Best Picture
THE AVIATOR
FINDING NEVERLAND
MILLION DOLLAR BABY
RAY
SIDEWAYS

Achievement in Directing
THE AVIATOR
MILLION DOLLAR BABY
RAY
SIDEWAYS
VERA DRAKE

Best Actor in a Leading Role
Don Cheadle - HOTEL RWANDA
Johnny Depp - FINDING NEVERLAND
Leonardo DiCaprio - THE AVIATOR
Clint Eastwood - MILLION DOLLAR BABY
Jamie Foxx - RAY

Best Supporting Actor
Alan Alda - THE AVIATOR
Thomas Haden Church - SIDEWAYS
Jamie Foxx - COLLATERAL
Morgan Freeman - MILLION DOLLAR BABY
Clive Owen - CLOSER

Best Actress in a Leading Role
Annette Bening - BEING JULIA
Catalina Sandino Moreno - MARIA FULL OF GRACE
Imelda Staunton - VERA DRAKE
Hilary Swank - MILLION DOLLAR BABY
Kate Winslet - ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND

Best Supporting Actress
Cate Blanchett - THE AVIATOR
Laura Linney - KINSEY
Virginia Madsen - SIDEWAYS
Sophie Okonedo - HOTEL RWANDA
Natalie Portman - CLOSER

Best Original Screenplay
THE AVIATOR
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND
HOTEL RWANDA
THE INCREDIBLES
VERA DRAKE

Best Adapted Screenplay
BEFORE SUNSET
FINDING NEVERLAND
MILLION DOLLAR BABY
THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES
SIDEWAYS

Best Foreign-Language Film
AS IT IS IN HEAVEN
THE CHORUS
DOWNFALL
THE SEA INSIDE
YESTERDAY

Best Animated Feature Film
THE INCREDIBLES
SHARK TALE
SHREK 2


.

Mmm-mmm - I hate it when I'm right (but I really can't the credit as Flounder, Azusa, Fyi spurred this pontification), BUT Oscar snubbed Moore and Gibson, just like two opposing magnets - very interesting.

So (and I haven't seen them all) but here my bids for next Month:

Best Actor: Foxx (shoe-in)

Best Actress: Swank ('cause she also shares her name with a smutty mag)

Best Supporting Actor: Haden Church (Lowell?!?)

Best Supporting Actress: Portman (Oscar loves the young blood)

Best Director: Eastwood (What? Yeah you heard me)

Best Picture: The Aviator (They'll throw Marty a bone)

Best Orginal Screenplay: Eternal Sunshine... (gimmee a f#*king break, is anything else REMOTELY close in this catagory?)

I read over the review.  Todd gave The Aviator 3 and a half cookies. That's OK, but hardly a resounding endorsement for BEST PICTURE. 

I haven't seen the movie, but Leonaredo di Crappio in the lead??  I'd pass it by if I were walking the aisles of the video store unless everything else was already rented. Just like I've done with Gangs of New York about a hundred thousand times. 

Why does Scorcese insist on using Lenard in his movies? 

I admit it, I'm prejudiced, I think Leonardo di Crappio is a lightweight.  He can act, but he ain't no Robert de Niro. Not even close. Why is this movie up for Best Picture?  Maybe someone else here can comment on that.  Is it politics?  Is it because Scorcese has been overlooked in the past?  Why?

Frankly, I have no idea why Marty keeps casting Leo in all of his pictures (doesn't ANYONE remember he was on friggin' 'Growing Pains'?). I think there must be some sort of Faustian agreement drawn up somewhere.

And, I hope it really ain't politics. Hitchcock never won an Oscar (in fact, we was only nominated once, for 'Rebecca' back in the 40s). Nonetheless, the Academy has had a penchant lately for 'giving the mule his due'. Back in '87 they gave it to Paul Newman (mostly 'cause he was snubbed so often previously) and I imagine that's what will become of the Oscars in February. Remember folks, it ain't science, its Hollywood.

And if that is truly the case, let's cross our fingers in the praise of older women, Virginia Madsen - I think I got an old copy of 'Slam Dance' around, or maybe even 'Highlander II'. Mmmm...

I flipping love Leo.

All the awards are up in the air to me, but I can totally see Foxx being stiffed on Ray, going to someone else in an upset that they've ignored, and giving him supporting for Collateral.

As for 'Collateral', WHY is Jamie Foxx nominated as in supporting role? Isn't he on the screen longer than Tom Cruise? I mean what are the guidelines for this anyway? Remember 'Silence of the Lambs'? Hopkins was only in a few scenes, but snatched the award for Best Actor.

Is there some formula for screen time? Or is it simply how one is billed in the credits?

I'm pretty sure there is a rule for the Best Actor/Actress when it somes to screen time, but I imagine that there is no such rule when it comes to the supporting roles. The studio probably thought that Foxx had no chance of getting a Best Actor nod for Collateral, not only because he's not "the star" in it, but also because they knew he'd be going up against himself in Ray.

Along the lines of Hopkins, Judi Dench won for Shakespeare in Love despite only being onscreen for like 6 minutes. Anything goes...

.

Okay, here;s my theory on that.

The oscars are retarded when it comes to distinguishing best actor, supporting actor. Screen time is almost never a factor. Ethan Hawke had as much screen time as Denzel in Training Day, Chris O'Donnel had more screen time than Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman which he won best actor for and Al Pacino had WAY more screen time than Brando in The Godfather which Al got a supporting nom for.

If you notice in these movies all the "supporting actors" have a relationship to the "leading actor" in each movie in which they are required to underplay so the opposite actor can overplay. They all have a subordinate position in regards to the other actor and most of the time their performance is built on bouncing off of or reacting to whatever the other character does throughout the movie. The same thing with Jamie Foxx's character in Collateral. The meaning of the title only makes sense in Vincent, Tom Cruise,'s world not Max's. Jamie's character Max is required to respond to Vincent at every junction of the film whether he's panicking after Vincent's first kill or rebuking Vincent for his nihilistic philosophy or analyzing his pathology. So like O'Donnel and Hawke, Foxx's character is forced to do because of what the other character does.
That still doesnt change the fact that Max's role was better fleshed out and that the story is a much his as it is Vincent's.

SO I think maybe the Oscars just go for the showier role. The character that does more "leading" in the movie, the one with more authority, and field of dramatic range because of the kind of person he is(Cruise is a sociopathic hitman who's life slowly falls apart whereas Foxx's character is the audience, regular guy cab driver with a little life and a big dream who gets to witness Cruise's breakdown, unwillingly or not, to the point where he alone truly understands Vincent by the end.

Perhaps the Academy thinks the "Leading ACtor" should be the person we DONT relate to in the movie so that theres a more direct 1:1 relationship between that character and the audience. Unless of course there IS no other character to relate to, like in "Cast Away".

A good point, though I am almost positive that truly supporting players have to meet a certain screen time % (or time amount) to get a Best Actor/Actress nod.

Your examples lead me to a good question, though: can you think of times when the "bouncer"/"showier" role was nominated for Supporting whilst the "bouncee" got a Best nod?

The only example I can think of off the top of my head is Sam Jackson getting the nod for supporting in Pulp Fiction, while Travolta got it for Best Actor. Screen time rules may have applied, though...

.

http://academyawards.20m.com/rules.htm

.

I seem to remember some controversy over Halle Berry being nominated in "Monster's Ball" for supporting and Jennifer Connoly being nominated in "A Beautiful Mind" for best actress when Connoley was on the screen for a full minute less in her film.

That seemed like a mistake to me, not that either performance was especially memorable.

I like eggrolls and crab rolls, crab legs, but not frog legs.

Halle Berry won for lead actress, not supporting.

Perhaps it's the other way around you mean? Connelly won for supporting actress.

I haven't seen Monster's Ball. Connelly was good in A Beautiful Mond, but no, it wasn't anything to write home about.

Formatted Text Signatures are generally retarded. Thanks for sharing, though. - fyi

Yeah, it was the other way around.

I like eggrolls and crab rolls, crab legs, but not frog legs.

OK - First off, those Academy 'rules' are not only antiquated, but it seems as if you are a filmmaker that lives outside of LA - you're S.O.L.

Second, those online Academy rules don't specify any guidelines for the respective acting awards (except for dubbing and singing).

Methinks, I may have to make a few calls out to Cali to rectify this. Dammit.

Ya, I saw that in the rules. They just gave some vague thing about it being discussed when it comes up or something. Weird. Sounds like politics to me.

"Hmm, we hate so-and-so, so we should make sure he can only get a Supporting nod and not Leading. Exxxccellent!"

Formatted Text Signatures are generally retarded. Thanks for sharing, though. - fyi

OK - I'm chalking up my slice of humble pie to sleep deprivation. But I just saw 'The Aviator' - and its actually pretty good, Leo's holds his own, Cate Blanchet (sp?) is ridiculously convincing - and, (unlike LOTR) it didn't really feel like 3 hours. Much of it reminded me a lot of 'Tucker: A Man and his Dream' - anyone remember that one? Now I completely have no idea what may or may not win come Oscar time.

I didn't want to see the a Aviator. I shrugged it off for months and paid good money to see some ridiculously disappointing movies. (For example "Hide and Seek) I just wasn't interested in seeing a long movie where Leo flys around in a plane. HO-HUM. But, the movie was playing at the cheapie theater by me last week, so I decided to go. IT WAS FANTASTIC! I was glued to my seat the whole time and refused to take a pee break. Leo was great, Kate Blanchett was fantastic, the story intriguing. I was really surprised. I haven't seen Ray so I can't say if Jamie will beat out Leo but I am sure this movie will take home a few awards. The only thing I didn't like about Aviator was that Leo did not seem to age throughout the whole movie. They did give him a mustache towards the end, but with all Howard had been through, you think they would have made him look a bit more haggard.

The Aviator is the closest thing to Raging Bull that Marty has done since. The formula is simple: Rise and fall biopic of an inscrutable larger than life character with a retrospective, misleadingly "redemptive" note towards the final coda.

The ONLY reason MArty would win this year for director or picture is because of this formula. The Academy knew ever since Raging Bull, that everybody and their mother knew that Marty should have won for THAT picture. So they've been waiting and waiting for him to make another movie akin to it so they can try to redeem themselves for dropping the ball that year. I'm guessing Marty also knew very well that he should have won for RAging Bull and refrained from making a film like that for a long time in order to keep from giving the academy the satisfaction of laying him with the "no hard feelings for robbing you last year, right? we cool?" oscar award (some of the recipients of this particular award include Russel Crowe who won for Gladiator but should have won for The Insider from the previous year as well as Sean Penn who won for Mystic River but should have gotten it for the previous Sweet and Lowdown).

Why does the Academy have to be such shady snobs? Why cant they be a man about it and admit when they fucked up? I say give the oscar to Marty for Raging Bull because thats all anyone with common sense will realize is happening even if the title card does say "and the oscar goes to 'the Aviator'." Better late than never. Why shouldnt a director recieve the award, if he's going to actually win it, for the BEST work hes done? Will it look bad for the academy and reveal their level of incompetence, back-tracking bullshittiness, and wishy-washiness if they say "o sorry for letting the best film of its decade slip that year, Marty"? Well tough beans! For their mistake, Marty has to live the rest of his life knowing he finally got the academy award but for the wrong movie? If that isnt a "back-handed compliment" I dont know what is.

At any rate Im routing for Million Dollar BAby.
I would have been routing for ETernal Sunshine if it had been nominated which it damn well should have been. Along with Kill Bill vol2 and DAvid CArradine for best supporting. Boy did they get robbed.

I've never understood why the Oscars were so important. Or any awards for that matter. Sure, it gives the movie a lot of publicity, but it's still just a little statue. In 1994 (I think) Forrest Gump won over Shawshank and Pulp Fiction. They were all great movies, but only one got the little statue. Does that make Shawshank or Pulp Fiction any less great? Hell no.

And I think it's a travesty that anyone would make a movie just to win an Oscar.

Interesting. I was gonna go on this long recourse on how the Academy is tantamount to the Electoral College (and lately the most popular choice doesn't necessarily get the brass ring in either example).

But - I pondered the last thought of the preceding post. DO studios make 'Oscar' films? I mean, that's a lot a coin to bank a 'good' film on, no? Millions of dollars into 'Gosford Park', 'Chocolat', 'The Hours'? These films couldn't have possibly made back their budget.

Now granted, films like 'Lost in Translation' and 'Sideways' get a HUGE push if they get a few Oscar nods - but its quite a gamble on the producers part. I'm sure there's been an article written on this - somewhere.

Its a little statue that represents a "highest achievement" to many in the movie business. Like an olympic medal or superbowl ring. Doesnt necessarily make the audience like the movie or the performance any better than it should deserve, but to those that win it I would imagine it means a big deal. Notice during the oscar show how some great performers turn into slobbery, religious poormouths once they're holding that little thing on stage.

There are two ways to look at winning an oscar or any awards show for that matter, 1) Its a "corporate ladder" promotion, a career opportunity. It says you were "better" than all the other noms that year so you should get top billing for your next picture not them. 2) Its purely an award for the sake of awarding, a gesture of recognition and appreciation for work you've already done and an incentive for a million pat on the backs now that some authority confirms to the general public that you were good.

Both of these ideas are bullshit in my opinion. I think the idea of competition might be necessary though, even if it is all wrong. Until we have a society of free market there will always need to be this "selective process" to determine who gets a job and who is denied it since all jobs are not equal and some are preferrable to others.

But the idea of awards is totally unnecessary and total bullshit. Basically instead of asking the viewer, the one who takes his time and money to sit in that theater and watch your friggin movie for two plus hours, what they thought of the film , the viewer is supposedly being TOLD by the academy what film they should have liked the most on oscar night. The fact that the oscars are based on votes are irrelevant. EVEryone knows its all about marketing yourself, campaiging, timing (some movies just get forgotten about if they opened to early in the calendar year.) things that have nothing at all to do with the actual performances. You hear from everybody including close friends and hollywood actors themselves how their choices didnt even get nominated that year. So what good is an award to one person or film if it doesnt determine whether your better or worse? It just makes those who lose feel bad for losing some dumb award when they should be feeling good for the performance they gave which just might have been better than the one that won.


"They do nothing out here but give out awards, I can't believe it! 'Greatest fascist dictator - Adolph Hitler'!"
-Woody Allen, "Annie Hall"

If you want to go back to where people started, Hilary Swank was "The Karate Kid". I can't remember his name, but there was some big name actor that played a cowboy in "Pee Wee's Playhouse". You can't judge someone on where they started. Everyone has to start somewhere! For the person who said he keeps passing up "Gangs on New York". What other movies have you passed up? Have you seen many of his movies to call him crap? Have you seen "What's Eating Gilbert Grape"? Have you seen "Basketball Diaries"? Have you seen "Romeo and Juliet"? He plays such versatile roles! He gets shafted b/c he is young and good looking! I like Robert DeNiro, but he plays all the same roles (except some later movies). Don't rip on someone unless you can give a good argument!

Best Picture - Aviator

Best Actor - Jamie Foxx

Best Supporting Actor - Morgan Freeman (cause he deserves recognition for all his work and I think they are going to give it to him. Plus, all this talk about no blacks getting Oscars, this may be their banner year).

Best Actress - Hillary Swank, the tough role darling.

Best Supporting Actress - Virgina Madsen cause she really was the best thing in Sideways.

Quick thoughts on the "importance" of the Academy Awards:

I love watching them. They are almost meaningless to anyone aside from the winners and their families. Yes, I meant those as two seperate statements. The Oscars are a time to be nostalgic about the last year of films, but that's about it.

I'd like to think that, at the least, the acting awards were meaningful, but they are probably the most meaningless. The nominations in and of themselves may help relative newcomers/crossovers break through into new material, but look how much winning(!) helped out Mira Sorvino and Marisa Tomei (just to name two). And though I love Morgan Freeman, I've heard talk for years how the Supp. Actor award has become a lifetime achievement award. (ahem, Landau, Coburn, Caine, Hackman, Palance, to name a few).

Formatted Text Signatures are generally retarded. Thanks for sharing, though. - fyi

"....this flick ain't winning any Oscars. Maybe some of the junky Oscars but it's got Oscar snub written all over it."

-tODD'S Aviator Review