ONE OF THE BEST ANALYSES OF THE OSCAR SEASON I'VE READ

Most analyzers of the Oscar season don't seem to get it. But I think this article does.
http://www.avclub.com/articles/i-likehate-the-artist-how-the-academy-awards-slant,68516/

AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION I HAD ON FACEBOOK ON THE OSCARS

Trey Rucker

I believe we are in the third year of the Academy nominating more than five films fo best picture. I understand that they want to nominate more films to draw more interest, but I still don't understand how the voting really works. It seems like each year, there are two are three real favorites and the rest are left far behind. What do you think?

· Thursday at 1:55pm near Phoenix, AZ

• • 

    Howard Casner The way they voted for best picture is different from last year and from all the other major categories. I've read how they vote twice and how someone gets a nomination, but I still can't figure it out. I don't understand how it works and can't explain it; it's too confusing. I believe the simplest way to look at it is that for a picture to be nominated for best picture, 5% of the voters have to have listed that movie in first or second place (each person can list up to five pictures). I actually like this idea, generally speaking. I would like to seem then apply it to acting, directing and writing categories. The problem there, though, may be that the number of people who can vote for a nominee is much lower than it is for best picture since everyone nominates for best picture.

    Thursday at 1:59pm ·
  • 

    Susan Saharko Hartman It's really about following the money. Oscar noms are capitalized on as a marketing tool. Studies show movies get a 20 million jump in profits when nominated and 15 million if win oscar (for most films). It's also about boasting. With the economy tanked in the past few years, the Academy added the extra categories to help the industry.

    Thursday at 2:05pm ·
  • 

    Susan Saharko Hartman Also, it

    Thursday at 2:06pm ·
  • 

    Susan Saharko Hartman s about the money that the promoter put into promoting (hence the vast difference in the top favs verses the bottom). Weinstens has two films in the top 9 and is spending alot to promote, and has the money to do so. I just saw an interview on all this data I spewed. It really opened my eyes to how the industry works. Sad for a screenwriter :(

    Thursday at 2:08pm ·
  • 

    Howard Casner Susan, I think to a degree you're essentially right. But if I understand you correctly, it's not just money. You have to decide what movie you put the money into. For example, they can put a trillion dollars into the marketing campaign and Transformers ain't going to get a best picture nomination. But you put money into a less commercial film (less as compared to Transformers) and you get the Artist nominated. You can then put even less money into it and get a nomination for Damien Bichir for A Better Life and a writing nomination for A Separation. If it was solely dependent on the money a promoter puts into promoting a film, then we would have a very different line up of movies for best picture nominations.

    Thursday at 3:02pm ·
  • 

    Susan Saharko Hartman Agreed. Essentially, good storytelling roots the choices and the backing (in most cases). But I think once the noms are in place and the ballots are out, campaigning and deep pockets can influence undeserved winners. This makes me think of The Hurt Locker's win. Had alot going against it at the box office , but it beat out some more deserving players with big bucks promotion and won the Award (Did it deserve it?). Look at the top 9 for 2012. Tree of Life? I didn't see it, but seriously? And The Descendants, a really good movie in my book, but not Academy nom worthy. Not even Clooney's performance. Politics and deep pockets, and popularity contest. It's no secret that The Academy doesn't like DiCaprio (hence the snub). His haunting performance as J. Edgar far exceeds what Clooney does in the Descendants. I read a funny quote in an article about how Hollywood and Washington are similar in their tactics for winning. "Politics is just acting for ugly people."

    Thursday at 4:02pm ·
  • 

    Howard Casner The problem with this sort of discussion is because of disagreement over the quality of the films-since no one will agree on what are the better movies and what the worst, there's often no place for a conversation like this to go. For example, The Hurt Locker was one of the best movies of the year, maybe the best. If money were the deciding factor here, Avator would have one that year, a movie that is visually stunning, but had an awful, awful script with bland acting. The Tree of Life did not get a nomination because of the money spent on it, but because enough people passionately loved it (yes, they did, they really, really did, I didn't and it didn't make my top ten list, but I know that people were passionate about it). I didn't like the Descendents, but I know a ton of people who did. I thought J. Edgar was one of the worst movies of the year. DiCaprio was fine (though Hammer was better). But if money were the determining factor, he would have gotten a nom because a ton of money was poured into that Oscar campaign. Yet Damian Bisher got a nom and about the only money spent on him was that his movie was the first movie sent out on screeners, but almost no money was spent on his campaign (and it's Fassbender who got screwed here, not Dicaprio). Your comment on popularity contest is more accurate; often that determines something over money (hence the nom for Clooney, The Tree of Life, etc.) Money is very important; it's almost impossible to get a nom without it; but to say that money is the only or even the ultimate determining factor, I don't think can be substantiated empiracly.

    Thursday at 4:25pm ·
  • 

    Susan Saharko Hartman Agree Howard. The point I was making is money is what promoted them. Without Summit behind Hurt Locker, it would not have even placed. Summit pulled out all the stops to get it noticed. But, I don't agreed it was worthy of best picture. And you are right, there are many that will say it is. But the same could be said of many that got no noms that year. For the record, I believe Basterds should have won. The point I was making on Decaprio was it was political, not financial. And I didn't like J Edgar the movie, but his performance was Oscar worthy.

    Thursday at 6:02pm via mobile ·
  • 

    Howard Casner I think this is a fascinating conversation and I love having these discussions with people; I really, really get caught up in them and I love being challenged. But I guess I have to be honest and say I'm no longer sure what your point is. Sorry, but I think I'm getting lost. You say money promoted them. Well, yeah, of course money promoted them. Doesn't money promote everything? I mean, how would anybody hear about any movie for any reason without money. And how would anybody hear about anything without money. I guess I got it wrong, but I thought your implication was that the amount of money was the reason why a film gets nominated; if that's not your point, then I guess I'm misunderstanding you and would love it to be clarified. But while we're on the subject, why do you think Dicaprio's non-nomination was political? What do you think was political about it? (part of this is that "political" means different things to different people and I may not know what you mean). I won't argue that his performance wasn't Oscar worthy, but, I guess I'd have to say that so were five to ten other actors this year beyond the five nominated, what about them? And I guess I also am curious as to how you determine what makes a winner undeserved, how do you determine that. The really big question in Hollywood is not why Dicaprio didn't get nominated (that was pretty much expected by a number of people, including me, a few weeks ago), but why Brooks, Fassbender and Swinton didn't. Those are the real mind bogglers; especially Brooks.

    Thursday at 7:07pm ·
  • 

    Susan Saharko Hartman Im talking specifically the money after the noms (in answering Trey's original question - what do we think about how the voting really works, my answer is, politics and money, votes are bought, voters are swayed, academy doesn't like certain types of films and/or actors, and the film that wins gets the top bragging rights and a huge bump of sales and prestige for the studios down the road). I used The Hurt Locker as an example, because (rumor has it) Summit jumped in with tons of money during the voting and caught Weinstein off guard in their promotion of Inglorious Basterds assuming, it had the win locked up. I guess we are in agreement, it is always about money promoting movies and many times the best artistic and outstanding stories may not get their day (Academy wise) because small time studios/producers don't have the bucks to hit it out of the park and compete against the marketing machines of the Weinstein Co or Summit and the likes. Another example of how an Academy nod is so important, I have friends who are not huge movie goers such as you and I. So Hugo didn't strike a interest to them. But once, nominated, they will see it out of interest. But they won't see The Ides of March, -no ocsar nod, no interest. A loss to that studio. I'll address the actor question tomorrow. BTW - I always love these discussion too. Not necessarily for the challenge, but it is so interesting to see how people all differ or agree in how movies affect us, and how we see what's good and just okay or really bad when it comes to storytelling. As an aspiring screenwriter, I wish I could crawl into everyones head and figure it out. Wait, maybe that's a good movie plot, or maybe not :(

    Thursday at 7:56pm ·
  • 

    Trey Rucker Hi Susan and Howard...this is an interesting conversation...sorry I haven't been able to comment sooner. I posted the question then had to work, so now I'm finally getting back to this....I think I understand what you are both saying. I believe that you all have made the point that a production company will have a high quality film (not Transformers)...but a high quality thought provoking film that is an "Oscar" type film, usually a film that has very good acting...sort of like pornography...this "Oscar" film is difficult to define "but I know it when I see it!"....I mean we can all say that Transformers...even Harry Potter would never be in the category of best picture....somehow, each year a few films make it into the best picture category and for the most part they are good films and tell good stories ( and often there are also good films that are deserving but get left out) but it seems that the production companies and studios get behind certain films and push them towards a marketing campaign that ups their visibility, so yes the studios and production companies do spend money marketing certain films they think have a chance to win. Also, lets not forget that if certain stars or directors (Meryl Streep of Scorsese) make a good film, they are almost automatically going to bring a certain momentum to their films to be nominated for awards...George Clooney and Cljnt Eastwood, Tom Hanks...also come to mind, it's almost that no matter what they make, we will look at their films as Oscar contenders

    Thursday at 10:13pm via mobile ·
  • 

    Howard Casner Susan, I think that you are way oversimplifying everything here. It's not just money. If it was, Avatar would have won, neither the Hurt Locker nor Inglorious Basterds. And no one catches Weinstein off guard (at least, you'll have a hard time making me believe it--he's the genius of Oscar marketing). Usually, a best picture is determined in some way even before the noms came out. I knew that The Hurt Locker, The King's Speech and The Artist were all going to win best picture before they were even nominated. I told all my friends that and posted it on facebook. I knew when The King's Speech played at the Toronto film festival it was going to win and Firth was going to win best actor. The same with the Artist. And money had nothing to do with it because money hadn't been spent on either film yet (at least to get a nom--money had been spent to get it in the festivals). The only few times I've gotten it wrong in the last twenty or so years, from my memory was when Shakespeare in Love beat out Saving Private Ryan (and money wasn't the ultimate factor because just as much money was spent on Ryan) and Crash (where homophobia was the ultimate decision maker, not money) . You can usually just tell what movie is going to win long before. Of course, money has something to do with it; money has something to do with everything. At the same time, it is never the sole or ultimate arbiter. There are other reasons as well. Again, it's not money, it's money well spent; but to know whether to spend it well, you have to know what the other factors are that determine a best picture nom, factors that have nothing to do with money. This year, best actress, supporting actress and supporting actor had been determined also before the noms came out. There's been some question about actor (it was Pitt, but now it looks like it's Clooney, a popularity contest choice in my opinion that has nothing to do with money).

    Yesterday at 7:15am · · 1
  • 

    Howard Casner Trey, I think you are on the right track and you may have summarized it very well. It's generally easier to look back in time and figure out why something won or got nominated. But one can also predict ahead of time by using many of the qualifications you list. One of the reasons why a number of people don't get as excited about the Oscars like they use to is not just that they may not be nominating films they care about, but because everyone has a pretty good idea who's going to win ahead of time and there are usually no surprises.

    Yesterday at 7:19am · · 1

OSCAR NOMINATIONS

http://oscar.go.com/nominees

FINALLY: They're Beginning to See the Light

They're finally coming around. The Artist is going to win Best Picture. It's taking them long enough. http://www.indiewire.com/article/10-notable-things-about-the-sag-golden-globe-and-critics-choice-nominations

GOLDEN GLOBE NOMS

No Tinker, Tailor...
http://www.goldderby.com/cms/view/125

SAG NOMS ARE OUT

This should be close to the Oscars, but the voting group is different since it includes TV actors who don't have Oscar membership.
http://www.goldderby.com/cms/view/122

BROADCAST FILM CRITICS--ON LINE CRITICS--AWARDS

No Tinker, Tailor,..but other than that, generally speaking, this should be the group to choose the Oscar nom from.
http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/hugo-the-artist-lead-critics-choice-movie-award-nominations-with-11-each/

NEW YORK FILM CRITICS ON LINE

Another mention for Melissa McCarthy, and a nice mention for Attack the Block, but no real surprises. http://www.goldderby.com/films/news/2270/new-york-film-critics-online-awards-news.html

LA FILM CRITICS AWARDS

Most pleasant surprise: Yung Jung-hee for best actress, who will probably make my top list.
http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/la-film-critics-christopher-plummer-jessica-chastain-
take-supporting-prizestor/

BOSTON FILM CRITICS AWARDS

I tell you--it's the Artist for Best Picture at the Oscars and probably Brad Pitt for actor. Most interesting surprises here: Melissa McCarthy for Best Supporting Actress and the Clock for best editing (also Incindies for best foreign film, but only because that was eligible for the Oscars last year--Boston may not have gotten until this year).
http://www.bostonfilmcritics.org/content/current-winners

ANALYSIS OF BEST ACTOR RACE

I still think it's going to be Brad Pitt.
http://www.goldderby.com/films/news/2242/oscars-george-clooney-michael-fassbender-movie-news.html

ANALYSIS OF BEST DIRECTOR RACE

http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/hammond-oscar-race-for-best-director-in-the-year-of-the-master/

AWARD PREDICTIONS

http://www.indiewire.com/article/for-your-consideration-indiewire-predicts-the-oscar-precursors-part-2

HOW TO EXPLOIT THE AWARDS SEASON RATHER THAN BE DESTROYED BY IT

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2011/11/30/142943006/sorting-through-statuettes-a-skeptics-guide-to-surviving-awards-season

A NUMBER OF SCREENPLAYS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR OSCARS

http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/artist-shame-among-films-not-eligible-writers-guild-awards-33297

THE CRITICS: The Critics Start to Weigh In on 2010

This week several critic and film organizations released their best of 2010 awards in movies. I will only deal with three here: AFI top ten list; the Los Angeles Film Critics Association; and the New York Film Critics Circle. Others, like the Boston Film Critics, The New York Film Critics On-Line etc., are interesting and make the Oscar guessing game fun, but they have even less influence on the Academy than their bigger siblings do.

Well, sort of, kind of. This isn’t exactly true. It’s not that the LAFCC and NYFCC have no influence at all, it’s just that it’s so hit and miss, that what influence they have has to been garnered by instinct and weighted heavily against what seems to be trending with Academy voters, whom often have very different tastes than the critics, i.e., I don’t care what the critics have to say, The King’s Speech is going to beat out The Social Network when Jack Nicholson or whomever opens that envelope at the end of the show.

Also, there are some technical issues as well on some of these awards, as will be noted.

The AFI was most interesting because the top ten seemed to mirror almost exactly what is expected of the Academy this year: The Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids Are All Right, 127 Hours (someone at AFI needs to learn how to alphabetize—numbers go at the beginning of a list), The Social Network, The Town, Toy Story 3, True Grit and Winter’s Bone.

Notice what is missing? That’s right, The King’s Speech. However, AFI only awards films substantially made in America, which means The King’s Speech was ineligible (though, significantly, it did receive a special award). However, since the King’s Speech is supposed to not just only make the Academy top ten, it’s supposed to take home the top honor, the question is, which of the AFIers will be left behind? I predict The Town will not make the Academy cut.

Next is the New York Film Critics Circle, which according to an inside story, was a knock down drag out between The Social Network and The Kids Are All Right (see http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/race/kids-beat-aaron-sorkin-nyfcc-59299). Though The Social Network won Picture and Director, it did not win screenplay—which, because of some manipulation of the voting (all perfectly within the rules), went to The Kids Are All Right. The same manipulation apparently got Marc Ruffalo Supporting Actor over Christian Bale for The Fighter. All this really means, though, is that The Kids Are All Right should be a lock for numerous top noms. Annette Benning’s award for Actress won’t hurt her chances for winning the Oscar (apparently The Black Swan left a few too many critics a bit cold). Also significant is Melissa Leo winning for Supporting Actress. Jacki Weaver has been doing well with her performance with other awards, but since she’s Australian in an Australian film, this may help Leo’s chances with the Academy.

Colin Firth won Actor, which should help him pull ahead of Jessie Eisenberg, who, with the critical awards, has taken James Franco’s place as Firth’s biggest threat. However, like Franco, it is doubtful the Academy is going to give it to a newcomer like Eisenberg, especially when they have to apologize to Firth for not giving the award to him last year for A Single Man.

Also of interest: Carlos won Foreign Language Film. However, Carlos was made for TV and is ineligible for the Oscars (and wasn’t Spain or France’s entry in the Foreign Language category). The Illusionist, the animated film from the makers of The Triplets of Bellville and based on a screenplay by Jacques Tati, won best Animated Film, which could help it make the third slot at the Oscars with Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon. Animal Kingdom received an award for Best First Film. If Animal Kingdom keeps getting recognitions like this, it will be interesting to see if it can somehow manage an upset and make the Academy’s top ten (but what could it possible replace—127 Hours if the bloom of its rosy red cheeks wears off, or True Grit if it bombs at the box office?

Next the Los Angeles Film Critics Awards.

AND THEY'RE OFF: The 2009 Award Season has started

I’m an award whore, I’m afraid, and the Academy Awards are especially the ones I’ll lift my legs for. Every year I and Jerry, my best friend in Chicago, start predicting what is going to be nominated for the Oscars. I know, I know, I should have more self respect, but I can’t help it. It’s a lot of fun (even though my top ten list almost never has one film from the films nominated for best picture). But I’m not addicted. I’m not. I can stop anytime I want. I just don’t choose to.

Last week the National Board of Review revealed their list of best films and performances, etc. of 2009. For a complete list see http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/. With that, I and Jerry both agreed the award season had officially started.

However, that’s not quite accurate. For me, the season started when I noticed in L.A. that Bad Lieutenant was moved from Grauman’s Chinese to the art house Nuart Theater in Westwood, which I can’t help but think was done to try to reach Oscar voters in order to get nominations, especially for Nicholas Cage. In addition, just down the street from the Nuart, Bright Star has returned to the Royal, another art house (though a bit safer in what it shows). I thought Bright Star had imploded, but it’s back, ostensibly for the same reason as Bad Lieutenant (no, not to get Nicholas Cage a nomination—BS’s best chances are in technical categories like costumes and a possible supporting actor nomination for Paul Schneider, the brightest star in the movie—that was a fairly bad pun, wasn’t it; I should edit it out).

But back to the NBR. Of the top eleven films (the best film of the year Up in the Air and then the top ten), I’ve seen all but Up in the Air and Invictus (…Air just opened and Invictus hasn’t—oh, a note to the NBR: you didn’t alphabetize the list correctly, (500) Days of Summer should come first). Up in the Air now has the strongest buzz for winning the Oscar, but it’s early yet. Of the top five foreign language films, I missed Song of Sparrows (it’s on my Netflix list and Jerry says it’s really good) and The White Ribbon has yet to open. The winner of the best foreign film, The Prophet, also hasn’t opened yet. The best foreign language film nominations are the hardest to predict because of the way they are nominated.

Of the top indie films on the list, I missed Amreeka (it wasn’t at a convenient theater); Goodbye Solo (which I didn’t like from the previews, but Jerry says is good); Sugar (which also didn’t thrill me from the previews, but got raves from the critics); and Me and Orson Welles (which just opened, so don’t rush me, okay). The biggest surprise here, and I keep rereading the list to make sure I’m right, is that Precious wasn’t listed. Precious at this point is suppose to get a best picture, director, screenplay and supporting actress nomination, with a possible actress nom thrown in. There is some buzz of it taking the prize (but Up in the Air may have burst that bubble).

A Serious Man got best original screenplay, which probably indicates a nom for that as well.

So far I only see six definite to very probable nominations for best picture at the Oscars: Up in the Air, Up, Julie and Julia, Inglorious Basterds, Precious and The Hurt Locker. Invictus looks good, but I have to wait and see how well it is received when it opens. NBR tends to like these sorts of well meaning political dramas more than the Academy does.

The other big surprise is that Woody Harrelson won best supporting actor over Christoph Waltz for Inglorious Basterds. Though Waltz is still expected to win the Oscar, this probably means that Harrelson will at least get a nomination. Also, the NBR awards also probably indicated that acting nominations will go to George Clooney, Morgan Freeman, Carey Mulligan, though I wouldn’t be so quick to throw in Anna Kendrick for a Best Supporting Actress nom, yet. It’s still too early. Jerry thinks this means that Clint Eastwood will also get a directing nomination for Invictus, but I’m not going there yet. Everybody says that Eastwood always gets a nomination when he brings a film out; I don’t know why, since if one looks at the films he directed, he actually often gets overlooked for a directing nomination (Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, Changeling and Gran Torino and rumor had it that they brought out Letters from Iwo Jima early because the buzz was that Eastwood wasn’t going to be nominated for Flags of our Fathers).

The Golden Globe noms are coming our around the 15th.

THE DANCE OF DEATH: A Review of Departures

Departures, a movie about a man who loses his job, is that movie that got a bad rap before it was even released because it won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language film when other films like Gomorrah didn’t even get nominated. The nomination, and win, seemed to come as a surprise to everyone except, obviously, the branch of the Academy that voted for it. It also got a bad rap because it was released after the release of Tokyo Story, also a film about a man who loses his job. This latter bad rap was a bit more justified because Tokyo Story, perhaps the best film of the year, is a better movie than Departures, but Departures is still a haunting, often beautiful film about living in the midst of dying. In Departures, a cello player, played with appropriate moroseness by Masahiro Motoki, loses his job with a symphony and returns home where he drifts into a job preparing bodies for burial, under the watchful eye of the not to be said no to Tsutomu Yamazaki (an excellent performance). It’s a terrifyingly lovely ritual, carefully and lovingly explained by the characters. Our hero learns to undress, dress, wash, etc. a body with the grace of Fred Astaire dancing. One might not think that playing a musical instrument would prepare one for the funeral business, but here the cross over skills are obvious. The screenplay, by Kundo Koyama, is strong with vibrant characters and engaging plot. It only falters toward the end when the story becomes a bit too formulaic in a twist that could be seen coming an hour earlier.

WOODY ALLEN, ACADEMY AWARDS REDUX, THE HANGOVER

So I'm still kind of rambling here because I'm still trying to figure out what to do with this blog thing. I'd ask for suggestions, but since I know no one's reading it, that probably won't help. I would really like to post stories and news about screenwriters, but I don't run across them very much, which is either my fault or a sign that the auteur theory has really won the day in film criticism (or both).

Last night, I finished watching a profile on Woody Allen on TMC On Demand. It was absolutely fascinating and way too short. He had a habit of never looking at the camera and always looking down or to the side which probably suggests he probably is being honest when he says that he doesn't think he's nearly as talented as people say he is and that his career is probably a combination of luck and conning enough people. He comes across as more down to earth here, like someone you could actually talk to. The most surprising commentary is on Stardust Memories, which he loves (and I like very much), where he says he just doesn't understand why people think the central character was him (though he does blame himself for that). He also says that everything is suppose to be a fantasy after a certain point, but I'm not sure this is clearly communicated in the movie. But it's a fascinating profile and I would highly recommend it.

In following up on the Academy Award decision to have ten nominations, I ran across this site that suggests what might have happened if this had started ten years ago. The selections are quite clever and insightful:

http://filmstubs.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-if-best-picture-changes-happened.html

And there's controversy over who's not getting credit for The Hangover script (which I still haven't reviewed on my site):

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0855201/

That's enough ranting today, I got to get back to work.

Michael Jackson, Academy Awards

It's been a very busy couple of weeks lately. I do coverage and read scripts for Regent Entertainment/Here! Networks, Slamdance Screenplay Competition and Final Draft Screenplay Competition and they've been inundating me. It's been overwhelming at times, but it means money. But it also means I haven't added anything here lately.

I'm not sure what to add or talk about. I haven't figured out what to do with this blog. It's been a great place to store a lot of information in one place, but beyond that, it's a bit of a puzzlement. I don't really have an audience yet. If I did, then that might help guide me, but it's still all a bit vague.

I was shocked, as everybody was, at the one two punch of Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson. It just sort of felt like time stopped for awhile. There's nothing like death, especially of someone dying of cancer at 62 and someone just suddenly dying out of nowhere, with no warning, to bring out all the existential questions in life. You know, all the old chestnuts like what is the point if all we're going to do is die? What is the meaning of life? Is there a god and if so, then why is his telephone number unlisted (sorry, but where would existential questions be without a Woody Allen type joke). There was nothing surprising about all the television coverage (like the kind that was used for 9/11 and Princess Diana), but there was something humorously incongruous about watching Keith Olbermann holding court for quite a few hours on MSNBC, waxing news like over Jackson's death as if he were covering the Kennedy assassination. I'm not saying it was wrong of him to do it, it just seemed odd.

It's almost insulting to go to any other subjects after that, but this is a blog. The Academy came out with the idea of nominating ten movies instead of five like they use to do during the Depression (hmmm, do you think there's a connection). I have no problem with the idea. After all, I do a top ten list every year and none of my movies, or almost none of my movies, get nominated, so I'm quite prepared to see that none of my top ten matches the top ten of the Academy. It's a good idea as any to try to boost ratings, but the Academy is going to get as many complaints as they use to anyway. They also made an announcement that special awards will be done at a different ceremony (the Jean Hersholt, special awards to people like Alfred Hitchcock). This is a terrible idea and I predict it will be scrapped as more people complain. They should take a list of the "minor" categories and draw out a certain number at random each year and do those at a special ceremony. But of course, I can't even get a movie made so why should the Academy care what the hell I think.

More later, I hope.