Do you dare?

Click here.

Here's the full version of my VIola Davis interview that appeared in shorter form in Sunday's Arts & Entertainment section. MC

Viola Davis gives a great Oscar-nominated performance in “Doubt,” and she gives a great interview, too.

Maybe the latter is because she hasn’t done this much, so she hasn’t rehearsed her answers to death.

“I’m the unknown,” the 43-year-old actress said over breakfast at the Oak Tree atop the 900 N. Michigan Ave. mall earlier this month. “I’ve never had hair and makeup people like this. I’ve never traveled on press junkets. All of this is new.”

Or maybe it’s because Davis simply is an actress of uncommon insight and talent, someone so intensely in touch with her craft and inner workings that she’s able to articulate with a precision that’s rare on the movie interview circuit.

Having 20 years of experience as a working actor certainly helps, with training at the Juilliard School in New York City and a resume that spans Broadway (including a Tony Award for her performance in August Wilson’s “King Hedley II”), TV (a recurring lawyer role on “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit,” guest spots on several other series) and eye-catching supporting film performances (“Far From Heaven,” “Antwone Fisher,” “Solaris”).

In “Doubt,” Davis gives a classic supporting performance: one scene on which the entire movie pivots. Davis plays Mrs. Miller, the mother of a boy whom Meryl Streep’s Sister Aloysius Beauvier suspects is being sexually abused by the parish priest. As the two talk, the mom’s reaction—her pained reflection of this boy’s home life and the accommodations that she’s made—jolts the nun into her own crisis of faith.

One scene. One Oscar nomination, following nods from the Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild.

Davis is a far different, far happier place than when she took her first major theater role in Chicago: the Goodman Theatre’s  ’94-’95 production of another Wilson play, “Seven Guitars.” Just a stone’s throw from where she was now eating scrambled egg whites, bacon and tea, she was living in an apartment, and she was miserable.

Davis: I just remember rehearsing all day, having eight performances a week and being cold and lonely. It was my first foray into anything big, and I just remember being overwhelmed.

Pop Machine: Why were you so lonely? Because you just didn’t know people or because the job itself was an isolating one?

Davis: A combination of both. If you’re rehearsing all day and then doing the show at night, there’s not much time for any life outside of the play, so the actors in the play are your only social outlet. And they’re busy doing the play. I’m not a very social person to begin with. I find myself to be kind of shy, actually, and then you’re in a strange city. Even though it’s a wonderful city, it’s strange. It’s not like I can go barhopping. So it’s lonely. The life of an actor is a lonely one.

Turns out Chicago isn’t Cleveland, and Chris Brown isn’t Michael Jackson, at least not yet.

So although Cleveland’s 96.5 KISS FM announced Tuesday that it was dropping Brown from its playlist after he was arrested for allegedly attacking girlfriend/pop star Rihanna, Chicago radio stations continue playing the 19-year-old singer’s music

.“I think that taking music off the air is cheap publicity,” said Todd Cavanah, program director of the Top 40 station WBBM-FM 96.3 (B96). “We haven’t heard the whole story. For us to make a judgment and pull his songs would be premature.”

Chicago’s hits-oriented KISS FM (103.5), a Clear Channel station, also hasn’t followed its Cleveland cousin’s lead.

“Clear Channel Radio Chicago has not made any adjustments to our playlist in reference to Chris Brown and has no plans to do so,” said Angela Ingram, vice president of communications for Clear Channel Radio Chicago. She said the same holds true for Clear Channel’s R&B/hip-hop station WGCI FM 107.5.

The Cleveland KISS announced that its Brown ban came in response to listeners’ “outraged” calls about the station continuing to play the singer’s music. The station stated would not support Brown “until the alleged situation gets resolved.”

Indianapolis’s WNOU-FM 100.9 also cited listener response in deciding it would “temporarily suspend” the airplay of Brown’s music. “We do not take domestic violence allegations lightly,” the station stated.

At Chicago’s KISS and WGCI, Ingram said feedback regarding Brown’s and Rihanna’s music “hasn’t been anything out of the ordinary.” B96 music director Erik Bradley said listeners there also haven’t been calling for a ban, although Brown’s alleged in-car assault on Rihanna “has been quite a hot button, and the audience is livid about the allegations.”

Said Cavanah: “If you really want to help the situation with domestic violence, you talk to listeners on the air, you take call-ins and you let people know where they can turn. But taking music off the air I don’t really think does anybody any good.”

Cavanah’s position has evolved over the years. When R. Kelly was arrested in 2002 on child pornography charges, several Chicago stations dropped his music, including B96, which determined that the two Kelly songs then in rotation, “Feelin’ on Yo Booty” and “Down Low (Nobody Has To Know),” were especially inappropriate in context.

Cavanah told the Tribune at the time: “Child pornography is not a funny thing....If he is found innocent, we will definitely re-address the issue, but right now, there is no R. Kelly on B96.”

But B96 reversed course as Kelly continued making popular music while his case dragged along in the courts for years. The station concluded that listeners cared more about the tunes than the allegations, a feeling that applies to Brown, at least for now.

“At the end of the day, I think people like those songs,” Bradley said. “If we took everyone off the radio who had any kind of personal issue, I think we’d be facing a lot of dead air.”

For instance, the rapper T.I. had a No. 1 hit duet with Rihanna last fall, “Live Your Life,” although he’s scheduled to enter prison next month for a year after pleading guilty to U.S. federal weapons charges.

 Bob Burke, managing director of the radio trade publication Friday Morning Quarterback, said it’s too early to judge the allegations’ impact, particularly given that neither Brown nor Rihanna is riding a new release. “The more details that come out, I could see where a station would be hesitant to play a record,” Burke said. “If these pictures [of an allegedly battered Rihanna] surface, that could be trouble.”

Cavanah figures listeners will let his station know if and when they no longer want to hear Brown, just as they did with Michael Jackson after he faced child sexual abuse charges, never mind his acquittal.

“If he is found guilty of these terrible things,” Cavanah said of Brown, “people aren’t going to want to support him or his career, so I don’t think we’ll have to make those decisions.”

Pop Machine order of the day: figuring out if there’s anything worthwhile to say about Chris Brown and Rihanna.

The now former Doublemint-gum-shilling singer was arrested Sunday for allegedly beating up his hit-making girlfriend in the wee hours, and everyone is chiming in on this apparent domestic abuse case, though charges have yet to be filed.

The New York Daily News quotes an anonymous source to report that the fight began when he received a text message from another woman. “He got a booty call,” the unnamed source explains.

The Los Angeles Times has Brown’s stepfather, whom Brown long ago accused of beating his mother, saying he “wouldn’t be surprised” if the allegations were true.

Reuters filed a piece reporting that 71 percent of voters in a poll on AOL’s popeater.com site think Brown is guilty of attacking his girlfriend—because such matters can be decided by a vote, you know.

Bleacher Report proclaims that “Chris Brown Beating Rihanna Is More Shocking Than A-Rod Juicing.”  (But was A-Rod Juicing more shocking than Christian Bale Ranting?)

The Associated Press notes that “Brown would have been better off getting caught with a bong.”

Of course, there are the stories about Brown’s lost endorsements, such as Wrigley canceling his deal (after the gum company paid him to turn its Doublemint jingle into the hit song, “Forever”) and the “Got Milk?” folks expressing their displeasure while noting that his ad campaign was due to end anyway. (“The Milk Mustache campaign is taking the allegations against Chris Brown very seriously.”)

Meanwhile, the AP reports that prosecutors are seeking more evidence before they decide to press charges.

That means it might be a while before there’s any concrete information to discuss. How will we fill the space?

Somehow I think we’ll find a way.

I forever endeared myself to my wife when I returned from lunch with Halle Berry some years ago and proclaimed, “She’s too skinny.”

I wasn’t just trying to earn points. It was true. She had as gorgeous a face as I’d ever seen, but if I made an “OK” sign with my finger and thumb, she could have used it as a belt.

That’s not unusual with beautiful stars. They’re almost all too skinny. Nicole Kidman photographs beautifully, and her face is still stunning (if now frozen around the forehead), but the last time I saw her up close, her body was an elongated pencil.

While a big deal was being made about Renee Zellweger gaining weight for “Bridget Jones’s Diary,” she actually looked normal and more appealing than ever. When she slimmed down afterward so quickly, she became TDS (too damn skinny).

My strong hunch is if you ran into Jessica Simpson right now, she’d look normal. Not fat, not voluptuous, not overly curvy, just normal. The camera adds weight, and the celebrities feel duty bound to take it off, never mind how unhealthy that might be.

So, yes, there is a problem with people obsessing over how Simpson fills out a pair of jeans. The double standards are so obvious that they shouldn’t even merit mentioning, but for the record: Alec Baldwin of 2009 looks like he ate the Alec Baldwin of 1989 for lunch, but writers and everyday folk don’t obsess over his weight gain. Instead, they celebrate his droll comic timing and talent, which is as it should be.

Throughout the course of “Friends,” the men all beefed up, and the women all slimmed down. This is not a coincidence.

If Jessica Simpson were a swimsuit model, OK, maybe this conversation would be appropriate. Maybe. But she’s not. She’s a singer.

Is she the greatest singer? Not according to my tastes. Does she have a high profile? Sure. She obviously likes to dress up pretty, and she’s dating a famous hunky quarterback. She’s living many a girl’s dream.

But just because your dream comes true doesn’t mean you deserve to be abused.

On Tuesday my colleague Rex Huppke defended the criticism of Simpson’s appearance, writing: “Jessica Simpson should know the deal, as should anyone else who totes enough narcissism in their belly to seek out fame.”

That sentence pretty much sums up our bizarre attitude toward celebrity. We admire and elevate these people, then equate their success with narcissism rather than achievement and tear them down.

But this isn’t ultimately about Simpson. It’s about the rest of us, particularly women who view the treatment of the decidedly unfat Simpson and become that much more neurotic about their own weight fluctuations—because, you know, women need more societal pressure to be conscious of their looks.

Whatever the celebrities’ perceived culpability in thrusting themselves into the public eye, we—especially those of us with a soapbox—are the ones who lower ourselves when we fixate on whether some skinny starlet has gone up a pants size. It’s tacky and mean, and we should just shut up.

With Sunday’s Super Bowl, I had my first true 21st century experience watching the game.

My family was viewing on my neighbors’ fab high-def screen when neighbor-dad Rob offered to pause the telecast after the halftime show so my wife and I could take our kids home and put them to bed, and I could return to watch the rest of the game. He said that by fast-forwarding through the commercials on his cable company-provided digital video recorder, we’d catch up to the live action in no time.

As one of the few remaining DVR hold-outs, I took him up on his offer.

When I returned he attempted to cue up the game at the beginning of the second half, with the Steelers leading the Cardinals 17-7. But the action instead jumped to "live," 13 minutes left in the fourth quarter, Pittsburgh ahead 20-7.

“How did that happen?” Rob asked before rewinding back to the beginning of the third quarter. Soon, we were watching the Steelers driving toward the Cardinals’ end zone.

“I bet they’re going to get a field goal,” I bravely predicted.

The Steelers had first-and-goal, got stuffed and, yes, kicked the field goal. But wait: penalty on the Cardinals, new set of downs for the Steelers.

Huh? The Steelers were going to fail to score a touchdown on first-and-goal twice? Yes, they were.

“This is like watching a Tarantino movie,” I said. “The jumbled chronology actually adds another dimension.”

Soon, Rob tried fast-forwarding through some commercials, and—boom!—the action jumped to “live” again, with about 5 minutes remaining and the Steelers up 20-14.

“Let’s just watch the end of the game and catch up with the rest later,” I suggested.

“No, this’ll be fine,” he said and rewound again, images of the Cardinals celebrating in the end zone flashing backward before our eyes.

“The Cardinals are going to score a touchdown,” I predicted.

This became a pattern: Rob would try to skip a commercial or to re-watch a play, and the action either would jump to “live” or would revert to the beginning of the third quarter, and he’d have to fast-forward up to where we were. In Rob’s defense, apparently he isn’t the only person who’s had this particular problem with this particular cable company’s DVR.

With about three minutes left and Pittsburgh backed up against its own end zone, I told Rob we should just watch the rest as if it were live—i.e. don’t touch that danged remote control. But after a running play that almost resulted in a safety, he reached for it.

“Don’t do it,” I warned in a low, sing-song voice.

“It’ll be fine,” he said.

“Don’t do it,” I repeated.

“I just want to see that play,” he said, and—BAM!—the screen jumped to “live.” and the score was Steelers 27, Cardinals 23 with 35 seconds left. ARRRRGH. “This is seriously affecting my enjoyment of this game,” he muttered.

He pushed a button, the action zapped back to the beginning of the third quarter again, and he fast-forwarded through almost the entire second half.

“Well, at least we know it’ll be an action-packed last three minutes,” I sighed.

“Oh, I didn’t see what the score was,” Rob said.

“It was Pittsburgh 27, Arizona 23.”

Rob looked at me, wounded. “Why did you tell me that?”

“I didn’t think it would be fair if one of us knew and the other one didn’t,” I replied innocently.

If Arizona was going to add nine points, it no doubt would come from a safety and a touchdown, and Pittsburgh still needed to score another touchdown. At least we didn’t know the order of the scores, although I figured the safety would be coming up pronto, and then Arizona would get the ball back.

So when Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger faded back in his end zone and completed a 19-yard-pass to Santonio Holmes, Rob and I reacted with an extra jolt of surprise because we were expecting the safety.

Wait...holding penalty against the Steelers...enforced as a safety. Ah, I thought, nice plot twist.

The malfunctioning-DVR Super Bowl turned out to be like an especially exciting episode of “Columbo,” that ’70s series in which Peter Falk’s rumpled detective eventually catches a killer who’s already been revealed to the audience. The fun lies in seeing how the inevitable conclusion is reached.

So even though I’d already added those points in my head, Holmes’ corner-of-the-end-zone catch was no less amazing. And, hey, Rob and I did get to watch the Super Bowl’s last 35 seconds not knowing what was going to happen.

That said, I don’t think I’ll be ordering a DVR this week.

It’s an annual ritual: Oscar nominations are announced, and the nominees release canned statements of how they spontaneously reacted to the news. See if you can match the quote to the happy nominee:

I. “I’m extremely happy to have been nominated. And very fortunate. Playing [name of character] will always remain one of the biggest challenges I’ve ever been blessed with.”

II. “When I think about my life a few years ago, being happy just to feed my kids, never in a million years would I have imagined I would be up at 5 in the morning getting phone calls saying I was nominated for an Academy Award.”

III. “[Name of film] was truly a labor of love, and I am humbled by the nomination.”

IV. “Having been an actor for many years now, I am moved by the fact that something like this can happen at this point in my career, particularly for a film that has meant so much to me.”

V. “I’m ecstatic! Thank you to the Academy from the cast and crew here in [name of city] where the film was made and where it’s being premiered tonight. It feels like you’ve given us a billion nominations!”

VI. “I am very excited, deeply honored and grateful. I thank [names of filmmakers] for giving me the opportunity to bring [name of character] to life.”

VII. “I am so thankful, so humbled, by the Academy for the nominations they have given our film.”

VIII. “I’m so grateful and appreciative of this incredible honor. I’m truly thrilled to be included.”

IX. “I still feel like the little brown skinned girl from Central Falls, Rhode Island, who dreamed the biggest dream.”

X. “This is a great honor for the movie, and I’m especially happy for [name of director], for without him there would be no [name of film].”

XI. “I am deeply honored to be a part of a film that has inspired so many.”

XII. “I was with my parents and my dog when I got the news and we were all overjoyed—although I’m not sure my dog knew what was going on.”

-

a. Danny Boyle, director, “Slumdog Millionaire”
b. Josh Brolin, supporting actor, “Milk”
c. Viola Davis, supporting actress, “Doubt”
d. David Fincher, director, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
e. Anne Hathaway, actress, “Rachel Getting Married”
f. Taraji P. Henson, supporting actress, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
g. Richard Jenkins, actor, “The Visitor”
h. Brad Pitt, actor, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
i. A.R. Rahman, composer, “Slumdog Millionaire”
j. Mickey Rourke, actor, “The Wrestler”
k. Gus Van Sant, director, “Milk”
l. Kate Winslet, actress, “The Reader”
-
(scroll down for answers)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ANSWERS
I.l, II.b, III.d, IV.g, V.a, VI.f, VII.k, VIII.j, IX.c, X.h, XI.i, XII.e

I've got to hand it to those Funny or Die folks. When I saw "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," I complained about the lead character's "Gumpian blandness," but I didn't put it together like this.

The folks behind “The Dark Knight” can’t be pleased right now, and best actress non-nominee Sally Hawkins may be riding the bum train, but one party’s Oscar nominations announcement losses tower above everybody else’s: ABC-TV.

How many millions of viewers and advertising dollars did the network lose Thursday morning? The best rated shows have been the ones in which a very popular movie cleans up, such as “Titanic” (1997) and “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” (2003).

“The Dark Knight” probably wouldn’t have won best picture, but it was far and away the year’s most popular film ($531 million domestically, second only to “Titanic”) as well as one of the most acclaimed. “The Dark Knight” tallied 94 percent positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 60 percent for “The Reader,” which has grossed a total of $7.9 million to date.

Yet “The Reader” is a best picture (and director) nominee, and “The Dark Knight” is not. Yes, the highbrow Holocaust film with lukewarm reviews is in the game!

The inside-baseball spin is that by triumphing with “The Reader,” Harvey Weinstein has reaffirmed his Oscar campaigning wizardry after a dry spell. But viewers don’t care about inside baseball, and they won’t care about “The Reader” except that it’s the pony that Kate Winslet will be riding to the Oscars instead of “Revolutionary Road,” in which she had a more dynamic performance.

Meanwhile over in the best song category, the academy decided that only three songs were worthy of nomination: Peter Gabriel’s “Down to Earth” from “WALL-E” and “Jai Ho” and “O Saya” from “Slumdog Millionaire.”

That means no Bruce Springsteen for “The Wrestler,” Clint Eastwood for “Gran Torino,” Miley Cyrus for “I Thought I Lost You” from “Bolt” or Beyoncé Knowles for “Once in a Lifetime” from “Cadillac Records,” all of which received Golden Globe nominations. (“The Wrestler” won.)

Again, ABC must be thrilled. Why would you want to hype performances by Springsteen, Eastwood, Cyrus and Beyoncé when you have Gabriel and A.R. Rahman?

Box office hits get hyped all year, so it’s appropriate that the Academy Awards, at least in theory, reward excellence without regard to commercial considerations. This way standout, non-marquee performers such as Melissa Leo (“Frozen River”), Richard Jenkins (“The Visitor”), Michael Shannon (“Revolutionary Road”) and Viola Davis (“Doubt”) can share the red carpet with Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. Those stories are inspiring.

But when the academy denies top recognition to such critically and popularly beloved movies as “The Dark Knight” and “WALL-E” (96 percent positive reviews, $224 million domestic box office, more than double that of “Benjamin Button”), it risks confirming the suspicions of those who think it has grown out of touch with mainstream tastes.

Now ABC has to hope that the millions of people who think they know better than the academy will tune in anyway. Good luck with that.

When Oscar nominations are announced just after 7:30 a.m. Thursday, we’ll finally have the answers to several vexing questions in this somewhat odd Academy Awards season.

1. Will “The Dark Knight” become the first superhero movie to snag a best picture nomination?

ANSWER: Probably. Although Christopher Nolan’s Batman movie had been considered a long shot more likely to be recognized for Heath Ledger’s charismatically crazed Joker, too many would-be best picture nominees failed to reach critical or commercial mass (“Revolutionary Road,” “The Reader,” “Doubt,” “The Wrestler”).

Meanwhile Warner Brothers kept pushing “The Dark Knight,” and despite its snubbing by the Golden Globes, the movie started to pick up key nominations, such as from the highly predictive Directors Guild of America as well as the Producers Guild and Writers Guilds of America. It’s still no lock, but when you consider that “Star Wars” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark” also received best picture nods, a “Dark Knight” nomination wouldn’t be that weird.

2. Will “WALL-E” become the second animated movie to snag a best picture nomination

ANSWER: Probably not. The best animated feature category didn’t exist back when “Beauty and the Beast” (1991) became the first animated top nominee. So although Andrew Stanton’s masterful computer-animated futuristic fable may compare favorably to Disney’s animated musical, the actor-dominated academy may feel it can recognize “WALL-E” in its own category. Plus, Disney/Pixar didn’t push “WALL-E” as hard as Warner Brothers pushed “The Dark Knight.”

3. Will Steppenwolf Theatre veteran Michael Shannon receive a best supporting actor nomination for “Revolutionary Road”?

ANSWER: He’s a long shot. Shannon has received much acclaim but zero nominations (unless the Chicago Film Critics Association counts) for his magnetic turn as a truth-telling mental patient. A Screen Actors Guild nomination might have helped, but the bigger problem is that Academy members apparently didn't like the movie, and many may have skipped it. Still, he’s a stand-out, and the supporting categories are always volatile, so you never know.

4. Why might Kate Winslet in “The Reader” and Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Doubt” get supporting nominations despite playing what could be considered lead roles?

ANSWER: Winslet is a shoo-in best actress nominee for “Revolutionary Road,” and the Weinstein Company, which rushed the release date of “The Reader” to join the Oscar race, wants some representation without pitting the actress against herself. Hence, she got a supporting actress campaign despite the British Academy of Film and Television Arts giving her a lead nomination for “The Reader.”

As for Hoffman, the best actor category is especially jammed this year. The automatics are Mickey Rourke for “The Wrestler,” Sean Penn for “Milk” and Frank Langella for “Frost/Nixon,” and Brad Pitt has picked up SAG, BAFTA and Golden Globe nominations for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” despite his achievement being more technical than emotionally engaging.

Who grabs the fifth slot? Richard Jenkins (“The Visitor”) got it from SAG, Leonardo DiCaprio (“Revolutionary Road”) got it from the Golden Globes (in the drama category), and many feel the otherwise unnominated Clint Eastwood will receive a career-capping nod for “Gran Torino.”

That leaves no room for Hoffman, so Miramax decided to characterize his “Doubt” role as supporting despite his going toe-to-toe with certain best actress nominee Meryl Streep. The Academy generally plays along with such games.

5. Who might be the surprise nominees and snubs?

ANSWER: Melissa Leo may sneak into the best actress race for her turn as a single mother in the low-budget “Frozen River,” joining Winslet, Streep, Anne Hathaway (“Rachel Getting Married”) and Sally Hawkins (“Happy Go Lucky”). That might squeeze out not only Kristin Scott Thomas (much acclaimed for “I’ve Loved You So Long”) but also Angelina Jolie, who has received multiple nominations for “The Changeling” but may have used up her attention quotient.

Her household could become even gloomier if Eastwood and Jenkins or DiCaprio nudges aside Pitt. And although it's still a dark horse, don't be shocked if "Gran Torino" crashes into the best picture final five.

The Internet Movie Database lists 167 acting credits for Ricardo Montalban, who died Wednesday at age 88, including three 1940s MGM musicals in which he co-starred opposite swimming star Esther Williams.

TV viewers of the late ’70s and early ’80s will remember the Mexican actor of Spanish descent as Mr. Rourke, the mysteriously welcoming host of “Fantasy Island.”

“Star Trek” fans appreciate him as the memorable villain of the series’ best film, “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.” Kids may recognize him more as the grandfather of the second and third “Spy Kids” movies or the voice of Señor Senior Sr. in the animated series “Kim Possible.”

But many of us who were around in the mid-’70s associate him with a certain phrase: “soft Corinthian leather.”

He said this in an ad for the Chrysler Cordoba, one of those ’70s boat cars that tried to seduce you with luxury. And Montalban, with his soft Castillian accent, was the ultimate seducer, purring about the Cordoba’s interior in such a way that you couldn’t decide whether you wanted to sleep on it or eat it.

Never mind that Corinthian leather turned out to be a marketer’s invented phrase for a product made in New Jersey. Montalban made us believe in that fantasy, too.

Pierce Brosnan had the looks and the attitude, but as James Bond he always came up a bit lacking. The problem, I finally decided,  was his soft, whispery voice. His “Bond, James Bond” came out like a caress, not a punch.

His successor, Daniel Craig, was initially derided for lacking some essential hunky or dashing qualities, yet when he hit the screen as Bond, he dominated. His musculature got much of the attention, and his steely blue eyes didn’t hurt, but the key, again, was the voice: low, clipped, blunt, commanding.

Craig was instantly hailed as the best Bond since Sean Connery, whose deep Scottish brogue, one of movie history’s most distinct voices, delivered zingers like daggers. It’s no coincidence that Connery and Craig are considered the toughest, most charismatic Bonds while Roger Moore and Brosnan, with their more genteel British deliveries, are known as the softies.

The voice is such a basic element of acting, yet it’s one we rarely discuss. It’s easier to reprint a photo of Humphrey Bogart or to describe his droopy-eyed glower than it is to capture that unique vocal quality that made him Bogart.

Yet if you played recordings of history’s greatest movie stars delivering a sentence, you should be able to identify just about all of them: Jimmy Stewart, Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, James Cagney, Bette Davis, Orson Welles, Bogart, Lauren Bacall, John Wayne, Marilyn Monroe, Marlon Brando, Jack Nicholson, Dustin Hoffman, Jane Fonda, Al Pacino, Jodie Foster, Robert De Niro ...

TMZ has got the possible celebrity angle of Jett Travolta’s memorial service all covered.

The gossip site reports that it has made “dozens of calls,” and it’s also staking out the local airport to see whether any stars show up in Ocala, Fla., for what apparently will be a small private service Thursday for John Travolta and Kelly Preston’s 16-year-old boy, who died last Friday of an apparent seizure.

So far there are no overt signs Tom Cruise will show. Oprah definitely won't because she's out of the country. Ditto Will Smith, who's in Berlin. Jenna Elfman's rep says she's “unsure” if Jenna will attend.

We've been at the local airports and so far no celebs have flown in for tomorrow's service.

But don’t worry. TMZ hasn’t given up, promising, “We're at the airports today. To be continued ...”

Who’s feeling sick about now?

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif.—"Bride Wars," which opens Friday, stars Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson as best friends turned nasty nemeses when their weddings are scheduled for the same date.

As the co-stars fielded questions to promote their comedy, your humble correspondent set off a lively exchange with one simple question:

Pop Machine: Watching this movie made me wonder: When crossed, are women meaner to each other than men?

Anne Hathaway: I love that everybody thinks we have all these answers. [Laughter.]

Kate Hudson: I grew up with all boys. So did you.

Hathaway: It's hard to say.

Hudson: I think we can be more … You know what? Yeah. I think so. I think because women are a little bit more complicated, you know what I mean? I think women can really hit you where it hurts.