News: Oscar Finds a Happy-Medium

     If your a close follower of the Academy Awards (or an obsessed nerd such as myself), then you'll know that the previous two Oscars the Academy has experimented with expanding the Best Picture lineup to ten nominations, after it had retained five slots for the big kahuna of awards since 1944. I have generally been a fan of the ten nominee category because I felt it has allowed the Academy to spotlight a larger array of movies and genres, but some have felt that doubling the amount of nominees has diluted the prestige of a Best Picture nomination.

     Well today, the Academy announced a compromise between these two positions. Instead of strictly have either five or ten nominated films, the number of Best Picture nominees will now be a variable number, depending on how many films receive over 5% first-place Best Picture votes from Academy member. Now the category will still retain a minimum of five nominees and a maximum of ten nominees (even if 4 or fewer, or 11 or higher, films receive over 5% first-place votes), but this means each year we could have anywhere from the old-fashioned five, to the new ten. Apparently, if this practice had been in place over the last few years, we would of had years with 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, but not 10 Best Picture nominees.

     It's an interesting idea, and though I was okay with the ten nominations, it will definitely make the announcement of the nominees much more exciting. It will also make prognosticators work much harder, for now no will can even be sure how many films will be nominated, much less which films it will be. It is also likely to make debates much more heated, because now ever attack can be seen as direct attempt to lower a film's popularity just enough to make it miss the cut. It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out. If you want to see the official announcement yourself, along with some other minor changes the Academy made in a few other categories, click here.

If I Picked the Winners: Best Supporting Actor 1994

     Recently I have been on a tear of highlighting my favorite years in cinema. I discussed the 2007 Best Supporting Actor race (my all-time favorite cinematic 12-month period), in which Javier Bardem won for one of the most iconic villainous roles in the last decade or so with the serial-killing, air-gun aficionado, misanthrope Anton Chigurh in the Coen Brothers Best Picture-winning instant classic, "No Country for Old Men". I then went on to analyze another great year in film, 1967, where I delved into the Best Actor race (won by Rod Steiger for "In the Heat of the Night"), only to return to the extraordinary year a few weeks later with a look at the year's Best Picture race (also won by "In the Heat of the Night"). All this focus on years with outstanding cinematic output set off an atomic chain reaction in my mind, "What other years would I put up with the ranks of the 2007s and 1967s of the world". Given the large body of Oscar history (not counting the years before 1927), there is a wide variety of choice of superb years to choose from (1939 being the most commonly cited "Golden Year"), but after careful consideration, and given my current collection of viewed films (which is still frustratingly lower than I would like), the next year that I would nominate for Hall of Fame status is 1994.

     Unlike 1967, I can't really say that 1994 started a revolution or set a new language of film, but was instead the fateful aligning of planets, the blind luck of happenstance, or if you must, "the perfect storm". A group of directors, both new and old, were firing on all cylinders in 1994. Quentin Tarantino, Woody Allen, Tim Burton, Robert Zemeckis, Frank Darabont, and Robert Redford, for whatever reason, were all on their A-game, creating classic films that entered and stayed in our consciousness, and as always, directors on their A-game mean actors allowed to exercise their true potential. Case in point, Best Supporting Actor, which boosts a truly great lineup of amazing performances. It's the type of nominees list that you yearn for every category each year (but rarely materializes). Could it have been improved though? For once, I'm confident in answering this question in the negative. My only two possible substitutes both have questionable qualifications as "supporting" actors. The first is Bruce Willis in "Pulp Fiction" as the boxer on the run Butch. Now since one whole story line of the film is dedicated to him, I would have a hard time swallowing a nomination for him as a supporting actor, but with the Academy's awkward classification technique, I have no idea what Academy members considered the performance to be. The other case to consider is Tim Robbins in "The Shawshank Redemption". In my mind (and I feel fairly safe in saying in every sane mind in the world) Tim Robbins is the star of film, but since the Academy did nominate Morgan Freeman in leading role, we have to consider the possibility that some may have voted for Robbins as a supporting actor (which would be beyond ridiculous, but in the past, that threshold has not stopped the Academy from making unwise decisions). Finally, the one other person I would be tempted to include in the category, despite their small screen time, is Harvey Keitel as "The Wolf" in "Pulp Fiction". Like I said, it is a really small role, but it is such a memorable character, and Keitel nails it so perfectly, it would be extremely tempting to nominate him. It's a fine crop of nominees though, so let's get to it.

News: No "If I Picked the Winners" Article This Week

     I just wanted to alert anyone expecting a weekly edition of my "If I Picked the Winners" article that unfortunately, there will not be an article this week. Due to some unforeseen circumstances, I was not able to get the time to write the article this week. I apologize for the delay, but I will be back with another edition next week. Until then, I hope you all are checking out some good films (maybe even some I have mentioned in past articles).

News: First Trailer for Fincher's "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"

     As one of my "Top 5" anticipated films of the year (and given the fact that David Fincher directed my favorite film last year), I have been eagerly awaiting any news about David Fincher's version of the popular  novel, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo". This week, we got our first peak (which you can see for yourself down below) with the official release of the trailer. Interestingly, earlier in the week there was a "leak" of an "unofficial trailer" that is similar to the trailer below, with the exception of a few different  images (there was some nudity in the "pirated" trailer). Although it wasn't an official release, many believe it was part of a planned guerilla marketing technique, which is given credence by the fact that Sony left the trailer up on Youtube all the way until they released the official trailer. If it was a planned marketing stunt by Sony, it was a smart one, but what's even more exciting is that the trailer makes the movie look great. I'll be excited to check it out when it roles around Christmas time this December.

If I Picked the Winners: Best Actor 2006

     The good, the bad, and the mediocre: that's what you get with the Oscars, and this week, we'll be highlighting the latter of the three with Best Actor 2006. Up to this point, I've tried to pick Oscar categories that included at least some nominees that I had a passionate opinion on (whether it be positive or negative), but this week, I thought I would highlight indifference incarnate, blase personified, mediocrity embodied. Now of course, these adjectives won't apply to this article, which (as always), will be peerless, but rather the lineup of candidates that made up the Academy's Best Actor race of 2006. Whether in writing or in thought, it is actually an extremely useful exercise to analyze the middle of the road fair, for when we understand what separates the average from the excellent, we have a better understanding of the things that truly touch us, make us move as human beings. If "it's all relative," then we sure as hell better know relative to what, and this week we will discussing the what.

     Now as critics of the Academy (and who isn't), the question arises, was 2006 just a middling year for lead actors, or did the Academy, yet again, skip over superior work for more comfortable choices conforming to their typical patterns of familiarity? While maybe not the most stirring year for male lead performances, like almost any year, 2006 did have some above-par turns, but a typical Oscar nemesis reared its ugly head, preventing meritocracy from ruling the day: the ensemble film. I don't know what it is about film's with great ensemble casts that prevent the Academy from rewarding their individual actors (category confusion, cast cancellation?), but with a few exceptions (such as the first two "Godfather" films), multiple cast members from the same film are rarely nominated, no matter how deserving they all are. For 2006, the biggest example of a wronged actor is actually one of the nominees (which was undoubtedly part of the problem), Leonardo DiCaprio. As you will see momentarily (if you did not already know), DiCaprio was nominated for Best Actor in 2006, but not for his career's best work as an undercover Boston policeman in Martin Scorsese's "The Departed", but rather for his underwhelming role as a mercenary involved with the African conflict diamonds trade in "Blood Diamond". How DiCaprio did not win, much less get nominated, for "The Departed" is a mystery that only people in Hollywood know the answer to. It may have something to do with the fact that DiCaprio's costar in "The Departed", Matt Damon, was also likely eligible for the lead category, and likewise gave one of his all-time best performances. As some sort of stupid compromise, instead of doing the right thing by nominating them both, some in the Academy may have decided to throw their weight behind DiCaprio's sub-par "Blood Diamond" performance. It doesn't make sense, but it's the type of reasoning the Academy seems to employ all too often.

     Another wonderful performance from a great ensemble film that was deserving of a nomination was Greg Kinnear as an aspiring motivational speaker in 2006's "Little Miss Sunshine". Again, I'm not sure of which category most people placed him in, but as the dad of "Little Miss Sunshine" herself, if he is not considered lead, then I guess everyone in the film is "supporting". Another worthy, but categorically questionable, performance is that of Michael Sheen as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in "The Queen". It's one of the best portrayals of a modern political figure that I can remember (and one Sheen has done three times), but whether it should qualify as a lead performance is tough to say. Finally, one last performance that isn't spellbinding, but a step ahead of some of the competition, is Ryan Phillippe as John Bradley, in Clint Eastwood's "Flags of our Fathers", the story of the men who were forever engraved in American consciousness after their picture was snapped raising the American flag over Iwo Jima. For now though, let us take a look at the group of so-so nominees.

News: Cannes Film Festival Hands Out Its Honors

     Over the last ten days or so, the world's most prestigious film festival, the Cannes film festival, has been going on in France. Today though, the festival, which had a fair amount of big name premieres this year, as well as some unwanted media attention for controversial Danish filmmaker Lars von Trier scandalous "I am a Nazi" comments (for which he was banned from ever attending the festival again), wrapped up with its traditional end-of-festival awards. The way the festival awards films is it places them in different categories of competition, with the films considered to be in the "major leagues" put in the Palme d'Or competition, and it has a selected jury watch every eligible film. After seeing each of the films in competition, the jury (which this year was headed up by Robert De Niro) argues with one another until they decide in which films receive which awards.

     So then, who was this year's big winner? Terrence Malick's highly anticipated "The Tree of Life", which releases world wide this Friday, took the festival's top prize, the Palme d'Or. The film, which stars Brad Pitt and Sean Penn, actually received mix scores from the reviewers at the festival, but it apparently hit a cord with the jurors. Being an American film with big name actors and a highly acclaimed director, this is also a film to watch at the end of the year for the Oscars, but the crossover between Palme d'Or and Oscar Best Picture is small. In fact, it has only happened once, in 1955, when a film originally meant for television, "Marty", miraculously took both highly regarded top prizes. A few other Palme d'Or winners have managed to do pretty well at the Oscar's, with Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" being the most famous, but no others have managed to win both, so it's hard to say how this affects "The Tree of Life"'s overall Oscar potential.

     Some of the other big winners of the festival include Danish filmmaker Nicolas Winding Refn, who picked Best Director for his action/"B"-movie homage flick, "Drive". The film stars Ryan Gosling, along with a lot of other fairly big names, and probably would have been the general consensus Palme d'Or winner had the critics been allowed to decide. Personally, I have not seen any of Mr. Refn's previous films, but from the description of the film and its rave reviews, this is now one film that is high atop my anticipated list. Another big winner was Jean Dujardin, who picked up the Best Actor award for "The Artist". Yet another film earning high marks, "The Artist" is a black-and-white film about the tail end of the silent-age of cinema, which the film itself is almost completely done in pantomime. Even before the film debuted in Cannes, the Weinstein's picked it up for U.S. distribution, which given their track record (this was the team behind last year's "The King's Speech" victory), may make this a end of the year awards season player. Finally, the jury, maybe in a rebellious stand for the right of freedom of expression, were not too scared off by von Trier's unfortunate remarks to award the film any prizes, giving it's Best Actress to Kirsten Dunst in "Melancholia". Given the Academy's general xenophobia, it's hard to say that (even with the good reviews) any of these three films will end up to be Oscar contenders when all is said and done. It's true that all three films are not in foreign languages ("Drive" and "Melancholia" are in English, and "The Artist", being a silent film, is not in any language at all), but unless these films get a lot of critical backing consistently throughout the year, I have a hard time imaging any one of them beating out any of the big-shot movies such as, say, "The Tree of Life". The good news though is just how many well-received films there were at this year's festival. Compared to last year, where the main word critics used to sum up the festival was "underwhelmed", this year looks to be a much more promising year for unique, groundbreaking cinema.

     For the curious, the complete list of this year's winners is given below.

Palme d'Or: "The Tree of Life"
Grand Prix (aka Runner-up): (tie) "The Kid With a Bike" and "Once Upon a Time in Anatolia
Best Director: Nicholas Winding Refn for "Drive"
Best Actor: Jean Dujardin for "The Artist"
Best Actress: Kirsten Dunst for "Melancholia"
Best Screenplay: Joseph Cedar for "Footnote"
Prix du Jury: "Polisse"

Camera d'Or: "Las Acacias"
Palme d'Or (Short Film): "Cross Country"

If I Picked the Winners: Best Picture 1967

     A few week's back, I used this weekly column to discuss the Best Actor race of 1967. It was a fine category that included some of the all-time great cinematic thespians giving some of their finest performances (such as Spencer Tracy, Paul Newman, and Dustin Hoffman) and in the article, I expressed my great love for the year (in terms of cinema) in general. Now I'm not a wine connoisseur by any stretch of the imagination (I've never found a wine that compelled me to take more than a few sips before I quickly tired of the taste), so I never really understood what wine enthusiasts mean when they call some particular year a "good year". Is it just a catch phrase they brandish to illustrate their supposed vast intelligence and expertise on the matter? Like some sort of wino's credentials to prove your worthy of being in the club (the coldness of the top wine aficionados is reminiscent of how Nazi elites would plainly ask to "see your papers"). Or, at least for some, is there real meaning in that phrase? For instance, maybe a certain year had greater precipitation than most, and that lead to a larger mean grape size, which somehow creates a more alluring taste. Like I said, I know next to nothing about wine, so I'm totally spitballing here, but I do know a little bit about cinema, and I can vouch that 1967 was indeed a vintage year.

     This is why, merely a few weeks later, I'm already back. There is something about 1967 that just won't let go of it's hold. My hypothesis to the siren-like spell 1967 has over me is just the pure excitement that can be sensed in films from the year. As you may have heard me express before, the 1950's was an abysmal decade for the advancement of film as an art. While, as always, their are exceptions, in general, the films of 1950's gave in to every negative impulse of drama. Maybe in a vain attempt to differentiate itself from the incoming threat of television, the auteur's answer to everything in the 1950's was apparently, "Let's make it bigger". The "issues" were bigger, the "emotions" were bigger, the "realism" was bigger, and sometimes the screen was just literally larger, but whatever the case, like a man with a bruised ego, it was all hot air. The only cinematic neophytes of the era who were able to cut through the hyperbole and find something meaningful were the actors James Dean and Marlon Brando, the former who would not survive the excesses of the era, and the latter who would only be able to cover up serious emotional problems (including a massive eating disorder) for about the span of the decade. By the early 1960's, the first signs of a new understanding of what cinema was and could be began to emerge, but all too commonly the films were dragged down by the left over traditions of the previous era. It was finally in 1967 though, that the break became clear. A new generation was in town and they were not at all satisfied with the way things had been. This new generation would go on to create the greatest decade in cinema history, 1970's, but it was in its roots, 1967, that you find the most excitement. The new auteurs were still honing their craft, but what they lacked in polish they made up for with an abundance of passion. This emotional devotion to creation is palpable, which is why 1967 is the brilliant year that it is.

     For the most part, though probablY filled with old-timers of the Hollywood of yesteryear, the Academy did a decent job recognizing the films of the new generation. The largest glaring omission, and the film that is actually my favorite of the year (it ranked in at #5 in my all-time list), is "Cool Hand Luke". The film and the character "Cool Hand Luke" is one of the coolest creations in film history, the ultimate rebel (a much less self-aware version of " A Rebel Without a Cause"), a true existential warrior. How the Academy passed over the film, especially in favor of one miserable film I will be discussing briefly, is a mystery that I frankly don't want to uncover (or to be fair to the Academy, they did honor the film in a number of other areas). Another great American film that should have received consideration for the top prize is "The Dirty Dozen", a fun "group of men on a mission" movie that would later influence such great work as Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds". Finally, there are two films from around the era whose eligibility is questionable. The first is Sergio Leone's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". The film was first released in 1966, but did not receive an American release until 1967, so I don't know what year the Academy considered it eligible. Which ever year it fell under the proper eligibility though, it should have been nominated. Finally, the last case is "The Battle of Algiers", which is a strange case indeed. First released internationally in 1966, and receiving an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Film in that year, the film would not receive an American release until 1967. However, somehow the film managed to receive Oscar nominations for Best Director and Screenplay in 1968, hopping over 1967. Had it been eligible though, it too should have absolutely been included into the list of the year's five best films. Now though, it's on to the actual nominees.