Oscar Predictions. 3 of 10 Best Pictures Are Already Upon Us.

The Oscar Predictions have been revised for July. Finally! I think with the critical and (so far) audience response to The Kids Are All Right, Inception and Toy Story 3, we may have 30% of our Best Picture field filled in. Will we have a fourth by the time summer is up? Last year summer brought us 40% of the Oscar lineup: Up, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds and District 9.

The only one of these three buzzy titles I hadn't predicted back in April was Toy Story 3. Who could have forseen a third film in a franchise being that blissfully embraced? It's possible that voters will figure Pixar is amply rewarded and look at other live action movies but given the lack of strong competitors that 2010 has offered, it's looking good for the big show for now.


Bear in mind that the rankings are a mix of hunches, buzz, Oscar history factors, personal feelings, reviews and more. They are strictly for entertainment/predictive purposes and predictions should never be confused with statements about quality. As you all know, both horrible and great films get nominations every year. This year, for example, the ghastly eyesore Alice in Wonderland is probably looking at a few nods through its sheer excess. (Sometimes AMPAS confuses "Most" with "Best".)

A good chunk of the remaining slots each year are filled with whichever pleasant mediocrities can muster up temporary enthusiasm in precursor bodies and actual Oscar ballot holders.

In the charts and on the individual pages, you'll see major gains for the Danny Boyle/James Franco true story survival drama 127 Hours (now confirmed for a 2010 release) and the Cannes approved Another Year (Oscar has been known to warm to Mike Leigh). The saddest switch is this pundit's (temporary?) loss of faith in Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life, if only because I remember so vividly what happened and what didn't happen when it came to The New World's release. That nightmare has been resurrected in the wake of the Apparition troubles. Malick's The New World was a jaw droppingly beautiful visual experience and it couldn't even muster up a handful of technical nominations? Insanity. Nothing's a done deal with Oscar until all the deals are done.

As for Inception, the movie on everyone's lips this week, people need to calm down. It was a good Oscar bet before release and it still is. The mix of absolute boosters, passionate detractors and even a few opinions somewhere in the middle like mine -- I liked it but I wouldn't ever dream of calling it a masterpiece -- is totally normal for any big hyped release, though people may be behaving as if this has never happened before... or only once before in 2008. But we'll get to that in a second.


Nevertheless, Inception has several crucial Oscar plus factors going for it such as

1. Due? The general perception that Chris Nolan is due for a nod. That's out there, thickly felt in the pop culture air and that sure does matter.
2. The "Make Up" situation. Many feel that The Dark Knight was not properly rewarded. This has always struck me as odd but I'm the odd man out. It did win more nominations than most films ever come near and even a couple of actual statues so, for the superhero genre or for sequels in general, it was practically Titanic huge with Oscar. But then facts never deter people from personal feelings.
3. Auteurial and technical ambition in spades. This will go a long way with at least a handful of Oscar branches. Just about the only place that Inception hasn't a prayer is in the acting categories since the characters are paper thin, and sci-fi epics have a difficult time getting the actor's branch excited. Just about the only time it ever happens is when someone is just so fantastic that nobody would deign deny their accomplishment (think Sigourney Weaver's immortal Aliens performance).

Do share your feelings about the state of the Oscar battle thus far in the comments (I've been having technical difficulties so I'll fix any errors on the pages as I can get to them.)
*

Oscar Night in Review: Worst and Weirdest

I've reviewed the ceremony in the thematic / abstract for Tribeca. So let's get a little more specific here for the big roundup (see also: most wonderful moments and fashion review ~ finis!). Worst and Weirdest Moments coming at'cha now. Whether you disagree or agree, I'd love to hear the moments that left you scratching your head or pissed off.

Worst Things About Oscars 09/10

6 Oscar's Weird Relationship To Youth. The Oscars have never been a youthquake. Institutions are primarily for adults and for kids who dream of growing up to become adults. Certain Young Hollywood stars fit right into the glamour -- the history even -- of the industry's big night. You can't have the movies without both the old guard and fresh faces, after all. Cue Lion King music... "It's the circle of life!" But you need to have the type of young stars that don't require mental gymnastics on the part of the audience when they see them inbetween closeups of true legends and A-List names. There's something about some young stars -- Amanda Seyfried or Dakota Fanning for example -- that exude "one day I may well be Old Hollywood". This is the type of young star that Oscar should embrace if it wants to reexert and maintain its own institutional force. Miley Cyrus has precious little to do with the cinema and it's hard to imagine that she actually cares about the history of Hollywood and her place in their pantheon. What can she possibly bring to the table that they need? Taylor Lautner did fine with the presenting -- he's a young professional -- but they were giving him closeup reactions like he was an actual movie star and he looked confused or nervous when he wasn't on stage, like someone who had stumbled in from a nearby prom.

I don't want to come off like an old grouch here. It's a nuanced point. The Oscars should have a smattering of young stars, but since it's an Establishment event... it kind of needs the young stars who are, well, Established. And not (potentially) one-role wonders that they've been told are the cool kids. I'm not saying "don't invite Taylor Lautner". I have nothing against Taylor Lautner. I'm saying "Invite Taylor Lautner when he's proven himself." Kristen Stewart can stay. I'm obviously not a fan but I won't pretend that she hasn't earned it. She's been directed by Sean Penn and David Fincher. She's carried whole movies. Some people think she's really talented. She can hold her own while locked in tiny claustrophic spaces with Jodie Foster. Etcetera.

5 Pete Docter's speech. It started off well "Never did I believe making a flipbook in my third grade math class would lead to this" but one thing sours his wins for me. Why does he never acknowledge his fellow nominees in any of his speeches? When you sweep (as UP has) it starts to seem ungenerous. In such a rich year for animated films (Coraline and Fantastic Mr Fox would have made completely valid winners) it seems self-absorbed at best and extremely bad form at worst to act as if other great movies don't exist.

4 Oscar's Shame. At first I was excited that Oscar was explaining the difference between sound editing and sound mixing to the audience at home (and the audience in the Kodak... who *ahem* need the same education). But The Dark Knight? Why not illustrate with, um, this year's nominees?!!! Stay focused, Oscar! You could see the phantom image of the Academy's collective tail, still stuck between its legs. Exactly how many years are they going to apologize for passing that one up? The Academy makes a lot of bad choices, sure, but don't we like the Academy better when they aren't so obviously sheepish. Confidence --even when its unearned -- is often sexy. Groveling and pandering never are.

The John Hughes Club: Matthew Broderick, Macauley Culkin, Ally Sheedy,
Molly Ringwald, Judd Nelson, Jon Cryer and Anthony Michael Hall

3 The John Hughes tribute. He definitely made an impression on my generation. I'd never deny that. I grew up reciting The Breakfast Club and I love it to this day. But the Academy doesn't even do lone tributes for Oscar winners after they've died and John Hughes was never even nominated. It was an uncharacteristic moment, immediately casting strange shadows on cinematic giants that they've never given this treatment too. Yet another instance of the Academy protesting too much... "see, we DO like Popular Films! We DO!"

They're just so scared to be themselves these days.

2 Interpretative Dance. They gave up Best Original Song or the honorary Oscars....for this? Clue to the producers: This is the type of thing you can AND HAVE done before during the Best Original Song performances. Why omit one to have the other? Especially when interpretative dance numbers have even less to do with the movies than the aborted songs. And especially when you don't even know which movies you've decided to interpret. Why were you doing a tribute to WALL•E during the UP score? That's what the robot dance was for, right? Because there aren't any robots in UP. Was this a biting satirical jab at Pixar? "Your movies are interchangeable!"

1. the worst... Screw Old People! Roger Corman, Lauren Bacall and Gordon Willis. We see you... even if Oscar won't. Legends deserve better than standing and waving to the camera. F**k you producers!

Weirdest Things About Oscars 09/10

6 The Notably Absent. Old Hollywood and New Hollywood were amply represented but wasn't it weird that Legendary Hollywood and Current Hollywood weren't? Perhaps I should explain. Old Hollywood greats (roughly speaking the senior citizens) like Meryl Streep, Helen Mirren and Morgan Freeman were very present. So were newbies like Amanda Seyfried, Zac Efron and Carey Mulligan. We already know that the producers feared the wrath of teenagers should Lauren Bacall open her opinionated mouth. She had to go! But what about Current Hollywood? Was it just me or was there a distinct lack of the big stars in their mid 20s to early 40s? You know... the age range of stars that get the bulk of the leading roles? Maybe I was imagining it (possible) but the whole night felt a little like the demographic of the Best Actress category (minus Sandra Bullock).

5 Fact-Checking ... Anyone? Anyone? You'd think a show with a gargantuan production budget and phalanx of writers wouldn't have this problem but why did Samuel L Jackson get the details wrong about Beauty & The Beast (1991)? No, Samuel, Beauty & The Beast was not nominated for both Animated Feature and Best Picture. The animated feature category did not exist back then. And no Taylor Lautner, The Exorcist was not the last horror film to win favor with the Oscars. That scripted gaffe (not Taylor's fault obviously) was even stranger, followed as it was by a montage of "horror movies" (loosely defined) that included many Oscar favorites that were released AFTER The Exorcist... movies like Carrie, Silence of the Lambs, Jaws, and The Sixth Sense.

4 Amanda Seyfried + Miley Cyrus. Who thought to pair them? I'm convinced they're from different universes and I'm not talking about the light years between Pennsylvania and Tennessee. I loved Anthony Lane's bit in the New Yorker about their odd couple demeanor

Cyrus, who wore a perfectly respectable bustier but had inadvertently forgotten to put anything over it,came on to present an award in the company of Amanda Seyfried, and, in so doing, fluffed her lines. “We’re both kinda nervous, it’s our first time.” So saying, she tried to corral Seyfried into the fluff, inviting her to share the pain, but Seyfried, wisely, was having none of it, and shied backward, as if to say, “Enough with the both, sister.”

3 Fisher Stevens is an Oscar winner!
For those of you who are like "who?" It's okay. Perfectly understandable. But it was a weird moment for me. You see during the peak of Michelle Pfeiffer's career from roughly Fabulous Baker Boys through Batman Returns he was her boyfriend. Fisher withstood frequent hateful media comments, presumably for dating someone deemed so far out of his league. And he was further vilified when they broke up, presumably on account of infidelity.


But that's all ancient tabloid history. Now he is an Oscar winner and Michelle Pfeiffer is still... not.

Excuse me for a moment.

Stevens, who won for the dolphin-killing exposé The Cove, is obviously well connected and I didn't know this either. On the way to the stage for his thank you Woody Harrelson grabbed him and he exchanged looks with Meryl Streep. Who knew.

2 The Presenter Rut. What is with the Academy's utter inability to shake things up presenter-wise. They don't actually employ the same producers every year so why is it that we get the same presenters? What is it that makes Ben Stiller so attractive to them versus dozens of other famous comics? What is it that makes Cameron Diaz a "must have!"? Why is Queen Latifah the one black actress they regularly care about? Why do Tom Hanks and Barbra Streisand get so many chances to present biggie prizes? I'm not trying to be dense. I JUST DON'T GET IT. That town is swimming with legends. Los Angeles is where celebrities live. Tom Hanks and Barbra Streisand are not the only instantly recognizable cross generational celebrities on the planet. We've offered the producers numerous suggestions of very very famous people they've never used for Best Picture and they never take our advice. I mean Christ Almighty they've never even let actresses as famous as Meryl Streep or Jane Fonda do it. Or why not someone like Maggie Smith who is loved by the older generation as well as the young kids (see Harry Potter).

1...the weirdest. Sean Penn's AdLib.
It went like so...

I...um. I never became an official member of the Academy but the Academy and I do have in common that we manage to -- neglect to acknowledge the same actress in our own ways two years running. So I -- I'm going to start fresh with the Academy and acknowledge these wonderful actresses.

Maybe someone else has already explained this online but what the hell is he talking about? I have no idea. None. And I watch the Oscars religiously every year, and usually more than once!

Explain it to me in the comments, please!

Update: the best moments too. Thanks for sticking it out!

Modern Maestros: Christopher Nolan

Robert here, continuing my series on great contemporary directors.  In the past ten years or so the Hollywood summer blockbuster has been steadily improving in quality.  Now don't worry, there's still lots of trash reinforcing the fact that studio execs never lost a buck aiming for the lowest common denominator.  But there's been a resurgence in good big budget films (Can I say resurgence?  Was there ever a surgence?).  Christopher Nolan isn't singularly responsible for this.  Others were making good action movies before him, but he has come to represent all that can be right about blockbusters if the right director is given the right material.

Maestro: Christopher Nolan
Known For: Dark and moody thrillers and occasionally Batman.
Influences: Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott, not comic books as much as you might think.
Masterpieces: High marks all around, but none yet (With my genuine apologies to those who disagree.  Let's not have that conversation again. Let's argue about Avatar instead.)
Disasters: definitely none
Better than you remember: I'm not sure I want to get caught up in the ongoing argument about how Nolan's films have compared to the hype.  Let's just say that I suspect history will remember all of his films accurately.

Box Office:The Dark Knight made a few cents here and there.  Over 533 million.
Favorite Actor: Both Christian Bale and Michael Caine have been in three films but once Inception opens, Caine will officially take the crown.

When Christopher Nolan was awarded the Batman franchise, reaction was hopeful and surprised.  But in fact this wasn't a new studio tactic.  Finding a promising new filmmaker and signing them to a franchise deal has always been part of the process. Rumor has it the Coens were originally offered Batman after Blood Simple.  Burton fit the aesthetic so he eventually got the call.  Bryan Singer was courted after The Usual Suspects and though hardly new, one has to assume Hollywood had been ignoring Sam Raimi for decades before it finally discovered him and gave him Spider-Man.  But two things made the Batman/Nolan match more exciting.  First was the utter state of disrepair the (possibly most beloved and iconic of all comic franchises) franchise was in.  And second was just how closely the Batman myth aligned itself with the themes that Nolan loved most.  Nolan makes movies about desperate men and the moments that drive them to extremes.  In most cases it's the death of a loved one (wives or parents) but more than that I think it's a sudden and violent realization of the chaos present in the world.  This often results in the "rebirth" of an individual.  Bruce Wayne is reborn as Batman, Harvey Dent as Two-Face.  Leonard from Memento is, in a way, continually reborn every few minutes.  The Prestige also delves into the topic of continual rebirth but I won't spoil it.

 Two sides of the same coin.

Tied into this is another favorite Nolan topic: the duality of man.  Characters in Nolan films are often reflections of each other.  Consider Batman and his Rogues.  Both Ras Al Ghoul and Batman believe the world to be full of evil, but one thinks the solution is saving it, the other destroying.  Two-Face is another parallel.  He's reflection of what Bruce Wayne could have become if his tragedy propelled him toward evil.  The Joker though isn't so much a reflection of anyone as much as he is a personification of that ever-present chaos in the world.  This phenomenon isn't just limited to Batman.  The two men in The Prestige are mirror images of each other surging toward the same goal, one with emotional abandon the other with precise calculation.  There are further examples of man's duality in The Prestige, but I won't spoil it.

It's this perfect match of man and material that has resulted in such success.  But there have been other factors too.  Much has been made of Nolans insistence on realism and how it has served his films well.  Of course any film where a man dresses up as a bat isn't realistic but his determination toward a realistic universe has allowed the strange and supernatural to be that much more clearly punctuated.  Other comic book films like Spider-Man or Iron Man (both very good) exist in comic book reality and the difference is noticable.  Some have noted that Nolan's action sequences and plots are often too opaque.  But I maintain that audiences really aren't adverse to elements of mystery or confusion (people are still watching Lost aren't they?) as long as the excitement level stays high.

There's every reason to believe that Nolan will keep the excitement level high.  His next film, Inception is among the most anticipated of this year.  And it was recently announced that he'll be overseeing a new Superman film and directing a third Batman.  It's still something of an unknown whether Hollywood will heed the right message from Nolan's success.  Thus far they seem to have wrongly interpreted it to mean everything needs a "reboot."  And Nolan's films (as is now the case with all big budget pictures) must go through a prolonged series of internet-fueled stages (hype, backlash against the hype, backlash against the backlash, and finally acceptance).  All of that should be secondary to the movies themselves which remain solid and entertaining.  If Nolan really does come to represent the state of the Summer Blockbuster I can't imagine anyone who wouldn't be perfectly happy with that.

Birthday Suit (With Bright Yellow Trench)

Today is the 109th anniversary of one Chester Gould the creator of Dick Tracy. Every time Dick Tracy (1990) comes up, I think "you should watch that movie again!" but I never do. I think I'm still mad that Warren Beatty kept cutting away from Madonna's "More" performance... which should've easily been one of the best movie musical numbers of the 90s (sigh). Otherwise I quite like the movie

Trivia Alert! Dick Tracy is one of Oscar's two favorite comic book movies along with The Dark Knight (2008). Their Oscar track was very similar. Dick Tracy had 7 nominations and 3 wins. The Dark Knight had 8 nominations and 2 wins and in mostly the same categories, too.

• Supporting Actor (both, and the only two comic book performances ever nominated*: Al Pacino and Heath Ledger, winner)
  
• Cinematography (both)
  
• Art Direction (both)
  
• Costume Design (Dick Tracy only)
  
• Sound (both)
• Sound Editing (The Dark Knight only, winner)
  
• Original Song (Dick Tracy only, winner)
  
• Make-Up (both, Dick Tracy winner)
• Visual Effects (The Dark Knight only)

Why was there no sequel to 1990's primary-colored hit? Aside from Beatty's periodic Brigadoon-like vanishing it's because the rights are all tied up in legalese. Boo hoo.

Other birthdays for 11/20
1915 Kon Ichikawa, Japanese film director of Oscar nominee The Burmese Harp (1958) and Golden Globe winner Kagi (1959)
1925 Robert F Kennedy, assassinated hero and frequent movie character. I've still never seen Bobby (2006) though, have you?
1927 Estelle Parsons, Oscar winning actress (Bonnie & Clyde). She's still on the road with August: Osage County -- she's in Connecticut right this very second (5 more shows over the next 3 days. Hurry!), DC next month and hits the southwest in January and the midwest in February. I hope you bought your tickets because the show is so worth it. Our post about the casting of the movie is the 2nd most commented on this year (106 comments!). Everybody's got an opinion.
1928 Aleksey Batalov star of Cannes Winner The Cranes Are Flying (1957) -- rent it immediately if you haven't seen it, it's one of the best romantic war dramas ever -- and Oscar winner Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears (1980).
1936 Don DeLillo, amazing novelist

1956 Bo Derek 80s icon, famous in swimsuit for "10", infamous in birthday suit for Tarzan the Ape Man and Bolero (right)
1959 Sean Young 80s actress, wildcard. Best remembered in pop culture as the desperate creature who wandered around in a catsuit trying to convince Tim Burton to cast her in Batman Returns. What's less remembered, unfortunately for Young, is that Burton had actually cast her... as Vicki Vale for the first film before an injury sidelined her and Kim Basinger got the part. Even less remembered and also to Young's credit: she definitely had screen presence. See: Blade Runner and No Way Out for proof.
1989 Cody Linley of Hannah Montana and Dancing with the Stars fame, busy creating a filmography composed entirely of ridiculous character names: "Spit McGee", "Mullet Fingers", "Brownie" and "Tough Boy"



* I may be wrong there. It depends on how you define 'comic-book performances'. More in the comments

Posters To Drool On

I can't remember where I read about these amazing posters by Brandon Schaefer -- shame, because I hate not giving credit where it's due -- but I keep clicking back to them. I would love for movie marketing to be graphically enticing like this since the bulk of what's out there is poorly photoshopped floating celebrity heads. But at least we get brilliant poster imaging from adventurous repertory houses, museums and libraries and the like. Some of these posters at Seek and Speak are breathtakingly designed and smartly capitalize on either the title or a memorable image/theme from the film.

Here's a few I loved for The Blair Witch Project, The Dark Knight and Planet of the Apes.


Beautiful, yes? You can see more including clever takes on 8 1/2, Rear Window, Alien and other classic gems or modern hits here.
*
*

Shocking Oscar News: And Then There Were Ten

In one of the strangest developments in decades of Oscar watching, AMPAS has suddenly decided to change the number of Best Picture nominees back to 10, stating

After more than six decades, the Academy is returning to some of its earlier roots, when a wider field competed for the top award of the year,” said Ganis. “The final outcome, of course, will be the same – one Best Picture winner – but the race to the finish line will feature 10, not just five, great movies from 2009.”

Ganis assumes that all ten nominees will be great. What an optimist, he is!


We haven't seen 10 Best Pictures nominess since 1943 (Casablanca won... definitely one of Oscar's smartest moments). They settled on the traditional five for the 1944 film year and it's stayed that way ever since.

This could mean that anything remotely "baity" will get nominated each year. We're in for whole lineups consisting of the Frost/Nixons, Seabiscuits, and Finding Neverlands of the world, whole lineups populated with Doubts: films that inexplicably win favor over superior films or films which aren't really good enough to be in the running but all the prestige elements are in place.

I can only assume the recent snubs for critically beloved and audience supported films like WALL•E and The Dark Knight have finally started embarrassing the Academy. But widening the field doesn't necessarily mean that the quality or box office tallies rise with it. What a pessimist I am.

Last year for example, who knows what it would have looked like. It seems like these eight would have made it...


We don't know for sure. The anti-genre voters are still anti-genre (i.e. they can't take animation, comedy, superheros, horror and sci-fi seriously, always equating "message" and traditional drama with quality) no matter how wide the ballot gets.

But perhaps this does mean that less traditional genre leaning films that got some awards traction like Dancer in the Dark (better than any nominated film in 2000), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (better than any nominated film in 2004), A History of Violence (better than most of the nominated films of 2005) or WALL•E (better than any nominated film in 2008) have a better shot at the big honor? Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. We'll see.

It sure makes predicting things this year suddenly more challenging. We've never seen the outcome of the shotgun approach to Best Picture nominating in our lifetimes. Will this change last longer than their sudden new category for "original comedy score" -- one of their more bizarre decisions -- which lasted from 1995 through 1998?
*

Hugo Sampling

Though you wouldn't know it from my Knowing and Watchmen reviews (I meant them to be funnier but they're closer to grouchy), recently I've been newly devoted to genre material. Sci-fi and fantasy please. It started with a mad spree of fantasy paperbacks last year (including The Curse of Chalion discussed here) and television's sci-fi block on Friday really ramped it up with that Terminator / Dollhouse / Battlestar cluster-frak. So let's discuss a few nominees for the latest HUGO Awards which were announced yesterday.

Yes Virginia, people are still giving out awards for 2008.

Before we get to the movies here are the Best Novel competitors which one might add to one's kindle, library request or shopping list if one knows how to read.

• Anathem by Neal Stephenson
  
• The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman the awesome.
  
• Little Brother (download free) by Cory Doctorow. It's post-terrorist attack speculative sci-fi about a 17 year old in San Francisco, now a police state.
  
• Saturn's Children by Charles Stross is about a 23rd century femmebot. With no humans left to service (we've been wiped out!) she agrees to a job transporting a mysterious package. I included the cover left because it made me chuckle but also because I have a question for you. The cinema has a long love affair with prostitutes but have you ever noticed that when genre stories approach the world's oldest profession (A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, Blade Runner, Firefly) it's always sort of backgrounded and sexless? Why is that? Here's a review from i09 that makes this sound like a strong satirical sci-fi read. I think I shall try it out. Who's with me?
  
• Zoe's Tale by John Scalzi.
  

Best Dramatic Presentation Long Form
The Dark Knight, which one assumes will win, is up against the year's other critical and populist triumphs: Iron Man and Wall•E. The "one of these things is not like the others" nominee is an audio story collection called METAtropolis which you can download/experience here (Flash required). Galactica groupies should note that two of its men, "Saul" and "Gaeta", are among the voices therein. Finally there's Guillermo Del Toro's Hellboy II: The Golden Army. I never know quite what to make of Del Toro as a filmmaker. He definitely has visual prowess and a "voice" but his storytelling skills can be suspect. So I worry about The Hobbit (2012?) because Peter Jackson wipes the floor with him in terms of "story". Anyway, Hellboy II is a marked improvement over the first. It retains the fun and the color but it's way more coherent.

Best Dramatic Presentation Short Form
I tend to think that the Hugos (and any other awards that split categories this way) have their awards reversed. It's television, not film, that's the "long form" drama. Barring classic old school sitcoms, all of the best television has understood the cumulative potency of slowly unfolding narratives and complex and ever-complicating character arcs. Hollywood has this reversed, too. They really ought to be gravitating towards short stories and novellas for their transfers. Short stories are ideal for cinematic transfers (think Away From Her and Brokeback Mountain) allowing for both fidelity to the source material and the imagination of the new interpreter since they're expected to flesh them out. Hefty novels and comic books really are more suited for serialized television though that's not the way the film and television industries tend to see them. Their eyes can only focus on the green.

So since Battlestar Galactica -- which you can't miss any 45 minutes of lest you be hopelessly confused -- is in "short form" its mid-season finale "Revelations", a total stunner, is a nominee. It's up against two episodes of Doctor Who ("Turn Left" and "Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead"), one chapter of Lost named "Constant" (I don't watch Lost but a good 50% of my friends are obsessed with it so maybe I've missed out), and Joss Whedon's Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.

I'm rooting for Battlestar as I tend to but my favorite episode in Season Four might just be "Six of One" rather than "Revelations". But that's like asking if I'd like a cash prize of 10 million dollars or a cash prize of 10,225,000 euros. It's all good. It's all gold.

The full list of Hugo Nominations

PLEASE NOTE: Some of us will not see the Battlestar series finale when it airs tonight so please no spoilers in the comments.
*

2008 FB AWARDS Completed

Whew. So that took even longer than usual. Which is saying a lot. I've been giving out some kind of virtual awards for my favorite movies since I was a wee kid... only they weren't public back when I was only seeing 12-15 movies a year and I thought Karate Kid and Splash ruled! I like to think of my own nominations and medals not so much as a publicity circus / popularity contest like the Oscars but more like a scrapbook of a moviegoing year. [editors note: Pssst. When December 2009 rolls around I plan to have a book of some sort ready for purchase celebrating 10 years of these awards. I hope you'll buy it to support the site.]

Nominations and medals in all 41 categories are up since, well, time is up!

FiLM BiTCH Awards 2008
traditional
Page 1: Picture, Director and Screenplays
Page 2: Traditional Acting Categories
Page 3: Visual Technical Categories
Page 4: Aural Technical Categories (and nom' tallies)
extras
Page 5: Extra Acting Categories
Page 6: Heroes, Villains, Divas, more...
Page 7: Best Individual Scenes
Page 8: Even More Scenes (and nom' tallies)

The last categories I added were Action Sequence and Best Individual Scenes in case you missed that as I did it on the sly in the wee hours last night. Rachel Getting Married led the pack with 16 nominations but WALL•E took home the most medals of various colors, 11. Milk and The Wrestler did well for themselves. The Class (France) and Reprise (Norway), my two favorite foreign films of '08 also scored gold. The Dark Knight and Australia were the most honored films that I didn't wholly take to but they sure had great moments.

Nathaniel is a francophile. French films hogged 17 noms / 7 medals

I hope you enjoy the awards and above all I hope you take this in the spirit it was intended. A nomination is a win after all. I enjoy nominating things more than picking wins which always feels so exclusive and which I always wish I could change days later (like the 5th spot in any category after nominations, actually). I always hope the awards inspire amusement, discussion starters and especially rental fodder. These 41 categories of things, people, elements, scenes, stars are what made it all worthwhile for me in 2008. I love the cinema. We fight sometimes but we always kiss and make up in the end.

up next: Indie Spirits live blogging today @ 4:30 PM. Oscar coverage and review over the next few days. Then on to 2009. Wheeeee
*

Oscar Symposium Day Two

Nathaniel R: A note of warning for rabid symposium enthusiasts. This year's symposium is shorter than usual. There's a brief wrap up tomorrow but it was basically a two and half day affair this year due to time constraints and the golden malaise that was well covered in day one.

Where did we leave off, let's see... previously on the Symposium the Academy was deemed a passive and/or reactionary collective. There was handwringing about the terrors of the distribution system and the limited amounts of movies people actually do see. Ed struggled with loving performances in films he hated. Rachel Getting Married proved divisive... no kidding. And Kris felt battered by Harvey Milk's halo. So here we go again.

~ Day Two ~

To give Kris a halo-proof film and to cover all the ground you request Tim, I suspect Milk would have to have been as long as Benjamin Button (The Curious Case of Harvey Milk?) and who needs that? Harvey Milk is such an underappreciated and crucial figure in the history of civil rights and what biopics can't also double as hagiographies? Make a miniseries if you want to cover a whole life. If we must have biopics -- must we? There are so many other genres that would like some face time at the Kodak -- shouldn't they be tightly focused like The Queen and Capote were and now Milk is. And if they're smartly made they can hire a brilliant actor to fill in the blanks of the life before the events focused on and the ones inbetween and the ones you don't have the running time to go into. This is the kind of thing actors should be rewarded for. Not for adequately meeting the demands of a meaty role.

Timothy Brayton: One of the things I noticed looking over the acting nominations is that the two male categories, in my opinion, are substantially stronger than the female categories. In both Actor and Supporting Actor, I love three nominees, and I'm perfectly fine with the other two; in both Actress and Supporting Actress, I actively dislike one of the nominees, two leave me cold, and two are pretty good, but not world-changing. Did anyone else feel the same way? Is this a sign of male screenwriters' perpetual inability to write compelling female characters? Am I just being absurdly picky because my beloved Sally Hawkins was snubbed?

Click for Day Two of the Symposium

Watch the participants dart away from Nathaniel's question about "heat of the moment" errors in judgment (guess he's the only one that makes mistakes!), learn what Iron Man says about stardom, why we're suing Kris, how David Fincher messed with Timothy and Ed's heads, why marketing execs should hang it up post Frost/Nixon, and why AMPAS ignoring public opinion can be a good thing. Plus: more nostalgia for 2007 and unnecessary dreaming about 2009. Return and comment if you'd like to join in...
*

Final Oscar Predictions: Will Slumdog Sweep?

It is written ... that it might.

Last night I watched Forrest Gump and How Green Was My Valley back to back. This experiment in terror was held to prepare for the next edition of Best Pictures From the Outside In, which will be posted soon after this year's Oscars ceremony. But for the next week here at the site and blog, it's all current Oscars (and film bitch awards) all the time. Last night's waterbo"oscarboarding" (hey, it was torturous) did have one unexpected benefit, though. It reminded me that though the Oscars a) fascinate as a time capsule b) are important as a pop cultural record and c) provide a glitzy industry back patting party, they should never be taken too seriously.


Which is to say that AMPAS's collective lapses in judgment can be so extreme that in proper historical context it's crazy to get overly worked up about next Sunday's coronation of Slumdog Millionaire. I don't think that highly of the film but the whole Best Picture list is excitement-averse and I also don't "hate" it. There are many Best Pictures winners from year's past that are far more deserving of spitballs.

I'm predicting a clean sweep for Slumdog Millionaire. You read that right. The momentum for the picture seems unstoppable and ever growing. Backlash hasn't hurt it. It keeps handily winning or being nominated for things you'd think it would have no business getting anywhere near (acting prizes and the like). And awards season keeps clearing the way for it in strange ways: think of the Springsteen snub in Best Song or the Best Picture snubs for the only other movies with comparably nutso passionate fanbases (The Dark Knight and WALL•E) either and especially both of which could have made the Oscar's a real smackdown had they been included. But in regards to the projected sweep: I am very much hoping to be proven wrong. I find it tough to stomach sweeps even in years when I love the movie that's sweeping. Virtually no movie contains the Best Achievement in Everything.

If you're joining an Oscar pool or contest I'll try to help you out right here by delving into the only categories that seem up in the air... which are...

Sound Mixing & Sound Editing
It might sound odd to say but I believe these are the key categories of the night. If they announce them early and they both go to Slumdog Millionaire we have a sweeper on our hands and you'll watch it win all 9 of its categories. If it loses both it will likely be a more traditional night when several film get a couple of statues each. But these two categories are clearly where Slumdog is most vulnerable to defeat. Voters could also opt to improve WALL•E or The Dark Knight's statue total since they both have fine sound work and this would make a lot of people happy since both films are in danger of emerging from the big night with only one trophy to show for it. That doesn't seem representative of their enormous reach this year ...everywhere outside of the Kodak, that is. If WALL•E wins both, it was probably in 6th place for Best Picture and it might upset elsewhere too (Score or Screenplay?). But I don't think it will. Animated films rarely win these prizes despite a good nomination record (The Incredibles won Sound editing though so who knows...). I thought about predicting The Dark Knight in both categories (my preference is WALL•E) and if the Batman movie takes both of these I could see it upsetting Benjamin Button or Slumdog for a 4th prize, too (MakeUp, Cinematography... or even Editing). The biggest problem for both the robot and the batman is, I fear, each other. Which might have also been the case in the best picture nomination battle.

Best Actress ~ Some people feel this one is a 50/50 race between Meryl Streep in Doubt and Kate Winslet in The Reader. Both are seen as overdue but trying to judge by sentiment (who is most overdue: Kate who has never won or Meryl who hasn't won since '82?) doesn't help since both are beloved. It'd be different if Kate was only seen as overdue but not an endearing cultural figure ... then it would be Streep for the win. But Kate has her own passionate fans and the Best Picture nomination for The Reader cinches it for the future Dame I suspect.

Best Actor ~ Now this one is a truly 50/50 scenario. I change my mind everyday. Sean Penn in Milk has the 'actor's idolize him' advantage and the biopic advantage and he's in a topical Best Picture nominee. All of which say: sure thing! But he won five years ago. I hear what you're saying "That doesn't matter!" And yes, Hilary Swank (Million Dollar Baby) and Sally Field (Places in the Heart) both managed their second win in that same time span. But here is the key difference. Both Swank and Field were up against a field of competitors that were splitting the counter programming vote. Swank was up against two members of Hollywood's elite that were seen as overdue (Bening & Winslet) AND a momentum building powerhouse turn from a lesser known (Staunton). In other words, though it was said at the time to be a rematch between Swank and Bening, wasn't it really a contest between Swank and Staunton, with Bening die hards and passionate Winslet fans unwilling to abandon ship? In a divided field Swank took it on the strength of her sympathetic character and the no small matter of being in the Best Picture winner. Field was up against a field of three women who, like herself, were already Oscar winners (Redgrave, Lange, Spacek) and one subtle performance by a newbie (Judy Davis in A Passage to India). Davis never had the support to win and giving it to anyone else was giving a second statue away, which negates the 'do we want them to have a second Oscar factor?' in awards decisions.

Which brings us to Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler. He's the only true competition for Penn (it's tough to imagine that Pitt, Langella or Jenkins are pulling significant numbers) so the 'Not Sean Again' votes aren't being split. Plus Rourke has an extremely compelling "story" in his comeback and the role fits him like a glove. Of all of the Best Actor nominees his is the performance that most carries his film. Even Penn in Milk has a huge cast of actors and an important topic pulling some of the weight of the film's appeal. The Wrestler IS the Mickey Rourke show essentially. Both actors have been gracious and publicly supportive of each other so I think the still growing fanbase of The Wrestler (which might have been in more categories if Fox Searchlight had given it more attention and opened it earlier to let it grow naturally with the public) wins this for Mickey in a squeaker. Either one of them would be a dream winner and truly deserving. Every once in a while the Oscar frontrunners are truly the best of the year.

Long story not made short: I think the safer bet is still Penn (the biopic / best picture factor) but I'm going to predict Rourke.

For a few more tossups and the complete predictions...
click on over to the Oscar category index page.
Polls on which contestants you're rooting for will be open until Saturday and results published here.

Oscar Nomination Talking Points (Baker's Dozen)

There's so much to consider each Oscar Nomination morning but here are 13 interesting notes about the just announced nominees - the industry's own opinion on their 'Best' work.

13 Meryl Streep Continues To Make Things Difficult For Everyone Else
Love you Meryl! Scoring her 15th acting nomination she puts further distance between herself and nearest rival Jack Nicholson who has only (ha ha) a measly 12 acting nominations (one more win than Meryl, though). Just about the only person who might be a threat to Meryl in the all-time record books is Kate Winslet, considering that Kate is only 33 years old and has 6 nominations already. Streep only had 4 nominations by that age (although she had won twice... and Kate is still waiting). [Lots more on Meryl]

12 The Guilds are a Problem
Would WALL•E have gained more Oscar Best Picture traction if all of these guilds didn't declare animated films ineligible? I believe it would have. What a shame. It's quite obvious that 50 years from now people will still love WALL•E... but will any of the actual nominees have devoted fans by then? [related posts on WALL•E]

11 Same As It Ever Was...
The 6000+ members of AMPAS weren't quite ready to shake things up, resisting genre films for the hundredth time. They said no to the beautiful and very rare fusion of equal critical/populist pull that both WALL•E & The Dark Knight had going into year end honors. Instead they retreated to their favored genres: biopics, epics and Holocaust dramas being comfort food for those 6,000.

10 An Odd Clint Eastwood Situation
The Academy loves him so the reaction to his two films is slightly eyebrow raising. Gran Torino was shut out completely (did it open too late?) but Changeling managed to win Tom Stern, Eastwood's trusted regular DP, a cinematography nomination. That's a surprise because it's his very first. AMPAS has ignored him over before even when he shot Best Picture nominated films like Million Dollar Baby and Letters From Iwo Jima. He's probably having one of his best mornings ever right about now.

09 Early Bird Get the Worm Nom'
Everyone knows the primo Oscar strategy: Open in December. Fewer studios recognize the other rule. Be First. Especially if you have a film that's primarily a low budget triumph of acting without a huge star. Richard Jenkins (The Visitor) and Melissa Leo (Frozen River) gave great performances but that's never enough (just ask Sally Hawkins). So they should thank their stalwart campaigns for understanding that December releasing isn't smart for smaller films. You have to cement your Deserving Nominee! status before the A listers all arrive, ready and practiced at walking red carpets and sucking all the oxygen out of every room.

08 The 1970s Curse Lifted
Costume Design aficionados rejoice: Milk nabbed Danny Glicker a costume design nomination. I'm not sure how the hell it happened since the 1970s are usually off limits for costume nominations but, yay! I'm quite pleased. It's also in my shortlist but I thought the work way too subtle for the Academy.

07 Penélope Cruz is the Happiest Person in Hollywood Today
With Kate Winslet out of the way in Supporting Actress (what a miracle: The Academy rejected Category Fraud that had been supported by nearly all precursor bodies) and those troubled Catholics in Doubt competing against each other she's probably seeing gold everywhere she looks.

06 The Snubbed
Years from now... Okay, TODAY (who needs to wait?) people will be mortified that the Academy rejected new classics like Bruce Springsteen's "The Wrestler" for Best Original Song or Sally Hawkins film-carrying bliss-inducing nuanced positivity in Happy-Go-Lucky for Best Actress. Those snubs sting. Those snubs suck. Those snubs make no damn sense whatsoever. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?

Another note regarding snubs. No cinematography mentions for either Australia or The Wrestler means the record still stands: no female DP has ever been nominated for that particular honor. (Both made my preferred ballot)

05 Harvey Weinstein is Back. God Help Us All
If you've been an Oscar Watcher for more than the last few years you'd know that he used to run the smartest loudest and most expensive campaigns in his time with Miramax. For whatever reason (money?) the new Weinstein Co hadn't had much Oscar luck and MGM was also almost always a no go, even failing to land Hotel Rwanda in the shortlist in 2004. Until now that is. The Reader surprised nearly everyone to nab 5 nominations, including Picture & Director.

04 It's All in the Timing (Good)
Slumdog Millionaire (November) and Frost/Nixon (December) came out at just the right time. If it had been released even a few weeks later, Slumdog's rabid fan base might not have been as legion since the film had no stars and needed the time to snowball (or avalanche as it were). Frost/Nixon fervor would have dissipated if it had been released earlier --it's entertaining but very lightweight given the competition and the fact that you could always just watch the Frost/Nixon tapes instead.

03 It's All in the Timing (Bad)
The Wrestler (December) and Rachel Getting Married (October) probably came out too late and too early respectively. The Wrestler, a small grungy picture -- in comparison to what Oscar would usually go for -- needed more time to build. Rachel should probably have come out later... it somehow got lost in the shuffle despite pockets of passionate fans. Maybe that Almodovar'ish November slotting would have helped it? It's depressing that Supporting Actress Rosemarie DeWitt who gave a complicated passionate performance, got passed over for honors... but then, the precursor voting bodies are too blame for that, continually shunting her to the side to get bigger stars [cough Amy Adams cough] in Christmas films to attend their functions. I've talked a lot about the December Glut problem but a "glut" at any time of the year can be problematic. The Best Actress glut happened in October with 4 major competitors arriving nearly simultaneously (I've Loved You So Long, Happy-Go-Lucky, Rachel Getting Married and Changeling). As you can see only the biggest stars survived that throwdown come Oscar Nomination time.

Oscar as February bride. Stephen Daldry is the lucky groom. Kate Winslet named their Best Man

02 Stephen Daldry is The Man
He's made only three films and he's been nominated for Best Director every time: Billy Elliott, The Hours and The Reader. I believe that's an all time record.

01 The Dark Knight is the new Dreamgirls?
Not really... Sort of? Nobody expected a Batman film to compete in the Best Picture slot before the movie went and exploded 'round the world but everyone expected Dreamgirls to compete months and months and months before it opened. So, that's a big difference. But they do share two things: They both had fantastic Oscar showings thanks in large part to their sensational absolute locked-to-win Supporting nominee, they're tied for second place in the odd derby of films that seem like Best Picture nominees on account of how many nominations they actually did receive -- In this case, eight. Only the great Depression era miserabilist classic They Shoot Horses Don't They? beats them, still holding the record of most nominations without a corresponding Best Picture bid, nine.

Full Oscar Nomination List
Another Odd Statistic Regarding Best Actress

click for newer posts