THE RACE IS ON: OSCAR ANNOUNCES AND DOESN'T SURPRISE, OR DISAPPOINT, TOO BADLY

Well that was something. Here's the complete list of Oscar noms. Not really any huge surprises among the nominations, but as usual some big disappointments. I still can't fathom how so many people love Ray so much. See, I'm not always so cynical – I actually thought quality might win out and Oscar would forget about Ray and its director, but instead, Hackford got the nod over Forster, and I picked the wrong Mike.

Here's a little rundown:

• By sheer numbers (which is definitely only a mild indicator) The Aviator has to be the early favorite as it nabbed 11 total nominations, three more than Million Dollar Baby which came in second. Finding Neverland and Ray tied for third with six, and Sideways followed closely behind with five. Every year, there seems to be some picture with a large number of nominations that gets completely shut-out from any actual awards. My early pick this year for that dubious honor is Finding Neverland -- all its nominations are in categories that will likely go another way.

• Best Picture: I guess I can't completely say "I told you so," even though I included Ray as a contender. I'm going to go out on a longer limb, however, and say right now, more than 31 days out, that the film doesn't have a chance at the award. This will be a battle between The Aviator, Million Dollar Baby and Sideways, and even among those three, I think Sideways is a bit of a dark horse for the award. It's going to come down to a contest between epic and tearjerker. Who will win? Give me some time to watch the ad campaigns. Thanks to the Globes, the early money has to be on The Aviator, but watch that DGA award. Oscar doesn't split the director and picture prize as much as the Globes, and if Clint walks away with it, MDB becomes a more likely winner, especially since unlike the Globes, the DGA and the Academy actually have many of the same voters.

• Best Director: Mike Leigh for Vera Drake has to be one of the biggest surprises of the morning. In fact, I'm a bit shocked the film received the three nominations it did, especially original screenplay since Leigh doesn't really work with standard screenplays. But whatever. Hackford has no right to be among this group, and I don't have to repeat myself about the omission of Michel Gondry for Eternal Sunshine being an absolute travesty, but as expected, the film was virtually shut-out of any nominations. Even more so than Best Picture, this will be a choice between Scorsese and Eastwood. Again, the DGA will be a huge (although absolutely not decisive) barometer. I think Oscar might feel more comfortable finally giving the award to Scorsese than a few years ago for Gangs of New York -- he lost to Roman Polanski for The Pianist. Right now, this is a toss-up.

• Best Screenplay Awards: These nominations got me a bit excited if only because there were enough slots here to give Charlie Kaufman and company a nod for Eternal Sunshine and recognizing Brad Bird for his great original script to The Incredibles. Since they separate screenplay into "original" and "adapted" categories, that creates 10 total nominations, and that also created space for Before Sunset. It's interesting to see that the Academy considered Before Sunset in the "adapted" category. It's not like sequels automatically slot into "adapted." Did I miss the original source material? Or are they considering it some sort of adaptation spawned from the first film? Regardless, the nomination is the award for Before Sunset. The "adapted" award will most likely belong to Sideways, and I won't really complain about that.

• Best Acting Awards: If there were surprises anywhere, they were in these four categories – some good, some not so good. I'm relatively shocked that Paul Giamatti was excluded, but for him to get a nod, most likely Clint Eastwood would have had to be left out, and while I might agree with that choice (he was almost too grizzled for my taste – it seemed like a put-on much of the time), I'm not surprised that the Academy voters went with Clint. Of course, the other person left-out here is Jim Carey who gave such a fabulous and nuanced performance in Eternal Sunshine. In fact, his playing the subtle straight-man, in a sense, is probably why he didn't get consideration.

  Catalina Sandino Moreno for Maria Full of Grace and Kate Winslet for Eternal Sunshine made me happy, though neither will win. This award likely belongs to Annette Bening, which I still consider a shame not only because, as I've said repeatedly, Imelda Staunton gave the performance of the year in Vera Drake. In fact, this is the only nomination of the three going to Vera Drake I think the film actually deserves. Someone on E! this morning actually made sense in suggesting that Bening has the edge at least in part because Swank won the award a few years ago for Boys Don't Cry by beating (not undeservedly) Bening's magnificent performance in American Beauty. Sadly, Being Julia is at best a mediocre film in which Bening shines but not so brightly as to beat out maybe any of her fellow nominees.

  Alan Alda's nomination for The Aviator was a bit of a surprise to me, although he was fantastic in it, but otherwise this category filled itself out as expected. Jamie Foxx doubled his pleasure with a supporting actor nod for Collateral, and Thomas Haden Church rightfully received notice for Sideways, but here again, the two early frontrunners have to be Morgan Freeman and Clive Owen. Considering that Owen gave one of the other top performances of the year, I'll be rooting for him.

  And finally, the biggest surprise to me came in the Supporting Actress category with Sophia Okonedo receiving recognition for Hotel Rwanda. Even more so than Moreno's nomination, I didn't think the Academy would pay attention to anyone other than Cheadle in this film, but Okonedo contributed a powerfully effective performance and deserves to be here. In fact, this is an incredibly strong category, and while Blanchett is my favorite for her brilliant transformation into Katharine Hepburn, all five of these women were among the best things in their films. Laura Linney, in fact, was the main thing I did like about Kinsey (along with the brilliant Peter Sarsgaard), a movie that otherwise underwhelmed me, and Globe surprise-winner Portman was fantastic in Closer. I always used to hate Madsen in almost everything, but I loved her in Sideways. Still, if Oscar trends the way of The Aviator, Blanchett should easily be among the winners.

There were a few other things that struck me about the complete nomination list.

For starters, I know in my last post I spoke a bit about the greatness of A Very Long Engagement. Happily, the film actually received two nominations, for Best Art Direction and Best Cinematography, both richly deserved.

Another Cinematography nominee is The Passion of the Christ which, although I think the movie is relatively dull and empty, absolutely deserves this recognition. Caleb Deschanel might deserve to win for the singular shot of god's tear falling from the sky, through the clouds (and the lens) and creating an earthquake, which was simply spectacular.

I am disappointed, however, that another movie I didn't like didn't also receive a Cinematography nomination. Dion Beebe's and Paul Cameron's work in Collateral was the one excellent element of this otherwise incredibly disappointing film. Since members of an Academy branch vote on the nominations for their specific branch, I wonder if their exclusion has anything to do with a bias against digital video, which I believe was used for the entirety of Michael Mann's film. I certainly would have dropped the nomination for Phantom of the Opera in favor of the lovely-to-look-at Collateral.

Another small surprise in the Best Music – Original Score category: Golden Globe winner Howard Shore (The Aviator) was left off the list. He's a previous winner (just last year for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King) so maybe that's why, but the score for The Aviator was wonderful. If the Academy does want to throw Finding Neverland a bone, this might be the category it has the best chance.

Finally, Fahrenheit 9/11 obviously proved too political to receive a Best Documentary Feature nomination. (see comment below -- I forgot that Moore's pay-per-view airing of the film made it ineligible in the category.) I can't say I'm totally surprised. This category's nominations are determined by a select panel rather than an entire branch of the Academy, and maybe they thought that not only is the film to divisive, but it might not be such a bad idea to recognize some smaller yet excellent docs. I think it's a shame because simply as filmmaking I would say Michael Moore's picture deserves to be there, however, I have to temper that comment since I've only seen two of the nominated films. Still, while Super Size Me was interesting and entertaining, I didn't think it was such a great movie. Something similar could be said regarding Born Into Brothels, a film that benefits more from the fantastic story it tells than from any grand techniques in filmmaking. I marvel at those who say Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't a masterful piece of filmmaking just because they dislike Moore or disagree completely with his polemic. He tells the "story" he wants in the most effective and emotional way I can imagine, and love it or hate it for its content, it's Moore's technique and craft that provokes the strongest response.

That's what struck me this morning. I think there are enough toss-ups in most categories between at least two nominees to provide some mild excitement on Oscar night (Feb. 27 for those of you who don't keep that kind of thing on your calendar like me). And even if the awards don't prove that exciting, hopefully the show will be with the great Chris Rock taking the lead as host this year. Oscar may not truly celebrate the absolute best in film (have I mentioned Eternal Sunshine?), but as long as he's around, I'll be watching.

Comments

[K Chaffee]

Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't left out because it was too political; it was left out because Michael Moore chose to air it on TV last fall, making it ineligible for the Best Documentary category. It was still eligible for Best Picture, and part of Moore's stated motivation for pulling out of the Best Doc race was that he sees the category as a sort of ghetto; he would surely have been nominated for Best Doc, but that (he believed) would have kept voters from even considering his movie for Best Picture.

He was probably right (and one can apply similar logic to The Incredibles, which deserved a Best Picture nomination), but I don't think the movie ever had a chance of getting a Best Picture nomination (nor do I think it deserved one).

[Aaron]

K: You know, I totally forgot about the whole pay-per-view showing the night before the election which, you're right, did make the film ineligible. I also agree with you that the film didn't deserve a Best Pic nom this year, although it is another example of why the Academy's rules are so stupid. Why should a film that was released first theatrically, played for several months, grossed over $100 Million be considered ineligible because it then also played on television -- pay-per-view, no less -- the same year or within nine months (which is the limit created by the rule). The rule is there to help distinguish between theatrically intended features and televised fare, but it's a relatively arbitrary amount of time and utterly pointless.

Thanks for correcting me though.

[Sean]

Howard Shore was also disqualified from competition. His score was ruled ineligible because it was "diluted or diminished" by other music in the movie.

And apparently, Shrek 2's score was disqualified because it was based too much on the original's score. Perhaps that provides a hint to the Before Sunset nomination.