New Best Picture Rules...Desperation is Not Becoming

Two years after changing the rules so that ten rather than five films would be nominated for the coveted Best Picture Oscar, it would appear that the bastion of slightly elevated middlebrow establishment masquerading as top-drawer cinematic aesthetic--the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences--is at it again.

They have determined that in order to receive a Best Picture nomination, five percent of a film's votes have to be number one votes on the ranking weighted ballot. This means that the number of nominees will no longer be fixed. From year to year (as long as they keep this policy in place, mind you) the number of films nominated for Best Picture can now range anywhere from five to ten.

I'm not going to talk about how this diminishes the Academy's integrity as a distinguished voting body. That argument has been raised already, by people more eloquent than I with more of an inside baseball perspective. Also, I've long ceased getting all precious about the Academy and the choices they make. They are, after all, just a group of people weighing in on the matter. I do, however find myself wondering what exactly they think it is this move is going to accomplish. And I also wonder about the implementation of such a change following this past particular Oscar year.

What was it about last year that made the AMPAS panic? A year that boasted seven 100 million plus grossing Best Picture nominees and three modest financial successes when one takes relative scale and budget into account. Was it the fact that the Oscar telecast had lower ratings than the previous year, whose Best Picture roster included An Education, A Serious Man and District 9, a veritable "Who's Who" of films your Aunt Martha from Lansing, Kansas has never heard of?

I've already given my thoughts at length about the 83rd Annual Academy Awards telecast, but one thing I neglected to mention was how 2010's crop of nominees were practically gift-wrapped and placed on a silver platter for the Academy. Monster box office? Check. Audience interest? Check. No real stinkers, even by the most lenient, Gene Shalit-y of standards? Check. With so much goodwill going into the ceremony, the producers of the telecast really just had to make it not terrible. Easier said than done, I know. But it's my want, like all internet people, to pass judgment. Still, it should have been like taking an open notes test in school. If you've at least been halfway paying attention and have somewhat of a clue, there's only so much you can fuck it up. Yet everything about the ceremony, from the intriguing but ultimately disappointing choice of host(s) to the confoundedly perplexing/putrid production choices made it a real stinker.

I'm going off on a tangent, but my point is that many of these decisions regarding the tinkering of the Best Picture race are in some way or another related to the telecast. Even while having no real qualms about this particular tweak (more on that later), that simple fact leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. After The Dark Knight (and arguably WALL-E) were not nominated, the list was expanded to ten. Contact me personally if you still think this is a coincidence because I doubt whatever reality-altering medication you're on is over-the-counter and I do enjoy my fun.

With these new rules, we would have likely seen The Kids Are All Right and 127 Hours dropped from last year's roster, leaving us with eight films nominated for the top prize. Some have made the argument that Winter's Bone would have fallen by the wayside as well, but the way Martin Scorsese and Kathryn Bigelow were both thumping for it makes me think it still would have been there. Winter's Bone is precisely the type of film that gets into the race BECAUSE most of it's votes are number one votes. But back to my original question, which is what does this accomplish? Would having The Kids Are All Right or 127 Hours or even Winter's Bone absent from the lineup really have changed anything? Not really. Since October of 2010, the race had been framed as being between The King's Speech and The Social Network. And the producers did their darndest during the telecast to act as if Winter's Bone and The Kids Are All Right didn't exist anyway, so I'm not sure why this change was made. More often than not, we know who's going to win the top prize months before the race is done and no film that's seriously in contention is going to be affected by this switch.

One thing I hope this does accomplish is a return of the lone director nominee, which the ten Best Picture system was threatening to make extinct. I guarantee that although Fernando Meireilles, Pedro Almodovar and David Lynch each received lone Best Director nominations that neither City of God, Talk to Her nor Mulholland Drive would have had enough number one votes to make the Best Picture cut under this newly implemented system. The Academy probably hopes to wind up with a group of Best Picture nominees that people are genuinely excited about rather than six or seven passion projects and three or four ho-hum filler nominees. I can understand, at least on paper, how the decision makers thought that this new policy was the best way to accomplish that goal. But we don't have to look back too far in history, when the Academy nominated only five films, to find sore thumbs like Finding Neverland, Ray, Seabiscuit, Frost/Nixon, Chocolat and The Cider House Rules. These titles all share the dubious distinction of films I can't imagine anyone in a million years being passionate enough about to put at the top of their ballots for Best Picture nominations. And yet there they were...and in years of five, no less. My apologies to anyone who absolutely loves any of the aforementioned titles. I'm not making fun of you. I just didn't know you existed.

I'd be surprised to see this policy last beyond five years. It's nice to stretch and try new things, but reputable organizations, especially those as old as the Academy thrive on consistency. A rotating number of nominees in any category is so...Broadcast Film Critics Association. And I don't think the Academy wants to be the Broadcast Film Critics Association. While a fiscally naive sentiment, I think the Academy should simply embrace the fact that they have their tastes, which are sometimes anomalous and strange to lay outsiders like us. Moves like this almost always read as an apology to the public for the Academy's cinematic proclivities, which isn't what the Oscars are about. Or at least, it's not what they should be about. I've said it many times, but it bears repeating. It is a show, like the Tonys, which is about honoring something that a small segment of the viewing population is interested in/knowledgeable of. That's fine. But I hope the Academy never ceases to consider the people in the room who they're honoring, who the show is actually for. Most people can smell desperation and it's a scent that few are attracted to. So, to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences I say stop scrambling. Relax. Take a breather. And, most importantly, make it about the movies.

Some Random Thoughts on the Academy Awards And My Final Thoughts on 2010 in Film...

Warning: Extremely stream of conscious

The Superficial:
Regarding the presentation itself, I'll keep this brief, as the hosts, the rhythm, the writing, etc. have all been discussed ad nauseum. I'll just say the following: I'm not so naive as to be clueless that a lot of decisions (if not all) are driven by money. Yes, it's true there is a sizable chunk of the Academy Awards viewing audience who don't watch or care about movies and are simply tuning in for the spectacle. These people are real. I've met several of them. I'm sure they are perfectly decent people. But (and here's where the pretension kicks in) they are not an audience that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences should desire to please or even want anything to do with. The Oscars should take a cue from the Tony Awards, The Independent Spirit Awards and even your local industry specific trade show honoring the best in automotive and farm equipment. That is, actually make it about the people in the room you're honoring rather than desperately, transparently, unappealingly and unsuccessfully trying to cater to the lowest common denominator. That is all.

The Winners/Nominees:
An extremely scatter-shot year where the Academy seemed to spread the wealth. But I want to be effusive for a moment and talk about the acting winners. Reading various blogs and awards pundits, I understand there are varying opinions about the merits of Christian Bale, Colin Firth, Melissa Leo and Natalie Portman. For my money, this is the first year in a long time where each of the four acting categories were awarded to both good and iconic performances. I can easily see each of the four actors being remembered for their turns in their respective films. Let me elaborate. Even in years like 2008, which awarded four worthy performances, there were one or two that seem destined to become forgettable. Kate Winslet was fine in The Reader, but that will not be the performance she is remembered for in her career retrospective. If not for the fact that she won an Oscar for it, I bet The Reader might have joined Little Children as one of Winslet's roles people have a hard time remembering twenty-five years from now when sounding off each of her Oscar nominated performances. But Colin Firth's Bertie, Natalie Portman's Nina, Melissa Leo's Alice and Christian Bale's Dicky are all accomplished turns (to varying degrees) and memorable ones as well. What's more fantastic is that my vote would have only gone to one of these performers (Bale) if I actually had a ballot. It was gratifying to watch Natalie Portman, for instance--a limited actress who gave what was easily the weakest performance in her very strong category--win for a very accomplished, tricky turn, also her best to date.

Poor Tom Hooper. The guy is now saddled with winning a Best Director trophy on his first nomination and the backlash is brewing. It's analogous to Ron Howard beating Peter Jackson, Ridley Scott, David Lynch and Robert Altman in 2001, which I hope the Academy looks back upon with the appropriate level of embarrassment. Luckily, Tom Hooper doesn't seem nearly as self-important and fatuous as Ron Howard, but I do wonder what his incentive is to try at this point, since he's been so hastily rewarded for such a pedestrian effort. Fincher, Aronofsky and Russell each created singular pieces of work, without the slightest hint of ambivalence to their direction. The dubious distinction of least deserving among the directing nominees is pretty much a toss-up between Tom Hooper and the Coens. I firmly believe that had No Country for Old Men not won three years ago, we may be have been looking at a True Grit love fest this year. Nonetheless, Hooper unseated some seriously visionary filmmakers to get the win and the look on his face during his acceptance speech (or am I imagining things?) tells me that he seems at least partially aware that the nomination without the win probably would have been better in the long run for his career. Ask Sam Mendes about that one. As the dust settles on 2010, Hooper's win won't smell so fresh, even more so than The King Speech's Best Picture win. He will join the ranks of Carol Reed, John G. Avildsen and Richard Attenborough as anomalous best director winners, regarded with some measure of head-scratching, given that at least two or three of the also-rans in their respective years would have made more interesting and historically resonant alternatives. None of this is to say that I think the guy is a bad filmmaker. He may well surprise in the years to come. I hope I'm wrong. Your move, Hooper.

Back to Best Actress for a moment. I adore Michelle Williams. I'm so glad she exists and I really like what she's giving cinema in terms of prickly, complicated performances in interesting, striking films that are neither commercial nor critical slam dunks on paper. Here she sits with her second Oscar nomination in five years, Busy Phillips still loyally at her side (love that friendship) and wearing it with a mix of clear affection for the work, but mild befuddlement for its recognition. I suspect that had Brokeback Mountain not been her debut nomination, she may have won. Not to take anything away from Rachel Weisz, but 2005's crowning of her lead work in The Constant Gardener as the Best Supporting Actress performance of the year reads as a clear example of what lack of consensus can breed. I suspect the reasoning that year went something like this. "Michelle Williams was great, but...giving an Oscar to a "Dawson's Creek" alum? Let's let her prove herself a little more. Amy Adams in Junebug? Who the hell is Amy Adams? And furthermore, what the hell is Junebug? Catherine Keener? I like her. She's nominated for The 40-Year-Old Virgin, right? Capote? Nah...not enough theatrics. Frances McDormand in North Country? Um...no thanks. Didn't see that movie. Rachel Weisz...she kind of looks like Kate Winslet. She's British, so I'm sure she's good. Plus, I heard the movie's really serious and world conscious. Tic." And scene. Watching the trailer for Meek's Cutoff earlier today, I'm convinced that Michelle Williams will be nominated again in the near future, if not necessarily for that film. She seems committed to making the kinds of films that cinephiles love, even if they leave audiences and most critics cold. I also suspect that she may never win, which is totally fine. Looking at her filmography, it seems that Brokeback Mountain may be as close to Oscar's wheelhouse as she's willing to get. I applaud her choices and it's nothing short of miraculous that her work in Blue Valentine got cited.

What about Jennifer Lawrence, who I've heard referred to as the Carey Mulligan of this year. I hope Lawrence secretly takes umbrage that comparison, given how slight An Education is when propped up against Winter's Bone as a film swept into a ten wide Best Picture field by its central performance. Despite having had no chance to get up on stage and deliver a gushing speech, I still think Lawrence, in the few interviews I saw has made the season work better for her than Mulligan did a year ago. I'm not sure if either will ever see a nomination again (a little over half of first time acting nominees don't), but Lawrence is in a good position right now. She's the acting nominee whose next move I'm most awaiting with bated breath, X-Men: First Class notwithstanding (I'm sorry, that movie just looks silly and I am a huge X-Men fan).

I am less curious about Natalie Portman's next career-move. I say this not to slight her. As I've stated, her performance in Black Swan is handily her best work. It's preferable by a mile to most of the recent Best Actress winners going back as far as Charlize Theron (easily the best of the 2000s winners). That being said, Portman's Oscar-winning turn in Black Swan feels less like a great actress finally getting her due (Kate Winslet) than it does a limited actress with clear strengths and weaknesses finally finding a director and a vehicle that plays to her assets as a performer (Hilary Swank, the first time). This idea that Natalie Portman is overdue for a win and that her laurels for Black Swan are the culmination of a great career is an idea I've heard floated all season from casual and literate movie-watchers alike. Being comfortably familiar with her filmography and looking at what she has coming down the pipe, this is a narrative that I just do not understand, even while having no real qualms about her winning Best Actress for this particular performance. Over at The Film Experience, on a recent podcast, the idea of which Oscar nominated performers could play which of the other Oscar nominated roles was discussed (a fun hypothetical to consider). Natalie Portman's possible inability to play something as naturalistic and stripped down as Michelle Williams's part in Blue Valentine was discussed. I agree wholeheartedly and I'll further submit that Williams, also capable of petite, frail and shrinking, could quite possibly have given us a completely different, but no less captivating Nina Sayers. Nicole Kidman, fabulous in Rabbit Hole (and in general) is an actress who I could also see bringing something interesting to the role, had the project been made fifteen years ago. And though Jennifer Lawrence remains relatively untested, the way she avoided all of the scenery-chewing cliches that could have made her turn in Winter's Bone more showy, sure, but less interesting makes me think we're bound to see a career with real range. I'm not sure Natalie Portman could convincingly play any of the other four Best Actress performances. I'm less sure that she'll ever top her turn in Black Swan and almost certain that she's not necessarily interested in doing so. She seems very content at shrinking away, not just from public life, but from acting in general, so in that way (and many others) it's good she was rewarded for this performance.

I've heard enough griping about The Social Network's wins in both editing and original score that I feel it prudent to address both. First of all, I take issue with the notion that elaborate editing is an automatic catch-all for good editing. In the tech categories, it often seems that best equals most, as evidenced by Alice in Wonderland's baffling Oscar for Best Costume Design and, even more infuriatingly, Best Art Direction. Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall did a marvelous job on The Social Network, juggling three or four different timelines. Flashback and parallel narrative structure i.s really hard to pull off well and The Social Network weaves it all seamlessly and in a way that serves the narrative. 127 Hours, which is much flashier fare, could have done with less cuts (and less obvious cuts), especially in the cave. And hats off to the Academy for recognizing Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross's superb work in the original score category. It's kind of flabbergasting the number of people I've heard gripe about this win who I've never heard comment one way or the other on the a film's score. Atmospheric, minimalist, instantly recognizable and sure to become iconic. At once, everything that an Oscar winning score should be and the type of score they overlook too often.

How I wish I had stuck to my instinct that Roger Deakins wouldn't win for his work in True Grit. Even I fell prey to the groupthink that surrounded the notion that the overdue lenser would finally land a statue, though my gut told me Wally Pfister would get it. If I had my ballot to make over again, I'd probably replace Deakins (who I cited) with Yorick Le Saux for I Am Love or the evocative, unfussy work of Michael McDonough in Winter's Bone, a film which I loved (and love more each time I rewatch), but ultimately won no gold medals in my year-end rewards. Deakins work in True Grit, while tailor made for awards consideration on paper, isn't terribly exciting and I'm fine with his loss here.

In my review of The King's Speech, I stated that both the effusive response of the audience at the theater and the demographic of said audience told me that it would definitely give The Social Network a run for its money. Actually, what I knew in my heart, but probably didn't want to admit at the time, was that it was definitely going to win Best Picture. Ultimately, I'm surprised by how much the outcome didn't really upset me. This is, after all, quite similar to 2005 when Brokeback Moutain lost to Crash in that Best Picture was actually within grasp for my favorite film of the year, but was then given to my least favorite of the nominees. Maybe it's because I saw The Social Network's loss coming and was able to steel myself, whereas Crash's victory over Brokeback Mountain was out of nowhere and still remains unprecedented. And now, five years later, I do think that in a twisted way, appreciate Crash's Best Picture win, if only because of what it revealed about the Academy and what it said about the climate at the time. The King's Speech winning Best Picture for 2010 does not indicate a backslide, but rather says a lot about the cinematic landscape in 2010. Regardless of my misgivings about Bertie and his wacky pals, it was simply too successful in its modest goals and too comfortably within the Oscar wheelhouse to lose. The idea that The Departed, No Country for Old Men and The Hurt Locker represented some changing of the guard at the Academy is a falsehood. It's always about what's going on in each given year. And lest we forget that in 2008, Slumdog Millionaire, a very traditional film with traditional narrative tropes (albeit wrapped in a flashy package) won Best Picture, smack dab in the middle of this supposed new trending towards darker, more forward-thinking and visionary Best Picture winners. If we want to get reductive and talk about The King's Speech equivalent in the years of The Departed, No Country for Old Men and The Hurt Locker, you'd probably be looking at The Queen, Atonement and An Education, all of which were pre-ordained, sight-unseen Oscar bait of various quality and none of which were beloved enough by audiences or the Academy to do as well as The King's Speech did. Will history look kindly on a Best Picture win for The King's Speech? I'm almost certain that it won't. But one can't know for sure. Take The Hurt Locker, which I cited as my favorite (at the time) of the 2009 Best Picture nominees. Even though I'm happy it won, if pressed, I have to admit that I seldom think about the The Hurt Locker a year after the fact. If I had a ballot to cast today, Inglourious Basterds would probably get my vote as the more robust and resonating piece of cinema. It's anyone's guess which 2010 films will rise and fall in terms of my own esteem. I can already tell you that Black Swan and The Fighter, two films I loved in my initial viewings and still admire greatly, have started to experience the dreaded fade. Ungodly numbers of subsequent viewings of The Social Network and Winter's Bone have only made me love those titles more. But for 2010, the Academy has spoken. The King's Speech will be remembered as the film they loved and that, as they say, is that.

Closing Thoughts
Another Oscar year has come and gone and really...what is there left to say? Well, if you've been following my blog, there's plenty. I've been more terse about the Oscar race than I have in the previous two years that I've been operating this blog. Full disclosure (and I'm violating my own policy of not getting delving into my personal life on this blog), my personal aesthetic has gone through a sort of renaissance these past few years. I'm seeing more movies and really discovering, not so much what my tastes are (which has actually changed very little), but I'm developing my own language and vocabulary to communicate those tastes more effectively. I'm so glad I embarked on the Big Pretentious Movie Summer last year. Even if I didn't finish the list, which I ultimately plan to do, it was such a leap forward in my appreciation of filmwatching for its own sake, completely divorced from awards and box office. I watched movies like Interiors, Naked, Midnight Cowboy, Salò or the 120 Days of Sodom, Days of Heaven, Breakfast at Tiffany's, none of which I had seen before and now can't imagine what life was like before having seen them (all the while appreciating them on very different levels). And that being the case, I've learned that the Oscars really must be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not just talking about The King's Speech unseating my favorite film of the year, The Social Network in both Best Picture and Best Director, which I contended on this very blog was likely and very possible, respectively. It's a catch-all. Even when the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences crowns one's favorite film or performance, they are still a just a group of people weighing in on things. Their opinion is not gospel. Never has been, never will be. And that's not a knock on them, because truth be told, no one's opinion is gospel. The Social Network remains, to me, the best film of 2010 as does Hunger the best film of 2009 and Rachel Getting Married of 2008. None of those films won Best Picture and two of the three weren't even nominated--a fact that diminishes none of the immense joy and cinematic discovery I've experienced on repeat viewings of each of these titles. And isn't that what movie watching is all about? As Nathaniel over at The Film Experience wisely states, "A great film is its own reward."

All I Ask...

I'm usually very demanding and discriminating when it comes to evaluating movies...








Nevertheless, I will go see Burlesque when it opens later this month. Lord knows I've enjoyed a lot of films, even of late. This is not about enjoying and respecting a film. I can't for the life of me remember the last time I had fun at the movies. I'm talking me as an eight-year-old, watching Timon and Pumba sing "Hakuna Matata," honest-to-goodness fun. So for Burlesque, I have only one request. And it's a small one. I hope the filmmakers have obliged.


If (if?) Burlesque absolutely must be bad...at least have the good taste to make it very very bad. I'm talking Showgirls bad. I need this.

That is all.

What's to Come

So...The Big Pretentious Movie Summer is in full swing. I've added eleven films to the list. They are:

Leaving Las Vegas - Mike Figgis (1995)*
Autumn Sonata - Ingmar Bergman (1978)
Before Sunrise - Richard Linklater (1995)*
Before Sunset - Richard Linklater (2004)
Birth - Jonathan Glazer (2004)+
Trouble the Water - Tia Lessin and Carl Deal (2008/2009)
The Class - Laurent Cantet (2008)
Toy Story 2 - John Lasseter (1999)
Blade Runner - Ridley Scott (1982)
Morvern Callar - Lynne Ramsay (2002)*
You Can Count on Me - Kenneth Lonergan (2000)

*Films I've already viewed, though they haven't been added to the official list.
+Films I need to re-watch

I've also omitted some films from the list, some for complicated reasons, others for logistical reasons, all of which will be viewed at some point. They are:

Life is Sweet - Mike Leigh (1993)*
Topsy Turvy - Mike Leigh (1999)*
Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice - Paul Mazursky
The Last Detail - Hal Ashby (1973)
Deconstructing Harry - Woody Allen (1997)
Dangerous Liaisons - Stephen Frears (1988)
American Graffiti - George Lucas (1973)+
The Mission - Roland Joffé (1986)
Harvey - Henry Koster (1951)
Wonder Boys - Curtis Hanson (2000)

*I need to find copies of these films somewhere. I still have yet to find a copy of Safe - Todd Haynes (1995), but I think I'll purchase that one.

+One of the whitest people I've ever met with very middlebrow tastes in film and culture in general described this movie as "Kind of overly-nostalgic, dated and a bit too cute." I'll watch it someday, but the clock is ticking and that comment took my already tepid expectations and submerged them in a liquid nitrogen tank.

So, with the new total (adding 11, subtracting 10), that means the total is 156, rather than 155.

Also, towards the end of the year, sometime before the Third Annual Pretentious Movie Awards, I'll be completing my list of best 100 favorite films of the 2000s. I know it was the in-vogue thing to do it last year, when the aughts actually ended, but doing it at the end of 2010 has its advantages. Firstly, I have enough distance from 2009 that I know which films from that list will be in the best of the decade. I will also be doing a list of the top 20 performances in the four acting categories (leading/supporting for male and female) as well as my top five directors of the decade and (just because I can't avoid schaudenfraude) the top 10 overrated films of the decade.

Peace, Love and Pretension.

A Few Thoughts on Inception

I interrupt the regular scheduled programming to give you a few brief thoughts about Inception, because it seems like this week, the world isn't allowed to talk about anything else.

First of all, I liked it, as I have most of Christopher Nolan's films. But I liked it with huge reservation. For better or for worse, I enter a film through the acting and the writing (in that order). The fact that more than half of the cast can boast the title "Academy Award nominee" and more than half of those people are actually deserving of the honor, there's no reason to expect phoned-in thesp-ing. And for the most part, the acting here is quite serviceable, with a few notable exceptions. Any accusations of thin performances are not solely the fault of the actors here, who do what they can to compensate for the fact that they are not playing characters, but rather ideas "projections of Christopher Nolan's subconscious," if you will. For a film that is all about the subconscious and levels thereof, it certainly states its ideas rather obtusely, and repeatedly.

This is especially true of the two women, one of whom (Marion Cotillard's "Mal") actually is a projection of the subconscious. Christopher Nolan has demonstrated that he cannot write female characters, from Natalie, Rachel Dawes, Olivia Wenscombe, to now Mal and Ariadne (Ellen Page). I know that Nolan's fanbase skews male, so I'll tread lightly here because they seem to think he's a great writer, director, producer, singer, dancer, impressionist painter, et. al. Actually, I won't tread lightly. A great writer is a keen observer of the world in which they live. Women are kind of everywhere. Why then the thin, flimsy characterizations? I love the choices that some of his actresses make, certainly. Carrie-Ann Moss, especially. The fact that Maggie Gyllenhaal improved tenfold upon Katie Holmes's Rachel Dawes while still sleepwalking (sorry, Maggie. I love you, but let's not rewrite history) through The Dark Knight is a testament to his ability to at least cast capable actresses. I'm sure you have it in you, Nolan. Ellen Page's Ariadne could have been replaced by some kind of talking computer and it wouldn't have made a difference. Her character is given no backstory, no motivation, no frame of reference, which would be fine if she weren't risking her mental dexterity through dream espionage (call me old fashioned, but I'd kind of like to know why).

Visually, I've heard a lot of arguments that the dreams in this film are not "dreamlike" enough. Joe Reid over at Low Resolution beat me to the punch by pointing out that the dreams in Inception are specifically designed by architects. Of the problems in this film (and there are several), wanting for a believable dreamscape was not one of them. A lot of the dream sequences were pretty damn breathtaking, actually. For the record, I found the falling van to be an incredible plot device. The film is not perfect, but let's give credit where its due, shall we? I (for the record) hate The Matrix with ever fiber of my being, but you can never say that movie lacks for...um...luridness.

Here's the bottom line (and feel free to disagree), but the people who are calling Inception a masterpiece AND the people calling it an utter disaster are two sides of the same coin. They're both wrong. They both need to get a grip. And they both (for the most part) are guilty of steeling themselves prior to viewing the film for how incredible or shitty they thought it was going to be. We can't pretend that we're immune to hype and advertising when it comes to new releases. Inception was already in the IMDb top 250 of all time before it even officially came out (sidebar: at any given time, the IMDb top 250 list looks like it was mostly devised by an afternoon tribunal featuring a five-year-old boy, a thirteen-year-old boy, an Octogenarian of any gender, Mel Gibson and one graduate film student with crowd anxiety). We can't pretend that hearing those kind of effusive reviews weren't tipping people in one direction or the other, whether they're susceptible to group think or contrarianism for its own sake (another form of group think). The Dark Knight was too fresh in people's memory as either an overblown fanboy annoyance, or the second coming for the reaction to Nolan's latest flick to be pure (if there is ever a pure reaction to any film). That's why I found so heartening about the reaction to a movie like Avatar. Love it or hate it (I liked it a whole lot), but you had people from all levels of tiers of film criticism (from the lowbrow to middle to high) having varied reactions to the film. You never got a sense from the Avatar fans that it wasn't okay to disagree, whereas the Inception fans are ready to make virginal sacrifices to Christopher Nolan.

Despite all of my misgivings, I did enjoy Inception. Hey, if you were in LA or New York that week, I would have recommended seeing The Kids Are All Right instead (another imperfect film, but a more satisfying one), but there are worse ways to wile away the summer hours. And before all the talk of "overrated, doesn't deserve it, blah blah blah" begins, I'm going to say now that I'm for Inception's best picture nomination, which everyone seems to think is inevitable (I have my doubts). I'm for it for several reasons. Firstly, it's a solid B-, which means it will almost assuredly not appear on my personal year-end top ten list. But that same grade also means that it will likely be preferable to at least 20% of the viable contenders gunning for a spot on the ten-wide list. Also, it can't hurt the Academy to expand its mind a little. The more years we have in a row where the best picture list embraces films like Avatar, District 9 and Inception (none of which are films I passionately love), the more likely it is that they'll continue to be adventurous when the rules revert the best picture list back to five nominees. Lastly, I want Inception to get nominated for best picture because I can remember the grousing and griping that went on when The Dark Knight got overlooked and...I just don't want to have to listen to it again.

Grade: B-

Another Small Programming Note...

I can't seem to track down a copy of Mike Leigh's Life is Sweet (what a sad world we live in...). I may have to VHS it. But in the meantime, I'll be watching Naked in its stead. I'm also adding Leaving Las Vegas to the miscellaneous list. That's all.

Small Programming Note

"What? This moulinyan is taking a break from Scorsese? Oh! Oh! Oh!"

Regarding the Big Pretentious Movie Summer (which is still going strong and off to a great start), logistical factors have caused me to divert from Scorsese. Nothing against the man himself (I've enjoyed his films immensely, for the most part). However, it appears the AFI library's copy of Casino has gone AWOL, so I'll have to Netflix it. Rather than skipping over to 2004's The Aviator, I'm taking a break from Scorsese for now and will return next weekend. I'm also jumping all over the place. I've moved on to Woody Allen, as that's what's calling out to me right now. And I'm feeling oddly unmotivated to watch His Girl Friday (should I get on that?) from the misc. list and skipped to Easy Rider, Midnight Cowboy and Jaws this week. Everything will get watched in its time.

Peace, Love and Pretension

Why "Big Love" is the best show on television right now...

I'll Keep This Brief...But it Really Needs to be Said

So, Zac Efron, Taylor Lautner, Miley Cyrus and Kristen Stewart will all be presenters at the 82nd Academy Awards...

I will concede that I'm a snob. I'll own that. I'll admit it every day of the week and twice on Sundays. But that being the case, even I have found myself making apologies for every one of those people, except Taylor Lautner, about whom I literally know nothing. I even did a write-up of Kristen Stewart on this very blog, calling her one to watch. Granted, that was followed up by an errata once this Twilight nonsense broke and Stewart revealed herself to be an entitled twit who not only masquerades stupidity as cool, disaffected apathy, but is obnoxiously proud of said stupidity. I digress...

The fact of the matter is, there's room for everyone in popular culture. But the fans of Zac, Miley, Kristen and Taylor have seemingly endless opportunities to see these people. If I, as a film-lover, can't turn to the Academy Awards to see someone like Lauren Bacall being honored, then where can I turn? And no, giving Ms. Bacall her own separate but equal untelevised awards ceremony isn't a solution. It's rather disrespectful, actually, when you take into account the people who are allowed to be shown onstage at the telecast. I know it's about ratings, but come on people...have a little integrity. Let me draw an analogy.

I have little or no interest in cars. Therefore, you will not likely catch me at an auto show. That's the way it is and the organizers should not trot out Pedro Almodovar, Spike Lee or Todd Haynes as presenters to try and coax my attendance. It would work, yes, but I don't like cars! I am not the intended audience for that function! When you try to be all things to all people, you lose the wonderful specificities that inform identity. Bottom line: Miley Cyrus, Taylor Lautner, Kristen Stewart and Zac Efron don't have jackshit to do with the Academy Awards. Its organizers should think about that for just a moment.

That is all.

What's to Come

Hello all. I will begin posting my year end film awards today. As a result, my "Best of the Aughts" series will have to take a backseat.

I will also be posting brief thoughts on the Golden Globes and the Critics Choice Awards, though I have decided not to cover Oscar precursors nearly as heavily as I did last year. Anyway, coming soon are the 2nd Annual Pretentious Film Award Nominees for Best Supporting Actress.

Tah!

Sometimes I Blog...

So, once again I allowed life to sweep me up and away and I haven't blogged in over a month. Grad school has been amazing and challenging (and quite the time-suck), so I have an excuse. Plus (ahem) I premiered my feature film in Atlanta. I'm not one for hyperbole, but seeing a feature film I directed on the big screen, as well as having the title of my film on the marquee of a theater that I've been going to for years made for the best night of my very young life. But enough about me...

So, awards season has already started. There's no point in even posting the BFCA, Globe, NBR or SAG nominees at this point. You've heard about them ad-nauseum elsewhere by now. I plan to post reviews/mini-reviews of films I've seen recently (Up in the Air, The Road, Invictus, Avatar, Brothers, etc). I have to run down my list, but I'm fairly certain I have a little under ten films left that I absolutely need to see. I'll be posting more in the next few weeks.

Peace, Love and Pretension.

Up in the Air with Reitman and other thoughts

I just saw Up in the Air yesterday. I can't talk about it too much (my thoughts are too fresh on it for the moment) but let's say...I enjoyed it. It's pretty much impossible not to. Let me just say, regarding the Oscar talk, people are right about...

Clooney. His very recent win for Syriana, plus the fact that some will read this performance as easy effortless for Clooney, PLUS the Colin Firth/Jeff Bridges factor will likely prohibit him from winning. But he should snag his third nomination, no problem.

Anna Kendrick. She's plucky and funny (two things that often get you noticed in the supporting actress category) and she brings layers to what is essentially a caricature. In a category that only seems to have one lock (Mo'Nique for Precious) and one "probably" (Julianne Moore for A Single Man) I don't see how Kendrick misses here, what with the Nine ladies causing confusion left and right with this Cotillard lead/supporting mess.

I'm less sure about...

Vera Farmiga. Her performance is a lot quieter than Kendrick's and she suffers (**spoiler alert**) the unlikeable character conundrum, which tends to hurt women more than men. I may be wrong, but I'm not thinking she gets nominated for this.

Picture. I know it's a ten-wide field, but I could still see Up in the Air missing. It's not the total slam-dunk it's being built up to be. The film's third act almost collapses under the weight of everything before it. The tonal shifts provide a sort of narrative whiplash. It's not going to be a massive crowd-pleaser like Juno (again, I could be wrong, and maybe projecting a little in this case). What could potentially help Up in the Air is its own perceived relevance to the current economic recession. Potentially. But (without going into too much detail), I'll say that that's problematic in and of itself and I'm sure a lot more reviewers will discuss this at length after the movie is released. All of these comments seems to suggest that I liked the movie a lot less than I did, by the way. It's a good film.

Other thoughts:

Reitman can light up a room. He speaks very honestly about his experiences as a filmmaker and I didn't detect one trace of bullshit or entitlement, even when people asked him incredibly stupid questions. He's also very charming and funny, in a way that's completely unforced and unaffected. Kind of like how I imagine Clooney to be, honestly (aside: I know people read Clooney's coolness as smugness, but I don't...or if I do, I'm okay with it. He has the talent in front of and behind the camera to back it up. And I believe that infamous 2005 Oscar speech came from a place of genuine sentiment about how proud he is to work in what he feels is an increasingly progressive industry. It's not his fault that the Academy underwrote everything he said by giving best picture to Crash a couple of hours later. aside over). Reitman has also managed to make three good feature films at a relatively young age. It may not be for this film, but if he ever gets a chance to get up on stage, I think we'd be in for a great Oscar speech. Specific, funny and personal the likes we haven't seen since Ms. Swinton. I hope he presses on.

Full Review to Come


****Apropos to nothing, I feel it prudent to publish a mea culpa regarding my post about Lady Gaga. What can I say? The gal is talented. I concede. Sure, nearly every one of her fans I've encountered is a culturally-anorexic queen who's also currently in line to buy tickets for the new Twilight movie. But I'm not going to hold that against her. There's a right way to be pretentious and a wrong way. I'm a firm believer in hate fanboys, not the phenomenon. Mostly, I just got caught up in the fact that Perez Hilton likes her in a "friend of my enemy is my enemy" sort of way. Je suis désolé, Gaga.

Happy Birthday, Maggie

May you stay just as you are.



I made you a little cake.


What? It's not "Magaggie's" birthday?

The worst trailer I've seen...this week

So, the trailer for Dear John, starring Amanda Seyfried, Channing Tatum and directed by Lasse Halstrom is up on Apple. Oh, and it's based on a Nicholas Sparks novel...
I am at a loss for words as to how unbelievably trite/stupid this movie looks.

"She's a good girl who's inexperienced in love. He's the bad boy from the wrong side of the tracks with a sensitive side that only she can get to. Oh, and he's a surfer. And his father is dying. And then he's fighting in Iraq(?) for some reason. And...go!"

Seriously, doesn't it seem like they make this movie every year? Furthermore, hasn't Nicholas Sparks himself written novels that have inspired something like three or four movies EXACTLY like this? A Walk to Remember, The Notebook and now this. I'm forced to ask, is Nicholas Sparks even a real person? Perhaps he's just the name of a computer that's programmed to write the same stupid romance novel over and over again with slightly different character names and settings. I see the words "From the author of The Notebook" in a movie trailer and I just...deflate.

And then there's Lasse Halstrom, the director who hasn't given us a halfway decent film since What's Eating Gilbert Grape? With his almost preternatural penchant for hokum and syrupy-sweet dramatics, this is exactly the type of project Halstrom should be forbidden to work on for the same reason Robin Williams should be forbidden from any movie that forces/allows him to do a "funny" accent. This material only serves to further indulge all of Halstrom's worst impulses as a filmmaker.

All I'm saying is that when Amanda Seyfried can't even get my ass into a seat, then be afraid because I LOVE Amanda Seyfried. I have the Mamma Mia! ticket stub to attest to this fact.

Lady Gaga...I'm not Buying it.

Lady Gaga bothers me...okay, that's not exactly true. I don't really feel one way or another about Lady Gaga. I don't love her. I don't hate her. What bothers me about her is very indicative of what bothers me with the modern gay rights movement in general. What bothers me is the way she's suddenly been appointed grand marshal of the gay rights movement. I wish the community was more capable of some complex, analytical though. I wish that all the gay men fawning over Lady Gaga were able to look at her, break her down into digestible parts and see her for what she is. Perez Hilton will publish photos of Lady Gaga in her crazy getups, and praise her being artistic and "ferosh." Really? Silly me. Here I was thinking that being an artist means having something to say that's intelligent/ culturally resonant. If slapping on some glitter eye-liner, a shimmery thong and an Indian headress made of dildos makes you an artist, then it's pretty easy to be an artist. Kind of diminishes it for the rest of the artists, that distinction that's been bestowed upon Ms. Gaga. I know that Lady Gaga has made several public speeches uplifting the gay community, and promoting gay rights. But that doesn't make her some great humanitarian. That makes her smart. No shit, Sherlock. You mean someone whose top singles are titled "Let's Dance" and "Paparazzi" can't afford to alienate the gay community? Stop the presses! Yeah, I know. Supposedly, she can actually sing and play the piano. I know she was accepted to Julliard. Props. But that's Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta we're talking about. Not Lady Gaga. I don't buy into the Lady Gaga myth. As "shocking" as her outward appearance is, if you listen to her music, you'll hear how innocuous and silly it is. She's not saying anything radical or important that warrants the facade she puts forth. It just comes off as laughably desperate to me. "Look at me! Aren't I outrageous?" No. Not really, actually. Bjork is outrageous. Bjork is a freak. She dresses freaky, she does freaky things and she makes freaky music that upsets some people. But if you take away the first part, she's still freaky. I don't really have a lot of patience for people who wear everything that makes them interesting on the outside. From Lady Gaga, to the hipster chicks in suspenders and vintage lunch boxes for purses in East Atlanta--two sides of the same obnoxious coin. Bjork earns her crazy appearance but you can kind of only pull that off if you're an artist in every aspect of your life. And most real artists don't need it. Look at Lenny Bruce, Cat Stevens, Toni Morrison, Sylvia Plath, Richard Pryor, Ernest Hemingway. These people all dressed very plainly. Why is that? Perhaps because they were too busy turning heads with their IDEAS to worry about which outfit would turn the most heads at the Video Music Awards.

Her music sure is catchy though.

A Few Thoughts...I'm Re-Vamping

Now that Oscar season is officially over, I've noticed how many of my posts have been dedicated exclusively to the topic. Not that I'm making apologies. I've long admitted that I'm a fanatic. Now 'tis time to talk of other things. I saw Watchmen last night and will post some sort of review within the next couple of days.

I will say a few things about certain topics which I don't feel need to be discussed. So in a way, I'm going to be part of the problem. But it's my blog, so suck it.

I've long avoided making any comment about the Chris Brown/Rihanna situation for any number of reasons, but here are my thoughts on this matter, which is being shoved down my throat as our generation's Watergate at every turn. This is going to sound incredibly insensitive, but hear me out. I don't care that Chris Brown allegedly beat the crap out of Rihanna. I'm sorry, but I don't. Let me clarify. I don't care about Chris Brown beating up Rihanna any more than I do about the legions of people who are physically abused by their spouse or partner every day. I know they're famous, but I don't subscribe to the school of thought that one's fame makes their uniquely painful or upsetting because of said fame, if that makes sense. I guess that's why I'm me and not Nancy O'Dell. And the uproar that people are feeling now that she has supposedly taken him back...I will just say this: Even if I was someone who cared deeply about this celeb-saga, that bit of news would make me stop caring. As someone who has lost family members to domestic violence, I feel that for someone like Rihanna, with all of her money, fame and resources, to re-enter an abusive relationship is kind of fucking ridiculous. Seriously. People who are deeply obsessed with Rihanna's well-being should commence hand-washing right about now, dontcha think? I'm not blaming the victim. I'm simply pointing out a situation in which only the victim can save him or herself. That's all. (An aside: doesn't she kind of look like she could take him anyway? Just saying...)

Secondly....
Regarding this whole "Octo-mom" thing. I luckily have NOT been following this story (I'm so proud.) The words "Octo-mom" are about all I know of what's going on. But by granting her this kind of pulpit (she's fucking everywhere, right?) isn't the media sort of fueling the same thing they're condemning her for? They say that she only had this many babies for the attention. Okay, fine. So don't give it to her. But that would be too difficult, wouldn't it? Such is the power of schadenfreude that people would sooner see her face plastered all over the place, rather than leaving her alone to contemplate the incredibly selfish, short-sighted mess she's created for herself.

Peace, Love and Pretension.

Oscar Diversion--An Open Letter

An Open Letter to the Person(s) Responsible for Katie Holmes Presenting Outstanding Male Actor in a Leading Role at the Screen Actors Guild Awards,

Hello, there. Thank you for taking time out of your busy day to stumble randomly upon my blog. I will be as brief as possible and I hope in no way to offend in any way. I could be talking to any number of people--the producers of the SAG Awards, the President of SAG, the team that represents Ms. Holmes, or possibly even Mr. Cruise. Most likely, this is best addressed to some combination of the above, give or take people/associations I haven't even thought of in my limited, Hollywood-outsider scope.
I guess my first question would be why? Why was Katie Holmes presenting Best Actor at the Screen Actors Guild's High Holy Night? My inquiries are not random or arbitrary. I will support them plainly and dispassionately with fact. Fair enough?
The presenters of the other acting awards were as follows:

Best Supporting Actess: Greg Kinnear, an Academy Award nominated screen actor, co-recipient of the Best Ensemble Prize for Little Miss Sunshine in 2006 and star of three major motion picture releases from 2008.

Best Supporting Actor: Kristin Scott Thomas, star of 2008's critically acclaimed I've Loved You So Long. Three time SAG award nominated actress, and co-recipient for 2001's Best Ensemble Prize for Gosford Park. She is also Academy Award nominated for her performance in The English Patient and now moves seamlessly between french and english language performances.

Best Leading Actor: Ralph Fiennes. Nominated at SAG for his performance in Bernard and Doris. Also nominated for his performance in The English Patient (for which he received an Oscar nomination). Oscar nominated for Schindler's List and the star of four major motion pictures in 2008--The Hurt Locker, The Reader, The Duchess and In Bruges.

---This is misleading and implies a high esteem, which I don't automatically grant to awards citation. But I'm mainly focusing on contributions to the world of film and acting in general.

Finally, we arrive at Ms. Holmes. Her only contribution to the world of film in 2008 was the critical and commercial failure that was Mad Money. Prior to that, she last appeared in a film in 2005. Two actually. The clever Thank You For Smoking and the stepping stone that was Batman Begins. But the world has moved beyond both of these films in more ways than one. Their respective directors, Jason Reitman and Christopher Nolan, will surely be remembered, but for films other than these. Oh, I almost forgot. She starred on a few episodes of "Eli Stone" in 2008. So that's one feature film, and a guest stint on a now cancelled ABC dramedy.

When choosing the presenters of the other acting awards, some thought was obviously given about what contribution these thesps have made to the world of acting. Kristin Scott Thomas, Ralph Fiennes and Greg Kinnear are three performers about whom my opinion varies greatly, but I get it. And I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I don't get Katie Holmes being included on this list. It's very much a case of "one of these things is not like the other." Why was she allowed to do this? Is it because she's married to Tom Cruise? It makes about as much sense to me as having, say, Rita Wilson present. She's an actress too (I think). And hey, she's also married to a more famous actor named Tom! But that would be strange. It would make people say "huh?" Why? Because Rita Wilson didn't DO anything last year except be Tom Hanks's wife. With the exception of the aforementioned Mad Money, the same can be said about Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise respectively. Why is she being rewarded for being married to Tom Cruise? Is it because she's America's sweetheart? Because I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but she isn't. Katie Holmes is actually an anomaly on that front, in that she was a middling former television actress, struggling to transition into film when she married mega-mega-mega star Tom Cruise...and it made her career WORSE. Strange, no? It's a bizarre equation--a math proof that only Will Hunting himself could solve. But I digress.

In summation, Katie Holmes is not a fine actor, she doesn't work often (especially when comparing her to the other presenters) and (unless I'm really misreading the climate of, well...America) is not well-liked by any stretch of the imagination. The most interesting thing she has done, both in and out of the world of cinema is marrying Tom Cruise and bearing him a child. I say this not to be mean, but to genuinely raise a question. Why was Katie Holmes chosen as a presenter at the Screen Actors Guild Awards and what do we need to brace ourselves for in the future? I will understand if you are reluctant to answer.

Yours Truly,

The Pretentious Know it All

Barack Obama should be ashamed

Electronic Cerebrectomy is one of my favorite, if not my favorite blogs. The administrator, who calls himself SamuraiFrog gave a great assessment of something that's been bothering me recently in a post earlier today.

"I’m very unhappy when it comes to Barack Obama’s decision to ask homophobic hatemonger Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. This is a hurtful choice. Many of us don’t find Warren’s hate speech acceptable in a civilized world. And for the gay population, this is an affront. Warren successfully spearheaded legislation to strip a segment of one state of their civil rights because they don’t line up with his religious agenda, and he’d like to do the same for the country. Imagine that this man has been telling you that your lifestyle is sick and wrong, that you’re marriage is invalid, that your feelings of love for someone of the same sex are morally the same as pedophilia, bestiality, and incest... and now the next President of the United States is legitimizing those words by putting him in a place of high honor at his own inauguration. Now, I will admit that Obama is more inclusive of gays and lesbians than any president has been before. But Obama is wrong when he calls himself “a fierce advocate” of civil equality and his view on gay marriage amounts to, let’s just say it, separate but equal. That’s not civil equality. That’s backward thinking. And, frankly, Obama’s attempt to defend this by saying he was invited to speak at Warren’s church (as were many others) is weak and lame. Bringing people together doesn’t mean you invite the Grand Dragon to a national audience. And once again gay people have been put in this disgusting position, as they were with the protest of Mormons, of being made to look as if they’re solely liberal and solely against faith. It’s a distortion that Warren keeps returning to, and it denies the diversity of gay and lesbian Americans; this is not a protest against faith and the political right, this is a protest against the language of hate. As a non-believer and a supporter of equal rights for all and as a human being, I’m offended that Rick Warren has been invited to participate. Gay bashing is not acceptable, and nothing is going to change that. And to see Barack Obama, the first black president, the man who liberals kept telling me was symbolic of a new era of acceptance and tolerance and equality and diversity, asking a man who represents oppression and hate to speak the words of a deity that so many believe in, it makes me sad and angry."
-Samurai Frog.

And really, what else is there to say? Well, I have something to add. This whole thing about Barack Obama and Rick Warren really angers me for all of the obvious reasons. But one aspect of this whole fiasco, which I think people have really failed to hit on, is how stupid and avoidable it was. Why did Obama have to pick Rick Warren to give the invocation? He could have picked anyone and he chooses this guy? And at a time when gays are (rightly so) furious about the state of affairs in this country that came to a head with the passing of Proposition 8. AND when black people are (wrongly) being assigned blame for said passing. Obama could have easily chosen a more progressive, inclusive Christian minister. Wouldn't that be representative of the change he purports to personify? At the very least, he could have chosen a preacher who isn't so vocally bigoted and hateful. Obama winning me over has been a slow process, like I've stated on this blog. I'm for him. I want him to do well. But I have a healthy critical attitude about him. But he was showing a shrewdness and an intelligence when it came to choosing his cabinet, and other decisions about his presidency. He was slowly pulling me in. But this Rick Warren thing really and truly gets to the heart of what I DON'T like about Barack Obama. His desire to please everyone. It's such an obvious ploy to pull the religious right onto his side, maybe sink in a few of those people who still doubt whether or not he's truly a Christian or a "MOOZ-LAM." There's playing the game, and then there's playing into people's hatred and fear. Obama did the latter.

If My Top Ten of '08 List Came out Today...

It'd probably look something like this:

1. Rachel Getting Married
(followed by a big jump)
2. Synechdoche, New York (though I still need to see it again. It's incredibly heartwrenching, I'll say that.)
3. Happy-Go-Lucky
4. The Dark Knight
5. Vicky Cristina Barcelona
6. A Girl Cut in Two
7. Burn After Reading
8. Stop Loss
9. Frozen River
10. Quantum of Solace

My Acting Awards would go to:

Best Actress in a Leading Role:
Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married. Period. The End.

Best Actor in a Leading Role:
Hmm...I guess, it would go to Phillip Seymour Hoffman for Synechdoche, New York. But, honestly, there hasn't been a leading male performance I've seen this year that's made me go "Wow" yet. Isn't that sad? I still need to watch The Visitor and Elegy. And of course, there's Milk on Sunday, which (I'm not getting my hopes up too much...okay, maybe I am) may change things...

Best Supporting Actress
I'm really REALLY tempted to say Dianne Wiest in Synechdoche, New York...so different from anything she's ever done before. But I suppose, when the freshness wears down, my heart will still settle on Rosemarie Dewitt for Rachel Getting Married. I also want to acknowledge Misty Upham in Frozen River and Penelope Cruz for Vicky Cristina Barcelona, both of whom are sure to make my shortlist come year's end.

Best Supporting Actor:
Believe it or not, it's a tight contest between Benoît Magimel for A Girl Cut in Two and Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight. But I think I'm going with Heath.

This is of course without the benefit of having seen Australia, which I'm seeing tomorrow, Milk, which I'm seeing Sunday. Plus, I plan on watching Elegy, The Visitor, The Duchess, Wall-E plus a few others I have missed. It seems very unlikely at this point that there's a film that could come out this year that could possibly knock Rachel Getting Married or Hathaway out of their respective top spots. But we shall see...

State of the Race and Random Thoughts

There hasn't been much to report. I'll be adding a new top ten pretty much right after this post. Regarding the Oscar race, there are a few developments in my thoughts/predictions. Firstly, after seeing Rachel Getting Married three times now (yes, three times. Yes I'm obsessed) my love for the film remains at a fevered pitch. However, my confidence is dwindling that it will be enough of a crowd pleaser/sleeper hit that small films like this one often need to be in order to garner a Best Picture nomination. The hand-held style, the subject matter, the abrasiveness of the main character...it all makes for a very polarizing movie-going experience. I will defend Rachel Getting Married to the bitter end, but I saw it with different people each time. The responses were mixed, as well as the responses (I gathered) from people leaving the theater. I still think that Hathaway will ultimately get a nomination as a final coronation and recognition of her gradual ascent into full-on movie stardom, with the acting chops and the pedigree to back it up. But this year's Juno or Little Miss Sunshine it will not be. That distinction will probably belong to Slumdog Millionaire, which I took off of my best picture predictions a few weeks ago. Now that it's gone semi-wide, and the reviews are rolling in (including a four-star kiss from Roger Ebert), the buzz officially gone from whispery festival kudos to deafening shouts. I may be wrong, but Danny Boyle's offering seems too big too ignore. They have nothing to do with each other, but for some reason, I just don't see a best picture field that includes both Slumdog Millionaire and Rachel Getting Married. And it looks like Slumdog is probably in... Of course, I can't judge for myself because Atlanta, insisting on always being two steps behind the rest of the world, won't be getting Slumdog Millionaire until December, unless I'm mistaken. Sucks. I am seeing Synechdoche, New York tomorrow and will post a review later this week.

Regarding Revolutionary Road, The Reader and the double-dipping for Ms. Winslet (trying to get her that double-nomination that she was on the cusp of in 2004), I will say this. Everyone seems to be predicting Revolutionary Road as the better contender for Best Picture, inlcuding myself (until now). The Reader had release date troubles, issues with producers and the re-casting of Winslet in a part that was meant for Nicole Kidman. But both films have ridiculously late release dates (when will studios learn that the late December rollouts aren't working the Oscar magic they used to?) and their are detractors from both. More from Revolutionary Road, if you really think about it. I've always said that the Titanic reunion is the biggest thing going for RR's Oscar chances and its chances to enchant the public. Do films about marital woes really have mass public appeal? And Sam Mendes has made some nice films since American Beauty, but neither has translated to real Oscar buzz, at least not in the category Best Picture. What about Stephen Daldry? He's been nom'd for director twice, and The Hours was a serious threat to unseat Chicago from its 2002 best picture win. Plus, there is the awards-magnet subject that is the Holocaust. It doesn't always work, but when it rains it pours, n'est pas? This has little to do with Winslet. Even if Revolutionary Road's chances fizzle and dissipate, she can still get a nomination. She still got a nomination in 2006 for Little Children and who besides me was even thinking of that movie come January? This may seem rambly, but my point is that Revolutionary Road has a lot of hurdles to overcome. Less than The Reader, which also has its share. On paper, I think The Reader has a better chance of getting a nomination and at this point I don't think either of them will, so that tells you what I think of Revolutionary Road's chances.

As for Milk, it's really been under the radar. Early buzz is positive, but incredibly hushed. It hasn't been released wide and you can't really expect an objective take on the film based on those who saw it at the screening in San Fran a few weeks ago. But I still have faith that Milk is going to be that film. My faith in Australia fluctuates daily. I hope. I will always hope. But only time will tell...