No Oscar Predictions This Year

I decided that I won't make Oscar Predictions this year - the first time in Styx history. I've been heading this way for years but what put me over the edge was an article in Entertainment Weekly which described how Supporting Actress nominee Melissa Leo for The Fighter (2010), was hurting her Oscar chances because of self-paid ads she put in Variety. Get that? Not only was I predicting movies even though I had not seen them all, I felt that I could predict based on analyzing the buzz and yearly voting patterns. Yet, as I've complained before, we're not told (a) who the electorate is (who is in the academy? who voted? do they have the same turnout problems as the off-year national elections?) but also how the freakin' voting process even works. Yet I was willing to act the fool and predict my 'winners' despite my massive ignorance.

But along comes EW to say that despite Leo's performance, or the performances of her colleagues, she could lose an artistic award because people don't like how she campaigned.

Not only does this mean that to predict the awards, I would need to know the inside politics of cockamamie 'campaigns,' but that the Academy voters seem to actively admit that the awards have nothing to do with a particular performance or movie. It's insular politics that - quite honestly - insult art.

Yeah, there have been naysayers claiming this in the past, but they seem to base this assertion on the results of the Oscars - that crappy movies and people win over more deserving candidates. But *I'm* basing my nay on the fact that the Academy is de-facto admitting that their decisions are not based on quality whatsoever.

That there are idiot voters in the US electing reprobate Tea-baggers is a problem within the Democratic system. That there are idiot voters who claim to be artists judging aesthetic quality belies the nature of their so-called Academy.

I'll still track the winners, but I wash my hands of the predictions.

Oscar Reax

I will give my full debrief soon, but before that I must post this awesome Oscar-mocking video from Cracked magazine online. When I was a lad, Cracked was a cheap Mad Magazine knockoff, but their online presence has been consistently funny, smart and sharp:

A Trailer for Every Academy Award Winning Movie Ever -- powered by Cracked.com

Oscars 2010 - Analysis, part 2

A note about the acting awards: even though I, and everyone else, calls them, e.g. "best actor," the real title is "best performance by an actor" - which has some crucial ramifications.

Back in 2007 I quoted the TNR's Kaufmann why he doesn't judge the Oscars and he said: "Oh, I always watch the Oscar broadcast. I wouldn't want to miss the irritation--or the laughs. I'll never forget the year that Marisa Tomei beat out Vanessa Redgrave as best supporting actress." I liked this quote at the time, but it only makes sense if you describe the award as 'best actor' and not 'best performance.' Only a geriatric pompous gasbag would deny that while a person can be a better actor over a life-time, a specific performance, whether for the legitimate (read: obsolete) theater or a film, can be better than any other that year. It's akin to what I've heard about golf - people like the game because there's a possibility that on a particular hole, you can get a score better than the superstars, for that hole.

As such, when calibrating the acting awards, the voters may actually be rewarding a performance over an actor. And this is especially so when a performance is spectacular. The question is whether there's a curve; whether the pretty-boy leads who finally turn in a decent performance are given extra weight (a handicap, to continue - and exhaust my - golf metaphor) than others. Truly this is what has happened for Best Actress in the past - where some sexy - and popular - ingenue finally dials in a serious performance and is given extra credit. How else to explain the absurd wins of:

• 1997: Helen Hunt - As Good as It Gets
• 2001: Halle Berry – Monster's Ball (the most egregious of this already egregious category)
• 2002: Nicole Kidman – The Hours
• 2003: Charlize Theron – Monster
• 2005: Reese Witherspoon – Walk the Line
  

There are probably many more from the earlier years. Suffice to say, that this is a clear pattern, especially for Best Actress, and while it's possibly from a weird sexism of the above-mentioned octogenarians, I'd personally bet on it.

Best Peformance: Actor -- Odds; Nominees:

1. Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart (2009) *
   
2. George Clooney for Up in the Air (2009/I)
3. Colin Firth for A Single Man (2009)
4. Morgan Freeman for Invictus (2009)
5. Jeremy Renner for The Hurt Locker (2008)

OK, so while Clooney is awesome in general, he has won recently (Supporting in 2006), and is young enough to have a few more years of good potential performances. Renner is new and is honored to just be nominated (and I'm glad he's able to rise above his bad-guy turn in S.W.A.T.); Morgan Freeman has also won recently and since he plays his persona in every movie, I don't see his performance getting such a nod. Firth has been doing some good work recently, basically filling in Hugh Grant's soggy shoes, and his character is gay and oppressed - Milk may have, uh, milked that guilt award away. But, really, from all I've heard, the word on the street is that the voters are finally going to reward Bridges for his years of incredible work. As above with The Departed etc, there's no standout performance that can take away Bridges' lifetime (read: Big Lebowski) achievement award. I mean, it's his fifth nomination, with his first nom in his first starring role (The Last Picture Show) and he's never won.

Best Actress -- Odds, Nominees:

1. Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side (2009)
2. Helen Mirren for The Last Station (2009)
3. Carey Mulligan for An Education (2009)
4. Gabourey Sidibe for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)
5. Meryl Streep for Julie & Julia (2009)*

I just see this as the classic battle between the Finally-Serious-Ingenue (Bullock) and the Truly-Great-Peformance (Streep).

Pros for Bullock:

1. She's been out of work for a number of years after spending her 20s as quiry-manic-pixie-girl romantic comedy leads. When she started work again, this past year, she returned with a vengeance: two romantic comedies and one drama (All About Steve, The Proposal and The Blind Side)
   
2. The movie she's in is racist as all git out, but specifically, just as racist as Crash, which won in 2004.

I'm outa time here (I just got home from an all-day-trip), so I'll say that the odds-makers are saying it's Streep, and A.O. Scott as well, and her performance was definitely wonderful (I saw it). She's also been nominated a billion times and has only won Best Actress once, even though she's the best of her generation, back in 1983! It's a real tough one - the stupid ingenue-award pattern, a la Halle Barre, vs. an overlooked superstar (like Jeff Bridges) who was great in Doubt, and others. I'm going to go with Streep on this and hope that it's because of the racism of "The Blind Side" in our Obama age. I'm going against my instincts, letting my intellect outvote my gut, but I'll gamble on it (although if I were a real gambler I'd put money on Bullock).

Best Supporting Actor - Nominees:

1. Matt Damon for Invictus (2009)
2. Woody Harrelson for The Messenger (2009/I)
3. Christopher Plummer for The Last Station (2009)
4. Stanley Tucci for The Lovely Bones (2009)
5. Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Basterds (2009)*

Oh this is another toughie. Plummer has had an awesome career and this is the only time he's been nominated, and he's getting way too old for other stuff. And he would win in a normal year (crushing even Tucci who is one of the best actors of this generation and who is also being nominated for the first time, for what I've heard is a so-so role, but who's young enough to get nominated again, especially because his work has been consistently great). But this is where the "performance" part of the award comes in: Waltz's performance was one of the best I've ever seen, and I think it trumps Plummer's lifetime achievement and Tucci's general awesomeness.

Best Supporting Actress

1. Penélope Cruz for Nine (2009)
2. Vera Farmiga for Up in the Air (2009/I)
3. Maggie Gyllenhaal for Crazy Heart (2009)
4. Anna Kendrick for Up in the Air (2009/I)
5. Mo'Nique for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)*

Everyone says it's Mo'Nique (not Monique, not Monica, it's got a vestigial apostrophe like the umlaut of Spinal Tap), and that's good enough for me.

Best Original Screenplay

1. The Hurt Locker (2008): Mark Boal
2. Inglourious Basterds (2009)*: Quentin Tarantino
3. The Messenger (2009/I): Alessandro Camon, Oren Moverman
4. A Serious Man (2009): Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
5. Up (2009): Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Thomas McCarthy

No time, no time. I'm hoping they'll award Inglorious because it was a genius film, but the leftover spillage will probably help The Hurt Locker.

Best Adapted Screenplay

1. District 9 (2009): Neill Blomkamp, Terri Tatchell
2. An Education (2009): Nick Hornby
3. In the Loop (2009)*: Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche
4. Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009): Geoffrey Fletcher
5. Up in the Air (2009/I): Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner

District 9 is supposed to be excellent (I just got it from Netflix and haven't seen it yet). I did just see "In the Loop" and it's as sharp as a samurai sword. I hope it wins and it's likely to, since it's an allegory of the Iraq War (which people still are against) while District is an allegory about race and immigration (which is passe in Obama's America... at least according to the standard Hollywood meathead)

Oscars 2010 - Analysis, part 1 (Picture, Director)

Oscar Day is upon us and, as has been happening more often in recent years, I have had no time to read up or prepare for my predictions... which will make them as accurate as always. Sadly, I have seen one or two of the nominated films, which naturally biases my analysis. Maybe, after my planned success at the super-Lotto, I will have the time and means to watch all the films, but until then, I will continue my flawed merry way.

Method

The baseline, so far as I've seen, is that the voters are truly trying to choose the best but (a) because most people in Hollywood are high-school dropouts, it's not clear that my criteria are anywhere near theirs, and (b) the voters are swayed by a number of crazy biases that put predictions into the random category. Big biases are: (a) the producer voters, often in their 70s and 80s, are not only stupid and uneducated, they are prejudiced with archaic stereotypes about life and meaning (see below for applications of this), (b) many of the awards are given to make up for last year's Oscar mistakes, e.g. Sean Penn wins for "Milk" because "Brokeback Mountain" was rejected a 2 years before aaaand (c) [current events' issues] California had just rejected gay marriage.

To be honest, I used to think that the voters were sympathetic to (d) 'lifetime achievement' candidates, but I think that it's just the fourth prong of the general computation - that a majority of voters will choose lifetime achievement if (a) there's no clear standout candidate, plus (b) no mistakes or (c) politics. Again, see below for applications.

As such, I need to analyze the candidate's (a) history of past work, concentrating on the past 3 years and then lifetime, (b) general murmuring of the quality of performance, (c) the zeitgeist of Hollywood-idiot politics, and (d) commercial success (which I've discussed before, but basically since the Oscars are simply put an industry awarding it's top employees, success is going to be rewarded - this can be called the Titanic effect).

This year, I'm also going to Odds from here - because there's some social-psychological merit in the collective wisdom of crowds. My basic ballot (and links) are from IMDb. Predicted winner is marked with a star (*).

Best Picture -- Odds; Nominees:

1. Avatar (2009) *: James Cameron, Jon Landau
2. The Blind Side (2009): Gil Netter, Andrew A. Kosove, Broderick Johnson
3. District 9 (2009): Peter Jackson, Carolynne Cunningham
4. An Education (2009): Finola Dwyer, Amanda Posey
5. The Hurt Locker (2008): Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Nicolas Chartier, Greg Shapiro
6. Inglourious Basterds (2009): Lawrence Bender
7. Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009): Lee Daniels, Sarah Siegel-Magness, Gary Magness
8. A Serious Man (2009): Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
9. Up (2009): Jonas Rivera
10. Up in the Air (2009/I): Daniel Dubiecki, Ivan Reitman, Jason Reitman

Now remember that this year they've expanded to 10 movies and revamped the voting system - which will make predictions harder than ever. Yet, even then, almost everyone thinks that this is a battle between two powerhouses: Avatar and The Hurt Locker. I'll give pros/cons for those 2 alone because I don't have time to eliminate all the other movies, except for some quick comments:

Inglourious Basterds - the more time since I've seen the film, the more I feel that it's a masterpiece; both of Tarantino and of Borges-like meta-fiction. If there were no other strong contenders, then this would win - it would be like No Country for Old Men or The Departed - which were OK movies from great directors who got the top prize because the competition was weak. I happen to hate "No Country" and compared to O Brother, Where Art Thou? (which wasn't even nominated!!) it's just plain bad. But compared to puppy-dogs like
Atonement and Juno , or good-but-not-spectacular Michael Clayton or There Will Be Blood then the Coens were given their lifetime achievement award. Same can be said for Departed (vs. Babel; Letters from Iwo Jima; Little Miss Sunshine ; or The Queen) none of those four were quality enough to overpower the lifetime achievement of Scorcese... even though it was not his best film by a long-shot.

So sorry Tarantino; I hope you're still creative enough to make another brilliant epic like Inglorious.

Pros for Avatar:

1. It's one of the most lucrative movies in history - as of this week, it has grossed 2.6 billion dollars and it's still in theaters.
2. It has advanced film technology to the next level, just on it's own
3. It has restored the glory of the movie theater experience - and this is a big deal. Ya see, movies have been in competition with TV ever since the latter was born (e.g. it's why movies are 'letterbox' - to compete with TV's square screen). Personally, I avoid the theater because I enjoy movies 100x more at home. But my popularizing digital-3D, Cameron may have just saved the entire movie theater industry.
4. I've heard from others that it is derivative but fun. It's "Dances with Wolves" but with better explosions. And remember, Dances won.

Cons:

1. I've heard people grumble that it's derivative and dumb. Note, this really hasn't hurt a movie's Oscar chances in my memory. See, uh, Titanic.
   
2. I've heard people grumble that it's racist. This *really* hasn't hurt any movie. I was just thinking about this the other day: two of the biggest movies in Hollywood history are racist as hell: The Birth of a Nation (1915) - which glorified the KKK, and The Jazz Singer (1927) whose movie posters have a guy in black-face for goodness sake!

Pros for The Hurt Locker:

1. It depicts the Iraq War with "realism" (defined here as "it looks scary for people who've never been to war but has been derided by actual veterans"). As such, this movie can benefit from the Platoon - Deer Hunter effect. Not too shabby.
2. As above with 'Nam, many people in Hollywood want to be seen as 'serious' about a terrible current-event, and war is the best event to be current on. Most of the Iraq War movies have been turkeys. This is the best one yet (sez many many people). And that helps.
3. This is a war movie directed by a woman. That gets some votes, for a double glass-ceiling breaking (directing itself, and a war movie nukh).
4. This may be too weird vis-a-vis Hollywood politics, but Bigelow's cult classic Point Break (1991) starred Patrick Swayze who just died tragically, and that also could help.

After all has been said and done, I think that Avatar has too many pros, not enough cons. It's too freakin' huge and it did 3 things that nobody has done before (2 billion sales, grounbreaking new movie tech, saving movie theaters). Would Hurt Locker have beaten Inglorious without Avatar, dunno, but this one seems to be Avatar's win.

Best Director -Nominees:

1. Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker (2008)
2. James Cameron for Avatar (2009)
3. Lee Daniels for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)
4. Jason Reitman for Up in the Air (2009/I)
5. Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds (2009)

These two categories go together - and in an uncontested year they'll share winners, as the Wiki sez:

Invariably, the Academy Awards for Best Director and Best Picture have been very closely linked throughout their history. Of the 80 films that have been awarded Best Picture, 59 have also been awarded Best Director. Only three films have won Best Picture without their directors being nominated (though only one since the early 1930s): Wings (1927/28), Grand Hotel (1931/32), and Driving Miss Daisy (1989). The only two Best Director winners to win for films which did not receive a Best Picture nomination are likewise in the early years

And according to this fun stat site it's very rare for Best Picture and Director to be separated:

1. 1972 (45th) Picture: The Godfather (director Francis Ford Coppola was nominated).
   Directing: Cabaret (Bob Fosse).
2. 1981 (54th) Picture: Chariots of Fire (director Hugh Hudson was nominated).
   Directing: Reds (Warren Beatty).
3. 1989 (62nd) Picture: Driving Miss Daisy (director Bruce Beresford was NOT nominated).
   Directing: Born on the Fourth of July (Oliver Stone).
4. 1998 (71st) Picture: Shakespeare in Love (director John Madden was nominated).
   Directing: Saving Private Ryan (Steven Spielberg).
5. 2000 (73rd) Picture: Gladiator (director Ridley Scott was nominated).
   Directing: Traffic (Steven Soderbergh).
6. 2002 (75th) Picture: Chicago (director Rob Marshall was nominated).
   Directing: The Pianist (Roman Polanski).
7. 2005 (78th) Picture: Crash (director Paul Haggis was nominated).
   Directing: Brokeback Mountain (Ang Lee).

Given that, I think it's probable that they will be separated this year with Avatar as best picture and Bigelow as best director. Mainly because all the pros (above) for Avatar winning 'picture' are about its production and not its direction/art. Hence, I believe the voters will intentionally split the difference. Then again, like with Peter Jackson's win for the Lord of the Frodo trilogy, they could just bow down to Cameron's expertise... but since he won for the same honors for Titanic, I feel Bigelow's strong candidacy will pay off in this.

Part 2+ will be for the other awards.

Oscars 2009

As an indication of how focused I've been on my schoolwork, I totally forgot that tonight is the Oscars. So a-predictin' I will go (*=prediction):

Best Motion Picture of the Year

1. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008): Ceán Chaffin, Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall
2. Frost/Nixon (2008): Brian Grazer, Ron Howard, Eric Fellner
3. Milk (2008/I): Bruce Cohen, Dan Jinks
4. The Reader (2008): Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack, Donna Gigliotti, Redmond Morris
5. * Slumdog Millionaire (2008): Christian Colson

This is a very weak year for best pictures; yugh. Considering the disaster of the world economy, and because it's rags-to-riches with an ethnic twist, I suspect it will be Slumdog.

Best Actor

1. Richard Jenkins for The Visitor (2007/I)
2. Frank Langella for Frost/Nixon (2008)
3. Sean Penn for Milk (2008/I)
4. Brad Pitt for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)
5. * Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler (2008)

Hollywood types are suckers for comebacks; Rourke.

Best Actress

1. *Anne Hathaway for Rachel Getting Married (2008)
2. Angelina Jolie for Changeling (2008)
3. Melissa Leo for Frozen River (2008)
4. Meryl Streep for Doubt (2008/I)
5. Kate Winslet for The Reader (2008)

The pattern over the past few years is to reward pretty ingenues who take serious, challenging roles with Best Actress (cf. Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman, Charlize Theron) so I think this is Hathaway's.

Best Supporting Actor

1. Josh Brolin for Milk (2008/I)
2. Robert Downey Jr. for Tropic Thunder (2008)
3. Philip Seymour Hoffman for Doubt (2008/I)
4. * Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight (2008)
5. Michael Shannon for Revolutionary Road (2008)

The supporting categories are generally rough. Considering how "Dark Knight" was snubbed for the main Oscars (as well it should have, it sucked) I can see Ledger getting the award, especially because he died for the role (if the psychics are to be believed). If he hadn't died, then I'd say that Brolin would have a clear shot (since he has been turning in great work over the past few years); or Downey, following the Rourke/comeback-kid rule above. Hoffman is still the best actor of the bunch, so him losing this will fulfill the Kaufmann Rule.

Best Supporting Actress

1. Amy Adams for Doubt (2008/I)
2. * Penélope Cruz for Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
3. Viola Davis for Doubt (2008/I)
4. Taraji P. Henson for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)
5. Marisa Tomei for The Wrestler (2008)

I'm really in the dark here. I can't see Tomei getting it twice; and I think that Davis and Henson were awarded by being nominated. Adams fits the rewarding-the-ingenue rule of Best Actress except that she's such a big enough star to get that push. Usually, when in doubt, I'd go with whoever one SAG except, and this is funny, Winslet won best supporting for SAG for a role that is considered full actress for the Academy. Har de har har. Well, then I'll go with my original thought: Cruz. I think she's been doing great work and the other candidates may have split voting.

Best Director

1. *Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
2. Stephen Daldry for The Reader (2008)
3. David Fincher for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)
4. Ron Howard for Frost/Nixon (2008)
5. Gus Van Sant for Milk (2008/I)

Two good rules of thumb for Best Director is that the Best Picture usually carries with it Best Director (only if it's a strong contendor, there's been some upsets), and like with acting, the Director's Guild Award can also be an indicator. In both cases, this year, Boyle (for Slumdog) looks most likely. He also has some edgy, critically acclaimed films in his past (Trainspotting), so that can help.

Best Original Screenplay

1. Frozen River (2008): Courtney Hunt
2. Happy-Go-Lucky (2008): Mike Leigh
3. In Bruges (2008): Martin McDonagh
4. Milk (2008/I): Dustin Lance Black
5. *WALL·E (2008): Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, Jim Reardon

I hope Wall-E gets it. It was marvellous. If it doesn't then I suppose Milk.

Best Adapted Screenplay

1. *The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008): Eric Roth, Robin Swicord
2. Doubt (2008/I): John Patrick Shanley
3. Frost/Nixon (2008): Peter Morgan
4. The Reader (2008): David Hare
5. Slumdog Millionaire (2008): Simon Beaufoy

Were "Slumdog" super-duper strong, I'd say it would win this too; but it doesn't seem so overwhelming a favorite. My suspicion, is that Benjamin Button, considering it's overall nominee total, will win a whole mess of the art awards (Cinematography, Editing, etc - with the sci-fi stuff going to Dark Knight).

Oscar Predictions 2008

Yeah, I haven't written almost anything in weeks and I'm breaking silence to do the Oscars? Yup. That's tradition.

Standard disclaimer: I know even less than nothing about these movies. I've been much more interested in politics (more than usual). I'll include the nominees and put an asterisk by my pick.

Best Motion Picture of the Year
Atonement (2007):
Juno (2007):
Michael Clayton (2007):
* No Country for Old Men (2007):
There Will Be Blood (2007):

To be honest, I was first going for There will be blood, because it's about oil, yet mentions blood, and that's a Hollywood shibboleth. But everyone else is predicting it's "no country." Maybe insted of Iraq politics (blood) it's US politics (Obama vs. McCain)

Best Actor
George Clooney for Michael Clayton
* Daniel Day-Lewis for There Will Be Blood
Johnny Depp for Sweeney Todd
Tommy Lee Jones for In the Valley of Elah
Viggo Mortensen for Eastern Promises

Even though it's supposed to lose Best Picture to No Country, Daniel Day is supposed to be the finest performance this year. Then again, despite not being nominated for 'No Country,' Tommy Lee Jones is nominated for another forgettable film, so shouldn't they do a two-fer? Also, while he won Best Supporting for the Fugitive, he's never won Best Actor... and Day has. And the Academy may think that Day has more in him while Jones not. Eh.

Best Actress
Cate Blanchett for Elizabeth: The Golden Age
* Julie Christie for Away from Her
Marion Cotillard for Môme, La
Laura Linney for The Savages
Ellen Page for Juno

It's supposed to be between Christie and Cotillard. I have no idea who the frog is, but people are saying it will be her. Yet why bet on a foreigner when there's a well-liked American (Christie) who also won back in 1966. I think sentiment will win out.

Best Supporting Actor
Casey Affleck - for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
* Javier Bardem - for No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman - for Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook - for Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson - for Michael Clayton

Bardem is supposed to be the best thing about the movie I've been told is gonna be best picture. So there.

Best Supporting Actress
Cate Blanchett - for I'm Not There.
Ruby Dee - for American Gangster
Saoirse Ronan - for Atonement
Amy Ryan - for Gone Baby Gone
* Tilda Swinton - for Michael Clayton

Maybe Blanchett because the double nom shows she's prized by her peers and this may be a weak category. Yet she's won for supporting already, and she's young. Ah, but what about Swank? Yeah, but she was in the best picture that year and Blanchett ain't. Ruby Dee's never even been nominated before... but she does have a Cable ACE! I think it's Swinton because Clayton is an actor driven movie and it just seems like a catchall category that the voters will support the movie more than the actress.

Best Director:
Paul Thomas Anderson for There Will Be Blood
* Ethan Coen, Joel Coen for No Country for Old Men
Tony Gilroy for Michael Clayton
Jason Reitman for Juno
Julian Schnabel for Scaphandre et le papillon, Le

I've heard the Schnabel film really showcased his talent as a director. But when has that ever been important? "Juno" is the quirky film that gets awarded for its script. Same with Clayton, if possible. So it comes between the two best picture favorites. But also, Anderson is young and has a lot more in him (but he's been doing great stuff, cf. Magnolia). Anyway, the Coens are gods among directors and they've only won once - for Fargo (which wasn't all that great). No Country is supposed to be the same genre but one better than Fargo.

Best Original Screenplay:
* Juno: Diablo Cody
Lars and the Real Girl: Nancy Oliver
Michael Clayton: Tony Gilroy
Ratatouille: Brad Bird, Jan Pinkava, Jim Capobianco
The Savages: Tamara Jenkins

Juno. And that's despite/because the writer being a former stripper. Then again it could be Clayton for that reason too.

Best Adapted Screenplay:
Atonement: Christopher Hampton
Away from Her: Sarah Polley
Scaphandre et le papillon, Le: Ronald Harwood
No Country for Old Men: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
* There Will Be Blood: Paul Thomas Anderson

Tough category. Because the standard ageing merlot-drinking Academy voter may want to spread the wealth on the awards, and give Anderson the adapted to offset losing picture/director. Because for a young guy, all three were pretty spectacular achievements. Again, they may have liked 'No Country' well enough to give the Coens the full monty. Or the directoral achivement of Scaphandre may not be enough for the biggies but will be recognized it what seems to be the category to reward the 'edgy' stuff. Orr says the Coens. I think it'll be Anderson as a consolation.

Honorable Mention: An Israeli film is one of the Best Foreign nominees (Beaufort). The director is evidently frum. Here's to hoping.

Oscar Predictions 2007

As many of you avid readers know, my Oscar predictions have been getting so unreliable that I'm statistically less likely to be correct than a monkey on crack. And cheap crack, too. But I am compelled to keep predicting - even though my methods have not changed from previous years; there's no reason to change because even though I know what knowledge I lack to make accurate decisions, I have no access to the correct knowledge. I'm flying blind with no clue, no good data, and no monkeys to help me.

Given that, the big question this year is whether Martin Scorsese will finally win the Best Director award. Working against him is an obvious enduring hatred by many people for him (why, I don't know). Another strike against Marty is that this year's movie, "The Departed" is a remake (of a recent Hong-Kong flick) and is clearly not his best work. Does it matter? Does the fact that the art is not up to snuff have *any* regard to the legion of unknown morons who get to vote on the awards?

Giving backing to my 'unknown moron' comment is Stanley Kaufmann, movie reviewer for the New Republic. He was asked by some yacko why he hasn't entered into the discussion on TNR's temporary Oscar's blog. Here's his quoted response:

I'm sorry to disappoint, but I simply can't take seriously an affair that is presented as an artistic evaluation of the past year but is principally a commercial enterprise which deliberately disregards films, however good, that are not exploitable. Besides, who are the judges who make the selections? And who are the voters other than every Tom, Dick and Harriet who happens to have a job in the movie business? (The National Book Awards, though hardly faultless, are much more sensible.)

Oh, I always watch the Oscar broadcast. I wouldn't want to miss the irritation--or the laughs. I'll never forget the year that Marisa Tomei beat out Vanessa Redgrave as best supporting actress.

Oooh, that's a good slapdown.

Anyway. I have long hoped that Scorsese would be recognized for his skill, even if it means recognizing a cruddy film. But the Academy keeps defying my expectation (see the 'Aviator' vs. 'Million Dollar Whatever' and 'Gangs of New York' vs. 'Chicago'). So, my brain tells me that just as they snubbed him before - even when he made good films - they'll keep doing that. BUT. I'm generally wrong on these things. So while I'm saying he won't get it, that means he will.

I'm blogging from this ballot, for ease of use.

BEST PICTURE
Aw cripes. It's crazy hard this year. Babel could win because of the political sympathies of Hollywood liberals (exhibit A - Clooney winning for an anti-Administration movie last year; Best Picture going to a hack movie about racism in LA). Babel is about how we all can't get along and it stars Brad Pitt. It's also increasingly hip to support non-American movies (when was it not hip to do that)

The Departed is part of the Scorsese backlash or not question. If no then yes, if yes then no.

Letters from Iwo Jima If there's a backlash against Scorsese, then Eastwood may receive the numbers. However, he can have his own backlash (he won Best 2 years ago). But he made *two* movies of grand scope last year (at age 75!) and this one is also pretty foreign/hip: trying to understand war from the enemy's perspective.

While I've heard excellent things about The Queen (so much so that besides Sunshine, it's the only of the 5 that I can imagine watching to enjoy). But besides the acting caliber (see below) and the residual Diana hunger, what makes this movie tick?

Then there's the comedy, Little Miss Sunshine. I honestly couldn't imagine that it even got nominated - it's so random! - but that it is should cause consternation. It's an ensemble movie - which have done well recently (Crash, Sideways) but I just don't see it having the gravitas to win. The buzz is heavy and in the first draft of this blog entry I had said Sunshine would win - but the director wasn't nominated for Best Director! I see that putting this movie under the bar

I'm going to go for "Babel." Because of the politics (and because of last year's "Crash"). Given the Scorsese losing streak, the unnecessary-ness of honoring Eastwood and despite the rise of musicals and ensemble comedies in the past 10 years which would propel Sunshine.

BEST ACTOR

I've felt Forest Whitaker [for The Last King of Scotland] has been overlooked for years. Even before the nominations were announced, I thought he'd win.

BEST ACTRESS

Most people are hawking about Helen Mirren, so I'm not even going to protest.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

A lot of buzz is about Eddie Murphy for this... but how can they vote for him after he just made Norbit?! I've also heard many actors don't like working with him. And he's been so celebrated in other media that why would they give him an Oscar for sentimentality's sake? Mark Wahlberg also has a lot of buzz and I've liked him in many movies, but I'm banking on a Scorsese backlash. My feeling that it's going to be Alan Arkin (for Sunshine). If he wins that, then it's an earlier indicator for the Best Picture. Arkin has been nominated only three times but he is an awesome, and funny, character actor. Just think: "Serpentine! Serpentine!"

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Crazy buzz about Jennifer Hudson (Dreamgirls) and that's likely what it will be. If the munchkin Breslin wins this then "Sunshine" is in the bag for Best Pic.

BEST DIRECTOR

Again, the whole Marty backlash theory. And while Eastwood probably deserves this - because of the monumental achievement of two massive war pics - he has won recently. There's a statistic that no director won Best Director if his movie wasn't nominated for Best Pic, so Greengrass is out. As I said above for Best Picture, I think the Babel director, Alejandro González Iñárritu, will get this. If Scorsese wins this - which I'd like to see - then maybe the Best Pic is back up for grabs.

Well, that's all I have strength for. I'm going to a professional conference tomorrow and will miss seeing the Oscars (or having email/Internet access). Let's see how I do now that I'm making the predictions nearly a day early.

Oscar Aftermath 2005

As you can see from the following day's papers (Academy Award Winners) I was again devestated by the Hollywood establishment. My ma said I should blame my influenza-feueled delirium. Sure, why not. It's not far from the truth.

Ya know how in a math test if you make one miscalculation (x=1 instead of x=2) then the whole test is bolloxed? That's what happens every year to me with the Oscars (as it did in 8th and 9th grade math, mind you). One big mistake that I would have caught had my head not been superheated to 102F was that Clint Eastwood was not given due reward last year for "Mystic River." Because of the sea of Hobbit feet, all awards went to the Lord of the Rings and not enough to Clint. He was being paid back this year. I should have caught that.

I also didn't know that Hollywood hated Scorsese as much as they obviously do. They hate him so much they spell it with three 'a's: haaaate. That's 4. But that's how much they hate him, too.

In any case, I feel like an economist; my forecasting was poor, but the analysis was still very good :)

Oscar Predictions 2005

Ya know, I had a grand plan as to how I was going to predict this year. Every year I have a grand plan, I know, but after reading a bunch and analyzing even more I realize that: (a) I've been doing it all wrong, and (b) almost everyone else does too.

Ya see, Oscars are voted by an electorate that is largely unknown and many of them do not express their opinions in another forum. Academy members are all professional Hollywood workers; the largest category are actors, but the next highest are Producers.

Only a few of the other awards given for movies overlap with the Academy electorate. All the guild awards, for example, are good indications for some direction, but not one guild has enough voters to be a sure thing.

The majority of voters are "Old Hollywood" - money people who are and were the idiots that turn out sequel after numbing sequel. The smartest people in Hollywood are Directors; the dumbest are actors, but a close second are producers.

Moreover, even though the nominees are chosen from the particular industry (cinematographers choose Best C, actors the 4 awards, writers the screenplay awards, and everyone the Best Picture), everyone in the Academy votes for the winners. The same meathead Producers who make movies of talking toasters and toilet monsters are allowed to choose Best Editor. They have no idea how editing is done, nor cinematography, etc. So they vote Best Picture all over again. Or, big "or," they could split their ticket based on sentimentality for the underdog. It's anyone's guess because the voters are so stupid.

This is why there are sweeps - because the lazy geriatrics in the Academy will just vote one movie across the board when they are overly enamored with a film (something that doesn't look likely this year)

The only way to have a really good idea of where the Oscars are heading is to be a Hollywood/Los Angles insider. To know who is popular to the electorate. That’s why critic awards (e.g. Golden Globes) are largely useless. Who in Hollywood likes critics?! If anything, the critics' awards can backfire because the Old Guard wants to demonstrate independence or the wonderful trait of Stupid People to assert their ability by being contrary.

A romp through past races shows that the Critics awards are anecdotal and useless.

There have been many upsets in recent years (e.g. Roman Polanksi for Best Director in 2002, Adrien Brody for Best Actor in the same year; Marcia Gay Harden for Best Supporting in 2000) that I haven’t heard good explanations for except that there was some politicking on the ground in LA.

For example, if an actor is criticized by the White House between when the electorate receives their ballots and when they are returned, that could tilt the votes. Million Dollar Baby was attacked by conservative critics for advocating euthanasia during this period - was that enough to tilt the voters? No idea.

So for my predictions, I will start from the standpoint of the Guild and then gauge how the Academy Old Guard will manifest their Idiocy this year.

The Producer's Guild voted for Aviator.

Directors Guild: Clint Eastwood

Screen Actors Guild
Best Actor: Jaime Foxx
Best Actress: Hilary Swank
Best Supp Actor: Morgan Freeman
Best Supp Actress: Cate Blanchett

My predictions:

1. Best Picture: Aviator
2. Best Director: Martin Scorcese
3. Best Actor: Jaime Foxx
4. Best Actress: Annette Bening
5. Best Supp Actor: Morgan Freeman
6. Best Supp Actress: Cate Blanchett
7. Best Original Screenplay: "Eternal Sunshine"
8. Best Adapted Screenplay: "Sideways"
9. Best Animated Film: "The Incredibles"
10. Best Documentary Feature: "Super Size Me"

I choose 10 because that makes the tzedaka easier.

Why these?

I think "Aviator" is Oscar bait and the Academy bit. It's perfect irony that Scorcese is overlooked for his real masterpieces, but if the Academy will redeem Polanksi, so they'll support Scorsese. It’s an epic film, a bio-pic, and fuels nostalgia for the bygone era of the majority of Academy electorate. Bada-bing.

Bening over Swank. As one critic put it - Swank isn't one of the greats, why would they award her with 2 awards in 5 years? Bening is Hollywood royalty (married to Warren Beatty) and the very fact that the movie she's nominated for was disliked and unknown shows how the academy is trying to rescue her. I think Winslet deserves it for the awesome "Eternal Sunshine" but Jim Carrey was even better than she was and he was ignored, so I think the academy will ignore her. I've heard good things about Vera Drake, which will be ignored for the same reasons.

Foxx is everyone's "shoo-in" so who am I to argue?

Freeman hasn’t gotten an Oscar yet, would you believe that? A crime.

Blanchett is the most nostalgia driven character in "Aviator" - and has built up an impressive career. I'm banking that Aviator is stronger than Million.

"Sunshine" may not win Screenplay - because the movie is too too good. But I'm hoping that after five high profile films, (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Adaptation, Human Nature, and Being John Malkovich) Kaufman's genius will penetrate the Geriatric Boneheads.

"Sideways" for Best Adapted because the critics' darlings are never given top awards but they seem to be recognized in the screenplays. My theory is that in non-sweeps years, the Geriatrics don't vote for this category, allowing the Young Turks to win.

"The Incredibles" for Best Animated Film because even though "Shrek 2" made more money than the European Union, it was hackneyed trash. The Incredibles is for the older, more staid crowd.

"Super Size Me" for Best Documentary Feature because it was the second most famous doc this year (after "Fahrenheit") and is widely credited with making McDonalds drop 'super-sizes' from their menus. Hollywood likes that kind of power.

I don't know if I'll be awake enough to watch the show. Let me know how I did…

Oscar Results: Almost

Gadzooks. 7 outa 10. And 2 that I missed, I was thiiiiis close. And the Adapted Screenplay thing, I shoulda known it would be a sweep. Ah well.

Total Prediction Summary

1. Best Picture = Lord of the Rings, Return of the King
2. Best Director = Peter Jackson
3. Best Actor = Bill Murray
4. Best Actress = Charlize Theron
5. Best S. Actor = Tim Robbins
6. Best S. Actress = Renee Zellwegger
7. Best Original = Lost in Translation
8. Best Adapted = American Splendor
9. Best Cinematography = Cold Mountain
10. Best Editing = Lord of the Rings, Return of the King

Best Adapted Screenplay Analysis

Boy, am I tired. This will be easier next year, because now I know what to look at.

In any case, the nominees for Adapted are:

• American Splendor - Robert Pulcini, Shari Springer Berman
• City of God - Braulio Mantovani
• The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King -Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson
• Mystic River - Brian Helgeland
• Seabiscuit - Gary Ross

Splendor has won:

• Boston Society of Film Critics
• Cannes Film Festival (special award)
• Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards, Best Screenplay
• National Society of Film Critics Awards, Best Screenplay
• Seattle Film Critics Awards, Best Screenplay, Adapted
• Writers Guild of America, Best Screenplay, Adapted

City of God hasn't won anything for writing.

Lord of the Rings has won BAFTA and the Online Film Critics (whoopee!)

Mystic River has won the Golden Satellite

Seabiscuit has won the USC Scripter Award (huh?)

I do believe it's Splendor.

Best Original Screenplay Analysis

Boy, am I tired. This will be easier next year, because now I know what to look at.

In any case, the nominees for Original are:

• Invasions barbares, Les - Denys Arcand
• Dirty Pretty Things - Steve Knight
• Finding Nemo - Andrew Stanton, Bob Peterson, David Reynolds
• In America - Jim Sheridan, Naomi Sheridan, Kirsten Sheridan
• Lost in Translation - Sofia Coppola

The most significant indicator should be the guild (Writers Guild Award). Who has been on the ball for the most part.

This is pretty straightforward, though. Coppola, the very young director, in her second film, writes and directs a best nominee. She has also been nominated and/or won most of the major awards this year for the film.

Coppola.

Best Editing Analysis

Not an easy survey; most awards don't talk about editing either.

This year's nominees are:

• Cidade de Deus - Daniel Rezende
• Cold Mountain - Walter Murch
• Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The - Jamie Selkirk
• Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World - Lee Smith
• Seabiscuit - William Goldenberg

The most significant indicator should be the guild (American Cinema Editors Award, the "Eddie") and they seem to have a pretty good track record.

The Eddie this year went to Lord of the Rings.

Rezende has only worked on 4 films; he won the British Oscar (BAFTA) this year.

Murch is an old pro. Nominated 8 times (3 for sound) and won three.

• 1974 - SOUND -- The Conversation
• 1977 - FILM EDITING -- Julia
• 1979 - FILM EDITING -- Apocalypse Now
• 1979 - * SOUND -- Apocalypse Now (won)
• 1990 - FILM EDITING -- Ghost
• 1990 - FILM EDITING -- The Godfather, Part III
• 1996 - * FILM EDITING -- The English Patient (won)
• 1996 - * SOUND -- The English Patient (won)

Selkirk is Lord of the Rings. Smith hasn't had a great record and Goldenberg was nominated (lost) for "The Insider."

I say, Lord of the Rings.

Best Cinematography Analysis

Not an easy survey; most awards don't talk about cinematography.

The most significant indicator should be the guild (American Cinematographers Award) but they've been wrong 11 out of 20 years. When they are wrong, it's often because they are trumped by the Best Picture. This year, however, the Best Picture hopeful wasn't even nominated for Cinematography!

The "online Motion Picture Association" has been pretty accurate in the past few years, but this year they (like many others) went for "Return of the King"

This year's statistics are:

• City of God - Cesar Charlone (First nomination)
• Cold Mountain - John Seale (nominated 4 times, won for English Patient)
• LAF = Girl with a Pearl Earring - Eduardo Serra
• Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World - Russell Boyd (First nomination)
• ACA = Seabiscuit - John Schwartzman (first nomination)

Awards given for non-Oscar nominees

• DFW, FFC, LVFC, OFC, OMPA = The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
• NYF = Harris Savides - Elephant / Gerry

Oy, this is very hard. Master and Commander" is tempting because of the very difficult job of cinematography on an action movie, but I have a feeling that "Cold Mountain" - because the guy is a veteran of many top movies, he has many friends who will vote for him. Cold Mountain.

Summary for the Top 6 Categories

1. Best Picture = Lord of the Rings, Return of the King
2. Best Director = Peter Jackson
3. Best Actor = Bill Murray
4. Best Actress = Charlize Theron
5. Best S. Actor = Tim Robbins
6. Best S. Actress = Renee Zellwegger

The remaining four (Best Screenplays, Cinemetography, Editing) to come.

Best Director Analysis

In a 20 year survey (2002-1983), and 10 year survey (2002-1993) the following statistics emerge (how often the award was the same as the Academy, 20/10):

• British Film Awards (BFA) = 0/2
• BSFC - Boston Film Critics; = 3/1
• DGA - Directors Guild o'America = 16/7
• GG - Golden Globe Awards; = 12/6
• KCFC - Kansas City Film Critics; = 9/5
• LAF - Los Angeles Film Critics; = 5/3
• NBR - National Board of Review; = 4/1
• NYF - New York Film Critics; = 2/1

Notes:

GG missed in 1985, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002 (missed the past 3 years)

DGA missed in: 1983, 1985, 1988, 1991, 2000, 2002 (missed twice in past 3 years).

And, in 2000, SAG & GG agreed, incorrectly, for Ang Lee over Soderburgh (which I predicted). Both got it wrong in 2002, a bad predicted year.

This year's statistics are:

• NBR - Edward Zwick - The Last Samurai
• BSFC, IND, NYF, NYOC, SEA - Sophia Coppola - Lost in Translation
• BFC, CFC, CO, DFW, DGA, FFC, GG, IWA, KCFC, LAF, LVFC, OFC,
• PFC, PP, SanF, SDFC, SFC, TFC, VFC, WDC - Peter Jackson - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
• NSFC - Clint Eastwood - Mystic River
• BFA - Peter Weir - Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

The overwhelming numbers are for Jackson, and since he is also slated to get the Best Picture, and since its rare to split the two (in happened, in recent days, in 1989, 1998, 2000, and 2002), I will go with Jackson on this.

Best Supporting Actress Analysis

In a 20 year survey (2002-1983), and 10 year survey (2002-1993) the following statistics emerge (how often the award was the same as the Academy, 20/10):

• British Film Awards (BFA) = 5/4
• BSFC - Boston Film Critics; = 4/0
• GG - Golden Globe Awards; = 9/5
• KCFC - Kansas City Film Critics; = 8/3
• LAF - Los Angeles Film Critics; = 7/2
• NBR - National Board of Review; = 4/0
• NSFC - National Society of Film Critics; = 4/2
• NYF - New York Film Critics; = 6/3
• SAG - Screen Actors Guild Awards; = 4*

Notes: Double yeuuuch.

GG missed in 1983, 85, 86, 88, 89, 92, 93, 96, 98, 2000, 2002
SAG (since 1994) missed in: 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001.
And, in 1996, SAG & GG agreed, incorrectly, for Lauren Bacall over Juliette Binoche.

I'm going to go again with the idea that whenever GG & SAG agree, that will mean a lot, even with the difficult categories of the supporting awards.

Now, the nominees are:

• Shohreh Aghdashloo for House of Sand and Fog
• Patricia Clarkson for Pieces of April
• Marcia Gay Harden for Mystic River
• Holly Hunter for Thirteen
• Renée Zellweger for Cold Mountain

This year's statistics are:

• BSFC, CFC, FFC, GS, NBR, NSFC, PFC, SanF, VFC - Patricia Clarkson - Pieces of April
• BSFC, FFC, KCFC, NBR, NSFC - Patricia Clarkson - The Station Agent
• NYOC - Scarlett Johanson - Lost in Translation
• IND, LAF, NYF, OFC - Shohreh Aghdashloo - House of Sand and Fog
• BFA, BFC, DFW, GG, SAG, SDFC, SFC - Renee Zellweger - Cold Mountain

Note, that for two nominees (Harden & Hunter) no-one else has given them anything. Note, also, that Clarkson has been given awards by agencies recognizing that she has done very good work in two films this year. You may remember her from such films as the Green Mile (the warden's wife) and the Untouchables (Ness' wife; notice a theme here).

Clarkson has done very good work in the past few years; that means a lot to the academy; and has never been nominated before.

Hunter has also done extraordinary work; has been nominated three times (twice in the same year) and has won once:

• 1987 BEST ACTRESS - Broadcast News
• 1993 BEST ACTRESS - The Piano (won)
• 1993 SUPPORTING ACTRESS - The Firm

But considering that Renee has been nominated for the past few years:

• 2001 BEST ACTRESS - Bridget Jones's Diary
• 2002 BEST ACTRESS - Chicago

And was shut out from last year's big "Chicago" win, AND she has both SAG and GG behind her, it will go to her.

Best Supporting Actor Analysis

In a 20 year survey (2002-1983), and 10 year survey (2002-1993) the following statistics emerge (how often the award was the same as the Academy, 20/10):

• British Film Awards (BFA) = 1/1
• BSFC - Boston Film Critics; = 4/2
• GG - Golden Globe Awards; = 11/5
• KCFC - Kansas City Film Critics; = 8/4
• LAF - Los Angeles Film Critics; = 6/4
• NBR - National Board of Review; = 6/3
• NSFC - National Society of Film Critics; = 3/2
• NYF - New York Film Critics; = 4/3
• SAG - Screen Actors Guild Awards; = 4*

Notes: Yeuuuch.

GG missed in 1985, 86, 88, 90, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
SAG (since 1994) missed in: 1995, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002 (i.e. the last 3 years).

I'm going to go again with the idea that whenever GG & SAG agree, that will mean a lot, even with the difficult categories of the supporting awards.

This year's statistics are:

• BSFC, KCFC, NSFC, OFC, SanF, TFC - Peter Sarsgaard - Shattered Glass
• DFW, NBR, NYOC, PFC - Alec Baldwin - The Cooler
• GS, NYF - Eugene Levy - A Mighty Wind
• GS, IND, PP, SDFC - Djimon Hounsou - In America
• IWA, WDC - Benicio Del Toro - 21 Grams
• LVFC, SEA - Sean Astin - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
• BFC, CFC, CO, FFC, GG, SAG, SFC, VFC - Tim Robbins - Mystic River

Tim Robbins. No question.

Best Actress Analysis

In a 20 year survey (2002-1983), and 10 year survey (2002-1993) the following statistics emerge (how often the award was the same as the Academy, 20/10):

• British Film Awards (BFA) = 5/3
• BSFC - Boston Film Critics; = 3/2
• CFC - Chicago Film Critics; = 5/3
• GG - Golden Globe Awards; = 16/7
• KCFC - Kansas City Film Critics; = 7/3
• LAF - Los Angeles Film Critics; = 6/4
• LVFC - Las Vegas Film Critics; = 2/2
• NBR - National Board of Review; = 7/4
• NSFC - National Society of Film Critics; = 2/1
• NYF - New York Film Critics; = 5/2
• SAG - Screen Actors Guild Awards; = 6*
• SanF - San Francisco Film Critics Awards; = 3/2
• SDFC - San Diego Film Critics; = 2/2

Notes: The GG's are more helpful for Best Actress than actor. Still, they missed in 1985, 1995, 1996, and 2001.

The Screen Actors Guild is still strong but they missed in 1994, 1999, and 2002.

This year the statistics are:

• BFA, BSFC - Scarlett Johansson - Lost in Translation
• GG, GS, IWA, NBR - Diane Keaton - Something's Gotta Give
• BFC, CFC, CO, DFW, GG, GS, IND, LVFC, NSFC, NYOC, SAG, SanF, VFC - Charlize Theron - Monster
• NYF, SEA - Hope Davis - American Splendor
• NYF - Hope Davis - The Secret Lives of Dentists
• FFC, LAF, OFC, PFC, SDFC, SFC, WDC - Naomi Watts - 21 Grams
• TFC - Samantha Morton - Morvern Callar
• KCFC - Jennifer Connelly - House of Sand and Fog

Whenever SAG and GG agree (on Actress), they are also correct for the Academy. This goes to Theron.