What’s Wrong with Academy Voters

This is a few weeks late into the game, but in the February 24^th issue of Entertainment Weekly, EW did their annual “let’s ask the voters what they’re thinking about voting for” feature (it’s actually called “How I’m Voting,” but you’ll understand my apathy towards this article in a minute).  Basically the idea behind the article is that they interview several (anonymous) Academy voters and ask them for their opinions on how they’ll be voting for the upcoming Oscars. 

The thing that was most reveling in this particular issue is that the voters showed such a lack of understanding behind the awards, voting process, or even entertainment, that they (almost) all said something so colossally stupid that they just ended up making strong cases for why some members deserve to have their voting cards taken away.  The full article can be read here, but I’m going to single in on the most offensive comments from the voters and what category they said the offensive comments under (sometimes they said more than one insulting thing).  Well, there’s a lot to say so let’s get going, starting with:

The Actress

Picture: Moneyball

Now…before I get to this I have to say that whatever actress they interviewed sounded like a real airhead who doesn’t even like movies.  Here are some of the highlights in just this ONE section:

It's ridiculous having 9 or 10 nominees. That's too many movies for anyone to have to watch.

REALLY?!  Nine movies is too much to watch?  Lady, most of those movies came in at under two hours.  Most people with blogs who have limited cash income can make a top ten list of best films of the year and can EASILY watch about three dozen films on a fixed income!  You get free screeners and the most you have to do is put aside two hours a day over a week and a half to watch some (for the most part) GOOD movies!  This should not be your biggest problem.

Hugo was a children's film — and children's films shouldn't win Best Picture.

What?  Says who?!  Don’t give me this crap that “Hugo” shouldn’t win because it’s a children film.  Children’s films can be GREAT!  “The Wizard of Oz,” “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,” “Beauty & the Beast,” “Toy Story,” and (get this) the Best Picture-winning “Oliver!” are ALL films that were made for children that are now considered classic movies!  If “Hugo” was a BAD children’s film then of course it shouldn’t win.  But it was a GREAT children’s film that had some of the best reviews of a film last year PERIOD!

I truly don’t understand what this thinking is.  If you think it’s the best film of the year (and yes, I know she doesn’t say that) then you should vote on it REGARDLESS if it was made for children or not!  This is real ignorant thinking.

The Artist was amazing, but I felt like it was an aberration. I don't think it represents Hollywood in the 21st century. I mean, a Best Picture should have sound.

Is the next thing you’re going to tell me is that a Best Picture winner needs to be in color or it shouldn’t win (which would mean “Schindler’s List” wouldn’t have had a chance)?  Again, it comes down to whether or not “The Artist” is the best film you’ve seen this year.  Whether it has sound or not should be a non-issue.

Best Actor: Jean Dujardin

But I'm voting for Jean Dujardin. He has this quiet dignity when everything falls apart. He has these little gestures with his hands. You could see the sense of loss. It was the quintessential film performance — it's all about his face.

There is nothing wrong with this comment, but what about “The Artist” shouldn’t win because a Best Picture winner should have sound?  Now you turn around and vote for a silent performance though because you can appreciate the acting more?  Am I missing something here?

Actress: Viola Davis

Rooney Mara had this quiet intensity and rage.  But she's young and seemed kind of arrogant in interviews, and it really does matter how you campaign for an Oscar.

Um…no, it shouldn’t matter how you campaign.  You’re voting on her PERFORMANCE in a MOVIE!!!  Not how she carries herself in real life.  How you campaign for an Oscar (despite popular belief) should NOT matter AT ALL!!!  It should be about the performance, end of story.

Meryl Streep gave a lovely, nuanced, heartbreaking performance, but she gets nominated every year.

Yeah…she gets nominated every year because she’s consistently great.  So what?  Isn’t that the point?  Does the Academy hold consistent greatness against Pixar?  If not, why should they single out great actors giving consistently great performances from receiving Oscars?

The Writer

The writer said nothing stupid that warrants discussing here.

The Producer

He was pretty sensible too.

The Executive

Director Michel Hazanavicius

I'm voting for the Artist guy. If Marty Scorsese had not won already for The Departed, I would have voted for him for Hugo, but he won too recently.

What does winning recently have to do with anything?  If you think Marty did a better job than the guy you’re voting for (who impressed you so much you can’t even seem to remember his NAME) then you should vote for him.  Whether he won or not is beside the point.  If someone is great, let them be great consistently.

Alright, so mostly it was The Actress who was being the stupid one, but this constant thing with having a mind set for what “should or shouldn’t” win needs to go for these voters.  If someone is always turning in award worthy work, then it’s the voters job to HONOR that award worthy work, and not vote for something of lesser quality because the person won recently, or because there’s no sound, or because the movie is a children’s film that adults just HAPPENED to find magical!  Oh, and I know people are busy, but ten films is EASY to do within the span of a month!  Heck, I see close to nine films a week on my own time, and my real job doesn’t even INVOLVE movies!

My Ideal "Best Song" Nominations

Here are the songs I would love to see be nominated for Best Song.  Whether they do or don't, I guess we'll see.

Albert Nobbs - "Lay Your Head Down" by Sinead O'Connor

Captain America: The First Avenger - "Star Spangled Man" by Alan Menkin

Gnomeo & Juliet - "Hello, Hello" by Elton John

Happy Feet Two - "Bridge of Light" by Pink

The Muppets - "Life's A Happy Song" by The Muppets

My Ideal 'Best Original Score' Nominations List

The title says it all!  Enjoy the score samples:

Ludovic Bource - "The Artist"

Alexander Desplat - "The Tree of Life"

Harry Escott - "Shame"

John Williams - "War Horse"

Alan Silvestri - "Captain America: The First Avenger"

My Ideal Oscar Nominations List

We're a few weeks away from the nominations for the Oscars, but I think that makes it a good time for me to round up what my ideal nominations list will look like.  Now keep in mind there are a few award favorite films out there that I haven't seen, but I've seen most of them, and this list is based on what I've seen.  Because it seems like a seven picture nomination year, that's how many films I'll list for Best Picture.

Best Picture

• The Artist
• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
• Hugo
• Midnight in Paris
• Moneyball
• A Separation
• The Tree of Life

Best Director

• Michel Hazanavicius - "The Artist"
• David Fincher - "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"
• Martin Scorsese - "Hugo"
• Woody Allen - "Midnight in Paris"
• Terrence Malick - "The Tree of Life"

Best Actor

• George Clooney - " The Descendants"
• Jean Dujardin - "The Artist"
• Michael Fassbender - "Shame"
• Ryan Gosling - "Drive"
• Brad Pitt - "Moneyball"

Best Actress

• Viola Davis - "The Help"
• Rooney Mara - "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"
• Felicity Jones - "Like Crazy"
• Elizabeth Olsen - "Martha, Marcy, May, Marlene"
• Michelle Williams - "My Week with Marilyn"

Best Supporting Actor

• Albert Brooks - "Drive"
• George Clooney - "The Ides of March"
• Jonah Hill - "Moneyball"
• Nick Nolte - "Warrior"
• Christopher Plummer - "Beginners"

Best Supporting Actress

• Jessica Chastain - "The Help
• Shaileen Woodley - "The Descendants"
• Melissa McCarthy - "Bridesmaids"
• Octavia Spencer - "The Help"
• Carey Mulligan - "Shame"

Best Animated Film

• The Adventures of Tintin
• Arthur Christmas
• Chico and Rita
• Kung fu Panda 2
• Rango

My Book Is Coming Out Soon (So Now What?)

My faithful readers: I have written the final review I needed to write for "The Complete Unofficial 83rd Annual Academy Awards Review Guide" yesterday!  That means all I need is for my editor Emily to wring it through a shredder, help me fix any sentence structure problems, and we'll begin formatting the book for Kindles, Nooks, and even have some hard copies available.  This is the start of what I hope to be a long term goal of having a review guide for every year for the Oscars.  I can't wait until everyone have a chance to buy the final product so they can see what a huge deal this is going to be and why it's taking so much work.  But the year for 2010 is in the bag and I have two more books planed for release early next year (maybe three!).

So with that said, let's talk about this blog.

I think its no surprise I haven't updated it much.  I'm not good on the predictions chart.  I don't like to predict things I haven't seen (adds to unmounted hype I believe) and some of the films that become front-runners I see late in the game.  I do enjoy writing occasional commentary though, so its nice to have this site for that, but I think many will agree there are FAR better Oscar prediction websites out there!  So I'm here to announce that this site is officially going to change in that it won't be so much about Oscar predictions, but this series of books I'm writing.  Which will make this something of a personal journal only...better, I suppose.

I'm going to share experiences I have with actually having to watch a ton of movies I've never heard of just because I need to write the review for an Oscar book.  I'll write some editorials on changes I'd like to see about the awards themselves, but those will be material for a future book really.  Right now I need to find my niche in an online world that has lots of blogs to choose from, and my blog just isn't cutting it.  I'm better at reviews than news anyway, so this will be a good thing.  Now then, let's start now with my news on the books. The aforementioned book will be released in a few weeks.

The books for the current Oscar year and 2009 are in production now and should be ready by next year.  However I also know that a key factor for some of these movie books are the history.  And 2009-2011 isn't...well, history.  Not yet anyway.  So I'm turning back the clock and will also be working on "The Complete Unofficial 1st Annual Academy Awards Review Guide."  However, I should note something: This book will likely be an eBook exclusive.  For awhile anyway.  Why you ask?  Well, because I've compiled a list of the movies I need to see.  Here's what I compiled:



1. Chang: A Drama of the Wilderness
2. The Circus
3. The Crowd
4. The Devil Dancer
5. The Dove
6. Glorious Betsy
7. The Last Command
8. The Jazz Singer
9. The Magic Flame
10. The Noose
11. The Patient Leather Kid
12. The Private Life of Helen of Troy
13. The Racket
14. Sadie Swanson
15. Seventh Heaven
16. A Ship Comes In
17. Sorrell and Son
18. Speedy
19. Street Angel
20. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
21. Two Arabian Knights
22. Underworld
23. The Way of All Flesh
24. Wings (VERY first Best Picture winner)


Now, this looks great because it's roughly HALF of the movies I need to see for the two other books, so this should be easy right?!  Well...here's the list with notes:



1. Chang: A Drama of the Wilderness
2. The Circus
3. The Crowd
4. The Devil Dancer (Lost Film)
5. The Dove (Library of Congress)
6. Glorious Betsy (Library of Congress)
7. The Last Command
8. The Jazz Singer
9. The Magic Flame (Lost Film)
10. The Noose (Museum of Modern Art)
11. The Patient Leather Kid (Lost Film?)
12. The Private Life of Helen of Troy (British Film Institue)
13. The Racket
14. Sadie Swanson
15. Seventh Heaven
16. A Ship Comes In (Lost Film?)
17. Sorrell and Son (Partial Restored)
18. Speedy
19. Street Angel
20. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
21. Two Arabian Knights
22. Underworld
23. The Way of All Flesh (Lost Film)
24. Wings


What this means is that most of the films are lost or housed in museums.  Now, lost films I can't review because they're lost.  There's no crying over it, they're gone, and so that fact will have to be noted in the book.  What I'm looking at are the films that survive in museums only.  Is there a way to view those films?  I have no idea.  So what I'm going to do is write the reviews for the movies I CAN get and publish that as an eBook!  The paperback and hardcover copies of this book will be held back until I am absolutely certain there are no other ways I can see the stuff in the museum.

This will be to insure that I get some of the older years of the awards started, but I'll hold back on hard copies of those early years until I can max out my options to make the books as complete as possible (eBooks are easy to update if you can't get something right away).  And all of this is going to be captured on this blog.  Strap in folks, it's going to be a new experience!

Here Comes the Family (Films)

This is a great time to go to the movies if you've got families.  "The Muppets" was released to great critical acclaim and has re-introduced the characters in a way that means they'll be coming back in a big way after the dust settles with this film.  "Arthur Christmas" was released to great critical acclaim and is poised to become a new holiday classic for many families.  And Martin Scoresese's "Hugo" was released to great critical acclaim and is hailed as one of the best films of the year.  In fact, these three films are three of the best reviewed films of the year.  I know, I was sort of surprised too.  We're lucky to get one great family film a YEAR (much less three in a WEEK)!

So people have wondered that since the reviews are great, where do these films stand with Oscar?  Well, "Arthur Christmas" is officially the front-runner to win Best Animated Feature.  Provided that Spielberg's "The Adventures of Tintin" doesn't pull a surprise win, I think this is the one to beat.  "The Muppets" will get a Best Song nomination for "Pictures in My Head," but I think the witty screenplay has a chance of being nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay as well.  As for "Hugo"...well folks, this is the big one.  I think "Hugo" will be running in the race for Best Picture.  Word-of-mouth is going to make this film a sensation.  The 3D may wake the Academy up and make them realize this style of film making needs its own award.

Despite being pretty reliable, Scoresese is an underdog because he's directing a family film instead of a gritty drama (the Academy loves underdog stories).  Finally though, this is a movie (as Sasha Stone constantly reminds us) is a movie the Academy could just "like."  The trick to winning in this race is to be a movie that everyone can like (if not outright love), and in this respect "Hugo" has a lot going for it.  Either way, ignoring the Oscar race altogether, this is rare time when family films are plentiful in theaters, and parents need to take advantage of this because who knows when this much quality family entertainment will just fall into our laps again?

"Happy Feet Two" is NOT Winning Best Animated Feature (But it Might Win Best Song)!

I saw "Happy Feet Two" tonight on IMAX 3D.  You can read my full review here, but to sum it up: "Happy Feet Two" will NOT be nominated for Best Animated Feature!  It's not as dull as "Cars 2" was, but it certainly failed to live up the quality of the original film.  That said, I DO believe that P!nk has got Best Song in the bag with her downright moving song "Bridge of Light."  Listen to the song below...

...and tell me that's not one of the most things you've heard all year.  And trust me, this is BETTER in the movie itself!  Hey, I said the movie wasn't good, I didn't say it was terrible.  There were some great scenes in that movie...just not enough to make it a good movie, and competition is still even without Pixar in the race this year.  But Best Song...man, I'm almost tempted to say this win is in stone, but maybe the Broadway song from "Captain America: The First Avenger" will sneak in there.  Who knows?

Billy Crystal Hosting 2011 Oscars!

So, to recap:

• Brett Ratner makes homophobic slur.
• Academy and gay community get pissed off (rightfully so).
• Ratner quits.
• Eddie Murphy quits.
• Brian Grazer (who produced "Tower Heist") steps in.
• Billy Crystal comes back as host.

Alright, got all that?  Good.  Now then, all that aside, now that Billy Crystal is back on board, I'm feeling pretty good about the Oscars again.  I don't want to belittle any of the current hosts, but I truly feel that Billy Crystal and Steve Martin have made for the best modern day Oscar hosts, so this just made my day.  I would have been interested in seeing what Murphy was going to do with the show, but with Crystal back...well, I'm not so curious anymore.  *phew* Well, THAT was a mess the Academy got themselves into, but it looks like they might just pull out of it just fine now!

Brett Ratner Resigns As Oscar Producer

Looks like Brett Ratner's thoughtless remark that rehersing was for "fags" finally caught up with him.  Despite a public letter apology, he resigned as producer today.  The Academy had this to say:

“He did the right thing for the Academy and for himself,” Sherak said. “Words have meaning, and they have consequences. Brett is a good person, but his comments were unacceptable. We all hope this will be an opportunity to raise awareness about the harm that is caused by reckless and insensitive remarks, regardless of the intent.”

No word yet on whether or not this incident will hurt his current film "Tower Heist," or whether or not Eddie Murphy will still be interested in hosting with him.  I wish him luck in the future, but he really needs to be careful of what he says from this day on.

Know What's My Favorite Animated Number: 5!

Well folks, there are eighteen films up for Best Animated Feature, which means there will be five nominations.  Yay!  I always like five more than three, it's just a shame that five seems like a stretch this year.  For the record, here's what's up for consideration:

“The Adventures of Tintin”
“Alois Nebel”
“Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked”
“Arthur Christmas”
“Cars 2″
“A Cat in Paris”
“Chico & Rita”
“Gnomeo & Juliet”
“Happy Feet Two”
“Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil”
“Kung Fu Panda 2″
“Mars Needs Moms”
“Puss in Boots”
“Rango”
“Rio”
“The Smurfs”
“Winnie the Pooh”
“Wrinkles”

Looking over that list, conventional wisdom goes that the Academy will go in this direction:

The Adventures of Tintin
Arthur Christmas
Happy Feet Two
Rango
Winnie The Pooh

However, if the voting is done correctly, and based purely on quality and does not let popularity effect the voting at all, then this will be our five nominees:

The Adventures of Tintin
A Cat in Paris
Chico & Rita
Kung fu Panda 2
Rango

Yes, I fully expect "Cars 2" to sit this one out.  If it gets in, it will be because Pixar is loved by the Academy, but it has no serious chance of winning.  Of course there are some eyebrow raisers in there (wasn't the whole selling point of "The Smurfs" that it was a LIVE ACTION movie of the cartoon?!), but not a bad list. What's frustrating is that if "How To Train Your Dragon" was released this year, then there is no doubt in my mind it would have won.  Most of these films seem second nature to that one (although, in all fairness, "Toy Story 3" wasn't as good as "The Illusionist" either).  It will be interesting to see whether or not the Academy goes for the popular films, the smaller films that are of stunning quality, or a little of both.

And keep in mind folks, this category has made major mistakes in the past, just like every other award in this show.  In 2004 the list of nominees were "The Incredibles," "Shark Tale," and "Shrek 2."  "The Incredibles" walked home with the gold and was the obvious winner.  But look at those films and ask yourself this: How the heck did the Academy not have room for THIS movie?!

I know, it boggles the mind sometimes.

Oscar Going NC-17?

This is sort of old news, but Steve McQueen's controversial and haunting film "Shame" was given an NC-17 by the MPAA about a month ago.  Fox Searchlight decided not to edit the film or appeal it for the less restrictive R.  "Shame" has been screened at several film festivals prior to getting the rating.  It was cited as an early Oscar contender for Best Picture, and Michael Fassbender's performance was considered the first performance that could seriously be considered for a nomination for Best Actor.  The new rating could potentially hurt its chances with Oscar.  It could potentially hurt its box office potential as well, but Fox feels differently.  They feel that the NC-17 is a badge of honor, and that its time to take a chance and show that real adult films can have this rating attached to it without being labeled smut.

I didn't comment on the rating because I didn't think it mattered much, but now that I've had some time to think about it (and let all this discussion of the rating overpower the film itself), I have to ask this of the people who are worried about the NC-17: What's the big deal?  Does anyone here know what NC-17 stands for?  It stands for 'No Children Under 17 Admitted.'  Now then, what does the R rating stand for?  'Restricted: No Children Under 17 Admitted Without Parent or Guardian.'  Really folks, is this really that different?  The only real difference these two ratings share is that one parents can take their kids into the film, and the other one they can't.  And really, would any sane parent actually take their kids to this film?  Depending on how much award talk it gets, I don't think getting the R rating would have helped this film much anyway.

We went through this dance last year when "Blue Valentine" received an NC-17.  The Weinstein Company managed to appeal the rating though, and got an R rating for the film without any cuts.  The film ended up grossing more than $10 million dollars at the box office and made some money on DVD and BluRay.  The film only cost $1 million to make though.  Would the NC-17 rating have REALLY hurt that film much?!  I doubt it. Oddly enough, this situation is also similar to that of "Midnight Cowboy" from 1969, when that film was predicted to be totally shut out of the Oscars because of its X rating.  And what happened?  Well, the power of the film was too much to ignore, and "Midnight Cowboy" became the first X rated film to win Best Picture (a year after the very G rated "Oliver!" took home the prize).

I make no claims that "Shame" will be the first NC-17 film to win Best Picture.  I attribute that more to some heavy competition then the films rating though.  I am looking at this film though and believe that this could potentially be the start of the NC-17 curse being broken.  Ang Lee's "Lust, Caution" creaked the door open, and I think "Shame" will fully open it.  "Lust, Caution" made around $4 million dollars in the US and $67 million worldwide on a budget of $15 million.  That's successful, regardless how you look at it.  Actually, considering that was rated NC-17 AND was in Taiwan, $4 million dollars looks pretty impressive to me.  Of course, this is all speculation until the film actually opens, but I've got a funny feeling we can expect big things from "Shame."

Sizing Up The Directors 2011 (Midyear Predictions)

Well, it's time for our annual tradition of sizing up the directors and which ones stand a chance of getting a Best Director nomination.  Though the Academy has kind of/sort of reduced the Best Picture nominees down to five again, it could STILL go as high as ten, which makes the Best Director race all the more complicated!  There are so far NINE directors who (thus far) have a good chance at a nomination.  I'm going to discuss the first six whose films I've seen and tackle the last few in the next article

Name: Woody Allen
Current Film: "Midnight In Paris"
Nominated Before?: Yes, for "Annie Hall," "Interiors," "Broadway Danny Rose," "Hannah and Her Sisters," "Crimes and Misdemeanors," and "Bullets Over Broadway"
Won Before?: Yes, for "Annie Hall"

Going For Him/Her:  Woody Allen is one of Hollywood's best directors. He's directed many classic comedies and dramas, and has been nominated for this award even when some of his films aren't nominated for Best Picture.

Going Against Him/Her:  With a potential ten nominees, there's a chance the direction nominations will lean once more towards spectacle rather then acting.  Except for the picture and the screenplay, there's not a whole lot to suggest this is a directors film.  Has won this award before.

My Verdict:  I'm going to say yes, but Allen could easily lose his footing in this race as more films open.

Name: George Clooney
Current Film: "The Ides of March"
Nominated Before?: Yes, for "Good Night, and Good Luck"
Won Before?: No

Going For Him/Her:  Clooney composes of the entire package of his film.  This makes his film more of a directors film than all the others.

Going Against Him/Her:  Some people feel "The Ides of March" says nothing new.  Visually his film is the least exciting potential Best Picture nominee.

My Verdict:  Unless other films just drown him, he's in.

Name:  Terrence Mallick
Current Film:  "The Tree of Life"
Nominated Before?:  Yes, for "The The Thin Red Line."
Won Before?:  No.

Going For Him/Her:  "The Tree of Life" is one of the most visually stunning films of the year.  He's one of the most acclaimed directors who have never won an award. He's riding high on his win of the Palm d'Or.

Going Against Him/Her:  The movie has - for lack of a better term - been received lukewarmly.  Some love it, some hate it.  Most are confused.  He refuses interviews.

My Verdict:  I think he's in.  Even if "The Tree of Life" isn't an awards favorite the direction can not be ignored.

Name:  Bennett Miller
Current Film:  "Moneyball"
Nominated Before?:  Yes, for "Capote."
Won Before?:  No

Going For Him/Her:  "Moneyball" is a critical hit.  This movie has that "whole package" feel that voters love.

Going Against Him/Her:  It's not a flashy or stylish film compared to other movies this year.  Of all the things discussed, the direction is not one of them.

My Verdict:  Miller may have directed a great movie, but I don't think that will translate to a Best Director nomination.

Name: Nicolas Winding Refn
Current Film:  "Drive"
Nominated Before?:  No
Won Before?:  No

Going For Him/Her:  "Drive" is one of the most visual films of the year.  It's critically acclaimed for creating a new form of action genre.  He came out of nowhere.

Going Against Him/Her:  He came out of nowhere.  Is a relative unknown.  "Drive" has not caught on with audiences.  Film is very dark.

My Verdict:  He's in.  Of this I'm pretty confident.

Name:  David Yates
Current Film:  "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part II"
Nominated Before?:  No
Won Before?:  No

Going For Him/Her:  "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part II" is the most successful film of the year.  It's one of the best reviewed.  It ends the most successful movie franchise on a high note.

Going Against Him/Her:  It's Harry Potter.  Not to be mean but...well, that's kind of a tough sell to the Academy no matter how good the direction is.

My Verdict:  No.  Just...no.

The Double Hitter Oscars?

Never before in all the years I've been watching the Oscars have I seen anything like the potential number of double nominees this year. We have not one, not two, not three, but FOUR actors who are battling themselves in Oscar potential!

George Clooney is the one who stands to get the most Oscar nominations next year. He's a strong contender to be nominated for Best Actor in “The Descendants” and Best Supporting Actor in “The Ides of March.” He also is favored to get nominations for Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay for “The Ides of March,” and that film is looking like a Best Picture candidate (of which he is one of the producers). Left untouched, Clooney could be looking at FOUR Oscar nominations next year!

Another actor who could pull off a double nomination is Brad Pitt, who is getting rave reviews in his starring role for “Moneyball” and his supporting role in “The Tree of Life.” I think he's got a better chance at winning Best Actor, but a renewed interest in “The Tree of Life” could give this film an unexpected come awards time (and Pitt a Best Supporting Actor nomination).

Philip Seymore Hoffman is also on a role as he delivers two stand out performances in “Moneyball” as a skeptical coach, and in “The Ides of March” as a campaigner who values loyalty above all else. Since both these performances could be run in the Best Supporting Actor category, he can only be nominated for one. If it comes down to it, I think his performance in “The Ides of March” is the juicier role (and Jonah Hill is getting more praise for his supporting role in “Moneyball”).

The true wild card in all this is Ryan Gosling though. He delivers two star making performances in “Drive” and “The Ides of March.” While I believe his performance in “Drive” is the better performance, both performances are so loved that he might split the vote and wind up getting nominated for neither film.

 

There's some talk that Jessica Chastain could be nominated for Best Supporting Actress for either “The Tree of Life” or “The Help,” but I'm not completely buying it. Her performance in “The Tree of Life” is poetic, but since its silent the Academy could rule that Terrence Malicks direction is giving the real performance there. As for her performance in “The Help”...its more likely, but Octavia Spencer is running away with the Oscar talk here, so I'm skeptical. Either way, its going to be VERY interesting to see how this all plays out!

What Are Chances of Oscar Love For "50/50": About 50/50 I'd Say

So one of the movies that I'm going to cautiously be keeping an eye on during this Oscar race is "50/50."  I haven't written my review yet (it should come in at around three and a half stars for me), but spoil it a bit for you, this is a good movie.  It may not be the greatest film in the world, but its amazing how it takes a serious situation that is so bleak for everyone, and manages to make it funny while also acknowledging the despair that comes along with such bad news.  Again, it may not be a great film, but its a good film in what it ends up doing.  Seth Rogan was his usual funny self (though maybe a bit too routine to get an Oscar nomination), and Anna Kendrick was good as a young psychiatrist trying to help the main character.

However, the standout performance is obviously that of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who not only brings humor to the role, but also frustration and despair.  A role like this is tricky because the main character has to be confident enough for us to believe he can survive this, but vulnerable enough that we feel his pain.  He carries this movie so well, that I want to seriously consider his chances at getting a Best Actor nomination for the role.  This is the sort of juicy role the Academy loves, and we shouldn't discredit this one just because its a comedy.  A think other potential nominees include Best Original Screenplay and Best Makeup.  Will it make the Best Picture lineup?  Hmm...maybe.  It is a movie that would appear to get some number one votes, so you never know.  For now though, Levitt's performance is the one to watch out for.

I Want To Be A Paperback Writer...PAPERBACK WRITER!!!

So faithful readers, I have an announcement to make: I'm writing a book.  An Oscar book to be more precise.  See, its like this...

Alright, so the picture quality is not all that great (and I know I misspelled "presents," and I'm more ashamed of that than anything else I've done recently).  Just because because I understand film, doesn't mean I'm good at making it.  I actually meant to bring this up earlier, but every time I would have time to work on this blog, there would be a topic I wanted to discuss.  I didn't have time to pimp my book, so I put the Kickstarter link on the right hand side and hoped someone would see it (unlike the short story, this had an actual reason to be there).  As mentioned in the video, this book is supposed to be the first in an 83+ book series.  After the initial book I want to write two a year until they are all published.  If this Kickstarter project succeeds, then I can have future books preordered in the same method (though much lower starting costs, since I'll have an established account with the book publisher).

I picked the 60 day option because I wasn't sure if 30 days would be enough.  Turns out, it wasn't.  After 24 days the project has stalled at $721.  That's 14% of the whole project funded.  That's a good start, but it's not promising.  Its sat there for several days untouched and unmoved.  Kickstarter itself has buried the project due to lack of activity on it.  My mom says that I should be patient, that lots of people wait until the last minute.  It's true that I expect to see a bump during the final days...but a $4,300 bump?  I don't know.  My dad doesn't believe the project will succeed, but encourages me to publish the book as an e-book.  He has a point.  I mean, e-books are slowly becoming the way of the future (even if most authors find they make next to no money publishing this way).

I'm sort of old fashioned though, and would love to see the book go to print, even if its just a small amount.  A digital copy would be available either way, but having something to put on the shelf just feels more right.  Since a good portion of the book has been online for free for awhile, the difference between having the e-book as opposed to reading most of the book online for free is...well, the reason for purchasing a copy is much less (though there WILL be exclusive commentary and reviews that will never go on my site).  This book is another reason I started updating the blog again: It was to promote this project.  There's also a sense that - should this succeed - this could all be new material for next years book.  Granted, it would be extra material, but that's fine by most people I think.

The point of this post is to let you all know that this project exists.  Maybe its also a way for me to wonder out loud whether or not it will succeed.  I'm hoping it does.  So far all the movie sites I've e-mailed to help promote the project haven't even gotten back to me.  So now I'm in my own underdog story.  Maybe I'll write a screenplay about it someday?  Who knows.  But anyways, there's the project.  If you'd be interested in a book, please consider pledging.  It goes without saying that projects like this could help support the site, all while giving you something in return.  Well...I guess that's that.  Tune in later for some thoughts I have about "Moneyball" and its Oscar potential.

Academy To Members: Dinner Bribes Are Over

I know I'm a little late to the party, but I want to take a moment to comment on the Academy's recent new rule that says once a film is nominated the studio can't throw any elaborate parties for Academy members.  Which means if the nominations aren't announced yet, you can throw a dinner party (or something to that effect) for Academy members to attend.  Once the films are nominated though, this will be against the rules.  The Academy's reasoning for doing this - they claim - is to encourage voting members to go to the theater to see movies.  A noble quote, but quite untrue.  If this were the case, then they would also put on a ban on "For Your Consideration" screeners, which gives members the biggest excuse to not go to the theater to see a nominated film.

No, this was done for a very simple reason: They want to try and eliminate bribery.  The fact of the matter is, these big parties are almost like hidden bribes.  The companies would invite members to a fancy dinner, social event, and maybe throw in some dancing.  Sometimes there would be a screening of the film that was up for Best Picture, but not always.  Big companies could afford to make these parties as big as they wanted to, giving the illusion of the event representing how good the movie is.  For a movie like "Winter's Bone," which was released as an independent film, the studio can't afford these big parties and dinners to sway the voting branch (and don't deny it, that's what these parties are for).

The Academy basically is getting tired of the over-the-top campaigning that involves events that have little to do with the actual movie itself.  The parties could still be thrown BEFORE the nominations are announced (so I guess the studios can still buy a nomination), but once nominated the parties have to come to a halt!  The studios can set up screenings of their movies with Q & A's with the film makers, but once dinner is provided for free its considered a bribe.  So while this may not be about getting voters back in the theaters, it IS a step to get excess campaigning under control and making the voting about the movies once more!  And despite all the grumblings from within, that's a GOOD thing!  Look Academy members, it only costs about $20 per person to eat at Olive Garden, so save your breath for a rule change that's worth complaining about.

Why Harry Potter Is NOT Getting A Best Picture Nomination!

This is going to hurt me to say it, more than it will hurt you to read it, but it must be said: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part II" is NOT going to be one of the ten nominees for Best Picture!  I know its not a done deal until the nominations are actually announced, but its so close to a done deal its worth dealing with now rather than later.  We had a brief flirt with the idea that it could get in (even Entertainment Weekly and Awards Daily briefly considered the possibility), but now its time to climb off that cloud and face the reality.  To understand why we flirted with this idea and why it's not going to happen.  First of all, there was that opening weekend.  Never before had we gotten such a strong opening that made so much money.  The Academy respects money and success.

However, even though "The Dark Knight" and "Shrek 2" are in the top ten biggest money makers of all time, neither one got a Best Picture nomination.  Movies like this tend to have a better Oscar chance when the film has legs.  It sends a strong message to the Academy that the film is being watched, re-watched, and is being recommended to everyone.  This movie, frankly, dropped like a brick the second weekend.  It stuck around for a few weeks, but there were no real legs and no momentum at all.  That suggests that the fans - and ONLY the fans - really went to see this!  Considering that the Academy has yet to award any of the films a single award in the past eleven years, I think its safe to say there aren't as many fans in the Academy as we'd like to think there are.

Also folks, this is not only the 8th film in the franchise, its the second part of a two part film.  This film is hostile to newcomers.  It makes little to no sense if you haven't been watching it all this time, and even if it does make sense you don't get the emotional depth from the film without having committed to the previous films.  I know "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" swept several years ago, but even that movie is somewhat friendly to newcomers.  This one...isn't.  I'm sorry, but its not.  I know I gave the film a five star review, but before you bring that I up I want to mention the note at the bottom of the review that said the star grade was variable at best, and that whether you had seen the previous films or not could significantly alter the grade for someone.

Finally, there are just some better movies coming out.  "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part II" may be a very good movie, but is it better than "The Tree of Life," "Drive," or even "Bridesmaids?"  Probably not (though again, its a matter of personal opinion).  With upcoming films like "The Artist," "The Idles of March," and "Moneyball" getting rave reviews, do you really think the Academy is going to remember a film to a series they've largely ignored?  I feel there's more I could say (and you Potter fans are likely to debate me to death in the comments section below), but it's a sad fact we have to get used to: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part II" is not getting a Best Picture nomination.  And the sooner we can accept that, the sooner we can move on.

Here Comes The "Bridesmaids"

After a hard night as work (don't ask), I went home to my humble house and popped in a movie that I picked up Tuesday: "Bridesmaids."  I saw this movie earlier in the year and deemed it the surprise hit of the year.  I gave it four stars in my review, but considering how few great comedies we've gotten this year, maybe I should have added an extra half star to the grade.  The year is almost complete and there hasn't been a more funny film I've seen this year (the film is very likely to make my Top Ten list).  Re-watching it on BluRay made me realize something: This film may have Oscar potential.  I know, I know, comedy is a tough sell for the Academy.  But you know what?  Once in awhile you just sort of have to go with your heart.  It seems unlikely on paper that this would get nominated for anything, but considering the shallow competition we've gotten so far, it seems more crazy not to predict it at this point.

It has box office success.  It has a breakout performance by Kristen Wiig.  It's also one of two big hits this year starring mostly women ("The Help" being the other one).  And by golly, this is such a funny movie that I'm starting to feel like a bitter old man not predicting it to get nominated for SOMETHING!  So first I'm going to predict Kristen Wiig getting a nomination for Best Actress.  This was a breakout role for her, and she just won an Emmy a few nights ago, so she may have momentum to get a nomination here.  I'm also throwing in a prediction for Best Original Screenplay, since the screenplay categories are where comedies tend to fare very good.  Don't believe me: "Shrek" got a nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay.  No joke, look it up.  My last prediction is a long shot, but I'm going to predict a nomination for Melissa McCarthy for Best Supporting Actress.

I know, that last one sounds more crazy than anything else, but think about it: She STEALS the movie!  Every scene she's in she's upstaging the entire cast of characters, and she's the most complex woman in the whole film without getting all serious and depressing.  Way back in 1960 Peter Ustinov won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for the Stanley Kubrick film "Spartacus."  You may think that for an epic that must have been a serious role, but you'd be wrong.  It was comical.  VERY comical!  Kevin Kline and Alan Arkin won Oscars in this category for playing largely goofy roles, so if a comedy performance is going to get a nomination, it will normally be as a supporting character.  Whether it gets these nominations or not is up in the air, but one thing should be obvious: If you haven't seen "Bridesmaids" yet, you are missing out on the best comedy of the year.  No joke, you really are.

Update: I made a mistake in the article.  It wasn't Kristen Wiig who won an Emmy it was actually Melissa McCarthy.  I'm sort of glad I was wrong about this though, as it gives McCarthy's chance at a Best Supporting Actress nod more weight.

"J. Edgar" Trailer

Today we get our first real look at Clint Eastwood's "J. Edgar."  While Eastwood has not had a film in serious competition since "Letters From Iwo Jima," never underestimate him.  That's how so many people lost money the year "The Aviator" was supposed to sweep the Oscars and give Marty his much coveted Oscar.  This film is an Eastwood film, and he's directed two Best Picture winners.  It stars Leonardo DiCaprio, who routinely shows up in the Best Actor category.  It has a screenplay by Dustin Lance Black, who won an Oscar just a couple of years ago for "Milk."  Finally, it's a biopic about a VERY controversial figure!  Yeah, we haven't seen it yet, but it might be best to consider it a contender.

Best Picture Prediction Count

I've got more articles to write (one that Harry Potter fans might be upset with me once written), but for statistics sake, here's where my personal Oscar count would be fore my (current) five Best Picture nominees:

• Drive: 8 nominations
• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part II: 11 nominations
• The Help: 4 nominations
• Midnight In Paris: 3 nominations
• The Tree of Life: 6 nominations

Again, these are just predictions, and just because I would nominate one film with more than double the nominations than other films, that does not make that film the best film of the year.  It only means I think there are more individual aspects of that film that are worth nominating that the others don't have ("Midnight In Paris" is one of the best films of the year DESPITE not being a very flashy film).