FotM: The news is out all over town . . .

Last week, the Board of Governors of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced its decision to increase the number of nominees in the Best Picture category by 5. Yes, you heard me right. Instead of the Academy selecting 5 films to duke it out for the American film industry’s top prize, there will now be 10.

I think this is one of the most lame-brained strategic moves that an organization whose sanity is already in question often enough has made in years.

First of all, this move is extremely political. You could even say that it’s all politics. Academy President Sid Ganis has stated that the reason for the change was due to the fact that 2008 had just too many good movies to choose just 5. He also said that The Dark Knight being snubbed was a significant factor in the Board’s decision. You know what I think? That’s baloney, hogwash, el stupido reasoningo, you name it. Any time that you have a competition with that many potential nominees, there are, by necessity, going to be hard choices that have to be made.

Sure, I thought The Dark Knight was one of the year’s best films. That said, I thought The Reader was spectacular, and, while I really thought that Batman probably was going to get his first Oscar nomination in the big dance, I penciled Kate Winslet’s WWII film in as a possible upset. For my money, a really good film ends up in the top category either way. I understand that a lot of people were upset that it ended up being The Reader, but hey, that’s just the nature of competition. You can look back over the past several years and and just COUNT the snubs. City of God in 2003. Cold Mountain in 2004. Spider-Man 2 and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in 2005. Dreamgirls in 2007. Children of Men and United 93 in 2007. Into the Wild in 2008. Need I go on? The point is simple: hard choices are the just the name of the game.

Second, adding more films to the category devalues what it means to have a Best Picture nomination. Essentially, I'm concerned that the field will be chosen from a compilation of what's on the most Top 10 lists at year's end. What's more, what I really hate is that the films that are chosen may be chosen as "token" films to represent their particular genre instead of being chosen for their overall quality. For example, while I feel that dramatic films will still dominate the category, it could easily play out like this: anywhere from 4-6 films will be dramas, then throw in a comedy or two, an animated film, a low budget art house film or two, a foreign film, and at least one big-budget summer movie.

Look, I understand the complaints that have been leveled against the Academy, but is increasing the number of nominees really the answer? Are we so paranoid in this country that we are unable to tell someone, "No, what you had to offer just wasn't good enough"? Think back to the golden age of blockbuster films. Films like Jaws, Star Wars, and Raiders of the Lost Ark all had the benefit of being some of the first films that fit into the summer blockbuster mold that we know so well. Each of these films, in its own way, captured the imagination of the whole world. You know what else they have in common? They all received an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture. Can you think back to the last time you saw a summer blockbuster as good as any of them? Didn't think so.

To get back to the political side of things, this decision feels like a way to boost ratings by nominating more comedic films and more big budget blockbusters, because more people would have a vested interest in watching to see if a movie they liked might win. I'm not against the possibility of more comedies getting Best Picture nominations. I'm not completely against the idea of a big summer movie getting a Best Picture nod. Heck, I welcome the idea of animated films and foreign films getting a greater percentage of Best Picture nominations. But what I want to see is all these types of films EARN their way into the top 5. Hey, I think the Academy's getting younger. It's not just made up of older, more conservative people to the degree that it has been in the past. Even Dakota Fanning is now a member. The possibility for a shift in future Oscar races already exists. If a change has to be made, why not add one more nominee to the category, making 6 the magic number? If more drastic change is required, why not adopt a similiar system to what the Hollywood Foreign Press uses with the Golden Globes by having two Best Picture categories, one for Drama and one for Musical/Comedy? Additionally, I don't like the idea of a small group of people making a major decision without consulting those they represent. I've done some perusing of the comment boards of both the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, and found Academy members not just decrying the move, but upset that they hadn't been consulted.

Do you realize what's now possible? Someone on one of those comment boards made a very valid point. It's now possible for a film to get 11% of the vote and WIN Best Picture. OK. Take a moment and read that sentence again. . . finished? That's an incredible thought. Potentially, there could be a film that 89% of the Academy despised, and it would still win. That just ain't right.

One out of 365 . . .

Oscar night. The mere mention of those two words conjurs in my mind a feeling of excitement unlike just about any other that I experience for the rest of the year. Yes, it's true. The Academy Awards are my Superbowl. Months before the ceremony, I'm actively trying to guess what the nominees will be, keeping a keen eye on the Golden Globes, BAFTAs, and the Guild Awards for any sign that might illuminate what might transpire within the minds of the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. I have watched the telecast since I was a kid. I remember my mother turning it on and seeing the stars arrive on the red carpet. I never used to get to watch the whole telecast, since it invariably went on too long and meant that I had to go to bed. I still love Steve Martin's priceless line from the close of an Oscar telecast, "Well, we've reached the halfway point." So very true.

It's with great sadness that I report that I'll be missing the telecast this year. I am currently in London at the close of a whirlwind tour of Europe and, for the first time in what seems like forever, will not be able to watch the Academy Awards live. Instead, because of the generosity of a friend, I will be able to watch them after I get back. Before I left, I was willing to try to watch them here, whatever the cost. Now, after experiencing the rigors of non-stop travel and how hard it is to keep up with a 9 hour time difference, I feel differently.

However, there's no way in this world or the next that I would leave you without my Oscar picks. I've been trying to pick the winners for years now, with varying degrees of success. This year, I'll just say it. Some of the winners look like sure things, but as I always take care to remind you, this is the Academy we're talking about. They LOVE to make the "screw-you" pick that no one expects. So, while some seem like sure things, you never know.

Best Picture

• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
• Frost/Nixon
• Milk
• The Reader
• Slumdog Millionaire

Predicted winner: Slumdog Millionaire
If I was voting: The Reader
Possible upsets: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Reader

Analysis: Slumdog Millionaire is the obvious favorite. It's won nearly every single major award leading up to Oscar night and received overwhelming critical acclaim. That said, I can't help but feel that it's not entirely deserving of the Academy Award. Don't get me wrong, I liked it a lot and think that it's clearly one of 2008's best films, but I don't think it's got the "pop" that a Best Picture winner should have. Some of this stems from the fact that I think the film has third act problems and is just basically a really well-done feel-good movie. Now, once again, while a win in this category looks like a sure thing, you never know. A few years ago, Brokeback Mountain was in an almost identical position and lost to Crash, much like Saving Private Ryan's loss to Shakespeare In Love. If anything can beat it, I'd have to give the dark horse status to The Reader (never count Harvey Weinstein out of anything. ANYTHING.) and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (for some reason, this scenario has a dim glimmer of possibility).

Best Director

• David Fincher - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
• Ron Howard - Frost/Nixon
• Gus Van Sant - Milk
• Stephen Daldry - The Reader
• Danny Boyle - Slumdog Millionaire

Predicted winner: Danny Boyle
If I was voting: David Fincher
Possible upsets: David Fincher

Analysis: Danny Boyle has all the momentum, and, perhaps most importantly, the Director's Guild Award. That said, I think the Academy might split the Best Picture/Director awards and reward David Fincher's virtuosic work. While the film itself could have been stronger, the fact that Fincher managed to keep all of the balls in the air and somehow emege with a coherent film is a feat that deserves much more recognition than it's gotten up to this point. So, I'd be somewhat foolish not to pick Boyle, but I'm holding out hope for Fincher.

Best Actor

• Richard Jenkins - The Visitor
• Frank Langella - Frost/Nixon
• Sean Penn - Milk
• Brad Pitt - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
• Mickey Rourke - The Wrestler

Predicted winner: Mickey Rourke
If I was voting: Mickey Rourke
Possible upsets: Sean Penn

Analysis: Basically, Penn and Rourke are the only serious contenders in this category. Penn has a bit more momentum than Rourke at this point, but I think that the Academy might not be able to resist rewarding Rourke's comeback. So, I'm picking Mickey Rourke with the knowledge that it could very easily be Sean Penn's night.

Best Actress

• Anne Hathaway - Rachel Getting Married
• Angelina Jolie - Changeling
• Melissa Leo - Frozen River
• Meryl Streep - Doubt
• Kate Winslet - The Reader

Predicted winner: Kate Winslet
If I was voting: Meryl Streep
Possible upsets: Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway

Analyis: I think this award will probably go to Kate Winslet as a kind of consolation prize because she's been regarded as one of the best in the biz for so long without having won. That said, while I'm glad the Academy put her in the right category for this film (finally!), I think that Meryl Streep's performance was much better in the under-appreciated Doubt. There was a moment in that film when Streep gave me goosebumps. You don't fake that. I loved The Reader, but Winslet never got to me on that level. I don't care if Streep's won twice already. I don't care that she always gets nominated and never wins nowadays. This time, I think she's earned it. That said, I still think it's Winslet's night.

Best Supporting Actor:

• Josh Brolin - Milk
• Robert Downey, Jr. - Tropic Thunder
• Phillip Seymour Hoffman - Doubt
• Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
• Michael Shannon - Revolutionary Road

Predicted winner: Heath Ledger
If I was voting: Heath Ledger
Possible upsets: None.

Analysis: This category is closed. No one else stands a chance. Was the buzz around Ledger's turn as the Joker heightened by his untimely death? Absolutely. Was that buzz underserved? Absolutely not. Ledger is that good. I remember when I first heard that he'd gotten the part. I didn't understand why he, of all people had been chosen. Now, I can't imagine anyone else in the part. No one else stands a chance on Sunday night.

Best Supporting Actress

• Amy Adams - Doubt
• Penelope Cruz - Vicky Cristina Barcelona
• Viola Davis - Doubt
• Taraji P. Henson - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
• Marisa Tomei - The Wrestler

Predicted winner: Viola Davis
If I was voting: Marisa Tomei
Possible upsets: Penelope Cruz

Analysis: In the early going, Penelope Cruz had a lot of momentum, until Kate Winslet started getting acclaim for her performance in The Reader. However, after the Academy finally did the right thing and nominated her in the Leading category for that performance, this category has been thrown wide open. I think that Davis has the momentum right now, but Cruz could certainly swoop in for the win. That said, I have to be honest when I say that Marisa Tomei's character in The Wrestler was one of my favorite characters in any film last year. I don't think she'll win, but I loved her all the same. Hold on to your hats and glasses. This is the most open of all the major categories.

In closing, here's hoping that Hugh Jackman knocks it out of the park as the host, David Fincher gets his due, and and Slumdog Millionaire gets brought back down to earth. That balloon needs popping. Good film, but 10 nominations? Get real.

Enjoy the show.

Call the doctor, 'cause my jaw hit the floor . . .

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has always had a fiercely independent streak. At the end of the day, it doesn't always matter what success a film's had at the Guild awards or at the Golden Globes. If the Academy likes it, it's in. If not, too bad.

I actually considered getting up to see the nominations this morning. Then, I saw that they were going to be at 5:30 AM. Like that's going to happen. Besides, I don't have cable, so that ruled it out anyway.

The nominations have a TON of things missing, and I'm really surprised that they snubbed some of the films and performances that they did. Here we go . . .

• Not having Clint Eastwood in the Best Actor category is a travesty. He could have WON this award for his performance in Gran Torino. I have never seen him better, and to see him snubbed was not something that I expected, especially considering the fact that he's usually an Academy favorite.


• The Dark Knight gets shut out in the Best Picture race, while The Reader gets in? I have mixed feelings about this, as I like both films. I can take solace in the fact that I called The Reader as my #1 dark horse for the #5 slot. Still, while it's not the single greatest movie made this decade, as some would have you believe, I really thought that the Academy would recognize The Dark Knight.


• What might actually be the biggest surprise is NO SALLY HAWKINS in the Best Actress category!!!!!! She's gotten so much acclaim for her performance in Happy-Go-Lucky, and I think it's ridiculous to think that she missed out on this. I thought with her Globe win that she'd be in for sure, and I even thought that she'd be a major contender.


• Kate Winslet finally ended up in the right category for The Reader, but it's still surprising. That category (Best Actress) is going to be a slugfest this year. In the end, I'm really ok with her not having been nominated for Revolutionary Road, as she gave a better performance in The Reader, which was a MUCH better film.


• Michael Shannon squeeked in in the Supporting Actor category for his role in Revolutionary Road but Leonardo DiCaprio gets shut out in the Best Actor category? I don't get it. Shannon was annoying, gimmicky, and overstated, while DiCaprio created a very complex character. He deserved better.


• No Vicky Cristina Barcelona in the Best Original Screenplay category? You think Woody Allen just MIGHT have deserved the slot that went to WALL-E?


• No Bruce Springsteen in the Best Original Song category? The Academy can nominate up to 5 songs, and they only come up with 3? Unbelievable.


• Slumdog Millionaire gets 10 nominations. 10? Really? You'll probably hear a lot more from me in the future on this, but, while it's a really good film, I don't think all this hoopla is entirely warranted.

Stay tuned to the site over the next several weeks. We'll keep you posted on any breaking developments.

"We do it to understand . . ."

Taglines are supposed to be eye-catching, informative little blurbs that give you just enough information that ties in with the poster's image to hopefully incite some enthusiasm for the film being advertised. Yesterday, after seeing The Reader, my sister and I were looking at the poster outside the theater. The tagline sucked. It reads: "How far would you go to protect a secret? Unlock the mystery." From reading this, you'd think that the film is a suspense thriller or something like that. It gives no real sense about the poignant, thought-provoking story that unfolds in The Reader, Stephen Daldry's new film with Kate Winslet and Ralph Fiennes.

The Reader is about the lifelong effect of a summer relationship between Michael, a 15 year old boy, and Hanna, a woman over 20 years his senior. He goes to visit her because he, not surprisingly, becomes infatuated and falls in love with her. I'm guessing the sex had more than a little bit to do with that . . . Her reasons for initiating and maintaining the relationship are less clear. Like Daldry's last film, The Hours, the film takes place in more than one time frame. Later, Michael learns that Hanna was a member of the S.S. during World War II. I wouldn't dream of telling you any more than that, so I'll just leave it there.

The performances are uniformly strong. Kate Winslet does a fine job and will probably merit some consideration for an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actress. Of particular note are the two actors who portray Michael, the main character. David Kross and Ralph Fiennes do an excellent job of maintaining continuity within the character as he ages. For example, the younger Michael has this odd habit of smiling at the strangest times. At first, this bothered me a bit, until I realized that the older Michael had the same weird habit. In addition, the resemblance between the two is strong, which helps with the believability factor.

In the movies, it's become commonplace to vilify certain groups of people or things without objection. For example, aliens are a convenient target. Need a massive evil force to invade the planet at a moment's notice? They're your man. (well, technically not your man, but I'm not sure what noun to insert there) How about the insane? It's incredibly easy make the villain out of a person (presumably one who used to be a friend/relative of the hero) who, usually through either a freak accident or a traumatic experience, has lost his/her mind. If you were to write a screenplay and use either of these two types of villain as your antagonist, no one would blink an eye.

There is, however, another archetypical villain that has been used countless times as perhaps the most convenient of targets: the Nazi. Maybe it's a sense of moral superiority that audiences derive from knowing that, almost no matter what, they are superior to this group of people who was responsible for the deaths of almost 6 million innocent men, women, and children. Maybe it's just because they're an exceptionally easy target to shoot at. Could be a little of both. While there have been films with sympathetic Nazi characters, like Oskar Schindler in Schindler's List, and Doctor Lessing in Life is Beautiful, I can't recall a film with a truly sympathetic character who was a member of the S.S.

That's one thing that really impressed me about The Reader. Instead of contenting itself with mere condemnation, the film makes a much-needed effort to do something much more vital. It tries to understand.

I'm not suggesting that The Reader lets people like Hanna Schmitz off the hook for their actions. That would be undeniably, unbelievably wrong. That's not the point. What it does instead is try to understand how a person like her might think and why she acted as she did, given her circumstances. This, I think, is infinitely more valuable than the standard angry finger-wagging that occurs in almost any other characterization of Nazis that I can think of.

So, what does this add up to? Simply put, The Reader is a film that I've been looking forward to for quite a while and is something I'll be thinking about for a long time to come. The questions are hard and the answers even harder, but I think that we are better for having made the effort. This is one of the year's best films.