A new Chicago White Sox ballpark in the South Loop is only a figment of someone’s imagination right now.

But at least the news Wednesday that the Sox are in “serious talks” to build a downtown stadium in the area known as “the 78″ near Clark Street and Roosevelt Road gave us something to talk about besides the Justin Fields-versus-Caleb Williams debate during a down time for our local sports teams.

With no SoxFest on tap and no big-name signings to get fans excited about the season, the leak of the ballpark rumor provided the Sox with front-page news on another cold, dreary day in January.

Nothing wrong with that.

Who doesn’t want to dream of a beautiful new ballpark with a skyline view and surrounding bars and restaurants to go to before and after games? It’s what the Sox should’ve done in the mid-1980s when they held the state hostage for public funding for what was then called new Comiskey Park.

Instead we got an unlovable structure ridiculed by fans for its steep upper deck, a moat separating the field from the bleachers and a lack of entertainment options anywhere near the park. The “Ball Mall” was the popular nickname after it opened in 1991.

“When people came out for that first opening day, they were in awe of the place,” Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf told the Tribune’s Teddy Greenstein in 1999. “But now the stadium is a popular thing to attack. Look, I thought people wanted unobstructed views and wide aisles. I guessed wrong.

“People wanted a more homey feeling. But I really believe that if we had built Camden Yards instead, I would have been massacred. People wanted a modern park.”

Oops.

In a rare mea culpa, Reinsdorf eventually agreed to a series of renovations that included removing eight rows and 6,600 seats from the upper deck and a canopy-style roof to replace the flat one over the 13 highest rows. A sports bar/restaurant was constructed across the street. The moat was filled in with new bleacher seating. The Sox even allowed tailgating.

Once renovated, “The Cell” grew on fans, at least those who didn’t have to sit in the upper deck. It wasn’t as beloved as old Comiskey Park but it was fine. Still, the only time outside opening day that the ballpark was typically filled was when the Sox were in the midst of a winning season or playing the Cubs in the City Series.

Now comes another mea culpa from Reinsdorf — an admission that what’s now called Guaranteed Rate Field is obsolete after only 33 years. Reinsdorf wouldn’t say that, of course, but by making a new ballpark a priority, it’s obvious he “guessed wrong” about the one at 35th Street and Shields Avenue.

After the Sun-Times broke the news about new stadium talks between the Sox and the city, Mayor Brandon Johnson and the Sox released a statement Thursday.

“Mayor Brandon Johnson and Chicago White Sox Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf met to discuss the historic partnership between the team and Chicago and the team’s ideas for remaining competitive in Chicago in perpetuity,” the statement read. “The partnership between the City and the team goes back more than a century and the Johnson administration is committed to continuing this dialogue moving forward.”

The idea the Sox will remain competitive in Chicago “in perpetuity” suggests they are competitive now. Anyone following the team’s downward spiral since the 2022 postseason, including its uninspiring offseason this winter, knows that’s a joke.

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume the Sox intend to compete in the near future. Would a ballpark in the South Loop help bring in fans who generally have avoided going to Sox Park over the last couple of decades?

If they build it, will they come?

Only if a new ballpark comes with a new owner.

It goes without saying that Reinsdorf’s popularity among Sox fans is lower than the sewer system under Lower Wacker Drive. But Reinsdorf, who turns 88 in February, said in September that he had no intention of selling the Sox.

“Friends of mine have said, ‘Why don’t you sell? Why don’t you get out?’” he said. “My answer always has been, ‘I like what I’m doing, as bad as it is, and what else would I do?’

“I’m a boring guy. I don’t play golf. I don’t play bridge. And I want to make it better before I go.”

Evidence of Reinsdorf making the Sox better is harder to find than the owner of the gun who fired bullets that hit two fans last summer in the Guaranteed Rate Field bleachers. The payroll is going down, and the organization’s strange infatuation with bringing in former Kansas City Royals personnel has reached a crescendo.

A new South Loop ballpark sounds cool, but it would not be a panacea for the Sox’s attendance problems, just as the new Comiskey Park wasn’t after that new ballpark smell wore off following the first few seasons. Traffic jams on the Kennedy and Dan Ryan expressways won’t make it any easier to get to, and taking the “L” at night is much scarier now than it was prepandemic.

Even in the highly unlikely event the Sox would pay most of the tab, what would happen to the soon-to-be white elephant in Bridgeport that Illinois taxpayers helped pay for? Will the Sox ever explain why they need to leave after all those renovations?

At least the Sox should acknowledge the current ballpark, the last one built before the “retro” parks such as Camden Yards, was an architectural mistake.

“I talk to fans a lot, and they tell me they don’t like the ambience,” Reinsdorf told Greenstein in 1999 during another Sox rebuild. “But what people really want is something better in the uniforms.”

That statement rings true 25 years later.

Maybe the Sox need to work on that before talking about a new ballpark.

()

Questions abound about this year’s Oscars.

Will odds-on-favorite Christopher Nolan win his first director’s trophy?

Will “Killers of the Flower Moon’s” Lily Gladstone score a win and make Oscar history?

Will the telecast be more playful and less painful than this year’s Golden Globes?

Heck, we have as many questions as we did after watching “Anatomy of Fall.”

And the main question is this: Will the Academy toss viewers a surprise or two during its 96th Oscars presentation on March 10? We hope so, surprises are (usually) fun. The show starts at 4 p.m. — an hour earlier than usual — on ABC with late-night TV funnyman Jimmy Kimmel returning for a fourth time as host.

Many figure it’s a fait accompli that Nolan’s “Oppenheimer,” which amassed more nominations (13) than any other film, will continue its chain reaction and dominate Hollywood’s biggest night. Should it, though?

There are other vitally important issues that concern us, including:

When, exactly, is Ryan Gosling performing “Barbie’s” Oscar-nominated song “I’m Just Ken”? (It better not be while we’re refreshing our Cosmos!)
Will Messi, the 7-year-old border collie who stars in “Anatomy of a Fall,” be a presenter?
Will East Bay filmmaker Sean Wang’s adorable grandmothers — who star in his nominated short documentary “Nǎi Nai and Wài Pó” — make an appearance up on stage should that film win?

We are glad to note the Academy has already answered another burning question: Yes, they are bringing back the routine — executed to great effect in 2009 — of having the five past winners in all four acting categories introduce the nominees in the performance categories this year.

In short, the ceremony needs to create some indelible moments this year to enliven what’s shaping up as a predictable yawner of an awards show, with few categories truly up for grabs.

In the meantime, here are our predictions for what/who will win Sunday night, and what/who should win.

Best picture

The nominees: “American Fiction,” “Anatomy of a Fall,” “Barbie,” “The Holdovers,” “Killers of the Flower Moon,” “Maestro,” “Oppenheimer,” “Past Lives,” “Poor Things,” “The Zone of Interest”

What will win: This is hardly a Chiefs/49ers nail biter. Let’s shake it down anyway. “American Fiction” meted out stinging truths about a publishing industry that isn’t nearly as woke as it likes to think it is, and in the process made us laugh and cry over issues of race, sexuality and family. It’s good enough to score an upset — just not tonight. “Anatomy of a Fall” is a mystery that raises more questions than it answers, a no-no for Hollywood, which prefers resolution over opaqueness. “Barbie” transformed a Mattel doll into a feminist statement. It’s a clever concept and a clever movie, but it’s not enough to win. “The Holdovers” warmed hearts and souls, but will have to be satisfied with likely evolving into a holiday movie tradition. The laborious length of “Killers of the Flower Moon” (3 and … a … half … hours … ), not to mention Leonardo DiCaprio’s prosthetic teeth, gave us the fidgets. No one’s going to pick up the baton for “Maestro.” No one. “Past Lives” featured a subtle build with a gale-force emotional ending. Oscar prefers writ-large movies with more exclamation points. “Poor Things” is way too naughty and outside the box for the pious Oscar crowd. And “The Zone of Interest” is unlike any other movie, making it too nontraditional and nonconforming for the win. That leaves Christopher Nolan’s prestige title “Oppenheimer” sitting ever so pretty with a lock on the prize.

What should win: “The Zone of Interest.” Jonathan Glazer’s unique creation about a family that lives next door to Auschwitz is an unsettling classic in the making. It serves as a historical testament and a reminder that the mundanity of evil can make all of us complacent to, and complicit in, the horrors of mass cruelty. It’s a staggering work of genius. And it has almost no chance of winning.

Best actor

Nominees: Paul Giamatti (“The Holdovers”), Cillian Murphy (“Oppenheimer”), Jeffrey Wright (“American Fiction”), Bradley Cooper (“Maestro), Colman Domingo (“Rustin”)

Who will win: Giamatti turned a grousing prof with a lazy eye and some secrets into a joy to behold. But character actors playing everyday people — no matter how good they are — rarely snare an Oscar in the top acting categories. Wright brought his thespian skills and gravitas to his literary fussbudget role and it was a seamless performance. It could score an upset, but we doubt it. Cooper gave it his all but he wasn’t always on the nose with his portrayal of Leonard Bernstein take. (Too soon?) Without that electrifying turn from Domingo as a largely overlooked gay civil rights pioneer, “Rustin” would have been just an OK biopic. He’s dynamite, but the performance and film has no awards season traction going. So that leaves Murphy. As he’s known to do, he flung himself fully into the part of the enigmatic J. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb. He was good, but he’s been better. Doesn’t matter. He’ll win.

Who should win: Wright. As an indignant and pompous author whose outrage lands him an accidental bestseller, Wright made a prickly character relatable, even likable.

Best actress

Nominees: Annette Bening (“Nyad”), Lily Gladstone (“Killers of the Flower Moon”), Sandra Hüller (“Anatomy of a Fall”), Carey Mulligan (“Maestro”), Emma Stone (“Poor Things”)

Who will win: Bening dove into her role (even becoming quite the swimmer) to play the larger-than-life Diana Nyad. Expect her to feel the sting not from a nasty jellyfish, but from yet another loss come Oscar night (she’s already 0 for 4 on best actress nominations). Hüller delivered a deliciously ambiguous performance as the did-she-or-didn’t-she wife of a writer who has died in a mysterious fall. It’s way too nuanced to win. Mulligan played a spouse in love with a man who could never be entirely devoted to her. It was crushing to behold, but the movie was more preoccupied with its bigger moments than with fleshing out its characters — including hers. Stone’s already won an Oscar and that erodes her odds, even if her re-animated girl-to-woman Bella is a piece of physical and emotional acting brilliance. This will be Lily Gladstone’s night. She was the best thing about “Killers,” which was too preoccupied with its male characters. Another factor in her favor is a win would maker her the first Native American to take home the acting prize.

Who should win: Stone. Hers was one mad dervish of a performance that demonstrated an extraordinary commitment — even creating that funky walk and that weird diction. How Bella changes incrementally throughout the film makes for a performance for the ages. Stone, who won best actress for “La La Land,” has never been better.

Best Supporting Actor

The nominees: Sterling K. Brown (“American Fiction”), Robert De Niro (“Killers of the Flower Moon”), Robert Downey Jr. (“Oppenheimer”),  Ryan Gosling (“Barbie”), Mark Ruffalo (“Poor Things”)

Who will win: Too many great performances (Charles Melton in “May December” and Willem Dafoe in “Poor Things”) received the cold shoulder from Oscar in this category. But let’s handicap what we’ve got. Brown did something extraordinary as a recently out gay man who’s burdened and burnt by a father’s scorn. Not gonna happen. De Niro channeled his past roles to play a crime boss who orchestrated the Osage Indian murders, and it wasn’t much of a stretch. Gosling was hilarious as clueless Ken, but it was simply a fun performance, not a great one. Ruffalo played a sleazebag ever so well, but he sounded the same note throughout. That leaves showstopper Downey Jr., who tore up the scenery as a duplicitous politician. (Isn’t that an oxymoron in this election year?)

Who should win: Downey Jr. Without that greatest showman on Earth’s performance, “Oppenheimer” would have deflated like a leaking balloon during the final lap. He kept us riveted.

Best Supporting Actress

Nominees:  Emily Blunt (“Oppenheimer”), Danielle Brooks (“The Color Purple”), America Ferrera (“Barbie”), Jodie Foster (“Nyad”), Da’Vine Joy Randolph (“The Holdovers”)

Who will win: We love Blunt, but hers was one of the most underwritten female roles of last year. If Oprah can’t land an Oscar, don’t expect Danielle Brooks to stick that award landing for the same role. Ferrera delivered a feminist monologue that rallied audiences and elicited applause, but there wasn’t much else to her performance. Foster took the one-note role of a coach/former lover and swam laps around everyone else in the film. But she’s won before, and the competition out of the water here is too strong. This will be Randolph’s year. There was nothing half-baked about her tender performance as a cook and grieving mom trying to get through the holidays.

Who should win: Randolph. No contest. There was so much emotion in her every move.

Best Director

Nominees: Justine Triet (“Anatomy of a Fall”), Martin Scorsese (“Killers of the Flower Moon”), Christopher Nolan (“Oppenheimer”), Yorgos Lanthimos (“Poor Things”), Jonathan Glazer (“The Zone of Interest”)

Who will win: Triet’s “Anatomy” fan base keeps on expanding — just not enough. Scorsese’s been here 10 times before, even won once. But he won’t win here. Lanthimos choreographed a feminist Frankenstein tale with brilliant, so-alive madness, but his film’s too perverse for Oscar. Glazer gave us a real crawl-under-your-skin living nightmare filled with the sounds of violence. But his unique approach will probably disconnect with some voters. This is Nolan’s year. His “Oppenheimer” is a big movie about a game-changing event and person. He’s a shoo-in.

Who should win: Glazer. He created a movie unlike any other. There is no one else in this category that can claim the same, except for Lanthimos, and Glazer’s work was better.

Contact Randy Myers at soitsrandyt@gmail.com.

THE 96th ACADEMY AWARDS

When: 4 p.m. PST

Where: ABC, also streaming on ABC.com, Hulu Live TV, YouTubeTV, AT&T TV,  FuboTV, oscar.com

Host: Jimmy Kimmel

Gretchen McKay | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (TNS)

If it’s homemade, you really can’t lose with chicken noodle soup, can you?

One of the world’s most beloved comfort foods, a bowl of the nourishing liquid instantly makes you feel better when you’re sick or lonely, and is just so warm and soothing when it’s still a little chilly outside.

It can be ladled into a cup to enjoy on the living room couch, or be paired with bread and a salad for a quick and casual supper. Sliced carrots add a bit of color and crunch and who would say no to a finishing sprinkle of flaky salt.

This deliciously simple recipe from Milk Street for sujebi, a traditional Korean noodle soup, achieves the perfect balance of umami and spice. It combines shredded chicken breast, carrots and sliced zucchini in a rich and satisfying broth flavored with onion, garlic and three staples you’ll find in every Korean kitchen: soy sauce, chili paste (gochujang) and chili flakes (gochugaru).

Fresh, hand-torn noodles that take just minutes to make with flour and water add a lovely chewy texture to the soup, which has a slight (but absolutely terrific) kick. My soup probably had a little bit more chicken than called for since the bone-in chicken breasts were really big, but there still was enough broth to keep the dish from turning in to a stew.

The noodles only need a few minutes to cook in the simmering broth; you’ll know they’re done when they float to the top.

Seasoned with gochugaru, gochujang and soy sauce, this spicy chicken soup with hand-pulled noodles is packed with umami. (Gretchen McKay/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/TNS)

Korean Hand-Torn Noodle Soup with Chicken

PG tested

1 cup all-purpose flour, plus more for dusting

Kosher salt and black pepper

1 3/4 — 2 pounds bone in, skin-on chicken breasts

1 medium yellow onion, chopped

4 scallions, thinly sliced, whites and greens reserved separately

4 medium cloves garlic, minced

3 tablespoons soy sauce, divided

4- 5 teaspoons gochujang (Korean fermented chili paste)

1 tablespoon toasted sesame oil

1 tablespoon white sesame seeds, toasted

1/4 teaspoon gochugaru (Korean chili flakes), optional

2 medium carrots, peeled and cut into 1/4 -inch rounds

1 medium zucchini, quartered lengthwise and cut crosswise 1/4 -inch thick

Make dough: In large bowl, stir together flour and 1/2 teaspoon salt. Make a well in the center of the flour and add 1/3 cup water.

Using a silicone spatula or wooden spoon, begin incorporating the flour by starting at the center and gradually drawing in more, until a shaggy dough forms. Don’t add more water even if it feels dry at first; it will hydrate during kneading and after a few minutes become supple and tender.

Using the heel of your palm, knead the dough in the bowl, swiping along the sides to incorporate dry bits. Lightly flour the counter and turn the dough onto it.

Lightly flour your hands and knead until dough is smooth, about 4 minutes. Form dough into a bowl, wrap in plastic wrap and let rest at room temperature while you make the soup.

Make soup: In large pot, combine 2 1/2 quarts water, chicken, onion, scallion white, garlic, 1 tablespoon soy sauce, 1 teaspoon salt and 1/2 teaspoon pepper. Bring to a simmer over medium-high, cover partially and simmer until a skewer inserted in the thickest part of the chicken meets no resistance, about 25 minutes.

Meanwhile, in a small bowl, stir together scallion greens, remaining 2 tablespoons soy sauce, gochujang, sesame oil, sesame seeds and gochugaru, if using. Set aside.

When chicken is done, transfer to large plate. Add carrots to broth and bring to a simmer over medium-high. Cook, uncovered and stirring occasionally until carrots are tender, about 10 minutes.

Meanwhile, use 2 forks to shred the chicken into bite-sized pieces; discard the skin and bones.

Unwrap the dough. Working beside the pot, hold dough in one hand. With your other hand, pull and stretch small sections of the dough, flattening it between your thumb and forefinger, then tear off a piece roughly 1 1/2 inches long. Drop the piece into the broth.

Continue until you have used all the dough. Stir in the zucchini and shredded chicken. Return to a simmer and cook, stirring occasionally, until noodles are tender and zucchini is tender-crisp, about 3 minutes.

Off heat, stir in the gochujang-sesame mixture, then taste and season with salt and pepper.

Serves 4-6.

— 177milkstreet.com

©2024 PG Publishing Co. Visit at post-gazette.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.