As you can probably tell, most of the updates around these parts lately have been at The Blog. I've been so busy going from one thing to the next, with computer distress to boot, that the quick fix of a blog entry has had to suffice. Hopefully a new Oscar column will land later this evening, though no change on the predictions. Just not much movement (and mind you, the charts haven't been updated in about two weeks now - the sidebar is always the accurate gauge of what I'm thinking).

The Gurus of Gold will be back up and running this week, so you'll see some of my pics there as well. For now, we just need to get this month behind us. Fast!

At least I think it's the poster. This is the image going around with the exclusive trailer viewing:

Phillip Noyce's "Catch a Fire" was received extremely well at last night's SAG/NOMCOM, et al screening. Rounds of applause speckled throughout as the film played to an enthusastic crowd, and to my shock, it played 100% better the second time around in my own opinion.

My initial review was certainly a negative one. This time, however...I don't know. It just got me. Last time I was undoubtedly looking with my critical eye in a tiny, kind of crappy screening room with maybe four or five other onlookers. But I don't think it was simply the crowd that got me further into the narrative last night. I think it has a lot to do with my view of our current political environment.

The recently passed Military Commissions Act might be the scariest hour in our nation's history. The notion that you or I can be jerked off the street and accused of being a terrorist, ripped of Habeas Corpus and deemed a public enemy by the order of one...solitary...man - it's terrifying. And that is exactly what happened to Patrick Chamusso. Insodoing, the Apartheid regime created a freedom fighter out of a good man, and the echoes - or at least the potential echoes - in the wake of George W. Bush confidently signing that piece of garbage into law last Tuesday really resonated with me at the Fine Arts Theater last night.

A few other things stood out as well. Like the motivations and ruthlessness of Tim Robbins' character, a character I had completely misinterpreted during the first viewing. Nic Vos's manipulations are much clearer to me now, so much so that I feel foolish for missing the beats some weeks ago.

Oh well. These things happen. I both hate it and love it when I do a 180 on a film, and this time out, I feel like "Catch a Fire" is one of the best films of the year. Go figure.

Derek Luke, Bonnie Henna and Chamusso participated in a Q&A following the screening, and the stealthy usage of Chamusso in the film's PR campaign is a stroke of brilliance. Most audiences don't expect him to be in attendance until he is announced after the credits, and it's a standing ovation each time. He's both funny and charming, has great chemistry with Luke on stage and, ultimately, adds a beautiful, human touch to the entire experience. If screenings keep going this well, Luke could slip into the Best Actor race quite easily. He's already in the thick of the hunt as it is.

Due to an awful case of computer crash, no new pics or charts with this week's column. Though the predictions in the sidebar have been updated. Enjoy at your peril...

A light touch can get you there. With the exception of 2005’s crop of dreary Best Picture nominees, you have to go back 12 years to find another slate lacking a film either comedic in its sensibilities or otherwise dramatically light enough to lift the spirits and tug the heart-strings. From “Sideways” to “Chocolat,” “As Good As It Gets” to “Four Weddings and a Funeral,” a comedies and dramedies have proven they can find passage to a Best Picture line-up via uniqueness amidst typically drama-intensive Oscar bait.

This year has already seen a list of heavy dramatic hitters hoping (and likely) to make a play for the big race. The hard-boiled violence of “The Departed” looks ruthlessly charming enough to slide in at the end of the day, while the rugged and sometimes unflinching “Flags of Our Fathers” seems to have survived the critical assessment by old-timers lacking the heart to dig into Clint Eastwood too much.

On its way to release, Alejandro González Iñárritu’s “Babel” is set to potentially be the most dramatic film of the lot, very serious in its assessment of a world out of touch with itself. And Steven Soderbergh’s upcoming “The Good German” (looking a bit too stylized, in my view, to become Warner Bros.’ top priority over “The Departed”) tackles post-World War II Germany in a noir-ish vein. No laughs to be found.

Nearly every year, at least one film nominated for the Best Picture, Comedy/Musical award at the Golden Globes makes it into Oscar’s lineup. With that in mind, Bill Condon’s “Dreamgirls” is still considered the frontrunner, sight unseen. It is a musical, yes. But unlike past nominees “Moulin Rouge!” and “Chicago,” this film will represent a much more dramatic arc that certainly couldn’t be chalked up as light and fluffy. Interestingly, this will immediately make it unique in the current re-birth of the genre – a facet of the film most
seem to be missing.

So what are we left with as far as hopefuls in the light-hearted and/or funnybone arena are concerned? I personally think we’ve got two certain possibilities, each strikingly different from the other.

First, the already financially successful “Little Miss Sunshine” is one of the great stories of the year. Selling for a record amount at Sundance and going on to capture the hearts of critics and audiences alike, Fox Searchlight smells opportunity in the water. They have already claimed status as the first out of the gate with screeners, sending out some 6,000 to members of the Academy a few weeks ago.

The film is clearly looking at nominations from the Hollywood Foreign Press, the Independent Spirit Awards, SAG ensemble and, if the money its making impresses the producers enough, the PGA. Beyond that, nods from the Academy for original screenplay, supporting actress (Abigail Breslin) and supporting actor (Alan Arkin) look to be in the cards as well. Arkin spent last week in Los Angeles, taking time out to promote the film on the awards circuit. The gears are in motion.

The other contender, much different in its apparent tone than “Little Miss Sunshine,” is “The Pursuit of Happyness.” Given the nature of the narrative (single father struggles to make ends meet, lands in the stock broking business, happy ever after) it would be folly to chalk the film up as a “comedy.” “Pursuit” certainly won’t be found in that category at the Golden Globes, but it still seems interestingly representative of films like “Finding Neverland” and “The Green Mile” that turned the corner on appealing to that spot inside everyone that avoids cynicism at all costs (a practice all too lost on the critical community).

Those involved with the film have already taken umbrage with the term “schmaltzy,” used elsewhere in characterization of “Pursuit,” so allow me to steer clear of such a label. “Sentimental” might be more applicable, if only it could dump the negative connotation that immediately arises when one breathes the word. Regardless, there was a curious whiff of something in the air on this film as far back as the summer. Sony had a certain confidence in it that allowed them to concentrate PR efforts on an inevitable travesty (“All the King’s Men”) and a commercial endeavor that may or may not translate to awards success (“Stranger Than Fiction”).

In the meantime, the crafts of “Marie Antoinette” and the performances of “Running with Scissors” may end up speaking for themselves, leaving “The Pursuit of Happyness” as the definitive Best Picture push from the studio. I’m just thinking out loud here, but it’s worth taking into account that Will Smith works like a racehorse for his films, even when he doesn’t have to. And that this particular film is inspired by a true story, well that’s just gravy, right? Throw in Smith working with his son on the picture (a PR dream) and a dash of the star’s likely Best Actor nomination (and potential win, mind you), and all the ingredients are there. It’s just that only recently have people elsewhere been tossing these ideas around in print.

“Little Miss Sunshine” and “The Pursuit of Happyness” have been taken seriously as Best Picture threats around these parts for a long, long time now. They’ve always been on the fringes of the predicted five, however, as they are now. Another shoe has to drop for these films to begin poking their way into the lineup, and as evidenced by the charts this week, I already think a few titles are slipping and sliding to make way for other placement. So I’ll close with a few notes on those.

The aforementioned “The Good German” seems like it might be a bit too much, to be quite honest. The chatter is heating up with the release of the trailer, but Warner Bros. isn’t going to land two spots in the lineup.

“Blood Diamond” is also on the way, mind you, but it’s likely a performance film. “The Departed,” meanwhile, is already shining bright and high and – ironically enough – was never positioned as an “awards film” by the studio. I personally think that might be the greatest lie ever told. The strategy on this thing has been either sheer genius or a happy accident.

“Flags of Our Fathers” is on its merry way, despite artistic missteps. Again, Clint has a golden “Get out of Jail Free” card. But screw it, he’s earned it. He also had an interesting exchange with the Peters on “Sunday Morning Shootout” yesterday (with Paul Haggis in tow).

“Babel,” though I love it so, might be the weak link in the lineup after all. I can see the international appeal landing it safely in the HFPA lineup, but the Academy is a different sell. We’ll see how industry screenings go over the next few weeks.

And “The Queen” is just cruising.

A somewhat scattered column this time around, I know. Clearing up the charts and such and brain-vomiting as
tends to happen every once in a while. Next week we’ll dig back into the categories again with a look at the congested Best Actress lineup.

Oscar Predictions Archive
"The Contenders"

Previous Oscar Columns:
10/16/06 - "Starting to Get Serious"
10/09/06 - "'Flags' Lands and the Supporting Actresses Need Sustenance"
10/02/06 - "What's in a lead anyway?"
09/18/06 - "Aftermath"
09/11/06 - "It's All Happening."
09/04/06 - "Aw, Canucks."
08/28/06 - "On Your Marks..."
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"

The "Buzz-o-meter" is up over at the LA TImes' The Envelope site, and I think the pundits involved have hit the Best Picture nail on the head, chalking up "Babel," "The Departed," "Dreamgirls," "Flags of Our Fathers," and "The Queen" for nominations. I too will likely be dumping "The Good German" from my predictions next week, as the trailer makes the film look too stylish for its own good, however intriguing on the whole. That's my inclination, anyway, and that leaves Warner Bros. with a slot open. Enter Scorsese's "The Departed," which boasts accross-the-board appeal that can't be ignored.

Now, if only "Flags of Our Fathers" had hit the speed bump a lot of us expected it to hit today, "Little Miss Sunshine" could have found some room.

More on Monday.

Finally - gorgeous.

I’ve been in the position of predicting Oscar nominations for six years now. However, only during the last 12 months have I seen the films in question a number of months prior to release. Frankly, that’s a more difficult position to be in. It isn’t a question of letting one’s personal feelings get in the way of prognostication. That has never been the case with me and it never will. What makes it difficult is to live inside the confines of an echo-chamber with very few voices bouncing off the walls.

It takes a deep reading of consensus to properly gauge an Oscar season, and I have actually accepted the realization that I have to play the board as the pieces fall. Sometimes this makes for a more thorough reasoning of a given film or performance’s awards potential, and sometimes it comes at the risk of less accuracy than I’ve experienced in years past. Above all else, it’s clear now more than ever that the season reveals itself at its own pace.

We now find ourselves within that 20 week time frame that ignites coverage in earnest. Studios are buying Oscar advertising like hotcakes. Traditional media outlets like the Los Angeles Times are preparing weekly supplements with the paper concentrating on the awards coverage at The Envelope. And vast critical judgment is being placed on films in contention, awards hopes rising or being dashed with each new opinion tossed into the pot.

This week, the Oscar charts get a massive shake-up as a number of things come to light. This might well be the last hurrah for Clint Eastwood’s “Flags of Our Fathers.” Getting a big bump to the #5 spot on the Best Picture chart just a week after I defended the film’s Oscar potential, we’re beginning to see an interesting divide amongst the critics on this film that just doesn’t speak to the situation that was “Munich” like some may believe.

On the outskirts, Martin Scorsese threatens that lone director position for his work on “The Departed,” a film that still doesn’t feel like a Best Picture contender to me, especially with “The Good German” on the way. But across-the-board critical approval and a justifiable box office sensation is tough to bet against, so come what may…

Over at Fox Searchlight, the campaign for “Little Miss Sunshine” has begun as the first screeners of the season went out to 6,000 plus Academy members earlier this week. In the event of a “Flags” exit, the light-hearted, critically acclaimed comedy sits poised to slip into the big race.

“The Queen” already represents a critical favorite amongst the likely final five, and interestingly, “Little Miss Sunshine” and “The Departed” add to what could end up being a critics’ year in the Best Picture race, should the latter make it into contention. Any serious consideration for the modest critical hit “Little Children” remains questionable at best, and more in the realm of wishful thinking.

That supporting actress mess I was sloshing through last week became a little clearer to me this time around as I placed a few bets on Adriana Barraza in “Babel” (getting great notices from groups like the Hollywood Foreign Press) and Carmen Maura in “Volver” (who looks likely to join co-star Penelope Cruz for Pedro Almodovar’s critically beloved film).

Annette Bening’s fantastic portrayal in Ryan Murphy’s “Running with Scissors” sadly looks to be on the edges, once considered around these parts a shoo-in for the win. The recent Newsweek appraisal notwithstanding, I’m not sure this wonderful turn is as solid as it once was. The unfair critical thrashing the film has received in some circles is also beyond comprehension. It’s difficult to understand how someone could dislike this film, let alone hate it, but alas, that’s the nature of the beast. The opinions of many, not one, are to be taken into account, and at the end of the day, an overall thumbs down may be enough to give Cruz the edge over Bening’s “performance of her career,” as husband Warren Beatty has considered it.

As for the films hitting screens in the coming weeks – well – I just haven’t felt passionate enough to crank out reviews. I’ve written briefly about “The Prestige” twice, and I seriously don’t have it in my heart to write a lengthy pan of Chris Nolan’s effort. “Marie Antoinette” is a sluggish mess that lacks any and all insight into the world and character depicted, while “Infamous” is a fun romp with pretty costumes and sets and nothing more. A central caricature and awkward direction kind of sunk the ship on that one. “For Your Consideration,” meanwhile, just misses the boat completely on the potential for a brilliant piece of filmmaking. I’ll have a personal view of “Fur” tomorrow afternoon, but I’m not on the edge of my seat for that one, to be honest. “Pan’s Labyrinth” and, finally, “Venus” soon enough.

Personally I’m ready for this evening to roll around so I can hit up the 3-D premiere of “The Nightmare Before Christmas” over at the El Capitan.

Anyway, that’s where the pieces are falling this week. The detail in the charts speaks volumes, though one final note, regarding Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck’s “Half Nelson.” It seems screenplay for the Ryan Gosling starrer will wind up considered original after all, as the duo’s feature screenplay was written before “Gowanus,” the short from which the film was expanded, was produced. Tell a friend.

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

Previous Oscar Columns:
10/09/06 - "'Flags' Lands and the Supporting Actresses Need Sustenance"
10/02/06 - "What's in a lead anyway?"
09/18/06 - "Aftermath"
09/11/06 - "It's All Happening."
09/04/06 - "Aw, Canucks."
08/28/06 - "On Your Marks..."
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"

Searchlight's pushing Griffiths back into the lead category for his performance in "The History Boys" pretty much knocks him out of the race at this point. With Forest Whitaker and Peter O'Toole looking strong, and Jack Nicholson looking steady (should Warner Bros. stick with a lead decision...I expect they will), throw in George Clooney in a Best Picture contender, Leonardo DiCaprio in a duet of high profile flicks, Ryan Gosling in one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year...there's just not enough room. Given the role's large size, a supporting mention would have been a lot more likely for Griffiths in that weaker category. Ah well...I'm not in the business of Oscar campaigning - what do I know?

So “Flags of Our Fathers” is being welcomed by one of the more schizoid reactions in recent years. Both trades puckered up and gave Grandpa Clint a big sloppy kiss, and last night, Richard Roeper gave it the thumbs up. Meanwhile, myself, David Poland and Jeffrey Wells have shown our cards…us no lovey.

We’ve got another two weeks before the rest of the crowd weighs in. And though us internet rogues don’t necessarily find ourselves in step with general critical assessment all the time – for better or worse – this is regardless an interesting turn of events for a film that has been considered a shoo-in for Best Picture recognition all year long.

With all of that said, to begin to doubt this film’s potential in the big race is foolish on a number of levels. By throwing such past misses as “White Hunter, Black Heart,” “Space Cowboys” and “Bridges of Madison County” into the air, one completely misses the point that this is a baby boomer movie for a baby boomer crowd. It will speak to the same emotions as Emilio Estevez’s “Bobby” will (or hopes to, anyway), and being a war film that tackles the subject from a unique perspective is a load of ammunition for the cause. Whether the film hits the right artistic notes or not doesn’t make a lot of difference at that point, because it seems people in this town can forgive Clint Eastwood for just about anything.

But all of that really speaks to a singular point of view at the moment, and therefore, aims to keep things grounded elsewhere if at all possible. “Flags of Our Fathers” is still very much in the hunt for a Best Picture nomination, and “Letters from Iwo Jima” will still be the insurance the film needs.

What I REALLY want to talk about is this grossly anorexic Supporting Actress race. What gives!?

In preparing my charts this afternoon, I didn’t even bother updating the supporting actress category because I’m at a loss as to what is viable at this point. Jennifer Hudson still seems like the best bet, with Abigail Breslin’s adorable “Little Miss Sunshine” turn and Cate Blanchett’s co-leading portrayal in “Notes on a Scandal” a ways behind. Beyond that…well, it’s terribly thin.

”Running with Scissors” is not lifting off amongst a good number of critics. While Annette Bening still feels right, the rest of the cast might fall to the wayside, which means that Jill Clayburgh performance I’ve been counting on all year long might not be able to punch through in the end. Her portrayal is resonant and hits the right emotional notes, but at the same time, the character isn’t overly present throughout, and certainly isn’t as showy as the rest of the ensemble.

The “Babel” girls, Rinko Kikuchi and Adriana Barraza, could make a play if the film makes it into the Best Picture arena, but they’ll need to be singled out rather definitively.

Sharon Stone’s work in “Bobby” is waiting to be critiqued at large, while Carmen Maura’s spot opposite Penelope Cruz in “Volver” just seems…inconsequential. Meanwhile Julie Walters is a maniac in “Driving Lessons,” but she’s also over-acting far too much for comfort, while the film is a tiny endeavor that may not be seen altogether.

I fear Juliette Binoche’s wonderful performance in “Breaking and Entering” will get lost in the shuffle of the shrug being tossed that film’s way, while Frances de la Tour could still shine in “The History Boys,” a film being played close to the vest by Fox Searchlight for some time.

That’s ten names, and really, only one or two of them can be seen as approaching “strong.” It really feels like the entire race is up in the air like no other. You could just as easily speak the names of Shareeka Epps, Toni Collette, Phyllis Sommerville, Catherine O’Hara, Anika Noni-Rose and Thandie Newton in the same breath as three quarters of the names above. And even if they were all in the hunt, given the roles and performances of those people have seen, it all still seems awfully BORING.

Maybe Fox should revert to the supporting category on Meryl Streep’s “The Devil Wears Prada” turn, where a guaranteed nomination and potential win would make this race heated – finally. But they seem to be holding fast. I’m also starting to feel a wave of hope for Emma Thompson’s authoritative performance in “Stranger Than Fiction” amidst all of this as she is a respected veteran putting out solid work in a well-received film. And with “The Illusionist” making the money it’s making, the Yari Film Group wouldn’t be out of their minds to market the hell out of Jessica Biel to the Academy. Why not? This race is utterly vacant!

What makes this whole scenario all the more interesting is how stacked the lead actress category is. It is a good year for ladies, yes – the ladies who are front and center. But the supporting ranks are a strange ghetto waiting to be dominated by someone savvy enough to strike while the iron is hot.

Maybe I’ll find some inspiration over the week to update the supporting actress chart next time around, but it’s looking pretty lousy this week.

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

Previous Oscar Columns:
10/02/06 - "What's in a lead anyway?"
09/18/06 - "Aftermath"
09/11/06 - "It's All Happening."
09/04/06 - "Aw, Canucks."
08/28/06 - "On Your Marks..."
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 just published a wonderful piece analyzing our culture's consistent defeat at the hands of spin as it pertains to three of the year's critical releases, "Flags of Our Fathers," "The Queen" and "United 93." Take a look:

Three films in the Best Picture race deal with real events that unfolded before our eyes. Two of them deal directly with media perception and the public’s need for mythic heroes. One deals with a more realistic look at real heroes. In all three cases, it’s easy to tell the real things from the fakers – those who made sacrifices for the greater good and those who used the moment as a way to get publicity, whether that publicity was necessary or not.

Stephen Frears’ “The Queen,” Clint Eastwood’s “Flags of Our Fathers” and Paul Greengrass’ “United 93” are those films. They are based on those real people, those real events and they still cut deeply to the bone. Other films in contention this year based on real events would be “The Last King of Scotland,” but as of this writing, I have not seen that film, which makes analysis a bit difficult, however somehow I think it would fit and indeed shares themes with these other films.

“The Queen” and “United 93” take us, documentary-style, through the events as they happened. Point of view is key. We were all glued to our television sets when both Diana’s death and those hijacked planes hit the towers, the Pentagon and then that other flight that no one knew anything about, that crashed without explanation in the middle of a field. We watched the events unfold; we thought we knew what was going on. In fact, we had no idea.

This film really looks amazing and bursting with potential. But like many, the drawback I have on the brain is Edward Zwick. He's as uneven as they come. But Leonardo DiCaprio and especially Djimon Hounsou look to be on fire. Also, I'm beginning to think Eduardo Sera is heading for yet another nomination.

By Gerard Kennedy

Patrick Wilson’s star has steadily been on the rise following an on-screen debut in the 2003 mini-series “Angels in America.” Consistent work in John Lee Hancock’s “The Alamo” and Joel Schumacher’s “The Phantom of the Opera” have kept him in the game, but 2006 might be his year to really shine. Currently receiving considerable acclaim for his work opposite Kate Winslet in “Little Children,” the actor is entering a defining stage that could perpetuate that rise. I had the opportunity to sit and chat with Wilson while he was promoting “Little Children” at the Toronto International Film Festival.

After earning a BFA at Carnegie Mellon University in 1995, Wilson, an unabashedly friendly and humble man, quickly made a name for himself as a stage performer. Only recently has he found his way to the film industry. Director Mike Nichols happened to catch Wilson in the Broadway production of “The Full Monty” in 2002, which inspired the filmmaker to cast him in the award-winning HBO mini-series, based on Tony Kushner’s revered play.

“The transition from stage to screen was a smooth one,” Wilson explains. “Though for a while on ‘Angels in America,’ I did find myself asking the cinematographer where I should be in the picture. But I was fortunate enough to have an acting style already well-suited for cinema”.

Though his segue from the stage to the big screen came relatively without fuss, Wilson admits considerable differences between the two mediums that remain striking.

“With stage, you do it and it’s there. Watching ‘Little Children’ now, I’m seeing work I did a year ago”. The experience must certainly contrast with the immediate audience interaction he experienced on stage.

Calling theater “the actor’s medium” with film being “the director’s medium,” Wilson praises filmmaker Todd Field for his work on “Little Children,” specifically admiring the editing of the film “to create a tension that was not there on the page”. And though acknowledging Field is obviously attracted to drama, he also says this was in many ways a departure for the director of “In the Bedroom.” “Some of the hardest laughs I have had came on the set of his movie,” Wilson reminisces. “Like Todd, I personally consider the film to be a satirical melodrama.”

Satirical or not, “Little Children” boasts delicate subject matter that might have worked against the film without the proper care. While infidelity is surely an issue front and center in the screenplay (adapted from author Tom Perotta’s novel of the same name), the story also revolves around a convicted sex offender, portrayed in the film by former child actor Jackie Earle Haley.

“I was never afraid of how the film would handle the subject matter,” Wilson explains. “Jackie was fantastic in the role. But even before that, Todd and Tom created a human out of a subject abhorrent and tough to watch.” And regardless of controversial elements, as he told the audience at the premiere the night before we spoke, “five, six, seven dynamic, intertwining characters is rare in a film.”

Much of the buzz surrounding “Little Children” following showcases at the Telluride and Toronto Film Festivals has specifically been aimed at Wilson’s co-star, four-time Oscar nominee Kate Winslet. An actress Wilson acknowledges for continually taking roles to challenge herself, Winslet certainly has a clear trajectory for Oscar consideration once again. Wilson is clearly grateful for the opportunity to have worked with her on “Little Children.”

“The great actors are the great actors because they want to become even better actors,” he begins, speaking fondly of his co-star. “We sat down together for several days before shooting started, getting to know each other and going over the script. Her dedication was infectious.”

So where does Wilson hope to go from here? When asked if he has any desire for truly mainstream endeavors, his response is “a great part is a part. I go to movies all the time.” He also points out Russell Crowe’s Maximus, from Ridley Scott’s “Gladiator,” as being an example of a great role in what is clearly a mainstream movie.

“I’m not at the top of the pecking order,” he continues. “Usually a role gets turned down before getting to me. ‘Little Children’ is the rare example of a director wanting me for the part from the get-go. But I’m fortunate that the opportunities I have had have been great ones. Some roles I have been intrigued by, and not been offered, have ended up being in less-than-great films. But I think I know where my strengths are.”

No matter what roles Wilson ends up taking as his career continues to blossom – in film, television or stage – I have no doubt we’ll be seeing more of the already accomplished 31 year-old thespian in the future. Releasing this Friday and sure to make a mark on this year’s film awards season, “Little Children” could be that early turning point that keeps him on our radars for years to come.

With screenings of "The Departed" being well-received on nearly every front, there is a possibility that Oscar prognosticators might not have considered. Could Jack Nicholson, long-considered a supporting contender for his role in Martin Scorsese's hard-boiled crime drama, end up bowling over co-stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon on his way to a lead nomination? I had not considered this possibility until I saw that my colleague Sasha Stone, of Oscarwatch.com, had stuck Nicholson into her lead actor predictions in last week's Gurus of Gold charts at Movie City News. The Toronto Star's Peter Howell also chalked Nicholson up in the lead category, and the more I ponder this scenario, the more it seems like something that might pan out.

Marlon Brando's classic portrayal in "The Godfather" shoved his co-stars (fit with more screen time) to the side in 1972 as the esteemed actor was nominated for, and ultimately won the Oscar for Best Actor. Anthony Hopkins's Hannibal Lecter was on screen for all of 30 minutes in 1991's "The Silence of the Lambs," yet the performance was earth-shattering enough to command a nod and win in the lead category as well.

We all know Meryl Streep's blistering performance in "The Devil Wears Prada" will likely land her a record 14th Oscar nomination this year. Despite the role being a supporting one on the page, the performance was electrifying enough for Fox to get greedy and suss out a lead berth.

2001's "Training Day" and this year's "The Last King of Scotland" are similar in this regard as well, as narratively speaking, Ethan Hawke and James McAvoy's roles are clearly the leads and the vessels that carry the audience through the story. But the work seen from Denzel Washington and Forest Whitaker was and is enough to go beyond mere supporting scenery chewing and into the realm of film dominance. Such is the case with Jack Nicholson's Frank Costello.

I don't believe Costello to be a lead role by any means. It is more akin to Ben Kingsely's work in "Sexy Beast," albeit it with more screen time. And funnily enough, I drew a comparison to Hannibal Lecter in my initial review of "The Departed," but even with that notion in print, I don't think this is a similar circumstance if only because Jack is surrounded by other leads, most notably Leonardo DiCaprio in his finest performance to date.

Then again, by all of this purely hypothetical logic, we would expect Warner Bros. to put DiCaprio in the supporting category for "The Departed" and free up space for a lead push in "Blood Diamond," right? And who knows, maybe Leo could land a berth in supporting for Scorsese's film after all.

In any case, brief column this week obviously, but I'm trying a few things in the charts as well. It seems to me, in a lot of categories, three or four contenders look like good bets, with the fifth slots kind of floating in the wind, up for grabs. It felt like the right time to plant a few flags for Rinko Kikuchi, James McAvoy (held over from last week), Rodrigo Prieto, etc. And I'm beginning to feel a tech-wave for Guillermo del Toro's "Pan's Labyrinth." I haven't seen the film, but from the imagery I have seen, the design is reminiscent of Tim Burton cinema.

I've also taken the opportunity to clean up "The Contenders" a little bit. All films lacking distribution have gotten the boot, and a few performances that just don't seem feasible in the derby have been erased as well. But I still want to keep that page wide open, with as many possibilities accounted for as I can.

Until next week:

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

Previous Oscar Columns:
09/18/06 - "Aftermath"
09/11/06 - "It's All Happening."
09/04/06 - "Aw, Canucks."
08/28/06 - "On Your Marks..."
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"