Oscar Predictions

Early 2014 Oscar Predictions: First Best Actor Line-Up

34 contenders make up the list right now, but that's sure to change

Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks, Christian Bale, Idris Elba and Michael Fassbender
Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks, Christian Bale, Idris Elba and Michael Fassbender

I have never before attempted to predict an award season this early and categories such as Best Picture and Director are actually quite easy when you compare to trying to predict the acting categories. An actor's performance can earn a nomination without the film itself getting a push in the major categories.

For example, many asked why I hadn't included films such as Ain't Them Bodies Saints in my 40 film Oscar preview. Well, IFC isn't going to have the budget to push David Lowery's film in all the categories, but the much talked about performances from Rooney Mara and Casey Affleck may be able to get enough outside support to be able to speak for themselves.

Then you have to begin to consider one performance over another. Take Tom Hanks for example. He plays Walt Disney in Saving Mr. Banks and the title character in Paul Greengrass' Captain Phillips. Hanks is a two-time Oscar winner and a five-time nominee, which film does he get nominated for? Both? Unlikely, so which one? This early in the game I'm going with Phillips, but who knows?

Then there's the question of "Who is the lead and who is supporting?"

I don't have any nominees listed for George Clooney's The Monuments Men, because I don't know who might be the lead and who might be supporting. I have no problem waiting to find out, but if you're wondering why the film I currently have listed at the top of my Best Picture and Best Director charts is without a Best Actor nomination at this point, now you know.

The one thing I love about this initial batch of Best Actor nominations, however, is the number of black and minority contenders, and not only are they contenders, but they are strong contenders.

This was something I first noticed as I was working through my 2014 Oscar Preview as I began to realize there could, very easily, be two black nominees for Best Actor and a legitimate shot at three with the likes of Idris Elba in Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom, Chiwetel Ejiofor in Steve McQueen's Twelve Years a Slave and Michael B. Jordan in Fruitvale. Forest Whitaker also stands a chance for The Butler and you also have Oscar Isaac (Inside Llewyn Davis) and Michael Peña (Chavez) to consider.

Of course, six contenders out of the 34 total I have listed doesn't exactly mean the Hollywood ranks have somehow found an even race balance, but I thought it was still very encouraging to see the rise of strong minority contenders in major roles up for serious consideration.

As for my current top five, here's how things stand:

1.) Leonardo DiCaprio (The Wolf of Wall Street) - Back with Martin Scorsese for the fifth time, nominated three times before for his work with Scorsese something has to happen sooner or later and this seems like a strong enough project to bring it home.

2.) Tom Hanks (Captain Phillips) - As I said, I could also go with Saving Mr. Banks, but I'm allowing my bias for the film I'd rather see control this pick.

3.) Idris Elba (Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom) - Not only is Idris Elba a great actor, he's a much-loved actor and now comes the opportunity to play Nelson Mandela in a Weinstein Co.-distributed film? I see the writing on the wall.

4.) Christian Bale (Untitled David O. Russell Abscam Project) - David O. Russell's Abscam project is a tough one to figure out in terms of performances. It seems Bradley Cooper could just as easily be pushed in the lead category, especially if Sony Classics tries to push him in Supporting for Serena. For now Bale is my only one from the film in lead, but I just received the screenplay and I'm tempted to give it a read... though I don't want to spoil the film for myself.

5.) Michael Fassbender (The Counselor) - The fifth slot was tough. I had Bruce Dern for Alexander Payne's Nebraska for a moment as well as Ejoifor and Jordan briefly, but I'm going with Fassbender, not because I necessarily think it will be the best performance, but it's getting to that point where it feels he's due after being overlooked for his work in films such as Shame, Hunger and, I'm sure some would argue, Prometheus. Tough call.


Overall I have 34 names in my Best Actor pool, which you can check out in full right here. I'm sure there will be a rotating door of newcomers and departures, such as likely movement between categories including Ben Affleck (Runner, Runner) and Josh Brolin (Labor Day) whose roles in their respective films I'm not entirely sure of when it comes to their size. But in all I think this is a good starting point considering we're about a year out from the actual ceremony.

So, for now, click here and check out the full field. Add your early predictions below and let me know if you think there is anyone I have overlooked.

Finally, and I'm going to remind you with every one of these early prediction pieces, if you don't have a free RopeofSilicon account you may want to register for one. Later this year, all contenders below the Bubble Line and not among my projected nominees will only be visible to logged in and registered members of the site. So if you haven't registered yet, you may as well do so now. It only takes a second.

Thanks for Reading! Join the Community!
Support the Site! Make it Faster! No Ads!

Your support goes a long way in ensuring RopeofSilicon.com stays stable. For less than the price of one small popcorn, you can can help support RopeofSilicon and, in turn, visit the site every day without ads! Including this one!

Subscribe Now!

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Xarnis/ Xarnis

    I hadn't heard about Mandela: The Long Walk to Freedom until your Oscar preview, but I think Idris Elba has a very good shot. He's just outside my top 5.
    As for Tom Hanks, I have him in for Saving Mr. Banks, but I don't know if he is supporting or lead. the film isn't about Disney, it's about P.L. Travers. However, The Academy loves it when films glorify Hollywood. I would rather see Hanks in for Captain Phillips, but i'm going with the "safer" bet.
    I'm leaving off anything related to David O. Russell's Abscam movie until I hear more. That December release date can easily be pushed back.

    So here are my Predictions
    1. Leonardo DiCaprio, The Wolf of Wall Street
    2. Tom Hanks, Saving Mr. Banks
    3. Steve Carrell, Foxcatcher
    4. George Clooney, The Monuments Men
    5. Benedict Cumberbatch, The Fifth Estate

  • Kyle

    I feel like Saving Mr. Banks is going to be this year's Hyde Park on Hudson/My Week with Marilyn

    • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Xarnis/ Xarnis

      The Butler could also be train wreck.

    • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Jake17/ Jake17

      Agreed. Considering who the director is.

    • Bertram J. Krogh

      My Week with Marilyn was fantastic, it made my top 20 list. But of course we are talking opinion.

  • Prakshid Meshram

    2014 #OSCAR Preview- My Early Prediction
    BEST PICTURE:
    1. The Wolf Of Wall Street*
    2. Monuments Men
    3. Foxcatcher
    4. 12 Years A Slave
    5. Gravity
    6. The Counselor
    7. Saving Mr. Banks
    8. Labor Day
    9. August: Osage county
    10.David O. Russell Untitled Abscam Project/American Bullshit
    Alt. Nebraska

    BEST DIRECTOR:
    1. George Clooney- Monuments Men
    2. Steve McQueen- 12 Years a Slave
    3. Bennet Miller- Foxcatcher
    4. Martin Scorsese- The Wolf of Wall Street*
    5. Alfonso Cuaron- Gravity
    Alt. Ridley Scott- The Counselor

    BEST ACTOR:
    1. Tom Hanks- Saving Mr. Banks*
    2. Steve Carell- Foxcatcher
    3. Chiwetel Ejiofor- 12 Years a Slave
    4. Leonardo Di Caprio- The Wolf of Wall Street
    5. Matthew McConaughey- Dallas Buyer's Club
    Alt. Bruce Dern- Nebraska

    BEST ACTRESS:
    1. Naomi Watts- Diana*
    2. Meryl Streep- August: Osage County
    3. Emma Thompson- Saving Mr. Banks
    4. Kate Winslet- Labor Day
    5. Nicole Kidman- Grace Of Monaco
    Alt. Jennifer Lawrence- Serena
    Sandra Bullock- Gravity

    BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
    1. Josh Brolin- Labor Day
    2. Michael Fassbender- 12 Years a Slave*
    3. Mark Ruffalo- Foxcatcher
    4. Jonah Hill- The Wolf Of Wall Street
    5. Will Forte- Nebraska
    Alt. Javier Bardem- The Counselor

    BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
    1. Amy Adams- David O. Russell Untitled Abscam Project/American Bullshit
    2. Julia Roberts- August: Osage County*
    3. Cameron Diaz- The Counselor
    4. Cate Blanchett- Monuments Men
    5. Catherine Keener- Captain Phillips
    Alt. Carey Mulligan- Inside Llewyn Davis
    Margo Martindale- August: Osage County

    BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:
    1. The Counselor- Cormac McCarthy
    2. Saving Mr. Banks- Kelly Marcel & Sue Smith
    3. Gravity- Alfonso Cuaron, Jonas Cuaron & Rodrigo Garcia
    4. Nebraska- Bob Nelson
    5. Foxcatcher* - E. Max Frye, Dan Futterman & Bennett Miller
    Alt. Inside Llewyn Davis- Joel & Ethan Coen

    BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
    1. Monuments Men- George Clooney & Grant Heslov
    2. Labor Day- Jason Reitman
    3. 12 Years a Slave- Steve McQueen & John Ridley
    4. August: Osage County- Tracy Letts
    5. The Wolf of Wall Street* - Terence Winter
    Alt. Before Midnight- Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy & Ethan Hawke

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/MovieFan/ Movie Fan

    Best Actor Predictions
    - Leonardo DiCaprio: The Wolf of Wall Street
    - Tom Hanks: Saving Mr.Banks
    - Christian Bale: ABSCAM Project
    - Ryan Gosling: Only God Forgive
    - Michael Pena: Chavez
    Alt: Michael Fassbender: The Counselor

  • Carl

    Leonardo DiCaprio for the overdue and deserving win!

    • Abu Bakker Siddique

      Yes! Can't wait to see him win at last..

      • Carl

        I'm willing to flood blogs for his win! Maybe Academy members will now wake up.

  • Dee

    Mine are:

    Christian Bale, ABSCAM
    Bruce Dern, Nebraska
    Leonardo Di Caprio, WOWS
    Chiwetel Ejiofor, TYAS
    Matthew McConaughey - DBC

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/navaneethks/ navaneethks

    I really hope it is DiCaprio's year!

    • Abu Bakker Siddique

      I hope you're right. If he doesn't win Oscar this year, I'll boycott Oscars. Leo is a genius!

      • Carl

        Matthew Mcconaughey will be his ultimate threat. or Tom Hanks perhaps. but this is his year! Excited for Gatsby and Wolf!

      • Bertram J. Krogh

        But what if his performance isn't that great? I believe it will be, but one cannot be sure at this point. I think boycotting something because one doesn't get what one wants is quite ignorant. But I have my faith in DiCaprio, in fact, he is my number one pick at this point.

        • Carl

          yay Bertram! Dicaprio rules this year!

  • Eoin Daly

    BEST ACTOR PREDICTIONS:
    Christian Bale, Untitled David O. Russell Project
    Steve Carell, Foxcatcher
    Bruce Dern, Nebraska
    Leonardo DiCaprio, The Wolf of Wall Street
    Matthew McConnaughey, The Dallas Buyers Club

    I agree with you picks of Bale and DiCaprio. Bale because he is the lead of an O.Russell film and DiCaprio because it's another scorsese biopic and from the script I read he is the complete centre with voiceover and big speechs.

    Fassbender will get the supporting nod but his character in The Counselor is not really nomination worthy, Elba will try his best but I do not think he is best for the Weinstein push and Hanks will split votes I think.

    McConaughey was wrongfully snubbed this year and has lost the weight and has AIDS in the film, Carell should have been nominated in 06 but from the script I read he has a baity role that is fully dramatic and aganist type for him and finally Dern might have the Bridges treatment and win for being the most respected in the category. However out of my five nominees I believe McConaughey will win on performance and speechs. I mean look at his Indie Spirit speech that is so charming:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN1qcIUXHdU&feature=player_detailpage

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/andyluvsfilms/ andyluvsfilms

    i think Idris Elba has a good chance especially if the great man passes, not trying to be disrespectful but this is the world in which we live and its, y'know, the academy

  • Abu Bakker Siddique

    Happy with your top 5. I would also be happy if Benedict Cumberbatch gets nominated for The Fifth Estate.

  • Jack

    1. Leonardo DiCaprio
    2. Tom Hanks- Saving Mr. Banks
    3. Chiwetel Ejifor- 12 Years a Slave
    4. Steve Carell- Foxcatcher
    5. Matthew McConegheny- Dallas Buyer's Club
    ALT: Christian Bale, Bruce Dern

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/brace/ brace

    I'm rooting for Leonardo to win and Elba, Ejoifor, Fassbender and Pena to get nominated. or Cumberbatch or ...anyone but Hanks again.

    • Ron Oneal Fresh

      I would have agree w/ your 'anyone but Hanks sentiment circa 2002 but he's been in mediocre-land for awhile now. I think he's a great actor, would like to see another great performance from him again.

      His run from the late 80s to early 00's makes him an all timer.

      I think people are starting to forget that.

  • Mykael

    Its excruciating for a DiCaprio fan to note that EVERY YEAR he takes the presumed frontrunner status for only to see it completely overturned during Awards'
    season.

    2009 Oscars, Revolutionary Road.
    His devastating performance was criminally forgotten among some of the Hollywood big names.

    2010 Oscars, early frontrunner for Shutter Island.
    Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks Pictures pushed the release date to next and screwed his chances.

    2011 Oscars, early favorite(not a frontrunner) for Shutter Island and a contender for Inception.
    Inception - Christopher Nolan and technical prowess overshadowed the sublime acting powerhouse.
    Hauntingly riveting Shutter Island, his better shot, was buried deep down the island by the time it came to Oscars.

    2012, outright frontrunner for J. Edgar.
    Only if the movie was half as good as his towering performance.

    2013 Oscars, overwhelming supporting frontrunner and surprisingly favorite even among viewers for Django Unchained.
    Is it happening finally?
    Nope. Sorry, we like the Good-German more than the Bad-privileged-American.

    2014 Oscars, frontrunner for The Wolf of Wall Street.
    Got to be his year right?
    Answer - I.D.G.A.F.O.S.

    Since departing The Departed of Blood Diamond, he has had zero Oscar nominations in last 6 years for 6 films.
    Every year the egregious B.S surrounds around him - "DiCaprio playing himself all over again. Give him the damn Oscar already. He badly needs it."
    Its blatantly hurtful. He is certainly not Daniel Day Lewis. He is definitely not Christian Bale. He is Leonardo DiCaprio, the former teen heartthrob turned
    respected leading man of the Hollywood with a diverse career of his generation.
    He doesn't need the sympathy vote and overdue outcry. He is better than that.
    There is no need to raise my hopes for him to win Oscar this year.
    The only hope is the wish for his early return to acting from hiatus. Cinema isn't the same without DiCaprio.
    Waiting patiently for your return, not for the damn Oscar.

    My opinion. Please don't be offended.
    My prior apologies, if it anyway.
    Thank you.

    • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/ChrisJr./ Chris Jr.

      "He doesn't need the sympathy vote and overdue outcry. He is
      better than that.
      There is no need to raise my hopes for him to win Oscar this
      year.
      The only hope is the wish for his early return to acting from
      hiatus. Cinema isn't the same without DiCaprio.
      Waiting patiently for your return, not for the damn Oscar."

      First time commenting on the website. I can't agree with you more. Whether DiCaprio gets an Oscar or not he's still a pretty darn talented actor.

    • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Jake17/ Jake17

      "2013 Oscars, overwhelming supporting frontrunner and surprisingly favorite even among viewers for Django Unchained.
      Is it happening finally?
      Nope. Sorry, we like the Good-German more than the Bad-privileged-American."
      Actually, most people I've talked to like Waltz best. I thought Jackson and Waltz were better, but that was more Tarantino's fault than DiCaprio's.

      • Stiggy

        Wouldn't it be Good Austrian rather than German in the case of Waltz?

      • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/lalecture/ lalecture

        I liked Walz more out of the two actors. DiCaprio did a fantastic job. I loved him in this role. Not "playing himself" in my opinion. But up against Walz, (yes the Austrian) he didnt have a chance.

    • Carl

      Point taken. It will be obvious if they did nominate him alongside previous winners in the Supporting Category with Django . Looks like he's desperate for a win but actually he isnt. Did not campaign for awards for Django at all. Watch Emma Stone's words after each nominee was announced.

      He will win this year. Because he's great. No one better to give him the Oscar than a Scorsese film.

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Corbin/ Corbin

    1. Leonardo DiCaprio- Wolf of Wall Street
    2. Steve Carell - Foxcatcher
    3. Christian Bale- Abscam
    4. Tom Hanks- Saving Mr. Banks
    5. George Clooney- Monuments Men
    Alts.: Idris Elba, Michael Fassbender, Josh Brolin

    • Sikri06

      I don't think George Clooney will be nominated. Ben Affleck wasn't nominated lead actor this year and The Monuments Men is even more of an ensemble piece than Argo. Clooney will be nominated for directing, producing and writing instead.

      One of the supporting actors from The Monuments Men will most likely be nominated, the same way that the academy felt that they had to nominate someone from the Argo-ensemble. So it's John Goodman, Matt Damon, Bill Murray or Cate Blanchett who will get the nom.

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

    Cumberbatch or Hanks will win Best Actor. The writing's on the wall. In terms of cinema, we're re-entering that Iraq invasion mindset were a slew of propaganda films about American exceptionalism get made and win huge success on the awards circuit.

    • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

      Fassbender isn't getting nominated. For what I've heard, his character is the least interesting character in the movie. Also, Oscar doesn't care about things like "being overdue."

      • Carl

        Who's Peter O Toole?

    • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Travis/ Travis

      I don't see how The Fifth Estate is about American Exceptionalism. Also, while I don't see Fassbender getting an Actor nomination, I disagree with your point on Oacar ignoring "overdue" status. That seems to be exactly what they care about.

      • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/lalecture/ lalecture

        ditto. The Academy is notorious for nominating and voting for winners based on the "overdue" status.

      • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

        It's clear that The Fifth Estate is another piece of political propaganda providing justification for a war with Iran: http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/julian-assange-says-the-fifth-estate-is-mass-propaganda-and-the-script-a-lie-built-on-a-lie-20130128

        I should be more clear on the overdue thing: Post-60? Sure. You can cite a hundred examples of the Academy giving some love to old, prestigious veterans. But Fassbender is 36. Hardly a veteran. Some goes for DiCaprio, Pitt, Phoenix, Depp, etc. The Academy doesn't feel any guilt about not recognizing people that young. You have to hit 60 to get the "overdue" vote. I mean, by that logic, Robert De Niro would've won for SLP. He hasn't won an Oscar in 32 years. Oscar didn't care. Who'd they give it to? Waltz, again, just 3 years after he won his first Oscar. Now, De Niro is certainly "of age," but like I say, the Academy (for the most part), does not put a huge emphasis on "correcting their mistakes." Because in their minds, they haven't made any.

        • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/lalecture/ lalecture

          My concept of overdue has more to do with the body of work the artist. Not just the number of nominations but also the quality of the projects they have worked on.

          • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

            Again, if the Academy really cared about such things, it would be "Academy Award winner Leonardo DiCaprio".... but it's not.

        • Future

          So because Assange - someone who is notoriously paranoid about EVERYTHING - says the film is a propaganda piece, then we'll just take his word for it, shall we? How about you actually read the books on which the film is based and then maybe you'll have a different idea?

          • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

            First:

            "So because Assange - someone who is notoriously paranoid about EVERYTHING" -

            - A wild, hyperbolic and bombastic statement.

            Then:

            "How about you actually read the books on which the film is based and then maybe you'll have a different idea?"

            - So we're to believe that the books "Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange and the World’s Most Dangerous Website" & "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy" are 100% factual, objective and unbiased... because Josh Singer decided to base his screenplay on them? I'll need some convincing there.

            • Future

              OK, so you didn't read the books, then, but you are willing to call their accounts into question? Got it. And Julian Assange - based on all accounts that aren't Julian Assange - is extremely paranoid, dating back to his teen years. So, whilst the statement might be "bombastic", it doesn't change it from being true.

              • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

                First:

                "K, so you didn't read the books, then, but you are willing to call their accounts into question?"

                - Classic Jarrod avoidance.

                Also:

                I'll repeat the question, since you seemed to have missed it:

                "So we're to believe that the books "Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange and the World’s Most Dangerous Website" & "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy" are 100% factual, objective and unbiased... because Josh Singer decided to base his screenplay on them?"

                And then:

                "based on all accounts that aren't Julian Assange"

                - Another wild and baseless assertion.

              • Future

                I am sorry for actually reading the texts in which the film is based. I guess I am not as informed as reading ... nothing, then. Daniel Domscheit-Berg is so far from being an American propagandist it's almost funny. His account is of an extremely vain, ... and you know what's best about his book? He actually includes exchanges between the pair, which displays all of Assange's vanity and insecurity. How about you read books for a change instead of complaining about them? "I hate ZDT ... haven't seen it yet. I hate TFE ... haven't seen it, yet, blah, blah, blah."

              • Future

                if you have actually READ either of the books that this film is based on, you'll know that Assange is a passive aggressive control freak who sees even the most constructive criticism of his work as an attack on WikiLeaks and its ideology. No surprise then that he would suggest that any film version is "propaganda". It's easy to blame EVERYONE else, isn't it?

              • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

                So Daniel Domscheit-Berg wouldn't have any motivations to slam Assange after their parting? Got it.

                "He actually includes exchanges between the pair, which displays all of Assange's vanity and insecurity."

                - Does he? OH MY GOSH!!! That's seals the deal! It must be true! "Because I'm a mindless drone who takes everything at face value and questions nothing!" - Jarrod

                ""I hate ZDT ... haven't seen it yet. I hate TFE ... haven't seen it, yet, blah, blah, blah."

                - Which is great except I don't hate Zero Dark Thirty and I have seen it. And I don't recall saying "I hate TFE" because that would be a strange statement to make; seeing as how no one has seen it. But then trying to make sense of your comments is to miss the point...

                "if you have actually READ either of the books that this film is based on, you'll know that Assange is a passive aggressive control freak who sees even the most constructive criticism of his work as an attack on WikiLeaks and its ideology."

                - "Again, because I'm Jarrod who takes everything at face value and questions nothing as long it aligns with my preconceived view of the world." Got it.

                "It's easy to blame EVERYONE else, isn't it?"

                - I mean, "EVERYONE" is a lot of people. It would be hard to blame "EVERYONE." Yeah, you might lose credibility if you tried to blame "EVERYONE."

              • Future

                First of all, brilliant impersonation. Anyone who has to write "I am (Person X)" has captured that other person's voice PERFECTLY. It's eerie actually: someone tell Kevin Spacey to forget all that work he did studying Al Pacino's speech patterns and shit like that, what is MORE IMPORTANT is to declare "I am Al Pacino". That will make for a really killer impersonation, saying that person's NAME.

                Again, it's the same nonsense response from AS. You inherently trust Assange's POV, whilst rejecting all the books written about him. The reference to ZDT was an example of you blasting the film before you had seen it, which you did repeatedly because ... Glenn Greenwald said so. And the EVERYONE comment was a reference to Assange's psychology and paranoia, not yours. I don't understand how someone can write but not read.

                Finally, you might want to change up the double quotations and include some single quotations for different ideas (quoting another person's writing vs. presenting an idea), otherwise it makes you make everything look the same.

                It's frankly, frightening, how far you are willing to go to not admit you simply haven't read any books on Assange. It's chilling, actually.

              • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

                "First of all, brilliant impersonation."

                - Well, I mean... thanks. I'm good, I'll admit that much. But brilliant? I don't know. Maybe just "great." Yeah, I'll settle for "great." I'm definitely good, but I'm just not in Pacino's league. Give me a couple of years though, I'll get there.

                "Again, it's the same nonsense response from AS."

                - Aww. "Nonsense"? There's surely got to be at least SOME sense in there somewhere. No?

                "You inherently trust Assange's POV"

                - Which is, in some way, different from inherently trusting Daniel Domscheit-Berg's POV? Hmm.

                "whilst rejecting all the books written about him."

                - "All" of them? Oh, I didn't realize we were talking about "all" of them. Damn, you are well read aren't you... I mean, "all" of them is definitely a big number. We're gonna be here all night if we're talking about "all" of them. And they "all" maintain the same thesis? Wow. Why write "all" those books if they are "all" just saying the same thing? Strange.

                "The reference to ZDT was an example of you blasting the film before you had seen it, which you did repeatedly because ... Glenn Greenwald said so."

                - Taking the film and filmmakers to task for making unsubstantiated assertions about the acquisition of the courier's nickname is "blasting the film before you had seen it"? And Glenn Greenwald was the only journalist covering this controversy? Wow. The impact one man has huh? Crazy.

                "And the EVERYONE comment was a reference to Assange's psychology and paranoia, not yours."

                - Whoa. Didn't know that I had even insinuated that I took it to mean anything other than what you had intended. What did I say again?
                "I mean, 'EVERYONE' is a lot of people. It would be hard to blame 'EVERYONE.' Yeah, you might lose credibility if you tried to blame 'EVERYONE.'" It IS funny how people can write but not read.

                "Finally, you might want to change up the double quotations and include some single quotations for different ideas (quoting another person's writing vs. presenting an idea), otherwise it makes you make everything look the same."

                - You mean like how you consistently ignore points made by others and choose, instead, to zero in on something you feel you can pick apart and attack? Still waiting for a satisfactory answer to the question that I initially posed:

                "So we're to believe that the books "Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange and the World’s Most Dangerous Website" & "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy" are 100% factual, objective and unbiased... because Josh Singer decided to base his screenplay on them?"

                "It's frankly, frightening, how far you are willing to go to not admit you simply haven't read any books on Assange. It's chilling, actually."

                - Are you chilled? Frightened? Ya know, like the paranoid Julian Assange. I certainly couldn't admit to having read "all" of the books. That sir, is statement that only you could make.

              • Future

                "I'm definitely good, but I'm just not in Pacino's league. Give me a couple of years though, I'll get there."

                Oh for the love of ... you should have written "Spacey's league". You can't even do sarcasm right. Nobody compliments the person who is being impersonated, people tend to compliment the impersonator. That's like praising Richard Burton for being imitated by Frank Gorshin or something.

                "There's surely got to be at least SOME sense in there somewhere. No?"

                Well, when you're confusing the impersonator and the person being impersonated, I would say there is no "sense" in what you are writing. Sorry.

                "Which is, in some way, different from inherently trusting Daniel Domscheit-Berg's POV? Hmm."

                I've read multiple books on the subject. So, no, I don't "inherently" trust one person's POV. But - on the basis of multiple sources - I find Domscheit-Berg's assertions to be more credible.

                "The impact one man has huh? Crazy."

                Yes, it is crazy for a commentator to take one person's assertions and to allow them to completely color their reading of a text. But it happened to you. And it is kinda crazy, I would agree. Frankly, I wasn't even talking about the courier's name: I was talking about your perception of the film's depiction of torture .... before you had seen the film.

                "I certainly couldn't admit to having read "all" of the books."

                Wow, you don't read, get pissy with those that do. Good one. Again, I have read multiple books on the subject, you have read none. NONE. And I doubt you will read any before the film comes out. Why read about a subject, you seem to wonder, when you can write about it?

              • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

                "Oh for the love of ... you should have written 'Spacey's league'. You can't even do sarcasm right. Nobody compliments the person who is being impersonated, people tend to compliment the impersonator. That's like praising Richard Burton for being imitated by Frank Gorshin or something."

                - Ah yes! A mistake! I incorrectly used the name "Pacino" instead of "Spacey." You have me on the fences now! Well gosh darn it if that doesn't completely undue everything I've said! But wait, wouldn't you normally refer to such quibbles as "semantics"? I try to be perfect. I do. But I just can't compete with your flawless writing. Like this:

                "Finally, you might want to change up the double quotations and include some single quotations for different ideas (quoting another person's writing vs. presenting an idea), otherwise it makes you make everything look the same."

                - "makes you make"? Really? And what about this:

                "And the EVERYONE comment was a reference to Assange's psychology and paranoia, not yours."

                - Your poor reading comprehension resulted in THAT embarrassing gaffe. But let's not fight about "semantics."

                This strangely fits in with what I said above:

                "You mean like how you consistently ignore points made by others and choose, instead, to zero in on something you feel you can pick apart and attack?"

                These attempts are petty and they weaken your arguments (if what you've written could actually qualify as an "argument").

                "I've read multiple books on the subject."

                - Wait, I thought you had read "all" of the books on the subject? I mean, that's what you implied. I'm still trying to clear that part up. Definitely confused.

                "So, no, I don't 'inherently' trust one person's POV."

                - You mean, despite all evidence to the contrary?

                "But - on the basis of multiple sources - I find Domscheit-Berg's assertions to be more credible."

                - What were the sources again? I don't remember if you ever actually listed them. Ya know, apart from Domscheit-Berg's book.

                "Yes, it is crazy for a commentator to take one person's assertions and to allow them to completely color their reading of a text. But it happened to you. And it is kinda crazy, I would agree."

                - Oh, I wasn't aware that I had based my assertions solely on Glenn Greenwald's articles. Huh. Too bad that your statement is 100% inaccurate...

                "Frankly, I wasn't even talking about the courier's name: I was talking about your perception of the film's depiction of torture .... before you had seen the film."

                - I see... do you plan on backing your statements up with any links to these assertions?

                "Wow, you don't read, get pissy with those that do. Good one. Again, I have read multiple books on the subject, you have read none. NONE. And I doubt you will read any before the film comes out. Why read about a subject, you seem to wonder, when you can write about it?"

                - So I'm to understand that reading, as you define it, refers only to "books"? Articles do not count? New York Times? Wall Street Journal? Washington Post? The Guardian? Those don't count as "reading"? Forgive me, but as a college student I'm inundated with enough books to read as it is. I only wish I had as much free time on my hands as you clearly do....

                The question that still goes unanswered:

                "So we're to believe that the books "Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange and the World’s Most Dangerous Website" & "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy" are 100% factual, objective and unbiased... because Josh Singer decided to base his screenplay on them?"

              • Future

                Yeah, OK I ONLY read David Leigh and Luke Harding's 'WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy', 'Inside Wikileaks' and 'Underground'. Not ALL, but more than NOTHING. I am sorry if I didn't quote from 'Underground' considering it has NOTHING to do what is happening now.

                "as a college student I'm inundated with enough books to read as it is"

                Oh, poor you. You have to read BOOKS at college. Your lecturers must be monsters or something. Making you read books. The Tragedy. And I am not shocked that you consider a person who reads books to have "free time". Why bother reading books, you wonder, when Greenwald can summarize material for you?

                "So we're to believe that the books "Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange and the World’s Most Dangerous Website" & "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy" are 100% factual, objective and unbiased... because Josh Singer decided to base his screenplay on them?"

                God, I hope you are not a journalist student because this is the lamest 'gotcha' question ever. The answer: this is a false dichotomy. There is NO SUCH THING as something that is completely "objective" and "unbiased". Everything that anyone writes is based on a number of factors, such as their methodology, ideology etc. Your poor lecturers. They must have a great deal of work on their hands if a student genuinely believes that there is such thing as 100% "objective and unbiased". I read BOOKS, not one but multiple, on a subject so I can engage with it a more intellectual level than 'this is 100% right, this is 100% wrong'. So I don't consider any ONE material to be 100% correct, but - based on the shared conclusions of each book - I would say an interpretation that Assange is paranoid is a fair one.

                Based on 'Underground' (which I experienced FIRST, by the way), I would say Assange was paranoid as a youth, based on his fractured and disturbed relationships with his family (and this was about people who didn't even know anyone at his later organization). Based on the next two books, that interpretation is justified, as both material gives us different insights into how Assange engages in the world. So I constructed an interpretation based on multiple factors, not just what Assange says.

                Now, I have answer YOUR QUESTION, answer mine, then: what books have you read about Assange?

              • Future

                "I see... do you plan on backing your statements up with any links to these assertions?"

                http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/a-look-at-the-zero-dark-thirty-torture-controversy/ You reference Leni Riefenstahl.

                http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/2012-new-york-film-critics-awards-zero-dark-thirty/ "I take issue with the politics of the film"

                http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/watch-zero-dark-thirty-trailer/ "Oh come on, you honestly think this will be anything other than a "pro US military propaganda film"?"

                Yeah, you were REALLY fair to the film before it was released. You COMPLETELY went into it with an open mind.

              • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

                “Yeah, OK I ONLY read David Leigh and Luke Harding's 'WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy', 'Inside Wikileaks' and 'Underground'. Not ALL, but more than NOTHING. I am sorry if I didn't quote from 'Underground' considering it has NOTHING to do what is happening now."

                - Good to have FINALLY cleared THAT up. I did find it ludicrous and improbable that you could have read “all the books written about him” and were informed enough to makes assertions about “all accounts that aren't Julian Assange.” It first went from “all,” to “multiple” and then ultimately: “three books.” Glad to see you’re finally taking some responsibility for your hyperbolic, preposterous and QUITE FRANKLY, foolish statements.

                “Oh, poor you. You have to read BOOKS at college. Your lecturers must be monsters or something. Making you read books. The Tragedy.”

                - Now, I’d like to give you SOME credit for trying to competently hold up your end of the argument, but when you resort to such childish and unimaginative forms of mocking, you make it hard on me. As it is, you didn’t even attempt to say anything of substance here. Come on man, you can do better than that.

                “And I am not shocked that you consider a person who reads books to have ‘free time’.”

                - Ah, so your job requires you to read books about Julian Assange? Because if it doesn’t, when are you reading these books? In your free time, I would assume… As I say, I’d love to have enough free time on my hands to read through MULTIPLE books on Julian Assange. But alas, this is not a luxury I can afford. No, sadly I must resort to other, less prestigious and far less respectable sources; such as the pages of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Washington Post and The Nation… ya know, those rags. Not as credible as Daniel Domscheit-Berg, but what are you gonna do…

                “Why bother reading books, you wonder, when Greenwald can summarize material for you?”

                - Oh, I see. I wasn’t aware that Glenn Greenwald is the only journalist whose work I read on regular basis. You’re right; I probably should expand my horizons. I think THREE sources ought to do it.

                “God, I hope you are not a journalist student because this is the lamest 'gotcha' question ever.”

                - Well, if it is a “gotcha question,” it’s only a gotcha question because you dug yourself into a hole right off the bat by saying:

                “How about you actually read the books on which the film is based and then maybe you'll have a different idea?”

                - The implication being that the fact that Josh Singer based his screenplay on those two books makes them fundamentally reliable and credible. In other words: “Your perception of Julian Assange will change once you read those books, because those two books are to be trusted and Assange, himself, is not… because I said so.”

                “Now, I have answer YOUR QUESTION, answer mine, then: what books have you read about Assange?”

                - Ironic that you whine about “gotcha questions,” and then choose to end your own comment with one. LOL.

                The problem with your question is that it assumes that “only those who have actually read a physical copy of a book can offer an opinion on the matter.” A GOTCHA QUESTION if ever there was one. The answer is that I have not read a book, in its entirety, on Assange. And therein lies the “GOTCHA.” But it’s not really a “gotcha” after all, is it? It is ridiculous to assert that “one can discuss a subject only after they’ve read a physical copy of a book dealing with that subject.” It’s absurd. There have been countless articles written about Assange and WikiLeaks and I’ve read many of them (both critical and celebratory). I’ve read more than enough material to develop an opinion on the matter, and certainly more than enough for the purposes of this conversation.

                “The reference to ZDT was an example of you blasting the film before you had seen it, which you did repeatedly because ... Glenn Greenwald said so.”

                - Whenever the topic of the “Zero Dark Thirty controversy” came up, I always weighed in. Most people (who had also not seen the film, which strangely didn’t seem to bother you) were adamant about defending the film against the backlash. Ever since ZDT first appeared on my radar, I had been suspicious of it. Given my personal politics, I worried about nature of the project and the ideas it might be promoting. When articles in The Guardian, Salon and the New Yorker began raising some of the same concerns I had about the film, I feared my suspicions had been confirmed. These were sources I trusted. I listened to all of the defenders and all of the critics.

                Your criticism – that I had developed pre-conceived ideas about the film before I had seen it – is another bizarre and nonsensical attack. Everyone develops pre-conceived ideas about films before they see them. If I say: “hey let’s go watch a Michael Bay movie,” you’ll naturally develop a preconceived notion of what you think that’s movie going to be like. If you’re a huge fan of Bay, you’ll go in expecting it to be good. If you hate him, you’ll expect it to be bad. It works the same with ZDT. I refuse to bullshit and act like “oh, I have absolutely no bias or expectations.” Of course I do. Who doesn’t? Well, I guess only you…

                What’s ironic about ZDT (and what you seem to have missed) is that I actually came out much more positive on it than I would have ever thought possible. I mean, I was ready to be totally repulsed by it. And as a result of my low expectations, I actually gave it a positive rating. One of the things I was most surprised by was that next to Argo, ZDT is a liberal’s wet dream. So actually, all of my preconceived notions helped me enjoy it more. So I should really be setting my expectations as low as possible before seeing EVERY film. That’s the way to go.

                “Frankly, I wasn't even talking about the courier's name: I was talking about your perception of the film's depiction of torture .... before you had seen the film.”

                You mean like your preconception of Paul Greengrass’ motives with Captain Phillips?

                “Damn Greengrass for possibly suggesting that it is wrong to threaten and assault people!”

                - But seriously, none of the comments you linked to broach the subject of Zero Dark Thirty’s “depiction of torture.”

        • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Travis/ Travis

          I get what you're saying about overdue status, and while I still think there are exceptions, I think you are mostly right.

          As for Assange, while I can't post the article as I can't remember where I saw it, there have been many scripts for this film, as they have the ok and the idea but not how they want to present, one rejected script did include that, and that is the one Assange read and bashed (although he naturally would be defensive). However, they threw that script out. And Future, calm down. He wasn't completely wrong

          • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

            I'm hypercritical of this film because (as I'm sure you've noticed) I find the current trend of Hollywood propaganda films (as I call them) very troubling. And since no one else seems to be commenting on the disturbing trend, I almost feel like it's my duty to call these films out (because I feel it's something that people should at least be aware of).

            Regarding Assange: I'd be worried if he wasn't defensive. Few people understand the wrath of the US Govt. like Assange. And pay no attention to "Future." It's just Jarrod masquerading under yet another phony name. His shamelessness knows no bounds.

            • Future

              "since no one else seems to be commenting on the disturbing trend" except for Assange, who called the film "propaganda" (which you are uncritically re-appropriating as your own argument)

              "I almost feel like it's my duty" Your 'duty'? Wow! That just says it all, doesn't it?

              • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

                "except for Assange, who called the film 'propaganda'"

                - Oh, I didn't know Julian Assange was a regular commenter on Rope of Silicon. News to me. This site does have reach! And I didn't know he frequently commented on Hollywood's proclivity to produce propaganda films like Argo and Zero Dark Thirty. More news to me. I guess I missed those leaks.

                "(which you are uncritically re-appropriating as your own argument)"

                - Because lord knows, there's certainly no recent precedent for that sort of thing. I mean, it's not like Ang Lee just signed up to direct the pilot episode of the new FX series called "Tyrant," from the creators of Homeland, which "tells the story of an unassuming American family drawn into the workings of a turbulent Middle Eastern nation."

                I mean gosh, with films like Argo, Zero Dark Thirty, The Firth Estate, Captain Phillips and shows like Homeland, The Americans and Tyrant, where would I get the idea that Hollywood is acting as a mouthpiece for the US Govt.? I mean really, where on earth did I get that idea....

              • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

                "Wow! That just says it all, doesn't it?"

                - It says something. But I don't know if it says "it all." Again, "all" is a lot. It's hard to say "it all."

              • Future

                Yeah, that Captain Phillips film is really horrible. Yeah, those pirates who kidnapped a bunch of crew members and held their LIVES to ransom have really got a bum rap in the media? Doesn't everyone KNOW that Americans DESERVE to be kidnapped ... just because they're Americans? Damn Greengrass for possibly suggesting that it is wrong to threaten and assault people!

              • Future

                "It says something. But I don't know if it says "it all." Again, "all" is a lot. It's hard to say "it all.""

                Wow, semantics? You must be REALLY desperate now.

              • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

                "Yeah, those pirates who kidnapped a bunch of crew members and held their LIVES to ransom have really got a bum rap in the media? Doesn't everyone KNOW that Americans DESERVE to be kidnapped ... just because they're Americans?"

                - You're right. I'm sure Greengrass will include a brief history documenting how decades of imperialism and colonization has plunged that corner of the globe into economic devastation, leaving the poor with few alternatives. Because as we know, when people are dirt poor, they place civility and decency above all else. Oh wait....

                "Damn Greengrass for possibly suggesting that it is wrong to threaten and assault people!"

                - Goodness yes! How noble and brave of him! Oh wait, are you making assertions about a film you haven't seen yet? I thought you generally frowned on that sort of thing? Old AS is confused again :(

                "Wow, semantics? You must be REALLY desperate now."

                - Semantics? You mean like this:

                "First of all, brilliant impersonation. Anyone who has to write 'I am (Person X)' has captured that other person's voice PERFECTLY. It's eerie actually: someone tell Kevin Spacey to forget all that work he did studying Al Pacino's speech patterns and shit like that, what is MORE IMPORTANT is to declare 'I am Al Pacino'. That will make for a really killer impersonation, saying that person's NAME."

                Desperate indeed.

              • Future

                "Because as we know, when people are dirt poor, they place civility and decency above all else."

                Err, no actually, and that's one of the most disgusting things I've read. Just because a person is poor, doesn't mean they have no morals. Just because a person is hungry, doesn't mean they will kill those with food. You seem to think that EVERY Somalian is some kind of thug. Not true. You think you are sympathising with them, but what you are actually saying is far more racist than anything I've read on this board. It's grotesque how unexpectedly bigoted you actually are.

                "Semantics? You mean like this"

                No, not like that. In fact, nothing like that. I made on observation on your poor impersonations, and how saying "I am (Person X)" doesn't mean you've actually captured that person's voice. You wrote about the difference between "all" and "something". Wow, what a profound observation. I commented on your skills of observation: you suggested that "all" is different to "something".

              • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

                "Just because a person is poor, doesn't mean they have no morals. Just because a person is hungry, doesn't mean they will kill those with food. You seem to think that EVERY Somalian is some kind of thug."

                - Oh, I made this assertion... where? Nope. Wrong. Never did. But then then when it comes to your poor reading comprehension, I'm not surprised that you didn't quite grasp what I was getting at.

                Poverty breads crime. This might be a new concept to you, so I'll walk you through it:

                When people have nothing and must do everything they can to survive, many will often resort to methods that they once considered unthinkable. But I guess in your eyes, this makes them inherently thuggish. You have seem to have a black and white view of the world in which the Somali pirates were inherently evil, lacking conceivable motivations. This worldview (and profound lack of understanding) is truly vile, despicable and ignorant.

                "but what you are actually saying is far more racist than anything I've read on this board."

                - Um, who's talking about "race"? I think only you. I was talking about why poverty breads crime. But again, this goes to your poor reading comprehension. So I'll just forgive your mistake and disregard it.

                "No, not like that. In fact, nothing like that. I made on observation on your poor impersonations, and how saying 'I am (Person X)' doesn't mean you've actually captured that person's voice. You wrote about the difference between 'all' and 'something'. Wow, what a profound observation. I commented on your skills of observation: you suggested that 'all' is different to 'something'."

                - So choosing to focus on my "poor impersonations" (something that couldn't be more irrelevant and trivial) isn't "semantics"?

                A quick trip over to the Oxford Dictionary's website tells us this:

                Semantics:

                "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.

                - the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff"

                i.e. The meaning of "I am" in the context in which I used it.

              • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

                *Edit: The first "have" in "You have seem to have a black and white view of the world" should be omitted.

              • Future

                "Poverty breads crime. This might be a new concept to you, so I'll walk you through it: When people have nothing and must do everything they can to survive, many will often resort to methods that they once considered unthinkable. But I guess in your eyes, this makes them inherently thuggish."

                OK, then. My parents were immigrants. Their families suffered through World War Two as Italian troops occupied their land. My father - whose family couldn't afford to put through primary school, let alone secondary school or college - left his home when he was a teenager to work in the Western world. He couldn't speak English, didn't have opportunities or connections. Some days he didn't have enough money for food. But what he did have is values, and whatever money he had went back to his family overseas. Just because you are poor doesn't mean that you will resort to violence. You seem to think those less fortunate HAVE to commit violence, HAVE to steal, HAVE to cheat. Not true. Someone who commits violence IS a thug. Someone who terrorizes others IS a thug. It actually makes them a thug. They are thugs. Sorry if I don't believe that - just because bad things happens to a person - it gives them a right to hurt others. Absolutely not. Yeah, social factors influence behavior, but it isn't the only factor in their life. People make choices, but when you make some lame suggestions that "poverty breads crime" (as if people don't have the opportunity to NOT be violent) then it makes me very depressed about your maturity levels. Let me tell you something about lower class people: they resent your assumptions about them. They hate the idea that they are not capable of going beyond their standing without violence or aggression. It's condescending and arrogant: you take 'choice' and 'responsibility' out of their lives and define them solely in terms of their social standing. People who are poor aren't just 'poor people', middle class people aren't just 'middle class people' etc. The only person who thinks in terms of black and white is you, I'm afraid.

                Do yourself a favor. Get some life experience and you won't just see people in terms of their social standing.

              • Future

                Oh, and I studied criminology, and just to let you know: that approach you unknowingly cited - social structure - is addressed in the first week ... of a three-year course. So, whilst I appreciate your summary, I learned more from my teachers than your unknowing attempts to dumb down one of the basic approaches of that field.

              • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

                “Just because you are poor doesn't mean that you will resort to violence. You seem to think those less fortunate HAVE to commit violence, HAVE to steal, HAVE to cheat.”

                - Blatant slander. I never said any of those things.

                “Someone who commits violence IS a thug. Someone who terrorizes others IS a thug. It actually makes them a thug. They are thugs.”

                - LOL, is that so? Well then EVERY member of the US military who “commits violence IS a thug.” Ha ha ha ha. You stepped right into that one.

                “Sorry if I don't believe that - just because bad things happens to a person - it gives them a right to hurt others. Absolutely not.”

                - So you stand in stringent opposition to the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. Glad to hear it.

                “Yeah, social factors influence behavior, but it isn't the only factor in their life. People make choices, but when you make some lame suggestions that ‘poverty breads crime’.”

                - You make the naive assumption that everyone has the same basic “choices” that you do and then you have the gall to call my maturity into question? Ha. Not to mention the fact that you completely write off the theory that poverty breads crime.

                “they resent your assumptions about them. They hate the idea that they are not capable of going beyond their standing without violence or aggression.”

                - And then you somehow manage to reduce an extremely complex issue to laughable simplicity…. You’re too much. “Those Somolians should just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps” – Right? When a person must choose between surviving and starving, they don’t always have the luxury to decide HOW they are going to get by. I’m glad that your father didn’t have to experience such a dire reality. It’s nice that he actually had a home and a foundation. Not everyone is so lucky. Your inability to recognize that your families struggle is not representative of everyone else in the world (and that many have it far worse) is beyond shortsighted.

                “But what he did have is values” – So, in other words, your father had values but the impoverished Somalians who kidnapped those hostages didn’t (which is what separates the two). WOW. Your insinuations get more and more repulsive as time goes on.

                “Do yourself a favor. Get some life experience and you won't just see people in terms of their social standing.”

                - Socioeconomics determines so much about a society. I don’t know how old you are, but if you’re much older than I am, I’m shocked that you know so little about the importance of economics in a society and the implications of poverty. Sounds like you’re in desperate need of some experience yourself.

                “Oh, and I studied criminology, and just to let you know: that approach you unknowingly cited - social structure - is addressed in the first week ... of a three-year course.”

                - Did you really??? That’s amazing! You’re an expert in so many subjects it’s hard to keep track of them all:

                *Jarrod has read multiple books on Julian Assange (quite conveniently) and is an expert on him.

                *Jarrod’s father comes from poverty so he is, by default, an expert on the relationship (or lack thereof) between crime and poverty.

                *Also (quite conveniently), Jarrod just happens to have studied criminology in college.

                Perhaps if we were to transition into a conversation about the European automotive industry, Jarrod will regale us with tales about his time working in a German automotive plant.

                If we somehow found our conversation heading in the direction of the great jazz music of the 1960’s, Jarrod would tell us about that one evening when he and his father played the sax with Miles Davis.

                Why question Jarrod’s honesty you ask? Well, when a person posts endless streams of rants and tirades on multiple websites and then attempts to mask their identity by commenting under a series of increasing strange nicknames – in a flagrant effort to avoid taking responsibility for the asinine assertions they make – one does pause to consider the motivations of such a person….

              • Future

                "Why question Jarrod’s honesty you ask?"

                Nobody but us (Brad Brevet, maybe?) actually cares about this conversation. The fact you think other people might actually care about your rants is sad, really. You took one of Brevet's posts about the 2014 Oscars and turn it into a rambling, hateful, bile-infused rant. I really do feel sorry for your teachers: they have to suffer this lousy excuse for writing on a regular basis. You believe people aren't responsible for their own behavior, feel it's perfectly fine for others to torture (as long as they are American), proudly declare your disinterest in reading books and throw bile on those who dare to disagree with you. I thought I would actually be reading a piece on film and the Oscars, but what I got was your grotesque spiel that values semantics over actual arguments.

              • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

                I hoped you’d spout more lies and venom to further weaken (and effectively suffocate) your own "arguments" and you didn’t disappoint.

                “Nobody but us (Brad Brevet, maybe?) actually cares about this conversation. The fact you think other people might actually care about your rants is sad, really.”

                - Oh, but YOU care. Ever so much. You feel it’s YOUR job - no, your obligation - to call internet commenters out on what YOU perceive to be “bile” and “grotesque spiel.” Whether it’s me or some poor unfortunate soul who DARED call Stanley Kubrick’s taste into question, you’re right there with your knife at the ready. The fact that it’s actually you who’s the vile, parasitic and disreputable troll is what’s ironic about the whole situation. But I guess I get what I deserve for trying to have a rational dialogue an anonymous fraud.

                “You took one of Brevet's posts about the 2014 Oscars and turn it into a rambling, hateful, bile-infused rant.”

                - Right… except that you were the one, as always, who instigated the argument. Revisionist history at its most brazen.

                “You believe people aren't responsible for their own behavior”

                - A total and absolute falsehood.

                “feel it's perfectly fine for others to torture (as long as they are American)”

                - The only response I have to this is outright bafflement. Your facility to shamelessly distort reality is staggering.

                “proudly declare your disinterest in reading books”

                - Another baseless assertion and distortion of reality.

                “and throw bile on those who dare to disagree with you”

                - You absolutely do… oh, you were talking about me? Ha. Who is “THOSE”? What is this a reference to? Have you developed a multiple personality disorder during the course of this conversation?

                “I thought I would actually be reading a piece on film and the Oscars”

                - Oh really? Interesting. I don’t recall seeing any of your predictions for 2014’s Best Actor race… did you just forget to post them? Because the only time you participate in the Rope of Silicon community is when you launch ad hominem attacks directed at me. But please, this is YOUR forum. Don’t let me stop you: who do you think are the top 5 most likely actors to be nominated for an Academy Award in 2014?

                “but what I got was your grotesque spiel that values semantics over actual arguments.”

                - “SEMANTICS” over arguments you say? You mean, like this:

                “First of all, brilliant impersonation. Anyone who has to write ‘I am (Person X)’ has captured that other person's voice PERFECTLY. It's eerie actually: someone tell Kevin Spacey to forget all that work he did studying Al Pacino's speech patterns and shit like that, what is MORE IMPORTANT is to declare ‘I am Al Pacino’. That will make for a really killer impersonation, saying that person's NAME.”

                Or this:

                “Finally, you might want to change up the double quotations and include some single quotations for different ideas (quoting another person's writing vs. presenting an idea), otherwise it makes you make everything look the same.”

                Could you possibly be referring to something like this:

                “Oh for the love of ... you should have written ‘Spacey's league’. You can't even do sarcasm right. Nobody compliments the person who is being impersonated, people tend to compliment the impersonator. That's like praising Richard Burton for being imitated by Frank Gorshin or something.”

                Yes, semantics should be avoided whenever possible.

                Your biggest problem is that you’re constantly tripping over your own hypocrisies. If you say something, stick to it. How were those “POOR LECTURERS” of yours able to endure you for 3 YEARS! I’d tap out after the first week.

                “I was talking about your perception of the film's depiction of torture .... before you had seen the film.”

                - Still waiting on a link that supports this. You should actually READ the comments in the articles you link to FIRST. Otherwise, you just look silly.

              • Future

                Yeah ... no one cares. Sorry.

              • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/AS/ AS

                “I was talking about your perception of the film's depiction of torture .... before you had seen the film.”

                - Waiting on a link to support this assertion.

  • The Seeker

    Early predictions:
    1. Leonardo diCaprio-The Wolf of Wall Street
    2. Christian Bale-Abscam
    3. Steve Carell-Foxcatcher
    4. Bruce Dern-Nebraska
    (Being in a movie with Scorsese, O Russell, Miller and Payne gives you a lot of opportunities, )

    5. Either Cumberbatch, Fassbender or Elba.

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Travis/ Travis

    I see:
    Christian Bale-Abscam
    Steve Carrell-Foxcatcher
    Benedict Cumberbatch-The Fifth Estate
    Bruce Dern-Nebraska
    Leonardo DiCaprio-The Wolf of Wall Street

    As alternates, I'm looking at Fassbender, Isaac, and Whitaker. Hanks has the 9 and 10 spots

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Jake17/ Jake17

    1. Leonardo DiCaprio, The Wolf of Wall Street
    2. Christian Bale, American Bullshit/Abscam Project
    3. Steve Carell, Foxcatcher
    4. Tom Hanks, Captain Phillips
    5. Chiwetel Ejiofor, 12 Years a Slave
    -------------------------------------------------------
    6. Idris Elba, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom
    7. Bruce Dern, Nebraska
    8. Benedict Cumberbatch, The Fifth Estate
    9. Matthew McCounaghey, Dallas Buyers Club
    10. Michael B. Jordan, Fruitvale

  • http://cinemmaconfessions.com Gautam

    Just for fun, here is what Brad is going to predict tomorrow in Best Actress category. [Top 10]

    1. Naomi Watts- Diana*
    2. Meryl Streep- August: Osage County
    3. Nicole Kidman- Grace Of Monaco
    4. Emma Thompson- Saving Mr. Banks
    5. Jennifer Lawrence- Serena
    6. Kate Winslet- Labor Day
    7. Julie Delpy - Before Midnight
    8. Sandra Bullock- Gravity
    9. Marion Cotillard - Lowlife
    10. Cate Blanchett - Blue Jasmine

  • Ron Oneal Fresh

    1. Leonardo DiCaprio, The Wolf of Wall Street
    2. Tom Hanks, Captain Phillips
    3. Chiwetel Ejiofor, 12 Years A Slave
    4. Steve Carrell, Foxcatcher
    5. Idris Elba, Mandela

    Alt. Cumberbatch (The Fifth Estate), Fassbender (The Counselor), Bale(Abscam)

    Outside chances/Sleepers

    Gosling (Only God Forgives, Place Behind The Pines)
    Whitaker (The Butler)
    Kutcher (Jobs)
    Brolin (Oldboy)

  • Oliver

    1. Benedict Cumberbatch (The Fifth Estate)
    2. Steve Carell (Foxcatcher)
    3. Leonardo DiCaprio (Wolf of Wall Street)
    4. Tom Hanks (Saving Mr.Banks)
    5. Chiwetel Ejiofor (12 Years a Slave)

    If the script is top notch and there's enough of a pr budget Cumberbatch could take it. But I'd expect Mr Hanks slick pr campaign to ensure the win.

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/beccasm/ beccasm

    I'm happy with three of the five but dont think Fassbender will be nominated for that film (supporting actor yes for Twelve years a Slave). Elba I dont rate at all. He chews the scenery in every thing he appears in.

    Leonardo DiCaprio - Wolf of Wall Street
    Steve Carell - Foxcatcher
    Benedict Cumberbatch - The Fifth Estate
    Tom Hanks - Banks film
    Chiwetel ejiofor - 12 years a slave

  • larry

    hope christian bale gets a best actor nom. great actor

  • MajorFilmFan

    My picks

    Either Christian Bale or Bradley Cooper- Abscam/American Bullshit
    Chiwetel Ejiofor- 12 Years A Slave
    Bennedict Cumberbatch- The Final Estate
    Leonardo DiCaprio- Wolf of Wall Street
    Tom Hanks- Saving Mr. Banks

    Alternative:

    Steve Carell- Foxcatcher

  • MajorFilmFan

    Add

    Chris Hemsworth- Rush

    to my list of alternatives

  • MajorFilmFan

    I'm still unsure whether or not Fassbender's character should be counted as a supporting one in 12 Years A Slave, so I can't say whether or not he deserves a Best Actor or Best Supporting Actor nomination.

    Also, what are the chances one of the two leads in Rush picks up a Best Actor nom?

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/RominaTare/ romina tare

    These are my predictions for Best Actor :
    Best actor :

    Leonardo DiCaprio : The Wolf of wall street*
    Steve Carrell : Foxcatcher
    Tom Hanks : Saving Mr Banks\ Captain Phillips
    Christian Bale : American Hustle\Out of the furnace
    George Clooney : Monuments men

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/LouricR1999/ Louric Rankine

    Best Picture Nominees

    The Wolf of Wall Street*
    American Hustle
    Foxcatcher
    The Butler
    Monuments Men
    12 Years a Slave
    The Counselor
    August: Osage County
    Fruitvale Station
    Captain Phillips

    Best Actor
    Christian Bale- American Hustle
    Leonardo Dicaprio- The Wolf of Wall Street*
    Tom Hanks- Captain Phillips
    Michael B. Jordan- Fruitvale Station
    Robert Redford- All is Lost

    Best Actress
    Cate Blanchett- Blue Jasmine
    Berenice Bejo- The Past
    Meryl Streep- August: Osage County
    Emma Thompson- Saving Mrs. Banks
    Naomi Watts- Diana

    Best Supporting Actor
    Javier Bardem- The Counselor
    Bradley Cooper- American Hustle
    Bruce Dern- Nebraska
    Michael Fassbender- 12 Years a Slave*
    John Goodman- Inside Llewyn Davis

    Best Supporting Actress
    Amy Adams- American Hustle
    Cameron Diaz- The Counselor
    Carey Mulligan- Inside Llewyn Davis
    Julia Roberts- August: Osage County
    Oprah Winfrey- The Butler*

    Best Director
    Martin Scorsece- Wolf on Wall Street*
    Ryan Coogler- Fruitvale Station
    Steve McQueen- 12 Years a Slave
    Ridley Scott- The Counselor
    David O. Russell- American Hustle

    Best Original Screenplay
    The Counselor
    Saving Mrs. Banks
    Fruitvale Station
    American Hustle*
    Nebraska

    Best Adapted Screenplay
    August: Osage County
    The Wolf of Wall Street*
    12 Years a Slave
    Labor Day
    Before Midnight