Toronto kicks off in a week and a half, and as is the mantra of August, it isn’t worth getting up in arms about this possibility or that until more people actually start seeing the movies in play.

I’m beginning to think that long gone are the days where formula played into predicting an Oscar race, as the last two – arguably three – years, the Academy has tossed the “rule book” out the window, both in the nominations process and in the process of actually handing out statuettes. Rest assured, I’m going to hold back on in-depth coverage next year a little longer, because this month has been a ghost town.

But here we are, nonetheless. Talking about the movies. Though this week there might be a few things worth chewing on.

Like money, for instance. You’ll notice that in this week’s charts, “World Trade Center” has taken a drop in quite a few categories, most notably Best Picture. That comes as a result of a number of things, one being the decidedly unspectacular box office accrual to date. A film opening late in the summer needs dollars to stay on the radar. The film might have the sentiment necessary, but falling shy of $100 million just isn’t going to cut it like it did for a star-driven “Ray.”

On the other side of things, “Little Miss Sunshine” continues a steady, purposeful rollout that is bringing in exceptional revenue. With per-screen averages rising above and beyond past comedic indie hits of its kind, the makings of a formidable contender are manifesting before our very eyes. We’re talking about a film that is already out-grossing internet buzz phenomenon “Snakes on a Plane” two weeks into that film’s release.

What’s more, Fox Searchlight is excited about this movie. Having a casual, fun and laid back publicity event at the Troubadour with DeVotchKa performing (featured on the “Sunshine” soundtrack) is one of those light but memorable touches that stands out against the fray of meet-and-greets and Q & A screenings. And Searchlight is not alone in their joviality. “Sunshine” is one of those films that sparks genuine passion from both critics and voters alike. You need those “love it” votes when it comes to Oscars.

The studio has a full, healthy slate of product, but they are being very smart about where their best sells are. At the end of the day, “Sunshine” will have a clear and definitive shot at a Best Picture nomination. The critical push may still go to “Babel,” sure, but we’re already looking at likely WGA, SAG Ensemble and Golden Globe Best Picture nominations for Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris’s successful little comedy. And if the overall box office tally hits an eyebrow-raising final mark, expect the PGA to follow suit. Those are four powerful endorsements, and the likely Independent Spirit Award clean up is just icing on the cake.

But back to “World Trade Center.” One thing I’ve been keeping an eye on ever since pushing the film into my predictions three weeks ago is this sense that two Americana, “rah-rah” films (for lack of better terminology) for Best Picture might be a bit of a stretch coming out of a singular studio. Oliver Stone’s film certainly hit the right marks and covered the appropriate bases for a Best Picture hopeful, and the thought of yet another Clint Eastwood/Paul Haggis effort making it into the big categories has just seemed…too much. But then that trailer for “Flags of Our Fathers”/”Letters From Iwo Jima” hit the net.

Of course, it is foolish to judge a film based on a couple of minutes of edited imagery, but what we saw in that trailer was something deep. “Flags of Our Fathers” really looks like it could be a film of the war genre that connects throughout the Academy, and that does not occur often.

With the crutch of “Letters From Iwo Jima” hitting in January, it all just seems like too smart a plan to fall through, failing the film being an outright dog. The December release for “Flags” is at the right time, and box office will not be a concern at that time. Clint directing his first World War II film could surely be too much for the boomer generation to ignore, so I hereby rescind my dismissal of its chances some weeks back. The guy simply looks to be on fire this decade.

Now, of course, there are still those that think “United 93” can be the rally cry of the Academy. But let’s face it…that’s not a safe film for a non-critical bunch of people to get behind. Some rules never go out the window, and if last year’s ceremony proved anything, it proved the Academy still likes to play it safe. “United 93” pretty much did what it was supposed to do for Universal. It made a little money and was a nicely prestigious outing, one that will remain one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year. But it was never a real Best Picture opportunity.

I actually think Universal has some decisions to make. Robert De Niro’s “The Good Shepherd” is said to be playing flat (the screenplay certainly read as much). Maybe the choice to move, “Children of Men,” Alfonso Cuarón’s bent vision of the future, to Christmas Day is indicative of something. But comparisons to Kubrick notwithstanding, the film is still a genre thriller. The work will likely be cut out for The Angellotti Company in much less definable terms this year.

Sony still has a plethora of product, as mentioned some weeks ago in our studio breakdown. But the real concentration could end up on “The Pursuit of Happyness,” lying in wait as a warm and fuzzy December surprise. All the media attention on whether “All the King’s Men” was in trouble, “Marie Antoinette” was too divisive or “Running With Scissors” and “Stranger Than Fiction” were too smart and indie won’t matter much at all then.

So…that one-two punch of “Dreamgirls” and “Flags of Our Fathers” still seems like a solid bet for Paramount after all these months. “Babel” is its own entity, as Vantage sports an entirely different publicity push for their films than the parent company. But I still have to wait a little longer before I go ahead and give in to that. “Little Miss Sunshine” really does throw an interesting wrench into the works for Alejandro Iñárritu’s film, I think.

For now, we wait. Telluride and Toronto will unload a lot of tension like a cold shower – and I’ll finally be able to cut loose on the half dozen films I’ve seen in the interim that are set to play at the two festivals. We might be having an entirely different conversation in a few weeks.

Before cutting out, I have a quick announcement to make. I’m happy to say that In Contention will be covering the Toronto International Film Festival via “Tech Support” columnist Gerard Kennedy next month. Gerard will be blogging the entire experience, taking in a healthy amount of films and focusing things as much as he can, so be sure to read his thoughts throughout the festival, September 7-16. “Tech Support” will continue to run on Thursdays without interruption.

I’ll check in next week with a quick preview. Until then, you know the drill:

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts
Oscar Predictions Archive
"The Contenders"

Previous Oscar Columns:
08/14/06 - "Enough Foreplay!"
08/07/06 - "Don't Knock Masturbation; it's Sex with Someone I Love"
07/31/06 - "Old and New, the Oscar Season Approaches"

Sasha Stone has Oscarwatch back up and running today, fit with a new main page design and some cool ideas for cross-coverage. Nice! She'll be adding more and more soon enough.

Anyway, in case you haven't checked her site out in the last week or so due to the demons of web-hosting, get back over there and give it a look. She's back!

Last year’s cinematic output was a dreadful display in my opinion. It almost became infamously so, what with a number of readers questioning my passion for film, my dedication to balanced coverage and my overall lack of excitement for the 2005 season.

I’m nothing if not candid (well – not as candid as Sumner Redstone apparently was today), and I’m always the first to address my attitude and such criticisms. While the assumption that my passion was gone was certainly off-target (Why would I continue to write about such things otherwise?), the widespread interpretation of my sluggish reaction was pretty much on the money.

The simple fact was, last year it wasn’t connecting for me. It was all a drab affair and my feelings on the season played themselves out in a top ten list that was speckled with such down-tuned and brooding efforts as Gus Van Sant’s “Last Days,” Christopher Nolan’s “Batman Begins,” David Cronenberg’s “A History of Violence” (though I certainly wasn’t alone on that one) and Gore Verbinski’s “The Weather Man.” The feeling was as equally shared as it wasn’t, but that’s how my 2005 cookie crumbled. And I guess real-life stuff can play into such things as well.

This year, however, I am bursting with exhilaration, not only at what is on the periphery, but also at what I’ve already seen. This is the most difficult time, that pre-Toronto phase where you’re sitting on reviews of films for weeks upon weeks. Last year, all was well. Nothing much mattered to me in that regard. But this year – this year I’m just giddy, and that’s the best adjective I could possibly use. I’m giddy and rejuvenated by the films in play, both reviewed and kept under my hat, and there really is no point to this column other than to convey just that.

Sometimes you feel like it’s all sluggish and “work.” Other times, you feel like the luckiest person in the world because people are making fantastic and unique films. This year, I feel like the luckiest person in the world, and I hope my fellow journalists and filmgoers feel the same way. However, if they don’t, “one man’s floor is another man’s ceiling.” Right?

(And no, the title of this blurb does not indicate anything. It just felt like the right extra touch.)

Slow day, nothing really worth talking about, and "Snakes on a Plane" has been done and over with since July it seems. Just go out and enjoy the silliness, I guess.

But then I read Anne Thompson's latest "Risky Business" column at The Hollywood Reporter and was immediately taken aback by a quote from Warner Bros. production head Jeff Robinov, maybe half-way through the piece:

"'Superman Returns' will be profitable for us," says Warner Bros. production president Jeff Robinov. "We would have liked it to have made more money, but it reintroduced the character in a great way and was a good launching pad for the next picture. We believe in Bryan and the franchise. Clearly, this was the most emotional and realistic superhero movie ever made."

I respect the need for damage control, and I also respect a studio's belief in its output, win, lose or draw (I happen to buy the notion that WB is in this for the long haul). But that last sentiment is pretty absurd, coming from the studio that gave us "Batman Begins" just one year ago. Emotional? Sure, I'm with you. Realistic? Wow, I'd watch my choice of words next time, Mr. Robinov, because I doubt (and certainly hope) you don't believe that.

Enjoy the weekend.

Hard boiled:

The folks at Dreamworks/Paramount continued their amazingly cunning sell of “Dreamgirls” to the press last night at the Pacific Design Center, as the Los Angeles crowd was afforded the opportunity to see the four musical numbers shown at Cannes a few months back. Not only that, but they revealed the trailer for the film, which may or may not have been released beforehand, I’m not sure. Rest assured that trailer is a winner, perfectly constructed and screaming Best Picture from the first few frames.

The numbers shown really displayed the essence and feel of the story, ultimately representing the cinematography, costume design and production design as eye-popping aspects indeed. The first number stuck out to me, which should be the segment that seals the deal on an Eddie Murphy nomination (he seems like a solid gold winner at this point, to be honest). In all honesty, from what was shown, Murphy seems to be the standout of the entire film, even in his minute exposure in the trailer.

Having Jennifer Hudson belt out a couple of tunes in the lobby afterwards was salesmanship at its highest form. And she worked the room all night, full of an honest sense of disbelief that “it’s all happening.” She’s a bright and humble person to say the least and that attitude will take her far this year.

I also had the chance to bump into Bill Condon before the presentation. I was happily surprised to find that he is a fellow Oscar obsessive and an avid reader of the online awards frenzy, including In Contention. His reaction to meeting me, I have to say, was a trippy one to say the least: “Kris Tapley! So that’s what you look like! You’re so young!” It’s always great to meet readers...but OSCAR WINNING readers? What a delight. And he’s one of the nicest, most down-to-earth filmmakers I’ve met – a rarity.

Also it looks like four - count 'em - four new songs were written specifically for the film, so I'm sure we'll see some representation in the Best Original Song category.

We’ll see how the awards derby unfolds for “Dreamgirls,” but the studio has been on the ball from day one on this one, ever since that set visit back in February. Some might think it’s dangerous to put yourself out there so soon, what with the film being considered the undeniable frontrunner as early as August. But they really seem to have the goods, and they're fearless about representing the film. But I only have one thing to say: those tuna things Wolfgang Puck provided in the catering were scrumptious!

UPDATE (10:41am): CHARTS NOW UPDATED. SEE BELOW.

Boy these August columns can be rough.

So this week a couple of film festival schedules began to fill out nicely, what with the laid-back Telluride announcing some flavor and the big daddy Toronto revealing a number of galas. Again, only after that first week of September will the awards scene begin to make some sense. Though a number of the films finally unveiling I’ve had a chance to see already, my opinion of an Oscar race is obviously no more or less valid than the next guy’s, no matter how much I stomp my feet and shout.

It’s time to hear the congregation speak up, and speak up they shall. But it’s still a ways off. Until then we’re just spinning our wheels, and today’s column will feel somewhat aimless as a result of the lack of anything of consequence to comment or report on. So let’s just think out loud.

First and foremost, Gerard Kennedy will kick off the “Tech Support” column Thursday, a segment of In Contention that I am very excited about. The technical branches of the Academy are terribly unrepresented by the media, and it’s time to lend them some credence. We’ll get into that later in the week.

Nothing much else in the way of “news” has come down the pike in the last few weeks, though some category disputes are beginning to take shape.

Rumor has it that Dame Judi Dench pressured a lead campaign for her performance in “Notes on a Scandal,” while co-star Cate Blanchett will potentially be relegated to the supporting arena. Both may still go into the lead category at the end of the day, however. Blanchett will be pushed as a lead in Warner Bros.’s “The Good German.” Meanwhile, all performances in “Bobby” will be pushed as supporting, the standout being Sharon Stone from most accounts. Things are still iffy regarding the campaigns of Jennifer Hudson and Beyónce Knowles in “Dreamgirls,” though most seem to think supporting for the former, lead for the latter.

Additionally, talk continues to circle around Peter O’Toole’s performance in Roger Michell’s “Venus,” which will unveil at Toronto. O’Toole is one of the classic cases, if not THE classic case, of an individual due for Oscar recognition in a grotesque manner. The Academy, you’ll remember, decided a few years back to give him the “sorry we never gave you a real Oscar” award, otherwise known as the “Honorary Oscar,” and O’Toole infamously declined initially. He later accepted graciously, however. There was also a film floating around at one point stirring some awards talk for the actor called “The Final Curtain” which went nowhere, and so O’Toole’s Oscar destiny seemed in limbo.

Now with “Venus,” in which O’Toole portrays, according to IMDb, one of a “pair of veteran actors (whose life) gets turned upside down after they meet a brash teenager,” things might be looking up. That synopsis is not much to go on, sure, but with the early word being so positive, Miramax may have a slam dunk on their hands. It’s something to keep an eye on. Leslie Phillips, Vanessa Redgrave and Jodie Whittaker also star.

Speaking of the Best Actor race, that Ed Harris vehicle, “Copying Beethoven,” has finally secured distributive backing from MGM and The Weinstein Company. Tackling the role of – you guessed it – Ludwig von Beethoven, Harris could be a formidable contender in the Best Actor arena, should there be a campaign of consequence. No one knows much of anything about the actual film or performance in any case, and that makes the third high profile lead actor possibility for Miramax (along with O’Toole and Richard Gere in “The Hoax”).

That tid-bit brings me to another point of curiosity this year, regarding the ubiquitous biopic of film awards season. What is striking this year is how outbalanced the typical biopic subjects are by the more obscure or otherwise “second-tier” real-life representations.

As mentioned, Ed Harris (“Copying Beethoven”) and Forest Whitaker (“The Last King of Scotland”) will be taking on Ludwig von Beethoven and Idi Amin respectively. In addition, Kirsten Dunst portrays Marie Antoinette in Sofia Coppola’s film of the same name, while Toby Jones takes his own stab at Truman Capote in “Infamous.” Helen Mirren will rock out Queen Elizabeth II in the uber-buzzed “The Queen” and Nicole Kidman as Diane Arbus in “Fur” should be a trippy experience. But as for your “typical” biopics, that’s about it.

However, just take a quick glance at the huge line of somewhat less obvious biopic characterizations coming down the pike:

There’s Ben Affleck as haunted television “Superman” star George Reeves in “Hollywoodland,” Richard Gere as Howard Hughes biographer trickster Clifford Irving in “The Hoax,” Jared Leto as John Lennon assassin Mark David Chapman in “Chapter 27” and Vin Diesel as righteous defendant Giacomo DiNorscio in “Find Me Guilty.”

Oh, I’m not done. Don’t forget Viggo Mortensen as famed Spanish mercenary Capitán Diego Alatriste in “Alatriste,” Keisha Castle-Hughes as the Virgin Mary in “The Nativity Story,” Susan Sarandon as tobacco billionaire Doris Duke in “Doris and Bernard,” Renée Zellweger as children’s book author Beatrix Potter in “Miss Potter,” Derek Luke as South African freedom fighter Patrick Chamusso in “Catch a Fire” and, of course, Nicolas Cage and Michael Peña as Ground Zero survivors John McLoughlin and Will Jimenos in “World Trade Center.”

Are you beginning to see my point? It’s as if filmmakers have finally, as a whole, looked to the intricacies of little-known personas for their biopic fix this season. That said, most of these films seem to be lagging behind in the prospective awards derby, with just “World Trade Center” and “Catch a Fire” boasting, at first long glance, any major awards potential of consequence. But things can change on a dime, and no one knows anything, right?

Most of the films in play will start screening in earnest in the next few weeks. Todd Field’s “Little Children” has been getting a few looks. It’ll run at Telluride and, perhaps, Toronto. “Bobby” will likely get a look or two before that “work in progress” screening at Toronto, and Sony hopefuls “All the King’s Men” and “Stranger Than Fiction” will screen as well, so surely be on the lookout for the typical embargo breakers on those flicks.

In the meantime…there’s nothing to talk about! David Poland surprisingly started his Oscar column last week at Movie City News, kind of proving the point that the air is dry (what with the rehash of everything we’ve been discussing for a number of weeks). Before long, the Variety and Hollywood Reporter special issues will begin editorial preparation, and those rascals at the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times will get their butts in gear as well. It’ll be interesting to see what they do this year, as pointed out in the focus of last week’s column. But I’m going to cut everything short today. Hopefully we’ll actually be somewhere next week.

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts
Oscar Predictions Archive
"The Contenders"

Previous Oscar Columns:
080/7/06 - "Don't Knock Masturbation; it's Sex with Someone I Love"
07/31/06 - "Old and New, the Oscar Season Approaches"

I didn't really feel the heat turning up until today's reviews of "World Trade Center" hit full blast, of course, but it seems the "United 93" vs. "World Trade Center" dispute is going to get nasty. Real nasty.

Let alone the fact that those out to disaprove of Oliver Stone's film are beginning to see their destinies self-served, or that vacant criticism the likes of comparing it to "United 93" runs far too rampant considering these are drastically different films. I have a lot of respect for each effort and simply consider one film to be "fuller" than the other. But each is effective and a testament to Hollywood handling themselves accordingly with this event, so much so that it seems foolish in retrospect to have assumed otherwise, no matter the past.

Ultimately I had hoped there would not be a "this versus that" story this year (last year's racism vs. homophobia battle in the form of "Crash" vs. "Brokeback Mountain" was pathetic and a disservice to both films), but it looks like we might have one after all, whether Oscars are involved or not.

Oh well. At least we get to see Sam take care of a bunch of mother fuckin' snakes on a mother fuckin' plane, right?

This Los Angeles Times story about Walden Media's packing up and moving in with Fox is interesting in that we're now seeing a true test of Disney's stranglehold on the children's market. I just finished up a New York Times story on "How to Eat Fried Worms" that largely dealt with Walden's practices and spent some time talking to Walden representatives, and it is indeed a part of their business model to branch out into a brand name that parents trust, much like "Disney." Together they were a potential powerhouse, but with Walden at Fox, this might be an interesting development to watch.

Children's programming is still a great way of keeping budgets down and profits high, as kids don't flock to multiplexes for A-list talent more so than easy-to-grasp plot and story. I think in many ways, this is the future of a profit-heavy film industry, and maybe larger productions will begin to take note of what's being aimed at the children's market.

In the meantime, Philip Anschutz's company is making a smart decision, because they are spreading the idea by moving to Fox rather than consolidating it by being at Disney. Disney afterall just cut its production detail down to a miniscule amount of films per year, films that will largely concentrate on the Disney marquee stories that, one can only assume, will be geared toward the children's market. It looks like lines are being drawn in the sand.

Lorenza Muñoz on Walden's move to Fox (LA Times)
Yours truly on Walden and "How To Eat Fried Worms" (NY Times)

The awards season began in earnest last week, with screenings of “Babel” happening in Los Angeles and Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center” landing a number of reviews. Few of said reviews have found anything particularly wrong with the film, be them raves or mere acceptance pieces. Stone’s film releases this Wednesday, while screenings of New Line’s “Little Children,” another awards hopeful, begin to rev up as well (though some of us can't seem to understand the meaning of the term "embargo"). It really looks like the summer is gone.

Warner Bros. made a last minute shuffle last week on two potential Oscar prospects as “The Fountain” and “Luck You” got brand new release dates further into the calendar. David Poland’s Movie City News even began its Screening Series on Thursday with a screening of “The Illusionist,” plus the re-launch of the Gurus o’ Gold earlier in the week on Tuesday.

And over the weekend? The beautiful one-sheet for Kevin Macdonald’s “The Last King of Scotland,” a film still lurking on the periphery of consideration by those who write about this kind of thing.

The engine is humming. I just hope we don’t stall.

Now is the time for all the studios to send their game-hunting publicists out into the wild to tame the journalistic beasts of the film awards conversation. “This film is the studio’s top contender; that film is not.” “This film turned out better than expected; that film did not.” The Toronto International Film Festival is now exactly one month away, and in the next 30 days, flags will be planted, egos will be stroked, the bed will be made for films to lie down and ultimately wow us with their illustrious prowess, or otherwise disappoint us with difficulties performing. Basically, the season has started, but we’ve still got a lot of dog and pony stuff to go before anything even begins to settle into a viable mixture worth discussing. So what can we talk about in the meantime?

How about coverage? Last year marked a brand new age in the world of awards watching on the internet. Folks like Emanuel Levy had been writing about the Oscars for years when the web boom came along, providing an outlet for all those obsessed with this time of year to start gabbing about this film’s chances or that film’s.

Sasha Stone’s Oscarwatch.com is unquestionably the site that paved the way for this movement, and she rarely gets the credit she deserves. Awards aficionado Tom O’Neil cooked up GoldDerby.com soon after, offering a space for various sanctioned pundits to toss in their two cents on the race unfolding before them. That may very well have been the first mark of professional punditry that thrives today as an advertising beacon for various publications.

Speaking of advertising, internet columnist David Poland saw an opportunity to cash in on the proceedings in 2002 when he launched MovieCityNews.com, a renegade news source that plays like a trade with attitude (for lack of a better term). He ushered in the age of Oscar ads we live in today, at once creating a monster and the ultimate symbiotic relationship during this time of year for journalists and studios.

The bar was raised in 2005, but no one involved in raising it seemed to rise up to it. The Los Angeles Times purchased Tom O’Neil’s GoldDerby.com, also bringing in former Premiere writer Steve Pond and fashionista Elizabeth Snead to blog the season as they saw fit. The New York Times tapped the witty David Carr to blog in his own fashion, a fashion he determined halfway through the season to be more dependant on recognizing the futility of it all, thereby creatively rising above the pack. And USA Today set aside some net space for Steve Bowles to talk up the Oscar race as the "O-Factor" joined the fray.

Ironically, the trades did not do much in the way of improving their respective awards coverage pages, though The Hollywood Reporter’s Anne Thompson took up blogging and spent plenty of time dishing on the Oscar flurry.

So, we’ve entered the age of traditional media, “sanctioned” if you will, elbowing their way into the game. Meanwhile, folks like Ms. Stone keep doing the same purposeful thing she’s always done; her niche is her own. Countless, in many cases faceless amateur Oscar sites and blogs continue to pop up, while the insularity of message boards still finds room for tangible discussion from time to time.

I’ve written about the history of internet awards coverage until I was blue in the face, but the point here is to ask, “What’s next?” Is the whole machine grinding into the perfect tool for usage by studios and publicists, out to manipulate, as their job dictates? Are we playing into their hands, or are they playing into ours? That might seem like an immature question, and one might wager that no hands are being played into, given that everyone wins. But while everyone wins, I think everyone loses all the same, because a system like this is destined to stagnate.

What I hunger for is variety and insight, and that’s typically difficult to find in this world of largely reactionary commentary. I by no means succeed in bringing as much to the table, but I try, and I guess what I’m hoping for this season is to see these many different outlets do just that – try.

In the final analysis, however, insularity reigns supreme. These issues are of no concern to anyone outside of the metropolitan centers that live and breathe the entertainment industry. The audience is extremely limited, but that audience dictates something broader in context, so the importance in the eyes of those with the power is in no way reduced. However, covering the Oscar race has to contain an element of personal commentary to have any spice whatsoever, and to assume there is any sort of journalistic benefit to the whole matter is to have a blinded view of journalism indeed. Yet here I am, writing about the Oscars.

There is no “answer,” and there very well may be no “truth.” It has taken living neck deep in the race in Los Angeles – in utero, if you will – to fully comprehend that notion. The search is fun, and defining the season is a joy. Rooting for favorites is hard to escape, though objectivity is not necessarily fleeting. However, there are now far too many cooks in the kitchen and not enough items on the menu. Someone needs to think up a clever new soufflé.

Maybe things will stay in the rut they were in last year, and then we’ll know. We’ll know that a new standard of “one hand washes the other” has been established, likely to survive, well, as long as each entity is served. Or maybe personalities will show themselves and bring both entertainment and enlightenment to the table, but those times might be a ways off. Traditional media still has to catch up in the web world, let alone set interesting standards in this rapidly growing zone of film awards coverage.

All the while, we’re looking toward a ceremony that, year in and year out, boasts an outcome that is as subjectively acceptable or unacceptable as anything else. And complain though we may, chastise though we feel we must, each and every year, the glamour grabs us, and the fantasy takes us in.

You want to know what the funny thing is? No one is watching.

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts
Oscar Predictions Archive
"The Contenders"

Previous Oscar Columns:
7/31/06 - "Old and New, the Oscar Season Approaches"

NOTE: Just a heads up - the following "Page to Screen" column was written prior to my screening Todd Field's film last week. A review of the completed product will follow in the coming weeks. Stay tuned for that.

Tom Perrotta’s “Election” changed the careers of filmmakers Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor when they adapted the novel to critical acclaim in 1999. Tapping into a deep-seeded introspection of sorts that was vibrantly captured on screen, Perrotta’s singular voice could be sensed even through Payne and Taylor’s already developing heavy dosage of intellectual panache.

Taking the reins of a Perrotta adaptation this year is “In the Bedroom” helmer Todd Field. Leaving the brooding sensibilities of Andre Dubus III behind for the less plot-concerned Perrotta, and providing for what should be an intriguing character study above all else, Field seems, even with one film behind him, to be the right sort of filmmaker to take a crack at this novel.

Normally I save this kind of thing for "The Blog," but Fox Searchlight has released the one-sheet for Kevin Macdonald's "The Last King of Scotland," and it is the most striking, the least derivative poster released all year. Take a look:

This film has all the makings of a major Oscar player, one that most prognosticators are looking over in favor of Fox's lighter efforts, "Little Miss Sunshine" and the upcoming "A Good Year" and "The History Boys." But the story lurking in "Last King" has the gravitas to actually say something on a global stage. Most of the insularity of last year's Oscars may certainly be combatted this time around by stuff like this.

"The Last King of Scotland," written by Giles Foden, will be the subject of Monday, August 14th's "Page to Screen" column.

David Poland has geared up the Gurus o' Gold again over at Movie City News for a quick look from afar. This made for a nice look at what industry folks were predicting last year during the Oscar race, and a decent break from the prognostication that is so popular amongst the tenacious fanworld of Oscarland.

Personally I'm surprised anyone still thinks "Babel" can be seen as appealing enough throughout the Academy to garner a Best Picture nomination, but most of us agree that "Dreamgirls" and "World Trade Center" are shaping up to be great bets, while "The Good German" is on the fence for me, and "Flags of Our Fathers" (to round out the Gurus' top five) has become something of a question mark in my view as time has passed.