An Academy voter speaks about Shorts, Foreign Language Film, and the voting process. Says (s)he prefers 5 Best Picture nominees.

Awards season has finally come to its final stretch. Technically, Academy Awards campaigning has reached its final few hours since the voting officially closes today at 5pm PT before Sunday March 2^nd’s telecast. I know it’s one of those things people say every year, but this year really seems unique in terms of how close of a race we’ve been witnessing in the still open Best Picture category. Many pundits are predicting a split, picture going to 12 Years A Slave and director going to Alfonso Cuarón for Gravity.  

While many talk about either clear frontrunners (such as Cate Blanchett for Best Actress), or close races (such as Lupita Nyong’o or Jennifer Lawrence for Best Supporting Actress) in major categories, I have been wondering about the relatively “smaller” races, in Short Films and Foreign Language categories, mainly because of the voting changes that have taken effect in the last couple of years. This is the second year all AMPAS members are invited to vote on Best Documentary, Best Animated and Live Action Short categories (members started getting screeners for these last year and are no longer required to attend official screenings). And this is also the very first year all members are invited to vote on Foreign Language and Best Documentary Short categories. I wondered how Academy members react to these changes, and whether their voting has been impacted in a way that might change the results, favoring the more popular titles among a pool of nominees that members didn’t necessarily watch in their entirety on screeners. Then I thought, what better person is there to ask than a voting Academy member. I am grateful that someone agreed to talk to me not only about these questions, but also more about this year and voting in general.

I am of course going to keep their identity a secret. When Daily Beast did an interview with a voting member, he/she was named “Pat”. I’ll call my source “Sam”. Because, why not?

Thank you, Sam, for agreeing to talk to me. My first question is regarding the Shorts, and Foreign categories. Until recently, members who’d like to vote on these had to attend Academy-hosted screenings. Now every member gets screeners. How did this change your voting? Do you see the films, or vote based on popular word?

I know what they [AMPAS] were trying to do: making sure that those categories were a little less exclusive. The problem is that, you don’t really know when you get a screener if people are really going to watch it. Foreign films and docs are not easy to watch like the more commercial movies. You have to really pay attention. And I think it will definitely have an effect on the winners. It’s good in the sense that you get thousands of votes. But when you had to attend a screening, at least you knew that people saw the film in its entirety. I was talking to a voter about Foreign Film, who said (s)he put the Italian movie down eventhough (s)he didn't see it entirely. So you don’t really know who’s going to watch.

The ballot is still valid if you skip a category, right?

Yes. Do I find that people skip categories? I think some people do. And I think some people will vote if they haven’t seen all the films, based on what they read, who they know. Sometimes you ask, “Should I vote for something that’s politically correct or vote for something that I really like even if it may not be the best movie?” It’s really a tough call. That said, I think New York voters are really different than California voters.

The Great Beauty

How so?

I find that the people I’m talking to [in New York] liked a certain film in Foreign Language. They really REALLY like The Great Beauty. I was talking to somebody who does awards consulting based in LA and found that people out in California really seem to love The Hunt.

Wow.

And to me, there’s no comparison. The Hunt is a really good movie. But it’s not breaking new ground. I think Great Beauty is a fantastic movie. Brings back the way people first saw Fellini back in the 60s. The Great Beauty to me is another category by itself but a lot people didn’t really respond to it in California.

Have you seen the shorts? Are you voting?

I’ve seen them all. And I didn’t see them on screener. I went to the screening. 

I was slightly underwhelmed by the animated crop. But thought live action was really strong this year.

Oh I thought the animation was also very strong this year. The doc shorts were OK. The live action shorts were very good.

Just Before Losing Everything was great.

That was actually my favorite one. And some people I spoke to really like Helium. It was a nice movie, but it didn’t have the same effect on me as the French film (Just Before Losing Everything). It was a little too much. But I was surprised, talking to people in the theater. By the way, among the New York Academy members, there is a core group that actually goes to screenings. And you see each other twice a week and become friends. It’s actually amazing how so few people in the NY branch come to screenings. Although I would say with the shorts, there were 50 members in the screening room. Considering they all got their screeners and made it out to see it in bad weather, it is a very good number.

Just Before Losing Everything

Do you think Academy should go back to the requirement that you have to attend a screening?

I think if they’re going to give screeners out to members, it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to make you go to the official screening first and then send a screener to those people who have attended, so they can see it again if they choose to. But I don’t know if they’d ever do that. Once you cross that line, you can’t take it away.

It seems like there is a scandal every year that grows in size online. This year, the Woody Allen story resurfaced. People questioned Wolf of Wall Street’s ethics, Dallas Buyers Club’s accuracy... Do these “scandals” have an effect on the way you vote?

Personally, I don’t care. Look, if I don’t like someone, it doesn’t make a difference. If I really hate a person, but if he gives a really great performance, I am not going to not vote for him. It’s not what you’re voting for. For Roman Polanski’s The Pianist, people were saying, “You can’t vote for the movie by a child molester.” The word was out, the gloves came off and everybody got involved in it. I personally don’t care.

How do you feel about everyone voting for everything? I am mostly talking about the technical categories. Do you think everyone should instead vote on their own branch only (like nominations) and then Best Picture?

Not really. Well, the more you go to the movies and the more you vote, the more familiar you get with all the categories. And you watch movies more carefully. I am on the Academy screenings committee. And sometimes we select movies that can be really good in some of these technical categories. Like special effects, or production design.

So what you’re saying is that voters start to watch with different eyes.

Yeah. We sometimes talk about these. “Wasn’t that music horrible? It didn’t belong in the film” or “It wasn’t the music that was bad, it was just its place in the film.” SO we get into these discussions. I don’t know how many of the members read all the trades when they’re doing their awards editions, but I actually like reading below-the-line articles. I know enough people who are interested in all that. So when we have Q&As, we say, “Why do we always have the actor? We’ve seen him in a thousand talk shows. Can’t we get the costume designer, for instance?” But it’s very hard to get to those people. Because they are usually working on something else by that time.

I am starting to think this “anywhere’s between 5 to 10 best picture nominees” is proving to be a pointless exercise. This is the third year in a row that we end up with 9 nominees.

I didn’t vote for 9 (voted for 10). And I like the 5 still. I really do. I also think we should just pick ONE winner. I like the idea that, after the nominations come out, people just pick one movie as their favorite film. And that’s that.

So no preferential ranking.

I would just say put your favorite movie down and that’s it. Make a decision without thinking “if I vote for this, more people will vote for that.” You just need to vote with your heart, on what works for you. And that’s basically what happens when I vote. I vote on a movie that I really really really like.

Passion comes before anything else.

Absolutely. I worked on Academy movies at studios. And when I got my ballot, sometimes I personally didn’t think [what I was working on] was the best movie. So I didn’t vote for it.

Her

What is the one upset you want to see on Oscar night?

Well, my favorite movie is Her. If that wins [Best Picture], it would make me so happy. But it doesn’t have a shot although I think it should win. Everybody I talk to is all over the map for this one. It could be 12 Years A Slave. It could be Gravity. It could be American Hustle. Although -- I don’t know about American Hustle.

Everybody is calling a split this year for Director/Picture.

Gravity is all about the direction. And I think Cuarón deserves it of all the directors. The movie is only a success because of him.

Only one more week to go.

I can’t wait for it to be over.

 I bet.

Our critics’ takes on the 9 Best Picture nominees

The writers here at Film Journal seem to agree with The Academy and its selection of the top films of 2013. Each of the nine Best Picture nominees found favor with our critics when it first premiered last year.  Spike Jonze’s dystopian love story, Her, came the closest to receiving what could be considered a negative review, with critic David Noh singling out “eternal sufferer” protagonist, Theodore Twombly, for being too passive a hero. Yet, even with Twombly’s persistent moroseness, the character's world was nonetheless full of “droll moments and real surprise,” Noh acknowledged. As is the case with several directors whose films received nominations, Spike Jonze turned in one of his finest works in years.

Here’s what the FJI critics had to say about the best films of 2013:

12 Years A Slave:
12 Years a Slave is a landmark film, complete with a terrific ensemble (Paul Dano, Sara Paulson and Brad Pitt need to be mentioned in certain key roles), and the vision and skill required to do justice to such historically complex material. It is one of those rare pieces of art that all its successors taking a shot at the same topic will be measured against.

Click here for the full review.

American Hustle:
With a crackling script and masterful direction, Russell has made a fiction that is stranger—and way more fun—than the truth. He has the help of a dream cast of actors, all at the top of their games.

Click here for the full review.

Dallas Buyers Club:
Screenwriters Craig Borten and Melisa Wallack don’t fall back on any heroic or clichéd turns but keep Woodroof on an outlaw course where no pro-gay marches or quilts sweeten the way or soften the character’s macho, prejudicial core. Yet it’s McConaughey’s savvy incarnation of this Lone Star brute that makes this gritty tale worth the ride.

Click here for the full review.

Captain Phillips:
But Captain Phillips functions most as a handsomely, elaborately produced “hardware” movie that satisfies in both its details and the sustained suspense of its action elements.  And by having Hanks in the starring role.

Click here for the full review.

The Wolf of Wall Street:
Unlike its mostly slimy characters, The Wolf of Wall Street favorably impresses on every level. Perversely enjoyable and entertaining, this wild ride of a film offers a motor-mouth chorus of really bad boys whose rousing cantata celebrates the recent era of easy money and financial funny business. Audiences—their values be damned—will sing along.

Click here for the full review.

Nebraska:
Like a Hitchcock MacGuffin, the non-existent prize is the peg on which screenwriter Bob Nelson hangs an alternately charming and caustic road movie about the often exasperating bonds between parents and children and how we could all benefit from taking the time to get to know those sometime-strangers we call Mom and Dad.

Click here for the full review.

Philomena:
Philomena is as much a sharp exploration of class, sexuality, faith and relationships as it is a wittily written, devastating account of the barbaric treatment of unwed mothers in Ireland as recently as the 1950s, with a plum role for the remarkable Judi Dench.

Click here for the full review.

Gravity:
Cuarón and his team have created screen spectacle with a searing human dimension, and bring a true sense of wonder to a groundbreaking movie experience.

Click here for the full review.

Her:
It's a fiendishly clever concept, his most satisfying outing since the brilliant Being John Malkovich, rife with droll moments and real surprise.

Click here for the full review.

The Internet is of course full of Oscar lists and countdowns today, posing much more of a distraction than usual for film-lovers. In-keeping with this spirit of enjoyable diversions, here’s another (brief!) list outlining What the Internet Has to Say About Oscar:

Film.com: The 12 Best Acceptance Speeches in Oscar History
Replete with video and fully subjective commentary.

Entertainment Weekly: The 10 Most High-Powered Oscar Races of the Past 25 Years
A fun trip down commemorative lane. Who knew Kate Winslet had already received three nominations by age 26? More importantly: Can Jennifer Lawrence best her record?

Vulture: Where to Stream This Year’s Oscar-Nominated Documentaries
A fantastic resource.

Indiewire: Interview: Lupita Nyong’o
Months before she received a Best Supporting Actress nomination for 12 Years a Slave.

Vanity Fair: Celebrating The Oldest-Ever Class of Best Actress Nominees
Take that, Sexist Agism.

Oscar reveals 2014 foreign-language shortlist

Some are pleased, many significantly less so, with the recently announced selection of films still in the running for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar. Academy members whittled down the list of 76 entries to nine, a mix of shoo-ins and surprise omissions sure to rankle critics.

Among the movies that will advance to the next and final round of voting before the Academy Awards are Paolo Sorrentino’s The Great Beauty (Italy), The Broken Circle Breakdown (Belgium), and The Grandmaster (Hong Kong).

The Past, directed by Asghar Farhadi, whose A Separation took home the prize in 2012, is arguably the most glaring exclusion. Though some critics say the film doesn't quite meet the bar Farhadi set for himself with A Separation, the movie has nonetheless garnered nearly universal acclaim (96% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes) for both the director and his stars, including The Artist’s Berenice Bejo.

Chile’s popular Gloria, and Saudi Arabia’s Wadjda, the first feature ever filmed in the region, let alone by a woman, were also notably snubbed. They’ll soon be joined on the sidelines by four of the nine films listed below, as ultimately only five movies can be nominated in the best foreign-language category. These finalists will be determined after one more round of voting takes place among specially selected committees in New York and LA.

No matter how difficult, it seems we must let go of The Past in favor of rooting for those works that still have a shot at gold. Which of the below has what it takes?

Belgium, The Broken Circle Breakdown, Felix van Groeningen, director
Like the characters it portrays, The Broken Circle Breakdown is a heartfelt but sloppy and overheated mess. Moving at times, but a mess nonetheless.

Full review

Bosnia and Herzegovina, An Episode in the Life of an Iron Picker, Danis Tanovic, director

Cambodia, The Missing Picture, Rithy Panh, director

Denmark, The Hunt, Thomas Vinterberg, director
It’s very polished, with confusing themes (the culture of hunting, the nature of lying and gossip, the power of forgiveness?), and has narrative lapses that torpedo credibility. But should the film not get the reviews and word of mouth required to fire up the box office, the intense performance from star Mads Mikkelsen (A Royal Affair, Clash of the Titans, Casino Royale, etc.) could prove a good hedge.

Full review

Germany, Two Lives, Georg Maas, director

Hong Kong, The Grandmaster, Wong Kar-wai, director
The Grandmaster works best if you've never seen a kung fu movie before. If you have, Wong Kar Wai's film may strike you as a beautiful and expensive missed opportunity.

Full review

Hungary, The Notebook, Janos Szasz, director

Italy, The Great Beauty, Paolo Sorrentino, director
The film will inevitably draw comparisons to Fellini classics like La Dolce Vita, 8 ½ and Roma, but the Fellini halo effect could prove especially advantageous. While fun and entertaining, Sorrentino’s Roman holiday, a long stretch at well over two hours, is a more challenging excursion.

Full review

Palestine, Omar, Hany Abu-Assad, director

The ‘Hobbit’ to tower over ‘Madea’

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug and Tyler Perry’s A Madea Christmas will go head-to-head at the box office this weekend, although the matchup is not exactly a nail-biter. As the second prequel in the incredibly popular and successful Lord of the Rings franchise, Hobbit is pretty much guaranteed a stronger bow. Last year, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Smaug’s predecessor, earned $300 million domestically and an unearthly $1 billion worldwide. Critics, however, didn’t love it, and even fan reactions were mixed, certainly in comparison with the kind of accolades heaped upon director Peter Jackson’s Rings trilogy. Journey’s success was largely due to its ability to leverage the popularity of these films, while Smaug has a more difficult road ahead of it as it works to prove it’s better (more fun, less dragging) than its predecessor. Luckily, critics seem to think it is. The Desolation of Smaug will probably earn $15 million less than Journey and open to around $70 million or so. The fact that such a staggering gross would still be considered a qualified success speaks to the ridiculous earning potential of – and ridiculous expectations surrounding – these movies.

Though it isn’t expected to trump The Hobbit, Madea’s box-office odds are still looking pretty merry. Tyler Perry’s A Madea Christmas is the director’s 14th movie in the past eight years. Eight of Perry’s 13 movies have opened to $20 million or more. A more fun fact: The only other directors to have had as many $20 million openings are Robert Zemeckis, who has had nine, and Steven Spielberg, who can boast 11. In total, Perry’s oeuvre has earned $674 million domestically, with his top three films all featuring his Madea character, or Perry dressed up as a smart-mouthed granny. Odds are Madea will chuckle up a little less than $30 million.

Frozen and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire are still going strong and will probably land at nos. three and four, respectively. Specialty enthusiasts and Academy Awards speculators, though, are more concerned with Disney and Jennifer Lawrence’s other movies opening in limited release this weekend: Saving Mr. Banks and American Hustle. Viewers are expected to be drawn in like moths to the Oscar-gold flame surrounding these two. Awards buzz is thick around Lawrence, who plays a broadly cockamamie housewife in Hustle, and Emma Thompson as the persnickety Mary Poppins author, P.L. Travers, in Banks. The latter film is opening in 15 locations ahead of its wide release next weekend, while Hustle will screen in six theatres.

'Gravity's' Box-Office Should Be Out of This World, Make for Tough Competition

Alfonso Cuaron’s acclaimed intergalactic thriller Gravity is poised for a stellar opening weekend,with predictions running as high as a $40 million debut. That would amount to quite a few 3D glasses needing to be recycled. Given its heavy advance buzz (it’s currently trending 98% on Rotten Tomatoes), it seems the film’s plastic pileup is only fated to grow: Boasting a wonderful performance by Sandra Bullock, which has Academy Award pundits seeing Oscar (not to mention a charming turn by George Clooney, in which he plays George-Clooney-acting-charming-in-a-spacesuit), Gravity is already outpacing modern -effects posterchild Avatar in 3D pre-sales, with 91% of advanced tickets reserved for 3D viewings. In other words, expect this star vehicle to snuff the competition.

Looking to give Cuaron’s early Oscar contender a – pardon the phrasing – run for its considerable money, the Justin Timberlake/Ben Affleck vehicle Runner Runner also opens this weekend. Most critics have panned the action/suspense flick about gamblers acting shady, although our Maitland McDonagh is a bit more understanding. “Both Affleck and Timberlake have fought uphill battles to be taken seriously as actors,” she says, citing the difficulty many have encountered when they try to picture JT as the adult version of the boy who once matched denim outfits with Britney Spears, and when they attempt to look beyond Ben Affleck’s extraordinarily gifted face. However, “Runner Runner gives both room to show what they can do,” she concludes.

Parkland, boasting yet another all-star cast with turns by Billy Bob Thornton,
Paul Giamatti, Zac Efron, and Colin Hanks, is being released (in 217 theaters) 50 years and a little over a month to the day JFK was assassinated.  Reviews of the feature, which takes place in the hospital where the president was rushed the afternoon of the shooting, have been mixed to negative. Even given its full talent roster, Parkland's box-office expectations are pretty grim.

More promising is the new feature starring the elder Hanks, Captain Phillips. The thriller based on the real-life captain and his harrowing encounter with a band of Somali pirates will have a sneak preview in 800 locations this Saturday, with a wide release scheduled for the following week.

Traveling to the world of smaller specialty releases, a pair of foreign dramas is slated for an American premiere. The French movie Concussion takes a frank look at a lesbian’s couple sexless marriage – and one partner’s risqué efforts to rebel.


Dramatic in a more over-the-top and epic way is the new Chinese film from director Jia Zhangke, A Touch of Sin, which, with its interconnected stories espousing  a dour view of modern China,  has been called by our Chris Barsanti “a sprawling tragicomedy” that amounts to an “exhilarating expose” on the country’s increasingly troubled state.

Metallica Through the Never will see a wider expansion this weekend, to 650 theaters. The documentary about the popular metal band had a solid opening weekend this past week, grossing$1.07 million from 305 Imax theaters.

In all, the nascent fall season is shaping up to be excitingly varied. However, it remains to be seen whether any of the above will have the popular appeal to match, let alone compete with, the Gravity juggernaut.

Another Academy Awards predictor joins the fray, 'Social Oscars'

The second site to try to "Nate Silver"
the Oscars is Social
Oscars. Back in mid-January, Screener reported on Farsite Forecast, which doles out each
nominee's percentage chance at winning the Oscars. Social Oscars, which social
media monitoring company Brandwatch created, takes a different route. The
company's interactive infographic compares which movies the critics think will
win to the ones that the public thinks will win. Surprisingly, the critics and
public are pretty much in agreement for most of the categories. There's rarely
more than a couple percentage points in

differences between the two, which may
not be even statistically significant since they don't mention the sample size.
However, some of their findings do back up the anecdotal feelings about races
in various categories.

In the Best Picture race, for example, more
critics (12%) are excited about Zero Dark Thirty than members of the
public (7%). Life of Pi's sentimentality played better with the public
(12%) than critics (9%). Argo has recently become the frontrunner for
Best Picture, unseating the early momentum of Zero Dark Thirty and the
solid, blue-chip choice of Steven Spielberg's Lincoln. If Argo
wins, the Social Oscars will have correctly picked the winner, since 23% of the
public and 19% of critics have voted this as their favorite.

The Social Oscars is a fun tool, but it overlooks
one big fact. Who wins the Oscars usually has only a loose correlation with the
popular and critical choices. For every winner like The King's Speech,
which was the 2010 victor and supported by both critics and audiences,
there's a movie that critics were rooting for but the public did not see in
theatres in big numbers (that describes 2011 winner The Artist or 2009
winner The Hurt Locker), or a popular favorite that's just good enough
or has some kind of special hook that convinces the Academy that it deserves
recognition (Gladiator, Titanic, Forrest Gump). The Oscars can
sometimes be an exercise in game theory (see 2001 Best Picture winner A
Beautiful Mind for a brush-up on that). Many critics distinguish between
the movies they like best and the movie that they think they will win,
sometimes developing subcategories like a movie they campaign for and want to
win, even while acknowledging another movie probably has a better shot. A
regular Joe may count nominee Django Unchained as the most enjoyable
picture of the year but feel that Argo is the better choice for a Best
Picture winner. The Social Oscars' infographic is an interesting tool to gauge
the relative popularity of the Best Picture choices, for example, but critical
and popular reaction are just one piece of the pie when it comes to the Oscars.

'Act of Valor' shines during Academy Awards weekend

As expected, The Artist landed the Best Picture Oscar this Sunday at the Academy Awards. The silent era-set tale has earned $31.8 million to date. In comparison, the middling war-action picture Act of Valor attracted more moviegoers than expected and earned $24.7 million, an amount it took The Artist three months to reach. Act of Valor's primarily male audience gave the war flick its version of a statuette--an "A" exit rating.

The disparity between art films beloved by critics and the Academy and commercial films is once again in full relief. In 2009 and 2010, the first years allowing ten Best Picture nominees (since 1943), half the movies had earned $100 million--and still others were close to that figure. This year, only The Help has topped $100 million, with $169 million in total. The next runner-up is War Horse, with a mere $79 million.

Of course, there's still time for some movies to make more money. The Artist will expand into 2,000 theatres this weekend. Still, expectations should be modest. Last year, The King's Speech had the most momentum after its nomination. It earned only 15% of its total after it actually won. Part of the reason the Academy expanded the number of Best Picture nominees was to include a mix of art films and those that performed well at the box office. It was hoped that very little and very big films might be included more frequently. This past year had no Inception, no Avatar, no The Blind Side. Without a blockbuster or crossover success in the running, the awards don't have as much appeal to general audiences. No wonder I heard many people--casual and more serious moviegoers--complain about the irrelevance of this year's Oscars. Although the ceremony included many people from more recognizable movies--like the cast of Bridesmaids, who presented awards--the awards themselves honored movies many people didn't and/or won't see. It's too bad there wasn't a well-regarded action picture in the running. True to the Academy's safe choices, an edgy movie like Drive can only get into the contest with a roundabout nomination, like its nod in Sound Editing.

Perhaps due in part to the lower-profile Oscar ceremony, box office as a whole was up from last year. After Act of Valor, Tyler Perry's Good Deeds suffered from the absence of Madea and brought in just $16 million. Down in eighth and ninth place, Wanderlust and Gone did even worse. The Paul Rudd/Jennifer Aniston comedy tallied up just $6.6 million, despite a 60% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It may fall under the "rent it" category for many viewers.  Gone likewise didn't connect with audiences, which gave it just a C+ in exit polls. The Amanda Seyfried kidnapping thriller finished with just $5 million.

A number of Oscar nominees posted gains this weekend. Best Foreign Language Film winner A Separation went up 36% to earn $423,000. Foreign Language nominee In Darkness received a 10% boost, grossing $91,000. Bullhead, which was nominated in the same category, posted a 28% gain for a total of $41,000. My Week with Marilyn expanded slightly and posted a 58% gain to $313,000. The Artist, which earned five wins, went up 23% to $3 million.

This Friday, Oscar winner The Artist will go big in an attempt to capitalize on its win. It will be joined by Dr. Seuss adaptation The Lorax and the one-crazy-party teen comedy Project X.

Globes favor 'Social Network,' BAFTA likes 'King's Speech'

By Sarah Sluis

The Golden Globes have come and gone, and in their wake they've rewarded The Social Network with the highest honor, Best Motion Picture - Drama. But the race is far from over. The British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA), whose ceremony is held closer to the Academy Awards, announced their nominations, and The King's Speech is the frontrunner with fourteen nominations.

So, as it stands, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association rewarded the Citizen Kane-inspired close-up of the American entrepreneurial spirit, and the BAFTAs are giving a pat on the back to their former king who cured his stutter. Will the Academy Awards be about the movie, or a statement about the kind of film that should win? If it's the latter, I think The Social Network has an excellent chance, given its all-American anti-hero and embrace of the Internet. Or the statement could be more traditional: The Academy is known for being a bit of an Anglophile, and British films win in significant numbers. There's also the fact that The King's Speech has the backing of The Weinstein Co., which has a history of successfully securing both Oscar nods and wins. With The King's Speech the frontrunner for BAFTA and The Social Network the winner of the Golden Globes, I think the Best Picture race has narrowed to those two (with The Fighter the underdog, just like Micky).

Best Director:

The BAFTAs, Golden Globes, and Directors Guild of America matched four out of five nominees for Best Director: Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan), Tom Hooper (The King's Speech), David Fincher (The Social Network) and Christopher Nolan (Inception). Of these four, only Fincher has been previously nominated in the directing category (Benjamin Button). With The Social Network playing so strongly in the awards season, I wouldn't be surprised if Fincher grabs the Best Director prize. Also, his 2007 film Zodiac, which was snubbed entirely during awards season, now turns up on a lot of retrospective "top ten of the decade" lists, and Academy Awards are often given based on the body of work. Aronofsky and Nolan, who have both directed fine films, could also win using this logic, but their lack of nominations makes me think the Academy wouldn't mind having them wait a bit longer. As a counterpoint to that argument, Tom Hooper is a relatively fresh face on the directing scene, whose main credentials are the stunning HBO miniseries "John Adams" and the Brit-focused movie The Damned United (he's also a prolific director on British television). The DGA (Directors Guild of America) will announce their pick for Best Director on Jan. 29, and after that this category will be a near-lock, given the DGA award's correlation with the Oscar for Best Director.

The Academy Awards countdown: 39 days.

Sandra Bullock lines up another movie project

By Sarah Sluis

Sandra Bullock may just be one of the most likeable leading ladies in Hollywood. On the heels of her Best Actress win at the Oscars for The Blind Side, she's been circling a number of potential movies.

The latest such project would re-team her with her director on The Proposal, Anne Fletcher, and be produced by Adam Shankman and Jennifer Gibgot. Variety described the project as "An Unmarried Woman meets Saturday Night Fever." So what does that mean? The 1978 movie An Unmarried Woman has been described as a woman's lib-inspired tale of an affluent Upper East Sider whose husband divorces her, leaving her unmoored. She learns to go out on her own and grow as a person. The allusion to Saturday Night Fever makes me think part of her self-discovery in this as-yet untitled film will involve DANCING!

Thoughts:

1) On one level, this project seems like a straight pandering to the "Dancing with the Stars" crowd, the popular reality competition show that has an intense following among middle-aged women: You, too, can redefine yourself after your divorce...through dance! Related: Can Bullock dance?

2) The "women's lib" element in An Unmarried Woman will have to be tweaked. Bullock can't be just a lady-who-lunches. Three decades later, most families have two working parents, and I don't think audiences will have as much sympathy for an rich idle woman in a recession climate. If she were in a situation where she was convinced to give up her career because of her husband's demanding job, for example, that would engender a lot more sympathy for her character.

Bullock has two other projects in the work that are more in the "serious drama" category: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, a Scott Rudin-led literary adaptation of Jonathan Safran Foer's novel about 9/11, and Gravity, a sci-fi project being helmed by Alfonso Cuarn. I hope Bullock pursues one of these projects as well. Bullock has shown herself as an accomplished actress of comedy (Ms. Congeniality), action thrillers (Speed) and sentimental dramas (The Blind Side). Here's to seeing her in both familiar roles and new ones.

2010 Oscars favor 'The Hurt Locker' over 'Avatar'

By Sarah Sluis

This weekend was a crazy one for Hollywood, both at the box office and at the Oscars. On Sunday's Oscar ceremony, The Hurt Locker won Best Picture over Avatar, its only real competition. And Alice in Wonderland kicked off the weekend by bulldozing over Avatar's opening three-day gross, earning $116.3 million, a whopping 50% more than Avatar's first-weekend $77 million. Thanks to these two events, Hollywood's prominent, front-running 3D sci-fi spectacle got knocked down back to Earth--a little bit.

The Academy Awards themselves came and went without any major surprises. Most of the whispered favorites in the blogosphere ended up going on to win the awards. With my ear firmly placed to the ground, this blogger was able to correctly pick all the acting categories, director, and picture, along with other talked-about categories like Original Score and Adapted Screenplay. Sure, it required a bit of luck, but also that oft-repeated phrase that "Hollywood likes a good story." That's part of the reason Kathryn Bigelow ("The first woman!!!") won Best Director. To make the award mean more, it seems right to follow it up with Best Picture, no? James Cameron already had his go at being "King of the World," and the Academy wanted to give someone else a turn.

That mood was extended to three of the four acting categories. Christoph Waltz, the winner of Best Supporting Actor, seemed to be the only person whose win was a story of performance alone. Mo'Nique also turned in a great performance, but her victory also seemed to be about coming into the Hollywood family, learning a bit about how the game works while at the same time refusing to play it, since she came under a lot of criticism early in awards season for skipping ceremonies and supposedly requesting appearance fees. In her speech, she opened by saying "First of all I would like to thank the Academy, for showing that it can be about the performance, and not the politics." Okay, but isn't an explicitly "unpolitical" choice making its own kind of anti-statement? Now I'm just running my head round in circles...

Sandra Bullock and Jeff Bridges both won versions of the "It's their time" informal lifetime achievement award--but that didn't mean everyone didn't feel all warm and fuzzy to see these stars finally recognized. Following Mo'Nique, Bullock went right out and acknowledged the motives behind her own win, starting with "Did I really earn this or did I just wear y'all down?" Since Bullock is primarily a comedic actress, and will be unlikely to receive such an opportunity again, it was nice to see this talented performer win for a body of work that includes goofy, non-Oscar films like Miss Congeniality. Bridges, who won on his fifth nomination, was also a pleasure to see on the podium. He called his profession "groovy" (Is he actually like his Big Lebowski character The Dude?) and thanked his wife profusely. Shockingly, by Hollywood standards, they have been married over thirty years. She looked, horror of horrors, like a fifty-year-old woman, and seeing how Bridges has remained true to his roots and first love made me appreciate the actor even more.

To cap off the ceremony, The Hurt Locker won Best Director (which James Cameron claimed not to want) and Best Picture (which James Cameron wanted). I can't wrap my head around how little money The Hurt Locker has made. How can a war movie, an action movie, about bomb diffusers make less in total ($14.7 million) than one Saturday night of Avatar's run? I hope this movie is making a killing in the DVD market, and earned a pretty penny for television rights, but its theatrical release was a disappointment. What's weirder, the movie was a really slow burn. Last year it received just two acting nominations at the Independent Spirit Awards, and won zero. However, given the movie's June release (a rarity for Oscar nominees, let alone winners), maybe a low box office was the price they had to pay for the visibility of being the only awards-worthy movie released that month. As the lowest-grossing movie (pretty much ever) to win the Best Picture Oscar, this movie was propelled by critical word-of-mouth and industry viewings. Now it's a matter of having the rest of the U.S. catch up. Its re-release into theatres this weekend earned it about $400k, and I sincerely hope moviegoers will purchase at least another million bucks in tickets next weekend.

'Shutter Island' bests 'Cop Out' and 'The Crazies'

By Sarah Sluis

Despite the arrival of fresh competition, Shutter Island dropped less than 50% in its second weekend to hold onto the top spot for the second week in a row, earning $22.2 million. Director Martin Scorsese and star Leonardo DiCaprio are enjoying some of the best box office they've had in awhile, along with a $75 million cumulative gross.

Cop Out debuted in second with $18.5 million. The Kevin Smith-directed, humorous tale of two misfit cops opened higher than star Bruce Willis' previous movie, September's Surrogates. For Tracy Morgan of "30 Rock," this was his first headlining role. Unfortunately, our critic Ethan Alter found Morgan's "unpredictability," his "comic energy...at odds with the movie he's been cast in...it's hard to escape the feeling that he's been advised to keep himself in check." As a big fan of his character on "30 Rock," I only hope his next feature, the ensemble piece Death at a Funeral, will fix the problem.

Horror movie remake The Crazies had been building slowly in awareness, and ended up just $2 million short of Cop Out with a $16.5 million total. While many horror movies do the biggest business on Friday, this movie, like many others, peaked on Saturday with a 6% bump from Friday. The poor weather on the East Coast, which had largely cleared up by Saturday (at least in the New York area), may account for the unusually large Saturday bumps across the board. Shutter Island went up 55%, Cop Out 29%, and Avatar 114%.

Avatar astounded for yet another week with a minuscule 13% drop and another $14 million. After months of prodding, including one attempt thwarted by a sold-out show, my own parents finally saw the movie and pronounced the film "stunning." My scientist father was in awe of the 3D technology and apparently sat on the edge of his seat the whole time. Their reception matches the general word-of-mouth that exists for the movie, which has had astounding longevity at the box office. With the Academy Awards next Sunday, the movie will likely see another bump two weeks from now, once the awards tally is in.

The Ghost Writer added 39 locations this weekend and came away with a $20,000 per-location gross, which tipped the movie's cumulative gross over the $1 million mark. A 50% plus drop in per-location earnings is about standard for specialty films, and a $10,000 per location gross next week, combined with an expansion, would rack up millions of dollars for the film.

Sony Picture Classics' A Prophet debuted one week ahead of the Academy Awards, where it is nominated for Best Foreign Film. At nine locations, the prison drama brought in $18,800 per-location for a total of $170,000, a number that will increase in weeks ahead, especially if the movie, regarded as a frontrunner for the win, ends up with an Oscar.

This Friday, Alice in Wonderland will make its 3D and IMAX debut along with a decidedly different cop movie, Brooklyn's Finest.

Academy's expanded Best Picture category rewards 'top 10' films

By Sarah Sluis

When the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced that it was expanding the number of Best Picture nominees from five to ten, most people speculated two things would happen: 1) crowd-pleasing, high-grossing movies would receive nominations. 2) smaller, independent movies would receive nominations. Well, the answers are in: the first thing happened, and the second not so much.

Three of the ten Oscar nominees for Best Picture were in the 2009 box-office top ten. Avatar is currently #1 for 2009, Up is #4, and The Blind Side is #8. If any movie was a long shot for Best Picture, The Blind Side was it. Many critics would have preferred to see Bright Star, a tiny but well-reviewed film, in that spot.

The last time a top ten film was even nominated was at the 76th Academy Awards, when Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (the #1 film of the year) swept the awards in Titanic-like fashion. That means that before this year, five years passed where no movie in the top ten received a Best Picture nomination. If the goal of expanding the number of nominees is to boost ratings and make more average, non-eclectic moviegoers feel the Academy Awards reflect their own "Best Films," it appears the Academy has succeeded.

That's not to say these movies are bad or don't deserve to be nominated. Last year seemed to be a particularly strong one for blockbusters. I'm right there with Avatar and Up. District 9 (#27) was good, but it didn't make my top ten and I don't think it's quite original enough (beyond its opening sequence) to deserve the nomination. But with a heavy-handed look at racism a la Crash, I guess I shouldn't be surprised it was nominated.

On the other hand, movies at the other end of the spectrum haven't entirely been neglected. The Hurt Locker (#130), A Serious Man (#142) and An Education (#144) all received nominations. Last year, the lowest-ranked film was #120 (Frost/Nixon), so not only are these films a bit lower on the list, there are also three of them instead of the expected two you would get when you double the amount of nominees.

Overall, I think the inclusion of ten nominees better reflects the amount of quality movies out there, and does allow for more commercial (to a greater extent) or more specialized (to a lesser extent) films to receive nominations. At least when a so-so movie squeezes in, there are nine, instead of four, other movies there to balance it out.

Oscars dangle promise: 'truly different' ceremony

By Sarah Sluis

During yesterday's Oscar lunch, while nominees were presented with commemorative sweatshirts

(what?), the chief of the Academy promised something "truly different." The non-statement, for some reason, reminded me of a scene in The Bad and the Beautiful. Faced with a decidedly un-scary cat man costume, the filmmakers hide it with a bit of shadowy lighting, and voila, instant horror hit. The ambiguous statement will have bloggers abuzz with all the ways the Academy could improve the ceremony, much more than an announcement about "awesome career montages," "musical guests!" and "awkward in-aisle acceptance speeches" could rile up potential viewers. At least on a PR front, the Academy's generating excitement.

My guess is that the Academy will go for more interaction between the audience and those on-stage. Movie fans, myself included, love that "backstage" element and looking at what goes into making a show. I caught part of the Miss America pageant a couple weekends ago, which has tried to revive its ratings by incorporating an announcer backstage (as well as a mini-reality series weeks beforehand). Viewers were treated to the entertaining sight of coiffed contestants high-tailing it to their dressing rooms like their life depended on it--they looked like Runaway Bride. Much of the fun of the Oscars, in my experience anyway, is the red carpet and interviews, the bizarre jokes and corny segments that make you turn to the person sitting on the couch next to you and mouth 'What?,' and the non sequiturs, trips, and tearfully garbled speeches that make the show more real. A smoothly running show just doesn't entertain. These days, if people want banal, they'll watch a TMZ clip of a celebrity getting out of a car, not an artfully delivered, rehearsed acceptance speech. Will the Academy be able to rise to its promise, and deliver a "truly different" ceremony?