Oscar Predictions... all 24 categories

The following predictions are in the reported (by Nikki Finke) presentation order:

Art Direction – Alice in Wonderland certainly has a nice edge with its fantasy setting, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I benefits from the same, though not as much. True Grit has some good, well, grit. But, this award comes down to The King’s Speech and Inception. Arguably, Inception should take this (as the obvious choice of Alice in Wonderland probably won’t)… but The King’s Speech, whatever its strengths actually are (i.e. they are NOT in its Art Direction), may just take everything for which it’s nominated. However, I think Inception will take this one.

Cinematography – Westerns have an advantage here (though I’m not sure they always win, they do seem to get nominated a lot) with wide open skies and whatnot, so this should be Roger Deakins’ award to lose. Inception had some great visuals, but the strength seems to be the visuals and not how those visuals were framed. The King’s Speech and the Social Network are more about the writing and the acting than any great visuals (not that they don’t also look good). Black Swan did take the Spirit Award (I’m watching the Spirit Awards as I write this), but it wasn’t against these nominees there. Really, this award is for True Grit to take.

Supporting Actress – One of the obvious ones, so let’s rule out the losers. Amy Adams is in the same film as Leo (the winner) and she has the less flashy part, so she’s out. Helena Bonham Carter for Alice in Wonderland I can understand, but here it’s just another bit of The King’s Speech being nominated for, well, every damn award they could squeeze it into, but she won’t win; her part is small, there isn’t much emotion to it, and she’s not doing anything that about any actress couldn’t do in her place. Hailee Steinfeld was great and I would say she deserves this award—she or Jacki Weaver, who was amazingly creepy in Animal Kingdom—but, while I don’t think Hailee being in the wrong category will hurt her (she’s still the possible upset), the momentum of Melissa Leo in this category will keep up, regardless of what anyone thought of her consideration ads.

Animated Feature – How to Train Your Dragon was a fun movie, maybe a little weak in its last act, but good, enjoyable, and it made great use of 3D. But, the plot is actually pretty basic, nothing special. The Illusionist needed this nomination just so people will go out and see it. Still, not a lot of people will bother… they should. It’s better than a lot of the other films in a lot of the other categories. That being said, Toy Story 3 is better, fully deserving of its Best Picture nomination. It won’t win for Best Picture, but Toy Story 3 will win here.

Animated Short – I wrote a whole blog on this category just tonight, so I won’t get into much detail except to say Let’s Pollute is awesome, The Lost Thing is strangely fascinatingly odd, Masagascar A Journey Diary is stylish and visually interesting but ultimately empty of any real content. But, Day & Night manages to balance hugely fun visuals and style with a clear, concise message.

Adapted Screenplay – Honestly, I don’t know any of the source material (outside of the previous Toy Story films, of course), but I’m guessing most of the Academy doesn’t either, so this isn’t really about which screenplay necessarily adapts its source best, but which screenplay is best out of those that happen to be adapted. Just getting that out there. Anyway, all five of these have some great writing. 127 Hours manages to build a complete story with a very limited focus. Winter’s Bone takes a bunch of characters, most of which should be fairly unlikeable, and pulls the audience in. Toy Story 3 manages to have the pathos of a serious film, some fantastic comedy (on multiple age levels but somehow not separating the jokes into adult ones and kids ones as some animated films do) and some perilous drama (I still say the incinerator scene was one of the best dramatic scenes in any film all year). True Grit manages to be almost the epitome of modern westerns as well as the epitome of Coen brothers films. Still this is Aaron Sorkin’s award; like Winter’s Bone, The Social Network gives us a handful of characters we probably shouldn’t like but gives us reason to root for any and all of them, with crisp, witty dialogue and nary a word wasted.

Original Screenplay – Up front, I must say again, I don’t think Mike Leigh’s style of “screenplay” should even be considered as a contender is this category. The WGA does have a category for documentary writing, so Leigh’s makeshift style (more like a documentary screenplay to me, put together after footage which comes after cast meetings and pseudo-improv invention) certainly counts as writing—I wouldn’t slight him that much—but it is not, strictly speaking, a screenplay. But, he’s not going to win anyway, so on to the rest. The Fighter is a by-the-numbers boxing film, hindered by reality in that Bale’s character never really gets in the way of his brother’s success, not in a real dramatic sense. The Kids Are All Right took the Spirit Award, yeah, and it’s a good script (I still think someone needs to do an infidelity story that doesn’t include sex, but maybe that’s just me) but despite its lauds, it’s a comedy which doesn’t necessarily weigh in its favor on Oscar day. Inception, too complicated for a lot of its audience and, at the same time, a little simplistic in some of its characterization and plot, was probably the best of the nominees as far as its writing goes, and it did take the WGA award. But, this award is more likely to go to The King’s Speech, which wasn’t eligible there.

Foreign Language Film – I’ve only seen two of the nominees here, Biutiful and Dogtooth. Biutiful is one of a few recent films deserving of a descriptor like “haunting.” It’s depressing, it deals with some subject matter about which many probably wouldn’t want to see a film (notably, illegal sweatshop workers), but it’s a great drama, with a dark but clear throughline, some great acting (not just by Bardem, nominated below) and writing and directing. Dogtooth is also about some stuff many wouldn’t want to see; it’s got explicit sex, disturbing violence and, depending on how you take it, a political message to which many would object. It is at once one of the best and one of the worst films I have seen. Dogtooth won’t win, can’t win. Biutiful may. But, I have a feeling that In a Better World will take this one.

Supporting Actor – John Hawkes took the Spirit Award, but will suffer from the smallness of Winter’s Bone here. He just won’t have the support (pun unintended) for this award. Jeremy Renner has a good turn humanizing a guy who (just like Hawkes’ character, actually) is actually a bit disturbing and unlikeable. Mark Ruffalo is charming but really doesn’t have much depth in The Kids Are All Right. Geoffrey Rush is a longshot for the upset, doing a great job with a great role, but this award belongs to Christian Bale who, it’s been said, so embodied his character that locals mistook him for the real thing during filming.

Original Score – Who remembers How to Train Your Dragon for its music? Desplat’s score for The King’s Speech is lazy and unoriginal. Zimmer’s work in Inception is good, but mostly depends on existing music for its most memorable portions (not so much that it was ineligible, of course, but enough that I think it shouldn’t win). 127 Hours made good use of music, but better use of various songs than the score, but it is the potential upset here, but only by far. This award belongs to Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross for The Social Network, a score that is haunting, adding a tonal depth to the film that, really, is probably in part responsible for the film standing out from other dialogue heavy fare.

Sound Mixing – I still think Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I should have been in this category and the next. But, it’s not, and these predictions are not about wishful thinking (for the most part) but about how I think the Academy voting will come out. Salt gets to represent the action films of the year here, but it won’t win. True Grit and The Social Network shine elsewhere. The King’s Speech, even as much as it depends on sound, its focus being voice, probably won’t take this one. This award goes to Inception, creating the world of dreams audibly as well as visually (we’ll get to that in a bit).

Sound Editing – Unstoppable takes the action movie slot here… as does TRON: Legacy I suppose, and I guess either one has a shot. True Grit—well, I’m not even sure why that one made this particular list. Toy Story 3, as well, doesn’t seem specifically fit for a sound category—though I wouldn’t slight the sound of the film; I just don’t think it’s about that. So, absent some really obvious reason for any of these, again, sound goes to Inception, combining music, explosions, dialogue, everything, without overloading our ears.

Makeup – The Way Back uses makeup mostly for swollen limbs and injuries, and I think the Academy is more likely to go for stuff that involves the face more. Barney’s Version makes great use of subtle makeup, aging multiple characters over many years, while The Wolfman goes for bigger, more obvious stuff (but blurs the line a little between that makeup and CGI). Still, in recent years, the Academy has gone for more obvious over more subtle, so this one goes to The Wolfman.

Costume Design – Personally, I think the pseudo-conquistador costumes made up of zippers in The Tempest were awesome and deserve recognition from somewhere, if not the Oscars. But, no one saw that film, and most of the few who did see it didn’t like it, so it’s not likely to win any award. I Am Love makes great use of fashion in Tilda Swinton’s various outfits, but it may suffer the subtlety problem (like Barney’s Version in the Makeup category). Similarly, The King’s Speech actually should suffer that problem (but might not), as should True Grit (though that bear costume was cool, it wasn’t really representative of the film as a whole). This should be the award for Alice in Wonderland… but there could easily be an upset here.

Documentary Short – Already did a blog focused on these nominees, but short version: The Warriors of Qiugang and Killing in the Name seem incomplete to me, wanting. Sun Come Up belabors the global warming subject when its focus is far more specific. Strangers No More is the most pleasant of the options and is a potential upset, but really doesn’t come right out and get to its point (a child in the film arguably states the thesis of the piece, but the documentary itself leaves it up to the audience to decide for sure; maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad). My favorite was Poster Girl, and it was the most affecting of the group and got the most applause at the screening I attended. Still, Killing in the Name has a good topic, more obvious in its timeliness though really concurrent with Poster Girl. So, I’m going to call it for Poster Girl (but I will admit that is partly wishful thinking).

Live Action Short – Already did a blog tonight on this category as well. Short version: God of Love lacks substance, Na Wewe should’ve gone for comedy more than drama, The Crush was great but is shorter (yeah, I think it may come down to that) than the other two, as good, nominees. The Confession is great, sad, poignant. But, Wish 143 gets at some of the sad, retains some of the cute of The Crush and doesn’t have its lead be responsible for something as bad as that in The Confession. So, I’m predicting Wish 143.

Documentary Feature – I haven’t seen Waste Land but I also haven’t seen much of anyone predicting it to win. Gas Land was good but came across more as a TV level documentary than something worthy of being a feature. Restrepo was good after about half an hour, when I got to know the characters; I wonder how many Academy members were bored, or confused, by then. It comes down to Inside Job and Exit Through the Gift Shop. Inside Job took the DGA and WGA award for documentary and has a nice timely subject in the economy (however unfeelingly it presents it half the time). As much as I would love it if Exit Through the Gift Shop would win (and it was nice to see it take the Spirit Award tonight), to see if Banksy would show up, I think this one will go to the safer choice of Inside Job.

Visual Effects – Some great choices here, the blockbuster Iron Man 2, the seemingly smallscale (and somewhat forgettable) drama Hereafter, the outlandish Alice in Wonderland and the rather routine (as far as its visuals go, after 6 previous films) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I. But, if there is any award that needs to go to Inception, it’s this one.

Film Editing – Some great editing work here—even as much as I like to dismiss The Fighter, its editing was good… albeit nothing new. Similarly, The King’s Speech is a straightforward drama, with simple pacing, nothing exciting (perhaps deliberately the opposite, actually, which would be a plus for its chances here, I guess). Black Swan often dependent on its editing for the tension, 127 Hours building a complete film out of a limited setting and very limited cast. But, The Social Network weaves together multiple story threads, an out-of-chronological-order sequencing (similar to 127 Hours) but still has to make dialogue heavy scenes interesting (similar to The King’s Speech). This award can be an easy predictor of Best Picture, and I think this one is going to The Social Network.

Original Song – Over-the-credits songs and in-context, story-related songs are two very different animals. And, this category gives us two of each. I See the Light is probably the best song in Tangled, certainly the most memorable, but I find myself comparing it not to its competition here but to earlier Disney animated musicals’ songs, and it comes up a bit lacking. It’s like the afterthought to the action, rather than the action itself. Coming Home, though Country Strong is not really a Musical per se, is arguably the key to the entire film, but I’m not sure much of the Academy bothered to watch the film, and those who would like the music probably hated the ending, and those who might’ve liked the ending probably didn’t care for the music. Between the two, I think this only got nominated because the film is so music heavy, not because it’s really going to win, even if it maybe should. As for the over-the-credits songs, If I Rise is nice, but out of context doesn’t make me think of the film, doesn’t connect me with Aron Ralston in that canyon. A R Rahman may have recently won in this category, but the song seems more like a Dido piece, slowed down, with a bit of Rahman’s Indian tones pasted on. We Belong Together is far more pleasant, it’s got a beat, and even out of context, it makes me think of the film, of those toys striving to stay together. The song not only captures this film but makes for a great bookend with You’ve Got a Friend in Me. So, I’ve got to say, this one’s going to We Belong Together.

Director – DGA gave this to Tom Hooper—and I almost mistyped that as Tobe Hooper… how awesome would The King’s Speech have been then? But, everything else has been giving it to Fincher. Even the BAFTAs gave it to Fincher. The correlation between DGA and Oscar is not 100% and this will be one of the exceptions. Aronofsky did a fantastic job, as did the Coens. Russell has done better, less derivative work before… in retrospect, I wonder if Three Kings was so good because of the writing and not the direction. This award is David Fincher’s award to lose, but he won’t.

Actress – Jennifer Lawrence couldn’t even get the Spirit Award, though John Hawkes and Dale Dickey did. She was great, and I hope this nomination lines her up for something serious again after the X-Men movie (or that, by some fluke, there’s some serious acting going on in that one, but I doubt it), but she’s a longshot. Michelle Williams and Nicole Kidman, I think are even farther off, not because they didn’t take the win at the Spirit Awards either but because their films were actually even smaller than Winter’s Bone. Occasionally, the tiny film gets a big boost in an acting category, but not this year. It comes down to two independent but obviously bigger movies, and I don’t think the momentum has shifted much to Annette Bening over Natalie Portman. This is Black Swan’s award for the night, and really, without Natalie Portman, that film would not be what it is.

Actor – Jeff Bridges won last year, and his turn in True Grit, while awesome, doesn’t stand out here. Javier Bardem does great work in Biutiful, but for a foreign language nominee to get an acting award at the Oscars, it’s got to be something bigger, something more audience friendly (see Roberto Benigni). Jesse Eisenberg, while front and center in The Social Network, also doesn’t stand out… maybe he’s suffering from his character being a bit unlikable. James Franco took the Spirit Award, which is good, because he’s a longshot here. Arguably he shouldn’t be; he essentially carried 127 Hours on his shoulders, perhaps even moreso than Danny Boyle as director. But, this isn’t his year. Colin Firth, who lost last year to Bridges, does something in The King’s Speech that any actor in the Academy (and obviously, plenty of non actors and those outside the Academy) would be impressed by; he altered his speech pattern so much that it gave him physical tics offscreen. He embodied the damaged voice of his character in a way many an actor not only couldn’t but probably wouldn’t even want to try. There is no way this goes to anyone but Colin Firth.

Picture – All that being said, this category, ten nominees aside, comes down to two films. The momentum has been shifting toward The King’s Speech, away from The Social Network. Last year, the momentum shift put The Hurt Locker over Avatar. There’s a strange opposite thing going on, in the sense that last year the more audience friendly film lost its momentum to the edgier, critic friendly one, and this year the critic friendly one is losing momentum to the audience friendly one. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that despite the guild awards, The Social Network will still have the support. I may regret this one, but I’m going to predict The Social Network over The King’s Speech.

Oscar Nominated Live Action Shorts

God of Love – Certainly a competent film, and the resolution is cute (though the actual 3 month frame seems unnecessary), but there’s no real substance here. While there’s opening for serious discussion (or visual meditation at least) on the idea of love, this really just plays with a very simple idea—cupid’s darts as a reality—and, well, doesn’t go much further than that. This is all surface, though it’s a nice enough surface… black and white when it doesn’t have to be, but looking nice in the execution.

Na Wewe – A nice idea (assuming I took from it what the filmmakers wanted me to), a potentially violent situation, armed men dividing Hutus from Tutsis, clearly intent on executing one group. But, then it’s played almost for laughs for a bit as it turns out each person is actually neither Hutu nor Tutsi… even their potential executioner can’t tell them apart. And, when one of them turns out to be a Tutsi, it comes to a long past connection between his father and the head of the armed men, and U2 music, to give him the chance to escape. There’s potential here, if it was taken even more for laughs, but inevitably it has to come back to drama in the end—afterall, life and death are on the line—and I think it would have been better served making the situation, racial distinctions that most the world couldn’t even recognize let alone care about, to absurd levels.

The Crush – Pleasant from the start, The Crush gives us a boy in love with his teacher, and drops us into the middle of the action, as he gives her a ring and understands that might just mean they are now engaged… until he meets her fiancé and wants to prove himself the better man. The movie’s available on itunes, and I would recommend watching it, so I won’t get into much detail further in, as it will spoil the film. Instead, I’ll mention a challenge to duel to the death, laughingly accepted until a gun’s involved… and still the film remains cute and upbeat.

The Confession – With his first confession coming, a boy realizes he doesn’t know what he’s done that is worth confessing. So, he and his friend set out to commit a small prank that abruptly turns into something far worse… I’m simplifying it, but I’m trying not to give much away. It’s a great little film, with two young boys as the leads. But, I don’t know if it can win. The Crush is more pleasant, and Wish 143 is more… encompassing (if that makes any sense).

Wish 143 – A teenage boy dying from cancer gets a visit from a make-a-wish-foundation-ish guy and his big wish is to lose his virginity. His story makes the paper, which gets him a few visits from his minister and one from an old girlfriend. There’s prostitutes involved, and even one of the minister’s friends… but again, I’d rather people watch this one than I go through the plot (all of the nominated shorts are on itunes). There isn’t any great style to the filmmaking here, but like The Crush, like The Confession, this is a good little film. I’ve seen better, but I’ve seen far worse. In the end, this isn’t a movie about a teenager seeking sex; it’s far from being that shallow. It’s worth your time, and, probably, worth the Oscar I think it might get tomorrow.

Oscar Nominated Animated Shorts

Madagascar, carnet de voyage – This short has a great style to it, presenting itself as pages of an actual journal, but taking that 2-dimensional imagery and spreading it into 3 dimensions… but then there’s no real substance to what’s being shown. I haven’t checked, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this was simply taken from an actual scrapbook of someone’s trip to Madagascar—it probably was—with a few snapshots animated slightly and a few travel montages shoved in between, but without any obvious purpose to any of it. I’d like to see more of the style, but with a point.

The Lost Thing – Similarly, this short has more style than substance, but even with its message (or what I took as such) left only in the subtext, the story is a simple enough tale—guy finds a creature on the beach and takes it home, then has to find it a home when its presence doesn’t work at his house. There’s some nice visual cues here, a lot of exposed pipes and strangely fascistic architecture, stuff befitting a post-apocalyptic or dystopian future, though there isn’t much time spent on the meaning of all of it. It reminded me of The Mysterious Explorations of Jasper Morello from a while back, a lot of time spent on visuals and a need for… not more story, necessarily. There is a certain denouement in this one that makes the throughline complete, but the world seems much more fully realized than we are allowed to see. And, this last is both a very good thing and a very bad thing, a very sad thing in that I want more but there just isn’t more to be had.

Let’s Pollute – A surprisingly amusing and intelligent film, the shortest of the nominees (or maybe tied with Madagascar). Let’s Pollute steps past a sarcastic tone to rather brilliant satire, putting a very big message about pollution, about conservation, recycling and all that comes with those into a very small package. Produced cheaply and with a very simple 2-dimensional style, Let’s Pollute comes across at once as an educational video (albeit with the opposite message to what one might expect) and a subversive tract that would feel right at home among the documentary nominees.

The Gruffalo – The longest of the animated shorts this year, that should give this one an edge. But, aside from a bit of cuteness (which I would guess comes straight from the children’s book, but I’m not familiar with the original), there isn’t anything too exciting going on here. The look isn’t anything special; the creatures especially come across closer to 2-dimensional than 3-dimensional, while the environment plays more 3-dimensional. It’s entertaining, but it’s not anything that hasn’t been seen before.

Day & Night – Now, Pixar’s mix of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional imagery here, while probably not too innovative, comes across as something very new, using sound effects in place of dialogue (except for a few key lines of radio broadcast that give a very clear theme to something that otherwise seems like nothing but a fun visual romp). And, that parenthetical gets at the key to this short in my opinion, that surface fun skittering over a very serious topic, but getting in and out of that topic without much of a notion of meditation on it, but giving that extra beat to make it obvious to anyone paying attention. It’s a brilliant mix of visual style and content. None of these nominees really combines both as greatly as I’d prefer, but Day & Night has an obvious flare (thank you, Pixar) that leaves the others behind.

Oscar Nominated Documentary Shorts

Sun Come Up – On the surface, this is about Carteret Islanders, who are trying to find land on nearby Bougainville because their island is “sinking.” Underneath, there’s an obvious (and occasionally explicit) link to global warming, their islands going away because of the rising ocean. But, there is also a distinct human element. Bougainville had a civil war in recent history, what locals call the “crisis.” This crisis makes it that much more difficult for the Carteret to find locals willing to effectively give land away—the Carteret are a culture mostly untouched by modern capitalism and modern agriculture. Bougainvilleans in the film characterize them more than once as lazy, and question whether or not they can really manage to work the land as they will have to on Bougainville. I was drawn into the story, the plight of these Carteret Islanders and felt sorry for them at some of their meetings with locals in various Bougainville villages, but I’m not sure the balance between the literal tale, the connection to global warming and even the potential culture clash balance very well, and in the end, this doesn’t seem like a winner in this category. Still, the subject is ripe for more investigation, which is always a plus in any documentary. If I want to know more when the credits role, then clearly my interest at least has been piqued.

The Warriors of Qiugang – Last year, I thought the best of the documentary shorts was Tears of Sichuan Province, another story about China’s transition into the First World, another conflict between locals and local officials that leaves locals wanting. But, while the subject here--locals fighting against factories poisoning their air and water—is interesting, like Sun Come Up, in the ends, the documentary is lacking something. While there is some success for the people in the film, the denouement is less than one might want. Of course, this is a documentary, so it cannot always be wrapped up in a nice package, with a clear ending and clear winners and loser; in fact, that is often the key to many a documentary. The recent The Cove arguably hadn’t solved much of the problem of dolphins being slaughtered for food, but it drew a large enough picture of what was involved that in context of the documentary itself it didn’t matter so much. Perhaps this subject deserves more room—there are other documentaries on the same subject out there… I think it’s not too recent but I recently watched Maquiladores, which touched on factory pollution, just for one example.

Strangers No More – Arguably the most pleasant of the nominated documentary shorts this year, Strangers No More gives us a school in Tel Aviv where refugees of many different nationalities and cultures come together to learn, some of them being in school for the first time. They learn a common language—Hebrew—to communicate with one another and with their teachers and to learn, and while the film hints at some very depressing pasts for various characters (one student from Darfur saw his grandmother and father killed with machete and has no idea if the rest of his family is even alive) but mostly deals with the hope of these kids’ new surroundings, the possibilities opening to children who were barred from modern opportunities like college in their previous environments, wartorn nations and the like. Entertainment Weekly called this one as the likely upset for the award.

Killing in the Name – Entertainment Weekly’s pick for winner is about Ashraf, whose wedding was bombed in 2005 by an Islamic extremist. He sets out to sit down with the father of a suicide bomber and to present the story of victims’ wives to young men who may become the next generation of bomber. The film also includes commentary from a recruiter for such bombers. There is definitely a great subject here, and a good, personal approach that makes it very compelling, but it actually seems like too big a subject for 40 minutes. I think the film fails to accomplish what it sets out to do by limiting itself in length and in scope.

Poster Girl – On the other hand, this film, about a young woman with post-traumatic stress disorder, tells such a singular, personal story that is almost designed for such a short piece. It probably didn’t hurt that I’ve been dealing with the subject of PTSD a lot this year (as that was this year’s LD debate topic, or at least one obvious iteration thereof, anyway), but the primary focus here—Sergeant Robynn Murray—is a very personable young woman, and it is very easy to fall prey to the same swings in emotion that she does on screen, to feel anger when she feels angry, to be happy in the end when she finds comfort finally in Combat Paper art. Ashraf, in Killing in the Name, seems to emotionally detached from his quest; perhaps, if that documentary were given more room to breathe, we might witness more of his dealing with his own personal tragedy instead of looking into a very volatile subject with a bit too much detachment. Here, in Poster Girl, though, just as in, say The Pat Tillman Story (which made the shortlist but did not get a nomination for Documentary Feature), the story is personal, and there is real emotion on the screen, whereas Killing in the Name seems to simply be catching a “war on terror” wave without really delving even into its own angle on the subject, let alone really pulling us into the larger issues at hand. Poster Girl definitely falls heavily into the antiwar camp, so it isn’t a film for everyone, but it is probably the best photographed of the group here (Strangers No More being another well photographed piece), is definitely the best edited, and in my opinion, is the one that captures a large issue in is small time without seeming to either need more time or more cutting. I’m not sure if it will win, but I think it should.

The Way Back, The Company Men, Dogtooth

The Way Back is exactly what one might expect it to be… except Colin Firth is awesome-he’s often good but rarely awesome, and out of the various actors here, he does the most notable work. Ed Harris is good, but not as good as he could be, plus (SPOILER) his character seems doomed to die before the story is through, and then it just never gets there, i.e. he doesn’t die, so the throughline isn’t complete. Though his throughline is complete, Jim Sturgess’ also lacks a real conclusion… like the recent version of True Grit, the ending jumps abruptly ahead so that the actor we’ve been attached to doesn’t get to be in his own denouement, and that doesn’t sit well here—it didn’t sit well with me in True Grit, and it sits even less well here, and that marching through history montage that leads up to it, well, that was visually a bit lame and storywise a bit pointless. I think the whole sequence would have been better served as a simple onscreen text letting us know what happened with his character. Now, it is worth mentioning that there is a very un-Hollywood thing going on in the middle of this movie (again, SPOILER) in the ending for Saoirse Ronan’s storyline. While the text at the beginning of the film pretty much guarantees she isn’t making it to India, the fact that she dies as she does was a nice touch that just wouldn’t sit well in an audience-tested, producer-noted Hollywood film. The other actors, mostly unknowns (at least here—I haven’t checked if they’re all, like, seriously famous international actors), do good work, but the film, as I have already said, plays out just as expected as far as where it’s going. If you know anything going in, it’s that these men make it over the Himalayas, so while there’s some question as to which of them succeed, the central plot has only one place to go.

The Company Men is a good ending for a trilogy that includes Capitalism: A Love Story and Inside Job. It’s a nice fictional piece for those who need to vent about the economy and how lives are ruined by jobs lost… and like some rather silly complaints on its IMDB board, yes, it is about some relatively rich guys and we are expected to feel for them when they lose their jobs. Affleck’s character is not actually that rich but just keeping up appearances with a salary that, while it is certainly higher than average, does allow him to have a nice house and Porsche (for which he’s still making payments)… really, the notion that we can’t feel sorry, even for Chris Cooper’s character, who though he also isn’t necessarily “rich” clearly makes even better money than Affleck’s, or at least has invested his money better, being many more years into his career, or even for Tommy Lee Jones’ character, who actually qualifies as rich and is at least partly responsible for the layoffs that start the film. But, the thing is, this film actually takes the time to comment, more than once, on the fact that executives make far more money than their work should be worth compared to what the workers under them make. This movie is not suggesting these men should be rich. If anything, the movie comes out very much against executives making huge salaries, companies getting so huge that workers are just names on lists, easily gotten rid of when mergers come along and there are redundant positions. All that being said, this movie is not as good as it should be, given the actors involved. And, given certain similarities to The Illusionist (that almost got me doing a blog just comparing the two), it is worth mentioning that this film doesn’t necessarily take the time to really dwell on a lot of the issues involved. The Illusionist is more of a meditative piece about three men who can’t find work doing what they used to do, one of these men being suicidal… (and here there be spoilers) while The Company Men is more of a simple American drama that just happens to be about three men who lose their jobs and one of which ends up being suicidal. Sure, there is some dialogue about executive pay and very explicit conversation about how the layoffs are wrong, but it doesn’t necessarily invite one to really think about the issues involved. That’s why I say it would make a good companion piece to Moore’s Capitalism and Inside Job, a nice rage-at-the-economy sandwich, and then you could watch the Illusionist to decompress and depress (or get depressed, but that wasn’t as poetic).

Dogtooth is a strange film… and when I call a film strange, that is saying something. The setup is simple: a brother and two sisters (designated as older and younger, no names) are kept from knowing anything of the outside world by their parents, so much so that they don’t know that cats are not the most dangerous animals around, able to kill easily a grown man. So much so that when they learn words like telephone (offscreen, sometime before the start of the film) or pussy, their parents make up meanings for them that have nothing to do with reality; a telephone is a salt shaker and a pussy is a big light. Also, zombies are small yellow flowers, sea is a chair, etc. These children are not allowed to be normal, and come across often as very young children while played by adults and clearly meant to be teenagers. They are rewarded for winning various challenges with stickers, and are with viewings of old family videos or listening to American music that father claims is their grandfather and which he deliberately mistranslates into Greek for them. The film contains sex, numerously implicit and a few times explicit, and a few sudden bits of violence (one of which sent a guy, almost running, out of the theater… I guess he has a problem with tooth injuries). The film is clearly intended to be some sort of commentary on how parents (or even government) can seriously mess up our lives, and there may be some very specifically Greek angle to this that I don’t get, but mostly it seems universal enough. But, ultimately, absent an in-story explanation for why the parents have taken their protectiveness to such extremes, absent a conclusive ending (the last shot, like Inception’s famous top, cuts to black before we know just how it’s going to go), it’s hard to be sure just what the filmmakers wanted to say about the subject. The movie is not for everyone… hell, it’s not for much of anyone, though apparently the Greeks loved it, and the Academy has nominated it for Best Foreign Language Film (it won’t win, and really, I’m not sure what the Academy members who nominated it were necessarily thinking in picking this over some of the other qualified films). Of course, having seen it once, knowing what it’s getting at (and being the guy who did a whole blog justifying A Serbian Film), I kinda want to see it again, to see if it stands up better on repeat viewing…

Of course, I’m of a mind that a film should work the first time. But these days, we often know so much about a film or the people involved in making it before we see it that it’s hard to really judge too objectively.

Biutiful, Salt, The Wolfman, I Am Love… and is there some changing Oscar momentum?

Biutiful is occasionally beautiful, often moving and entirely better than a few of the English-language Oscar nominees this year (shall I rant about The Fighter or The Kids Are All Right again?). Damaged characters who occasionally do bad things and inadvertently do some very bad things—this is my kind of movie. It’s not for everyone—and not just because we American filmgoers tend to not want to read our movies. This is not a happy film; just look at the premise: a man who talks to dead people, has an addict wife, has two kids who clearly could use a better quality of life, employs desperate illegal immigrants and who has just been diagnosed with terminal cancer. There is much sadness in play, to be sure. There is some great use of visuals, notably some mirrors in the same vein as Black Swan but more subtly. There is also a very strange stripper bar, the details of which are so unique I was sure it had to have some deliberate meaning for the film… otherwise why not simply film at a more generic stripper bar? Except I still haven’t figure it out… maybe some symbolic ubercultural motherhood thing? Nevermind that. Bardem proves worthy of his nomination for Best Actor (though even if some crazy fluke meant Colin Firth wasn’t going to win, it wouldn’t be Bardem to take the top slot from him). Anyway, for anyone who has seen or read about the film and wants to see it, you will probably like it a lot. If you’ve not even heard of it (and still aren’t sure you know what it is, even after seeing it on the Oscar nominations list or reading the above paragraph) then it’s probably not for you.

Salt is not a great film. But, it was actually better than I expected, flowing fairly well through its various setpieces to a finale it didn’t necessarily earn (through characterization, that is). The writing holds up, for a shallow action movie anyway. There isn’t much time given to letting us get to know the characters or even necessarily care about them. But, it’s not like this was advertised as a movie with great depth. It is an action movie that harkens back to Cold War era spy thrillers with more modern stuntwork. It also has some good sound (it’s up for Sound Mixing at the Oscars), though I think Inception’s got it beat. Plus, it is far better than another movie I watched last night…

The Wolfman is an awful movie. There is some fine visual effects, some good makeup (that latter one is where it falls on the Oscar nominations list) and even a few good action sequences; it’s rated R for “bloody horror violence and gore” and it makes good use of both those things. What it doesn’t make any good use of is actors… or writers. Seriously, on that latter one, writing credit goes to Andrew Kevin Walker, writer of Se7en… so, I guess ALL the credit for the greatness of that film must go to David Fincher, because Walker has turned into a hack. Really, when you have a character explaining his feelings about his dead wife and describing how he walks the halls of his big empty house at night looking for her (or whatever that damn line was) and Anthony Hopkins can’t do anything with the line, you have a problem. When there seems to be a love story trying to be at the heart of your story and yet the male and female leads have hardly any screentime together, have no chemistry, have had no romantic scenes and I WANT him to kill her in the big finale, there is a problem with not only the writing and directing but also the acting. Anthony Hopkins was phoning in his scenes. Del Toro makes one wonder if he ever bothered emoting on screen (I know he’s been great in the past, but this film almost blocks out my memories of it). Emily Blunt was a waste of screen space, a waste of story time and really had nothing to do so she barely had time to do it badly. Perhaps the only actor who actually did anything good with what he was given was Hugo Weaving. Of course, he had very little to do except simply be the cop. He also gets one of the only good lines in the entire movie when he explains why he’s simply sitting in the local tavern rather than out hunting the monster that’s killing people—I should really spoil that so you don’t have to bother watching the movie… but I can’t find the scene online. Of course, the film doesn’t bother making us want to care about any of these characters anyway—seriously, I didn’t even know del Toro’s character was named Lawrence until close to the end of the film and I didn’t realize Weaving was supposed to be Aberline of Jack the Ripper fame until I just tried to find his tavern scene online. Instead it spends 10 to 20 minutes (which felt more like 40) trying to be a horror film without having established setting, let alone any characters or even a monster, then lets some actors wander around. The only sequence that was really any good (aside from Weaving’s scene mentioned above) was probably the whole asylum sequence, in which del Toro is tortured and then finally turns into the wolfman right in front of a bunch of stupid doctors who apparently didn’t read the arrest report, since for some reason they think he’s crazy when the guy who caught him totally bought into the wolfman thing (or considering he was supposed to be Aberline, I guess maybe he didn’t but that was not at all the impression I got watching the film). Anyway, I really hope this film doesn’t get the Oscar for makeup, but it’s got a good shot I suppose, up against Barney’s Version and The Way Back. I haven’t seen the latter (yet) but the former uses makeup for aging (and maybe de-aging) characters, nothing fancy. La Vie en Rose won for such a thing a few years back, but other recent winners have been the less subtle uses of makeup.

Moving on, I Am Love is a great film, a strangely understated drama, a romance, a tragedy. But, it’s up for Costume Design, not Foreign Language Film (it had been mentioned as a possibility there leading up to Oscar nominations but no luck). So, skipping past some good acting work by Tilda Swinton (in an Italian-speaking role, by the way) and some good performances from a bunch of Italian actors with which I am not familiar, there is some great use of blurs and unreal lighting in the film, some good sets, nice camera work… so I could see it being up for Art Direction. The costumes… well, Swinton’s do add a bit of character, but most of the rest of basic suits, plain clothes. Well, the recently-turned lesbian daughter does have an annoyingly noticeable sweater she wears to the funeral, but I don’t think I was supposed to think that inappropriate. So, it’s just Swinton’s various dresses, and I doubt that’s going to win over, say, True Grit, or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 or Alice in Wonderland, even The King’s Speech (that one’s just so damn likable that it’s going to win a few categories it probably shouldn’t, maybe even this one). Still, a great movie.

But, on the subject of The King’s Speech, coming off a PGA win and a SAG win, it’s starting to seem like the momentum is shifting away from The Social Network… except I’m not so sure. The King’s Speech is built around its actors, not its director (even though Hooper took the damn DGA prize as well) or its writing or its art direction or costume design… but clearly there’s some love for The King’s Speech in the Academy, since it’s nominated for about everything it qualified for. I guess we’ll see.

Then again… (in which I contradict some of what I wrote in my previous post)

In my most recent post I went through what I believe are the 14 contenders for being nominated for Best Picture at this year’s Oscars. I concluded that Another Year, Blue Valentine, Rabbit Hole and The Town would get left out while the following would be nominated:

• The Kids Are All Right
• The Social Network
• The King’s Speech
• Winter’s Bone
• Black Swan
• Toy Story 3
• The Fighter
• 127 Hours
• Inception
• True Grit

But, here’s the thing… or the start of a list of things:

The Kids Are All Right should not be on the list. It’s a comedy with little depth. It has some good performances, but nothing spectacular. Moore and Bening are probably getting more credit for playing lesbians than for any particularly notable work they put on the screen here. This might have been one of the more intelligent comedies of the year, which garners some attention, but this film is not worthy of a Best Picture nod. If the nominations were 5 again instead of 10, it would far too easy to forget that The Kids Are All Right was on or even close to the list.

The King’s Speech and the Fighter are both crowd-pleasers, but they also don’t provide much originality (and not just because they are based on real events and people). The King’s Speech has an awesome performance in Colin Firth’s king, and he may very well win Best Actor for it, and Geoffrey Rush does a great supporting job, sure. Even Helena Bonham Carter does a fine job, though she is working with less. The problem with The King’s Speech is there are no surprises; not sure if it was because reality just fit the obvious story structure or the someone stuck it into that structure but it fits it perfectly. The Fighter suffers from this as well, and has the detriment (not benefit) of being based on real people and events; specifically, while Bale does a great job with his character (and may get Supporting Actor for it), his character’s drug problems never really get in the way of the momentum of the story, never really seem like something that will keep Wahlberg’s character from not making it. The plot is a by-the-numbers Boxing film, that just happens to include some amusing characters (the sisters, the mother, even Amy Adams’ character, at least in that porch scene where she finally gets to do something, and the aforementioned Bale of course). The end product is far less than its various parts, and some of its parts—notably, Wahlberg—aren’t much in the first place. The King’s Speech is predictable but well made enough to be an understandable candidate for Best Picture. The Fighter should be left behind.

True Grit has great writing, great directing, some good performances, but in retrospect I’m not sure the chemistry between Steinfeld and Bridges earns the big dramatic ride in the end or the jump forward in time ending that follows, not to mention the ride itself coming off as fairly fake visually. So, let’s strike True Grit from the list.

So, I’d slide Blue Valentine and Another Year and The Town onto the list of ten. Except The Town, while a good picture, especially for its genre also doesn’t hold many surprises (especially if one has ever seen Heat (even though, apparently, The Town is based on a book, but maybe the author of that book has seen Heat one too many times). It’s well directed in my opinion and there are good performances, but we have to be picky here. So, slide The Town right back off the list.

Now, I wouldn’t slide Rabbit Hole in. And, I would grab some dark horse like, say, Get Low and move it into the conversation. Instead, I’d pull back from 10 nominations. My personal favorites for the year, in no particular order: Black Swan, The Social Network, 127 Hours, Inception, Toy Story 3… and there’s five.

I actually have yet to find fault with Blue Valentine, but Best Picture should be about more than just favorites. There has to be some objectivity, some value to bigger pictures, the ones that involve larger crews, grander visuals. Of course, the Independent Spirit Award nominations are out and Blue Valentine isn’t up for Best Picture there either. Black Swan is, and 127 Hours is, so the crossover is confusing…

Plus, to contradict what I just said, Best Picture should be about more than just who can spend more money or employ more people. There should be an emphasis on the combination of writing, acting, directing, everything that goes into movies. A big period piece or war movie with a lot of costumes shouldn’t automatically have an advantage over something like Blue Valentine, which doesn’t even seem to have costumes per se but just the clothes that Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling happened to wear (not sure if this is actually the case, but it certainly seems like it could be). Inception is a well made film that juggles its ensemble cast quite well, but in the end the spectacle holds up better than the story…

So, how do we measure it? Some years it’s obvious. Regardless of what one might of thought subjectively of, say Titanic, that film did things no film had ever done before. Nowadays, more is done digitally so when (again James Cameron) puts together something as visually stunning as Avatar (but arguably so dependent on archetypes as to be weak in its characterization) that it doesn’t take the Oscar so easily. There is no big movie dominating the scene this year. If anything, that would be Inception, but no one’s predicting Inception as the winner. The momentum right now is with The Social Network and has recently been with The King’s Speech. Both of these are more dependent on acting and writing than any awesome visuals. Black Swan, on the other hand, has the awesome visuals, but it is also has some imagery (both in the disturbing and the sexual) that would put off some audiences… so must a Best Picture be eminently watchable? Or should it push boundaries, dare to disturb an audience? Why can’t the winner be depressing? Why must it be an audience-pleaser? Of course, last year’s winner, The Hurt Locker, isn’t much of a feel-good movie. But, then Slumdog Millionaire, the previous winner, is. The Oscars are nothing if not inconsistent.

I loved Blue Valentine, but it shouldn’t win the Oscar for Best Picture. I loved Black Swan, and while it is very deserving of maybe Director, it should not win Best Picture. 127 Hours takes a risk, putting everything it has into on the shoulders of one actor, but James Franco manages to carry it (and could be a serious contender against Colin Firth… or more likely just a fellow nominee for Firth to mention when he’s accepting his statue). But, if a movie is so small, is that the “Best” use of cinema?

And so, it comes down (though I may have skipped past a few) to The Social Network. Ensemble cast, but not so large as to be unwieldy. Great writing, with Sorkin’s high-energy dialogue delivered successfully by the assorted cast members. Fincher directs a fairly static storyline (with a lot of scenes of people just sitting (or standing) around talking, with a great energy to match the script but with the help of Reznor’s music sets a very dark sort of mood that almost goes too far for the tone of the story… but, then again, the protagonist is either an asshole or a guy trying to be one, a guy who may or may not have screwed over not just some arrogant jocks but also his best friend, yet still comes across, much to the benefit of Jesse Eisenberg, as somewhat… not likable, per se (though I liked him), but not as someone the audience rejects outright. So, what’s wrong with The Social Network? Perhaps the ending doesn’t make most of the audience feel good. Perhaps that musical interlude in the race scene goes on a little too long. Or maybe there isn’t anything “wrong” with The Social Network. Which is why it will win on Oscar day.

filling out the "best picture" list

With 10 nominees again, there are a few obvious contenders for Best Picture at the Oscars this year:

The frontrunners are, of course The King's Speech and The Social Network. Other givens are Inception, True Grit and The Fighter. Just like Up, Toy Story 3 should also make the list. Black Swan should be there, but then it gets a little iffy.

Given the above films making it, there are 3 slots left. By my reckoning, there are 6 films contending for them. 127 Hours should make the list but Entertainment Weekly (for reasons that don't really have to do with that film specifically but a couple of those that follow) thinks it may just miss the mark. There are a few indies vying for a spot--Rabbit Hole, Blue Valentine, Another Year, Winter's Bone, each of these quite good (better than The Fighter, for example), built around solid performances that might end up getting some acting nods (Kidman more likely but Eckhart more deserving for Rabbit Hole, Williams and Gosling for Blue Valentine, Manville perhaps--and Broadbent would be cool too--for Another Year, Lawrence almost guaranteed a nomination for Winter's Bone).

There is also The Kids Are All Right, which has been showing up on numerous lists, will likely get at least one Actress nomination and has the benefit of being a comedy, and with 10 nominees it seems at least one comedy would show up. Worth mentioning, though: The Kids Are All Right does not deserve to be on the list, but it still may be there. Of course, it wasn't too great a year for comedy... The Golden Globes, which award a Comedy or Musical separate from Drama, put up Alice in Wonderland, Burlesque, Red, The Tourist and The Kids Are All Right. The Tourist, as I mentioned in my blog a while back, is not a comedy. Burlesque, arguably not a musical, is also not a comedy, and purportedly is not that good (note: it leads in nominations for the Razzies). Red won't get anywhere near the Oscar stage. Alice in Wonderland will probably be at the Oscars, but for Visual Effects.

The National Board of Review, not to mention the Los Angeles Times' Tom O'Neil, includes Shutter Island on their big lists for the year, as well as Hereafter. I can't imagine the former being nominated for much of anything at these Oscars and the latter, while it might score some minor nomination, likely won't garner anything big like Director for Eastwood or Best Picture.

So then, which ones will be nominated?

Winter's Bone seems like the indie to for sure make the cut.

Personally, I would put Another Year, Blue Valentine, and Rabbit Hole over The Fighter--while Bale was awesome and Leo was great, the film overall was far too predictable and lacking in real drama to have earned the place it will take at the Oscars. These movies are all three quite sad (Another Year the saddest)... maybe this will be a year for sad films, since Biutiful will be on the Foreign Language list--and since I'm on the subject of sad films, personally I would have made sure Catfish was on the short list for Documentary Feature (though I can't imagine it being among the final nominees or winning) but it didn't make it. More likely, the sad films might get some acting wins but will get shut out of winning Best Picture... but this isn't about the win. Take the seven listed at the top of this post and add in The Kids Are All Right, Winter's Bone and... I just realized I forgot to mention (but did count) The Town. So, that last Best Picture slot comes down to The Town, Blue Valentine, Rabbit Hole and Another Year and 127 Hours. This last one seems like the easy candidate.

So, final ten:

The King's Speech

The Social Network

Inception

Black Swan

Toy Story 3

The Fighter

127 Hours

Winter's Bone

True Grit

The Kids Are All Right

Left out, but deserving: Blue Valentine, Rabbit Hole, Another Year, The Town

Rabbit Hole, The Tourist, and True Grit

Was watching The Social Network again last night and while I doubt Jesse Eisenberg will take the win at the Oscars, I still absolutely love that role and that performance. James Franco had a—and I don’t use this phrase, really—tour-de-force thing going on in 127 Hours; that movie does not exist without him. Jeff Bridges was incredible in True Grit (saw it today, more on it below). But, there are a lot of actors in the Academy and they will appreciate more what Colin Firth did for The King’s Speech; and, really they should, and he is deserving of a win. Nonetheless, as far as personal choices go, I would say Aaron Eckhart close to if not on the list as well for his performance in Rabbit Hole—Nicole Kidman seems to be getting a little more attention but I was more impressed by Eckhart—for which he has only gotten a Spirit Awards nomination. (Given Ryan Gosling’s track record—The Believer, Half Nelson, Lars and the Real Girl, if you want to see him do some great work—I am hopeful that his performance in Blue Valentine will be a good one, but like Eckhart, I’m not sure the Academy will notice him… too small a movie when there are some big ones with worthy roles (the ones mentioned above)

Rabbit Hole wasn’t all Eckhart, though. Kidman was good, and the movie was far better than I’ve seen some critics give it credit, calling it emotionally empty and whatnot. Sure, these aren’t characters that wear their emotions on their sleeves (most of the time) but that’s sort of the point. It’s a couple facing everyday life—though, it occurs to me now, I’m not sure what Eckhart’s character did everyday, for work… which reminds me of a screenplay I wrote a while back, not to toot my own horn or anything, but Rabbit Hole did remind me of it, made me want to dust it off and reread it to see if it’s any good. Like Rabbit Hole, it’s about a couple whose child has recently died, though not by accident but by murder, and at one point the husband breaks down and there was a line I always loved (and I’m not necessarily one to love my own lines after I write them) about how he can’t even remember what he used to do for a living. The fact that it only occurred to me now, writing this, that Eckhart’s character’s job was not specified (or at least, not so that I noticed) kinda fits with that sort of emptiness (though not the emptiness critics have mentioned). Rabbit Hole paints a bleak sort of picture but doesn’t wallow in the pain of these people, and the actors play it well, from Kidman to Eckhart, Miles Teller to Dianne Wiest. These actors play quite well people who are in pain but are not letting it show except in very vulnerable moments, something you wouldn’t get usually from a more mainstream movie—hell, you won’t really get much of a mainstream movie that’s so much about grief as this is; at least, I can’t think of a recent one*

*mainstream meaning studio movie, not Oscar recognized, as just last year The Single Man got some Oscar attention

On to happier things with The Tourist. It isn’t likely to be on any Oscar lists, but then again, it did get a Best Picture nod from the Golden Globes, where drama and comedy (not that I consider The Tourist to be a comedy, mind you) are awarded separately, not to mention acting nods for both leads. The leads do well with what they’ve got—don’t get me wrong—but these two won’t be on Oscar lists for their performances here. Angelina Jolie, in particular, is given very little to do but stand around and look good, more a femme fatale/macguffin than a rounded character… except maybe in a few spare moments where one is reminded that Jolie can still do subtle. Johnny Depp has the larger role here, and perhaps if The Tourist had played more as a comedy (as the Golden Globes see it) he would have had something truly award worthy here. But, really, this movie isn’t played as a funny mistaken identity piece but a straight spy/crime film crossed with a romance that isn’t very romantic. And—SPOILER ALERT—if you think about where this film has to go in the end, given tourist mistaken for lover (who’s had plastic surgery but no one, even Jolie’s character, knows what he looks like now), then you can guess a major twist before you even go in… consider: how does the climax go if Jolie’s character falls for Depp’s and then the real guy shows up? If this were some realistic drama, there’d be death and sadness but this is a movie that is just light and shallow enough that the Golden Globes see it as a comedy, so it isn’t coming to that, so—SPOILER, REALLY—you guessed it, he’s not mistaken for the guy at all; he IS the guy, and it all gets wrapped up in a neat little package… too neat really. This movie needed to be more of a comedy or more of a drama, not taking itself seriously or really inserting some believable jeopardy. And, despite being built around two big leads, this is not enough of a romance or even a comic caper to be driven by personality but instead yields to plot. So much so that even at the Globes, I don’t see this film taking any awards home; it is up against The Kids Are All Right, after all, and despite its flaws, that film very well may show up at the Oscars—for Best Picture maybe but definitely for Annette Bening… (and, to get off on a brief tangent, I was more impressed by her performance in Mother and Child than in The Kids Are All Right, but other than maybe my wife, I haven’t heard of anyone who agrees with me on that)

Another film that WILL show up on Oscar day is True Grit. Expect Jeff Bridges (but I wouldn’t guarantee it), and I would hope the Oscars follow behind the Golden Globes and SAG and Critics Choice in recognizing Hailee Steinfeld for Supporting Actress. The Coen brothers will likely get nominated for adapted screenplay and maybe director—actually, I predicted they WOULD fill out Best Director a few days ago, along with Fincher, Nolan, Aronofsky and Hooper—and Deakins has a shot at an award for Cinematography… it seems that at least since Dances with Wolves—and probably before—westerns kinda have to do some great camera work (and, with those wide open spaces, have some great opportunity for such). Though the score got a Golden Globe nomination there’s been talk of it possibly being disqualified from Oscar consideration because of the percentage of existing music (some old hymns) used in it, but really I wasn’t too impressed by the music. For music, I’d go with The Social Network, Inception, Black Swan, or Tron Legacy (but I have seen almost no talk of that last being up for an Oscar so I’m wondering if there’s some aspect that disqualifies it). Of course, Black Swan has a similar problem as True Grit regarding the music, maybe more so, since it depends on the music from Swan Lake so much (though I haven’t actually read anyone suggesting as much). My personal choice for the winner would probably be The Social Network.

But, I digress. True Grit will also probably show up in the lesser categories, editing, art direction; the Golden Globes have it up even for makeup, and the makeup work here may be subtle enough to garner an Oscar nod, maybe even a win, but not if something like Alice in Wonderland (another makeup nominee at the Globes) is against it. Still I digress.

Back to the acting. Bridges’ other role in theaters right now, Flynn in the already mentioned Tron Legacy, comes across (and has been compared to several times already that I’ve seen) as the Dude from the Coen brothers’ The Big Lebowski, just stuck in the virtual frontier and having to get his mellow not from drugs but from an awesome zen apartment (unfortunately, Tron Legacy probably doesn’t have a shot at Art Direction, since much of it is virtual, but that apartment was awesome). Though his Rooster Cogburn is definitely old and a bit of a drunkard (not a drug user), he doesn’t come across as laid back and as comfortable with life as the Dude or Flynn. He also doesn’t come across as much a broken old man as he did last year in Crazy Heart, though there is a bit of that in Cogburn. The key difference here is that Cogburn is a guy who is capable of shooting a man just to get the attention of those around him, capable of killing a guy just so, maybe, he doesn’t have to drag him alive back to the courthouse. Still, the way Bridges plays him (and, not that unlike John Wayne’s take on the character way back when), Cogburn is not bloodthirsty, nor necessarily does he seem like he drinks because he’s weary of this particular line of work. That kind of take would be a little more bleak than this movie is trying to be. After all, despite being about a hunt for a killer, with the promise of numerous deaths, several quite bloody, the film actually doesn’t come across dark. The various killers do seem a little darker than they might have, say, pre-Unforgiven (though that film might actually be a little late in the deconstruction of the western to really be an apt signpost), this movie has the Coen wit and doesn’t tend toward bleakness or darkness except in brief flashes of violence. Still, this isn’t some reconstructionist or revisionist western, just the Coen brothers doing outright what they were hinting at with No Country for Old Men.

But, I was on acting. Matt Damon, Josh Brolan, even Barry Pepper as a surprisingly controlled killer—they all service the film well, but aren’t putting out anything particularly notable. Damon delivers some good lines but I would credit the Coen brothers’ writing and directing for a lot of that more than Damon (not to discount Damon, of course). Hailee Steinfeld, though, is given a lot to do here. The film depends on her in such a way that even having the Coen brothers behind her wouldn’t be enough if she didn’t step up and give an awesome performance. And, she does just that. Her Mattie Ross is at once both more stubborn and more vulnerable than Kim Darby’s take. She’s more headstrong, something that is obvious early on when she barters (although, as uneven as the ground is there, the way Steinfeld plays it, it can hardly be called bartering) with Stonehill over the horses. She’s definitely worthy of an Oscar nomination (like Frances McDormand in the Coen brothers’ Fargo, for supporting even though she’s really the driving force of the film).

I don’t know if she’ll win—she could be up against the likes of Jacki Weaver from Animal Kingdom (who had a great role as the menacing matriarch of a bunch of criminals), Amy Adams and/or Melissa Leo for The Fighter (though I wouldn’t pick either of them, they certainly did well enough), Mile Kunis for Black Swan, Helena Bonham Carter for The King’s Speech (or Alice in Wonderland for that matter). Given these options, I’d say Steinfeld should win, and it seems like it’s been a while since a newcomer won (Anna Paquin comes to mind, though I’m sure there was another one since then)

Alice in Wonderland… Best Picture?

Simple answer: no.

But that is the latest movie I watched that will likely show up in Oscar nominations come 25 January. Tom O’Neil listed Alice in Wonderland among the possible nominees for best picture, but that won’t happen. My predictions for best picture nominees are as follows… in no particular order: Inception, Black Swan, The King’s Speech, The Fighter, The Social Network, 127 Hours, True Grit, Winter’s Bone, Toy Story 3… and filling that last spot will probably be The Kids Are All Right, but it might be The Town. While I figure I’ll enjoy Blue Valentine or Rabbit Hole (two I haven’t seen yet), can’t imagine them getting any best picture nominations.

Now, who will win?

Inception had some momentum back when it was in theaters, and Christopher Nolan is likely to get a director nomination for the film, but I think that momentum may be gone. Still, it was a visually amazing film, with a nice, complex plot, fit to entertain the less intelligent while working its slow motion magic on the more discerning audience as well. While I can’t picture any of the actors being nominated, there’s a good shot at Visual Effects or one of the Sound awards.

Black Swan was also visually amazing—and I am a sucker for Aronofsky (who will get a director nomination)—but I have a feeling the—SPOILER ALERT—“downer” ending, not to mention the bizarre visuals and lesbian sex might put off some voters. Still, Natalie Portman gave a performance that will get her a nomination and that gives her a great shot at the win.

So, then comes the seeming front runner, The King’s Speech. It certainly has the elements of an Oscar winner—true story, main character with a challenge to overcome, and an awesome performance from Colin Firth… well, I guess “an awesome performance from Colin Firth” is not really an element of an Oscar winner, but that does seem to be guaranteed win for The King’s Speech (even if, say, Jesse Eisenberg and James Franco (and maybe Jeff Bridges, but I haven’t seen True Grit yet) were fantastic, but I’ll get to that below) even if it can’t take Best Picture. The problem with The King’s Speech, though, is the plot is actually fairly generic, no real surprises if you go in having any idea what it’s about. Still Geoffrey Rush is, as usual, great, and Colin Firth should take the win.

Another film that suffers from genericness (probably not a word, but oh well) is The Fighter. Mark Wahlberg didn’t detract from the film as much as I personally expected (didn’t help that I actually watched The Happening again just a matter of hours before going to see The Fighter). Christian Bale was, as usual, great; should definitely garner a Supporting Actor nomination. Amy Adams and/or Melissa Leo (more the latter than the former) will likely show up as the Academy’s Supporting Actress nominees, but personally, I’m not sure either one did much that was that impressive.

The Social Network took Best Picture from the Boston, New York and Los Angeles film critics associations, and was a great film and possibly my pick for Best Picture—though I think I liked Black Swan more, I think access to a wider audience, despite its main character being a bit unlikable, gives The Social Network an edge here. Eisenberg was great, as were Armie Hammer, Justin Timberlake and Andrew Garfield… of course, while this cast has a good shot at a SAG award for ensemble, I don’t think any of them will get any individual awards; Jesse Eisenberg did get Best Actor from the Boston critics and should get an Oscar nomination, but he won’t win. Fincher will get a director nomination and will probably take the win, though Aronofsky or Nolan have a good shot here (and the Coen brothers could make the list as well).

127 Hours is an amazing film, but as far as awards go, it all comes down to James Franco (though Boyle could garner a Best Director nomination, but not a win) as Lead Actor. While his performance is certainly worthy, I think audiences and actors (and a good percentage of the Academy is made up of actors) will appreciate what Colin Firth did for The King’s Speech more than what Franco did here, so I am not expecting an Oscar win for 127 Hours.

True Grit I have not seen yet. But, given the Coen brothers and Jeff Bridges, Critics Choice nominations also for Hailee Steinfield, for Makeup and Costume Design and Cinematography (and winning this last one from the Boston Critics), not to mention it looks like it will be as great if not better than the John Wayne version, it seems like True Grit will be a big player on Oscar day.

Winter’s Bone is the little movie that will probably make the big Best Picture list (unlike, say, Blue Valentine or Rabbit Hole or Get Low or numerous others). Jennifer Lawrence has shown up on the Globes list, the Critics Choice list, the Spirit Awards… but I don’t think she’ll win. Still, she put up a strong performance and I hope the nomination she’s likely to get will give her a good choice of roles to come.

Toy Story 3 should take Best Animated Feature and could be a surprise win for Best Picture, but probably not the latter. It is certainly one of the best films this past year, but animated films don’t even make the Best Picture list generally, and they never win (or never have, yet… it certainly seems like if anyone is going to break that, it will be Pixar).

The Kids Are All Right was a good film for a while, but really I think it would have worked better—SPOILER ALERT—if the cheating had been more of an emotional kind than just sex (not that it was just sex). In the end, the movie didn’t have anywhere to go, and while I might appreciate an open ended story, most audiences like the plot to come to a nice conclusion, all wrapped up and handed to them—like the feel-good ending of The Fighter or The King’s Speech or even the oh-my-god-do-you-think-that-top-kept-spinning? cleverness of Inception. Annette Bening seems like the front runner for Best Actress, though. Aside from maybe that scene near then end when she breaks down in tears on the couch, I didn’t see anything that blew me away, but the Academy loves it when an actress plays her age and the lesbian angle may give her role just enough edge to ensure her a win.

The Town was a well-directed film, but suffers from a bit of the genericness (there’s that word again) of a heist movie. But, still, I can’t imagine Affleck being nominated, and none of the actors will be on the list either. So, this is a long shot for Best Picture. I think The Town’s best shot on Oscar day will be for writing, even though its strong point is its direction.

So, which film will win? Momentum may change as Oscar day gets closer, but right now, I’d say it’s between The Social Network and The King’s Speech, with the edge going to the former.

And, Alice in Wonderland will not even make the Best Picture list.