Monday, March 8, 2010

Top 50 Films

I recently received a message from my good friend Dan Kneser regarding the movies of this past decade.
Since the decade has ended and all, making lists about the decade has become the thing to do.
I love lists as much as anybody, so I decided to take him up on his offer, and try and make a list of my own.
I figured that this topic was too good to keep private, so I decided to write this note.

My approach to the topic was to peruse Metacritic's Best/Worst Movies of the Decade list:
http://features.metacritic.com/features/2009/the-best-movies-of-the-decade/
I tend to have a pretty weak memory, and can scarcely remember all of the movies that I have seen in the last ten or so years, so that list was sort of my jumping off point - as such, my list might fail to contain some of the better movies of this past decade that the critics weren't so keen on. If this is the case, by all means, remind me - it is certainly not intentional. I tried to do my best to remember some of the movies that weren't in metacritics top 100 and incorporate them.

Initially, I was aiming to make a top 20 list. I went through metacritic's top 100 (both wide and limited), and made a list of movies that I had seen and enjoyed from that list. I kept this list in order of their "metascores":

1.Pan’s Labyrinth 2006 98
2.Ratatouille 2007 96
3.Spirited Away 2002 94
4.Hurt Locker, The 2009 94
5.Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The 2003 94
6.WALL-E 2008 93
7.There Will Be Blood 2007 92
8.Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The 2001 92
9.No Country for Old Men 2007 91
10.Incredibles, The 2004 90
11.Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan 2006 89
12.Finding Nemo 2003 89
13.Once 2007 88
14.Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The 2002 88
15.Up 2009 88
16.Fog of War, The 2003 87
17.Brokeback Mountain 2005 87
18.Departed, The 2006 86
19.Knocked Up 2007 85
20.Children of Men 2006 84
21.Milk 2008 84
22.Fantastic Mr. Fox 2009 83
23.Kill Bill: Volume 2 2004 83
24.Dark Knight, The 2008 82
25.Juno 2007 81
26.Wrestler, The 2008 81
27.King Kong [2005] 2005 81
28.District 9 2009 81
29.Coraline 2009 80
30.Iron Man 2008 79
31.Monsters, Inc. 2001 78
32.Punch-Drunk Love 2002 78

This list of 32 lacked some of my favorite movies of the decade, so I tried to put together a separate list with my other favorite movies - and since I was close to 50, I also incorporated some of the movies that I had left out the first time through the top 100, which yielded this group:

Others (mostly not in Metacritic's top 100)

Sideways 2004 94
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2000 93
Waltz with Bashir 2008 91
United 93 2006 90
Almost Famous 2000 90
Waking Life (2001) 82
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 2004 81
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire 2005 81
Little Miss Sunshine 2006 80
Howl's Moving Castle (2005) 80
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince 2009 78
Royal Tenenbaums, The (2001) 75
Munich (2005) 74
Sicko (2007) 74
Wonder Boys (2000) 73
Gangs of New York (2002) 72
Bowling for Columbine (2002) 72
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) 71
Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The (2008) 70
Kill Bill: Volume 1 (2003) 69
Inglourious Basterds (2009) 69
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000) 69
Crash (2005) 69
Darjeeling Limited, The (2007) 67
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) 67
Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, The (2004) 62
Fountain, The (2006) 51

I then tried to go through these combined lists and make my own personal top 50 - roughly in order. The criteria is essentially non-existent. Basically, they are the movies that, as of this writing, I remember liking the most both in terms of personal impact, and my own artistic preferences and various other biases. I did not factor in the amount of times that I have seen these films - though I have seen all of the films on the above list at least once each.

It is also worth mention that this is also clearly not an exhaustive list. It is limited by any number of things, in particular, it is limited to movies that I have seen, and it is limited by the fallibility of my memory, as well as the various situations and places that I was in when I saw these films that effected my opinions of them. Nevertheless, here is my attempt at summing up my Top 50 films from 2000-2009. At the very least, it should be interesting to think about:

My Top 50:

1. Royal Tenenbaums, The 2001
2. Kill Bill: Volume 2 2004
3. Kill Bill: Volume 1 2003
4. Pan’s Labyrinth 2006
5. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The 2001
6. Spirited Away 2002
7. Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The 2003
8. Once 2007
9. Incredibles, The 2004
10. Fantastic Mr. Fox 2009
11. There Will Be Blood 2007
12. Wrestler, The 2008
13. Dark Knight, The 2008
14. WALL-E 2008
15. Children of Men 2006
16. Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan 2006
17. Departed, The 2006
18. Ratatouille 2007
19. Waking Life 2001
20. Wonder Boys 2000
21. Up 2009
22. Hurt Locker, The 2009
23. Fog of War, The 2003
24. District 9 2009
25. Inglourious Basterds 2009
26. King Kong 2005
27. Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, The 2004
28. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The 2002
29. Brokeback Mountain 2005
30. Bowling for Columbine 2002
31. Monsters, Inc. 2001
32. Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The 2008
33. Punch-Drunk Love 2002
34. Gangs of New York 2002
35. No Country for Old Men 2007
36. Juno 2007
37. Knocked Up 2007
38. United 93 2006
39. Munich 2005
40. Milk 2008
41. Fountain, The 2006
42. Finding Nemo 2003
43. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 2004
44. Little Miss Sunshine 2006
45. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince 2009
46. Waltz with Bashir 2008
47. Crash 2005
48. Sideways 2004
49. Iron Man 2008
50. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2000



A few notes:

First, it should be noted that I tried to put these movies in order, but as with any list of this nature, this order is far from a matter of absolutes. Some of them are fairly static - the top 15-20 films or so are some of my favorites of all time, and I was fairly determined to have The Royal Tenenbaums at no. 1. Further down the list, however, things become much more fluid.

Those familiar with directors will probably notice immediately that I am highly biased in this department - it might as well be a Quentin Tarantino/Wes Anderson/Peter Jackson party. So be it. Those were the movies that I saw. Those were the movies that I liked. It also happens that I don't think I saw a single Clint Eastwood movie. Oh well. That's just how it works out.

The lowest rated film on my list - by a fairly wide margin - is Darren Aronofsky's: The Fountain. It got a 51 out of 100 on metacritic. Nevertheless, I loved it.

Also, it is worth mentioning that despite my great love for the Academy Awards, my list is actually pretty thin as far as Best Picture nominees/winners are concerned - especially near the top of my list. I love to watch the Oscars, but I can't say that the Academy and I see eye to eye.

It might also be worth mention that there are a number of sequels on my list, or that this list could be condensed in any manner of fashions - I have both Kill Bill Volumes, all three Lord of the Rings movies, and two Harry Potters on this list. I did this on purpose, and tried my best to assess them as individual films. If it were condensed though, it would heavily favor a handful of directors and series'. That can be a topic for discussion.

Top Films of The Decade (2000-2009) by Year

Here I have compiled roughly every movie that I can remember seeing from the decade spanning from 2000-2009. I ranked each film based roughly on how I felt about them at the time that I saw them combined with how I feel about them now. Because of this, there is a lot of leeway in the ranking – it is obviously subject to my fragile memory in combination with other factors like maturation, aging, and the development of a critical understanding. That said, this should provide a rough snapshot of a decade in films from my perspective as well as a general foundation for my criticism.

It should also be noted that not all rankings are alike. For instance, I really kind of like the vast majority of the movies that I saw from 2007, so even though Bridge to Terabithia is only my 16th favorite movie from that particular year, I still liked it, and if fact, liked it quite better than some films that are ranked higher in their respective years I.e. my number 16 from the year 2003 is Open Water, which I thought was a really rather terrible movie. It is harder to get a sense of where those particular love/like/dislike/hate lines are drawn in each year, but I feel like this is still a more fulfilling format than simply a top 10 list – which is customary for most professional critics. This way you at least know which films I saw in a given year (and hence, which I didn't that you think should have made my top 10), and how the other films I saw in a given year stack up against those.

2000

1. Wonder Boys
2. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
3. Almost Famous
4. Memento
5. O Brother, Where Art Thou?
6. Cast Away
7. Snatch
8. Erin Brockovich
9. Chicken Run
10. Meet The Parents
11. Requiem for a Dream
12. X-Men
13. Remember the Titans
14. Pay it Forward
15. The Perfect Storm
16. Jesus' Son
17. The Road to El Dorado
18. What Women Want
19. Coyote Ugly
20. Shanghai Noon
21. The Patriot
22. The Emperor's New Groove
23. Me, Myself & Irene
24. The Ladies Man
25. Unbreakable
26. Charlie's Angels
27. Road Trip
28. Little Nicky


2001

1. The Royal Tenenbaums
2. Waking Life
3. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The
4. Monsters, Inc.
5. Shrek
6. Moulin Rouge!
7. Ocean’s Eleven
8. I Am Sam
9. A Beautiful Mind
10. A Knight's Tale
11. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
12. Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone
13. Cowboy Bebop The Movie: Knockin' on Heaven's Door
14. Zoolander
15. Vanilla Sky
16. Monster's Ball
17. Donnie Darko
18. Serendipity
19. Behind Enemy Lines
20. Ali
21. Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back
22. Life as a House
23. The Mexican
24. The Mummy Returns
25. K-Pax
26. Osmosis Jones
27. Legally Blonde
28. Super Troopers
29. Rush Hour 2
30. Hannibal
31. Shallow Hal

2002
The Rules of Attraction
1. Spirited Away
2. The Pianist
3. Gangs of New York
4. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The
5. Punch-Drunk Love
6. Bowling For Columbine
7. About A Boy
8. The Bourne Identity
9. The Rules of Attraction
10. Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones
11. 8 Mile
12. Austin Powers in Goldmember
13. Harry Potter & the Chamber of Secrets
14. 40 Days & 40 Nights
15. Jackass: The Movie
16. A Walk to Remember
17. John Q
18. Mr. Deeds
19. Resident Evil
20. One Hour Photo
21. The Tuxedo


2003

1. Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The
2. Kill Bill Vol. 1
3. Fog of War, The
4. Finding Nemo
5. Lost in Translation
6. Big Fish
7. X-2: X-Men United
8. Mystic River
9. The Matrix Reloaded
10. Cold Mountain
11. Old School
12. The Animatrix
13. Shanghai Knights
14. Underworld
15. The Matrix Revolutions
16. Open Water
17. Just Married

2004

1. Kill Bill: Volume 2
2. Incredibles, The
3. The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou
4. Sideways
5. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
6. Spider-Man 2
7. Fahrenheit 9/11
8. Hero
9. Shrek 2
10.The Terminal
11. Spanglish
12. Collateral
13. Mean Girls
14. The Aviator
15. The Passion of the Christ
16. Garden State
17. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
18. Ray
19. Coffee and Cigarettes
20. The Manchurian Candidate
21. Closer
22. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy
23. Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story
24. Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events
25. Super Size Me
26. Saved!
27. Ella Enchanted
28. Finding Neverland
29. Beyond The Sea
30. 50 First Dates
31. Secret Window
32. Sky Captain & the World of Tomorrow

2005

1. Brokeback Mountain
2. King Kong
3. Munich
4. Crash
5. Batman Begins
6. Howl's Moving Castle
7. The 40-Year-Old Virgin
8. Walk The Line
9. Cinderella Man
10.Tim Burton's Corpse Bride
11.Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
12. Sin City
13. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
14. Capote
15. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory
16. Robots
17. Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit
18. Mr. and Mrs. Smith
19. The Aristocrats
20. Memoirs of a Geisha
21. Wedding Crashers
22. March of the Penguins
23. The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe

2006

1. Pan's Labyrinth
2. Children of Men
3. Departed, The
4. United 93
5. Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
6. Fountain, The
7. Little Miss Sunshine
8. Casino Royale
9. Monster House
10. An Inconvenient Truth
11.Dave Chappelle's Block Party
12.The Illusionist
13. Who Killed the Electric Car?
14. The Devil Wears Prada
15. Jesus Camp
16. Half Nelson
17. Little Children
18. Over the Hedge
19. Lucky Number Slevin
20. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
21. Cars
22. Clerks II
23. X-Men: The Last Stand
24. The Good Shepherd
25. Superman Returns
26. The Da Vinci Code
27. Happy Feet
28. Eragon

2007

1. There Will Be Blood
2. Once
3. Ratatouille
4. No Country for Old Men
5. Juno
6. Knocked Up
7. Grindhouse
8. Sweeney Todd
9. Lars and the Real Girl
10. Sicko
11. Superbad
12. The Golden Compass
13. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
14. Michael Clayton
15. Darjeeling Limited, The
16. The Bridge to Terabithia
17. Simpsons Movie, The
18. Ocean's 13
19. Sunshine
20. Beowulf
21. 300

2008

1. WALL-E
2. The Wrestler
3. The Dark Knight
4. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
5. Milk
6. Waltz with Bashir
7. Iron Man
8. Frost/Nixon
9. Kung Fu Panda
10. Hellboy II: the Golden Army
11. W.
12. Bolt
13. Burn After Reading
14. Quantum of Solace
15. Slumdog Millionaire
16. Rachel Getting Married
17. Vicky Cristina Barcelona
18. Role Models
19. Step Brothers
20. Doubt
21. Zack and Miri Make a Porno
22. Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist
23. The Reader

2009

1. Fantastic Mr. Fox
2. Inglourious Basterds
3. Up in the Air
4. A Serious Man
5. Hurt Locker, The
6. District 9
7. Up
8. Coraline
9. Education, An
10. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
11. The Princess and the Frog
12. Star Trek
13. Avatar
14. Watchmen
15. Precious
16. Ponyo
17. Crazy Heart
18. Hangover, The
19. Bruno
20. Public Enemies
21. Where the Wild Things Are
22. Monsters vs Aliens
23. Terminator: Salvation
24. Paul Blart: Mall Cop

Fundamentals on the Philosophy of Criticism

In order to have a meaningful conversation about the merit of things, it is imperative to first establish what, exactly, it is that we mean when we say that something is either “good” or “bad”. In order to get to that point, however, we should first begin by establishing the precise meanings of a few key vocabulary words relating to the subtle art of judging the merit of things, or, in a word:

criticism

crit·i·cism [krit-uh-siz-uhm]

–noun

1. the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.


Whereby merit means:

merit

mer·it [mer-it]

–noun

1. Superior quality or worth; excellence: a proposal of some merit; an ill-advised plan without merit.


Of course, an individual who regularly produces criticism is a critic:

Critic

crit·ic [krit-ik]


–nounemily dickinson sweet and sour

1. a person who judges, evaluates, or criticizes: a poor critic of men.

2. a person who judges, evaluates, or analyzes literary or artistic works, dramatic or musical performances, or the like, esp. for a newspaper or magazine.


And the criticism(s) that he/she produces are called critiques (or reviews):


critique

cri·tique [kri-teek]

–noun

1. an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review.


In order for these definitions to have any practical applications, however, there must be a foundation for their use. Or, in other words, a useful critic must first establish his/her interpretation of the medium that they are critiquing. “Good” and “bad” are relative terms. If, for instance, I had managed to live my life up to this point only ever consuming candy bars, I wouldn't be very capable of accurately providing a fulfilling description of a thing's sweetness. Similarly, if I had only ever seen one film in my life, then that one film would be the best film that I had ever seen – regardless of whether that film was Citizen Kane or Gigli. I would be in no position to consider its merits – its relative “goodness” or “badness”.

Thus, as our lives progress, we build our own individual foundations for considering a thing's merits – I judge every new film that I have seen based on my own personal understanding of what makes a film “good” or “bad”, which is based largely on the sum total of other films that I have seen to that point. The same goes for books and videogames, and even for more practical reviews like consumer reviews for automobiles and even basic home appliances.

A “good car” is a “good car” because it does things that a car should do – gets you comfortably and safely and efficiently from point A to point B – better than some other car which performs these things worse. A “bad car” is a car that performs in the given capacities worse than the majority of the field that it is being compared against. Similarly, a “mediocre car” is one that performs worse than about half of the cars in production, but better than the other half.

It is my belief that we judge the merits of all things on a similar paradigmatic basis. Whether conscious or not, we are all, in some sense or other, constantly comparing our current and future experiences of a given medium to those of our past.

There is, however, an important difference in reviewing certain of these different mediums. Some things – appliances, and cars, for instance – have very tangible criteria for their relative merits. The concept of good and bad are still relational, but there are objective measurements like gas mileage and acceleration rates that contribute to a reviewer's understanding of their merit. As things get further away from the practical and closer to the artistic as, say, movies and videogames – the two things that I plan on focusing upon most closely – then the criteria for criticism moves from the practical and objective to the aesthetic and subjective.

I believe that since the foundational criteria for critiquing things such as movies and videogames are largely aesthetic and subjective that there is inherent bias in a critics opinions on these subjects. Personally, however, I do not think that this is an inherently bad thing. If it was possible to have a pure objective understanding of all films, for instance, then there would be no need for multiple film critics. There could be one film critic who could objectively and indisputably grade every film. This, of course, is not possible, which is part of what makes the discussion of these mediums interesting.

Reasonable people can disagree about why they love or hate a certain work – because that is largely the point of what makes these works meaningful in the first place. As human beings, we are all vastly different creatures and we can be reached and appealed to on emotional and intellectual levels very differently from one another. Thus, a critic who claims to have the final word on the merits of something is a phony, and even exists contrary to the point of artistic criticism itself.

It is my personal opinion that artistic criticism has two functions:

First, the function of a published critic is to help guide the consumers of the criticism in the use of their discretionary funds – and more importantly, their discretionary time.

Second, a critic's role is to contribute to the medium in consideration by assessing the merits of a given work within the context of the medium – as the critic understands it – more largely.

With regard to the first of these claims, one of the main reasons that a critic can make money is because the average person wants some way to better understand the options that they have available to them. Producers and creators of films have an interest in selling consumers something that they might not necessarily have interest in. Thus, their word is unreliable. There are also hundred, if not thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of options available in a given medium produced each year, not to mention the already sizeable (if not practically limitless) ocean of options available. Thus, there needs to be a middle-man. Someone who can consume large amounts of product from a given industry and provide thorough commentary on it, so as to produce a guide to what may or may not be interesting to a consumer. This is also why it is important for a good critic to provide a foundation for their criticism.

Roger Ebert is one of my personal favorite critics because he is one of the critics that I find myself agreeing with the most often. I don't very well find a critic who shares opinions that are almost identically opposite to my own to use as a barometer for what I should consume next. That wouldn't very well suit my aims. Thus, to begin my criticism, I plan to provide a foundation for my works by giving a list of some of my favorite and list favorite works in a given medium. If you find yourself in agreement with those, then perhaps my future opinions will be of use to you. If you disagree, then you will probably continue to disagree. Either way, this is the closest that I feel a critic can come to genuine objectivity, and also the way that a critic can be made most useful to consumers.

As to the second of these points, that the second function of a critic is to act as something of a cultural guidepost, or a contemporary cultural historian – this is so that a medium might advance. Ideally, there could be a system of input whereby producers of works can see the opinions that their works generate – whether good, or bad – so that they might come to a better understanding of how to create better and more fulfilling works in the future. Similarly, by placing works in the context of their mediums, there comes to develop a more thorough understanding of a medium and what makes the works within it good, bad, or mediocre, per my understanding of criticism more generally.

And there you have it, the fundamentals of my philosophy of criticism.

The 82nd Annual Academy Awards: A Recap

If, for some reason you managed to stumble upon this article, but you do not want to know anything about what happened at the 82nd Annual Academy Awards, then look away now, because I am about to drop a serious ***SPOILER ALERT!!!*** Okay. You've been warned. So, here it is: the 82nd Annual Academy awards, for lack of a better word, sucked. Badly. The whole show was kind of a disaster. What makes this particularly unfortunate is that I think 2009 was a really good year in films, thus to wrap it up with such a stinker of a celebration is just...really kind of sad...

Really. There's no reason that this year's Oscars should have been this freakin' bad. Like, I'm pretty sure they plan this thing for months, at least, and they probably focus-group the hell out of it, and they probably pay boatloads of reasonably smart people to try and come up with at least a watchable event. This year, in particular, was supposed to be the rebound year for the Oscars after a relatively steady decline in ratings over the past half-decade or so. I'm sure that viewership was up this year, but I sincerely hope (though I also sincerely fear that they will anyways) that the powers that be don't mistake the boost in ratings for compelling television.

Anyways, it was bad. Point made.

I don't tweet, but if I did, it would probably look almost precisely identical to this.

That said, I will try and give you a brief rundown of precisely why this year's Oscarcast was so eminently wretched – and hopefully, if things go relatively well, I can shoehorn some suggestions (that presumably, nobody with any decision-making powers for next year's ceremony will ever come close to seeing) for how to make next year's show...less...bad...

It is also probably worth mentioning, before I launch into this, that the Academy probably isn't trying to win me over. Nor, for that matter, are they probably trying to win Roger Ebert over – who's twitter feed I just linked you to above. It would seem that my personal hero Mr. Ebert and I both really liked many of the Oscarcasts in the last half-decade and really hated this one. So maybe there's someone out there that the Academy was aiming to please with yesterday's sorry excuse for an Awards Ceremony. If that's the case, I'm not entirely sure who exactly that person is, regardless, it needs to be said that the Academy probably doesn't give a damn what their base thinks. They were likely trying to appeal to the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, or the Twilight, or the Valentine's Day crowd(s). Not the...Hurt Locker (?) sort of crowd. I know...It doesn't really make sense to me, either.

That said, what I think actually ended up happening in their sorry attempt to simultaneously appease “serious” and “casual” filmgoers alike was something much akin to my opinion of the Black eyed Peas, which can be perfectly summed-up in this article. In fact, I can simply take the first sentence of that particular review, and change a few words to fairly accurately sum-up this year's Academy Awards. Here are the two side-by-side:

The Black Eyed Peas make effective pop/crossover music, but with all the limitations of the form — vapid lyrics, clumsy delivery, vocals smoothed over by Auto-Tune, and songwriting that constantly strains for (and reaches) the lowest common denominator.”

The 82nd Annual Academy Awards garnered better ratings than in past years with their attempt at a pop/crossover ceremony, but with all the limitations of the form — vapid banter, clumsy delivery, and shameless pandering that constantly strained for (and reached) the lowest common denominator.

See. There you go. If you wanted one sentence that perfectly sums-up this year's ceremony, there you have it.

For those of you who want a little more substance, let's break this $hip down.

The real problem that the Academy Awards are facing recently is that they seem unable to decide why, exactly, they exist at all. In theory, the Oscars exist to award and promote good film-making, and to function as an annual celebration, and a fitting symbol of closure for a year of movies (and their creators). It is fairly evident that it doesn't necessarily always work out like that – there always seem to be some pretty ugly politics and internal-Hollywood-dynamics going on behind the scenes, and the actual awards are often inconsistent, but these things are to be expected of Awards Ceremonies of this nature. In spite of the errors that the Oscars have, more-or-less, always had, for the past several years, that had at least gotten the most important things right – whether or not I agreed with the results, I always had a general sense that the ceremony was a fitting tribute to films. More recently, however, there have been some growing tensions that are transforming the ceremony into something much more sinister. With a constant need to remain relevant, but an evident lack of understanding how to do that, the Oscars seem to be hastening their own obsolescence.

The relevant tensions, as far as I can tell, are primarily those between “ardent” and “casual” film fans. The past half-decade was marked by some pretty excellent, but equally difficult films that were recognized by the Academy. There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men, for instance, were both towering cinematic achievements, but both were also fundamentally niche experiences. Perhaps the advances in film-making widened the chasm between “meritorious cinema” and “popular cinema”. One can't be sure. Nevertheless, the evidence seems to suggest that the critically-best movies in recent years did not properly align with the most popular movies. And in the years that some of the best films of the year did align with some of the most popular [read: the Dark Knight in 2008; every Pixar entry every year] – the Academy seemed unwilling to adapt, and thus ruined their own cause. This, of course, meant declining viewership (and revenues) for the Oscars, which is, of course, intolerable. The Academy's answer has been to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They want more viewers. They want the Oscars to be popular and relevant again. So they respond by removing the fundamental sort of movie-ness out of the Oscars. The result: The Oscars don't really feel like a warm hug for the year-in-movies, but a cold and shameless cash-grab. It's pretty flagrant. And it's pretty offensive. And it's really pretty sad and pathetic.

The first step that the Academy took leading into the 82nd Annual Academy Awards was to double the Best Picture category from 5 to 10. This is a move that is perfectly fine, in theory, and certainly proved to be a rabid success in drumming up pre-Oscar buzz. It allowed the Academy to finally get their popular-picks on the ballot, which in turn, allowed them to boost their ratings. Again, these are all things that are perfectly fine when taken on their own terms – I personally see no reason not to have the 10 film-ballot. It certainly made things interesting leading up to the big show. Where the let-down came was in the implementation of the thing. More on this later.

In the past several years, the Academy seems to have been stubbornly unwilling to acknowledge their own legitimate faults in addressing their declining viewership [I.e. nominating the Reader instead of the Dark Knight, for instance – or, more generally, not putting together a palatable/interesting lineup of films themselves], instead electing to place disproportionate onus on what should rightfully be the more trivial elements of the Oscars – the host(s), the stage(s), trivial production choices I.e. not enough irrelevant song-and-dance numbers. So, this year, they decided to try and play it safe. No Jon Stewart, no Ellen Degeneres, no Hugh Jackman. This year, they were going to hand the Oscars off to a pair of Hollywood stalwarts – Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin. The two co-starred with Meryl Streep in a fair box-office success earlier in the year, and both represent a significant demographic draw – it seems fairly evident that the hosts were the Oscar's concession to the older members of the audience. Again, there is nothing wrong with this approach in theory. What is wrong with this approach is that, now that the Oscarcast has come and gone, it seems pretty clear, that beyond existing at the Oscars because the idea of them probably polled well with focus groups, the two-hosts brought nothing to the table in practice. Their banter was pretty flagrantly horrendous from start to finish – in particular the opening duologue – their comedic timing was cringe-worthy, and the whole thing reeked of a perfect lack of inspiration.

As an lol-aside. The Academy had to bring in Neil Patrick Harris to open the show because they wanted to have in the song-and-dance that Hugh Jackman brought the year earlier. What makes this hilarious is that instead of just getting someone talented and charming enough to do this sort of thing for the whole show, they had already sold-out the host jobs in a shameless bid to bring in the “safe” audience, so they had to outsource this segment, because they didn't want to risk losing their core audience to a host who was genuinely more capable.

Moving on, I would like to now touch on a slew of horribly awkward production decisions at this year's Oscars.

It seems awfully strange to upstage one of the most touching moments of the Oscars – the In Memoriam – with a live performance. I love James Taylor as much as anybody, but the In Memoriam portion of the Oscars is supposed to be a solemn tribute to those who have passed, there shouldn't be a live performer in between that and the audience. Add to this the absence of pop-culture icons Farrah Fawcett and Bea Arthur. and you have an In Memoriam that is almost as genuinely offensive as it is touching. Apparently the Academy's reasoning for not including Fawcett and Arthur is that the two were better-known as television performers, and that “there are simply too many people to include for the time allotted.” As far as I'm concerned, the Academy aren't doing themselves any favors with this truly sorry excuse. Last I checked, the Academy Awards are still about movies and the people who make them for chrissake. The In Memoriam portion should be essentially sacrosanct as far as I'm concerned. If the Academy loses a few viewers in the process, or if it makes the Oscarcast run a few minutes long then so be it. This section basically embodies what the whole stinkin' show is supposed to be about.

The same could be said about the Lifetime Achievement Awards. The Academy is constantly trying to find a way to cut the length of the Oscars, but they don't ever actually cut anything. What they do instead is replace it with something increasingly more shameless (another appearance by Miley Cyrus and Taylor Lautner!!!), thus undermining the very existence of their own awards show. Moving the Liftime Achievement Awards to another day, only to then recognize the lifetime achievers in the margins (they are apparently interesting enough to pan to in the audience and accept a standing ovation from their seats, but not to take the stage or say a few words) played out as pretty awkward.

To state a more broad complaint, I feel like the presentation of each individual category was vastly worse than in the past several years. There were a few categories where they did some cute things – the presentation of Best Animated Picture was pretty nice, and for the Adapted Screenplay category, there was a brief moment where I was personally like “Well, that book just turned into that screenplay. That was pretty cute.” Tina Fey and Robert Downey Junior also had a nice little bit introducting the screenplay awards. Beyond that, however, I don't really have anything good to say about any of the other awards.

The decision to intersperse the ten Best Picture nominees throughout the show was kind of neat for roughly the first nominee – but quickly grew tiresome – especially when the end of the show finally came, and ended up playing out as the single biggest anti-climax of the night (and of any Oscarcast that I can personally remember). Not to mention that whoever did the editing for the Best Picture clips did a truly horrendous job – I can't imagine that it was the actual filmmakers themselves – because the vast majority of the nominees ended up being rather egregiously mis-represented.

Apparently the breakdown of the show also ended up forcing out the live-performances of the best song nominees. This year had a fairly weak line-up, so it ended up being less noticeable than it could otherwise have been, but the Academy still managed to successfully rid their show of one of the most consistently interesting elements. The Academy desperately wants to add-in poorly-thought-out and scarcely relevant big-production numbers, but they are quick to dispense with something that is both compelling and relevant. Can someone help me out here?

On a similar note, the Academy also managed to reduce the class of the other music category on the ballot by turning the best original score presentation into a So You Think You Can Dance competition. I understand that ABC wants to capitalize on the popularity of their numerous dancing reality shows, but this was another deeply offensive moment. The scores can speak for themselves. The highpoint of recent Oscar memory was when Itzhak Perlman performed violin-solo versions of the best original score nominees in 2008, which was incalculably more classy than the treatment that the category got at the 82nd annual awards.

Add to these affronts the categories that got practically no treatment at all – including a particularly interesting and outstanding year for best Cinematography and for Film Editing. Sure, these categories don't carry much popular appeal, but if they deserve to be there at all, they deserve to be done right.

It is also worth mentioning the absolute epitome of long-winded and awkward lead-ins – those for the Best actor and actress categories. It's a nice idea to have individual presenters say some nice things about each of the nominees, but in practice, it just ends up seeming like a bunch of phonies saying nice things because they have to. It's really rather awkward. Not to mention the fact that it seems to take a hundred hours for them to get through it all. Show clips from the movies and let them speak for themselves. Seriously.

Finally, there was the inconsistent tribute to Horror films, which, again, didn't play out like a tribute to horror films so much as it played as a shameless nod to sort-of-horror films, rounded out nicely with a shot of Taylor Lautner and Kristen Stewart from twilight right alongside Hitchcock and the Shining...right...

Anyways, it is also worth mentioning the two things that I think the Academy got unequivocally right last night – the John Hughes tribute. Everything about the Hughes tribute was appropriate and touching. What made that moment so bittersweet was that it showed us a glimpse of the Oscars at their best before it returned to the rest of the show, which was, in essence, the Oscars at their worst.

The other flawless element of last night's Oscars: they didn't give Best Picture to Avatar.

Now, since I promised to be constructive in my criticism, I will offer a few ideas to try and make the Oscars more interesting while still remaining classy. Apparently the Academy thinks the only thing they've got left to bank on is pure starpower, because yesterday's Oscars felt suspiciously like a celebrity showcase with a movie-awards-show shoehorned in. Personally, I feel like it would be best executed in the opposite fashion. Alas, here are some thoughts:

* Place an outright ban on “thank-you lists”. I'm serious about this. If time is such a big issue, why not do something radical about it? When the Oscars are done well, I'm as big a fan of them as anybody, and my least favorite part is – and always has been – when someone wins and gets up and has to thank everybody in the freakin' world. Obviously, the thank-yous are nice and all – I'm glad that all of the big stars are so cordial – but can't we just assume that you're appreciative of everyone that you worked with that led to you just winning one of the crowning achievements of your career? Either way, it's probably a moot point, because even if any of the winners were genuinely unappreciative and they didn't honestly mean it when they go up and thank every one in the world, they would do it anyways, because otherwise they would look like a profound jerk. So let's just do away with it. Make an announcement to both the nominees and the public that if they get up and thank any more than five people personally, then they're getting their mic cut off. I guarantee it would cut out a lot of filler, and guarantee more interesting television. As it stands, there are maybe a handful of genuinely interesting speeches each year. If you mandate that a speaker get up and actually say something other than “thank you” - you would either save a lot of time, or promise a lot more interesting speeches. That's a win-win.

* Cut down on the Bull-sh... Seriously. Just get rid of it. Part of the reason the Oscars are so long is because they've been bloated throughout the years with a bunch of irrelevant and uninteresting nonsense. I understand that the Academy wants to capitalize on their starpower, so they try and throw every modestly-popular personality they can possibly imagine on stage for some reason or another. If someone would just step up and call this out as what it is – complete and utter bullship – then the ceremony could better be what it was meant to be about. I want to watch the Oscars because I like movies. I don't need the hottest tween star to come out and introduce the latest action hero who finally comes out and botches his/her teleprompter-reading of the intro to the actual category.

* Let the movies speak for themselves. The reason these movies (and performers and filmmakers, etc.) is (or at least should be) because their work is exemplary. Well, if it's so exemplary, then put it on display! Don't ham-fist some nonsense dancing with the stars crap into my best original score category. Use the production of the show to support the films themselves. The technical categories aren't uninteresting to the public because the categories are necessarily uninteresting themselves (and if they are that uninteresting then actually make that decision, and move them to one of the off-air ceremonies), but rather because they aren't fully understood in the public vernacular. Explain what Cinematography is and then show why these are all good examples of it, etc.

* Fix the ballot! Part of why the Oscars struggle for viewership is because they seem to be in an in-between phase, and they have generally lost sight of why they exist. They leave on technical categories that have little popular appeal, and try desperately to shorten the length of the show by moving the lifetime achievement award and other technical awards to a different ceremony. The Academy needs to figure out why, exactly, they exist at all, and design the ballot accordingly. If they want to leave on the technical awards, then make them relevant. If they are going to separate the shorts into documentary, animated and live action, then they should do the same with the longs as well. It doesn't make sense to call it Best Picture if they really mean best live-action feature, considering that they will never honestly award an animated film or a documentary, I think it would help if they fixed these ballot inconsistencies (which also create some pretty curious conflicts of interest I.e. nominating one animated for film for Best Picture kind of undermines the Best Animated film category).

And, finally, before I conclude my commentary on this year's Oscars, I should probably briefly defend my picks – which didn't turn out particularly well (I chose 15/24 correctly – which is decent, but certainly not extraordinary).

First of all, this years wild-card categories were pretty wild. Four of my nine incorrect predictions all came in categories that I felt could pretty easily be considered “toss-up” categories: the three Short-categories, and Foreign Film. Of these, the only one that I would really consider an upset would be Animated short. Logorama over A Matter of Loaf or Death marked the first time Nick Park has ever lost to anybody other than himself. The other three categories were pretty evenly up for grabs.

Of the other five categories I got wrong, two were in screenplay – both of which I would consider the biggest upsets (and most flagrant oversights) of the evening. By my estimation, The Hurt Locker was probably the third, if not fourth best screenplay in the category, and only one because it essentially swept all but one of the categories (cinematography) that it had a reasonable shot at. Similarly, with Precious, I felt like it was a bit heavy-handed, especially up against the exquisite Up in the Air.

Another of my missteps was in Sound Mixing – I suppose it could have been foreseen that whichever film took home the editing trophy (where I picked the Hurt Locker) would also get mixing, but this was another essential toss-up. I kind of figured that Avatar would take home more of the technical trophies than it did...

I also got costume design wrong, but that was also fairly predictable – the Academy can't resist a costume drama, but I wanted to stick to my Coco Before Chanel guns because it is about a fashion designer, after all.

Finally, I picked the big award – Best Picture – wrong. The Hurt Locker poured a veritable world of hurt on my ballot when it scored this award, and the overall count. My hunch was that this year was supposed to be the rebound year for the Oscars, and that they were going to try extra hard to try to pander to the mainstream audience, which was why I chose Avatar as the choice for the biggest award of the evening, and the overall trophy count. Needless to say, I was wrong. I didn't predict that the Academy would fail so profoundly to try and meet what I thought to be their primary goals on this front – both in terms of the ceremony in general, and in terms of the awards themselves.

All I can say is, that not giving Best Picture to Avatar was one of the few redeeming features of this years show. Maybe next year they can aim to get a few more things right.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

The 82nd Annual Academy Awards - 2010 Oscar Picks (Not Predictions)

The other day, I posted my predictions for the nominees that will end up taking home the trophies at this year's Oscars. Today, I would like to focus on something arguably more interesting: who I think deserves the awards. Before we begin, I must open with a full disclosure: I am obviously not an entire voting body much less the entire Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences – that said, I do not have the means to have seen nearly the pool of films that the academy draws from in determining the winners for these awards. Perhaps this will make my personal choices more palatable to a viewing public who is also limited in their abilities to see every film that comes out. Then again, I don't think Avatar deserves any of the major awards, so maybe not. Either way, let me know what you think. Do you agree or disagree? Who would you vote for if you could make up your own Oscars like I just have?

I will break this down into two sections. First, I will have my completely made-up Oscars, where I changed the nominees and choose a winner from my own list of nominees. Then, I will have a separate section where I cast my votes based on the actual Oscar ballot – where I place each category in order from my favorite to least favorite based on the films that I have seen per category:


My 2010 Oscars:

Best Picture:

I did this in the form of a traditional ballot, because I think that it makes things more interesting in a discussion of this nature - the ten-film ballot that the Oscars used this year was just to allow more popular films to make the list - not to actually increase the quality of conversation regarding the films that most deserve to be on the list.

A Serious Man
District 9
Hurt Locker, The
Inglourious Basterds
Up in the Air

Winner: Inglourious Basterds
Runner-Up: Up in the Air

Best picture this year is really tough for me – I found all of these films to be exceptional, and they are all quite different – which makes it difficult to find any common ground to judge them on. You could ask me each week for the rest of the year, and my answer might change every time, but at the moment, my answer is Inglourious Basterds. Basterds is like concentrated Tarantino. Watching this movie is like getting five movies for the price of one. From top to bottom it is a true tour de force. It runs a little long in parts, and it's pretty over-the-top, but it remains absolutely captivating throughout. I'm not sure that it's Tarantino's masterpiece, but at the very least, it is extraordinary.


Best Director:

Wes Anderson - Fantastic Mr. Fox
Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker
Joel & Ethan Coen - A Serious Man
Jason Reitman – Up in the Air
Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds

Winner: Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker
Runner-Up: Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds

As with Best Picture, I find this to be another category where it's hard to pick an absolute favorite. Right now, I would say Kathryn Bigelow, but in any given year I think these could all be top picks. I would say Bigelow because – like the Academy, I'd like to share the love – but also because The Hurt Locker was such a tense and focused film. Bigelow's direction is of such a caliber of mastery that – after you have witnessed the first dramatic explosion, every second of the movie is pure tension. That is not an easy feat.

Best Actor

Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart
George Clooney - Up in the Air
Sharlto Copley - District 9
Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker
Michael Stuhlbarg - A Serious Man

Winner: Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart
Runner-Up: George Clooney - Up in the Air

I would really like to coronate George Clooney with this award, but the fact of the matter is that he might have been too good for his own good. Clooney's performance seems effortless. It doesn't seem like acting. Perhaps that is too his detrement. Jeff Bridges, on the other hand, very clearly resounds with the toil of his performance – and it is a great performance. Vastly overlooked performances from Sharlto Copley and Michael Stuhlbarg round out my short list. Still, the award goes to Bridges, but not without reservations.

Best Actress

Carey Mulligan - An Education
Gabourey Sidibe - Precious

Winner: Gabourey Sidibe - Precious


I am scarcely qualified to comment on this year's Best Actress category – Mulligan and Sidibe were really the only two noteworthy performances in any of the films that I saw. Both were great, but I would personally give the edge to Sidibe. She plays the wounded Clarice “Precious” Jones with astonishing gravity and humanity. This is the kind of role that often falls prey to over-acting (or over-directing, as I feel like much of the film suffered from) – but Sidibe had an admirable restraint to her performance. She is my winner.

Best Supporting Actor

Jackie Earle Haley – Watchmen
Anthony Mackie - The Hurt Locker
Alfred Molina - An Education
Brad Pitt - Inglourious Basterds
Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

Winner: Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds
Runner-Up: Jackie Earle Haley – Watchmen

I said in my predictions segment that I feel like Waltz's performance could compete in the leading actor category. Alas, if his performance qualifies as a supporting role – he wins it handily. Jackie Earle Haley takes my runner-up spot in a performance that was vastly overlooked. Watchmen itself was a fairly mediocre interpretation of a landmark “graphic novel”, but Haley's performance was a real standout – giving him the edge for my runner-up spot over the other three performances on my short list (all of which were also exceptional, by the way).

Best Supporting Actress

Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air
Maggie Gyllenhaal - Crazy Heart
Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air
Mélanie Laurent - Inglourious Basterds
Mo'Nique – Precious

Winner: Mo'Nique – Precious
Runner-Up: Mélanie Laurent - Inglourious Basterds

Up in the Air and Inglourious Basterds alone had enough supporting star power on the female side to almost dominate this category between the two of them. Again, this is a category with a strong field, but Mo'Nique gets my vote for the final scene of Precious alone – I actually thought the performance was a bit uneven (not the fault of her performance, but of what I felt to be fairly heavy-handed directing and screenwriting), but the last scene is a true show-stopper. The single most emotional scene I saw in any movie all year. Mélanie Laurent gets my vote for runner-up. Her performance as Shoshanna in Inglourious Basterds was superb – she was captivating in all of her scenes, and I feel like she represents the biggest snub of the Oscars – she deserved a nomination.

Best Original Screenplay

Disney/Pixar's Up
The Hangover
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
A Serious Man

Winner: A Serious Man
Runner-Up: Inglourious Basterds

This is another tough call – as this was another great year for original screenplays. 4 of these films earned actual Oscar nominees for best original screenplay. Inglourious Basterds is widely regarded by the critics as the favorite to win the actual Oscar, but my vote goes with the Coen brothers near-perfect script for A Serious man. A Serious Man is a film that actually begins to approach the demands of literature on its audience – it was a film that has kept me thinking about it for weeks after I saw it, and it edges out Basterds as my pick for best original screenplay.

Best Adapted Screenplay

District 9
An Education
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Precious
Up in the Air

Winner: Up in the Air
Runner-Up: Fantastic Mr. Fox

This category is a bit easier for me than best original screenplay. I tend to think that Precious' script was a bit heavy-handed, and thus over-rated. Up In the Air, on the other hand, managed to turn a very delicate matter (job loss, and a character whose job it is to fire others) in a particularly delicate time (the great recession) into a palette for great humanity. It is all done with an astonishingly gentle touch and warmheartedness that makes an exceptional film work (which also benefits from some great performances). Fantastic Mr. Fox gets my second-place trophy (that I just made up) for converting a beloved children's story (beloved by me, anyways), into a serious and contemplative children's film for adults (and children alike).

Best Animated Feature

Coraline
Disney/Pixar's Up
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Ponyo
The Princess and the Frog

Winner: Fantastic Mr. Fox
Runner-Up: Disney/Pixar's Up

A large part of why I loved 2009 as a year in films was because it was one of the strongest years for animated films that I can ever remember. All five of the picks on my short list are exquisite – and all have their place as some of the finest animated films that I have ever seen. That said, my pick goes to Fantastic Mr. Fox. Fox had the greatest stop-motion animation that I have ever personally experienced married with a superb script and great direction from Wes Anderson. The whole thing really felt like watching a labor of love – it was both whimsical and emotional all rolled into one, and basically everything that I could personally ever want out of a movie. Up is my pick for runner-up, and was also an extraordinary film, but not quite at the level of Fantastic Mr. Fox – or of Pixar's other best work of the decade – Wall-E and Ratatouille. Up certainly had its moments of greatness – notably the time-elapsed (and heart-wrenching) visual-tale of the love and loss between Carl Fredricksen and his wife – but the film cannot maintain these highs like Fox, and is thus, narrowly edged out for the top spot.

Best Cinematography

Avatar
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
A Serious Man

Winner: The Hurt Locker
Runner-Up: Avatar

Another category with five great nominees – where all of them occupy a unique space on this list – so much so that this category is almost literally impossible to pick. Avatar was widely regarded as the best looking film of the year, but, as I discussed in my predictions segment, I'm not entirely sure how to judge it from a cinematography standpoint – after all, aren't all those glorious visuals that we are seeing simply special effects not necessarily cinematography? Thus, my pick goes to The Hurt Locker – in particular, all of those eye-popping slow-motion explosions that are captured so beautifully.

My Picks from the actual Ballot:

Best Picture
1. Inglourious Basterds
2. Up in the Air
3. A Serious Man
4. The Hurt Locker
5. District 9
6. Disney/Pixar's Up
7. An Education
8. Avatar[ EXPERT PICK ]
9. Precious
The Blind Side


Best Director
1. Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker[ EXPERT PICK ]
2. Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds
3. Jason Reitman - Up in the Air
4. James Cameron - Avatar
5. Lee Daniels - Precious


Best Actor
1. Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart[ EXPERT PICK ]
2. George Clooney - Up in the Air
3. Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker
Morgan Freeman - Invictus
Colin Firth - A Single Man


Best Actress
Gabourey Sidibe - Precious
Carey Mulligan - An Education
Helen Mirren - The Last Station
Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side[ EXPERT PICK ]
Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia


Best Supporting Actor
Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds[ EXPERT PICK ]
Woody Harrelson - The Messenger
Christopher Plummer - The Last Station
Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones
Matt Damon - Invictus



Best Supporting Actress
1. Mo'Nique - Precious[ EXPERT PICK ]
2. Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air
3. Anna Kendrick- Up in the Air
4. Maggie Gyllenhaal - Crazy Heart
Penelope Cruz - Nine


Best Original Screenplay
1. Inglourious Basterds[ EXPERT PICK ]
2. A Serious Man
3. The Hurt Locker
4. Disney/Pixar's Up
The Messenger


Best Adapted Screenplay
1. Up in the Air[ EXPERT PICK ]
2. An Education
3. District 9
4. Precious
In the Loop



Best Animated Feature
1. Fantastic Mr. Fox
2. Disney/Pixar's Up[ EXPERT PICK ]
3. Coraline
4. The Princess and the Frog
The Secret of Kells

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

The 82nd Annual Academy Awards - 2010 Oscar Predictions (not Picks)


Those of you in search of some help in your annual office Oscar pool need look no further (for real though, please don't actually bet anything of value based on my predictions – at least not unless you supply me with written (and signed) consent that you will not seek vengeance when I prove to be largely wrong). I have broken down each Oscar category based upon the likelihood that each nominee has of winning – complete with one-hundred-percent-certifiably-made-up statistics signifying the chance (in easy-to-read numeral form!) that I think each nominee has to win a given category. I will also comment on each category briefly. Also, it is worth mentioning that this is no way representative of my opinions as to the actual merits of any of these films – these are not my endorsements, simply my predictions.

Best Picture:
My Pick: Avatar (45%)
Dark horse: The Hurt Locker (35%)
Darker horse(s): Inglourious Basterds (15%), Up in the Air (5%)
No Shot:The Blind Side, District 9, An Education, Precious, A Serious Man, Disney/Pixar's Up

This is shaping up to be quite an interesting Best Picture race. There are the two “obvious” front-runners - Avatar and The Hurt Locker – which, in other years, would both have very good cases to be the “slam-dunk” choice to win Best Picture on Oscar night. This is, however, not a typical Oscar year. Following last year's Dark-Knight-snub-fest (because nominating the Reader was a great idea!) and struggling ratings, the Academy elected for a rule change – doubling the nominees for the biggest award of the night, and also opening up the ballot to a weighted vote – this year, voters are being asked to rank the nominees in order from 1-10, as opposed to the one voter – one vote method employed in previous years. In theory, this new system should widen the field of films that have a legitimate shot at winning the big award.

My personal hunch is also that a number of these films that made the short list are also quite polarizing.

Avatar will get a big push because of its cutting-edge technology and huge box-office numbers, but having a multi-hundred-million dollar budget and a world-wide gross of over 2-billion dollars might also draw some ire from the more indie-conscious members of the Academy (not to mention that no film has won Best Picture without a screenplay nomination in over 50 years).

At this stage of the race, The Hurt Locker looked to have all the momentum – it had earned all of the most-important pre-Oscar awards – including the Producers Guild award, which is largely considered to be highly predictive of who gets the trophy on Oscar night. In fact, no film has ever earned the pre-Oscar haul that the Hurt Locker has and also lost the Oscar. However, The Hurt Locker also had it's public-image tarnished a bit with the controversy regarding one of the producers e-mailing voters petitioning for 1st place votes for his film and 10th place votes for “that 500 million dollar movie”. Add-in the controversy of the film's war themes and treatment, and it might end up at the bottom of a lot of voters' lists – which might hurt it, even if it can also secure the most first-place votes.

Inglourious Basterds was a film that divided critics, and will likely also divide voters. Tarantino is a director who always seems to split audiences with his genre-fetishism and penchant for (arguably gratuitous) gore and crude dialogue, add to this his controversial re-imagining of WWII, and I can imagine a lot of voters putting it near the bottom of their lists on principal.

With these factors considered, I am of the opinion that this race will be much more wide-open than the media and supposed Oscar-experts and critics are predicting. In the past, this category can generally be narrowed down to a pair of nominees – a single favorite and maybe a strong dark horse, or maybe even two films with even odds going into Oscar night. This year, with the rule changes, I think this category will prove to be much more difficult to predict than the experts think. I think there are four movies that are genuinely in play – Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, and Up in the Air. All four are very different films, and each had their fair share of pre-Oscar buzz, with Avatar and the Hurt Locker garnering most of it recently. Up in the Air intrigues me in particular, because I think it might benefit the most from the weighted voting system. I can see Up in the Air collecting a lot of top 5 votes while I think my other three “finalists” will be intentionally placed at the bottoms of a lot of voters' lists – which could mean the difference in the end.

Nevertheless, I am sticking with Avatar as my pick for this year's winner. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Academy really wants this years Award ceremony to be essentially the popular-choice-awards. If the Hurt Locker won, I believe it would be the lowest-grossing film to ever take home the trophy. Perhaps the Academy will be content with whatever ratings they get as a result of the pre-Oscar buzz and the simple presence of Avatar. I, for one, think they desperately want something with some popular appeal to take home the biggest prize of the show. Nothing has more of that than Avatar.

Best Director:
My Pick: Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker (66.666%)
Dark horse: James Cameron - Avatar (30%)
Long Shot: Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds (3.333%)
No Shot: Lee Daniels – Precious, Jason Reitman - Up in the Air

You can take my word on this: Best Director will be a much less competitive race than Best Picture. I tend to agree with the critics who think that Avatar and The Hurt Locker will split the two awards (much like Crash and Brokeback Mountain did at the '06 Oscars). I think the Academy really wants Avatar to walk away with the biggest trophy of the night, and they will try and split the difference by giving the Best Director trophy to Kathryn Bigelow for the Hurt Locker. When she wins, it will be well-deserved. Not to mention, she will be the first woman to ever take home this trophy – it is long overdue, and it will make a great story.

Best Actor:
My Pick: Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart (80%)
Dark horse: George Clooney - Up in the Air (12.5%)
Long Shot: Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker (5%)
(Practically) No Shot: Morgan Freeman – Invictus (2%) , Colin Firth - A Single Man (0.5%)

This is a fairly understated year for this category considering some of the recent performances to garner nominations (Sean Penn for Milk, Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler, Daniel Day-Lewis for There Will Be Blood). The academy tends to award the most bombastic and dominant performances. George Clooney didn't really yell or cry once in Up in the Air and The Hurt Locker was too much of an ensemble piece, with too little dialogue for the academy to hand the award to Jeremy Renner. Jeff Bridges will take home this award and you can more-or-less take that to the bank.

Best Actress:
My Pick: Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side (60%)
Dark horse: Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia (25%)
Long Shot: Gabourey Sidibe – Precious (10%)
(Practically) No Shot: Carey Mulligan - An Education (2.5%) , Helen Mirren - The Last Station (2.5%)

Of all of the acting awards up for grabs at this year's Oscars, this is the only one that seems even remotely competitive. It is also, unfortunately, the one that I am least familiar with. Of the five nominees, I have seen only an Education and Precious. Both were splendid performances, and I feel like Gabourey Sidibe is being unfairly discounted in all of the pre-Oscar buzz as a non-contender. Heading into Oscar weekend, this race seems tenuously close, but my pick is with Bullock. The academy tends to love everything about that kind of performance – a popular actress rebounding from some truly wretched performances (Bullock might be the first performer to ever win both the “Razzie” and Oscar in the same year) – rewarding a respected Hollywood veteran who has never seen Oscar gold before (versus Meryl Streep who has 16 nominations and 2 trophies already). Not to mention that Bullock has already taken home all of the most meaningful pre-Oscar hardware for this category.

Best Actor in a Supporting Role:
My Pick: Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds (95%)
No Shot: Matt Damon – Invictus (0.5%) , Woody Harrelson - The Messenger (1.5%) , Christopher Plummer - The Last Station (2%), Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones (1%)

It is said that the Academy loves to hand the supporting-awards to actors/actresses who portray villainous characters. I don't know about any of that. But I do know that Christoph Waltz is about the surest pick that you can make in this years Oscars. He won Best Actor at Cannes. I personally feel like his performance would warrant a Best Actor in a leading role nomination (I might even give that to him, personally). Not many actors could nail the quadralingual nazi-psycopath with such comic pathos as well as Waltz. It was a dream role and he nailed it. Not to mention that story that Tarantino has now been telling ever since Cannes (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-05-20-christoph-waltz_N.htm) Christoph Waltz will win this award. Period.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role:
My Pick: Mo'Nique – Precious (90%)
Long Shot: Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air (7%)
No Shot: Penelope Cruz – Nine (1%), Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air (1%), Maggie Gyllenhaal - Crazy Heart (1%)

This award is not quite as much of a lock as Waltz is for Supporting Actor, but it's pretty close. As I have already briefly touched upon, when it comes to acting awards, the Academy tends to award the most bombastic – crying and screaming, especially when accompanied by harsh vulgarities and the throwing of physical objects are all a definite plus. Mo'Nique does all of these things in Precious, not to mention the fact that she almost-single-handedly pulls of the most emotionally captivating single scene in any movie that I have seen from 2009. For that scene alone, Mo'Nique will win this award. I have Anna Kendrick on this list as having any chance at all because she apparently managed to nab a few pre-Oscar awards. Nevertheless, I think this is essentially a virtual lock.

Best Original Screenplay:
My Pick: Inglourious Basterds (50%)
Dark horse: The Hurt Locker(35%)
Long Shot(s): A Serious Man (10%), Disney/Pixar's Up (5%)
No Shot: The Messenger

When it comes to screenplays, I have the feeling that the Academy puts a serious premium on dialogue, as it is the primary way in which the average viewer actually experiences the script itself most directly. For this reason, if for no other, I think Inglourious Basterds will take this award. I think the Hurt Locker has the next best shot as a result of the huge amount of buzz that the film is receiving heading into the Oscars. I think A Serious Man had a superb script and should be a serious dark horse for this category, but the utter lack of buzz that the film is getting will kill it. It is also worth mention that the Screenplay category also tends to play like a door-prize. I am predicting that The Hurt Locker will have already won its door prize in the form of Best Director. Basterds received the third most nominations of any film this year, and the two top honors will already be going to other films – the Academy also doesn't want to completely pass on Tarantino taking the stage, after all, he could prove to be another ratings boon, they just aren't ready to commit to him with any of the bigger awards...yet...

Best Adapted Screenplay:
My Pick: Up in the Air(60%)
Dark horse: Precious (35%)
Long Shot: An Education (5%)
No Shot: District 9 , In the Loop

As discussed above, the Screenplay categories generally play out as door-prizes. Up in the Air, Precious, An Education and District 9 are all Best Picture nominees that are going to be contending for this particular door-prize, but I think that Up in the Air will take it fairly easily. In the Loop has no pre-Oscar buzz and was not nominated for the big award, so it can effectively be crossed off. District 9 is a sci-fi film (which the Academy tends to snub), and much of the dialogue was ad-libbed, so it can be crossed off. Which leaves: An Education, Precious, and Up in the Air. Up in the Air happens to be the best of the three films (and, in my opinion, the film with the best chance of the three at Best Picture), and it also has the best dialogue. It will win, but I see there being a chance (if a slim chance) for Precious to sneak in here.

Best Animated Film:
My Pick: Disney/Pixar's Up (90%)
Dark Horse(s): Fantastic Mr. Fox (6%) ,The Princess and the Frog (4%)
Long Shot(s): The Secret of Kells , Coraline

The Academy first began handing out the Best Animated Film Award in 2001 when it was given to Shrek. That was the first (and last) time that Pixar released a film (Monsters, Inc.) that didn't win the award (disregarding Cars, which scarcely deserved to bare the Pixar moniker). Previously, there had only ever been one animated film to have been nominated for Best Picture – Beauty and the Beast (2002 Oscars). Disney/Pixar's Up is now the second. I can't imagine Up being the only animated film to be nominated for Best Picture, to somehow lose this award. That would just be stupid. Up will win this award.

Best Foreign Language Film:
My Pick: The White Ribbon (40%)
Dark Horse: A Prophet (Un Prophete) (30%)
Long Shot(s): Ajami (15%), El Secreto De Sus Ojos (7.5%), The Milk of Sorrow (7.5%)

At this point in my predictions, I become considerably less certain. I have seen none of this year's nominees for best foreign film, but from the research that I have done regarding this race, it would seem like this is going to come down to two: The White Ribbon, and Un Prophete. The White Ribbon might be helped out by it's cinematography nomination (though I felt the same way in 2006 when Pan's Labyrinth won best Cinematography, but lost in this category to the Lives of Others). The White Ribbon is my very guarded pick based only on what I have read. That said, the Foreign Language category always seems to be a bit of a crapshoot.

Best Documentary Feature:
My Pick: The Cove (40%)
Dark horse: Food, Inc. (30%)
Long Shot(s): Burma VJ (10%), Which Way Home (10%), The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (10%)

I feel quite similarly to this year's Best Documentary Feature category as I do to this year's Best Foreign Film category. I have not seen any of the nominees, but from what I have read, the Cove seems like the favorite. The Cove and Food, Inc. from what I have read are both very different styles of documentary, and they both deal in very different subjects. Food, Inc. might well win because it is a scathing exposé of the food industry in America, but I am sticking with the Cove because it is supposedly very tense and gripping – which is a difficult technique to execute with documentaries.


Best Animated Short:
My Pick: A Matter of Loaf and Death (60%)
Dark Horse: Logorama (35%)
No Shot: French Roast (3%), Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty (1%), The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte) (1%)

This is another two-film race: A Matter of Loaf and Death vs. Logorama. In many ways, this race is almost unfair as the three shorts that I have listed as having no-shot all run under 10 minutes whereas Logorama clocks around 17 and A Matter of Loaf and Death is almost a full 30. Logorama takes an interesting perspective on American consumerism by turning ubiquitous corporate logos into a real-crime-drama, but the kicker is that Nick Park of Wallace and Gromit fame (A Matter of Loaf and Death) has only ever lost at the Oscars when he was competing against himself. A Matter of Loaf and Death will win this award. The academy has quite a soft spot for claymation, and Logorama is a bit too divisive for its own good.

Best Live Action Short:
My Pick: The Door (40%)
Dark Horse(s): Kavi (30%)
Long Shot(s): Instead of Abracadabra (10%), Miracle Fish (10%) , The New Tenants (10%)

I could try and pretend like I know what I'm talking about here, but that's really all I would be doing: making pretend. I have not seen any of these movies. I have chosen the Door because it is about Chernobyl, and because the real experts have favorable things to say about it. I also think that of the still shots of these films that I have seen, The Door looks the most Oscar-y. Take that for what it's worth [read: not much]

Best Documentary Short:
My Pick:China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province (30%)
Dark Horse(s): The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant (22.5%), Music by Prudence (27.5%)
Long Shot(s): The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner (5%), Rabbit a la Berlin (15%)

(see above)
I picked China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province because it has the words “Disaster” and “Tears” in the title. I'm serious. That's really all that I'm basing this particular pick on.

Best Art Direction:
My Pick:Avatar (30%)
Dark Horse(s): Nine (25%), The Young Victoria (20%)
Long Shot(s): The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (12.5%), Sherlock Holmes (12.5%)

This one is tough. Again, I don't have much to go on personally – I have only seen Avatar – and the critics seem split. Some critics seem to be leaning in the direction of Nine. Personally, I picked Avatar because it was the most visually-striking film that came out in 2009 – obviously I can't actually comment on this because I haven't seen all of the movies, but that seems to be the general critical consensus, and it also seems to be the whole freakin' point of Avatar. The biggest issue here, however, is that Avatar so thoroughly blurs the line between “real” and “fake” that the voters might have trouble giving the award to Avatar. Why, for instance, does it deserve Best Art Direction, any better than, say, Up, for instance? Personally, I can't answer that, which is why I'm so torn. Nevertheless, I feel like the visual achievements of Avatar are just too much to pass up. (more on this later)

Best Cinematography:
My Pick:Avatar (32.5%)
Dark Horse(s): The Hurt Locker (30%)
Darker Horses: Inglourious Basterds (27.5%)
Long Shot: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (7.5%), The White Ribbon (2.5%)

(Note: now begins the later that I was referring to above). This is another tough one. The issue here is very similar to that of the problem with picking a winner in the Best Art Direction category. Do the techniques in Avatar truly reflect Cinematography in a way that the Academy can assess and vote on its merits? Isn't Pandora and everything that looked so beautiful just all CGI? In which case, does it really qualify as cinematography? Is it really the work of cameras that made Avatar look beautiful, or was it computers? Similarly, if Avatar is fair game, then where is Up, or Fantastic Mr. Fox – both films that were striking in their own ways. What makes this even more difficult is that Avatar is facing some pretty stiff competition with more classical techniques. The Hurt Locker is probably favored over Inglourious Basterds, but both are beautifully filmed. I'm sticking with Avatar because, again, it was the most striking-looking film of the bunch.

Best Costume Design:
My Pick:Coco Before Chanel (32.5%)
Dark Horse: Nine (30%)
Darker Horse: The Young Victoria (27.5%)
Long Shot: Bright Star(5%), The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (5%)

Here's another complete guess. I have seen none of these films, and I know unfortunately little about the merits of costume design. Nine seems to be a popular pick. The academy also generally loves to give this award to period pieces with big-period costumes. Hence, a three-way race between Coco Before Chanel, Nine, and the Young Victoria. I am going to take the advice of Roger Ebert (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100219/OSCARS/100219964) and go with Coco Before Chanel because isn't it a movie about a clothing designer? Thus, shouldn't the costumes be the focus of the movie?

Best Film Editing:
My Pick:The Hurt Locker (35%)
Dark Horse(s): Avatar(25%), Inglourious Basterds (20%), District 9 (20%)
Long Shot: Precious

This is another toss-up. I would consider this a fairly even four-way race between the four nominees sans Precious. All four are technical tours-de-force and I certainly am not trained to discern between the four to pick a technical award of this nature. My vote is with the Hurt Locker because it is the movie that seems to rely most on the technical adeptness of its editing. Avatar, Basterds, and District 9 all have other sorts of stylistic flourishes to hide behind. If the editing in the Hurt Locker was anything less than exceptional, I feel it would have been the easiest to notice.

Best Original Score:
My Pick: Disney/Pixar's Up (45%)
Dark Horse(s): Avatar (25%)
Long Shot(s): Fantastic Mr. Fox (15%) , The Hurt Locker(10%), Sherlock Holmes (5%)

Up seems to be viewed by enough critics and experts in this category to be a fairly solid favorite. I would say this is probably a pretty standard breakdown of favorite to dark horse with Up and Avatar occupying those two respective positions.

Best Original Song:
My Pick: "The Weary Kind" - Crazy Heart (65%)
Dark Horse(s): "Almost There" - The Princess and the Frog (20%) , "Down in New Orleans" - The Princess and the Frog (15%)
Long Shot(s): "Loin de Paname" - Paris 36 , "Take It All" - Nine

The Weary Kind will win this award. Of the five songs nominated, I think only three stand out, and of those three, I think the Weary Kind stands out the most (after all, the other two are from the same movie – and would likely split those votes anyways). The two Disney offerings represent a return to “classic 2D Disney”, but they are also fairly uninspired when held up against some of Disney's finest. Also, The Weary Kind has an integral emotional component that is directly tied to the film, that as far as I know, the other songs lack.

Best Makeup:
My Pick: Star Trek (75%)
Long Shot(s): Il Divo (5%), The Young Victoria (10%)

Umm...Star Trek will win this award I guess. I haven't seen a single expert pick otherwise. It seems to be a fairly weak year for this category compared to say, Pan's Labyrinth or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button...

Best Visual Effects:
My Pick: Avatar (98%)
No Shot: District 9 (1.5%), Star Trek (0.5%)

On the other hand, this is a pretty strong showing for this category. All three nominees are solid and do very different things that are all equally impressive, with vastly different budget sizes. That said, this is the single easiest category to pick in the entire Oscars. Avatar is leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. No contest.

Best Sound Editing:
My Pick: The Hurt Locker (35%)
Dark Horse: Avatar (25%) , Disney/Pixar's Up (20%)
Long Shot(s): Inglourious Basterds (15%) , Star Trek (10%)

I'm going almost entirely off of this article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/magazine/21FOB-medium-t.html
which seems pretty reasonable to me. Much like with Sound Editing, The Hurt Locker seems to be the most obvious fit because it relies so completely on these technical subtleties for its success. Obviously, every film is made better with great sound editing (and these, again, are all great examples of great sound editing) but The Hurt Locker still seems to be operating on a different plane than it's competition in this category.

Best Sound Mixing:
My Pick: Avatar (35%)
Dark Horse: The Hurt Locker (25%)
Long Shot(s): Inglourious Basterds (10%), Star Trek (10%) , Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (10%)

I suspect Avatar will win this. I read somewhere one of the experts had written: “Sound Mixing will go to the best sounding film of the year – Avatar”. Personally, I don't really know anything about that, but it seems reasonable, and it probably wouldn't be too much of a stretch to assume that it'll get a boost from the other 4 wins (and every single technical nomination that it received) it will get Sunday evening.

Totals:
Avatar: 5
The Hurt Locker: 3
Inglourious Basterds: 2
Up: 2
Up in the Air: 1
Crazy Heart: 2
Precious: 1
The Blind Side: 1

Well, there you have it. I think Avatar will win the overall Oscar count and it will also win the biggest award of the night. Then again, I think there is a very high probability that I will be wrong. Regardless, I know that I am excited for this year's Oscars. I think that 2009 was a fine year for films, and I look for the Oscars to be a celebration of those achievements. There will be a lot of great story-lines to look out for. Will Avatar be the first film in over 50 years to take home the big trophy without a screenplay nomination? Will The Hurt Locker be able to weather the producer-controversy and overcome its box-office-underdog status or will it be the first film with such a decorated pre-Oscar trophy-case to fail to take home the big trophy? Will the Academy finally give a woman or an African-American the Best Director Trophy, or will one of the other three nominees score an upset? Personally, I am excited to see Christoph Waltz take the stage for his best Supporting Actor Award. I think it will be a good show.

For those of you who are interested in reading some of the opinions of the 'real' [read: paid] experts first-hand, check out some of these links:

L.A. Times Awards Blog.
Yahoo User Poll (with expert Picks).
Richard Corliss' picks (Time)
At the Movies