I tried to explain yesterday why I believe the great Lesley Manville can’t hope to prevail in the Best Actress category, but that she’ll rule or certainly be a leading contender within the Best Supporting Actress realm.

I know this sounds obsessive, but I’m asking other conversation-starters to kick this around once more (as Rope of Silicon‘s Brad Brevet did on 10.27) in hopes of inciting an Academy groundswell that might result in a nomination that will do Manville and Mike Leigh‘s Another Year the most good.

A voter revolt happened before when they were being urged to nominate Kate Winslet as Best Actress in Revolutionary Road; they put her up instead for Best Actress in The Reader. Okay, it’s not the same thing but voters aren’t obliged to follow suggestions made in trade ads. They can do anything they want.

I only know that putting Manville into Best Actress contention, sublime as she is, is almost a sure-fire way to make her lose. It’s just not in the cards. There’s even a feeling that Manville may not even be nominated in the Best Actress category, even if one or two major critics groups step into the breach. But she’s almost certain to be nominated in the Best Supporting Actress category, which has fewer formidable competitors. In my book (and in the book of anyone who believes, however naively, that quality of performance should be a major determining factor) she damn well ought to win in this arena.

These are two of the Buzz Bee illustrations found on Badassdigest.com. I don’t know if there are others besides these two, but obviously they have different skin tints. The thumbs-up bee on the left looks like he’s being held up and is begging the thief not to shoot him. The thumbs-down bee looks nauseous for a reason other than having just seen a bad film. Plus his antennae bulbs are three times bigger than those belonging to the thumbs-up bee.

Yesterday Badassdigest.com’s Devin Faraci assessed the junket buzz on TRON: Legacy, which was shown on Thursday night (and probably again last night): “The people who saw it were heavily embargoed, but they’re also mostly fanboys and, frankly, easy lays for this movie, so I expected to see lots of folks on Twitter just skirting the embargo. But there was silence. Utter silence. Never a good sign.

“I did some asking around and while there are folks who are very positive on the film, most of what I heard back was ‘looks great, everything else is terrible.’ The script, I have heard, is especially atrocious. And this comes from some folks who I thought would for sure be huge fans of the film no matter what.”

“In 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income — more than the bottom 50 percent. Not enough! The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent nearly tripled since the mid-1970s. Not enough! Eighty percent of all new income earned from 1980 to 2005 has gone to the top 1 percent. Not enough! The top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Not enough! The Wall Street executives with their obscene compensation packages now earn more than they did before we bailed them out. Not enough! With the middle class collapsing and the rich getting much richer, the United States now has, by far, the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country on earth. Not enough!” — from an 11.19 HuffPost article by Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Tony Scott‘s Unstoppable “fell 49% this weekend…what happened?,” I asked a friend this morning. His answer: “No movie was able to weather the Harry Potter storm — it’s as simple as that.”

Really? So whatever the Unstoppable word-of-mouth, it’s moot because of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1? How does that work exactly?

Moviegoer #1: “So how was Unstoppable?” Moviegoer #2: “Good, real good. Lotta fun. You should see it.” Moviegoer #1: “Yeah, I’d like to.” Moviegoer #2: “Huh?” Moviegoer #1: “I have to see Harry Potter this weekend and I only see one movie each week, if that. So I…uhm, I dunno, maybe I’ll rent Unstoppable.” Moviegoer #2: “You’ve heard it’s good, you want to see it, but you’re not going to see it because of fucking Harry Potter? You know what those movies are like. They’re like being in a fucking dungeon for two hours.”

Factor in the Thursday midnight showings, and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 earned an estimated $61.2 million in 4,125 situations. It’s expected to bank $130 million by Sunday night.

We are Warner Bros. We make the Potter films and you are the lemmings. We do what we want to do according to our paychecks and our determinations. We are the masters making the rules for the wise men and the fools.

What if you blended the zen-repetition theme of Groundhog Day with a formula thriller about terrorism, high-tech surveillance, surreal software (“a computer program that enables you to cross over into another man’s identity in the last eight minutes of his life”) and the like? This seems to be the essence of Duncan Jones‘ Source Code. The trailer, however, is telling us that the film has problems.

One, I explained last summer that guys bolting upright all anxious and bug-eyed and going “whuh!” is a cliche that has to be stopped, and here’s Jake Gyllenhaal doing more or less the same thing (on top of Daniel Craig waking up with a jolt in that just-released Cowboys & Aliens trailer).

Two, the CG for the train explosion is atrociously fake-looking. Yes, I realize that the CG will be refined as the release date approaches, and that this only represents how the CG looked a month or two ago. But those Roadrunner vs. Coyote cartoon flames still take you right of it.

Three, Gyllenhaal is giving it hell but you can see right off the top that Michelle Monaghan doesn’t have that much of a part, and that she’s just punching the clock and collecting her check. And it also seems that Vera Farmiga and Geoffrey Wright are on total auto-pilot.

Four, Gyllenhaal is wearing one of those dreaded two-week bristle beards.

And five, as far as I’m concerned the directing hand of Duncan Jones (Moon) is not a comfort factor. I was mostly bored by Moon, certainly by the second half. What, I’m supposed to hop up and down for David Bowie‘s 29 year-old kid because he got a good performance out of Sam Rockwell?

This looks very rote, very big-studio factory. But it also contains little tiny echoes of Inception here and there, and if the idea of being able to repeat an experience over and over is used in a semi-thoughtful Groundhog-y way, then Source Code might have a chance. An IMDB guy who claims to have read the script says it’s “very, very in the vein of 12 Monkeys with a touch of Quantum Leap.” I have a copy of Ben Ripley‘s original ’07 script; Billy Ray did a rewrite, I’m told.

All I know is that right now this looks like soulless high-concept crap, pushed along by raptors in expensive suits.

After speaking to “reliable sources” within the Hollywood Foreign Press Assocation, Gold Derby‘s Tom O’Neil is reporting that certain HFPA members “absolutely love” Red. This, of course, only underlines what serfs some of them are. Red is tedious comic-book crap. O’Neil believes it will “bag noms for best comedy/musical picture, actor (Bruce Willis) and maybe even supporting actor (John Malkovich as a conspiracy-minded LSD tripper) and supporting actress (Helen Mirren as a machine-gun-toting Rambo)”…God!

After many years of pathetic hemming and hawing and slip-sliding away from one of the most difficult, fraught-with-peril challenges of his career, which basically comes down to a case of artistic cowardice, Steven Spielberg has finally committed to direct Tony Kushner‘s Lincoln.

Spielberg’s Lincoln will not, however, be portrayed by poor Liam Neeson, who was humiliated by Spielberg’s refusal to commit to the Lincoln project for years on end (going back to ’05), and who finally bailed last summer. The 16th president will be played instead by Daniel Day Lewis, and that, I have to say, is excellent news. An all-but-certain Best Actor nomination, I would think. Pic will shot at the end of ’11 and roll out in 2012.

I understand that there’s a certain grandiosity built into the production design and shooting style of the Harry Potter films. I understand that they’re not dogma movies. Nonetheless the acting is one the most fundamentally alienating aspects. Not once and not ever are you allowed, much less encouraged, to actually believe in anything that Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint say or do. Because they’re always “acting,” and you’re never allowed to forget that.

What Daniel, Emma and Rupert do is react to fantastical CG and wind machines and flying objects with wide-eyed excitement and/or alarm, and what you need to do in your theatre seat is submit, bitch. We are Marshall Warner Bros. We make the Potter films and you are the lemmings. We do what we want to do according to our paychecks and our determinations. We “love” the fans, but we also know who and what you are, and that you’re not bloody likely to complain or rebel so like it or lump it or…whatever, eat your popcorn. We do whatever we want to do. We are the masters making the rules for the wise men and the fools.

We’re talking obedience and regimentation. All of the characters, everyone…they’ve all been directed to play “characters” in a very expensive Harry Potter film, in exchange for which they’re being paid quite handsomely. And you sit there, knowing this and feeling this, and your soul just sinks into the swamp.

This is one of the many reasons why I got off the boat years ago, and why I intend to say not a single word this weekend about the enormous HP box-office. There is no Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1. It doesn’t exist, and it isn’t playing in theatres. Or at least, not on this site.

The shot/cover on the left is my hands-down favorite.

The Lesley Manville issue has been covered two or three times on HE (the last time on 10.27), so there’s no need for overkill. But I spoke a bit with Manville last night at a Sony Pictures Classics gathering on Madison, and she was her usual lovable, attentive, half-smiling, faintly forlorn, straight-shooting, sweetly smiling self, and my heart just goes out to her. She’s the best.

I just hope Manville’s achy-heart performance in Another Year wins the Best Actress award from the New York Film Critics Circle or the L.A. Film Critics Association or…you know, like that. Because as good as she is (and she really is world-class in this film), she might land a Best Actress Oscar nomination. She ought to. But the odds of her beating all her big-time, heavy-duty competitors — Black Swan‘s Natalie Portman, The Kids Are All Right ‘s Annette Bening , Rabbit Hole‘s Nicole Kidman, Winter’s Bone‘s Jennifer Lawrence and Blue Valentine‘s Michelle Williams — are not favoring, let’s face it.

She’s a Brit playing a lonely Brit single with a drinking problem, and that in itself probably shaves a few points when you consider the native-American-identification factor. People know the other characters (Manhattan ballet dancer, hip lesbian mom, Long Island mom who’s lost her son, tough Ozark girl, blue-collar Pennsyvlania girl in a relationship) in a kind of next-door-way, culturally speaking. Any way you cut it Lesley probably doesn’t win.

But in the Best Supporting Actress category, she rules. Animal Kingdom‘s Jacki Weaver would be her only real competition. Amy Adams and Melissa Leo seem fairly evenly matched in The Fighter, but neither kills on Manville’s level. Helena Bonham Carter is entirely pleasing in The King’s Speech, but I don’t believe in the idea of a career Oscar for her at this juncture, and I don’t know why anyone else would either. Rosamund Pike is exceptional in Barney’s Version and Made in Dagenham, but she’s obviously not getting the traction. Get Low‘s Sissy Spacek has the chops and the likability, but the wattage is so-so. Ditto Dianne Wiest in Rabbit Hole.

So maybe people can just politely bypass Sony Picture Classics’ suggestion that Manville should be considered for Best Actress and just write her in for Best Supporting Actress like whatsername who beat Joe Miller in Alaska.