO Chris Gilbert claimed “though we have several deals signed, we can’t discuss them publicly until they are formally announced.” [Source] — Note how “deals signed” has turned into “discussions with”. I’m not going to keep holding my breath.

Also, this caught my eye:

Q. Given the dramatic growth of the gaming market in recent years, how much advertising market share does Google hope to gain from this acquisition, both immediately and over time?

A. We don’t release specific projections but we think there is great value in video game advertising. As more and more people spend time playing video games, we think we can create opportunities for advertisers to reach their target audiences while maintaining a high quality, engaging user experience. That said, we will test ways of successfully implementing this form of advertising and Infinity’s technology will be instrumental in those tests.

Q. Where does Google see in-game advertising going in the future, in terms of both revenue and the technology itself?

[exact same answer as above] …

… What is this “Infinity” technology? Is this an internal codename for Adscape? I don’t know of any announced Google technology or in-game advertiser named Infinity. Anybody know if this is more than just a simple mistake?

My previous posts about Google:

• Jan-11: Google to Do In-Game Ads?
• Jan-22: Rumor: Google to buy Adscape
• Feb-17: Confirmed: Google buys Adscape

• The console household universe has grown 18.5% since fourth quarter 2004, compared to a 1.6% growth in the total universe of television households.
• Two-thirds of all Men aged 18-34 have access to a video game console in their home.
• The universe of connected console households (households subscribing to a service to connect their console to the internet) has grown to more then 4.4 million households, even before the
  newest Playstation 3 and Wii consoles are considered.
• In the NTI (Nielsen Television Index) fourth quarter of 2006 (9/18/06-12/31/06), 93.8 million US Persons aged two and older used a video game console for at least one minute.
• In any given minute, approximately 1.6 million US Persons aged two and older are using a video game console.
• The heaviest console users accounted for 74.4% of all console usage and averaged 345 minutes (5 hours and 45 minutes) of usage per usage day during the fourth quarter of 2006.

These are certainly important findings, but what do they mean for in-game advertisers? Well, let’s look a bit deeper. On the demographic side, console gaming is a very powerful way to reach the elusive young male demographic. 66% of all Men 18-34 have access a console. 80% of all Men and Women 12-17 have access to a console. This bolsters earlier estimates of similarly high penetration levels.

But what about connected units? - Being online is a key requirement for many in-game advertisers… Well, this is growing as well. In Q4 2003, there were 2.5 million households subscribed to a service to connect their consoles to the internet (10.6% of those who owned a connectable system). Today 4.4 million households are connected (16% of those who own a connectable system). The important factoid here is that an increasing percentage of connectable systems are actually connecting. This is good news, users are seeing the benefits of connecting their consoles and as a result are expanding the reach of in-game ads.

Other interesting observations:

• When comparing when gamers play against when people watch TV, we find that TV watching tends to take place earlier in the evening. TV watching peaks around 9 PM, gaming peaks around 10 PM.
• TV watchers tune in en-masse during primetime hours (notice the pronounced spike in TV watchers on page 6 of the report). By contrast, gamers spread out their gaming, slowly ramping up over the afternoon. I can only presume that as the gaming experience improves, these users will not bother to switch over to TV as primetime hits.
• So who plays games? The same people that watch Nicktoons, Adult Swim, Toon Disney, Cartoon Network, Noggin, Nickelodeon, etc… Some surprising results: G4 trails VH1 Classic and Spike trails the Animal channel… Who would have thunk it?

Nielsen says this is the first paper in a series on the video game industry. I can’t wait to see what’s next.

Reading:

• The State of the Console [pdf]

Well, the results are in. The winners were:

• Best Picture: The Departed
• Best Director: Martin Scorsese
• Best Actress: Helen Mirren
• Best Actor: Forest Whitaker
• Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Hudson
• Best Supporting Actor: Alan Arkin

So how did I do?… Well, I got everything right. The academy on the other hand got 3 of the acting awards wrong. =) Alan Arkin was a total surprise, Helen Mirren was a sensible choice (she was my #2), and Jennifer Hudson was the media favorite – everyone knew she was going to win.

But watching the awards, I couldn’t help but get upset over the directing of the show itself. Rapid, unnecessary camera changes, reaction shots from the wrong people, and a horrible salute to American filmmaking ensured the show was as dreary as years past. But let me cite a few specific examples…

First, during the introduction to the best international film category WHY would you put the camera on Sacha Baron Cohen (you know him as Borat)… HE ISN’T NOMATED IN THAT CATEGORY. HE DIDN’T MAKE A FOREIGN FILM. HE MOUTHED IT SO YOU WOULD GET A CLUE!… If disparaging the entire category was the directors goal, then he certainly succeeded.

Second, during Alan Arkin’s acceptance speech, he put the Oscar down on the ground so he could read his notes. Right as Alan Arkin begins to get choked up, so surprised that he won this category the director switches the camera TO A CLOSEUP OF THE OSCAR ON THE FLOOR. WHY?! Were all the computer animated Oscar tropies not enough to show us what it looks like?! Alan Arkin was a complete underdog in this category – why can’t we watch his tearful acceptance speech? Argh!

Third, … well, I’m not even going to talk about how magnificently Clint Eastwood botched the introduction of Ennio Morricone. The guy is a musical legend. A master! And you couldn’t be bothered to memorize his introduction or bring your glasses!? I’m glad I didn’t get a chance to see your film!

Fourth – Graham King, producer for the Departed gave a wonderful, tearful acceptance speech when he won best picture. Scorsese won best director just prior, and even before best picture was nominated you could tell how moved both Graham and Marty were. So after Graham finishes his speech and walks backstage with Jack Nicholson at his side, to meet with Marty the camera switches to watch the confetti drop?!… WTF?! Show us the backstage celebration! Show us Scorsese celebrating his film! Show us Jack!

Fifth – Chris Connelly… I think I wore out my mute button. Nuff said.

Gah I’m pissed.

Finally, best actress… My picks, in reverse order…

#5: Penelope Cruz – Volver

I can’t summarize the plot of this movie in just a few sentences, there are just too many important pieces and people that you need to know about. For my review, all you need to know is Penelope plays Raimunda, a woman who was raped by her father (when she was younger), and who believes her mother died in a fire. She has a daughter, and when her daughter murders her husband after he tried to rape her, she helps conceal the death and hide the body. In addition, we find out that her mother isn’t really dead after-all, but has been living with and caring for Raimunda’s aunt in secret. Raimunda reunites with her mother and begins to bond with her due to the recent events.

This movie is really interesting to watch, but the complexity of the plot steals much of the spotlight from the acting. It’s not that the plot is overly complicated or tricky to follow, it’s just there are many different connections between Raimunda’s past and present which are revealed slowly, as the story unfolds. Another important part of the story is the culture of La Mancha where everything takes place. There is a deep connection with the dead, and many people believe that restless ghosts visit family members. All of this makes it difficult to see the strengths in Penelope’s performance. She does a good job, but the role doesn’t give her a chance to deliver a performance we’ll remember for years to come.

#4: Meryl Streep – The Devil Wears Prada

Meryl plays Miranda Priestly, editor in chief of Runway magazine – a high fashion magazine based in New York. The story follows Andy (Anne Hathaway), hired as a personal assistant to Miranda. For much of the movie, we’re shown how ruthless, arrogant and cynical Miranda is. She’s completely focused on her magazine and has no time or patience to deal with ‘incompetence’ around her. But as Andy bonds with Miranda, we end up seeing glimpses of her humanity, of her human vulnerability. But it’s only a tease because in her world there’s no time for such distractions.

This is a really good performance. Meryl’s character is completely intertwined with her business. She’s structured her entire world around her magazine. She’s put up a seemingly impenetrable façade around her humanity, around her true feelings and emotions. Maintaining this illustion is what makes her performance so good. By the end of the movie, when we finally see Miranda crack a smile we beam. Why? … because we know how significant such a thing must be for Miranda. When she quickly snaps back to her usual self we feel a sense of secret pride, as if we got to see a small part of her that nobody else did.

#3: Judi Dench – Notes on a Scandal

Judi plays a school teacher. Bitter, old and close to retirement she lives alone with her cat Portia. To pass the time, she writes in her diary – which has grown to span many journals over the years. She becomes friends with a new teacher, Sheba (Cate Blanchett). As time passes, she begins to fall in love with Sheba and when she learns of Sheba’s affair with a student, she uses it against her in a twisted attempt to get her attention.

In this role, Judi makes it seem as if she’s constantly plotting how to get the attention of Sheba. It’s awkward, how she narrates her thoughts and plans to us as she writes in her diary. She’s clearly obsessed with Sheba, completely fixated on this idea that they were meant for each other. And at times when things don’t go her way (like when her cat dies, and she wants Sheba to comfort her, but Sheba has to go to her son’s school play) she totally flips out. She’s crazy and gross at times because Sheba doesn’t realize what she’s doing until she discovers the diaries near the end of the movie… I don’t think I’ll look at lonely old grandmas in the same way ever again…

#2: Helen Mirren – The Queen

Helen plays The Queen of England, Queen Elizabeth II. The movie is the fictional story of what the royal family went through during the time of Tony Blair’s election to Prime Minister, and Princess Diana’s untimely death.

This role must have been very challenging. She plays a Queen stuck in the ways of tradition, but compelled to deal with her disconnect from common people. Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) tries to help her bridge this gap – you see, he was elected by the people as a reformist, someone who could help modernize an antiquated government. In the end, it’s this constant pressuring that made Helen’s performance so great. She has to come to terms with the changing attitudes of her people. And as the film unfolds we see small changes in her. She seems more open, a bit less rigid and more caring… the changes are very slight and it’s the slow evolution that makes Helen so good in this role.

#1: Kate Winslet – Little Children

Kate plays Sarah Price, a mother disconnected from her husband and somewhat distant from her daughter. She regularly goes to the local park, where she meets Brad (Patrick Wilson), and kisses him on a dare. When she discovers her husband jacking off to an Internet porn site, she begins an affair with Brad.

I really liked how we see Kate’s character change when she begins to pursue and have an affair with Brad. Early in the movie she’s quiet, unhappy in her marriage, frustrated that she needs to care for her daughter all the time. But when she connects with Brad we see her spark back to life. She’s becomes more romantic, more passionate, and the chemistry she has with Patrick Wilson is clearly apparent. As more time passes, she begins to feel more alive. She’s happier in life. And when Patrick asks her to run away with him so they can finally be together, she agrees. This transformation is why Kate’s my Oscar pick this year. At first it happens slowly, we know something’s changed when she decides to go after Brad, but by the time they decide to run away, she’s completely different from how she began. This is something I didn’t see in any of the other nominees this year (well, except in The Queen but to a much smaller degree), and makes Kate stand out.

Well, the awards are tonight… we’ll see if the academy agrees with me. =)

Next up, best actor… Here’s my list, in reverse order as usual:

#5: Leonardo DiCaprio – Blood Diamond

Leonardo plays Danny Archer, a mercenary who overhears the tale of a father (Solomon) who’s been separated from his family, and hid a huge diamond he found. Danny offers to help Solomon find his family in exchange for the stone.

As I said in my review of Djimon Hounsou (nominated for best supporting actor for playing Solomon), this movie was entirely predictable. Danny’s story was no exception. His character had no depth and was completely uninteresting. Emotional moments in the story felt like a joke gone wrong, I couldn’t wait for this film to finish so I could watch something much better. I don’t know why Leo got nominated for this role – he was much better in The Aviator and The Departed. This movie and Leonardo’s performance are entirely forgettable.

#4: Peter OToole – Venus

Peter plays Maurice, an aging actor who spends his time hanging out with another old friend, Ian. All they do is sit around and talk about their acting careers and inevitable deaths. One day Ian’s agrees to let his niece’s daughter Jessie move in and take care of him. But when she does, Ian realizes that he can’t stand her. She’s not interested in caring for him, she’s rude, and she drinks a lot. But when Maurice sees her, he can’t help but feel compassion for the girl. As time passes, he develops a romantic interest in the girl (even though she’s like 60 years younger than him).

I liked Peter’s performance – he’s witty (compared to his aging, self-obsessed, lethargic friend) and at first the relationship he forms with Jessie seems perfectly ordinary. But Jessie turns out to be vulnerable, she stays at home all day living with an old man, has no friends, no job, no motivation to go outside and make something of herself. Maurice takes advantage of this and builds a romantic fantasy that revolves around her. Peter excels at giving us a character that is part dirty old man, part dying old man. At times he’s warm, at times honest, and he builds a unique chemistry with Jessie. The end is touching, even though Maurice is a creepy old guy at times, we feel a strong sense loss and emptiness when he’s gone.

#3: Ryan Gosling – Half Nelson

Ryan plays Dan Dunne, an inner-city high school teacher. During the day he teaches history, during the afternoon he’s a girls basketball coach, at night he’s got a nasty drug habit. After a basketball game, one student, Drey, finds him smoking crack in the girls bathroom. She’s a bit of a loner, quiet and mostly self-reliant, but she forms a friendship with him.

This isn’t your ordinary “ambitious inner-city school teacher shakes up the world” story… In Half Nelson, Ryan turns to drugs because he realizes his goal of ‘changing the world’ was too ambitious. Drugs give him a way to escape the pain of reality – that most of his students don’t care about history, aren’t motivated and just don’t want to be there. But Drey is different. What I like about Ryan’s performance is the spark you see in him whenever he’s with Drey. He begins to care about here and wants to keep her out of harm’s way. But he can’t escape who he is and in the end seems resigned to the fact that nothing is going to change. You can see his spark change in the latter half of the movie. The energy in his eyes starts to fade, his body language emphasizes how he’s lost his motivation, and he gives off a sense of connected honesty, that he knows his role in life and is stuck there. His overall performance is really good.

#2: Will Smith – The Pursuit of Happyness

Will Smith plays Chris Gardner, a struggling salesman. After a series of tough days, he notices how happy people in the financial district seem. They seem to be living a wonderful life. So he decides that he wants to become a stock broker. But when his wife leaves and his bank account runs dry, it becomes increasingly tough to pursue his dream while being a good father.

This was an eternally sad movie. Chris’s life just keeps going downhill even though he has the best of intentions for his future and for raising his son. It’s this massive contrast between his dedication to pursuing his hopes and dreams and the reality around him that causes us connect with him so deeply. One scene in particular – where he’s forced to spend the night in a bus station bathroom - is particularly moving. Even scenes that should be happy elicit a sense of sadness – like when his son tells him he’s a good father – we’re still sad because we’ve seen how hard it’s been for Chris to do his best. This is what’s best about Will’s performance – the earnestness he shows in the light of sacrifice.

#1: Forest Whitaker – The Last King of Scotland

Forest plays Idi Amin, the brutal dictator of Uganda in the 1970’s. The story is told through the eyes of his doctor, Nicholas (played by James McAvoy). Nicholas is one of Amin’s closest advisors, and forms a bond with the dictator who seems to have nothing but best intentions for Uganda. But as time passes, that changes. Amin’s afraid of being assassinated and anyone even suspected of acting against the dictators wishes ends up brutally murdered.

When I began writing this, I listed Forest as my #2 pick. But after thinking back on how good this performance is, I had to boost him to #1… Forest delivers a really exceptional performance – he’s incredible in this role. As the president of Uganda he starts off seemingly wanting only the best for his country. He’s extremely personable, gregarious and everyone around him seems to be drawn in by his jolly personality. But as the movie progresses, we see Amin become increasingly paranoid. He suspects everyone wants to kill him. Forest does such a good job here of showing us his paranoia without directly speaking to it. It’s in his eyes, his expression, the odd pauses when answering a question. As more time passes, it develops further. We see sudden shifts between a jolly, happy president and a brutal, murderous, vengeful man. To some degree, it even inspires fear in us – we’re not sure how he will react as events unfold. He’s my Oscar pick this year.

So, tomorrow I’ll post my pick for best actress. I’m not going to post a pick for Best Picture or Best Director because I haven’t been able to watch Letters from Iwo Jima. It’s not playing in theaters anymore… maybe I’ll rate the other films… but I’m not sure yet…. I’m disappointed I didn’t get a chance to see all the films nominated this year… =(

Viewpoint is a technology company that has traditionally provided Internet ad technology. They provide both standard and rich ad formats (from banners, to floating ads, expandable ads, interactive ads, even full screen and AIM based advertisements). They work with publishers to provide inventory, and work with advertisers who want to run campaigns. They also gather a lot of data on how users interact with ads and have a system they call “FUSE” for managing running campaigns and obtaining reports on user engagement and ad effectiveness.

However, the news here is that they are now offering in-game advertising as one of their offerings. What’s interesting to me are a few of the features they tout:

• … seamless integration of “swivel” ad placements into the game. Such placements enable dynamic ad rotation based on the priority of the ad unit, without disrupting the game play experience.
• … [the product] tracks a combination of metrics that define billable impressions even when the user is offline.
• … [the product] has a proprietary feature that allows for the delivery of ad units incorporated into “Ad Packs.” These Ad Packs can continually be exchanged for new Ad Packs so that the content is always timely and relevant.

The offline and “ad packs” support are the technologies that interest me the most. Advertising to offline users is a complicated problem. While a game is online it’s possible to download new ads and upload statistics about what ads have been seen (which is incredibly important because advertisers don’t like paying when their ads aren’t seen).

Offline games make gathering statistics impossible. Perhaps the “Ad Packs” technology allows the system to download a series of ads in advance (so when the user goes offline, they can be shown). But there’s no way to upload view statistics so long as the game remains offline. This presents many interesting challenges. For example, if you’re an advertiser, how much should you pay if your ads might have been seen by an offline gamer? How do you keep the ads relevant and up to date if the user has been offline for some time? What about interactive ads - would these even work offline?

Viewpoint is only just getting started in this space, so it may take some time before we know more about how their technology works. Clearly they’re a new player to keep an eye on.

More reading:

• Unicast Dynamic InGame Advertising Product

The author Stephen Totilo talks about a recent demo he saw of the upcoming PC game, “Hellgate: London“. Hellgate: London is a MMO style game that blends FPS and RPG characteristics. It takes place in a futuristic post-apocalyptic world. In the game, ads are integrated into places where you would expect them in real life:

Flagship CEO Bill Roper was running the demo and kept bringing his character to a grimy section of the London Underground subway system, which is nicknamed “the tube.” The walls had ads posted all over them, as they do in real life. I saw an iPod ad and one for Guinness…

The demo also included an ad for Children of Men, a movie that is also set in futuristic London.

This article is interesting to me because the author (and Flagship CEO) clearly understand how ads can enhance the gaming experience. They bring realism to the London Underground. They connect gamers with other subjects that might be interesting (like Children of Men) and other areas in the game that don’t have ads were noticeably “barren”. This is especially interesting because this is a game set in the future, not the present. Advertising in future worlds has been a hot topic ever since Battlefield 2142 announced IGA would provide in-game advertisements. But, if Hellgate: London does ship with in-game ads (the article points out the ads in the demo were just placeholders), it could change public perception.

Hellgate: London is expected to ship Summer 2007, there has been no announcement yet about in-game ads in the final version.

Next up, best supporting actress… I know everyone thinks Jennifer Hudson is going to win it this year, but what do I think? Read on… Here are m