100 Things

Yet another of those dastardly memes. It's random but fun though. Those I have managed are highlighted in Bold.

1. Started your own blog: Fairly obvious this one, though I have more trouble keeping to repeated new year resolutions to keep updating it regularly.
2. Slept under the stars
3. Played in a band
4. Visited Hawaii: I even walked on dried lava after a recent eruption
5. Watched a meteor shower
6. Given more than you can afford to charity (you can always afford to give more)
7. Been to Disneyland: All of them except the ones in Tokyo and Hong Kong
8. Climbed a mountain: Several, including a 6,000m one in the Andes mountain range.
9. Held a praying mantis
10. Sang a solo
11. Bungee jumped (I would love to, though!)
12. Visited Paris:
13. Watched a lightning storm
14. Taught yourself an art form from scratch: folding paper airplanes doesn't count does it, not that I was even any good at that?
15. Adopted a child: surely having a child is the more common.
16. Had food poisoning: once after having ten oysters at a buffet that had clearly gone off, and for half of a holiday in Indonesia when I was 9.
17. Walked to the top of the Statue of Liberty (went there, but it's still closed post 9/11)
18. Grown your own vegetables
19. Seen the Mona Lisa (American tourist in front of me: "My Gawd, it's so small!")
20. Slept on an overnight train
21. Had a pillow fight
22. Hitchhiked
23. Taken a sick day when you’re not ill
24. Built a snow fort (and a snow man, who promptly melted the next day)
25. Held a lamb
26. Gone skinny dipping
27. Run a marathon (I did manage a half marathon)
28. Ridden in a gondola in Venice
29. Seen a total eclipse
30. Watched a sunrise or sunset (on Mount Sinai, Manchu Picchu.....)
31. Hit a home run
32. Been on a cruise
33. Seen Niagara Falls in person (at least half a dozen times)
34. Visited the birthplace of your ancestors (I guess China counts right?)
35. Seen an Amish community
36. Taught yourself a new language
37. Had enough money to be truly satisfied
38. Seen the Leaning Tower of Pisa in person
39. Gone rock climbing
40. Seen Michelangelo’s David
41. Sung karaoke
42. Seen Old Faithful geyser erupt
43. Bought a stranger a meal at a restaurant
44. Visited Africa (but only Egypt)
45. Walked on a beach by moonlight
46. Been transported in an ambulance
47. Had your portrait painted
48. Gone deep sea fishing
49. Seen the Sistine Chapel in person
50. Been to the top of the Eiffel Tower
51. Gone scuba diving or snorkeling
52. Kissed in the rain
53. Played in the mud
54. Gone to a drive-in theater
55. Been in a movie (I have been interviewed on TV and been on televised gameshows)
56. Visited the Great Wall of China
57. Started a business (given my lack of entrepreneurial inclinations, this is not likely to happen)
58. Taken a martial arts class (Army unarmed combat - hated it)
59. Visited Russia (I really want to do this)
60. Served at a soup kitchen
61. Sold Girl Scout Cookies (I sold cookies for the Canadian equivalent - The Beavers)
62. Gone whale watching
63. Got flowers for no reason (Hah! Fat chance!)
64. Donated blood, platelets, or plasma
65. Gone skydiving (Again, I would love to!)
66. Visited a Nazi Concentration Camp (I want to visit Auschwitz, if I have a chance)
67. Bounced a check
68. Flown in a helicopter (though I have flown in a military transport plane, and a small four-seater)
69. Saved a favorite childhood toy
70. Visited the Lincoln Memorial
71. Eaten caviar
72. Pieced a quilt
73. Stood in Times Square
74. Toured the Everglades
75. Been fired from a job
76. Seen the Changing of the Guards in London
77. Broken a bone (Surprisingly, this hasn't happened yet, touch wood)
78. Been on a speeding motorcycle (riding pillion in Vietnam and Cambodia)
79. Seen the Grand Canyon in person
80. Published a book (One day, perhaps)
81. Visited the Vatican
82. Bought a brand new car
83. Walked in Jerusalem
84. Had your picture in the newspaper
85. Read the entire Bible
86. Visited the White House
87. Killed and prepared an animal for eating
88. Had chickenpox (I'm now vaccinated, so no chance of this now!)
89. Saved someone’s life
90. Sat on a jury (Again, not likely to happen, given Singapore doesn't have juries)
91. Met someone famous (depends on how loosely you define famous)
92. Joined a book club
93. Lost a loved one (grandparents)
94. Had a baby
95. Seen the Alamo in person
96. Swam in the Great Salt Lake
97. Been involved in a law suit
98. Owned a mobile phone
99. Been stung by a bee (a wasp actually, during army training)
100. Read an entire book in one day

A clean 50 out of 100, which is not bad at all.

The Beginning of the End

According to a recent BBC article, it may already be the beginning of the end for me. The article suggests that "mental powers start to dwindle at 27 after peaking at 22, marking the start of old age". Apparently, Professor Timothy Salthouse of Virginia University has discovered that reasoning, speed of thought and spatial visualisation all decline in our late 20s.

I am turning 27 this year. At the peak of my mental ability, and yet to accomplish anything of note. What a truly depressing thought.

Fallout 3

Fallout 3 has been sitting there on my shelf for the better part of half a year now. Given it was my one week break, I decided to install and play it. My only regret is that I never got round to doing it earlier. It is a marvelous game, superbly detailed, full of a vast number of different characters, quests and locations, in a very original and powerfully realized world.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Fallout series, it is set in a post nuclear apocalyptic America and involves the struggles of the remnants of humanity to survive in the resulting nuclear wasteland. Some humans survived by seeking shelter in specially created underground Vaults, thus escaping the nuclear Armageddon. Your character grew up in a Vault, but the disappearance of your father under mysterious circumstances forces you to leave the Vault and enter the wastelands to search for him.

Fallout 3 itself is set in the ruins of Washington D.C and its surrounding environs. It provides an enormous environment in which to explore. If you were to focus just on completing the main elements of the central storyline, you would only be skimming the surface of what Fallout 3 has to offer. Part of the strength of the game is its almost endless multitude of random quests and locations. You do get a fantastic thrill fighting an enormous supermutant behemoth in the rotunda of the Capitol building, or clearing the Lincoln memorial of slavers, or even visiting the White House (though you won't be able to get in the front gate).

The game was so good that after I finished it the first time, I immediately began the game again, so as to have the chance to explore some of the other side quests and locations that I missed out on the first time round. The narrative depth of the Fallout 3 universe is truly amazing, with wonderful bits of background and threads of individual stories left behind for the intrepid explorer in the form of notes, or holo-recordings. These provide many little windows to the past and what transpired after the nuclear bombs fell.

Gameplay wise, Fallout 3 is a very interesting amalgamation between a First Person Shooter (FPS), and a Role Playing Game (RPG). Combat wise, it has completed the transition initiated by Fallout: The Brotherhood of Steel from the turn-based combat system of the first two Fallout games, to a more conventional shooter. However, it ingeniously incorporates a form of turn based combat by including a VAT system, allowing the playing to slow down combat and target specific body parts subject to them using up 'action points' that have to then be replenished.

Admittedly, slow motion combat is hardly new to computer games, but Fallout 3's system enables players to target specific body parts. Shoot out the legs and your enemies will end up limping. Shoot at their arms and they might drop that rocket launcher that is causing your so much grief. The overall combat system is simple and effective.

At its heart though, Fallout 3 is an RPG. Typical of the genre, your character advances based on experience points that he earns, thus gaining skills and additional perks. Skills are affected by basic stats (Strength, Perception, Endurance, Charisma, Intelligence and Luck respectively) chosen at start. Unlike previous Fallout games where perks were chosen at the start of the game (with a maximum of two selections possible), and provided both advantages and disadvantages, in Fallout 3 the player got to choose a new perk each time he leveled up and perks were always advantageous.

There were a wide assortment of perks to choose from, ranging from those that were combat based, or those that were speech, or skill related. The more random and interesting ones included Bloody Mess - causing enemies to die in the most spectacularly messy way possible and Mysterious Stranger, in which a random trench coat wearing person mysteriously comes to assist you on occasion in the midst of VAT combat.

So, overall, Fallout 3 was a truly fantastic game. My only regret was not being able to spend sufficient time fully exploring every nook and cranny of the gaming universe, and the fact that leveling up maxed out at Level 20. It is definitely a game that is worth revisiting again, just to discover more of its richly detailed universe.

Euthanasia and Causing Distress

One common argument against euthanasia is the emotional unhappiness to doctors, relatives and friends that such an act would cause. This is of course asserted, and there have been numerous instances of friends and family actually feeling a great deal of relief that their loved ones could die peacefully and without agony at the time of their own choosing. But admittedly, there are also instances (so artfully illustrated in the movie The Sea Inside), where the family members would strongly oppose such a move, and would be greatly distressed by it.

The case is more difficult with regards to doctors. Some doctors in places where euthanasia is legal (or in some cases such as Oregon, assisted suicide) do report emotional distress after their participation in an assisted death, or in prescribing the necessary medication to enable a patient to take their own lives. Others have found it an intrinsic part of what they view as their duty of care to a patient. However, it is reasonable to point out that if it offends a doctor's conscience (or religious beliefs) to assist in such an act, he can pass on the patient's case to another qualified medical practitioner who will be willing to carry out such a patient's wishes.

Let us assume, at the very least, that a patient's decision to take their own lives, at a time of their own choosing (which I deem the basic definition of euthanasia) will cause significant emotional distress to third parties (doctors, nurses, family, friends). Is this justifiable grounds for rejecting a person's request for euthanasia?

Say that a person, who is of sound mind, has decided that by their own assessment, their lives no longer have any value and they wish to die. One classic example would be a quadriplegic who is completely paralyzed from the neck down due to an accident. That person might feel that the loss of the independence and autonomy of his current condition that necessitates him being cared for by others even involving the most basic of needs, means that his life, to him is inherently valueless (or even of negative value) and he thus desires to die. I shall put aside, for now, questions over the person's capacity to make such a decision, and assume that it is a rational decision, not made under the duress of emotional distress or physical pain (though arguably these components make up a vital part of any decision is whether life is worthwhile or even tolerable). There is a demeaning tendency to associate anyone who is considering taking their own lives as being psychologically unsound, which I argue is not necessarily the case.

If we were to deny his request on the grounds of his action causing emotional distress to other people, we would effectively be saying that he should merely be living, not for himself but in due consideration to others. This is something most of us will find inherently odd. Think about a scenario when a somewhat angsty teenager who reads too much philosophy declared to his parents that he had come to the conclusion that his life was fundamentally meaningless and that the only reason why he continues to live was the psychological and emotional anguish that his suicide would cause his parents. If you were his parents you would probably be very disturbed and send him for counseling.

We thus seem to have a deep seated belief that we should have some individual purpose for our lives that is independent of merely living our life for other individuals (I leave aside the question of living for God, which is not anyhow, inherently a person). It thus seems strange that if that same teenager above were completely paralyzed from the neck down, and he told his parents that he found his life completely meaningless and he wished to die, we would tell him that he cannot do so because of the emotional anguish it would cause them and others.

This question of emotional anguish and causing distress relates to one of the fundamental problems facing strict utilitarians (and hedonists) with regards to murder. A strict utilitarian will argue that an action is right so far as it maximizes some ordinal value, usually taken as pleasure. So we should act in such a way as to maximize pleasure and to minimize pain. So according to such a view why is murder inherently wrong? A strict utilitarian could argue that it would cut short any possible future pleasure or happiness that the murdered person could experience.

This view is problematic - first of all it is not at all certain that, on balance, that person would necessarily experience a pleasurable life in the future had he not been murdered. Second of all, there is an inherent problem in committing to maximizing future pleasure. If it is a duty not to kill someone because of the inherent loss of possible future pleasure accrued to that person, will that not imply that we have a corresponding duty to maximize future happiness by creating other individuals that could possibly lead pleasurable lives? So, a couple, if indifferent to having a child (say the pros and cons balance out) on this view must have the baby if the baby will then have a resulting life that is pleasurable.

Strict utilitarians can then appeal to the indirect harmful effects of murder. Murder can lead to other individuals being fearful for their safety, which increases their unhappiness. It causes significant emotional anguish to the murdered individual's friends and family. It can even be argued to disrupt the basic functioning of society. On this view, a strict utilitarian can be said to take the view that the only thing that matters is present pleasure and suffering (of which the potential future pleasure of the murder victim would not count), and still argue against murder. On this view, the only wrong that is committed against the victim by his murderer is the possible pain involved in the ending of his life. Thus seems strange - would killing someone in his sleep through the use of a painless form of poison be any less wrong than stabbing him violently and repeatedly? And worse still, it seems to suggest that murder is wrong only because of the effects it has on society, and the victim's relations, not on the victim itself.

Drawing a parallel with the example at hand. Euthanasia is in effect a decision by an individual to take their own lives - 'self-murder' or bluntly a form of suicide. (The exact differences and similarities between euthanasia and suicide is outside the scope of the current discussion). If, as above we find it hard to accept the notion that murder is inherently wrong due to the indirect harm that it will cause, then it seems inconsistent to apply this same criteria of indirect harm to euthanasia. That is why suicide is no longer illegal in most countries (Singapore being an exception).

Of it can be argued that there is a difference between suicide and assisted suicide. In one case an individual unilaterally (often in distress), takes his or her own life, while in the latter case it usually involves the participation and consent of others, including a qualified medical practitioner. I will not delve into the complex arguments regarding legalizing assisted suicide and/or euthanasia here, but it does seem strange that in a country like Great Britain, you are legally allowed to end your own life by jumping off a building, but you are not allowed to do so by asking a doctor to prescribe you pills that will end you life if you are in a state of severe illness or pain in which otherwise ending your life would be impossible.

Academic Blues and (Un)Motivation

I'm glad that it is the beginning of a one week break. I just completed a set of exams, and finally managed to submit an overdue term paper that involved two excruciating weeks of painfully trying to write something that was coherent. I think I have reached the stage where I have rather lost motivation with the course - one of those existential moments where you attempt to ask yourself exactly what is the point of writing a paper on the end of the Cold War or on U.S. grand strategy. For me, academia was also supposed to provide an end in itself. I am not doing this to earn a piece of paper, or to gain a Master's per se. I am doing this because I want to learn more about U.S. Foreign Policy, about the Cold War, about International Relations. So losing my intellectual interest (did I even have it to begin with?) is akin to losing the raison d'etre for doing the entire Master's program itself.

I told myself that the Master's would provide a perfect opportunity to think and to read. Not necessarily just on International Relations but on a whole host of other things. Certainly, it has been a delight browsing around the Humanities and Social Science library borrowing books on such random topics as film studies, ethics, euthanasia, random fiction, equality, and much else besides. But if you seem happier watching and critiquing movies and researching classic film criticism, and if you are more engaged in a book like Why Read Marx Today? as compared to a homework assignment, then something has certainly gone off tangent.

It is quite galling to me, how the whole of January and February has now passed without my having made any substantial headway on my thesis, not to mention my struggling with a smaller workload than the other students (because I am taking less classes due to the thesis). I feel like I've sunk into some kind of mild disinterested torpor which is very disturbing indeed.

I was more and more convinced recently that I should pursue the path of the Academy. To go and get a Phd and find a job as a professor. There were always nagging issues in my mind, though. Could I, the arch generalist, the gadfly, possessing not so much a short attention span as one that is simultaneously occupied by a dozen different things, find and work on one single topic that would occupy and satisfy me for the better part of 4 years? What then afterwards? More papers, read by learned colleagues, a merry-go-round of point counter point. Given my current frame of mind, a Phd is out of the question - it would be a tremendously foolish undertaking.

Perhaps, it comes down more narrowly to determination, setting goals, being motivated. But it is not as if I came into this term unmotivated. I did like the classes I had chosen and I was rather enthusiastic over my thesis topic. So what happened? As for setting goals and being determined, that flies out the window once you lose your motivation. But perhaps the whole point of being detemined is to not allow yourself to become unmotivated.

I shall attempt to concentrate on the narrower issues first. A first draft of my thesis is due very soon indeed, in a matter of weeks. If I throw all my weight behind it, I might just be able to churn something out, before the deadline. There is the further deadline of the actual submission date to meet. Let this be a test of character then, of any tiny lingering remants of academic ambitions that I might have. I pray I survive it.

25 Things

I succumbed to the rampant Facebook meme. So here are 25 things you may or may not know about me.

1. The sport I think I am best at is ice skating. (Unfortunate given that I am Singaporean)

2. I am not actually a 12 year ACS boy. I spent Primary 1 studying in Canada where I lived for five years.

3. I tend to like people very quickly, though I have come to realize that falling into like is not falling into love.

4. I wanted to be a Paleontologist and dig up Dinosaur bones when I was 5 years old.

5. I applied to Trinity College in Oxford after going on a school trip to the UK and visiting Oxford on one of those perfect summer days (of which I realized there are only 10 every year). Trinity was recommended by the person showing us around because his girlfriend went there and he said it had nice lawns.

6. I vacillate over making important decisions but I ultimately finally make my call mainly based on my gut instinct (and not reason).

7. I am a terrible procrastinator, and I often like the randomness of doing something at the spur of the moment.

8. When I travel, I prefer to backpack and I prefer to do so on my own. (Though I am on the lookout for good travel companions!)

9. I am probably one of the only people to shed a tear during the sequence where Gene Kelly dances and sings in the rain in Singin' in the Rain, which is one of the most joyous scenes in cinema. (Why? Ask me and I might tell you)

10. I like staying up late, and I am not a morning person by nature or inclination.

11. I still haven't learned how to drive a car.

12. I think that more guys than girls tried to hit on me when I was at University.

13. I have appeared on 4 televised quiz shows in my lifetime, and competed for my University in quizzing. (Yes, there is such a thing as quizzing tournaments!)

14. I sometimes wonder if coming back to Singapore was the right decision and if I should have stayed in the UK. In many ways, Oxford will always have my heart.

15. My dream jobs include writing for the Economist, becoming the film critic of the New York Times, a professorship at a top US University though I would settle for winning $20 million dollars and then being able to do what I want.

16. The first crush I remember having (other than a really sweet and quiet girl whom I always wanted to sit next to when I was five) was when I saw Natalie Portman in Leon (The Professional) when I was 13.

17. I probably have more than 2,o00 books in my bedroom. If a fire were to start, I would be in deep trouble.

18. Caleb actually means "dog" in Hebrew though it also means "Brave one". And I am born in the Chinese year of the dog.

19. I loved waterfalls when I was younger. Visiting Iguazu Falls (in South America) and Victoria Falls (in Africa) remain lifelong dreams. My family visited Niagara Falls a half dozen times when we were in Canada.

20. I attended an American high school for 3 months when I was 13.

21. Reading Science Fiction and Fantasy is one of my guilty pleasures which I picked up when I read Dune and The Lord of the Rings respectively when I was 14.

22. I think it would be wonderful to own a bookshop, a pub, or a cafe, or why not all three

23. I am inherently less competitive now than I was when I was younger, but I still dislike losing.

24. I once met the Sultan of Trengganu's wife in person (a sultana, I have been informed) when I accompanied a close friend on a holiday there. His family knew the Royals personally, apparently.

25. I am a closet romantic at heart despite my somewhat harder more cynical exterior. I call this being an M&M (hard on the outside, soft and gooey inside).

National Myth Making

I finally decided it was high time I visited the new national museum, given that I had not done so since its re-opening three years ago. I had been to the new wing for theater and movie performances, but hadn't had a chance to view the new Singapore history section, which forms the core of the museum.

History itself is not immutable, and Singaporean history itself, the way it is presented and taught in schools, is very much subject to the overriding grand narrative that the government wishes to portray. Not that the manipulation is as blatant as the continued disavowal of wartime atrocities by the Japanese, specifically the massacre of Chinese civilians, the subjugation of Korean and Chinese women into forced prostitution as 'comfort women' and also the use of prisoners as human guinea pigs for the testing of biological and chemical agents. Still, my encounters with the way Singapore history is taught, and to compulsory 'National Education' campaigns, have made me wary of the specific grand narrative and subtexts that pervade the presentation of Singapore history.

This was evident right from the beginning. The start of the exhibition proper constituted a scene of a village in flames. The helpful tour guide told us that this was Singapore in the past, a prosperous fishing village (Temasek) that had been attacked and destroyed by enemies in Java or Sumatra who were jealous of her prosperity. This scene was played out across a wall that greeted the visitors upon immediately entering the exhibition space, little kampong houses surrounded by coconut and palm trees engulfed in a rictus of computer projected orange and yellow flames, complete with ominous sounding crackles.

Reading in between the lines, it is not hard to see this applying to a more modern context. Singaporean leaders have always seen the world in a hard-edged, realist, perhaps even Manichean way, with Singapore seen as inherently vulnerable, a majority Chinese ethnic enclave surrounded by much larger Malay Muslim neighbours. The message is clear - Singapore's independence must never be taken for granted. These neighbours may grow jealous of our success and seek to destroy us - it has happened before, it can happen again.

It was also unsurprising to see that the initial portions of Singapore history dealing with the lead up to independence was rather selectively dealt with. The usual exhibits outlining the grave communist threats and the communal riots were followed immediately by a picture of Lee Kuan Yew in 1958, returning from Whitehall having achieved self-government for Singapore. David Marshall and Lim Yew Hock, and their roles in the early days of Singapore politics were conveniently airbrushed, not to mention the PAP's early association with the far left trade unions. Self-government was immediately followed by a small series of exhibits showing the advance of such consumer technologies as television sets. Thus subliminally, the PAP government's wisdom led to technology progress and material wealth.

In a recent book by two Australian academics - Constructing Singapore - they contended that the PAP had been so successful in monopolizing the national narrative and implementing their version of the 'Singapore Story' that the younger generation could conceive of no other narrative thread to understanding Singapore's past, present and even future. That is debatable, though probably more true that I would care to admit. However, it should be evident that even, or perhaps because of the pernicious attempts by the government to force 'national education' down our throats, we at the very least view their master narrative with general suspicion and with a studied cynicism.

Oscar Best Picture Nominees - To Watch

In yet another bit of procrastination, I have compiled a list of Best Picture nominees from the last twenty years which I have yet to see:

2008 - Frost/Nixon
2007 - None
2006 - None
2005 - None
2004 - Ray
2003 - Mystic River
2002 - None
2001 - In the Bedroom
2000 - Traffic, Erin Brockovich, Chocolat
1999 - None
1998 - The Thin Red Line
1997 - The Full Monty
1996 - Secrets and Lies
1995 - Sense and Sensability
1994 - Quiz Show
1993 - None
1992 - Unforgiven, The Crying Game, Howard's End
1991 - Prince of Tides, Bugsy
1990 - Ghost, Awakenings, The Godfather Part III
1989 - Driving Miss Daisy, Field of Dreams

So I have seen a total of 78 of the 100 Best Picture nominees during that period which is not a bad totally, actually. I have also seen all five nominees (making me able to fully judge whether the Best Picture award was given deservedly) on 6 Occasions: '93, '99, '02, '05, '06, '07. I have also seen 18 out of the 20 Best Picture Winners, the exceptions being Unforgiven (1992) and Driving Miss Daisy (1989).

Among the remaining nominees over the last twenty years, I will soon be watching Frost/Nixon (in late March '09) when it opens in Singapore. Of the remaining few, I am only really keen to watch Mystic River and Unforgiven (both Clint Eastwood), Quiz Show, Sense and Sensibility, Howard's End and the Godfather Part III (if only to see where Coppola went wrong). I would conceivably watch Driving Miss Daisy (since it won Best Picture), In the Bedroom (because it had an excellent cast). The rest of them don't really entice me that much, perhaps proof, if any were needed, that the Academy can often go very wrong.

Update: 05 Feb 2011 - I realize, rather coincidentally that this list can in a sense stand alone, for from 2009 onwards the Academy began shortlisting 10 films for Best Picture. Since this post I have gone on to watch Frost/Nixon as mentioned, Howard's End and Sense and Sensibility. The Eastwoods have thus far still escaped me. To add to the list, I guess I should watch Ghost, given its cult status, and in honour of Patrick Swayze who died in 2010.

Oscars: The Hits and the Misses

So the 81st Academy Awards is now over, and we will have to wait another year for another glimpse of the glitz and glamour of the Hollywood elite. In the meantime, we might as well dwell on what was good about the ceremony this year - from the host, to the fashion, to the presenters and the speeches.

The Host: Hugh Jackman was chosen because he was deemed to be charming, with style and elegance in spades, and he could sing to boot. He showed his class by successfully hosting the Tony Awards though the Oscars is a much bigger kettle of fish. The singing ability was definitely on show with two musical numbers - an opening pastiche poking fun at the Best Picture nominees (in the tradition of Billy Crystal) and a later spectacular tribute to movie musicals. Apart from a five minute opening spell, he was largely anonymous. It seems like the Oscar producers, wary of misfiring wisecracks from past Hosts (David Letterman, and Jon Stewart spring to mind), limited the role of the Host this year. This is a great shame - the witty one-liners from the host (misfiring or not) and the repartee were an integral part of the fun of the Oscars. Jackman did thrown in a few funny one-liners quipping that due to downsizing he would soon be starring in a film titled New Zealand and telling Meryl Streep that 15 nominations that makes you think of only one thing - steroids alluding to the recent scandals in baseball. Let's hope they will invite him back and give him more screen time next year.

The Presenters: The producers were keen to cut down the running time so presenters were largely formal and multiple awards were given out. Will Smith alone presented four, quipping that Hugh Jackman was in the back taking a nap. The one major change was in presenting the acting awards. This involved having five previous winners step forward and give a short speech praising each nominee in turn (effectively a hagiography of their performance). It was a nice gesture and it was genuinely touching (at the very least for the nominee), but I felt myself torn about it at the end of the day because it was also somewhat cloying and seemed just a touch self-congratulatory. Still, I would vote for keeping this format, if only to have a chance to see past luminaries again.

The Acceptance Speeches: The speeches have been getting more and more dull, with viewers often subjected to a rattling off of a long list of names in as short a time as possible. I understand the need for the one and a half minute time limit (imagine how long the show would be otherwise!) but it certainly stifles originality, humour and personal style. Mickey Rourke's acceptance speech at the Independent Spirit Awards and The BAFTAs is an example of what an Oscar acceptance speech no longer is. This year wasn't terrible. Kate Winslett didn't break down and cry and even managed a quip about making the speech as a nine year old in the bathroom with a shampoo bottle standing in as an Oscar. Sean Penn jokingly called everyone god-damned homo-loving sons of bitches, and acknowledged how "difficult I sometime make it for you to appreciate me", before calling for equal rights for everyone and predicting the great shame future generations will feel at those rejecting gay marriage. Danny Boyle did a tigger impersonation. But oh how I was wishing that Mickey had won the Oscar and gone on stage and uttered a few obscenities just to spice things up.

The Fashion: There weren't quite any fashion disasters on the scale of Bjork's infamous Swan outfit this year, but there were still a couple of questionable choices. Natalie Portman (who presented award) came in bubble-gum pink that was oh so girlie-girl though the strapless design was admittedly rather stylish. Sarah Jessica Parker is usually quite the fashionista but her 'barley mint' tightly corseted full length dress, with massive buckled belt could barely contain her cleavage and was strange to say the least. The biggest disaster would probably have to go to Whoopi Goldberg, who presented an award in a full leopard print patterned dress. Animals are so out!

On to the fashion successes. Heidi Klum will always be eye-turning and it takes a gutsy girl to wears full-blooded red on the red carpet, but her dress was a wonderfully intricate creation with origami like folds. Anne Hathaway is one of those stars that can look elegant in just about anything but she was dazzling in her bead and jewel encrusted strapless grayish-white gown. While the trend has been towards the strapless or one-shoulder bared look, I applaud Tilda Swinton for showing that covering it all up can be classy, stylish and beautiful yet edgy as well. Her black/beige combination was a stunner in my mind. Other standouts: Frida Pinto (of Slumdog Millionaire) in her midnight blue lace number, Miley Cyrus in her scalloped shaped glitter trimmed gown, and Marisa Tomei looked stunning in her pearl grey pleated gown (but then she would look stunning wearing practically anything - or in fact nothing at all as the Wrestler amply proved!)

Oscar Predictions 2009

The movie awards season is culminating with the Academy Awards. Amidst all the hoopla, I have decided to give my take on who will win. It is necessarily a myopic one, given that I have not seen all the nomination films/performances, but here is my two cents worth nonetheless.

Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Reader, Milk, Frost/Nixon.

Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire
Should Win: Milk

The critical consensus is that this was a weak year in terms of Best Picture nominations. What we do have are five very different films. It is clear that the popular sentiment and the momentum is with Slumdog Millionaire. People love an underdog rags to riches story, and that Slumdog has in spades, though it has enough of an emotional heft to make it more than a lightweight. Slumdog will win mainly because it is the movie with the fewest detractors and because of its happy Hollywood feel good ending. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a superbly made film, but some found it overlong and not really engaging. The Reader was even more divisive - some thoroughly disliked it, though it has the holocaust theme going for it and a fine performance by Kate Winslett. Milk for all its great acting, is too controversial for many of the Academy voters. The two main contenders are Slumdog and Benjamin Button, but expect Slumdog to ride on a wave of sentiment and good feeling to take the award.

Among this year's contenders, I actually liked the two front-runners the least. Slumdog was a well-made film, but it tugged too obviously at the emotional heart-strings for me, and its Hollywood nature seemed just a little bit contrived despite the weightiness and grimness of the setting and the subject matter. Benjamin Button will win lots of technical awards (art direction, visual effects and make-up) and it features excellent direction and technical elements. But the movie was overlong, sometimes slow and seemed oddly detached. I thought The Reader was a movie that was very thought provoking and raised many difficult questions. It was an excellent adaptation. It didn't quite completely cohere though. Milk for me was a superb biopic of a specific time and a place, not just a person, with a knockout performance by Sean Penn. It also featured, for me, one of the most moving scenes in cinemas this year with the candlelit march at the end. It certainly tugged at the heartstrings, but the movie had earned it by then.

Best Actor: Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler; Sean Penn, Milk; Brad Pitt, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; Frank Langhella, Frost/Nixon; Richard Jenkins, The Visitor

Will Win: Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler
Should Win: Sean Penn, Milk

This is going to be a toss-up between Mickey Rourke and Sean Penn. Jenkins' nomination was reward enough for constantly being overlooked, Pitt was decent enough but didn't even appear on camera for the first 40 minutes of the film, which in many ways was the more compelling portion of it. The strong sentimental favourite is Rourke who puts in a great performance as an ageing Wrestler whose life is on the ropes and headed for a three count. It was a role made for him, and the way it mirrors his own personal decline will win him huge sympathy. If the academy votes with its gut instead of its head, as it usually does, this is Rourke's award to lose.

Sean Penn was simply superb as Harvery Milk. He gave a performance that was so nuanced, so true to character and so real, that he practically lit up the screen throughout the movie. It was a virtuoso performance of technical acting ability that deserves the Oscar. They say that biopics do well in the acting categories which should mean Penn is a lock but Milk's character and the openly gay nature of the role will have drawbacks at the Academy. That is not to say I didn't like Rourke's performance, which given the gritty realism of the role could just as well be a fictional biopic. It was a tough call for me but I will have to go with Sean Penn.

Best Actress: Kate Winslett, The Reader; Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married; Meryl Streep, Doubt; Angelina Jolie, Changeling; Melissa Leo, Frozen River.

Will Win: Kate Winslett, The Reader
Should Win: Kate Winslett, The Reader

The only real contenders here are Kate and Meryl with Angelina as a strong dark horse. Anne Hathaway is still young, and though she showed real acting chops as the attention seeking guilt ridden younger sister the Academy will feel she still has the advantage of time. If she continues to take on edgier, deeper roles, she may well win an Oscar in the future. Angelina was good in Changeling and it was a wonderfully written role in yet another great Eastwood vehicle that has proven successful at spawning acting Oscars in the past (Tim Robbins, Sean Penn - Mystic River, Gene Hackman - Unforgiven, Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman - Million Dollar Baby). But Eastwood was largely overlooked this year, and Jolie thought she was good, didn't do enough independent of the role to warrant a second Oscar.

Meryl Streep was nominated yet again. Some say she was brilliant, some say she was doing yet another version of the typical Meryl turn, but this goes for any movie she has made in the past decade. I thought she did a wonderfully good job as a nun full of righteous indignation who is determined to hold on to what she believes is the truth. A fifteenth nomination is deserved, but the Academy has shown its reluctance to reward her with another statuette and this will not change.

This will be Kate Winslett's year. Six nominations shows her range, diversity and an ability to really embody a character. She put in a bravura performance, in a truly difficult role - enabling us to empathize with a Nazi holocaust camp guard and feel for her at a human level. Besides, the old dictum holds - Holocaust movies always win Oscars (it certainly did the trick for Adrian Brody in The Pianist).

Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight; Michael Shannon, Revolutionary Road; Philip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt; Josh Brolin, Milk; Robert Downey Jr., Tropic Thunder

Will Win: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
Should Win: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight

This award is a virtual certainty, but it is more than just a sympathy vote given in celebration of Heath Ledger's life and achievements. His turn in The Dark Knight was truly frightening. He made the role of the Joker his own, embuing it with a frightening malevolence, manic glee and perverse delight that was equally disturbing and enthralling to watch. His was the performance that held a superb movie together. The other nominees all turned in notable performances - Brolin providing excellent support to Penn, and Hoffman performing with his usual excellence as the priest at the center of the allegations in Doubt. I was happy that a comedic role was recognized (fewer and fewer such roles seem to get the Academy's attention) and Downey's turn in Tropic Thunder as an Australian method actor playing a Black was truly delicious. That said, as good as the rest of them were, they pale in comparison to Heath.

Best Supporting Actress: Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona; Marisa Tomei, The Wrestler; Amy Adams, Doubt; Viola Davis, Doubt; Taraji P. Henson, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Will Win: Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Should Win: Marisa Tomei, The Wrestler

Penelope Cruz puts in a wonderfully turn as a deranged, suicidal and fatally unbalanced ex-lover of Javier Bardem in Woody Allen's latest offering. This is Cruz in her element, darkly fun (and funny) - unlike a number of her recent roles where she was miscast as the smoldering Spanish flame which really doesn't suit her style. Woody Allen vehicles are good for acting Oscars for females (Mira Sorvino, Mighty Aphrodite; Dianne Wiest, Bullets Over Broadway and Hannah and her Sisters; Diane Keaton, Annie Hall) and Cruz is odds on to join the list.

Her closest challenger is Marisa Tomei, who complements Mickey Rourke superbly in The Wrestler as a stripper who is also his sometime love interest. Tomei is as utterly convincing as a stripper as Rourke is as a Wrestler, with both understanding that their occupations are performances of sorts. She gives us a character at once jaded and cynical while also showing a more human side as a single mother, creating a vulnerability that is never forced. She and Rourke hold the movie together, and her performance was a real standout. And I might also add here (though it obviously has absolutely no bearing on my choice) that Tomei is an absolute stunner and a knock out, even post-40.

Amy Adams is pleasant enough as the innocent nun torn between Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman but is very much the third leg in the acting trio. Viola Davis puts in a shattering and heartfelt 10 minute mucus strewn turn as the mother of the boy who may or may not have been sexually abused, but her lack of screen time doesn't give her the depth necessary to win (that is barring another Judi Dench). The academy will feel Taraji Henson's time might come, but it won't be for her role as Brad Pitt's mother.

Best Director: Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire; David Fincher, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; Gus Van Sant, Milk; Ron Howard, Frost/Nixon; Stephen Daldry, The Reader

Will Win: Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire
Should Win: Gus Van Sant, Milk

I initially thought that this might be one of those year's where there would be a Best Picture/Best Director split: Slumdog taking Best Picture, David Fincher recognized for lending Benjamin Button the artistic and technical mastery that it has. But I finally succumbed to the Slumdog onslaught. Despite Boyle being much more of a Hollywood outsider than Fincher (in fact that applied to just about everyone who worked on Slumdog), the rags to riches story set in the Mumbai slums has won the hearts of everyone.

Pity then to Gus Van Sant, who has a varied and interesting body of work and does an excellent job putting together Milk. From the choice use of archival footage which was subtle and well chosen (rather than egregious and attention grabbing like Forrest Gump) to enabling us to wholly inhabit San Francisco in the late 1960s, it was a superb achievement which will, sadly, go unrecognized.

Adapted Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire; Eric Roth, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; John Patrick Shanley, Doubt; Peter Morgan, Frost/Nixon; David Hare, The Reader

Will Win: Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire
Should Win: David Hare, The Reader

Eric Roth's adaptation of Benjamin Button is not so much an adaptation as a re-write, not to mention a large scale plagiarism of Forrest Gump. If he wins, it will be a travesty. Beaufoy did a good job of cutting down large portions of Swarup's novel while staying true to its spirit but I thought Hare's work on The Reader was very compelling, giving us a superbly nuanced piece which was though provoking yet moving.

Original Screenplay: Dustin Lance Black, Milk; Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon, Peter Doctor, Wall-E; Martin McDonagh, In Bruges; Courtney Hunt, Frozen River; Mike Leigh, Happy-Go-Lucky

Will Win: Dustin Lance Black, Milk
Should Win: Dustin Lance Black, Milk

My ability to judge this category is compromised by the fact that I have only seen Milk and Wall-E. There is usually a strong correlation between Best Picture and Best Original or Adapted Screenplay. As Milk is the only Best Picture nominee that is nominated here, it should be a shoo-in. Dustin Lance Black has written an excellent, personal and very heartfelt script, and from what I can tell, he deserves it. (It would be interesting to see In Bruges, which has been touted as a highly original script and film though)

Technical Awards Predictions (Should Wins in Brackets):

Best Cinematography: Slumdog Millionaire (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)
Best Music: Slumdog Millionaire (Wall-E)
Best Song: Slumdog Millionaire, Jai Ho (Slumdog Millonaire, Jai Ho) but it really should be The Wrestler by Bruce Springsteen which was not even nominated
Best Art Direction: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)
Best Visual Effects: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (The Dark Knight)
Best Costume Design: The Duchess (The Duchess)
Best Make-Up: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)
Film Editing: Slumdog Millionaire (Slumdog Millionaire)