In a 12.31 Salon piece that I initially ignored, Matt Zoller Seitz declares that Osama bin Laden was the aught decade’s most effective showman — a man who understood the power of nightmares better than any horror film director.

“The time between the first impact and the fall of Tower Two was about the length of a Hollywood feature,” Seitz remarks. “Even if one or more of the flights had been significantly delayed prior to takeoff, the most spectacular visuals of 9/11 most likely still would have been staggered and would have occurred within a comparable time frame.

“The message of 9/11 was content. The attack was form. Whoever devised it had the mentality of a suspense film director: Don’t deliver all the whammies at once. Space them out.

“There’s a word for all this. It’s showmanship — the thing we experience, or masochistically hope to experience, each time we go to the movies.

“The image of the burning towers is clarifying symbol, a glyph that unifies the experience of that day — our memory of what it felt like, our sense of what it meant. Say the day’s two numbers, nine and 11, in the presence of any living soul, then ask what they just saw in their heads, and they’ll give the same answer: the towers.

“The attack was its own emblem, its own insignia. It may even have been intended, as certain brazen horror film images are intended, to contaminate once-mundane events: riding in an elevator, climbing stairs, looking at a skyline, watching a plane land. The burning towers were meant to be photographed, written and sung about, sketched and painted, represented in film and video, on cotton T-shirts and black velvet canvasses, in watercolor and needlepoint and Lego. They were meant to persist in living memory and beyond. They are a memento of trauma devised by those who inflicted it.

“Posters that sprung up after 9/11 declared, ‘We Will Never Forget.’ As if there were any alternative.”

Something snapped into place when I read this 1.3.10 Manohla Dargis piece about movie-watching eternals and technology. I’d just scanned the latest Avatar box-office numbers ($800 million worldwide two days ago, expected to surpass $1 billion in a week or so) and the guesswork had suddenly gone out of the equation — Avatar is the Best Picture front-runner. It opened 15 days ago and this much is certain.

The four main reasons are (a) the lasting emotional wow, (b) the way it seems to have re-energized the moviegoing experience through 3D (which will henceforth be a potent exhibition attraction), (c) the Alexander-ish worldwide box-office domination and (d) the immensely satisfying depiction of the defeat of Bush-Cheney corporate militarism (and the right-wing blogger fury that has resulted).

The backlashers have all been heard and barely made a dent. The only thing that can turn it around is if Academy voters don’t give a shit what people like me are saying and vote for Up In The Air or The Hurt Locker for their own reasons. But even for that to happen Up In The Air has to somehow find fresh wind. The Hurt Locker has continued to find new energy all along, most recently through the year-end critics awards. The case has been more than made.

But — tell me if I’m wrong — there’s a resolve in Dargis’s words and feelings that seems to affirm Avatar‘s inevitability.

“At a movie theater rigged for 3-D projection, I saw Avatar with an audience that watched the screen with the kind of fixed attention that has become rare at the movies. True, everyone was wearing 3-D glasses, which makes it difficult to check your cellphone obsessively, but they also seemed captivated.

“When it was over, people broke into enthusiastic applause and, unusually, many stayed to watch the credits, as if to linger in the movie. Although much has been made of the technologies used in Avatar, its beauty and nominal politics, it is the social experience of the movie — as an event that needs to be enjoyed with other people for maximum impact — which is more interesting.

“That’s particularly true after a decade when watching movies became an increasingly solitary affair, something between you and your laptop. Avatar affirms the deep pleasures of the communal, and it does so by exploiting a technology (3-D), which appears to invite you into the movie even as it also forces you to remain attentively in your seat.

“You can get lost in a movie, or so it seems, and melt into its world. But even when seated third row center and occupying two mental spaces, you understand that you and the movie inhabit separate realms. When I watched The Dark Knight in IMAX, I felt that I was at the very edge of the screen. Avatar in 3-D, by contrast, blurs that edge, closing the space between you and the screen even more.

“Like a video game designer, James Cameron seems to want to invite you into the digital world he has created even if, like a film director, he wants to determine your route. Perched between film and digital, Avatar shows us a future in which movies will invite us further into them and perhaps even allow us to choose not just the hero’s journey through the story, but also our own.”

Okay, okay — Matt Shapiro‘s 2009 Cinescape summation is probably the best I’ve seen. (Not that I’ve watched dozens or even several.) But why wait until 12.31 to post it? And why didn’t I see it until last night? Most of us were in the mood now from 12.25 until 12.31, but no longer. Enough of this.

I’d like to start putting together a new 2010 Oscar Balloon, and then paste it underneath the current one when it’s done a week or so from now. The usual suggestions are requested — i.e., the most highly anticipated performers in the various categories, blah, blah. Starting all over.

Nobody knows a thing but Doug Liman‘s Fair Game, a dramatization of the Valerie Plame-Joseph Wilson drama, has to be formidable. (Plus I’ve heard some good things.) James L. Brooks‘ untitled romantic triangle with Reese Witherspoon, Paul Rudd and Owen Wilson seems vaguely promising. Ditto Clint Eastwood‘s Hereafter despite the iffy word on Peter Morgan‘s script. I’ll bet money that Anton Corbijn‘s The American, the George Clooney assassin-in-Tuscany movie, will be at least passably engaging, and that it’ll look absolutely terrific. David Fincher‘s The Social Network, a.k.a., “the Facebook movie,” has a first-rate Aaron Sorkin script (which I’ve read) and producer Scott Rudin behind it.

High-octane popcorn titles include David Gordon Green‘s Your Highness with Danny McBride, James Franco, Natalie Portman, Zooey Deschanel, etc. Phillip Noyce‘s Salt, trust me, will turn out to be a good deal more than some may be anticipating right how. Tony Scott‘s Unstoppable appears to be a more high-octane Runaway Train. Todd Phillips‘ Due Date is an amusing-sounding road movie deal with Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis, Michelle Monaghan, Jamie Foxx, etc.

I know Paul Greengrass‘s Green Zone will be some kind of exceptional. No one expects too much from Martin Scorsese‘s Shutter Island, but it’s certainly seen as an exciting late-winter release.

Kris Tapley‘s 2010 wanna-sees include Chris Nolan‘s Inception, Darren Aronofsky‘s Black Swan, Lee Unkrich‘s Toy Story 3. Jon Favreau‘s Iron Man 2, Tim Burton‘s Alice in Wonderland, Ridley Scott’s Maximus Hood, Terrence Malick‘s The Tree of Life (Penn, Pitt, dinosaurs), Matthew Vaughn‘s Kick-Ass and Oliver Stone‘s Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps.

For a couple of minutes everyone at last night’s party was watching or half-listening to CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Kathy Griffin do Times Square commentary, and suddenly a reporter was mentioning Rush Limbaugh being in the hospital, and somebody yelled out, “Is he dead?” This was a gathering of Fairfield County lefites, okay, but no one was drunk, and the fantasy did seem agreeable for a second or two.

It’s true — something in me wanted to hear “yeah, he’s gone.” I’m just being honest. The world might be a less fearful and blustery place without him, or at least until the next Limbaugh (just as bloated and blowhardy but younger) comes along. Honestly? If Frank Langella were to knock on my front door and hand me a wooden-box device with a red button on top and tell me that if I pushed the button Limbaugh would immediately die and no one would ever be the wiser, I might give the matter some thought.

In dual 12.20 postings called “We Love the Aughties: An End-of-Decade Clip Party,” L Magazine’s Matt Zoller Seitz has provided “an exhaustively subjective reflection on ten years of moviegoing.” He started “by soliciting suggestions from a number of L critics and friends and went from there. The roughly chronological arrangement of clips generally reflects the year of the films’ public premiere, although some films have been grouped with the year of their initial US theatrical run.”

So many assemblages seem to emphasize the slamp-bang, high-emotion, startling-visual stuff. In fact, nearly every video wrap-up piece about any year or era or genre does this. (Or so it seems.) Seitz’s aughty reels are much more initimate and thoughtfully moody — very well chosen for their ability to trigger just the right moods and associations.

“Perhaps it’s too much to hope for — a world where Apple provides low-cost, two-way video anywhere that saves print journalism while reducing phone costs, augments reality while cutting your commute and even brings humanity closer together while stopping traffic jams and pollution.” — from “Five Ways Apple’s Tablet May Change the World,” by Business Week‘s Ben Kunz.

The following exchange happened on a 12.17 Charlie Rose Show between Rose, N.Y. Times critic A.O. Scott and New Yorker critic David Denby, The topic was the political metaphor in Avatar, and the way James Cameron delivers it. I’m pasting this because Scott explained very clearly and concisely what Avatar‘s game is.

CHARLIE ROSE: “It also has political messages.”

A. O. SCOTT: “Oh, yes. And I think that, you know, in some ways they might be, the politics you might say are a little naive, perhaps.

ROSE: “It’s straightforward.”

SCOTT: “The Na’vi are kind of noble savages in the classical sense. They have so in tune with nature and they have this holistic life, and the humans are these alienated, greedy, rapacious, militaristic, racist people.”

DAVID DENBY: “But what a comedy that this pro-ecology, anti-technology message is being delivered though in a package that is the piece of the advanced technology, costing $250 million and further. It’s definitely aimed at the Bush administration because there’s talk about shock and awe, we’re going to hit those monkeys.”

ROSE: “Fight terror with terror.”

DENBY: “Yes. And it’s being distributed and partially paid for by Fox, by Rupert Murdoch, a right-wing press baron who one imagines supported the war in Iraq.”

SCOTT: “Plus, quite provocative — if that’s the analogy, then what happens to [Sam Worthington‘s Jake Sully] is quite provocative and even…

DENBY: “It’s more than ‘go native’, in other words. He leads the revolt.”

SCOTT: “But that’s the fun of it. I think that entertainment like this at its best has always had kind of an allegorical top lead, has always been able to weave in sort of some kind of political message. And part of the fun of going to movies like this is it simplifies and clarifies and makes emphatic something that in the real world is, of course, much more complicated and nuanced and difficult.

“It’s also not ironic. There are no sort of winks and nudges. This is not a movie that’s kind of self-conscious and playful and showing you how smart it is. It’s a very sincere piece of storytelling.”

I have a theory that thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of 50-and-overs have been turning on over the holidays because of the cannabis laughing scene in Nancy Meyers‘ It’s Complicated. It’s a contact high and the most enjoyable scene in the film. My guess is that it gave various boomers and older GenXers the idea, especially, I’m guessing, as a fun New Year’s Eve activity. If attractive and sophisticated Meryl Streep and Steve Martin can do it, why can’t we?

I’m not going to name names, but I’m well acquainted with a lad of 21 whose divorced mom recently saw It’s Complicated, and who very soon after asked the young lad to score a little weed on behalf of her mid 50ish boyfriend, who hasn’t turned on in 20 years. Young lad went all the way out to Coney Island to cop yesterday afternoon, and then had to train it back to Manhattan and drop off the two or three grams. He preemptively bought rolling papers on the assumption that the above-mentioned couple wouldn’t have any.

I think this is fairly hilarious. If anyone can report any first- or second-hand observations along these lines, I’m all ears.

Yesterday ESPN.com columnist Bill Simmons (a.k.a. “The Sports Guy” in ESPN magazine) posted the most bluntly and enjoyably written reviews I’ve read anywhere of 2009’s two most attention-getting sports films — Invictus and The Blind Side — although his ’09 favorites (which he riffs on briefly) were Sugar, Big Fan and The Damned United.

ESPN’s Bill Simmons

Excerpt #1: “Invictus‘s first problem was making Nelson Mandela the movie’s lead character in a misguided attempt to be an important film that transcended sports. Sure, Morgan Freeman nailed the difficult accent as well as the dignified, congenial way Mandela carried himself. But isn’t Freeman always dignified and congenial? This was like watching Red walk around Shawshank with better clothes and a cooler accent. I just couldn’t get past it. Hiring Freeman to play Mandela was too easy — like getting Omar Epps to star in the Mike Tomlin story or something.

“Plus, the same qualities that made Mandela such a wonderful human being prohibit him from being a compelling movie lead. Freeman plays Mandela correctly as a proud man with a huge heart. He speaks softly, in something of a stilted monotone. He keeps smiling and inspiring people despite all the horrible things that had happened to him, except he wasn’t a commanding presence who brought a room to life like, say, Martin Luther King Jr., or even Herm Edwards. There was nothing to figure out about him, no surprises coming, no layers that needed to be peeled back. He was just a great and understated man.

“Hollywood knew this, the filmmakers knew this, and they couldn’t figure out how to translate Mandela to the big screen for two hours. What they should have done was build Invictus around the rugby team, made it a sports movie, and then made Mandela a supporting character for effect. Ideally, we would have seen him five or six times at most to maximize his presence (like how Jack Nicholson was used in A Few Good Men), so every time he appeared on screen, it would have felt powerful and substantial.”

Excerpt #2: “I never thought that Sandra Bulllock, the Nolan Ryan of chick flicks, could carry a sports movie. Wrong. She owns every scene and hasn’t been this likable since 28 Days. Even better, she exhibits the same Southern sassiness/sexiness that Julia Roberts didn’t have in Charlie Wilson’s War. It’s worth seeing this movie just for Bullock. She out-Juliaed Julia.”

Excerpt #3: “Because Hollywood doesn’t get analyzed like sports — we don’t create complicated statistics to evaluate careers or even use recent history to determine whether someone is better or worse than the general public might think — our perception is that Clint Eastwood is one of the best directors.

“Within Hollywood circles, his directing is legendary for a different reason: Eastwood bangs out expensive movies under budget and ahead of schedule. Doesn’t shoot a ton of takes, doesn’t drift from the script, doesn’t waste afternoons waiting for the sun to set just right, stuff like that. He’s the most efficient director working today. Because we like him personally, he gets more credit than he deserves and a free pass every time he makes a clunker. By all accounts, Eastwood bangs out a project, takes a few weeks off, then bangs out the next one.

“So how can we call him a great director? Or even a good one? Is efficiency the best trait for directing? Think of the time James Cameron spent creating a 3-D world in Avatar or Jason Reitman spent crafting Up in the Air. then ask yourself this question: What would have happened if Invictus had been driven by someone with that kind of passion? Potentially, it would have been one of the greatest sports movies ever made, right?”