With six days left in what has become both the most exciting and the most exhaustive Oscar season I’ve ever witnessed, we come to a stretch of second-guessing and faux reasoning against the frontrunner in valiant attempts at steering clear of boredom.

I’m just as guilty. And though my prediction that “Letters from Iwo Jima” would win Best Picture wasn’t as off the rails as less than a few would like to think (talk to voters – it was in the thick of it), it would be silly not to concede that I just couldn’t swim with most of the school due to the need for excitement.

Even still, last year was the most wide-open phase two we’ve ever seen, while this year, phase one left a million holes to be filled by prospective nominees. Once the films were slated late last month, the frontrunner emerged – and it hasn’t backed down.

So no, I won’t be stepping out onto unnecessary limbs this season because it is quite obvious that “No Country for Old Men” will be the year’s Best Picture winner. It shocks me to the core, because hey, I was the guy saying it didn’t have a snowball’s chance of a nomination. Yet here it is, tied for the most nods with that other film I didn’t think had a snowball’s chance.

It's been a while, eh? Sitting back watching the "No Country for Old Men" onslaught on the precursor circuit, why would anyone want to update predictions that, by and large, see "No Country" sweeping? To be quite honest, it doesn't really feel right.

There are actually a couple of categories that look a little ripe for the taking, and more than enough foregone conclusions to go around. Like Best Supporting Actress, which is a five-horse race if you ask me. Amy Ryan dominated the critics groups, Cate Blanchett took the Golden Globe and Ruby Dee grabbed the SAG Award. If that hasn't made things interesting enough, Tilda Swinton was victorious with the BAFTA over the weekend and Saoirse Ronan hasn't made an appearance beyond a Golden Globe nomination, so her possibilities and heavy campaigning began the day she was nominated. A lot of steam is left in that ship, is my point.

You ever just want it all to stop?

This year is officially the hardest year to do this thing we do, and I am quite comfortable in saying that I've been around the block. Scott Bowles of USA Today called me up this afternoon, as is tradition these last few years it seems, to bandy about this notion of no clear frontrunners. I ultimately chalked it up to the sheer glut of quality product 2007 saw at the multi-plexes. Deeper even than that, it may be due to the apparent fact that one would be hard pressed to disagree with a lot of the effort on display, that blanketing of acceptibility I've talked about more than a few times in this space.

Maybe, then, that aura carries itself over to the balloting phase of Oscar voting, where we are likely to see the closest race yet. Or, maybe it's all a smokescreen and what was going to be, as always, is going to be.

With that, I'm following my inner muse. I can't bank on a five-for-five match-up with the PGA, as that is a group, even in the years since a vast inner shake-up within the membership, never predicts the ultimate five with such clarity. In years when the guild nominated six or more films, it still wasn't privy to one of the eventual AMPAS faves. Regardless of that, the conventional wisdom is "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," "Juno," "Michael Clayton," "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood."

I can't do it. I just can't.

My apologies for the lateness of this column.

With a week’s worth of guilds behind us, the underlying picture of the industry’s favorites has taken on a certain shape that is difficult to ignore. Five films (“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly,” “Into the Wild,” “Juno,” “Michael Clayton,” “No Country for Old Men” and “There Will Be Blood”) have surfaced as definitive frontrunners for the five coveted Best Picture slots, and with a week to go before the nominations announcement (and ballots being submitted before the late Globes rush for “Atonement” and “Sweeney Todd”), the smart money would be on five of these contenders.

But there is no “smart money” in the Oscar game, is there? Why can’t I shake the feeling that, as so often is the case with the Academy, the group will go its own way and afford at least a shock or two? Can we really be so “locked in” to the line of logic that “Juno” is our Best Picture nominee sans director bid, while Julian Schnabel is tailor-made for a lone director nomination? Isn’t that, I don’t know…too easy? Yet that’s what I’m predicting still, as I have been for months upon months. It just seems too convenient a scenario.

The first chart update of the New Year, and really, there isn't much else to go on than what was available a few weeks ago. Yes, "There WIll Be Blood" took home the NSFC win, a rather high brow designation that doesn't translate to a best Picture nod as often as some might like to think. But tonight's BFCA awards will be interesting to say the least.

I'll steer clear of predictions given affiliation, but I think "Into the Wild" still has heated support within their ranks. However, with the late year surge of "Blood" and the fact that Paul Thomas Anderson's film is the one fresh on everyone's mind (we got ballots on Tuesday, deadline was Friday), I wouldn't be shocked to see that film stake a claim as well.

My Oscar winner predictions from earlier in the week have certainly sparked some thoughts from the readership. But I think anyone who thinks one set of winner predictions is crazier than the next is out to lunch at this point. This is the most wide open Oscar race in all my years of covering it.

So with that, a fresh set of predictions leading into the first week that will really have something to say in the precursor season. The BFCA goes down tonight, the DGA nominations land tomorrow, the USC Scripter winner(s) on Wednesday, the Cinema Audio Society and WGA announce nominees Thursday and the editors and art directors chime in Friday. Sometime in the next seven days the ASC will also announce, but suffice it to say, by this time next week, we'll have our first truly clear picture of what the industry thinks of the films in play.

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

A little late getting this up today, but chalk it up to holiday craziness. I'd like to first take a moment to wish everyone a happy holiday season before offering up the last chart update of the year. This will be the last update, as I don't expect anything to affect change in the next week, so we'll reassess on January 7 with a fresh look. And, of course, the yearly "most anticipated" column on the 1st.

I think I'll just let the charts speak for themselves, rather than offer any supporting commentary. Suffice it to say, I think the SAG announcement means a lot more than any other precursor of the season, but there are still troubling areas that have me less than confident. But like I said, we'll reassess in the New Year. Enjoy the charts, and be safe.

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

After a clearly explained experiment on Monday, and the need to clarify yesterday, I've decided to go ahead and post a genuine set of predictions today. Frankly, I think the BFCA cleared some of the air yesterday, and I don't expect the HFPA to be of any consequence tomorrow. Their picks have increasingly been their own, and good on them for that, I guess. So consider this to be next week's update, and seeing as Monday kicks off the year end wrap up columns, it's just as well.

Looking back at the BFCA's accuracy over the years, they (we? -- gotta get used to that) tend to have a 4/5 ratio down pat in most instances. 3/5 here and there and, admittedly, the group is terrible at forecasting some categories (composer and song come to mind). But, for the most part, it's a decently accurate picture painted year in and year out. The "There Will Be Blood" love-fest calmed down, "American Gangster" proved itself even more vulnerable than we might have already expected and "Into the Wild" got the boost it needed to potentially make a play for major Oscar success (which I think it will do -- the plan is spelled out for Vantage at this point).

So I'll leave it at that. Enjoy the charts, enjoy the HFPA announcement tomorrow (with Gerard's latest column soon to follow) and it'll be Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year before you know it.

I'll toss up a set of Golden Globe predictions later tonight.

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

I was going to leave the charts alone for another week, but with the top ten column coming in seven days, I figured I'd get something out there. And what I've decided to do is let the charts reflect what the race looks like NOW, with only critics groups and the NBR having spoken (none of which vote for Oscars), prior to the NYFCC's announcement later today, the BFCA tomorrow and the HFPA on Thursday.

What I've come up with here I frankly am not happy with. There are a few things kept afloat here and there at my own prognosticative behest. There are other factors afoot, things that those given to coverage with perspective take into account. It isn't just a precursor map painted for perfect predicting, but for some reason, a lot of people out there want to think that's the case. I'm not sure where that disconnect in logic happened along the way the last few years, but it has happened regardless.

I'm in line with what David Poland said in his blog yesterday, that this year the critics will be less influential than in any other year. It's something I said way back when, that the critical consensus will marginalize itself consideraby this season, and I think that's what we're seeing. But, to steer clear of empty proclamations that I'm "attempting to affect the race," I figured I'd lay out this set of predictions this week and then take my own council in seven days' time.

Enjoy:

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

As we update the charts once more before the National Board of Review kicks off the precursor circuit in earnest, we raise as many questions this week as we answer.

Some still think "Sweeney Todd" has a Best Picture shot. I do not, but I'm not foolish enough to take it out of the top ten until more opinions begin to filter in. The HFPA are fans (and will nominate it), but it lacked the certain something it needed to have for AMPAS Best Picture placement -- in my humble opinion, of course.

"Charlie Wilson's War" still has its sights set on a nod, despite comedy/musical placement at the globes (a designation some behind closed doors are quite happy about). Ad buys are all over the place across the net (if you pulled up Red Carpet District over the weekend, you were probably met with a martini glass with an American flag stuck in the olive). Some think it can fight it's way in, but then you have four comedies duking it out for what is typically one slot ("Hairspray" and "juno" being the other two).

I'm predicting "The Kite Runner" for a nod in the top five, and feeling better and better about it, actually. But you'll surely take note of the only other predicted category being Best Director. I know. But I can't really feel out the other areas for the film just yet, so for now, I'm leaving it wide open (I'll try to give the film another look this week with fresher eyes). We'll know a little more in the coming weeks, but in the acting races, the challenge for the studio will be getting voters to stop saying "I love the guy that played Baba" and start saying "Homayon Ershadi was great as Baba." They have to fill the guy's name in on the ballot, after all.

A chart update. Finally.

Well, the absence of "Charlie Wilson's War" from all but two charts this week should give some indication as to my perception of its Oscar chances. I'm inclined to call it "Primary Colors"-lite, but regardless, at 97 minutes and feeling somewhat abridged, it's kind of turned out to be the race's ugly duckling. It's our own fault for elevating expectations, but Universal still has a very tight, easily marketable feature for the holiday season. "Hey, Merry Christmas. Remember when we fucked up in Afghanistan?? Haha." Etc.

Paramount Vantage is getting better Academy screening results for "The Kite Runner" than for "Into the Wild," which could be tricky territory for the studio to navigate. There has been no clear-cut decision from the studio to trumpet loudest for one and only one of it's trio of primed hopefuls. Some might hope for three berths, but the possibility is all too apparent for none.

"No Country for Old Men" is still an issue of discussion for those willing to discuss it, but I'm beginning to think the power of "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" might be enough for Miramax to overcome the foreign factor with voters. It doesn't hurt having Max von Sydow weeping on screen and breaking hearts as a result.

The Cate Blanchett rumor-mill was shot down by Tom O'Neil initially yesterday, though others made calls (who didn't?). So no use bringing up the supporting vs. lead brou-ha-ha.

I'll let the charts speak. "Sweeney" comes Thursday, after which all cats are out of the bag.

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

Almost no movement on the charts this week as we try to make sense of the upcoming slate of holiday product, other than pulling back on "No Country" once again. Hey, I was the only guy saying "Letters from Iwo Jima" would get nominated last year, so I don't have much issue being alone. And those detractors I said would be coming out of the wood-work are doing just that, in the form of Academy members that aren't as sold on the film as the critical community has been.

I'm beginning to think 2007 will be the year we all stop listening to critics so much when it comes to these things. Common sense tells us that critics don't vote for Oscars, but year in and year out, people start to think this critical darling or that will make it into play -- and invariably, they come up short in the big race. At the end of this year, when films like "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead," "Michael Clayton" and, perhaps, "No Country for Old Men" fail to grab the Best Picture nominations many are predicting, maybe we'll all sit and finally take stock of that notion.

But I'm by no means foolish enough to think I could be out to lunch on this one. Lots of good films this year, lots of diversity, lots to choose from.

The charts:

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

After intense initial doubts on my part, I'm jumping onto that "No Country for Old Men" bandwagon that is galloping away at full speed. There are detractors, and they will come out of the woodwork soon enough when the film releases. But Miramax is also more and more placing a direct and concerted emphasis on this being their big hopeful, and that says a lot. Big things are going on here in town this week for the film's premiere and you can see all involved REALLY hoofing it. "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" might be the more emotional film, but then again, when I spoke to Miramax president Daniel Battsek last week about "No Country," he made it a point of saying he "strongly believe[s] in the ability of this film to move people."

Sometimes it's simply about whether a studio is willing to go all out. Additionally, producer Scott Rudin (who again has a massive slate of product on display this year) probably senses "No Country" as his own best bet, expecially given that it looks like a Capra film next to "There Will Be Blood" (a contender still seen as a major possibility in the big category - usually by those who haven't seen it).

Lots of movement this week, none of which should be considered representative of personal opinion, mind you.

"The Great Debaters" is making the rounds (everything from "I loved it" to "it's a TV movie"), a few have seen "Sweeney Todd" and "Charlie Wilson's War" is still to be seen.

When things settle down, I'll get back into the review groove. For now:

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

The Contenders (by category)
2007 Films-by-Studio Rundown
Oscar Predictions Archive

Previous Oscar Columns:
10/15/07 - "The Oil Man vs. the Demon Barber?"
10/08/07 - "Clean-up on Aisle September"
10/01/07 - "Still Anybody's Game"
09/17/07 - "Post-Toronto Update"
09/10/07 - "Notes from the Eye of a Storm"
09/03/07 - "Launching the New Season"
08/03/07 - "August Update"
07/01/07 - "The Silence is Deafening"
02/26/07 - "Forging Ahead: In Contention's Year in Advance Oscar Speculation"

2006 Predictions Archive

I’ve been covering the Oscar season online for nearly seven years. I would say I’ve seen the trenches of amateur coverage, experienced the access of sanctioned coverage and certainly spent a healthy amount of time spinning my wheels, contemplating the next step. But in an ever-expanding Oscar blogosphere, a stranglehold on what the movement needed in recent years has been as elusive as ever.

In 2006, I personally envisioned the next step as a broader, more ambitious experience. Expanding a blog into something more in tune with a former brainchild (Oscar Central) seemed the way to go, so I lifted In Contention out of its Blogger roots and settled back into the dot com game.

The first step was to bring in Gerard Kennedy to cover the technical races in an effort to widen the net we were tossing. I remain prouder of Gerard’s contribution to the site than even my own efforts because his work represents a dedication to the individuals who don’t get the big headlines, but sit biting their nails, waiting on envelopes to be opened the same as the most recognizable of stars. Gerard continues his weekly grind this season with an even greater understanding of his role, and I still consider “Tech Support” to be the crown jewel of In Contention’s Oscar coverage.

But as last year’s crazy season came to a close, I slowly began to realize the site was biting off a lot. It wasn’t necessarily more than it could chew, but it was a level of coverage I saw as perhaps a bit too comprehensive in its original content and point of view. Film reviews, twice-a-week Oscar columns, numerous interviews, event coverage, blog postings, some random, some thoughtful – where was it going to end? And to what purpose could such a site be beneficial with a singular voice guiding the ship?

Stand back…you’re about to enter the depths of a speculation zone.

So I was in the midst of a conversation last week with a fellow Oscar blogger and we were tossing around thoughts on the Best Actor race. My feeling was that Daniel Day-Lewis, should the general positive steam continue to build for Paul Thomas Anderson’s “There Will Be Blood,” seems like the clear frontrunner to win (something I understand is strange to posit sight unseen, believe me). My argument, however, was, quite simply, who’s the competition?

For starters, it’s been nearly 20 years since “My Left Foot.” And Day-Lewis took some time off that would make the notion that “he already has an Oscar” somewhat moot. I also believe there could be left over sentiment for his clearly beloved performance in the clearly not beloved “Gangs of New York.” No other actor or performance seems to demand the award. But let’s look through them for the sake of argument…

(Getting this off before the weekend to clear some head space.)

I’ve spent the entire month having my mind torn apart by college and business deadlines alike, and the suffering seems to have been laid at the feet of – imagine this – film opinion and perspective. I haven’t gotten to a long-form review in some time, yet I have a back log of opinions awaiting some outlet – any outlet. And so today, in lieu of an Oscar column (though I do have some brief thoughts on the race), I thought I’d finally get to these films via short reviews. Apologies for truncating my thoughts in this manner, but it’s the only way I could get on the record before the maelstrom of October really kicks in (and indeed, as will be outlined later this month, the site is about to go through some changes).

But first…Oscar talk.

The first casualties of the season have popped up in varying degrees, with “Elizabeth: The Golden Age,” “Lust, Caution” (despite a puzzling victory in Venice amongst rampant distaste), “Margot at the Wedding” and “Rendition” missing the mark demanded by Best Picture recognition. Crowd-pleasers have announced themselves in the form of “Into the Wild,” “Juno” and “Michael Clayton.” In one way or another, you could make the case that puzzle pieces are being revealed and moved into place. So why does the film awards landscape seem as malleable four days into the biggest early landmark as it did a week ago?

2007 has been, and seemingly will continue to remain, the most muted year in quite a long while where pegging the Oscar race is concerned. The playing field is so level as to suggest an unremarkable season, but damn if it doesn’t appear to be a paradoxically compelling fall to watch as films continue to reveal themselves. With this spirit in mind, I went out a little further onto various limbs this week in the prediction charts because, honestly, the canvas still feels vacant.

But there are things to consider.

Going into the pre-Toronto frame, we finally kick off our weekly Oscar coverage here at In Contention. Hopefully “weekly” won’t become a relative term as the season (and grad school) progresses, but we’ll see how it goes. For now, there are actually a few things worth discussing, even if there is little hard news to bandy about.

For instance, coming out of Venice it looks like Joe Wright’s “Atonement” could just be the first clearly defined Best Picture contender of the season. There are those who might say Fox Searchlight’s “Once” has the steam, but people are tripping over themselves for the Ian McEwan adaptation that, at the very least, will sweep through the BAFTAs like a monsoon.

Most studios still seem content with sitting on their product rather than announcing awards potential, a sound strategy the year after “Dreamgirls” was deemed unstoppable by Dreamworks publicity early in the 2006 season. There’ve been lots of peek-a-boo screenings for some films in order to keep the excitement (or lack thereof) bottled up. Studios seem more particular than ever about who sees their films and when. “In the Valley of Elah,” for instance, was screening months ago in this fashion but only started to fall before a significant number of eyes last week.

I was holding this until Monday, but I'd rather have it off my plate.

I've commented on some films I've seen, I'm not permitted to comment on others, but suffice it to say, this year's Oscar season seems afraid of itself, slowly, EVER so slowly approaching the fall months rather than the sprint to the finish we've witnessed in recent years. In some ways that's a godsend, but I somehow expect things to explode any...minute...now.

For the time being, all predictions and charts have been updated. Weekly coverage, columns and charting begins Monday, August 27. (And hi-dee-ho, so do classes...I might pass out this year.)

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts
The Contenders (by category)
2007 Films-by-Studio Rundown

2006 Predictions Archive

Posting this column on a Sunday pretty much sums up my feelings about digging into the Oscar season with vigor just yet. This town is pretty empty at the moment, and as far as the awards season goes, you’d be hard-pressed to find a publicist willing to whisper sweet nothings about any of their awards hopefuls too soon. Even the more notorious spinsters are sound asleep. I’d rather catch some more z’s myself.

Then again, what better time to revamp category predictions than in a vacuum? I’ll get to that in a second.

As we push past 2007’s halfway point, I come to you a writer blissfully ignorant of much of the industry’s output the past six months. A road trip across 49 states kind of demands your attention more than consistently taking in filmed product does. I am, however, pulling myself out of the cobwebs and dusting off my awareness somewhat, reading some scripts, making some calls and getting the gears back in motion here at In Contention. But first, a few notes.

It’s that time of year: the annual “you must be insane” in-depth glance at the upcoming Oscar season – a full year in advance.

I stay away from year-in-advance prognosticating until the day after the Oscars largely because it is around this time of year that we really get something resembling a handle on such shenanigans. Entering the spring months, we can ascertain what films look likely to be finished in time, which have already gotten the bump to next year, which haven’t yet gone before cameras (and thusly, likely won’t release by year’s end), etc. Additionally, Sundance has clued us into a thing or two, and considering the success of “Little Miss Sunshine” in 2006, it would behoove us all to wait until that key week has come and gone before tossing ideas about.

So…let’s do it!

I’ve had the initial conversations with publicists regarding the awards product on the horizon, but even getting into what thick of it we can, I must say the 2007-2008 Oscar season looks miraculously ambiguous from afar (imagine that). After last year’s woeful showing in year in advance prognostication, I’m certainly not keen on taking an early look too seriously, but even for my tastes, the year ahead is a bit murky.

I spent the weekend with the short film nominees to get a handle on how I see those two typically ignored races shaping up. I thought I’d use this week’s Oscar column to reflect on those ten entries.

Best Short Film (Live Action)

In the live action category, I have to say, things are looking bleak. I understand the difficulties of making a short film. I spent four years making them as an undergrad, after all. You have to capture an audience in a short amount of time, but if you want your film to be any sort of calling card, you also have to present viable cinematic capabilities that show you can handle a feature experience. Usually, one of two things makes for a failing short: the vision is too small or the vision is too big.

Thankfully, none of the live action shorts competing this year suffers from having a bloated vision. And really, the only film that has an expanded thematic and spatial mentality (“Binta y la Gran Idea”) manages to keep an even keel. But none of these films really transcends enough to write home about. None of them has a creative thrust that leaves you wanting to see the filmmaker’s next work, and certainly, none of them leaves me with a desire to see these filmmakers hitting the feature turf running.

Ballots went out last week. The nominees luncheon is today. You’d be hard pressed to find many in the industry to disagree with the fact that this is the week that counts. This is the week that matters. But with a lot of things settling into “truth,” perhaps a bit too soon for this prognosticator’s tastes, I think I’m allowed one more week of pure speculation and instinctual discussion. So I’ll take it.

Since the announcement of the Oscar nominees two weeks ago, I’ve had the opportunity to talk with a number of the lucky individuals who get to step up to bat in the extra innings phase of the season – some twenty individuals, give or take. More will come this week, but what seems to be the tone of the conversation recently has been how incredibly open the field is, pretty much across the board. And rarely does a conversation go by without one of these folks mentioning the fate of “Dreamgirls” in the face of greater awards prognostication.

One nominee even continued the old adage verbatim: “Nobody knows anything.”

LAST MINUTE CHANGE!! - Nerves always get the better of me, and I invariably change a prediction at the last minute. This year, it's in the Best Original Screenplay category, where I've decided to go with Guillermo del Toro's "Pan's Labyrinth" over Paul Greengrass's "United 93," the battle of the critical darlings.

Tomorrow’s the big day. Today’s the last crunch. And with the AMPAS announcement less than 24 hours away, I’m not sure we’ve had such a clear portrait of the Best Picture line-up in quite some time.

2004 seemed pretty cut and dry, but there were still those expecting “Hotel Rwanda” to show up. 2003 also seems like it was an obvious fiver in hindsight, if not for the feeling that Miramax just had to continue that 10 year streak with a “Cold Mountain” mention. Every year, really, it seems that there is at least one film that could surprise and push its way into the fray. This season, however, you’d really have to be reckless to stray outside of the agreed upon “five.”

But hey, that doesn’t mean there aren’t 23 other categories up for grabs!

Gerard placed his chips over the weekend, and I’ve finally run a comb through my predictions to come up with what follows. In many cases, I’ve gone the safe route. I get the feeling trusting the guilds might be the best course of action this year, more so than any other year. At the same time, I have some gut instincts I’m going with here and there, mostly in the technical categories, which may or may not pan out. I long for something to turn my head, but to be quite honest, I expect to be nodding it with the fulfillment of expectation for much of tomorrow morning.

But enough talking – time to put my money where my mouth is. Below you’ll find brief analysis of each category. Full predictions are listed (and can also be found in the sidebar), while each section is accompanied by an alternate and a stab at a potential shocker. I’m labeling the latter my “Left Field” predictions. You can also find the Oscar charts, updated in full, linked at the bottom of the page.

Enjoy the predictions, and here’s to an exciting morning tomorrow.

The Golden Globes are coming! The Golden Globes are coming!

That’s right, another turn of the season comes tonight as the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (and if you ask me – everything about Hollywood is “foreign”) dish out their annual “thanks for showing up and getting wasted” trophies for best in show. Will there be an upset? Will an upset matter? Are things lining up in a predictable fashion before the Oscar nominees have even been announced? Possibly.

The big deal this week – and especially if the film loses the Best Picture Comedy/Musical award to “Little Miss Sunshine” or “Borat” – is the “Dreamgirls” dog pile. Analysts, prognosticators and columnists are beginning to sense weakness, pointing to everything from softening box office receipts to failure to capitalize on a significant Critics’ Choice Awards win last week, as indication of a change in the frontrunner wind. While reporting nuances and shifts in the Oscar season is necessary, it is also usually more indicative of groupthink falling apart when a wave like this shows itself. And groupthink should be a trap successfully avoided by journalists and awards prognosticators alike.

This is when it matters. This is the buzz that counts.

Oscar polls close this Saturday and we’re pretty much riding on the buzz wave of this week and last as far as how things shake down on the 23rd. Tomorrow the DGA continues the guild parade, while the writers, cinematographers and editors will follow suit later in the week. But today, right here, right now…these are the final moments of ignorant bliss concerning how the people who make the movies, by and large, view this season. Let’s take a look at the final surges.

Two weeks of critics’ awards and various precursors are now past us as we wind down 2006, the year that was. As the kudos fly, some circles bark about the whole affair being “irrelevant,” others sit up and take notice. But when you really buckle down and pay attention, the masses are speaking. Consensus is forming. The only thing left to figure out is the blue from which random nominees will come.

Who will be this year’s Fernando Meirelles and leap into the fray? Who will be this year’s Peter Sarsgaard and fall to the wayside after a strong showing throughout the precursor season? These are the lingering questions, and year in and year out, they remain unanswered until nomination morning.

This week the charts have been whittled down to pretty much the best interpretation possible given the material in front of us. Anything added or subtracted is really conjecture at this point, and of course I’ve taken my stabs in that regard here and there. But by and large, the map is being drawn up.

I'm under embargo on "The Good Shepherd" and won't see "Letters from Iwo Jima" until later in the week, so really, a column is a pointless exercise this week. There is also little movement in the charts in any case, but I can take a moment to mention this year's 2006 wrap-up pieces, which will begin the week of December 18th (we're there already!?). The top ten list will hit Monday, 12/18, my personal ballot on Wednesday, 12/19 and we'll wrap it all up with the obligatory "In Contention Awards" column that Friday. Then it's egg nog, champagne and before you freakin' know it, it'll be 2007. Wow.

Enjoy the charts:

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

Previous Oscar Columns:
11/27/06 - "Switching Gears"
10/23/06 - "Lighten Up"
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"

It’s been a while since we’ve dug into a full blown Oscar column here at In Contention. This week, with a few more screenings behind us and a modest few on the horizon (“Apocalypto” Thursday, “The Good Shepherd” a week from today), it seems like something is in the air: change.

Perhaps it’s entirely subjective, as my review of “Dreamgirls” last week is admittedly in the minority, but it seems to me the Best Picture frontrunner isn’t the frontrunner at all anymore. It seems to me the race is opening up wider, and with Clint Eastwood’s “Letters from Iwo Jima” leaping into the fray, supposedly to save the hide of “Flags of Our Fathers,” maybe an entry of social importance and relative “prestige” can take the top prize away from a thin and emotionally distancing musical like we almost saw happen in 2002.

I'm having a time getting Dreamweaver back up and running on my recently ressurrected computer, but I refuse to leave this site chartless for yet another week. So, after the jump, enjoy the rather barbaric formatting, but a chart's a chart. And I'm sticking my neck out here and there this week. Namely in Best Actor, where I think WB remains cuckoo for not declaring Leonardo DiCaprio, SCREAMING it, even, in the lead actor caegory. Their timidity is leaving a vacancy, and Aaron Eckhart is one hell of a charmer, as is the film he's in. I'm just sayin'...

The real thorn in my side this week is figuring out how "Letters from Iwo Jima" is going to play into this thing. It's said to be a smaller, more intimate film. We've all heard it's supposedly "better," but "Flags of Our Fathers" still has tech potential all over the place so who knows what'll happen. Are you pulling your hair out yet? I sure am.

Yeah, that's right. Nothing worth filling a column with this week (and you certainly won't catch me preaching the rules and anti-rules of the game that have been covered en masse for the better part of a decade).

Still no chart updates, though the predictions in the sidebar are updated accordingly. I'm buying "Little Miss Sunshine"'s Best Picture potential now, especially in the face of "Babel" dropping to fine but not across-the-board praise. It's always been a tough sell, one that still might fight its way into the drama race at the Golden Globes. But I'm not so certain of its Oscar potential anymore. I wasn't at last night's Westwood party, so I couldn't test those waters...but then, it was assuredly a thumbs up crowd all the way. Who can be negative when you've got free food and booze, stars floating around, etc.?

Meanwhile, the interesting thing this season seems to be that everything has peaked a bit early. "The Queen"'s buzz was massive and now there really just isn't anywhere else to go with it. Forest Whitaker's buzz wave has also subsided, which isn't great news considering "Venus" (which I'm seeing tonight) still has a release, and therefore, Peter O'Toole talking point bruhaha, still to come. And when "The Pursuit of Happyness" finally drops in December - watch out for Big Willy.

I'm eager to see the new listing of Gurus of Gold charts at Movie City News this week as well (which has been a far better gauge of the buzz than anything else out there - an honest observation, not a pissing match instigation). A few of the Gurus, I think, were also at last week's screening of "The Pursuit of Happyness," so it'll be interesting to see who's thinking Best Picture this time around.

In the meantime, a few heavy-hitters still need to be unveiled. Some have seen "Notes on a Scandal," others have not. Some have seen "The Good German," others have not. And no one's seen "The Good Shepherd." Ditto "Dreamgirls," but that'll change next week. So there's really nothing but immediate anticipation and no real commentary on the whole mess to bother with this week.

Keep it here later in the week for Gerard's interview with editors Lucia Zucchetti and Leo Trombetta of "The Queen" and "Little Children" respectively. And, of course, there's always rumblings aplenty at The Blog.

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.

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.

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 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"

No column this week. Nothing to write about (other than more discussion on the brilliance of "The Departed") and not enough moving and shaking to really get into anything with meat on it. However, the real issue this week and last seems to be the generally overwhelming response to "The Last King of Scotland," a film Fox Searchlight is really starting to see as a Best Picture contender.

This is the other end of the spectrum from "Little Miss Sunshine," yes, but the typical PR machinery on Kevin Macdonald's searing effort thus far has been smooth sailing. When you've got Oprah raving about the film, Cate Blanchett shouting its praises to buddy Brad Pitt, guild audiences feeling shaken to the core from the emotional turbulence of the film, and, not to mention, a visual marketing scheme that seems built for Oscar ads (imagine all that orange and red throughout one of Variety's special issues this fall) - let's just say there's a lot of potential there.

Anyway, more next week. I'll leave you with the charts:

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"

In the wake of a somewhat uneventful Toronto Film Festival, we take away from the festivities more in the way of buzz amongst various opinions than we do from actual awards bestowed. “Bella” snagged the People’s Choice award Saturday afternoon, but it doesn’t really speak to what we’re hearing elsewhere. In the end, Hollywood has successfully utilized the festival for the fall awards campaign – an industry of manipulation.

The biggest boost comes for actor Peter O’Toole, whose performance in “Venus” is largely considered lower rung for the infamous thespian, but still viewed as good enough to finally hand him an acting Oscar after seven misfires. O’Toole’s situation seems interestingly reminiscent of Paul Newman’s in the mid-80s. After receiving an Honorary Oscar in 1985, Newman took home the leading man win for one of his lesser turns in Martin Scorsese’s “The Color of Money.”

Things might be moving slowly up in Toronto for the festivalgoers, but some movement is taking place in the awards race nonetheless. Let’s run through the laundry list and get back to festival buzz.

So Clint Eastwood’s “Letters from Iwo Jima” gets December 2006 positioning after all. Great idea from an artistic standpoint, bad idea from an awards marketing standpoint. The thing is, “Letters” gets its domestic distribution out of Warner Bros., staring at a lone Steven Soderbergh black and white thriller for its awards destiny (which, on paper, seems like it should be enough). And Edward Zwick’s “The Blood Diamond” just doesn’t look like Oscar material. “Letters” isn’t set up with Paramount, so the decision isn’t really theirs to make. At the end of the day, an ambitious decision by one studio could be disastrous for both.

If either of Eastwood’s Iwo Jima films has a shot at a Best Picture nomination, it’s “Flags of Our Fathers.” A quick glance at the history of Best Picture nominated foreign language films will tell the tale there. “Letters” was just the insurance for as much, originally slated to drop in January, right in the middle of the awards flurry. Now, who knows what the double bill will ultimately yield? Maybe there will be no effect, but there is obvious vote-splitting potential with such a scenario.

As Los Angeles sits like an abandoned wasteland and journalists try to decipher whether Warner Bros. is going to scoot Clint Eastwood’s “Letters from Iwo Jima” onto the 2006 schedule, Toronto is gearing up and ready to answer some questions…hopefully. The opening night presentation of “The Journals of Knud Rasmussen” is set to unveil Thursday night and as the festival commences, maybe some things will firm up. We’ll see which films go the route of “Hotel Rwanda” and which will fall the way of “Elizabethtown.” Another “Crash” could even turn up and explode onto the scene for next season’s awards derby.

Regardless of all else, one thing is certain. Hollywood has really learned to tame this beast, turning the attention of note toward Gala presentations that, more often than not, kick-start awards campaigns in earnest.

Here’s a preview:

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.

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.

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.

The Oscar season 2006 looks to be much more varied and potentially more exciting than the drab affair that was 2005. While the steady stream of socially and politically conscious filmmaking from last year was a creatively exceptional one on a few fronts, it also set the stage for a number of pitfalls for filmmakers struggling to inject purpose and importance into their work. The showdown come Oscar night was fated from the outset, it seemed, and the two most divisive films of the oeuvre came head to head. The result was embraced by some; reviled by others.

And so we begin to dip our toes into a new season. The Toronto and Telluride Film Festivals are on the horizon, where studios begin their Oscar campaigns in earnest, gathering various reactions to their upcoming fall film product and testing the waters of critical reception. But as of this time, only a precious few films have boasted any real potential for Oscar success.

Universal’s “United 93” remains the most critically acclaimed film of the year. Cannes claimed residence amongst the awards season for Paramount Vantage’s “Babel” and, perhaps, Lionsgate’s “Bug.” The June release of Fox’s “The Devil Wears Prada” was met with universal acclaim for another revered Meryl Streep performance. And next week Paramount releases “World Trade Center,” a moment that will largely be seen as the kickoff for the 2006 film awards season.

All of this we know.

What we don’t know is which of the upcoming perceived “Oscar heavies” will inevitably crash and burn in accordance with the legacies left by such films as “Pay it Forward,” “The Shipping News,” “Alexander” and “Kingdom of Heaven.” What we don’t know is which thespian’s career is going to receive a jumpstart as a result of awards success, much like Jamie Foxx in 2004 or Terrence Howard just last year. What we don’t know is how the season will be defined. What will the industry and audiences have learned when the curtain falls on the 79th Annual Academy Awards? What effect will the awards season have on the legion of projects awaiting budgetary consideration, green lights, or otherwise, rejection? What we don’t know is so much more fun.

Rounding out Pre-Oscar week today is a look at the phenomenon known as the “lone director” in the awards-watching community (and I totally I think I might have coined the term…but I won’t swear to it). This is the slot amongst the Best Director nominees that tends to go to a director whose film is not represented in the Best Picture list of nominees. Typically the slot goes to a filmmaker who either offers up something truly unique (Pedro Almodóvar for “Talk to Her,” Fernando Meirelles for “City of God”) or whose film was seemingly just out of reach of that Best Picture nomination (Stephen Daldry for “Billy Elliot,” Mike Figgis for “Leaving Las Vegas”).

Now, what propably springs to mind here is “Hey, there wasn’t a lone director nominee last year.” That is true. And plenty of effort was put into trying to decipher who that nominee would be, regardless. Every once in a while, the two categories match up five for five. But it isn’t often, not by a long shot. So, it’s an exercise that still boasts some merit.

Any number of things can change one’s perception of an oddity like this, but from here, this is my ranked list of potential “lone director” nominees.

Christopher Nolan hit his 2005 effort, “Batman Begins,” right out of the park, proving that the legacy of Bryan Singer could hold solid – comic book franchises can be tangible and realism can flourish. Nolan found Oscar recognition right out of the gate in the form of a screenplay nomination for 2001’s “Memento,” and this year his genre magician feud “The Prestige” looks to have equal parts charisma and creepiness. It might be a stretch to hope for Best Picture recognition of a film like this, but the directors’ branch is always willing to step outside the box. And surely, there might be some love left over from last year.

Continuing Pre-Oscar Week today, we’ve got a unique look at the acting contenders on the horizon. In most cases across the Oscarnet universe (did I just coin a term?), you’ll find various, typically conclusive analyses of the separate acting categories. However, there are a number of contenders I feel may be falling under the radar of prognosticators and awards season columnists crazy enough to predict the race this far out.

The following is, therefore, a list of contenders that may find the spotlight as the year continues forward. From here, however, they remain performances, seen or otherwise, lacking the coverage they might deserve. So I’m happy to point some attention their way, as these are various acting contenders that I’m surely taking into consideration.

(NOTE: These are listed in order of my subjective take on the lack of attention the performances are receiving halfway through the year.)

The trailer for “A Good Year” finally hit this week, and though it looks light and fluffy, I still think Ridley Scott always makes the best of even the most derivative of material. “Thelma & Louise” and “Matchstick Men” could easily have gone the way of second or third tier work, and they’re both fantastic outings, one of them a certifiable modern classic. So – that was all just buildup for justifying consideration of the love interest in this romantic comedy, opposite Russell Crowe. Marion Cotillard is largely an unknown right now, but a little screen time opposite the rowdy Aussie could make all the difference in the world for her career. And if the film proves to be a heavy-hitting awards contender, it would be quite foolish to disregard her.

In years past it has always been a smart decision to look to studio history when laying out a set of Oscar predictions. After all, studio pedigree can be as important as filmmaker pedigree. But with the demise of the Weinstein Miramax and the collapse of Dreamworks into the Paramount fold, not to mention a shifting and sliding of Oscar consultation all over town, things are in a consistent state of transition the last few years.

That having been said, the tealeaves are beginning to settle once again, and a few studios are laying claim as awards houses to watch (Sony, Warner Bros.), while others cling to recent success as a hopeful current driving force of consistency (Focus, Universal).

Last year’s Best Picture victor Lionsgate Films doesn’t look likely to approach the higher levels this time around, and in fact it doesn’t look to be such a miraculous year for the specialty divisions of other studios on the whole. Even still, it looks like six companies have solid enough slates worthy of discussion here today.

Over on Buena Vista Blvd., the Walt Disney Company certainly doesn’t have a glut of awards hopefuls, but they do have a solid concentration that will likely gather a large number of nominations collectively. Not usually known for its Oscar successes outside of the animation division, Miramax has always been Disney's awards hound. Though, curiously enough, a one-two punch in 1999 came out of nowhere as “The Insider” and “The Sixth Sense” both sailed to Best Picture nods.

This year “Cars” and “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” are the summer popcorn entries that will mop up in categories like visual effects, sound and sound editing, amongst others. Meanwhile, “The Prestige” seems to be the right mixture of genre and unique storytelling that might surprise. But big dog “Apocalypto,” from the increasingly eccentric Mel Gibson, could certainly stand on its own two legs throughout a number of categories.