ChickOpinion: January 2013

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Ravens Cheerleader Ousted for Weight? Probably.

The Super Bowl is on Sunday! As the Ravens and 49ers got ready to go down to the Big Easy, they had to make decisions about who would go with the teams. There is only a certain amount of seats on a plane, rooms in a hotel, and money in the bank. The NFL has a rule that teams are allowed to bring only 32 cheerleaders per team to the Super Bowl.

The Ravens published their list of Super Bowl cheerleaders last week. But there was a problem, according to Courtney Lenz, a 5-year Ravens cheerleader veteran: she wasn't on the list. Lenz had announced in December that she would retire at the end of the season, assuming that she would be at every game until the Ravens lost in the postseason. She also weighed in two pounds over the "weight limit" and is now wondering if her weight is the reason she was asked to hand in her uniform before the Super Bowl.

The Retirement
If this was really about Lenz retiring and the Ravens organization treated everyone equally, then why wasn't Ray Lewis cut from the Super Bowl squad? I'm pretty sure people are more upset about Lewis's retirement than hers. If the team was "upset" with people who said they weren't coming back next season, then Lewis should have been cut before Lenz. I think I can say pretty safely that this isn't about her retirement announcement.

The Weight
This is interesting. Here is the link to Lenz's "cheerleader bio" on the Ravens' site. I have no idea when the photos of her in her uniform were taken (or if they've been edited to take some pounds off the sides or not), but she does not look like that anymore. She might have only gained two pounds, but her body composition has completely changed.

I've never cheered before, but I went to the University of Louisville, where our cheerleaders won 15 National Championships. I roomed with a UofL cheerleader hopeful my freshman year. They do not have a weight requirement; they have a BMI requirement. They also have a "you-need-to-look-good-in-your-uniform" requirement. Muffin tops do not a good look make.

Lenz cheering in too-tight pants.
(Photo from Facebook)

Official Ravens Photo of Lenz
(Photo from BaltimoreRavens.com)

My Verdict
I'm not saying that she should be nixed because of what she looks like (she is gorgeous, just a little plump), but it would definitely not surprise me if she was. I mean she's really pretty, but she's pudgy. Cheerleaders aren't pudgy. They're just not. This is not me having an opinion about whether pudgy girls should or should not be allowed to cheer, but I witnessed a large cheerleader at my high school being booed off the floor during a pep rally. Even high schoolers have no tolerance for big cheerleaders. Every job has requirements and if you can't maintain those requirements, you get fired. Being small is part of the requirements for the gig that she chose. If she can't look the part, she can't be a member of the squad.

I would like to take a second and just say that this is absolutely not meant to be an attack on larger women. This is simply me pointing out the facts. In all honesty, if I had my way we would completely axe professional cheerleading altogether. It's silly and a waste of money. At least in college cheering there's some measure of gymnastic ability required. Somehow in the cross from college to pro, cheerleading becomes what a college dance team does (shaking pompoms and wearing small, tight clothes while shaking your hair and ass), not what a college cheer squad does (gymnastics). *Note: The University of Louisville also has a championship dance team (The Ladybirds) that is great at what it does. I just think that it belongs in college and needs to stay there.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

The Power of Prioritizing

Prioritizing hasn't ever really been one of my strong suits. I despise being stuck in a rut. I hate doing the same thing every single day. I never want to have to choose one thing and only have that as my career. I love being creative. I adore doing different things, from sewing and knitting to making cupcakes and candy to writing and helping people to research and paper-crafting. I love having the freedom to do all of it!

But, sometimes reality comes in and makes you have to figure something out to make money. My fiancé is wonderful and teaches, so we do have enough money to get by, but we're not able to save anything right now. So on Sunday, he and I talked and decided that I need to come up with a game plan.

I think I did okay. On Monday I sat down and made a list of dates and goals for my new Etsy business (that will start by February 15!). Yesterday, I made the outline and started the content of my book for young women who have fibromyalgia and also worked on one of the projects for my Etsy shop. Today I'm planning on working on one of the dresses I'm making for my wedding (rehearsal dress and wedding dress) and finishing designing the invitations so I can start making them tomorrow.

So. What's the best way to prioritize? Here's my (working) idea of what is best:

Deadlines. If you start with what has to be completed soonest, you'll never miss a deadline. That's the most important thing. For example, if I wait until June to start my wedding dress because I work on a book that has no deadline right now, I might walk down the aisle only half dressed!
Completion. If I had to choose my least favorite part of my sewing room, it would be all the unfinished projects. I made an amazing dress a couple of weeks ago, but I need to take in one of the seams another 1/2 inch. Still haven't done it; still can't wear it out or get a really great shot of it. Finish what you start. Having 100 unfinished projects is so overwhelming! If you have a few going at once and finish one every few days, that's manageable.
Switching it up. One of the projects I'm working on needs 100-some black granny squares as well as 100 colored ones. I've made 23 colored and no black. I will get SO bored if I save all the black squares until the end. Doing two black ones and then a colored one would be smart at this point so I don't just quit the project later.
Facing your fears. The bodice of my wedding dress has to be hand beaded. By me. I've definitely never done that before and have no clue how to do it. I'm scared to death about this. Which might be one of the reasons I haven't started it yet. It would serve me best to put this on my short list so I can realize it's not as overwhelming as I think it could be.
Plan. Plan. Plan. EVERYTHING can be amazing. But it can't be great unless you take organization and scheduling to the next level. I adore waking up and deciding what I'm going to do that day. It makes me feel free and in control. But it can sometimes waste a lot of time and I don't get through my goals. Yesterday I wanted so badly to design the wedding invitations, but got hung up on the wording because I hadn't planned enough time to figure it out. Revisiting that today. :-)

The problem is that I love doing everything. Everything. There is quite literally nothing that I despise doing. I'm not dreading any of what I need to do in the next five months (getting married five months from yesterday!!!). I love all of it!

But the only way to be exceptional at everything is to prioritize. *sigh* ;-)

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi

Monday, January 28, 2013

Torture

On Friday night, my fiancé and I saw Katherine Bigelow's "Zero Dark Thirty." I didn't think I would be able to watch it; I had been very vocal about not wanting to see it until it came out on DVD, because I didn't think I could handle the violence. But I was feeling brave and academically minded, so we got our tickets and found our seats.

First, I would like to extend my congratulations to both Katherine Bigelow and Jessica Chastain. "Zero Dark Thirty" is a movie very well done, and Jessica Chastain has a brilliant performance in it.

This movie got me thinking about one of the most prevalent things portrayed in the movie: torture. Now before "Zero Dark Thirty" hit the screen, the government was concerned that it portrays torture as being the reason Osama bin Laden was found. I didn't get that from the film at all.

What I did glean from the film is that our government uses torture on its prisoners. What?! Are we not in the 21st century? Oh wait...I'm sorry. Apparently it's "enhanced interrogation" now, not "torture." I've just heard that it is the 21st century and being politically correct is very important. More important, perhaps, than being humane to prisoners.

I closed my eyes and put my head down for certain scenes in the movie. I can't watch someone torture another person. I don't care if it's someone who had something to do with the 9/11 attacks or if it's "just" some random drug smuggler. If I had been "Maya" (the CIA officer who was the main character in "Zero Dark Thirty"), recruited out of high school to work for the best intelligence agency in the world, and shown up in Afghanistan to find out that I was expected to torture a prisoner as part of my job, I would have quit and blown the whistle on the whole thing.

There is something desperately wrong with our "system" if the way the most advanced intelligence agency in the entire world thinks it can best get information is the same way people got information in the 1300s. If we are the best in the world, do we not have the opportunity--no, the responsibility--to rise above something as banal as torture? I mean, come on. We have these futuristic drones that can put a bullet through a window from seven miles up, but we still rely on pouring water on people's faces and humiliating them with dog collars for information? That's pathetic. *Note: I am aware that in 2009 the Obama administration declared water-boarding illegal. I do not, however, trust that it truly has stopped, nor that we don't engage in other horrifying acts of torture.

When I left the movie theater on Friday night, I was angry, so angry, at our government and the way they handled that whole situation. I'm not angry anymore: I'm ashamed. We can do better. And we must.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

The Most Historic Inauguration

The Presidential Inauguration yesterday made history, for more reasons than just the fact that it was an inauguration.

Myrlie Evers Williams gave the invocation; the first woman ever to do so.
Kelly Clarkson (2) and Beyonce (16) together tied Aretha Franklin (18) for artists with most Grammy wins singing at an inauguration.
The first African-American president was inaugurated for the second time.
Obama has now been sworn in four times, tying FDR's record.
Richard Blanco wrote an original poem and read it yesterday; the first latino and openly gay person to be included in the inaugural ceremonies.
The first ever gay and lesbian marching band marched in the inaugural parade.

And that doesn't even cover what President Obama said during the inaugural address:

"We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit." Touching on healthcare and the deficit in an inaugural address is rare and incredibly specific. It really brings home what he feels is important to work on in the next term, though, something people on both sides of the aisle can agree on.
"We will respond to the threat of climate change...Some may still deny the overwhelming judgement of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling doubt, and more powerful storms." Wow. First off, I didn't know people still didn't "believe in" global warming, but I guess Obama just told them to get over it and get with the program! Love it.
"The path towards sustainable energy resources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it." Oil companies, take note. This is something that is huge for this generation. We must lead ourselves to taking this step of getting our country to the next level in terms of sustainable energy.
"We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war...we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well." Well, this is good. Really good. We don't have to have war to have peace. Let's win the peace.
"We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East..." Yep. We're going to talk to the whole world and support them. Get on board!
"...our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts." Equal rights for women! Everyone saying that Obama doesn't like women because of his cabinet appointments, stop.
"Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law--for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." WHAT?! Did anyone see this coming?? Not me, but this is AWESOME!!! Good for him. Marriage equality is on the horizon. FINALLY.
"Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote." Voting rights? I'm on board. Keep talking.
"Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country." Immigration reform, too?! My head is exploding!!! Obama's killing it!
"Our journey is not complete until all our children...know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm." And a very subtle nod to gun control reform. This guy is good.
"Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life...but it does require us to act in our time." Thank you. Someone has needed to say this for a long time. Just because we have these documents doesn't mean that we even can follow them word for word now. We need to change with the times and act accordingly.
"You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country's course." Plug for "Organizing for Action": Organizing for America reformed!

I loved this speech. It was amazing. I have never heard a more progressive or direct speech at an inauguration. I am not super-emotional when it comes to other people that I don't know, but I have been really emotional over the last year with this president. First, I cried during Michelle Obama's speech at the DNC. Then I teared up at Barack's speech at the DNC. Next: election night. Cried. And then yesterday I teared up again. I think it's just that Obama does things other presidents would never do. He said in his speech that we should have marriage equality. No one else touched that. This is definitely one for the books.

I was watching the coverage on MSNBC for part of the day (my fiancé and I were switching around between ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, and MSNBC, for those of you who are going to attack me for being a close-minded liberal) and they asked "What do YOU want in the second term?" I tweeted, "I want women's rights, an assault weapon ban, marriage equality, environmental protection, reduction of the deficit, and more jobs. #msnbc." And it got put on air when Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews were talking! I was so excited!

Yesterday was an historic day for our country and I am sure that people on both sides of the aisle can agree on that. Using the word that President Obama used the most yesterday, let's move forward and work "together."

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi

Monday, January 21, 2013

Inauguration 2013

Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day! I am watching the coverage of the 56th Presidential Inauguration right now. It's so exciting: the history, the fashion, everyone coming from all over the country to celebrate together. But I'm having a little bit of trouble getting into the right mood.

This morning I saw Andrew Kaczynski's retweet about Fox and Friends calling today "the most depressing day of the year." David Muir was talking earlier on Good Morning America about the fact that the "battle lines are drawn" for Obama's second term. It feels very divisive. I was happy to see The Today Show's tweet that was a quote from David Axelrod: "This is not a partisan day. This is not a day for one man's celebration."

Today is about celebrating our country, the United States: our history, our government, and, most importantly, our unity.

Our country is more divided now than it has been since the mid-1800s. Eight and twelve years ago, when George W. Bush was sworn in, I'm sure that MSNBC was saying things along the same lines as what Fox is saying today. Back then the Bush supporters would have been horrified at that and called the dissidents "unpatriotic." They would have said that the Democrats had lost an election and need to get over it and get behind the president. Now, they're calling it the "most depressing day."

We need to remember why we are the United States. We all agree on so many things; we just want to take different paths to get there.

Today, no matter which "side" you are on, stop pushing your agenda, sit quietly, and listen. Those of you who know I am a moderate Democrat are probably saying that this is "pushing my own agenda." I guess since my "agenda" is all of us working together and putting aside our differences, sure I'm pushing it. But just try. Please. Our country needs all of us to give up our radical ideas and come to the center so we can accomplish the things our country needs the most.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi

Friday, January 18, 2013

Lance Armstrong: Can He Help the Lying?

Lance Armstrong. Seven-time Tour de France champion. Olympic medalist. Cancer research advocate. LiveStrong founder. Oh and...liar.

Lance Armstrong had a "no holds barred" interview with Oprah that aired last night. Part Two, which looks like it will be about his family, is going to air tonight. In the interview, Lance called himself a "liar," a "bully," and a "fraud." He admitted to using performance enhancing drugs in all his Tour de France wins. And he says he was "in the wrong" and "taking all the blame."

But what Lance said didn't match up to what his face and body language was showing. He showed no remorse. Every time Oprah asked him a question that took him away from his pre-planned answers, he got squirmy and said that he wasn't comfortable going down that road.

Lance is, in my opinion, one of the best liars I've ever seen. He absolutely has to have control over every situation. In the preview of tonight's Part Two, he looked like he was irritated at some of the questions about his family. That's not part of his planned narrative. I wonder if he'll answer them.

I believe 100% that he is telling the truth about using PEDs and blood transfusions and all of that. But do I believe that he's telling 100% of the truth? Not a chance. This man is the definition of a pathological liar.

So, in this time during which we're discussing mental health, is it appropriate to bring Lance into that conversation? He didn't go crazy and kill anyone, but he lied to the entire world under oath multiple times. He said last night that he "would do anything to win" and "could justify the transfusions and testosterone" use. Is this a character flaw or a brain chemistry mishap?

I think it would be fascinating to study this more, instead of just talking about Armstrong's fall from grace and what a scumbag he is. The best thing he could do right now, in my opinion, is allow himself to be studied. I think we would all have a different opinion of the interview last night if he had been hooked up to a lie detector and we were watching the test results simultaneously. I am almost positive that he lied last night. He can't help it. He controls everything around him. Even he said that last night: "I controlled every aspect of my life."

This is a fascinating story. Yes, I'm sad that he duped everyone around him. Yes, I'm angry that he lied to cancer patients. But you know, I'm more intrigued than anything else. Is what he did right? Absolutely not. But could he help it? I'm not sure...

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi

Monday, January 14, 2013

Women's Appearances in American Society

On Friday I watched "Katie," Katie Couric's new talk show on ABC. I am an infrequent viewer of the show, mostly because I'm so tired of television by that time of day, but I saw a commercial about Friday's topic: a woman who gave up makeup and hairstyling for a year; so I had to watch!

The show was great--Phoebe Hyde Baker gave up makeup and hairstyling for a year. The entire audience of "Katie" took their makeup off in solidarity and so did Katie, herself! She talked about makeup and how much time and money women in our society spend on it. They also talked about the fact that it is actually important in our society for women to look a certain way to be successful.

As I watched the show, I realized that I've already written about three of these topics.

Katie did an experiment in which one of here staff went on the street all glammed up and asked for directions or use of their cell phones from strangers. Then she did the same thing with sweat pants, no makeup, a big coat, and sneakers on. Was there a difference in the way she was treated? Yes there was--same as the results of my own experiment back in October:
Social Mini-Experiment: Does Appearance Actually Matter?

On Katie's website for a while (I can't find it anymore, for some reason) there was a "Beauty Wealth Calculator" that you could use figure out how much money you spend on your looks each year, as well as how much money you've spent accumulating your "beauty wealth." It was fascinating! It reminded me of another piece I wrote in October:
How Much Do Celebrities Spend on Their Looks?

One of Katie's guests was a woman who has worked in the fashion magazine industry for years. They showed a photo of a model on the runway--and then a print ad of the same model. Vastly different looks! In the print ad they had edited the photo to the point that she looked deformed, she was so skinny. This point, in my opinion, wasn't touched on enough during the show (but, really, they had enough material in that show for an entire week of shows!), so I thought I'd pull this piece out of the archives again. It's the most popular piece I've written to date.
Mini-Experiment: Swimsuit Photo Retouching

I absolutely loved Katie's show on Friday! It was geared toward making women feel great about themselves and learning how to work with what they have in their appearance instead of putting a mask on every day. There were beautiful stories shared about personal victories and growth. There was courage shown by Katie and everyone there with them not wearing makeup. It was fantastic to see women baring their faces on that stage and talking about how we need to overcome so much more than what we usually talk about.

One of the things I was most intrigued by was that this "Au Naturale" show aired the day before the Miss America 2013 beauty pageant. Miss Montana, Alexis Wineman, has Aspberger's syndrome and wants to be an art therapist. Miss Washington DC, Allyn Rose, is getting a double mastectomy to prevent her family's long history of breast cancer from taking her life. Miss Iowa, Mariah Cary, has tourettes syndrome. But Miss New York won. She wants to get a degree in cosmetic and fragrance marketing. And is from Alabama. And doesn't embody "Brooklyn" any more than I do.

It blew my mind that there were (at least) three very real women baring themselves (not only in the swimsuit competition) on that stage who were passed over for a tap dancer posing as a Brooklynite. Allyn Rose (DC), a guest on "Katie" back in the fall (I watched that episode, too!), didn't even make the semi-finals. Alexis Wineman (MT) won the "America's Choice" contest, but didn't make it past the top 15. Mariah Cary (IA) came in fifth.

I think the "Au Naturale" episode of "Katie" can teach us all about how women need to take stock in what they are really about. I think if the judges of Miss America hadn't been interviewing the contestants and watching their routines on Friday but had watched Katie's show instead, the outcome of Saturday night would have been different. Being real and loving who you are is the most important thing, and I think--no, I know--that if more celebrities like Katie bring it into the headlines, this will change. Women will feel less threatened by society to focus so much on their appearances and, as a byproduct, will have more time and money to spend on other things that make them happy and successful.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi

Friday, January 11, 2013

Social Media and Philanthropy

Social media has become a part of what I do every day. I started my ChickOpinion blog in late August. I started my Twitter account somewhere around that time, too. It seemed to be going well, so I started ChickOpinion.com in late October. That is also going well.

Andrew Springer explaining our engagement photo!

I've been going nuts on Twitter lately, trying to get my name (well, ChickOpinion's name) out there. In the last week alone, I've been tweeted by Ginger Zee (meteorologist for Good Morning America), four of the local ABC news anchors and reporters, the local ABC station, CNN Presents, Sam Champion (meteorologist for GMA), a few writers for different newspapers, Anderson Live, Project Runway, Andrew Springer (social media strategist for GMA and ABC News), Tyra Banks, Jo-Ann Stores, Dan Harris (anchor for GMA), The Katie Show, and Lara Spencer. Today one of our engagement photos was on GMA Live because I tweeted it to them. One of my tweets was also on Anderson Live earlier this week, but wasn't read on air.

It's been a little bit insane, but here's why I'm glad it's happened: I want to make a difference. We're coming up on the one year anniversary of my getting diagnosed with fibromyalgia. It has been an interesting year: diagnosed with fibro in January, narcolepsy in April, graduated from college in May, got engaged in June, moved to Florence, KY in July, my fiancé started a new job in August, I started volunteering for the Obama campaign in September, and I've been working on my blog/website all fall. I don't have a job. I can work pretty hard (seated, not standing) for about three or four hours and then I have to take a break. I am definitely not the only one in this position. People all over the country (especially women) struggle with this.

I want to create a nonprofit organization, called "FibroPhilanthropy." One of the best things for my pain is to make and give things to people who need them. Two weeks after Superstorm Sandy, my mom and I sent 15 hats and 25 scarves to the victims in New Jersey. My mom makes adorable little kid hats and I knit and sew, so we got busy! I loved spending my time making things for people I knew would be so grateful for them. It was the best couple of weeks I've had in the last year--I was happy, my pain was manageable because I wasn't having to move around much, and I was helping people.

With FibroPhilanthropy I want to make it possible for fibromyalgia patients to make things (scarves, hats, blankets, clothes, sweaters, anything else people can make) for disaster relief to send to victims of natural disasters. Patients all across the country can make anything, we can collect the items, and then the second a natural disaster happens, we send everything we have to the victims. Then we start all over again! If it's a nonprofit, we can be exempt from taxes but still take donations, so the materials and postage could be paid for by the organization. I know first-hand that most fibro patients can't afford to do this on their own.

I know I've been a little over the top lately with the tweeting, but it's one way to get people all over the country to see what I already have on my site and, now that I'm posting this, what I want to do in the future. Maybe we can raise enough awareness that we can get the funding we need to start this nonprofit organization and be ready to have a batch of warm items ready to send out by the time the next natural disaster happens.

Please share this, email it, retweet it, favorite it, or whatever you need to do on the social media platform you use to raise awareness of this idea. I would love to get as many people involved as possible so we can help everyone we possibly can!

"Be the change you wish to be in the world." --Gandhi

Thursday, January 10, 2013

The Oscars: Live-Tweets and Snubs

This morning I decided to try my hand at "live-tweeting" an event: the Oscar nominations! I'm not sure why I can't get these tweets to line up with the oldest first, but c'est la vie. So scroll down to the bottom of this group of tweets and read up from there, please.

Start here and read up. Then come back to finish reading this post!

You're back! I wasn't exactly the best when it came to the live-tweeting, but it was fun because I knew that I was getting the nominations out there within five seconds of them being announced! Twitter, however, was apparently less than amused:

21m ‏@ChickOpinion

Interesting...my account got suspended for "abusing the trend with unrelated things" what?!? How do you live-tweet without the hashtag??

Expand

How do you live-tweet without "abusing the trend?" How can you have a "trend" if you're not allowed to go nuts with it and live-tweet? Things to learn in the technological world of Twitter...

So let's get back to the nominations: the three categories I am the most excited about are Best Supporting Actress, Best Actor, Best Picture.

Best Supporting Actress
Anne Hathaway is absolutely incredible in "Les Miserables." Phenomenal. Her song "I Dreamed a Dream" left me (and every other person in the theater) in tears; she's just so moving! I think it's so fantastic that her breakout role as Princess Mia and "The Princess Diaries" hasn't made her a type-cast. She was great in that movie, but she's just incredible at everything: comedy (SNL), fun roles ("The Princess Diaries" and "The Devil Wears Prada"), and singing and intense roles ("Les Miserables"). She is brilliant, and I am so glad she's getting recognized for this! All that, and every time she does an interview, her mannerisms remind me of my older sister and I love that!

Sally Field is also absolutely incredible in "Lincoln." Just brilliant. I have loved her in everything she's done and this was no exception. This is definitely one of the better roles she's had, even though it's "just" a supporting role. She was great!

Best Actor
Hugh Jackman. Ah. May. Zing. Jackman as Jean Valjean is insanely good. He has a voice that I never expected from him. Ever. I mean, the first thing I saw him in was "X-Men" as Wolverine. Love. I absolutely adored "X-Men Origins: Wolverine." He's incredible! So then when I realized it was he who had been cast in "Les Miserables" I was very skeptical. But, he was great. I so hope he wins!

I also hope Daniel Day Lewis wins (why can't there be a tie?!). Lincoln was a brilliant, brilliant film and Lewis brought the best possible Lincoln there could ever be. He was just so good! Love him.

Denzel Washington is wonderful and he definitely is going to be in the running for the win!

Seems like my favorite in this category is kind of obvious...hmm.

Best Picture
"Les Miserables" is the best film I have seen in a very long time. Maybe ever. I have never been more emotionally exhausted when leaving a theater than I was after this movie. We were supposed to go to dinner and all I wanted to do was go take a nap and keep crying! The direction of it, the music, the screenplay, the acting, the way they filmed it, the singing, the costumes...there was no part of that movie that left me wishing for more or something else. It was brilliant. I know that some critics are wishing the singing had been more polished--no. It was raw, it was real, and it was really good. There is nothing I would have changed. I really want this to win "Best Picture" because it was just fantastic.

"Agro" was another emotionally charged movie that was very good. I was so incredibly impressed with Ben Affleck! Fantastic job! Wonderful story. Great piece of history with a wonderful movie to tell it. I will be happy if this wins, but not as happy as I will be if "Les Mis" wins.

"Lincoln" was great! These historical films were just wonderful this year! Again, worthy of an Oscar, but not the same year as "Les Mis."

I think the category that may garner the most attention is the "snubbed" category:
Tom Hooper, Director of "Les Miserables"--are you kidding me?! How can it be up for "Best Picture" and the director not be included? That film has amazing actors, incredible music, brilliant filming...but the director is the one who pulls it all together. The Academy missed the boat on that one.
Russell Crowe, Javert in "Les Miserables"--really??! Best Supporting Actor should be his. That was a wonderful role portrayed by a wonderful actor! I guess he and Hooper can have an alternative Oscar party...what a shame.
Ben Affleck, Director of and Lead Actor in "Argo"--Academy, seriously?!! This is one of the most different, best roles he has ever done and the directing was amazing! How does he get completely left out of the nominations? Definitely not cool.
Leonardo DiCaprio, in "Django Unchained"--full disclosure: I haven't seen this movie yet. Reason I'm upset about it: literally everyone loved him in it. Everyone. I can't wait to see this movie. Academy, you do not snub DiCaprio.
Kathryn Bigelow, Director of "Zero Dark Thirty"--full disclosure: I haven't seen this yet either, because I will not be able to handle the level of violence in this movie on the big screen. Waiting for the DVD. But, from what I've hear about it, it's a brilliant movie and from what the media is saying, she had to go through a bunch of crap to get cooperation from the government on this. Between Bigelow and Affleck, is the Acedemy snubbing directors of American political situations? Who knows...

So that's my take on all the nominees! Can't wait until February 24!

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi

ChickOpinion

Pages