EW Writes About Fixing the Oscars

It seems that one analysis of the 83^rd Academy Awards will not suffice. I came to this conclusion after I read the article in the March 11th issue of Entertainment Weekly (EW). [#1145, March 11, 2011, “How to Fix the Oscars,” page 44]

Number one on their list was also my main suggestion in my previous post, which was to go back to five best picture nominees. Yes! See, Chewing the Oscars: Getting Down and Dirty.

Next, EW dealt with the hosts, and we are pretty much on the same wave length here. Franco and Hathaway were too young and inexperienced, and the material they were given was not up to the usual standard for hosts. It all showed, big time.

EW suggested that Tina Fey and Will Farrell host the show. Emphatically, I DO NOT agree. The Oscar broadcast should not be a circus joke fest, although the broadcast is listing in that direction.

I mentioned Billy Crystal as an example of a contemporary host of exemplary quality. They mention two others, which I should have but neglected to mention, Hugh Jackman and Steve Martin. All of them did an excellent job helming the Oscars.

In the suggestion “Stop Chasing Your Youth,” EW points out that people do not watch the Oscars to constantly be reminded as to how “hip” the Academy is with technology.  I took it much further in my post than they.

I think most viewers tune in to watch the Oscars because their favorite movie star and/or one of the movies they saw during the year is nominated for something. They enjoy the “horse race” and want to be a part of it. Heck, they probably have 25 bucks, or more, in the office pool riding on their choices to win. They want to root for their choices, and gloat when they have picked a winner.

I was giving "Oscar Parties" in Los Angeles long before the Academy ever designated their Oscar Night Parties. Someone passed it on to them, and I am happy they did. We can all still enjoy our private parties with our friends and families.

EW suggests something to wake up the audience in mid-show. I agree. As I pointed out, after 20-something acceptance speeches all of which could be given for any winner simply by changing the names, we need something stimulating.

They suggest something like Woody Allen’s salute to NYC after 9/11. I suggested in my previous post, and still do, a mini salute to the individual given the year’s Lifetime Achievement Oscar at the un-televised Governor’s Ball. I’m still smarting because that has been completely removed from the Oscar Broadcast.

I suggest, no statue, no speeches. The receiver is introduced by some hot star of today, reminding the audience how great this individual once was, and the honoree takes a spotlight bow to hearty applause.

I do agree, and I missed writing about this in the previous post, that all short films should be removed and honored elsewhere. I go to commercial movie theaters fairly regularly and in different places. It has been decades since I have seen a movie short of any kind run at a theater. Perhaps in city art houses they still have one evening when they show the nominated short films, but not in Peoria.

For those not in the know, many years ago when a movie project was pitched to producers or a studio head, they would ask, “But, will it play in Peoria?” 

Someone, I have forgotten who, determined that Peoria, Illinois, was the perfect example of middle-class America. I doubt short films are shown in Peoria. Perhaps they should be included in the evening when the student film awards are presented.

EW suggests some other things, too, such as moving the broadcast back to January, but then they admit that the logistics, in relation to the awards season in general, would be a nightmare. That it would. Why did they suggest it in the first place?

EW thinks there should be a rule that costars do not present. I agree. I would add, unless the costar won the Academy Award the year before in the category he/she is presenting.

They urge the Academy pay attention to the Grammy’s which gives only 10 awards. I agree. There are too many awards that are not relevant to today's viewers.

In days gone by during the Golden Age of Hollywood (1920’s to mid-1950s) the Academy gave the awards at and for the pleasure of the Academy members, which were broadcast by radio. With the advent of national television. they began to give the awards to pleasure the entire nation. Now, in this century, they are taking on the world, and that is a huge responsibility. Are they living up to the task?

Personally, I do not think so. If the awards are going to be for the world to enjoy, there is big room for improvement, and it would not necessarily involve whiz bang technology. However, that is another post for another year.

EW did not mention the revolving producers in the last five years, as I did, but this is the last I shall write about this year’s Oscars. Promise! The first words for next year’s Oscars? Think:

Kevin Spacey.

Chewing the Oscars: Getting Down and Dirty

When I was a little girl there was a tradition in our small farming community. The minister/ preacher/ brother, the title varied, was invited to a parishioner’s home for dinner every Sunday after church along with his wife and children. We will use Preacher Man here, because the preacher was always a man, and he at least attempted to preach. The Preacher Man’s invitations were rotated among the members.

My grandmother was known for her chicken and dumplings, or fried chicken, fruit cobblers and chocolate banana pudding, but mostly her biscuits. That meant she cooked dinner, served shortly after noon, for the Preacher Man about every six months. When the Preacher Man was coming to Sunday dinner, we were assured of an interesting afternoon whether any children tagged along, or not, and it grew more interesting as I got older.

After the dessert, Preacher Man would loosen his belt and say something like, “Well, I guess it is time for us grownups to chew the sermon.” That was the children’s cure to skedaddle.

I never went into the hallway or out into the yard to play with the others. I hid behind the kitchen door and listened. Preacher Man would ask, “What did you think?” Sometimes, the conversation became heated but it never came to blows. After all, everyone at the table pretty much had the same religious beliefs.

Why am I writing this here? Because, after viewing the 83rd Academy Awards, I really feel like "chewing" the recent awards. For the winners, please read the previous post.

First of all, the hosts for the evening, Anne Hathaway and James Franco, have been taking a lot of flack from the critics for a boring show. In my post, December 4, 2010, “Not Thrilled with the Oscar Host Picks,” I wrote much less strongly than I felt about the choice of the inexperienced Hathaway and Franco. I decided to walk lightly, but I definitely had my doubts that either alone, or both together, could carry the show.

Franco and Hathaway were chosen and hired by the producers, Bruce Cohen and Don Mischer, and as Craig Ferguson said so emphatically on his show the following night, “The blame for their performances rests squarely on the people who hired them.” I want to add that some of that blame should also go to the writers for the lines and “stage business” they wrote for them say and do.

A little over half way into the show, there was video of the late, great Bob Hope, the best television host the Oscars ever had. It was meant to be a tribute, but I immediately thought, “Oh, gee, I wish we had Bob Hope tonight instead of . . .” The producers chose Billy Chrystal to give the tribute, pouring salt into the wound. I think Chrystal follows behind Hope and Johnny Carson in the pantheon of great Oscar hosts of all time. What were they thinking?

Then, there was the elementary school chorus at the end of the show. Why? Sure, they are cute and very talented, as is their director, but the pint-size YouTube sensations have a long way to go to earn the Oscar spotlight. It was a vaudeville moment and did nothing to enhance to show.

The most abhorrent thing to me about the recent Oscar broadcasts is the deterioration of the acceptance speeches. In this recent broadcast there were 30-something speeches and they were almost all exactly the same. Except for a couple, only the names of the thanked were changed. Early on, I was yearning to hear a speech from the likes of Charlton Heston, Elizabeth Taylor, David Niven, Bette Davis, Ben Kingsley, Maureen O’Hara, or Laurence Olivier. I did not.

It seems to be in vogue now that every person is obligated to thank their spouse or significant other. Plus, there is their agent, the director and cast of the movie, their co-nominees, their parents living or dead, their children, and sometimes, their favorite elementary school teacher. Heck, they may even praise their dog. Enough is enough. Really!

I think the best speech of the evening was that of the writer for the original screenplay, The King's Speech, David Seidler. He opened with, "I have been told that I am a late bloomer." The story behind Mr. Seidler's writing of the screenplay is almost as interesting as the movie. That story was not told during the Oscars, but it is worth a Google. 

There are two other problems that must be mentioned. The Academy opened the Best Feature Motion Picture up to 10 films in order to give more movies a chance and, hopefully, increase viewership in the process, but I do not see it working well at all.

One director friend quipped to me, “It is so much better to be ranked one in the five best films of the year than one in ten.”

I agree. I think they should go back to five. Ten are more expensive to showcase than five, and they are not gaining anymore viewers with those additional nominations, so adding five more films has not been cost effective. Also, more than five films muddles the nomination process since the supporting categories only allow for five each (director, etc.)

Neither has it been productive to change the voting process from what it was a decade ago. Two cases in point, the Best Foreign Language Feature Film and the Best Feature Documentary.

Starting with the foreign language film, the movie from Mexico, Biutiful, in Spanish, and starring the box office draw Javier Bardem, who also received a best actor nomination for his role in the movie. Biutiful was directed by Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu (Babel, Amores Perrors). In the final vote, it was passed over for the movie In a Better World (Hævnen) from Demark.

In a Better World is in Danish, Swedish, and some English. It is directed by Susanne Bier, and rated R for language as well as violent and disturbing content, some involving preteens. I do not like the choice.

Bier has directed one American movie, After the Fire, and her Danish movie Efter brylluppet (After the Wedding, 2006) was nominated in the Best Foreign Language Film Category for that year, but lost to The Lives of Others, a German film directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. I saw both movies and After the Wedding did not hold a candle to The Lives of Others. There, the Academy members made the best choice.

I have no idea how the Greek movie Dogtooth received a nomination in this category this year. It is the most vile and disgusting movie I have ever seen.

For one thing, I do not see Americans rushing to see In a Better World, or buying the DVD, so they can frantically read subtitles. I admit the Castilian Spanish and Catalan are not familiar to most Americans, but about 40 per cent of Americans can speak or understand the Spanish spoken in Mexico, the USA, and in the movie, Biutiful.

What is the reasoning for these seemingly irrational choices? For the Best Foreign Language Film Category, the actual selection up until the final vote is done by committees appointed by the Academy. One committee starts with X amount of films submitted to the Academy by countries around the world, and finally, it picks nine.

Then, it gets complicated, but somehow members in New York and Los Angeles vote for their choice, then, another committee picks five from which the nominations come. All Academy members may vote for this category on the final ballot, but only after being certified as having seen all five nominated films, or something like that.

The way I understand it, Academy members are not allowed to vote for the best feature documentary, even if they have seen all the documentary films. Only a small number of individuals form a committee, selected from Academy members who have been involved with documentary film making.

This select group starts with a list of 15 documentaries to consider, and finally narrows the field to five. Then, this committee votes for the winner. So, it is their own kind voting for their own kind, and I think it is wrong. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

The final choice of the committee was Inside Job, directed by Charles H. Ferguson and produced by Audrey Marrs. Inside Job takes an extensive look at the financial meltdown, starting with Wall Street in 2008, and the causes. Three years ago, Ferguson was nominated for No End in Sight, about the American occupation of Iraq.

This year, he addressed the audience with the statement, "Not a single financial executive has gone to jail and that is wrong." He received a substantial round of applause with the statuette.

What about the documentary feature directed by Davis Guggenheim, Waiting for Superman? It was released to good reviews. It did not make the final list for a nomination.

One major problem with the Academy Awards broadcast is that for almost five years, the Academy has been giving tryouts to various producers and hosts. Few, if any, have passed the test. Each year the producers have gone overboard trying to come up with irrelevant stage business and everything else other than aiming for a sophisticated, interesting, cultural experience.

The Academy dream machine has developed a hiccup by trying to be all things to everyman and every woman. Plus, this year they desperately tried to prove how hip they were with social media, and the set was much too "busy," and distracting. In addition, perhaps someone will have the sense to at least introduce the recipient at the Governor's Ball of the Honorary Oscar for Lifetime Achievement in Film. That would be a very kind thing, and I miss it.

Therefore, I would like to nominate a producer for next year whom I think has the talent and know how to right the ship of Oscar before it takes on too much pompous bombast and sinks. I think he can not only right the ship, he has the skills to produce a sophisticated first-class show.

That person is Kevin Spacey. He has proven himself at the Old Globe in England, as well as his guiding hand at the Sarajevo Film Festival, and in many other endeavors. I urge the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences’ Board of Governors to ask him to produce next year’s awards show. I encourage them to make the offer immediately. He is a busy man.

The 83rd Academy Awards: Winners, Losers, Numbers and Quirks

Colin Firth in The King's Speech

The King’s Speech (TKS) received 12 nominations and won four. Of course, they were four very important ones: Best Original Screenplay (David Seidler), Best Director (Tom Hooper), Best Actor (Colin Firth) and Best Feature Motion Picture of 2010, the really big one! For some reason, TKS did not win the cinematography award. That went to Inception.

The Social Network (TSN), which came out of the gate the strong favorite, began to recede after TKS was released. It received eight nominations and won three, Best Adapted Screenplay (Aaron Sorkin), Film Editing, and Original Score (Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross).

In the final analysis, TKS bested TSN in all three of the major categories where they competed -- Best Actor, Best Director, and, of course, Best Picture. Also, David Seidler, writer of the best original screenplay for TKS, made the best acceptance speech of the night, followed by Colin Firth. The Brits definitely won the night.

It was no surprise that Natalie Portman won Best Actress for her performance as the anorexic, neurotic Lesbian ballerina in Black Swan. Out of five nominations, that was the only win for the movie, and score one more point for the Brits.

The Oscars for Best Actress and Actor in a Supporting Role both went to The Fighter's, Melissa Leo and Christian Bale, and those were it for The Fighter. It was nominated for seven.

Inception received eight nominations and walked away with four technical awards: Cinematography, Visual Effects, Sound Mixing, and Sound Editing. The director of Inception, Christopher Nolan, did not receive a best directing nomination. Nominating 10 films for best picture and only five in all of the other categories skews the overall results.

For instance, nominating five movies for best picture, means all five directors of those films stand a good chance of getting a nomination, but only five out of 10 can get nominated with 10 films in the running, and all the other categories are affected as well. So, one or two deserving nominations tied to a best picture win, such as best director, cinematography or screenplay, will not happen. Do the math, people.

Toy Story 3 received five nominations and received two statuettes, one for Best Animated Film and the other for Best Song, “We Belong Together,” music and lyrics by Randy Newman who performed it on the broadcast. It was a foregone conclusion that TOY STORY 3 would not win best picture, although it was nominated. I think that nomination was a salute to the franchise, which it deserved. There will be no more Toy Story movies, at least for now, but the trilogy will endure.

True Grit received 10 nominations but did not win a single award, so it will have 10 loses for its lifetime reputation. I think that might be a record, and I cannot even begin to speculate about the cause. The film's Box Office results indicated it was better than that, I think it deserved more, and so did Roger Ebert.

Likewise, 127 Hours scored zero wins out of four nominations, as did Winter’s Bone and The Kids Are All Right. The Best Documentary Feature, Inside Job, was directed by Charles Ferguson and Audrey Mars. I do not track the short films.
 
Alice in Wonderland did not receive a best picture nod, but did receive three nominations and two wins, Art Direction and Costume Design. It lost Visual Effects to Inception.

No question about the fact that the big studio productions won the night. Also, did anyone notice there was not one nomination for a black anywhere? I believe that is the first time in years.

To see the list of all the nominees and the winners, click the title of this post. The next post "Chewing the Oscar Broadcast,  Best of 2011."

Oscar® Performers and TV Show Revamp

James Franco

Anne Hathaway

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the nominated songs will be performed again this year. Bruce Cohen and Don Mischer, the producers of the 83rd Academy Awards® have announced some of the things to expect during Sunday's broadcast.

For instance, did anyone notice they were not performed last year? I did, and I did not like the omission.

Randy Newman will perform his "We Belong Together" from Toy Story 3. Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi, who sang the duet "I See the Light" on the Tangled soundtrack, will re-team with composer Alan Menken. Gwyneth Paltrow will sing "Coming Home," which she sang in Country Strong. The English singer known as Dido, who was nominated with Rollo Armstrong and A.R. Rahman for the song, "If I Rise" from 127 Hours, is not available. Florence Welch from Florence + the Machine will perform with Rahman.

Co-hosts Anne Hathaway, 28, and James Franco, 32,  will make double history at the broadcast. Not only are they two of the youngest hosts at the Oscars, there has never been a male/female duo carry the hosting duties together for the entire broadcast.

There will be no more presenter testimonials to the actors and actresses, and no more movie montages. Good riddance to both.

They are getting a bit cutie. For instance, some of the mothers and Franco's grandmother will tweet on their Twitter accounts during the show. Also, the producers have chosen an elementary school chorus, mostly 10-year-old students from P.S. 22 on Staten Island, N.Y., to sing "Over the Rainbow." Why? I have no earthly idea. We shall see.

The stage set will not be set. It will be projected, capable of constantly changing. This is very new. It should be interesting, but will it prove distracting?

Also, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ President Tom Sherak and Anne Sweeney, President of the Disney/ABC Television Group, announced yesterday that the ABC Television Network’s contract to carry the annual Academy Awards presentations has been extended for six more years, through 2020.

The 83rd Academy Awards, which will air live on Sunday, February 27, will be the 36th consecutive ceremony to air on ABC. Check local listings.

You are Invited to Oscar® Gala with an All Access Pass

Get the All Access Pass for the Oscars®

Movie fans, your “All Access” pass for Oscar Night® is now available on Oscar.com (www.oscar.com/all-access), the official online home of the 83rd Academy Awards®.  This new interactive feature will provide an experience to the online audience during the live Oscar® show never before available.

Beginning at 3:30 p.m. PT, 6:30 ET, Sunday, February 27, all Oscar.com visitors will experience Oscar’s red carpet through multiple camera positions capturing celebrity arrivals, glamorous fashions, and press activity.  During the telecast, users may visit the show’s control truck, check out the backstage “Thank You Cam” at which winners continue their acceptance remarks, and watch and listen as the winners take questions from the world’s press in the interview room.

For a premium Oscar Night experience, users may register ($4.99) for additional, exclusive viewing opportunities.  Multiple “360 cams,” a groundbreaking technology that users control with the click/drag functionality of the computer mouse, will be positioned throughout the red carpet, the Kodak Theatre and the Governors Ball, the Academy’s celebration immediately following Academy Awards.

On the red carpet, users will be able to watch Oscar nominees and presenters mixing and mingling as they enjoy the pre-ceremony champagne reception. Inside the Kodak Theatre, viewers will see the presenters’ hair and makeup area, watch the guests interact during commercial breaks and see the Academy’s official winner portrait area.

The access continues at the Governors Ball, where users will be able see Oscar winners arriving at the party and having their statuettes being affixed with nameplates. Designed to be perfect companion to the Oscar telecast, over the course of the evening, “All Access” users will have the ability to choose from more than 24 strategically placed cameras throughout the venue.

iPad, iPhone and iPod touch users can also get their own ultimate insider’s view with the new Oscar Backstage Pass App.  Available for download at the App Store  for $0.99, the Oscar Backstage Pass app includes the same features as “All Access” without the “360 cam” technology. (www.itunes.com/appstore)

Click the title of this post for all the details. 

Academy Awards for outstanding film achievements of 2010 will be presented on Sunday, February 27, 2011, at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood and Highland Center®, and televised live by the ABC Television Network beginning at 5 p.m. PT, 8 p.m. ET.  The Oscar presentation also will be televised live in more than 200 countries worldwide.

Final Oscar® Ballot Return Deadline Looms

Completed final ballots for the 83rd Academy Awards^® must be returned to PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) by 5 p.m., Tuesday, February 22. Ballots received after the deadline will not be counted.

Listed on the ballots are nominees in 19 Awards categories. Separate ballots for five categories (Documentary Feature, Documentary Short Subject, Foreign Language Film, Animated Short Film and Live Action Short Film) are also due.

Following the tabulation of the votes at PwC, the winners’ names will be placed in sealed envelopes to be opened at the awards gala, Sunday, February 28, 2011.

The Academy's new interactive Web site is now fully open, and those who subscribe to special Oscar access will be able to view the gala on their PC, and do more with their smart phones. This is not limited to Academy members only. It is available to everyone who subscribes. Click the title of this post to access the site and learn more.

The gala will be televised live by the ABC Television Network beginning at 5 p.m. PT/8 p.m. ET. The Oscar presentation also will be televised live in more than 200 countries worldwide.

Roger Ebert and I Pick Some Oscar® Winners

Firth and Carter

Mr. Roger Ebert made his Oscar® predictions for the 83rd Academy Awards® on his blog a couple of days ago. I made some of mine (best picture and acting awards) a couple of weeks ago, and posted them here on the second post down. I repeat those here with more explanation, and add some more because every year I do this competition with Ebert, but he doesn't know I do it. I can never enter an Oscar picking contest, because I can never pick the lesser categories, but I fare pretty well in the major ones.

Okay, I'm rolling up my sleeves, confirming my previous picks, and announcing some additional ones. Ebert writes his preference for Best Feature Motion Picture of 2010 would be THE SOCIAL NETWORK, if he were a voting member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science. However, he believes THE KING'S SPEECH will win because, “A British historical drama about a brave man struggling to overcome a disability, and then leading his people into World War II, looks better to the Academy than a cutting-edge portrait of hyperactive nerds.”

I, too, choose THE KING'S SPEECH for Best Feature Motion Picture. I choose it because I think it is as near to a perfect a movie as one can make. Normal viewers and Academy members appreciate a film they can enjoy without constantly being distracted by flaws here and there, especially in writing, directing, cinematography, film editing, sound editing, and an overpowering music score.

THE KING'S SPEECH is based upon the life of King George VI and his wife, later known as the Queen Mum of Britain. At this time in history, they are the parents of two young Princesses Elizabeth, now Queen Elizabeth II, and her late younger sister, Margaret.

The movie's focus is on Colin Firth's character, known to his family as Bertie, who becomes King George VI of England when the older brother Edward abdicates the throne to marry a divorcee, Mrs. Simpson. Young Bertie is confronted with the prospect of World War II looming on the horizon even before he becomes king.

As King of England, Birdie will need to address the nation over the new "fangeled" radio. No longer can a king wave from a car or a balcony. He must speak. However, Birdie has a debilitating stutter. What to do?

Firth's portrayal is not only about the mechanics of stuttering, but the anguish in the eyes of the young prince because he despises his inadequacy, which he cannot help but might overcome. Plus, the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG) honored Firth for best performance of a male actor. As I often point out, 80% of SAG's nominees go on to win an Oscar. I, like Ebert, think Firth will win Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role. In my judgment, his performance is above fantastic.

I saw a poll where people who viewed THE KING'S SPEECH gave it a 97% enjoyment rating. TRUE GRIT was next with 88% followed by THE FIGHTER at 80. No other movie in the poll but THE KING'S SPEECH was higher than 88%.

Geoffrey Rush may well win Best Supporting Actor on his own merit portraying the king's speech therapist and eventual friend, as Ebert predicts. I feel the role limited Rush's acting, but he could win due to the "coattail" effect from the movie.

However, SAG gave their award to Christian Bale, who in THE FIGHTER depicts the ne're-do-well, drug-ravaged older half-brother boxer, Dickey Ecklund. Dickey's younger half-brother Mickey Ward, portrayed by Mark Wahlberg, also boxes but defers to his mother's support of Dickey to go for the title, rather than seeking the title himself.

This movie, as is THE KING'S SPEECH, is based on a true story. Some of the family are still living, especially the brothers. Bale in THE FIGHTER, like Firth, disappears into the character of Dickey. I choose Bale.

Ebert goes with Hailee Steinfeld, TRUE GRIT, for Best Supporting Actress. Although, he points out, she was really an actress in a leading role. I do not dispute that. However, she is just "out of the gate" as an actress, so she was nominated in the supporting category. I do not think she will win anything, not that she doesn't deserve it. Again, as with Bale, I am going with SAG who honored Melissa Leo (THE FIGHTER). See my second post down about the SAG Awards.

Natalie Portman

For Actress in a Leading Role, beautiful Natalie Portman (BLACK SWAN) was born in Israel, received an Oscar nomination for THE CLOSER (2001), seems to be the favorite, and has all the chops to win. I should choose her to win, as did Ebert. I am  not doing so. I am swallowing hard and choosing someone else.

There are extenuating situations concerning Annette Bening, also nominated in the category for THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, which compel me to go against the popular assumption and choose her:

(1) Besides the current movie, Bening has previously been nominated three times for an Oscar for acting, two for best actress, BEING JULIA (2004) and AMERICAN BEAUTY (1999), and one for supporting actress for THE GRIFFTERS (1990). (2) THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT received three nominations for 2010, for best motion picture, screenplay, and Bening. Obviously, she has support from her peers for an acting Oscar.

(3) Also, both Bening and her husband, Warren Beatty, are well respected by Academy members, and her interpretation of the "male" in the movie's Lesbian relationship is superb. (4) Bening is now slightly over 50,  has made 28 movies as an actress, is still beautiful, and she has no Oscar for her efforts.

(5) Natalie Portman is young, turning 30 this year, and was nominated for an Oscar in 2001 for CLOSER. She still has time to hone her acting, and I do not think she has reached her acting potential yet. Remember, SAG winners receive an Oscar 80%, not 100%, of the time, and I think this may be one of the times their nominee does not win. I know it is a long shot, but I am taking it.

I believe the Best Director will be Tom Hooper, THE KING'S SPEECH. H received the Directors Guild of America award. Again, unlike with THE SOCIAL NETWORK, I became so engrossed in the movie, I never noticed the camera. That is the way it should be. If anyone has ever directed on stage or screen they watch the blocking in a production. I have, and the blocking was excellent. For those that do not know what blocking is, it is the placement of the actors in a scene.

I agree with Ebert that Aaron Sorkin's adapted screenplay for THE SOCIAL NETWORK will be the topper. The movie is based on the novel, The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich.

Ebert believes Mike Leigh's original screenplay for ANOTHER YEAR is the best original screenplay of the year, but he thinks David Seidler will win for THE KING'S SPEECH. So do I. It won the Writers Guild Award for best original screenplay.

I agree with Ebert that TOY STORY3 will win the Best Animated Feature Film Oscar hands down. It is the most popular animated movie of the year, grossed over $400 million, and is also nominated for Best Feature Motion Picture. I would say it has a big edge over the other two nominated movies in the animated feature film category.

I also agree with Ebert about BIUTIFUL (Mexico), directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu, who also co-wrote the screenplay.  I hope it will win the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film because it deserves to win. Iñárritu received a directing Oscar nomination for BABEL in 2006.

BIUTIFUL'S star is the Spanish Oscar winner (NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN), Javier Bardem. He and his Spanish wife Penelope Cruz have a new son, and many Academy members like that because they also like both Bardem and Cruz. He is nominated for Best Actor for his performance in this movie as the dying father, a performance that is, "magnifico!" 

Hans Zimmer won the Hollywood Music in Media Award in November for his original score for INCEPTION, and Ebert liked the score for THE SOCIAL NETWORK, but he believes, as do I, that the Oscar will go to Alexandre Desplat for THE KING'S SPEECH. For me, the score was like the camera, I hardly noticed it was there, but when I listened during transitions, I liked what I heard. As Ebert says, THE KING'S SPEECH will sweep some of the awards with it, i.e., that "coattail effect" again, and the score may be one.

For Achievement in Music, Original Song, I must go with A.R. Rahman's "If I Rise" from 127 HOURS. Actually, Rahman's score for 127 HOURS may fool us all and win the Oscar for the score as well.

Two more to go. One for Outstanding Cinematography, and the other for Outstanding Film Editing. I agree with Ebert that the cinematography of  Roger Deakins, nominated for TRUE GRIT is outstanding. According to Ebert, Deakins has been nominated nine times and has not won one. Ebert thinks this might be his year, however, he goes with THE KING'S SPEECH and Denny Cohen. True, Cohen could benefit from the "coattail effect" but I am going with Deakins and TRUE GRIT, because I think he deserves it.

For Outstanding Film Editing, I go with THE SOCIAL NETWORK (TSN) since INCEPTION did not get a nomination in this category. The editing by Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter for TSN obviously was a complex challenge, and I think they met it. I do not fault the editing for THE KING'S SPEECH, but I think its complexity does not match that of TSN.

And that is as far as I go with my predictions now. Ebert has more choices on his blog, and you can read those by clicking the title of this post. Do you think you can outguess Ebert's picks? Click the title of this post and scroll down to find the $100,000 contest information. Can you outguess me? Sorry, if so, no money.

Here's a big tip in picking Best Motion Picture. Early on in the ceremony watch and note which film wins for: directing, cinematography, film editing, sound editing, writing, and it helps if it scores a win for best actor or actress. The film that wins at least the first five of these will, almost without exception, be the winner in the category. You can make book on it.

The Oscars® . There is an App for That!

If you have an iPad, iPhone and/or and iPod touch, you are invited to download and/or update your official Oscars® App. Do not have the application? Read on to see what you can do with it.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has unveiled the latest version of its Academy Awards® application, which reflects this year’s nominations, allows users to broadcast their own Oscar® picks, and will provide real-time Oscar Night® results.  More than half a million users downloaded the app following its debut prior to last year’s show.

Designed for the Academy by the Los Angeles-based creative shop Omelet, the app connects users to a comprehensive nominees list, trailers for the 10 Best Picture-nominated films, and an interactive ballot to predict winners in each of the 24 Academy Awards categories. Users’ predictions are saved to a database that enables sharing with friends via social media such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as by e-mail and SMS.

The app will also be active beyond Oscars Night, allowing users to be a part of the Academy’s year-round public events – screenings, tributes, exhibitions – in Los Angeles, New York and the San Francisco Bay Area. Users may also access the organization’s extensive Academy Awards database, which is the official record of all Oscar winners and nominees.

The Oscars App is available for free from the App Store on iPhone and iPod touch devices or at www.itunes.com/appstore/.

Academy Awards for outstanding film achievements of 2010 will be presented on Sunday, February 27, 2011, at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood and  Highland Center®, and televised live by the ABC Television Network beginning at 5 p.m. PT/8 p.m. ET.  The Oscar presentation also will be televised live in more than 200 countries worldwide.

Oscar® Acting Nominations Compared to Screen Actors Guild Awards

The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) was chartered 62 years ago. Since 1962, the Guild bestowed a number of luminaries with Life Achievement Awards, in both movies and television, but had never produced a televised awards ceremony with various "outstanding performance" categories until 1995.

In his book All About Oscar, Emanuel Levy notes the influence SAG award winners have at the Academy Awards. SAG's 61-year-history has shown that with 4,200 member actors representing 24 percent of voting Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences members -- the largest voting block in the Academy -- 80 percent of SAG winners go on to win an Oscar. See More.

Remember when Sandra Bullock won Best Actress in a Lead Role for The Blind Side? Many scoffed. They thought SAG was off its rocker. It wasn't.

This year SAG members celebrated the 17th Annual Televised Screen Actors Guild Awards Gala. They now, too, award a heavy gold statuette of a male nude, or is it androgynous?

Their statuette holds a gold theatrical mask in each hand. The raised left hand holds the comedy mask, and close to his/it's shoulder, the right hand holds the drama mask. This year's Awards Gala was held Sunday, January 30, 2011, and was broadcast coast to-coast on TNT and TBS.

All these winners are also nominated for an Oscar. And, the winners are:

Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture: The King's Speech;

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role: Colin Firth (King George VI) The King's Speech;

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role: Natalie Portman (Nina Sayers) Black Swan;

Outstanding Performance by a  Male Actor in a Supporting Role: Christian Bale (Dicky Eklund) The Fighter;

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role: Melissa Leo (Alice Ward) The Fighter.

I like their designations of female and male actor, but I am always in favor of removing gender biases. Why are we still using actor and actress in the 21st Century? They all act. Therefore, they are actors. 

So, will the above list repeat itself at the 83rd Academy Awards? The recipients were exactly the same for The Golden Globes, except there was no Best Cast Globe Award. The Globes are considered another reliable Oscar predictor.

For more on the 17th SAG Awards, and to see all the nominees and winners, click the title of this post.

Final Oscar® Ballots are in the Mail.

I remember that I wrote my next post would be: "Oscar® Acting Nominations Compared to Screen Actors Guild Awards." Of course, the order of posts depend upon what communications I get from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Today I received one.

But first, I want to report that I have now seen all but one of the movies nominated for Best Motion Picture of 2010, that one being '127 Hours.' After seeing 'The Kings Speech', I can unequivocally say that, of all the movies I have seen this past year, 'The King's Speech' comes the closest to being the most perfect film of them all - - acting, directing, writing and technical.

I wish I could now hear the score by Alexandre Desplat because I was hardly aware of the music while viewing the film, and that is how a perfect film score should be. I was in awe of how Colin Firth seemed to actually have a speech defect. Talk about perfection. But, more about the acting in, hopefully the next post.

Final ballots for the 83rd Academy Awards® were mailed today (February 2nd) to the 5,755 voting members of the Academy. Completed ballots must be returned to PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) by 5 p.m., PT, Tuesday, February 22nd.  Ballots received at PwC after the deadline will not be counted. Trust me, they mean it.

I remember when I was at PwC, actor Richard Crenna called me in a panic. He claimed his secretary had failed to send the ballot to arrive the day before, and he wanted to messenger his ballot over to me at once. My answer was, of course, "Sorry, Dick. Not possible." He was a fellow Trojan, and I often thought about calling him to see if he fired his secretary, but I didn't.

Listed on the final Oscar ballots mailed today are nominees in 19 Awards categories. Separate ballots for five categories (Documentary Feature, Documentary Short Subject, Foreign Language Film, Animated Short Film and Live Action Short Film) will be distributed after verification of mandatory member attendance at screenings.

Following the tabulation of the votes, the winners’ names will be placed in sealed envelopes to be opened on Oscar Night®, Sunday, February 27th. On that night, Academy Awards for outstanding film achievements of 2010 will be presented at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland Center®, and televised live by the ABC Television Network beginning at 5 p.m. PT/8 p.m. ET.  The Oscar presentation also will be televised live in more than 200 countries worldwide.

Box Office and the Oscars®

WINTER'S BONE

THE KING'S SPEECH

There is often speculation that motion pictures that do well at the Box Office have more of a chance of winning an Oscar®. I have been an "Oscar watcher" for longer than I shall admit here and, frankly, there does not seem to be a correlation. I would love to research it and do a quantified statistical study. Anyone want to fund it? But, then, there are so many variables.

So, let's get down to crunching some numbers pertaining to this year's nominees for Best Motion Picture and their Box Office numbers just before they were nominated. We will do the winner's stats after the 83rd Academy Awards®, February 17.

Having compared the grosses of the ten nominees on January 24, let us rank them all, highest gross first with the number of their nominations in parentheses:

TOY STORY 3, $414.9M (5); INCEPTION, $292.5 (8); TRUE GRIT, $137.9M (10); THE SOCIAL NETWORK, $95.4M (8); BLACK SWAN, $83.2M (5 ); THE FIGHTER $72.6 (7); THE KING'S SPEECH, $57.3M (12 ); THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT (4 ); 127 HOURS (6); and WINTER'S BONE $6.2m (4). (For more see: Box Office Mojo.)

Please, keep in mind that these movies were released at different times. Some had a longer time to amass Box Office numbers than others but, even so, one can easily see that the Box Office receipts had little impact on the number of nominations a movie received.

To get a better comparison, let's break them down starting with TOY STORY 3, which was leading the Box Office receipts by miles just before the Best Picture nominations were announced. It was the earliest Best Picture nominee to release, June 18, and it's gross was $414.9 Million on January 24. By comparison, the lowest-budgeted independent movie, WINTER'S BONE, released June 11th, with a gross of $6.2M. The highest and the lowest. Yet, WINTER'S BONE is nominated for four Oscars, Toy Story, five.

The second best gross was INCEPTION'S $292.5M, released July 16th. We can compare that to the low-budget nominated movie released only two days before on July 9th, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, which came in at $20.8M.

Moving on to Oct 1st, and to one of the most anticipated movies of the year, THE SOCIAL NETWORK. Its gross was $95.4M.

THE KING'S SPEECH was released November 26th, almost two months later, and grossed $57.3M. Do the math, use an algorithm, whatever, and you see right away that THE KING'S SPEECH was only $48.1M behind THE SOCIAL NETWORK on January 24th and, therefore, THE KING'S SPEECH shows stronger legs than THE SOCIAL NETWORK. Also released in November, 127 HOURS opened on November 5th, and it grossed a weak $11.2M. Wobbly legs at best.

Three nominated movies were released in December. BLACK SWAN opened first, December 3rd, THE FIGHTER on December 10, followed by TRUE GRIT on December 22nd. The last Best Picture nominee to open.

How do their gross totals on January 24 compare? One would think that the last movie opening would have the least gross. Not so. The last film grossed the most behind INCEPTION, which was released five months earlier. The grosses for the movies opening from the 3rd to the 22nd of December were: BLACK SWAN $83.2M, THE FIGHTER $72.6M, and TRUE GRIT $137.9M. I predict TRUE GRIT has legs of a stallion.

Click the title of this post to access the Official 2011 Oscar Web site. See previous posts, below, for more, and there will be many more posts between now and the February 27th 83rd Academy Awards Gala. Next Post: "Acting Nominations Compared to Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Awards."  The SAG awards will be held tomorrow night.

Discussing More Best Picture Oscar® Nominations

In the Previous post directly below, we looked at the Academy Awards® nominations, announced January 25th. We began with the Best Picture nominee that received the most nominations for the coveted Oscar®, The King's Speech (12), and right behind it, True Grit (10). Next in the order of the number of nominations for Best Picture, are The Social Network, Inception and The Fighter. The Social Network and Inception each received eight nominations.

Besides the Best Picture nod, other nominations for The Social Network are: Best Actor for Jessie Eisenberg’s portrayal of  Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, Director (David Fincher), Adapted Screenplay (Aaron Sorkin) and Original Score (Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross). Other Achievement nominations are for Cinematography, Film Editing and Sound Mixing.

The other nominations for Inception are: Art Direction, Cinematography, Original  Score, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects, and Original Screenplay (Christopher Nolan). 

The surprise is that the creator of the film and director, Christopher Nolan, was nominated for Original Screenplay, but did not receive a nomination for Best Director. Because Nolan did not get a nomination in that category, and there is no nomination for Film Editing, either, Inception may be hurt in the final voting. The more nominations related to the Hollywood Guilds, the more votes a movie garners. With large Academy memberships are the Screen Actors Guild of (SAG), The Producers Guild of America (PGA) and the Director's Guild of America (DGA). The SAG nominations are this weekend.
 
The Fighter is next with seven nominations. Besides Best Picture, The Fighter received three acting nominations, as did The King's Speech. Christian Bale is nominated for an actor in a supporting role; Amy Adams for an actress in a supporting role; and Melissa Leo for an actress in a supporting role. Other Achievement nominations were: Directing (David O. Russell); Film Editing; and Original screenplay (Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy and Eric Johnson).
 
Click the title of this post to access the Official 2011 Oscar Web site. There will be many more posts on this blog discussing the nomination categories between now and the February 27th 83rd Academy Awards Gala. Next post? "Box Office and the Oscar".

Best Picture Oscar® Nominations and One Long Shot

I found no surprises in the Oscar nominations announced today by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for the 83rd Academy Awards®. I haven't even seen The King's Speech, yet, but I tapped it a month ago to get an Oscar® nomination for the Best Motion Picture of 2010. It received the most nominations, twelve in all.

Actors Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter and Geoffrey Rush all received nominations, a stellar lineup. Firth was nominated for Best Actor in a lead role. Rush and Carter were nominated in the acting supporting categories, actor and actress respectively. Director Tom Hooper made the cut for achievement as best director.

The other nine Best Picture slots went to 127 Hours, The Kids Are All Right, Black Swan, The Social Network, Inception, The Fighter, Winter's Bone, Toy Story 3, and True Grit. The King's Speech did exceedingly well in the technical categories to gain a sure footing on the path to a Best Motion Picture Oscar.

Remember boys and girls, the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) has the biggest voting block in the Academy. Thus, where SAG goes, the academy usually follows. SAG will give their awards this Sunday (30th).

All the actors nominated for their roles in The Social Network are also nominated for SAG awards in the same categories. Plus, the movie is nominated for the Best Cast award. The others nominated by SAG for best cast are: Black Swan, The Fighter, The Kids Are All Right and The Social Network.

The other directors nominated are: David Fincher (The Social Network), Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan), the Brothers Cohen (True Grit) and David O. Russell (The Fighter).

The King's Speech received seven other nominations for achievement in: art direction, cinematography, film editing, original score, original screenplay, sound mixing and costume design.

Getting the most nominations is always commendable in the Oscar race, but movies have racked up the most nominations before, only to go home empty handed. I do not think The King's Speech will experience that problem.

Now, that I have acknowledged True Grit above, I must clarify the statements used in some of the reporting about the movie's lack of even a single Golden Globe nomination. The words, or phrases, used were snubbed, overlooked, passed over, ignored, etc. The truth is, True Grit was not released until December 22, and the Globes ballots were mailed to members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) on December 2nd. The final screening date was the 8th, press conferences the 9th, and ballots were due at Ernst and Young on the 10th for tabulation. Paramount set the HFPA an impossible task.

In not releasing True Grit before December first, Paramount allowed the studio to grab a good box office gross over the holidays, and take the lead in money charts, but it was too late for True Grit to get any Golden Globe nominations. I think that was a bad move by Paramount.

True Grit came in second in the Oscar race with ten nominations, including acting honors for Jeff Bridges and Hailee Steinfeld. Also, the aforementioned Cohen brothers directing nomination as well as their nomination for best adapted screenplay. In the other "achievement in" categories, True Grit was nominated for: art direction, costume, cinematography, film editing, sound editing and mixing.

Actor Jeff Bridges (Rooster) is nominated by SAG for best actor. SAG nominated actress Hailee Stienfeld (Mattie) in the best supporting actress category, too. There has been some contention about Stienfeld's supporting actress nod. Some believe that she should have been nominated as best actress.

The best picture long shot? That would be Toy Story 3 (Walt Disney), which I previously suggested would probably be nominated in the Best Motion Picture category, as well as the Best Animated Feature Film category. With it in the last category are: How to Train Your Dragon (Paramount) and The Illusionist (Sony Pictures). If I were voting, I would vote for Toy Story 3 for the Oscar in this category. It is no Fantasia. I think the Best Picture nomination is a "special salute" to Walt Disney and all those who participated in the Toy Story trilogy, and that, in itself, is a good thing.

The same was probably true about the salute to UP last year. I personally felt that the salute was not only for Walt Disney and Pixar, as well as all who participated, but it was an extra special salute to Mr. Edward Asner and Mr. Christopher Plummer.


More posts to follow about the nominations. Next post, "Discussing Three More Best Picture Nominees".