What has always baffled me is how a novice or child actor is deemed among the year's best. Is there any other professions in the world (with rare exceptions in sports) that devalue experience and craft when judging the best among their peers? It leaves me thinking that a good number of the screen actors guild lack the ability to discriminate between nuanced and courageous performances and those that are one note, stir easy emotion, or are delivered in the context of flattering spectacle. What were all those acting classes for?

Despite its success this morning, I really think Warner Bros. bungled a lot of the nominations. Clearly they underestimated the love for Letters from Iwo Jima-- I cannot imagine that if there had been a real push for Ken Watanabe or Kazanuri Ninomiya they would have been ignored. Same thing with the acting nominations for The Departed. I'm thrilled for Mark Wahlberg but a clearer campaign could have resulted in additional awards for Jack Nicholson, Leonardo diCaprio, and what happened to Matt Damon? I also think Emma Thompson, Meryl Streep in A Prairie Home Companion, the cast of The Painted Veil, Brad Pitt, Aaron Eckhart and James McAvoy all deserved more consideration.

Kris,

I would disagree regarding your comment that AMISTAD is Djimon's only awards-worthy performance. His role in IN AMERICA was an amazing turn - the man is simply a genius actor.

I would also disagree that the actors choices aren't inspired (well, I don't completely disagree). Jennifer Hudson definitely can sing and she gave a very good debut in Dreamgirls, but I agree that she is a bit overrated. But the nominations for Adriana Barraza and Rinko Kikuchi in BABEL were definitely inspired choices by the Academy - these two women were UNKNOWN even in their own countries and now they are Oscar nominees and deservedly so because of their brave "tour de force" performances. Jackie Earle Haley - another amazing performance that deserved recognition today. Meryl Streep - she brought a lot to what could have been a complete caricature, but instead she offered a full view of the devil and brought heart into it. Sad to see James McAvoy missing from THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND but Academy members need to see the movies and campaign them and Searchlight dropped the ball on that one. I would have also liked to have seen Emma Thompson in the supporting actress category but unfortunately Sony dropped the ball on that one. But they did get a lot right today too.

A couple thoughts

1) Someone -- Nathaniel R, I believe -- said way back when Dreamgirls was in development, that WHOEVER was cast as Effie would win the S. Actress Oscar. This is a clear case where it's about the role (and, yes, the voice) and not the performance.

2) I too have wondered what became of Matt Damon's "Departed" role in all this -- I thought it was the best in the film. Extremely subtle and disturbing. I'm glad Jack didn't sneak in for hamming it up though.

3) Thrilled for Jackie Earle Haley, who gave one of the bravest performances I've ever seen.

4) Prairie Home Companion was a weak and uneven, albeit pleasant, effort and was rightfully ignored.

5) And I knew it wasn't going to happen, but in what possible world is it fair that Cuaron was not nominated for Best Director? I mean good lord!

Kris,

I cannot thank you enough for this post. I agree wit most of what you have said. I've been saying this for month now and 'The Fountain' truly is the best movie of the year.

Everything about this movie is just beautiful - from amazing Art Design to Clint Mansell's astonishing score. Hugh Jackman also gave what can only describe as the most commited and heartfelt perfromance.

I knew the Academy wasn't ready to embrace the film yet but, c'mon, how could they ignore the score?

I'm very happy to see Philip Glass nominated again but it's his early, groundbraking work on the Quatsi trilogy that should have won him Oscars.

People just don't get real sci-fi. It's happened with Spielberg's brilliant A.I. and it's happening again. Read Roger Ebert's review of that movie - it's embarassing when you realize that he doesn't get the simplest point about that movie.

I haven't seen 'Blood Diamond' yet but Djimon Hounsou's performance in Amistard truly was eye-opening. I aslmost don't care if he doesn't deserve his nod here because he was that good in Amistad (another damn fine movie).

It's also sad that they couldn't find a spot for Satoshi Kon's "Paprika" in the best animated film category. The guy could be the finest animation director of his generation and he keeps getting snubbed.

P.S. Why is 'The Devil Wears Prada' even nominated for anything?

Sheesh, Kris, aren't you forgetting something here? This is the Oscars, man. They're not meant to be about absolute quality and never really have been. That's a friggin' myth. So why are you expecting them to all of a sudden change. Look at them for what they are -- a marketing tool of the biz -- entertainment of sorts. I always love the things they somehow manage to come up with in spite of what should be good sense. Embrace the weirdness and you'll feel better. BTW, DiCaprio likely received a lot of votes for both films -- but he apparently (according to Anne Thompson) refused ads that would have promoted his performance over anyone else in The Departed. Only Wahlberg's perf was campaigned strongly for supporting in the end. It's not like DiCaprio would have won even if nominated for The Departed, is it???? Personally I thought his perf in Blood Diamond was a real standout job...not as artsy as Departed but still excellent.

Hi Kris--
You are so right--especially about the perfs in PRAIRIE but let's not forget--in the OVERRATED column--Eddie Murphy who in no way deserves a nomination for finally being good in something. You can toss Breslin and Arkin in there as well as far as I am concerned.

Kris who do you think has a better shot... Adriana Barraza or Rinko Kikuchi...

austin111, I'm quite aware of and have long ago made peace with the fact that the Academy isn't about quality. Ditto the awards' position as a marketing tool. I wouldn't do so well in predictions year in and year out if that wasn't the case.

That doesn't mean I'm not gonna bitch about what conitinues to be the industry's biggest embarassment, year after year after year.

Carlinhos: Kikuchi.

"You can toss Breslin and Arkin in there as well as far as I am concerned."

Both gave great perfomances. They are only a few of the performances I can't complain about. Arkin's performance was very natural, very believable. He reminded me of real people I knew and that is a sign of real actor.

I first realised there was something not quite right with the Academy in my second year of following the Oscars, when they overlooked a little film called The Piano for Best Original Score. It was somewhat controversial at the time and it still boggles the mind somewhat to think that it wasn't nominated.

I've known since then that the Oscars aren't about rewarding quality. I still follow them though, just not as fanatically as I used to in the mid 90s, when I would spend all of my free time making lists and checking trends from the previous 60 years or so.

And even though a film not getting an Oscar nomination doesn't make it any less of a film, it would be nice to think that a gem you're awfully fond of would get a wider audience if it had received a few nominations. Then again, there are films that have been nominated for Best Picture over the last few years that the average punter hasn't even heard of (Il Postino immediately springs to mind).

Sorry, Kris, but about 2 other people in the world agree with you about Meryl Streep in Prada.

The reason this performance took off with awards is because EVERYBODY LOVES IT.

I do, however, basically agree with you on Jennifer Hudson. That was the first acting she'd ever done in her life, and I give her MAJOR props for being as good as she was, but she was not award-worthy.

I want Breslin to win that award.

Hm, I guess I can comment now. I'll be back then.

Yeah, you need to get over the Meryl thing. Well, okay, no - it's fine to not like it, but you seem to not be able to understand that people do. It's not like the film was critically reviled and was a flop and she's only getting in cause she's Meryl. She was legitmately praised and it was a hit.

But, agreed on Prairie, DiCaprio, Mansell and Desplat, but at least now that Desplat is a nominee they might be able to reward him more often in the future.

No Inland Empire or Breaking and Entering or Stranger than Fiction or Thank You For Smoking is totally understandable.

When were they EVER going to go for Inland Empire though?

I'm glad Wahlberg got in over Nicholson. He was sooo much better than Jack.

Breslin and Arkin (and the rest of the LMS ensemble) were all very good...and the film was very good...but very good should not be nominated for Academy Awards. It should be about excellence.

I don't think any of the films you mentioned, with the exception of "Shortbus", were excluded because of the type of movie they were. Gosling, Haley, Kikuchi, and Barazza were inspired choices in the acting categories. Sure there were plenty that I thought deserved it and were snubbed, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. I can debate all day on how Greg Kinnear is at least as deserving as Will Smith in the Best Actor category and how Clive Owen is far better than both, but the academy voters don't see it that way. Right now, I'm just stoked that the Academy didn't rubber stamp Dreamgirls through, and I'm hoping for an upset in the supporting categories.

The Oscars will never be bold, daring or smart enough to nominate truly deserving films, but the best we can hope for is small steps. My personal choices for the first two:

1. Get rid of the Best Song category. It's been ages since songs played a key role in films enough to warrant their own category and time and again this provides the most cringe-worthy aspects of the show to watch.

2. Completely re-work the Visual Effects department. Nowhere is a category more obviously filled with nominations that confuse "Most Visual Effects" with "Best Visual Effects". Truly unique, creative and seamless effects used on a smaller scale like in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "United 93" are what elevate those films to higher levels of quality.

Chad

I really like your comments about Visual Effects above. Would you care to go into more detail about United 93's VFX, and perhaps other filsm that were overlooked this year.

I didn't say the oscars weren't about quality. I said they weren't "absolutely" about quality. Fairly often the winners are, in fact, deserving of their awards. And, often enough, there are omissions that are difficult to comprehend. Still, you have to accept that the process can never be perfect in any awards game. It's all extremely subjective. In the case of oscars, it also has a helluva lot to do with politics and money, especially money, with a pinch of art mixed in to keep things interesting.

Volver was snubbed big time. That was quite sad, considering it's tied for my #1 with Pan's Labyrinth. I agree Clive Owen was great, but not better than Will Smith. And for those that still don't think Eddie Murphy's any good, rewatch the Nutty Professor. That's one of the all time great screen performances. The range is phenomenal. And here's hoping Pan's wins Best Score.

Kris, don't you think The Prestige screenplay deserved a nom over Borat? I mean, what was Borat adapted from?

Actually, I still consider the script to be "The Prestige"'s big weakness.

But please don't make me say bad things about Chris Nolan!

I am AMAZED that you had the exquisite taste to mention Gael Garcia Bernal. I thought I was the only one who adored this brilliant, textured, multifaceted performance. He gets my win for this year in a heartbeat. Awesome =).