Hud: “How much you take the boys for tonight?” Alma: “Twenty dollars and some change.” Hud: “You’re a dangerous woman.” Alma: “I’m a good poker player.” Hud: “You’re a good housekeeper. You’re a good cook. You’re a good laundress. (beat) What else are you good at?” Alma: “At taking care of myself.” Hud: “You shouldn’t have to, a woman looks like you.” Alma: “That’s what my ex-husband used to tell me. Before he took my wallet, my gasoline credit card, and left me stranded in a motel in Alberquerque.” Hud:  “What did you do to make him take to the hills? Wear your curlers to bed or something? Alma: “Ed’s a gambler. He’s probably up at Vegas or Reno, dealing at night, losing it all back in the daytime.” Hud: “Man like that sounds no better than a heel.” Alma: “Only thing he was ever good for was scratching my back.” Hud: “Still got that itch?”

“If there is an Argo this season, it’s Spotlight…although I personally like this film better than Argo. It is solid, hard-not-to-like, classical movie-making. Spotlight is the movie that will be there, never wavering, throughout the entire season, waiting for voters to tire of the trendy movie of various moments. Not the likely Best Picture winner, but sure to be in the Top-Five conversation until the very end. And if it wins, I will not be shocked.” — from 9.18 David Poland piece about the Telluride and Toronto winners, losers and middle-rangers.

Best Picture chart on Gold Derby, updated on 9.18.

From Bill Maher’s 9.18 monologue (beginning at 1:15 mark): “There’s been a pet conspiracy theory among the tea-baggers for a long time, that Obama is setting up re-education camps. I’d like to say tonight I think he should. We need re-education camps.”

From 8.5.09 post titled “Argument Over Beers“:

“Because in an era that cries out for measures that address social inequities and benefit the greater good, for deeds and legislation that will address the financial plundering of the last 30 years and keep the buccaneers who’ve brought this country to the brink of financial Armageddon from ever again revelling in insanely lavish profiteering to the detriment of Average Joes, and which will institute policies that will stop or least slow the advance of global pollution and ruination, the righties are still in love with the idea of ‘get government off our backs so we can hold onto more and live lavishly and hold high the torch of Ronald Reagan and have sleazy affairs with assistants if we so choose.’

You know that the fate of a potential Best Picture contender is in doubt when you’re standing around at a noisy after-party for one of those films (I won’t say which one, or where or when this happened), and you spot a certain high-profile journalist/friendo arriving at the party. And you wave and call his name out and beckon — an obvious indication that you’d like to discuss the film with him. And journo/friendo immediately responds with one of those “oh, no…not now…too risky…we’re too close to the talent…now is not the time or place” gestures. So he doesn’t come over. That in itself, trust me, means Big Trouble for the film in question. I was chatting with another journalist when this happened over the last couple of weeks, and when journo/friendo did the sidestep journalist #2 said, “What was that about?” Me: “He doesn’t want to say anything with the talent standing nearby….playing it safe.” I figured it was so noisy that no one could overhear anything, but for some people you can’t be too careful.

If you don’t love listening to vocal-free backing tracks of legendary rock songs, you’re not a real rock ‘n’ roll fan. The singing delivers the soul and the emotion, but the bass, drums, organ, horns, rhythm and lead guitar elements are the brick and mortar. Especially when it comes to some of the more guitar-y Rolling Stones songs like “Star Star.” I would pay through the nose if the Stones would issue CD’s of nothing but instrumental tracks from their biggest hits. Somewhat in the same vein, I’m thinking, as the Beach Boys’ “Stack-O-Tracks” album, which has been around for ages.

A few days ago the Toronto Film Festival consensus on The Danish Girl emerged as follows: (a) Tom Hooper‘s film is a handsome period slog — appropriately delicate but a little on the tedious side, (b) Eddie Redmayne gives his open-hearted, ultra-sensitive all in playing Einar Wegener/Lili Elbe, and (c) Alicia Vikander‘s performance as Gerda Wegener, Redmayne’s spouse and loyal supporter as he goes through his gender-transforming travails, is the most popular element.

Yesterday Gold Derby‘s Tom O’Neil posted reactions from several GD hotshots about (a) whether Vikander’s performance should be classified as lead or supporting in the eyes of the Movie Godz, and (b) is it smartest to campaign her in lead or supporting?

Alicia Viklander as Gerda Wegener in Tom Hooper’s The Danish Girl.

Obvious answer #1: You can “sell” Vikander’s performance as a lead if you want to (in somewhat the same way that Felicity Jones‘ handlers flim-flammed everyone into thinking that her performance as Mrs. Stephen Hawking was a lead, not to mention Patricia Neal‘s undeniably supporting performance in Hud being successfully campaigned in the Best Actress category), but if you’re not playing the lead character and you are playing the wife/husband/partner of said lead then you’re giving a supporting performance — period, end of discussion.

Obvious answer #2: If a noteworthy performance has been given by a relatively young and newish face in industry terms, it’s always a smarter move to go for a supporting nomination. Always.