Oscar Preview 2015

Predicting the Oscar isn't an exact science. Yet since I started doing it myself on this blog ten years ago an entire cottage industry has popped up on the internet trying to turn it into one. But it can't be done. I've studied the Oscars as close as anyone for over fifteen years, and now even talk about the Oscars for a living, but yet here are my prediction results from the past three years: 16 for 24, 16 for 24, and 21 for 24. Good enough to probably win you your Oscar pool, but bad enough to show that it's basically impossible to predict EXACTLY what a small, insular, idiosyncratic group of largely old white people will do in any given year.

Yet, like always, I'll give it my best shot:

Visual Effects
The inside of a black hole, a friendly and virtually all-powerful robot, a planet made entirely of water, an alternate dimension inside an infinite number of bookcases - even just describing the most memorable special effects in Interstellar is a reminder of how ridiculous the plot was. But the special effects were so well-done and the movie LOOKED so good it almost didn't matter that it didn't make a bit of sense. Inception won this, and Interstellar will too.

Will Win: Interstellar
Should Win: Interstellar

Sound Mixing
Sound Editing
Alright, let me do my quick take on American Sniper here and be done with it. I kind of hate how now everything has to be something we take sides on. The products we buy and the media we consume have always said something about who we are, but now its gotten so binary and so extreme. The car we drive, the beer we drink, the movies we see are all now either red or blue, and we just stand in our respective corners and yell at each other about them. Can't I just go see a fairly standard war movie that doesn't even totally know whats it's trying to say and judge it on its merits as a film without getting involved in some larger cultural battle? The answer is no; no I can't. It's impossible to experience anything now without viewing it through the lens of your political affiliation. Thats just the way it is. And that kinda sucks. But also, does it means we're becoming more conscious and engaged people? And isn't it a good thing that theres real debate and discussion about a movie that treats one side of a war as savages and killing them as heroic? That's something that wouldn't have caused controversy ten or even five years ago, and that feels like progress. Debate and deeper examination should be why we're here. So while I kind of hated that I couldn't just watch American Sniper as a piece of entertainment, maybe that's just the price of living in a more enlightened society.

Anyway, no one really knows how to judge sound mixing or sound editing or even what the difference between the two are. So since American Sniper needs to win something, and since it certainly had a lot of sound to be mixed and/or edited it's taking these two awards.

Will Win: American Sniper
Should Win: American Sniper

Live Action Short
Like 99.999% of the population I haven't seen any of the short film nominees this year. So all I really have to go on is descriptions of the movies, reports from people who have seen them, and historical precedent.

People seem to be picking Boogaloo and and Graham here because it's the only light hearted nominee, and that makes sense. Plus it's name is Boogaloo and Graham. But The Phone Call checks off even more boxes: it's (also) in English, it's made by an established director, and it features known stars (Sally Hawkins and Jim Broadbent). A film with a similar profile lost this last year, but still, actors make up a majority of the Academy and The Phone Call is supposed to be a real acting showcase. It's my pick.

Will Win: The Phone Call
Should Win: Who knows

Animated Short
Feast is made by Disney and produced by John Lasseter. The winner is Feast.

Will Win: Feast
Should Win: Who knows

Documentary Short
Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1 seems to be the pick here - it's about veterans, it's the only uplifting nominee, it illuminates an important issue. And that's all sound reasoning. But I don't think two of the short film winners will both be about crisis hotlines. And I don't think the veteran thing necessarily carries as much weight behind closed doors in liberal Hollywood as people might think it would. So I do think that the door is open for something else to win.

These films aren't just viewed by old people who have the time to go to screenings any more - now screeners are sent out to all voters. But still, the Academy membership skews old. So a movie about motherhood and mortality would seem a good bet. Joanna is just that movie. I think it pulls the upset, if there can even be such a thing in the short film categories.

Will Win: Joanna
Should Win: Who knows

Production Design
Crazy, dubious fact: Wes Anderson is not his own production designer? How is that possible?? His movies ARE production design. And his directing is as much art directing as it is directing directing. Yet according to the official Oscar website the art designer for Grand Budapest Hotel is someone named Adam Stockhausen? Is that just a pseudonym for Wes Anderson? Is Adam Stockhausen his version of Roderick Jaynes?

Also how has Wes Anderson/Adam Stockhausen never won this before? Thats like when Martin Scorsese had never won Best Director. Well, this is the year that's remedied.

(BTW, here's something I wrote in LAST year's Oscar preview in the production design section: "congrats to Wes Anderson for winning next year for his work on The Grand Budapest Hotel." See told you I know what I'm talking about.)

Will Win: Grand Budapest Hotel
Should Win: Grand Budapest Hotel

Costume Design
Is there a historical epic involving royalty nominated? Not this year, which means I actually have to put some thought into it. Anna B. Sheppard is the only nominee who hasn't won before, but she's not a big enough name for that matter. Normally I say when in doubt go with Colleen Atwood, but maybe not this year. Instead, I think there's real enthusiasm for Grand Budapest Hotel and all elements of its visual style. This feels like they year the Academy tries to make it up to Wes Anderson for not getting into his aesthetic sooner. Plus those costumes were great.

Will Win: Grand Budapest Hotel
Should Win: Grand Budapest Hotel

Makeup and Hairstyling
You would think big budget movies with crazy characters and complex makeup usually win this, but you'd actually be wrong. Just in the past three years The Iron Lady beat Harry Potter, Les Miserables beat The Hobbit, and Dallas Buyer Club beat The Lone Ranger. Memorable but realistic hair and makeup works seems to beat more fantastical work more often than not. And hair and makeup wise what was more memorable and realistic this year than Steve Carrell's nose and Mark Ruffalo's hair? They can both partially thank the Foxcatcher hair and makeup department for their Oscar nods. Hopefully an Oscar win for that department will be thanks enough.

Will Win: Foxcatcher
Should Win: Foxcatcher

Film Editing
Linklater: "Here ya go. Here's 12 years worth of meandering slice-of-life footage, now make a coherent movie out of it."

Editor: "You crazy for this one Rick!"

Will Win: Boyhood
Should Win: Boyhood

Cinematography
Remember that incredible six-minute tracking shot in Emmanuel Lubezki pulled off in Children of Men and how everyone was crazy for it and how it's a travesty he didn't win an Oscar just for that shot alone? Well Birdman is that shot stretched out to the length of an entire movie. I realize there were subtle hidden cuts throughout, but still, pulling off the cinematography of Birdman is one of the most impressive technical and aesthetic achievements in film history. At this point its really Lubezki's world, we're just living in it.

(Better luck next year Dick Poop)

Will Win: Lubezki!
Should Win: Lubezki!

Documentary Feature
It's Citizenfour. It's definitely Citizenfour. Over the past 15 years this has turned into a super interesting, competitive, and important category. With all due respect to Citizenfour, what the hell happened this year? Please tell me we're not running out of real-life stories to tell.

(Spoiler alert: we're not)

Will Win: Citizenfour
Should Win: Citizenfour

Foreign Language Film
I haven't seen any of these nominees so I wasn't sure what to pick here until I read that Ida "deals with the aftermath of the Holocaust". You had the Academy at "Holocaust" Ida. Thanks for playing everyone else.

Will Win: Ida
Should Win: IDK, Ida?

Animated Film
With all the justified outrage over The Lego Movie being snubbed in this category people are missing the bigger issue. Forget Best Animated Feature, it’s an outrage that The Lego Movie was snubbed for Best Picture. If a comedy as smart, funny, daring, and original as The Lego Movie can't get nominated for Best Picture then lets just do like the Golden Globes and make a separate category for comedy, because clearly a straight up comedy is never cracking the Best Picture race.

It wasn’t always this way. In the early days movies like It Happened One Night and You Can't Take It With You WON Best Picture. Even as recently as the 70s and early 80s movies like M.A.S.H., Heaven Can Wait, Tootsie and Annie Hall (which won) were in the Best Picture race. But in the past 25 years here's every movie up for Best Picture that could remotely qualify as a comedy: Four Weddings and a Funeral, Babe, Fargo (stretching it), The Full Monty, As Good As It Gets, Shakespeare in Love (really stretching it), Little Miss Sunshine, Juno, and of course Crash. If you wanted to be generous you could include The Artist and Life is Beautiful, two movies technically billed as comedies but that didn't evoke a single actual laugh out of any person on earth. And I guess you could also include Up, Toy Story 3, Silver Linings Playbook and Scent of a Woman depending on if think Al Pacino’s performance was INTENTIONALLY funny. But that’s it - 14 movies in 25 years if you stretch the definition of comedy to its absolute breaking point. But really, would you call any of those movies straight up comedies? Maybe Four Weddings and a Funeral and The Full Monty? Maybe. So, it would seem now that “Best Picture” really means “Best Dramatic Film”, comedies need not apply. Because apparently comedy is not an art form on par with drama. I would say ask the Greeks and Shakespeare how they would feel about that statement, but then knowing about the origins of the dramatic arts might be a little much for an organization that watched The Lego Movie and thought, “eh, it’s no Boxtrolls”. I can almost guarantee you that no human being outside of the Academy, not even the director of The Boxtrolls, thought that. But unfortunately in this case the Academy is all that matters. And that’s why awards are so dumb. It’s just the opinion of one small, biased, insular group of mostly old white people. I know this. And yet still I care. I care deeply. Because honoring art is important. And awards shows are still the best way we have to do that. So while there are much bigger issues this year (all white acting nominees, a distinct lack of women) than a massively successful movie about toy blocks not getting nominated for Best Picture, if The Lego Movie can't get nominated for even Best Animated Feature, then the Academy has failed at its mission. It cannot properly honor art because it has lost its fundamental understanding of what constitutes art. And that is anything but awesome.

Will Win: How to Train Your Dragon 2
Should Win: The Lego Movie

Original Song
Speaking of awesome..."Glory" is a fine song, and a respectable choice, and Selma should have "Academy Award Winner" attached to it's name somehow, but how, well, awesome would it be if "Everything is Awesome" won instead? Lonely Island rushing the stage would be the best thing at the Oscars since Three 6 Mafia rushing the stage.

Oh well, at least the performances this year will be great.

(As a side note: did you know that Common's real name is Lonnie Lynn? Remember when Fox News tried to make him out to be some scary radical cop killer? He should have just released a statement that his real name is Lonnie Lynn and all of that would have gone away instantly.)

Will Win: "Glory"
Should Win: "EVERYTHING IS AWESOME"

Original Score
Did you know Alexandre Desplat has never won an Oscar? I feel like Alexandre Desplat is synonymous with "tasteful Oscar-friendly scores". Also, possibly, I need to get out more. But indeed Alexandre Desplat is nominated (twice!) again this year. Yet, I think once again he goes home empty handed. It'll be close because his Grand Budapest Hotel score was very good and support for that movie is strong. But it seems like Johann Johannsson is going to take this for The Theory of Everything. It won the Golden Globe. It's the most memorable score of the year other than Birdman (not nominated) and Interstellar (memorable for all the wrong reasons). And his name is JOHANN JOHANNSSON. Really his parents should win an Oscar for that one.

(And yes, I understand how Icelandic names work, but just let me have my joke).

So while it's gonna be a tight race, unless support for Grand Budapest Hotel is even stronger than we realize Desplat is, like always, just going to have to wait til next year

Will Win: The Theory of Everything
Should Win: Theory of Everything

Adapted Screenplay
How are these the five best adapted screenplays of the year? And how is Whiplash an ADAPTED screenplay? It's adapted from a shorter version of the same movie. How can the source material for your adapted screenplay be an earlier draft of the same screenplay? That makes no sense. But whatever. As long as Jason Hall doesn't win for a screenplay that has no ending and no idea what it was trying to say I really could care less what happens here. This is thoroughly uninspiring.

Will Win: Whiplash
Should Win: Whiplash?

Original Screenplay
Now THIS on the other hand, is a screenplay competition! (But again, how is Foxcatcher an ORIGINAL screenplay? It's based on true events the writers had to buy the rights to. How is that original? Whatever.)

The monologues in Nightcrawler were incredibly written, Grand Budapest Hotel was the very definition of original, Birdman was more original than that, and Boyhood was the most original thing to ever be original-ed. So deciding here is very tough. Foxcatcher is out, because what is it doing here? Nightcrawler is out because despite good writing, the plot is ridiculous and heavy-handed. Grand Budapest Hotel could easily win, and Wes Anderson is certainly overdue, but the remaining two nominees are slightly stronger to me.

So, is it Birdman or Boyhood? Boyhood is the better movie, but is its screenplay better? The question with Richard Linklater movies is always what is the screenplay? His films always feel like he just gives the actors an outline and some words they can say or not say and then he pieces it together later. Birdman however is clearly scripted within in an inch of of its life. That's a screenplay that was slaved over, as the fact that it has four writers shows. But does the fact that it has four writers hurt it when every other nominee has only one? That somehow makes it feel like less impressive of an achievement doesn't it?

I could really go either way here. But I think the restraint and subtle humanity Boyhood has in its screenplay is maybe more of an achievement than the imagination and flash of Birdman's screenplay. I think the Academy will disagree. But I'm really fine either way.

Will Win: Birdman
Should Win: Boyhood

Supporting Actress
So look, if there are two things I’m deeply in the tank for its feisty, caustic, damaged women and Emma Stone, so there's really no way for me to talk about this rationally. But just know that Patricia Arquette winning here is going to go against pretty much all recent historical precedent.

The old men who make up the majority of the Academy voters love them some attractive young women. Especially in this category. This is where Kim Basinger beat Gloria Stuart and Juliette Binoche beat Lauren Bacall after all. In fact this award could be renamed the Hot Young Starlet of the Year Award and the winner list wouldn't even retroactively have to be changed too much. In the past twenty years only Marcia Gay Harden and Melissa Leo have won when there was also a viable hot young nominee competing against them. I'm not saying things SHOULD be that way, just that they are.

Also, I'm a little unclear what is so awards worthy about Patricia Arquette's work in Boyhood that she's such a lock to overcome such strong voter predisposition. Other than her final scene it seems like a performance nearly anyone could have given. At no point watching Boyhood did I think "I am watching the best supporting actress performance I will see this year!" It's fine work, but is it as praise-worthy as it's become? I just don't get it.

But then again, I'm not, nor never will be a mother. Just like the women I have talked to by and large seem less enthusiastic about Boyhood than the men, I think there might be gender component to fully appreciating Patricia Arquette's work. And while men make up the majority of Academy voters, it's (fortunately) not by as much of a margin as it used to be.

So although I don't quite understand it, it looks pretty clear that Emma Stone is just going to have to settle for just being the world's most charming, talented, and attractive young actress as her consolation prize. Somehow I think she'll soldier on.

Will Win: Patricia Arquette
Should Win: Emma Stone

Supporting Actor
Maybe it's no 1992 or 1994, but you know its a strong category when Robert Duvall's performance in The Judge is bringing up the rear of this category as barely even an afterthought. I can come up with at least ten different years that any one of these guys would have won in a landslide. But as an actor sometimes you just happen to give a great performance in the wrong year. Because it's been clear since Sundance over a year ago that this was gonna be JK Simmons' year no matter what.

Now, I don't know that I bought JK Simmons in Whiplash as an actual human being. I know there are people LIKE his character, but the extreme he and the script took it to I didn't find believable as realistic human behavior. Also, as any actor knows, anger and aggression are the easiest things to play. Still, the performance was so powerful and visceral and what made the whole movie work that it's kind of hard to deny him the win here. As a MASSIVE fan of Edward Norton's work in Birdman I went into Whiplash totally ready to pick Simmons' performance apart. But he won me over, and winning over someone who actively wants to dislike you is the ultimate test.

So while I think Edward Norton gave maybe a better and more interesting performance, JK gave the performance that was showier, more memorable, more crucial to his film, and for all those reasons and more he's going to win. And I think I'm OK with that. Maybe sometimes it's alright if the Oscars aren't about "the best" per se but about "the most Oscar-worthy". Those are, after all, two different things.

Will Win: JK Simmons
Should Win: JK Simmons (by a hair)

Actress
It seems strange that Julianne Moore is finally going to win her Oscar for such a minor unseen movie as Still Alice, but then that also seems very Julianne Moore of her. Un-flashy, professional, all about the work, easy to take for granted - thats not just Julianne Moore and her films, but a good description of her work in Still Alice. Compare the work Julianne Moore does in Still Alice to the work with the work Eddie Redmayne does in The Theory of Everything. You're always aware Eddie is acting; with Julianne you never are. Eddie's feels like a performance designed to win awards. I'm sure on set the word Oscar came up more than once. Julianne in Still Alice is simply living a life, awards be damned.  Its the kind of work only a consummate professional who has been at this for 20 years could do. To be that real and unvarnished you have to have absolute faith in yourself and your work. Faith that can only come from doing this as long as Julianne Moore has and from doing it as well as she has. Her performance in Still Alice could have gone wrong in a million different ways and she avoids them all. She doesn't care about showing us what a good actor she is; she just cares about living an imaginary life as truthfully as she possibly can. And it's absolutely heartbreaking to watch.

It's almost the exact opposite of Cate Blanchett from last year, but it's equally overdue and equally well-deserved.

(Shout out to Reese Witherspoon though, who was great in Wild and who I'm positive during filming thought she would win an Oscar for it. And most years she would have. But the Oscars are as much about luck and timing as anything else. And this is Julianne's year. But nice to see you back on the nominee list though Reese, and congrats on being runner up. No small feat.)

Will Win: Julianne Moore
Should Win: Julianne Moore

Actor
How is it that this feels like a strong category yet I'm not enthusiastic about any of the nominees? Cumberbatch is too mannered, Redmayne is too showy, Carrell is too same-y, Cooper is too American Sniper-y and Keaton I dunno, his performance lacks a certain je ne sais quoi for me. I would vote for David Oyelowo if I could. I thought he was far and away the best, most powerful, most transformative and explosive performance of the year. The fact that there's not more outrage or even mention about his omission from this list speaks to a whole host of problems both with the Academy and of the world at large. It's also a bit inexplicable that Carrell got nominated over Jake Gyllenhaal for playing basically the same type of character only with less complexity, flash, and screen time. But since you can only go with the hand you're dealt, I guess Keaton is the pick. His movie has more support and he's the heart of it. It's a role that Oscar voters can deeply relate to. And Keaton is an overdue nice guy who has worked at some point with half of Hollywood. It seems weird to win Best Actor for a movie in which you only give the third best performance in, but maybe that's just a testament to how good the acting is in Birdman. But maybe it's also a big part of the reason he's running neck and neck with the inferior work of Eddie Redmayne.

Eddie Redmayne has the showiest part here by far, and definitely does the MOST acting, but that's part of my problem with it. It seems bipolar to honor Julianne Moore's subtle and unshow-y work and then turn around and also honor Eddie Redmayne for acting with a capital A. He ages, he develops an extreme physical handicap, he has a big crying scene, he's portraying a real person - it's just all so self-consciously actor-y. I'm not saying performances like that can't be great, and indeed Eddie is very good, but you're kind of always aware he's acting. You can see the work rather than getting lost in it.

Also, Eddie Redmayne would be one of the youngest people to ever win Best Actor. Are we sure he's worthy of that distinction? The Theory of Everything is really only his third major film, and while he was very good in the other two (My Week With Marilyn and Les Miserables) does it really feel like he's headed for a career as one of our finest actors? What are the odds "Best Actor Winner Eddie Redmayne" sounds ridiculous 20 years from now? Pretty high, right? The only three men younger than him to win this award in the past 30 years are Adrien Brody, Nicolas Cage, and Richard Dreyfuss and it kind of ruined all of them (seriously check out Dreyfuss' credits post-1977, they're shockingly undistinguished). The supporting awards are whatever, but my take on Best Actor and Best Actress is that they're the pinnacle of the profession, and unless there are no other reasonable options let's make sure the winners have truly earned them. Besides the fact that I think his work is slightly better, it just feels like Keaton has earned the right to be a Best Actor Winnner; I don't think Redmayne is there yet.

(And it's statements like that that are the reason people think the Oscars are dumb. Seriously, why are you still reading this? I'm part of the problem.)

Will Win: Michael Keaton
Should Win: Michael Keaton (but really David Oyelowo)

Director
Ava Duvernay's exclusion here is the real story and the fact that her snub didn't lead to a similar reaction as Ben Affleck's snub two years ago says a lot about Hollywood.

Clint Eastwood's exclusion is the opposite of that.

As for the people who were nominated: One of the five best directors this year was Morten Tyldum? That's an absurd statement and it's unclear how or why the directors branch, which usually does a great job, voted that way. My guess: Harvey Weinstein.

Bennett Miller is a more defensible choice, and Foxcatcher was certainly directed, but was it well directed is a different matter. Maybe? I'm still undecided.

So that leaves the only three people with any real chance of winning. Wes Anderson isn't winning this year, but he's finally cracked the nominee list and it's not inconceivable that he'll win someday. He's officially gone from quirky indie auteur to mainstream brand name while still retaining essentially the same style. And he just keeps getting better at what he does with each passing movie. His eventual acceptance speech is going to be whimsical as shit. But it's not happening this year. (Not in this category anyway.) So in what is the tightest race on the entire board and likely one of the closest votes in Oscar history, my gut says Alejandro Inarritu squeaks this one out over Richard Linkalter. Birdman clearly has a ton of support within the Academy. The votes for Best Director and Best Picture are tabulated differently and this category favors passion over consensus. And while Boyhood would seem to have more general support, Birdman seems to have more passion behind it at this point.

Most importantly though, we're talking about direction here. Richard Linklater's strength, his signature really, is what's going to do him in. In Boyhood he always keeps things simple and unfussy. He doesn't go for big moments or fancy camera work. He wants to make it seem like you're watching real life. His direction is by design unobtrusive. And it's that restraint that allows the movie to ultimately make the emotional impact that it does. But it's also why it's going to be hard for him to beat the HEY I'M DIRECTIN' HERE! work Alejandro Inarritu does in Birdman. Every second of Birdman "wow, I can't imagine how hard this must have been to make" is in the back of your mind. It's just a staggering directorial achievement that any person who has ever made a film would be jealous of and inspired by. And that's just it: Birdman feels like an achievement, Boyhood feels like an accomplishment. Subtle but massive difference. Boyhood is content to just be a great movie, Birdman cries out for awards. And it's going to get them. At least in this category anyway.

Will Win: Alejandro Inarritu
Should Win: Alejandro Inarritu

Picture
My approach to deciding Best Picture is which of these will stand the test of time as the best movie of the year. When people 100 years from now look at a list of Best Pictures winners which of the nominees will make the most sense to be on that list. Which of these movies is the best movie of 2014, not just right now but forever? Approaching it that way would prevent the in-the-moment groupthink like "We feel bad for Ben Affleck" (Argo) "a silent movie, how novel!" (The Artist) "gay people make us uncomfortable" (Crash) "Harvey Weinstein paid us off" (Shakespeare in Love) and "we had a collective brain aneurism" (The Kings Speech) that lead to winners that already start to seem absurd the day after they're announced (or sooner).

So with that criteria in mind let's run through these.

The case for American Sniper is that it made a lot of money and is very popular. It's not Titanic or Gone With the Wind-level popular so that popularity isn't going to single-handedly carry it to classic status. And take away the box office and the controversy and it's a pretty straight-forward war movie the likes of which we've all seen before. It's out.

Grand Budapest Hotel is great, but 100 years from now is it going to be the first, second, or even third most beloved Wes Anderson movie? Does it even seem THAT different from any of his other post-Rushmore movies? It's out.

100 years from now will people be able to say with any certainty which movie is which between The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything? Can they now? They're out.

Whiplash is well made and well and and very entertaining, but at the core it's a simple two person character study - a mentor/mentee showdown. Movies like Whiplash have existed since film began and will continue to be made until the sun burns out. Good Picture, but not Best Picture.

So that just leaves the three movies which for me, and many others, stood apart from the pack this year. Important without being cloying, well-made without being slick, powerful without forcing it, and spoke to today while still remaining timeless. Any one of Selma, Birdman, or Boyhood would be a respectable choice for Best Picture of 2014. But only one can be. So which is it?

Selma is twice as good as it needed to be to get a Best Picture nomination, so the fact that that's really all it got is just criminal. It could have easily floated in on being the first major MLK movie and being released in a year when it's subject matter couldn't be more timely, but it didn't do that. It was masterfully made and brilliantly constructed and did everything right every step of the way. It was one of those movies where even the actors with just one line were great. And it was emotionally and socially resonant without ever leaning on or acknowledging its timeliness. Which was the best decision the filmmakers made. Because just like you can always stage a production of Trojan Women or Tartuffe or You Cant Take It With You and make it feel timely, Selma will (sadly) always be relevant. Especially because it didn't try to be. But for the purposes of deciding what wins this category, unfortunately the story and the way it is told, while powerful, are a little too conventional and straightforward when compared to the remaining two nominees. I would be willing to listen to arguments to the country, but unfortunately they wouldn't matter, because Selma isn't winning this. The Academy is too conservative. This is an Academy that seems to be fine with the fact there's not a single non-white acting, directing, or writing nominee. This is an Academy where a member just said about Selma "having the cast show up in T-shirts saying 'I can't breathe' — I thought that stuff was offensive. Did they want to be known for making the best movie of the year or for stirring up shit?" And this is an Academy that allowed the conversation around Selma to become "is the main white guy in the MLK movie portrayed heroically enough or not". Because of course. Plus 12 Years a Slave just won last year. And if you think that doesn't matter, well, hello and welcome to America, I hope you enjoy your stay.

Anyway, sorry Selma.

So then there were two. To get into the nerdy details, no film has lost Best Picture after winning the SAG, PGA, and DGA awards in over 20 years. But I still think Boyhood is going to take down Birdman. Unlike Best Director, in Best Picture consensus matters more than passion. And with the older more conservative Academy I'm sure there are many people who didn't "get Birdman", found it difficult and challenging, and ranked it towards the bottom of their ballot. Whereas I can't imagine anyone watching Boyhood and not putting it in their top three. Also never forget that the guilds skew way younger than the Academy because to even get in the Academy you have to have been in the business a long time. I personally know tons of people in SAG, the WGA, and the DGA; I dont know anyone in the Academy. I'm too young to. So anyway, thats the nitty gritty of why I'm riding with Boyhood. But I'm also riding with it because I want it to win. Because it's the better movie and because it's going to stand the test of time better.

Both movies are remarkable innovative achievements the likes of which we have never seen before and maybe never will again. It's a shame they have to go up against each other when there are years when things like The Artist win by default. But Birdman is a movie about making movies; Boyhood is a movie about life. I can't imagine anyone who doesn't work in the entertainment industry finding Birdman relatable; I can't imagine anyone alive not relating to Boyhood. It connects us all by showing how universal the experience of life is. The specifics are unique to each of us but the beats are all the same for everyone. Like a song thats clearly about a specific incident but that yet every listener feels like is about them, Boyhood somehow feels more universal because it is so specific. If Linklater had tried to tell a more general story it wouldn't have hit as hard. But by watching what was clearly autobiographical for one man and yet recognizing in it feelings and thoughts and experiences that I had, it made me realize that my own life wasn't unique. Everyone goes through the same things. We all have our differences, but aging is what connects us. Time is the tie that binds. Birdman says to voters - look at me, aren't I important. Boyhood says to them - aren't we all.

Now I loved Birdman, and this is not meant as a knock on it, but the creativity and innovative filming style of Birdman will seem ordinary someday. People will build on it, imitators will arise, it can be topped. But nothing will ever be like Boyhood ever again. Yet it doesn't win just for being first. And it doesn't win just for being singular. It wins because it will never lose its effectiveness as a film. It will never not be great. Because the passage of time will never dilute time's power. Time will always win. And the Oscars should be no exception.

Will Win: Boyhood
Should Win: Boyhood

What to Expect from The Bizarro Grammys: A 2011 Oscar Preview

For years The Grammys and The Oscars were friends. They hung out together, had a lot in common and were viewed the same way: as prestigious and significant yet slightly corny, political, and behind-the-times crap shoots. But in recent years a funny thing happened. As The Oscars became more predictable, The Grammys became absurdly random and unpredictable. As The Oscars (with some notable exceptions) started to make more progressive, hipper, and culturally relevant choices, the Grammys slid even further and further into old fogey-dom. As The Oscars became less about who ran the best campaign and who spent the most money wooing voters, The Grammys seemed to do the exact opposite. And as the coverage of and seeming weight given to The Oscars has increased, people stopped caring about or even acknowledging the existence of The Grammys all together. Now instead of being Xerox copies of each other, The Grammys and The Oscars are mirror images. And that’s what makes the most results of the most recent Grammy Awards so interesting.

America is still buzzing about the Esperanza Spalding and Arcade Fire Grammy wins. They made The Grammys front page news. Just yesterday in fact, I found myself engaged in two separate conversations about The Grammys. And The Grammys were two weeks ago at this point. That’s an eternity in pop culture time. Especially for an event that in years prior no one paid even the slightest attention to. But this year The Grammys zigged where they were expected to zag and in doing so they captured the national conversation. Which raises the interesting question - how will the Granddaddy of Them All respond? Likely, not well. They’ve already announced that they’re doing away with the "five past winners/colleagues pay tribute to the five current nominees" gimmick they did the past two years which I was a very vocal fan of. And it’s hard to see James Franco and Anne Hathaway even at their very best transcending the level of "tolerably pleasant". Most interestingly though, after years of making forward thinking choices, The Academy looks like it might be falling back into old habits. Just as The Grammys threw us for a loop by making a good choice, The Oscars look set to do the same by making a bad one. Just when we thought we had figured out who they are they both go and change on us. And so the Grammy/Oscar dance begins anew. How are they alike? How are they different? And what would it be like if one was run by the other? To explore that I’ve chosen what the winner in every category should be. And then who the Grammys would likely choose if they were in charge. And then who the Oscars likely will choose themselves come Sunday night. Compare, contrast, and discuss the choices. Or likely do none of the above. Because ultimately there’s probably only one thing that matters to you. Only one reason why you’re here. And that’s to win your Oscar pool.

Good luck.

-----------------------

The Shorts:
Yes, this is the place that competitive Oscar pools are won or lost. It’s also the most random and unpredictable. And not just because no one has seen any of the nominees. In fact whenever I have seen the nominees I’ve found I’ve usually been more off in my predictions than when I just read the names off a sheet of paper. Trying to guess these things will drive you mad. It’s like the Best Pop Performance By a Duo or Group With Vocals Grammy category - so wide ranging and eclectic that's it’s like trying to choose between apples and oranges in a situation where the jury only eats meat. So while I can make my picks, who the hell knows who will or should win. It’s a nonsensical crapshoot, which I believe also describes the Grammys to a T.

*Animated Short
My Pick: The Gruffalo
I don’t have a whole lot to say about this one other than get your Mark Ruffalo/The Gruffalo jokes ready now. Also, yes kids, it IS possible to beat Pixar.

The Grammys Pick: The Gruffalo is filled with voice performances from well-known actors. And there’s no surer way to The Grammys' heart than as many big names as possible all collaborating on something. That’s why you can pencil in "All Of The Lights" for at least one Grammy next year. Pen it in actually.

The Oscars Pick: The Gruffalo

*Documentary Short:
My Pick: Strangers No More, you had me at "Israeli children".

"Learning about cultural diversity" "overcoming ethnic tensions" "Middle East" and "heartwarming" were just the icing on the Oscar-bait cake.

The Grammys Pick: Killing in the Name shares a title with a Rage Against the Machine song that topped the charts in the UK last Christmas. Seems like as arbitrary a reason as any to give something an award.

The Oscars Pick: Either Strangers No More or Killing in the Name
 
*Live Action Short
My Pick: Provided that Na Wewe is pronounced like it looks, it’s my pick. And if it is pronounced how I hope it is, then when it wins, the announcement of "and the Oscar goes to...Na Wewe" will be one of the greatest moments in Live Action Short Oscar history, just behind when the Music By Prudence woman pulled a Kanye on her co-director last year.

The Grammys Pick: The Crush
I’m guessing The Grammys would pick this category the way they pick most of their winners - by throwing darts at a dartboard. And in this scenario I’m saying that their hypothetical dart landed on the name The Crush. Simple as that.

The Oscars Pick: The Confession
It seems to be what people in the know are predicting will win. Which means it probably won’t. Or maybe it will. Whatever.

Visual Effects
My Pick: Inception
It may not win Screenplay or even be nominated for Director or Editing, but at least as consolation Inception has this esteemed category that has been won by the likes of Spider Man 2 and Death Becomes Her in the bag.

The Grammys Pick: Inception
Even the Grammys couldn’t screw this one up.

The Oscars Pick: Inception

Sound Mixing
My Pick: Inception
While watching Inception I often found myself thinking "Holy shit that sound was well mixed!" Or maybe I just dreamed that I did.

The Grammys Pick: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Inception is too confusing and highbrow for the Grammys. And people who listen to adult contemporary radio like Harry Potter right? And it’s been around forever so it feels safe and familiar. And it made a lot of money. And no one knows what Sound Mixing is anyway. Least of all The Grammys. I mean what do they know about judging the quality of sound? (Zing!)

The Oscars Pick: Inception

Sound Editing
My Pick: The only thing better than the way the sounds were mixed in Inception was the way that they were edited together. I mean, oh my god! Am I right?
(No really, am I?)

The Grammys Pick: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Don’t believe me that this would be their pick? Well, this Harry Potter book has actually already won a Grammy! So there.

The Oscars Pick: Inception
Giving it three Oscars on the night.
(Not for nothing, but these are three of the four Oscars that The Matrix won in 1999. The other being Editing which Inception would have won had it been nominated.)

Makeup
My Pick: Ah, Best Makeup. The category which allows Quest for Fire and Harry and the Hendersons to call themselves Academy Award winning movies. Which is my way of saying that this category sucks. I haven’t seen any of these nominees, but The Wolfman seems like it required the most work. So, um, I'll go with that.

The Grammys Pick: The Way Back
Because why not. ("Because why not" is a phrase that The Grammys say often)

The Oscars Pick: The Wolfman
It's makeup icon (there’s a phrase you don’t hear too much) Rick Baker. And he made a man turn into a wolf. (Although that man was Benicio del Toro so it’s debatable how much work that actually required...)

Art Direction
My Pick: If by “Art Direction” you mean “the sensation that my eyes are on fire” then I’ve gotta go with Alice and Wonderland. If “Art Direction” means something else then I have no idea.

The Grammys Pick: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
The hypothetical Grammy juggernaut rolls on. (If Harry Potter could somehow be turned into music you just know that it would cleanup at The Grammys.)

The Oscars Pick: Alice in Wonderland
This is a category that could easily get caught up as part of a Kings Speech sweep and I don’t feel good about this pick at all. But the look of Kings Speech was just so drab and dreary, and in this category, as with Costume Design, the flashiest nominee almost always wins. Speaking of which…

Costume Design
My Pick: The Tempest
Since Spiderman: Turn Off The Dark is probably the end of Julie Taymor’s theater career for awhile, her film career could use a little encouragement. And The Tempest did genuinely have great costumes. So she’s got that going for her. Which is nice.

The Grammys Pick: Black Swan
Black Swan’s costumes are like an album of similar sounding songs elevated greatly by one monster single. So I’m sure The Grammys love it. And so will half the girls you know next year for Halloween.

The Oscars Pick: Alice in Wonderland
Yes a Best Picture front-runner about the British monarchy would seem to be the obvious choice. But the British monarchy in question happens to be the dowdy 1930s version. And Best Costume Design is all about flash. And Alice in Wonderland has that in spades over The Kings Speech. Plus, as I always say, when in doubt go with either Colleen Atwood or Sandy Powell. So Colleen it is, to tie Sandy with three wins apiece.
(Note: I’m a huge nerd)

Editing
My Pick: Inception
Oh wait…

The Grammys Pick: 127 Hours
Just because it would thoroughly infuriate me. If there’s an option that would make me apoplectic if it won, then that’s the nominee The Grammys like to choose. Yes, it’s that personal.

The Oscars Pick: Inception’s loss is The Social Network’s gain. The Academy would definitely love to give this to The Kings Speech, but it all unfolds in a linear fashion in only a small handful of locations. That’s not the stuff Best Editing Oscars are made of.

Animated Feature

My Pick: I’m about to say something heretical: if I had a vote for Best Animated Feature I would vote for How to Train Your Dragon. 

Please don’t shoot me.

Look, I love Pixar. Let me rephrase that. I LOOOOOOOOVE Pixar. Andy and Pixar sittin in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G. If Pixar was a religion I would enter the seminary tomorrow. But. I didn’t love Toy Story 3. I thought it was good, certainly. I very much enjoyed it. But I also thought it was a bit safe and predicable. After pushing the envelope with each of their past few releases Toy Story 3 felt like a bit of a retreat for Pixar into the easy and comfortable and familiar. And I don’t go to my 3D animated kids movies for comfort. I go to them to see robots in a dystopian trash-scape teach children about the dangers of unregulated capitalism. And so while Pixar was off talking about the sadness of death and the ennui of aging, I turned to the dreaded Dreamworks, of all people, for my moving and challenging exploration of cultural misunderstanding, racism, prejudice, and why war is wrong. Kids are innately gonna figure out the Toy Story 3 shit eventually. How to Drain Your Dragon though is truly important stuff, well told. It’s the perfect movie for the Age of Obama. So while I feel a bit like Fredo going against the family here, I gotta say that How to Train Your Dragon is more deserving of this award.

I hope that we can still be friends.

The Grammys Pick: Toy Story 3

“Safe Unthreatening And Familiar” is The Grammys’ middle name

The Oscars Pick: Toy Story 3

There’s no way it loses. But just to let you know that I’m not completely out of my mind for somewhat hoping that it does, I’ll let the great Raphael Bob-Waksberg have the last word here:

“What I have come to love most about Pixar is how fully they create brand new worlds with each movie, so revisiting these characters again felt like a wasted opportunity— especially with the knowledge that the next Pixar release will be Cars 2. We’re not getting another new Pixar world to explore until 2012’s Brave, the first Pixar movie with a female protagonist, which will be immediately followed by a Monster’s Inc. sequel.

Toy Story 3 covers a lot of ground already covered in the Toy Story series and I felt like I could see the strings more than I wanted to. But that’s nitpicking. I have no real complaints about Toy Story 3. It was great and hilarious and moving and terrifying and bold.

But when you’re talking about Pixar, just ‘great and hilarious and moving and terrifying and bold’ is kind of a disappointment.”

Score
My Pick: The Social Network
Why? Let Me Count the Ways:
1.) Not nearly enough people named Atticus have won Oscars.
2.) "Academy Award Winner Trent Reznor" is just too awesome of a phrase not to be true.
3.) Did I mention that his co-writer is named Atticus Ross?
4.) This is groundbreaking, cutting-edge, game changing work. It’s almost TOO good to be nominated. It’s the only nominee here that in 20 years will still matter.
5.) If The Social Network takes this category then that means that the best The Kings Speech can likely do is tie them for total number of Oscars. And hey, it may not be Best Picture, but it’s something.

The Grammys Pick: The Kings Speech
It's stately, old school, boring, and by an established name. Tailor made-for The Grammys.

The Oscars Pick: The Social Network
Here's the real test right here. The Oscars of 20 years ago would give this thing to The Kings Speech in a heartbeat. It's the Best Picture front-runner and this is exactly the type of category that gets thrown in as part of the Best Picture Sweep. And Alexandre Desplat is overdue. And his score sounds exactly what you'd expect an Academy Award winning score to sound like.

But.

In recent years A.R. Rahman has won this. Gustavo Santaolalla has won it twice. Eminem and Three 6 Mafia have won recent awards from the music branch. So the times they are (maybe) a-changin. Especially when a score this “important” is one of the nominees. And when Hans Zimmer’s Inception score will likely siphon some of the classical score vote away from The Kings Speech.

And so it seems that a somewhat minor category will somewhat fittingly speak volumes about not just how broad and enthusiastic support for The Kings Speech is but also the state of The Academy as a whole.

Here’s one for hope.

Song
My Pick: Randy Newman is, of course, the man. And while I may have been underwhelmed by the movie itself, I thought "We Belong Together" was real Pixar/Randy Newman delight. Also, the .0001% chance that Kanye might appear out of nowhere to interrupt Randy Newman's speech to say "Imma let you finish, but Taylor Swift had the best song called ‘We Belong Together’ of ALL TIME" makes want to root like hell for it to win.

The Grammys Pick: I've seen absolutely no one anywhere pick “Country Strong” or even mention it in passing. It's an afterthought with no actual prayer of winning. Which means of course that The Grammys are taking it all the way.

The Oscars Pick: No category on the ballot is tougher to predict this year than this one. On the one hand the Randy Newman song is, well, a Randy Newman song. On the other hand, those have a surprisingly poor track record at the Oscars. It’s from a great movie and is featured prominently in it, but you could say the same thing about "If I Rise". It’s from a Disney movie, which is often a good sign, except for the fact that in recent years that has been more of a hindrance than a help. Also it's probably going to suffer a good deal of vote splitting with the song from Tangled. Which means that the pick here would seem to be the perfectly fine "If I Rise" from past winner and music legend in his own right A.R. Rahman. Except for the fact that my gut still says "We Belong Together". And sometimes you just gotta go with your gut.

Documentary Feature
My Pick: This is also tough one. All good nominees, but with all due respect to Restrepo it comes down to a battle between Exit Through the Gift Shop and Inside Job. Exit Through the Gift Shop is probably the better film, but Inside Job is probably the better documentary, if that makes any sense. It's the movie Michael Moore wishes he made if he made better movies (and I generally like Michael Moore). I think about Exit Through the Gift Shop all the time, especially now that I live in LA, but I think people will still be thinking about Inside Job 30 years from now, probably even more than they do today. It’s the story of our times. And it’s probably our Hearts and Minds. So while I wish in an ideal world for a tie, Inside Job is getting my (hypothetical) vote.

The Grammys Pick: Inside Job is too good and too culturally vital, Restrepo is too critically acclaimed, and Waste Land is too indie which leaves Gasland and Exit Through the Gift Shop. Exit Through The Gift Shop sold the most tickets and is the most mainstream, two things the Grammys love, but Gasland would be a clear WTF choice here. Hard to say what’s more "Grammy". But since the mainstream no-nothing crowd is all picking Exit Through the Gift Shop, I'm giving Gasland the slight edge

The Oscars Pick: Inside Job
For the reasons I outlined above.

Foreign Language Film

My Pick: I hate to admit it but the only one of these nominees I’ve seen is Biutiful and suffice it to say I was not a fan. I’ve heard good things about Dogtooth, and it would be fun to root for a Greek movie, but that’s too uneducated of a reason to pick something in a major category like this. So honestly, I have to say I really have no opinion.

The Grammys Pick: Biutiful got terrible reviews, is in this category just based on the reputation and name-recognition of the people involved, and is the only nominee middle-America might have remotely heard of. A perfect recipe for Grammy success.

The Oscars Pick: This category is notoriously unpredictable as only a handful of people are actually eligible to vote on it. And the people that do vote have an average age of about 102. Which means if I had to guess I would probably go with In a Better World as it seems like the nominee most likely to appeal to the old-fogey set. But really anything could happen. Including the award not being given out at all on account of all the eligible voters killing themselves after sitting through Biutiful.


Original Screenplay
My Pick: Christopher Nolan - Inception
Film-related things people talked about this year: The greatness of The Social Network, the brilliance of Christian Bale, the beauty of True Grit, the lesbian-ness of Black Swan, and, most of all, the screenplay of Inception. People spoofed it, quoted its dialogue, discussed its meanings, and debated its ending. How confusing/challenging/interesting/original it was or wasn't was the pop culture conversation topic du jour of 2010. And I don’t want to live in a dream level where it doesn’t win Best Original Screenplay.

The Grammys Pick: Scott Sliver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson, Keith Dorrington - The Fighter
If there’s anything the Grammys love it’s as many people as possible collaborating on something. And since it’s taken four people to write each of the past two Songs of the Year, it seems like four might be an especially magic number.

(Semi-interesting Oscar fact: Although it used to be relatively common, The Fighter is only the 4th time in the past 40 years that four or more people have shared an Original Screenplay nomination. The three others? The Deer Hunter, Splash, and the original Toy Story which was written by seven people including Andrew Stanton, Pete Doctor, John Lasseter and Joss Whedon. Yes, that Joss Whedon. That’s like film equivalent of The Dana Carvey Show writing staff. Incredible.)

The Oscars Pick: David Seidler - The Kings Speech
Ah David Seidler, that great bastion of modern screenwriting. As future scholars write their dissertations on the deeper meanings of your legendary tomes they will look back on this Oscar win as the beginning of an artistic cannon the likes of which has never been equaled in the history of man. Or, more likely, your by-the-numbers screenplay will be a blip on the march to obscurity. But hey, a screenplay straight out of “How to Write a Populist Prestige Movie for Dummies” written by some nobody is certainly a good reason to pass up perhaps the crowning achievement and life’s work of one of our era’s great Oscar-less screenwriters. So good on you Academy. Good on you.

Adapted Screenplay
My Pick: Aaron Sorkin – The Social Network
As president of the Aaron Sorkin Fan Club this award will be the highlight of the night for me. And is also the lock to end all locks. Sorkin could have stopped writing this screenplay after the first ten pages, literally just stopped Sopranos-finale style, and he still would have won this thing in a walk. I only wish that they published the vote totals so I could know if this was the biggest margin of victory in Oscar history or not. But whatever. Cameron Crowe, Charlie Kaufman and now Aaron Sorkin. All my favorite writers will finally be able to polish their Oscars together in the circle jerk of my dreams. And in the end that’s all that matters.

The Grammys Pick: Aaron Sorkin – The Social Network
This is like when Sgt. Pepper won Album of the Year. Sometimes even The Grammys gotta reco'nize.

The Oscars Pick: Aaron Sorkin - The Social Network

Cinematography
My Pick: True Grit
Did you know that Roger Deakins has never won an Academy Award? How is that possible? That’s as big an outrage as Gordon Willis not having an Oscar.

Well fortunately that will be remedied this year. (The Roger Deakins thing that is. Willis is still shit out of luck.) And best of all it won’t even be a makeup Oscar. It’s one that will be earned entirely on its own merits. Because True Grit was fucking gorgeous.

The Grammys Pick: The Kings Speech
I’m pretty sure the concept of cinematography would be too complicated for Grammy voters. They would just go with the movie they liked the best.

The Oscars Pick: Although I found True Grit to be a bit slight, “slight” shouldn’t confused with “not good”. But even the movie’s most vocal detractors would admit that’s it’s a visual stunner. This fact cannot and has not ever been questioned. So while Danny Cohen’s work in The Kings Speech is fine, True Grit is just too good to deny. The Roger Deakins element may push it over the top, but the cinematography of True Grit would be honored even if Victor Hammer was the man behind it.
(And yes, I did just look up the name of the cinematographer of Billy Madison.)

Best Supporting Actor
My Pick: Christian Bale
Continuing with our theme of shocking Oscar facts, did you know that Sam Rockwell has never even been nominated for an Oscar? How is that possible? I know no one saw Conviction, but in most years his work in it would have been good enough to win this category. And yet he’s not even nominated. And while that’s a mild outrage I honestly don’t know who here I would bump for him. And that in a nutshell is why this is one of the strongest categories/group of nominees in Academy Awards history. Sound like a crazy statement? Then consider the fact that you could make a pretty strong a category just from the performances omitted - Sam Rockwell, Andrew Garfield, Armie Hammer, Matt Damon, Bill Murray. Other than maybe Bill Murray aren’t all of those performances better than any of the nominees from 2006? No one seems to be talking about this category much, but it can easily stand with 1992, 1994, and 2007 as one of the great Best Supporting Actor classes of all time. Any of these nominees would be a worthy winner in almost any other year. This year though it’s all about Christian Bale. And how far ahead he is of the rest of the pack, considering the strength of the competition, says all you need to know about the brilliance of his work.

The Grammys Pick: Geoffrey Rush
It’s the old fogey choice. Christian Bale is too out there and in-your-face and daring. Geoffrey Rush is like a nice warm sweater. His is a Supporting Actor performance just like they used to make ‘em in the good old days. I don’t mean that to be a criticism of his work per se, I just mean it to be a reason the Grammys would respond to it so well.

The Oscars Pick: Christian Bale
There is an outside shot, no matter how remote, that Geoffrey Rush could win. And in pretty much every other year he would be the runaway favorite. Because he’s fantastic. But this year, if he wins it would be an outrage of the highest order. And that’s a testament to the greatness of Christian Bale. And provided that he does indeed win, it should just be noted what an epic Best Supporting Actor run we’re on here. Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men, Heath Ledger as The Joker, Christoph Waltz last year, and now Christian Bale. All iconic, legendary, all-time great performances. This just might be the golden age of male supporting acting. Or it might be some strange fluke. Regardless though, it’s awesome and should be talked about more. Keep it going next year fellas.

Best Supporting Actress
My Pick: Amy Adams would seem to be just what Oscar wants - a hot, youngish leading lady uglying herself up and displaying a heretofore unknown range. That’s the recipe for like 20% of all Oscar wins. And yet for reasons unknown, Amy Adams is an afterthought this year. She’s not even the one who should be most upset though. This category was Julianne Moore’s for the taking, only she stupidly decided to campaign for Lead Actress rather than Supporting. Sure maybe voters would have thought her part was too big to be supporting, but maybe they wouldn’t have, and if she had been nominated she would have won easily. But instead her hubris, or her representatives’ hubris, likely cost her an Oscar.

Without Julianne Moore in the race in the race it allows to focus on the fact that Amy Adams, who pulled off a performance that even a huge fan like myself though there was no way she could do, will for the third time unjustly go down in defeat. Are people just taking her for granted at this point or something? You realize that the lead of the Disney movie Enchanted just played a poor, trashy, Masshole bartender and played her completely believably right? Just checking.

The Grammys Pick: Melissa Leo is old, an industry veteran, yet no one really knows or cares who she is, and her work in The Fighter is just a semi-repeat of work she's done better previously - sounds like a Grammy winner to me!

The Oscars Pick: Okay, here’s this year’s potential buzz and excitement. Melissa Leo has won all the precursor awards and is still the definite frontrunner according to most prognosticators. But coming from someone who has been studying these things a long time I just don’t see her winning and I never have. This category notoriously almost never goes to women over 40. And whenever two actresses from the same movie are nominated they almost always split the vote. And there’s another nominee in the same category who plays a variation on the exact same character thereby siphoning off even more of Melissa Leo’s potential votes. And I have yet to meet anyone who was passionate about her performance. She seems like the most buzz-free frontrunner ever. I just don’t feel any passionate support for her at all.

Hailee Steinfeld on the other hand, has a slew of very vocal supporters. The most common comment about True Grit, other than how beautiful the movie is, is how good the girl is in it. That’s a conversation I myself have had with friends, and that I have overheard many other people having with their friends. And there’s plenty of precedent for a young precocious girl winning this award. Much more than for an older character actress winning. Just ask Lauren Bacall, Gloria Stuart, Frances McDormand, or Ruby Dee how their Oscar nights turned out. So I’m predicting that it’s young Hailee Steinfeld here and keeping my fingers crossed that she doesn’t grow up and go all Paquin on us.

Best Actress
My Pick: Does Annette Benning deserve an Oscar? Yes. Of course. For this role, and for her body of work as a whole. She should have multiple Oscars already in fact. She is one of the great actresses of her generation and yet never seems to get the level of respect she dearly deserves. And am I generally a big Natalie Portman fan? No I am not. I think she’s way overrated as an actress and as a geek-boy dream girl. But when given the right project where she has to cry a lot and act frightened, she can knock it out of the park. (Thats a big part of the reason for her geek-boy appeal, but that’s a topic for another time...) And Black Swan is the definition of that project. As an actor myself I know I’m supposed to respect the subtle humanity of Benning's work over the flashy grandstanding of Portman's, but honestly I still found myself thinking about Natalie Portman’s work in Black Swan days afterwards. It resonated deeper with me than Annette Benning's work. Maybe that’s not fair or right, but it’s true. And while Christian Bale gave the best performance of the year, Natalie Portman gave what is likely to go down as the most iconic. So move over Hilary Swank, there’s a new Hilary Swank in town and her name is Natalie Portman.

The Grammys Pick: Annette Benning
Because she's the old, established, unhip choice who should have already won for better work years ago.

The Oscars Pick: Natalie Portman
When in doubt always go with most young, attractive, hot name. The dirty little secret of The Oscars is that the Academy membership is largely male. And the dirty little not-at-all-secret is that men generally like attractive young women. There’s a reason that only three actresses over the age of 40 have won Best Actress in the past 20 years (Sandra Bullock doesn’t count). And no, that reason is not "sheer coincidence". This "race" was over way before it even began.

Best Actor
My Pick: Colin Firth
We don’t actually need to spend time discussing this one do we?

The Grammys Pick: Everyone thinks it will be Colin Firth. He’s the only logical choice. He seems like a pretty mortal lock. You would probably bet your life on it if you could. That’s why The Grammys are gonna go with Jeff Bridges.

The Oscars Pick: Colin Firth

Best Director
My Pick: David Fincher
When I heard David Fincher was set to direct the Aaron Sorkin facebook movie I was confused. It made no sense. That didn’t sound like a David Fincher movie at all. And it wasn’t. But, then, ultimately, it was. Because he made it into one. He took a Sorkin script and turned it into a movie that had viewers on the edge of their seats in anticipation of a Winklevi finding a box with his brother’s head in it. For that he deserves the Oscar hands down. Plus he’s way overdue. So give him his Oscar already so he can stop making Benjamin Button (a movie I liked BTW) and go back to making straight-up David Fincher movies. Thanks.

The Grammys Pick: The question you always need to ask yourself with The Grammys is – who would a middle-aged housewife vote for? And I feel extremely confident that a middle aged housewife would vote for Tom Hooper.

The Oscars Pick: David Fincher
In pretty much every other category the Academy is willing to honor any fly-by-night American Idol reject who did good work; but when it comes to Best Director they are very protective of the category’s integrity. You almost always gotta have a proven track record to win this one. There’s a reason John Madden, Rob Marshall and Paul Haggis all lost Best Director the year their movies won Best Picture. And it’s the same reason Tom Hooper’s pleasant but undistinguished work is going to lose here this year. It’s because he’s a no name at this point who seems likely to never make another truly great film. Maybe he will, but maybe he won’t, and that possibility means that this is going instead to the big name who has never won. Maybe next time Mr. Hooper. If there is a next time.

Best Picture
My Pick: Here are some of the things critics said about The Social Network - "An American Landmark", "A Once-In-A-Generation Movie", and "Revolutionary. Absolutely emblematic of its time and place".

And here are some things that I just made up just now that critics said about The Kings Speech - "Very Enjoyable and Well Made", "A Quality Film", and "Thoroughly Competent".

And that, my friends, is the decision that Oscar voters are faced with. Do they make the fresh, forward-thinking, culturally relevant choice, or do they make the safe, predictable, out of touch choice. Sure it’s not like last year where the future of the independent studio system was at stake. And The Kings Speech is a perfectly fine movie and all. But still. What do we value? Pleasant entertainments, or culturally vital art? What kind of movies do we want there to be more of? Because if we go back to rewarding formulaic prestige pictures like The Kings Speech, then we run the risk of the indie studios producing nothing but a slate of movies where Meryl Streep has AIDS in the Holocaust. And sure some of those would likely be decent enough, but I thought we were past that. No Country for Old Men, The Departed, The Hurt Locker - these are all different types of movies than the Academy of old used to honor. Do they want to take a step backwards? What do they want to say about this year in film? What do they want to say about our cultural and artistic values and ideals? What is the statement they want to make for posterity? Who are they as an organization?

They are an organization that I hope will do the right thing. And I genuinely think that there’s a legitimate chance that they will. But if not, well, it’s exactly the kind of thing that…

The Grammys Pick: The Kings Speech
...the Grammys would do

The Oscars Pick: The Kings Speech