Begging Naked (K. Gehres, 2009 [Hopefully])

I can't remember the last time a movie left me floored the way Karen Gehres' Begging Naked did. A buried treasure on the film festival circuit, it accomplishes so much that it's almost overwhelming. It works as a first-hand look at the sex businesses of New York City before Rudy Giuliani's "Disneyfication" of New York City. It works as a portrait of a struggling artist that lives above an elevator shaft working as a stripper. It works as a look into the life of a schizophrenic homeless person and how one can end up in such a position. But more than anything, it works as what set out to be: the recorded "autobiography" of Elise Hill, one of the most unique film subjects you will ever find, fiction or non-fiction.

The film introduces us to Elise as she tells the beginning of her life story, as a runaway from an abusive household in New Jersey, hitch hiking to New York City (Making $30 in the process pulling a "trick" on her driver). After a stint in prostitution and a heroin addiction that nearly cost her her teeth, she got out of the business, into rehab and into an art school that she would fund by selling her artwork on the streets.

Most of what is described above is brought to life by Elise's storytelling, sharing aspects with an impressive frankness that helps us ease into her unique world. Her living quarters are insanely cramped and cluttered, to the point that her mother broke down on her only visit there in shock of the conditions her daughter was living in. Not that Elise cares. The place and the connecting roof both work well enough as a place for her to work on her dolls, sculptures and paintings, though she would also work on her paintings at her place of work, the infamous New York City strip club Show World.

It is in this section of the film, where Elise shares of her experiences at Show World, that the film's dimensions truly begin to become apparent. As someone that recently volunteered on sound for a Vagina Monologues production, I have become interested as to why few films explore the explicit side of women's sexuality in a deep and thoughtful manner, and in this section Begging Naked does well in filling this void. Gehres makes the smart choice of never showing any film footage of what goes on in Show World, instead allowing us to observe the world through Elise's own recollections and beautifully explicit drawings, portraying everything from a "Face Dance" to a "Buck in the Butt," all explained eagerly by Elise. While the film never glamourizes the profession, there's still so much to cover on this subject that it wasn't surprising to learn that Gehres was already considering making a film entirely out of the idea of a 32-year-old woman re-entering this profession, the way Elise did.

Yet life has an odd way of throwing even more curveballs, as Giuliani moved forward in zoning the hell out of the smuttier side of NYC, eventually leading to the loss of Elise's job. And while there was likely no cause/effect going on, it is also around this time that Elise began to show a losing grip of reality, casually discussing the chip planted in her brain by the government that relays all of her thoughts to a super-computer, among other worrying things. From here things only begin to go downhill, as she stops paying the rent, runs into legal trouble, and in one of the hardest to watch scenes of any film in recent memory, she is evicted from her apartment, the entire event caught on camera, as Elise, so calm and lively early on, finally begins to lose it. It was later revealed during the Q&A that the footage was shot not by Gehres but by her partner at the time, because Gehres was out of town. Gehres herself is not sure she could have captured the scene the way it is now, as she couldn't even watch the footage herself for a while.

But alas, rereading what I have written so far I am reminded of some of Roger Ebert's Great Movies essays, where he will synopsize for a while before apologizing for not getting more into what makes the movie work. It is hard to truly put into words where the power of this film comes from, especially without spoiling it for others. I myself had read the website's description of Elise's life story before seeing the film, but the deeper and deeper I got into the story, what I had read beforehand began to matter less and less.

By the time it had reached its end, I remained still, contimplating what I had just watched. It wasn't until film critic Lisa Rosman walked out with Gehres, and began the Q&A by thanking her for giving us this film, that I lost it. As I began welling up quietly, I realized that whatI had just watched really was something special. It is the story of a woman whose story runs close to so many out there (The teenage runaway, the struggling artist, the homeless schizophrenic), yet is truly unique in her own right. And to be told in a manner that is almost painfully personal but never manipulative...it truly is moving, something that you rarely find in this medium. But when you do, it can be one of the happiest accidents anyone can find.

Take any chance you can to see this film. I'm not sure I will find a more satisfying film experience this year.

Teeth (M. Lichtenstein, 2008)

(Spoilers ahead)

Ever since I decided to blog my opinions on every 2008 release I see, I've been trying to figure out how to deal with the titles that are...less than deserving of detailed thoughts. Unfortunately I was left to confront this problem a lot sooner than I would've hoped with Teeth, a promising but ultimately underwhelming indie horror flick that was a breakout at last year's Sundance Film Festival.

Perhaps what is most disappointing about Teeth is that for such a brilliant concept, its screenplay is sorely underdeveloped. One major giveaway to this is the initial motivations of our main character Dawn (Played as well as the material will allow by Jess Weixler). We are first formally introduced to Dawn at an seminar for abstinence, and they drive it home quite heavily that she firmly believes this. However, I never felt as though we were really given an adequate reason for her strong beliefs. Her passion for the issue seems to point towards religious reasons, but the film never really touches on her beliefs, and her household seems fairly indifferent to it. I'm not saying she should be a crazy Christian or anything, but it just feels as though Lichtenstein felt that it would be great to make her an abstinence advocate but left it at that.

Then there are the plot issues, or more the way Lichtenstein goes about executing them. The film just doesn't feel complete, more like the origin story for a saga that probably won't be continued in cinematic form. We brush along the mythology of vagina dentata and how it must be conquered, but ultimately never is over the course of the film. The film's climax with Dawn's evil stepbrother also feels too sudden and too insignificant. The main reason for this would probably be that for the majority of the film the stepbrother Brad never feels like that much of an adversary, outside of his open romantic feelings for stepsister Dawn. The decision to have him suddenly release his vicious dog on his own dad and then getting the blame for his stepmom landing in the hospital seems like the movie is trying to hard to create a villain for the film to end on, kinda like Nick Nolte in Hulk.

Not all is bad or disappointing in the film though. The much-discussed gynecologist scene was worth the hype in its disturbingness and hilarity, with a memorable bit role played by John Pias as the unfortunate gynecologist. Weixler turns in a fine breakout performance, and I would love to see her more often now. Also, the above problems about plotting could probably be corrected if there was ever a sequel made (Which might be hard, since it was such a blip at the box office). In the end, a disappointing spin on a promising idea.

Shine a Light (M. Scorsese, 2008)

In my incredibly limited film "career" (heh), perhaps my greatest accomplishment has been editing together a three-minute music video for an oldies-cover band through the film club where I am vice president. It was edited together from three takes of a live performance, with only the help of the club adviser and a fellow equally inexperienced club member. It took about four to five two hour sessions to edit this opus together, with only two to three cameras to take from for every take. When I consider the amount of time and hard work put into editing thie video, I can't help but applaud Martin Scorsese and his army of cinematographers for making Shine a Light as seamless and exhilarating as it is. It's a marvel of a film, and while I haven't seen any other concert films to really compare it with, I remain daunted by its energy.

However, even for those that haven't edited live music before, the film's prologue does a good job of making one feel the pressure and insanity of such a task, filming a concert of one of the world's biggest bands from two performances with some of cinema's most renowned living cinematographers, including Emmanuel Lubezki and John Toll. Hours before the concert starts Scorsese is still unsure of what the order of the songs will be, and he gives the reasons as to why this information is so essential, such as whether or not it is a song that will need a close-up of say, Kieth Richard's guitar, or Mick Jagger. It sets the mood for a wild two nights, and luckily nothing goes wrong, giving us the viewer a nice close-up view of one hell of a concert.

From the prologue onwards we have nothing but the concert intercut with some old interviews from the band's heyday. To review the concert itself is challenging, because you run the same risk that you when reviewing comedies of simply listing off what you liked most. Naturally the performances of their biggest hits, "Jumpin' Jack Flash" and "Satisfaction," which opening and close the concert respectively, are among the more furious numbers, but everything in between was able to keep this viewer enthralled, with the Buddy Guy duet of "Champagne & Reefer" being a particularly fun, soulful number.

Luckily, there are aspects of the film that are memorable for technical and thematic reasons. One particular moment that stuck out for me came early on, I'm not even sure during what song it occurred, but there is a shot of Mick Jagger from the audience when suddenly in the area between the camera and the stage a fan begins recording his own close-up of Mick Jagger on his cell phone, with the cell phone staying in the middle near the bottom of the frame before cutting away. I have tried figuring out what made this unscripted moment so appealing - maybe the accidental poetry of the way people record such events and remember them? - but I still can't quite figure it out. I just loved it.

There is also an undercurrent that runs through almost every scene where Mick Jagger puts his microphone aside for a moment and just lets loose. The interviews spliced in between the songs put emphasis on the questions about just how long the band plans on doing this, concerts and rocking out and such. It is interesting to consider how they do keep doing this, after decades of drugs and hard times, and yet they still seem to be having the time of their lives, with Mick stopping to dance or Keith Richards jamming so close to the audience and even tossing out a guitar pick or two over the course of the show. Once upon a time senior citizens were among the dullest, quietest people on Earth. The Rolling Stones like to think otherwise.

Much like my viewing of another film focusing on a major music icon earlier this year (I'm Not There), I knew little about the artist(s) going into the film, but left energized and wanting to know more. Scorsese and Co. have done an amazing job here, and I applaud them. I guess this means I should see The Last Waltz too then, eh?

Cloverfield (M. Reeves, 2008)

(Spoilers ahead)

Cloverfield is somehow at once one of the most frustrating, one of the dumbest, one of the smartest, and one of the most thought-provoking films I've seen in a while, leaving my mind in a constant state of thought both positive and very negative that would lead to thoughts of why these thoughts are so negative. To put it as simply as possible, it is about as good a way to kick off the movie year for me as possible.

Now, first I want to get to the biggest flaw of the film, which would be, quite simply, its style. I have never seen The Blair Witch Project, so I have no movie to really compare it with, but by downgrading to the simplest of filmmaking techniques, the film leaves itself at a disadvantage in a genre known for logic problems. What I'm saying is, by trying to put itself at the simplest point of view (An amateur video diary), one should expect slightly more...sporadic filming techniques. Now, I will admit at times it gets almost sickening to watch it, but the film gives itself too much mise en scène to fully let go of the idea that what we're watching was totally on the fly as the unprofessional cameraman tries fighting for his life with his friends. In perhaps a more picky area of opinion, it also gets distracting how clean the lapses in time are, how nearly 12 hours of activity were condensed so easily into just little over an hour of tape, appearing to turn the camera off and on just seconds before the next big event. Again, it's picky, but these are the problems filmmakers must consder when they choose such a POV, no?

Another problem that arises from this filmmaking technique is the thematic issues of the film, which are brought more alive by the camcorder perspective, yet in doing so reveal the flaws more so than if the film took a more traditional route. The main arc of the film is nothing new (Off the top of my head I know at least The Day After Tomorrow used the "loved ones of trapped individual go on quest to save them" plotline...I'm sure there are more), but again, there's a certain air of "whywhywhy?" to scenes like the one where the group climbs 50 flights of stairs to jump from one building to the collapsed one right next to it.

And yet, in spite of all of these leaps of logic, I found myself enthralled and intrigued by this world, one that is essentially meant to be 9/11 times thousand, except there is no hope to be found at the end. Perhaps the best way to come to terms with the little -isms of the technical aspects is in how similar leaps in logic must almost always be applied to types of literature that go for a similar perspective, such as a diary, with its perfectly paced entries making for good storytelling.

As for the thematic areas of storytelling, for me even the moments where these characters go and make slightly crazed decisions are balanced out by the very large story that surrounds them, and how, in the great scheme of it all, the only thing that sets their story of doomed escape from other stories is that their's has been taped. The concept of putting a disaster story on a personal scale is still almost always dwarfed by the larger story at hand, one that the filmmakers seem to easily prefer. Here, the personal story is both very much at the forefront of the film, yet in the end, how much will their story matter? Who will care to watch their story of a futile rescue, outside of whoever gets the job of viewing evidence from Incident Site U.S. 447? Now, that's not to say these guys really deserve to be remembered. The fact that I only remember the name of the camera guy (Hud?) speaks volumes about how these characters work on a personal level, but most of these these feelings about the film arise not from the characters themselves, but what surounds them and what it means to the millions of likely dead in Manhattan. If one is willing to contemplate it, the film gives service both to the dreams of heroism during a great tragedy, and the nightmare of being forgotten among the many.

Cloverfield is not without flaws. But it does have certain things going for it, if you're willing to look for them. It is unfortunate that the hype earlier this year has buried it under an avalanche of bad reactions, and that it'll be a while before it can recover. However, as it stands right now, Cloverfield is that rare find from this early in a film year, a film that intrigues the cinematic mind technically and thematically, and I will be pleasantly surprised if it doesn't stay near the top of my favorite films for the year for the next few months.

"He's...just a kid": Spider-Man 2 (S. Raimi, 2004) and the Superhero Genre

It’s interesting to consider that this decade of film will be ending next year with the release of Watchmen, an adaptation of perhaps the definitive work of fiction on the nature of superheroes and their stance in culture, and will more or less cap off a decade that began with the first major superhero movie since outside the famous DC duo (X-Men, that is), and has made the superhero genre one of the most prevalent genres of the decade, both financially, culturally and critically.

From X-Men to Spider-Man to Batman Begins and their sequels, we have seen many, many interpretations on the long-standing genre. They have ranged included lazy adaptations made solely for the buck (Daredevil, the Fantastic Four films), passable mainstream fluff (The first Spider-Man), deeper but still mainstream works (X2, Batman Begins), satiric looks at the genre that also embrace their conventions (The Incredibles), and even films that went so far into the genre that the audiences got lost and ultimately alienated (Superman Returns, Hulk). In a world that has become increasingly grim, and where America itself has become something of an enemy to the world, plenty of interpretation is to be found in this genre, and I wouldn’t be surprised if many years from now these films are looked at the same way the film noirs of the ‘40s and ‘50s are now looked upon, but I may be getting ahead of myself there.

Spider-Man 2 definitely belongs among the “deeper but still mainstream” group of superhero movies, which for most of the first 2/3 of the movie resembles more of a character study of Peter Parker than your typical superhero movie. Granted, that first 2/3 still features its fair share of action sequences (One involving a bank heist by the villain Doctor Octopus is particularly indulgent fun), and enough self-depreciating humor (Among Peter’s woes are having his whites ruined in the washer by his spidey suit) to keep the audience pleased. It has come to be considered by many as the best of the superhero movies this decade, with some competition from Batman Begins and The Incredibles (If the discussion is opened up to non-comic book films). The $151 million opening for Spider-Man 3 is a good testament to that.

The Spider-Man movies have a particularly episodic feel to them that most comic book movies have. The movies will usually open with a set-up of what the main plot points are to be. In this case, we have Peter’s problems involving work, school and his love life and how they begin weighing down on him, Otto Octavius’ work on the ultimate energy source being financed by Harry Osborne, and Harry’s own thirst for vengeance against Spider-Man. From here these plots go through their own episodic rotations, as they collide into each other, effecting one plotline which then effects the effecting plotline, before spiraling towards a hopefully satisfying conclusion, leaving maybe a couple untied plotlines for the sequel. Just about all superhero movies follow this pattern, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a movie that didn’t follow something close to it. By using this kind of plotting the films have a strong resemblance to comic book story arcs, and how they will stretch over multiple short issues, but read together make pretty good sense. Watch any extended sequence from just about any of these superhero movies and you would probably have an effect similar to picking up a random comic book issue.

This works to the film’s disadvantage, but doesn’t kill it the way it kills the third film of the series. In that film the plotlines became so convoluted that none are really given a chance to breathe or really become as fleshed out as they should. In Spider-Man 2, there are certain segments that are outweighed by others in terms of interest (Watching it again I was surprised by just how much focus there is on Aunt May’s financial troubles), but it speaks volumes about how well these scenes ultimately work, as I decided to let the scenes play instead of giving into my ADD and hitting the skip button.

Also unlike any other superhero film franchise at the moment, Spider-Man very warmly embraces its campy roots, usually with mixed results. Frequently this camp threatens to overtake the films and occasionally does (Pretty much any scene involving the Green Goblin in 1, the entire amnesia plot from 3), but compared to its neighboring installments I was impressed at how restrained the film is in its overall campiness, keeping its more wacky and hoaky moments small enough to get a happy grin (Like Aunt May's thanking of an angel statue as she regains her footing on a building during a action set pece, Doc Ock's robo-arms lighting him a cigar as he works) than have entire sequences or plotlines that peeve and outstay their welcome.

Then of course you have the moments of the film that are without reservations (Well, maybe some) just plain excellent. The hospital scene where the Doctor Ock's robo-arms wreck havoc on the unfortunate doctors is a particularly underrated sequence, with pitch-perfect editing that turns it into something resembling what Hitchcock would do with such a scene, as the doctors are tossed, stabbed and dragged in a chaotic fashion that spares nothing yet shows so little. It’s a scene so confidently perfect and standout that it seems as though Raimi meant for it to be such a standout sequence in terms of its style, bringing to mind that dreaded, overused “P” word that I won’t pull out, mainly because the sequence works well as it is.

Then there is the thrilling, intense and ultimately heart-wrenching final full blown fight between Spidey and Doc Ock, as they exchange the hands on a clock tower in a fighting fashion, then move onto a passing train, and finally having Spidey forced to slow down the train, nearly killing himself. It ends in the film’s hokiest and most moving moment, as the passengers carry our unmasked title hero like a tortured messiah, only to discover that their savior is little more than a simple young'un, “No older than my son,” as one middle-aged passenger puts it. Superman Returns deals with a similar situation with Christ-like undertones in a more poetic and mature manner near the end, but this scene is still quite excellent in giving a personal sense of just quite it would be like for the New York City of Spider-Man to watch its hero weakened like this, and it’s certainly better than the ill-executed final construction fight scene in Spider-Man 3 (Sorry to keep ragging on the film like that, but it DOES pale in every aspect when compared to this film).

While Spider-Man 2 isn’t my #1 superhero movie (It’s not even my #2 – Batman Begins and The Incredibles take those spots), it is probably the best representation of the current state of the genre. It combines the camp and kiddie-friendly delight of the less-renowned superhero movies, while holding the deeper, character-study aspects that have softened the genre for critics that once dismissed it as kiddie fodder. If my earlier prophecy, about this genre going on to become a cultural mile-marker in the way some genres have for their eras, were to come true, I would not at all be surprised to see Spider-Man 2 become its Maltese Falcon or Double Indemnity, the touchstone of a golden age for its genre.

Oscar Predictions

I have been following the Oscar race now for seven years, and of all the years I've been following it, this year is by far...well, there's really not much truly unique about it actually, at least after the nominations were announced. Leading up to the nominations it was probably the most chaotic season ever, with no less than seven films in the heat of battle for the Best Picture shortlist, where only five could make it, and farther down the list most categories had similar battles that resembled musical chairs in how you had six or seven contenders trying to squeeze into five slots.

In the end though, the eventual nominees were fairly standard, with the two least commercially viable films, Into the Wild and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, missing out on a Best Picture nomination. Other categories didn't feature much in terms of shockers, outside of Tommy Lee Jones in Actor for the supposedly forgotten In the Vally of Elah, and Laura Linney for a subtle performance in the small The Savages

After nomination morning (And the mourning of Heath Ledger's tragic death that happened later that afternoon), pundits ultimately agreed on a set of winners that the precursors haven't done much to challenge. I'll still cover these categories, as a few are still legitimately up in the air, along with technical categories, which also has its fair share of locks and open races. Without further ado...

Best Picture
Atonement (Focus Features)
Juno (Fox Searchlight)
Michael Clayton (Universal Pictures)
No Country for Old Men (Miramax)
There Will Be Blood (Paramount Vantage)
Will Win: On paper, with its long, quiet scenes of observation, the occasional outburst of heartless violence and an unconventional, dark and somewhat nihilistic ending, No Country for Old Men doesn't look like any Best Picture winner in recent memory. Still, when you look at the rave reviews (It's arguably the most acclaimed of the bunch), the precursor sweeping (It's only the second film after Best Picture winner American Beauty to win the top prize from all four major guilds), the box office (It's the second highest grossing nominee, the nominee that most often wins), and that no clear potential upsetter every came forth (Unlike 2005, where everyone agreed that only Crash could upset Brokeback Mountain), it seems about as locked as any Best Picture winner since Return of the King three years ago.
Could Win: IF any film could upset No Country, it would probably be the emerging favorite among older voters, Michael Clayton, the lone studio film in the bunch. Juno also has probably the best shot of any contemporary comedy to take the top prize in ages. It doesn't seem quite right though...
Should Win: Atonement is probably the film closest to my heart, and my favorite film from last year, nominee or not. Still, No Country would also be my #2 film of last year (Again, nominee or otherwise), so it would be a more than deserving winner.

Best Direction
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Julian Schnabel)
Juno (Jason Reitman)
Michael Clayton (Tony Gilroy)
No Country for Old Men (Joel Coen, Ethan Coen)
There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson)
Will Win: Even if it somehow lost Best Picture, No Country for Old Men still seems set to win here, as the Coens are easily the most experienced nominees here, and most due for a Directing Oscar.
Could Win: The Diving Bell and the Butterfly probably barely missed out on a Picture nomination, judging from its many major nominations elsewhere. So if any director could become the first to win a Directing Oscar without a Picture nomination in over seventy years, Schnabel would be a prime candidate. Still, the fact that the lone Director nominee has the best chance at an upset shows how locked the Coens are at this point.
Should Win: Unfortunately I never saw Diving Bell (The perils of living just too far away from a major metropolis), but the Coens are more than worthy, and my viewing of their past works show that the award has been a long time coming.

Best Actor
George Clooney in Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood
Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Tommy Lee Jones in In the Valley of Elah
Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises
Will Win: It would be foolish to dance around the "ifs" and "buts" here: Daniel Day-Lewis is winning Oscar #2 for his sure-to-be-iconic powerhouse of a performance.
Could Win: I guess Clooney could ride a last-minute wave of Michael Clayton acclaim, but no, it's not happening.
Should Win: Clooney, Jones and Mortensen all delivered memorable and worthy performances, but even my slight indifference to There Will Be Blood doesn't deny that Day-Lewis is the worthy winner here.

Best Actress
Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie in Away from Her
Marion Cotillard in La Vie En Rose
Laura Linney in The Savages
Ellen Page in Juno
Will Win: Probably the first category where you can find a legitimate race for the win. While Christie has won a good chuck of critics awards, the Golden Globe and SAG Award, Marion Cotillard has still also won a Golden Globe (In Comedy/Musical, but still) and the BAFTA, an award that has indicated acting upsets in years past (Alan Arkin last year, Adrien Brody in 2002). And while Christie's role is certainly baity (Alzheimer's!), Cotillard is even more baity once you get past the language barrier (Real life person! Fits of rage! Crying! Wide age-range!). So at the moment I am tentatively going with Marion Cotillard for the upset.
Could Win: Christie still has the Globe and the SAG and the bazillion critics awards, so I could just be paranoid here. And hey, the film sneaked a screenplay nom in there, so the film itself doesn't lack support. But don't count out Ellen Page, the hot new thing in the only nominee that at least 3% of the likely Oscar viewership has probably seen.
Should Win: I was never able to find The Savages, but I'm not particularly passionate about any of the other nominees. Cotillard and Christie would make worthy winners though.

Best Supporting Actor
Casey Affleck in The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook in Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson in Michael Clayton
Will Win: Anton Chigurh is already on the fast track to becoming an iconic movie villain, so denying the current frontrunner Javier Bardem the win would be quite the shocker.
Could Win: IF a No Country backlash were to take place (OR Chigurh is just too heartless for the voters), veteran Holbrook would be a fine alternative in his apparently sweet and heartbreaking role that comes near the end of Into the Wild, an otherwise largely ignored film.
Should Win: Without having seen Into the Wild, Affleck delivered a haunting turn and possibly my favorite performance period from last year as the coward in Andrew Dominik's unfortunately underseen western, but the sad case of category fraud makes the inevitable loss to Bardem easier to handle.

Best Supporting Actress
Cate Blanchett in I'm Not There
Ruby Dee in American Gangster
Saoirse Ronan in Atonement
Amy Ryan in Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton
Will Win: Easily the wide-open major category of the night, the major awards have been split four ways, with all the nominees (Except Ronan) winning major precursors. The last time this happened back in 2000, the one nominee without any awards went on to win. However, as great as a Ronan upset would be, I'll stick with the general consensus that has emerged in the last couple weeks (And a conclusion I came to shortly after the nominations), and go with BAFTA winner Tilda Swinton, winning as a consolation prize for Michael Clayton.
Could Win: Honestly, all four have a fair shot at this point. Though if I had to pick one person, I would probably go with vet Ruby Dee, and her tiny role as Denzel's mom in American Gangster, though that just might be worry about my least-favorite performance winning. Honestly though, all five have a legitimate shot. Watch out.
Should Win: Ronan would probably be my favorites here, taking a challenging role and running with it, showing depth and a lack of cutesy antics not normally seen in child actors.

Best Adapted Screenplay
Atonement (Christopher Hampton)
Away from Her (Sarah Polley)
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Ronald Harwood)
No Country for Old Men (Joel Coen, Ethan Coen)
There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson)
Will Win: With No Country for Old Men set to win many, many awards Sunday night including the top two prizes, it seems unlikely that the Coens' screenplay would lose.
Could Win: However, don't discount the possibility of the Academy wanting to spread the wealth. If Diving Bell doesn't win Direction, this would be the next spot to award it.
Should Win: Atonement took a book that many considered inadaptable, and made it into a coherent and, best of all, moving film. Quite the feat, really.

Best Original Screenplay
Juno (Diablo Cody)
Lars and the Real Girl (Nancy Oliver)
Michael Clayton (Tony Gilroy)
Ratatouille (Brad Bird, Jan Pinkava, Jim Capobianco)
The Savages (Tamara Jenkins)
Will Win: The most talked about screenplay of the year from the most talked about screenwriter of the year seems like a hard frontrunner to beat, so Juno it is.
Could Win: In the increasingly unlikely chance that Juno is too hip of a film to win, Michael Clayton makes for an easy, more conventional back-up choice.
Should Win: Honestly, an upset of Juno by any film would be a pleasant surprise, particularly Bird's wonderful, deeper-than-you-would-expect work on Ratatouille, or Oliver's miracle of a screenplay for Lars and the Real Girl.

Best Foreign Language Film
Beaufort (Israel)
The Counterfeiters (Austria)
Katyn (Poland)
Mongol (Kazakhstan)
12 (Russia)
Will Win: In a year like this, where none of the nominees have any buzz, go with the most conventional: The Counterfeiters, a film about some event in WWII Europe, and that's all you really need to know.
Could Win: I dunno...12? It's a Russian remake of 12 Angry Men, maybe the members that see all five nominees will appreciate that?
Should Win: Along with any other American, even those in big cities, I haven't seen any of these nominees. Only The Counterfeiters has gotten a US release, and it opened just this weekend. I hear 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days and Persepolis were excellent, unfortunately snubbed contenders though. Really though, this category is a bigger mess than usual this year, unfortunately.

Best Animated Feature
Persepolis
Ratatouille
Surf's Up
Will Win: Ratatouille, Ratatouille, and oh, Ratatouille.
Could Win: Persepolis has a fanbase that rally for a upset, but...over Ratatouille, really?
Should Win: I never got the chance to see Persepolis, and Surf's Up is still in its Netflix envelope, but I would be shocked if either reached the wonderful, one-of-a-kind excellence of Ratatouille. Well, maybe Persepolis could, but I really, really love Ratatouille.

Best Documentary Feature
No End In Sight
Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience
Sicko
Taxi to the Dark Side
War/Dance
Will Win: The most acclaimed documentary of last year, No End In Sight, is the obvious standout even with three other nominated docs that one way or another cover the current War on Terror.
Could Win: However, if those four docs were to somehow split the vote, and the Academy has gotten over his acceptance speech five years ago, Michael Moore's Sicko could certainly upset.
Should Win: I have only seen Sicko and No End In Sight, but No End In Sight really is an important and detailed documentary that can use all the free press it get. I do wish they hadn't overlooked The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters though, one of last year's greatest accomplishments, documentary or otherwise.

Also, since I like my predictions complete, the shorts, based entirely on reading their descriptions:

Best Documentary Short
La Corona
Freeheld
Salim Baba
Sari's Mother
Will Win: Sari's Mother
Could Win: Salim Baba

Best Animated Short
Even Pigeons Go to Heaven
I Met the Walrus
Madame Tulti-Pulti
My Love
Peter & the Wolf
Will Win: I Met the Walrus
Could Win: Peter & the Wolf

Best Live-Action Short
At Night
Il Supplente (The Substitute)
Le Mozart Des Pickpockets
Tanghi Argentini
The Tonto Woman
Will Win: Il Supplente (The Substitute)
Could Win: Le Mozart Des Pickpockets

And finally, in short, the technical categories:

Best Art Direction
American Gangster (Arthur Max, Beth A. Rubino)
Atonement (Sarah Greenwood, Katie Spencer)
The Golden Compass (Dennis Gassner, Anna Pinnock)
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (Dante Ferretti, Francesca lo Schiavo)
There Will Be Blood (Jack Fisk, Jim Erickson)
Will Win: Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Could Win: Atonement
Should Win: Sweeney Todd

Best Cinematography
The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford (Roger Deakins)
Atonement (Seamus McGarvey)
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Janusz Kaminski)
No Country for Old Men (Roger Deakins)
There Will Be Blood (Robert Elswit)
Will Win: No Country for Old Men
Could Win: There Will Be Blood
Should Win: The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford

Best Costume Design
Across the Universe (Albert Wolsky)
Atonement (Jacqueline Durrane)
Elizabeth: The Gold Age (Alexandra Byrne)
La Vie En Rose (Marit Allen)
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (Colleen Atwood)
Will Win: Atonement
Could Win: Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Should Win: Atonement

Best Film Editing
The Bourne Ultimatum (Christopher Rouse)
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Juliette Welfling)
Into the Wild (Jay Cassidy)
No Country for Old Men (Roderick Jaynes)
There Will Be Blood (Dylan Tichenor)
Will Win: The Bourne Ultimatum
Could Win: No Country for Old Men
Should Win: The Bourne Ultimatum

Best Makeup
La Vie En Rose (Didier Lavergne, Jan Archibald)
Norbit (Rick Baker, Kazihiro Tsuji)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (Ve Neill, Martin Samuel)
Will Win: La Vie En Rose
Could Win: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Should Win: Anything but Norbit

Best Original Score
Atonement (Dario Marianelli)
The Kite Runner (Alberto Iglesias)
Michael Clayton (James Newton Howard)
Ratatouille (Michael Giacchino)
3:10 to Yuma (Marco Beltrami)
Will Win: Atonement
Could Win: Ratatouille
Should Win: Atonement

Best Original Song
"Falling Slowly," from Once
"Happy Working Song," from Enchanted
"Raise It Up," from August Rush
"So Close," from Enchanted
"That's How You Know," from Enchanted
Will Win: "Falling Slowly"
Could Win: "That's How You Know"
Should Win: "Falling Slowly"

Best Sound Mixing
The Bourne Ultimatum (Scott Millan, David Parker, Kirk Francis)
No Country for Old Men (Skip Lievsay, Craig Berkey, Greg Orloff, Peter F. Kurland)
Ratatouille (Randy Thom, Michael Semanick, Doc Kane)
3:10 to Yuma (Paul Massey, David Giammarco, Jim Stuebe)
Transformers (Kevin O'Connell, Greg P. Russell, Peter J. Devlin)
Will Win: Transformers
Could Win: No Country for Old Men
Should Win: No Country for Old Men

Best Sound Effects Editing
The Bourne Ultimatum (Karen M. Baker, Per Hallberg)
No Country for Old Men (Skip Lievsay)
Ratatouille (Randy Thom, Michael Silvers)
There Will Be Blood (Matthew Wood)
Transformers (Mike Hopkins, Ethan Van der Ryn)
Will Win: Transformers
Could Win: Ratatouille
Should Win: Transformers

Best Visual Effects
The Golden Compass (Michael L. Fink, Bill Westenhofer, Ben Morris, Trevor Wood)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (John Knoll, Hal T. Hickel, Charlie Gibson, John Frazier)
Transformers (Scott Farrar, Scott Benza, Russell Earl, John Frazier)
Will Win: Transformers
Could Win: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Should Win: Transformers

Final Tally:
No Country for Old Men - 5
Transformers - 3
Atonement - 2
La Vie En Rose - 2
The Bourne Ultimatum - 1
The Counterfeiters - 1
I Met the Walrus - 1
Juno - 1
Michael Clayton - 1
No End in Sight - 1
Once - 1
Ratatouille - 1
Sari's Mother - 1
Il Supplente (The Subsitute) - 1
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street - 1
There Will Be Blood - 1