So I was perusing the Oscar™ nominations and realized, with more than a little joy, that they may have just gotten things right for once.  Well, as much as Hollywood can.  This is because I was not really upset by any of the picks made.  Sure, I will grumble about the virtual shut out on “King Kong” but I can not really say that was unexpected.  Bold and big, it is just the kind of movie the Oscars™ normally fetes.  Movies like that are made for the Oscars™ .  Even better, it would have been deserved because inside “King Kong” was a lovely, emotional film.  Still, I can not really complain about the picks that were made, because I agreed with them.

            For best picture we have “Brokeback Mountain,” “Capote,” “Crash,” “Good Night, and Good Luck,” and “Munich.”  Hmm, all at the start of the alphabet too, although I doubt that had spit to do with the noms.  Looking at the nominations, there is definitely a pattern.  “Brokeback” for all the press about it being “controversial” is really just a well told love story that incidentally involves two males.  Same with “Capote” actually, although the love is one sided and more intellectual.  “Crash” is the kind of movie people living in L.A. are going to remember because it not only about race relations in Los Angeles, but it is a well directed and acted one.  “Good Night” is about the media standing up to government, which has never been timelier.  As for “Munich” I am sure you can point at the ongoing fight between Jews and Muslim extremists, but for me, that movie deserved its nomination because it was one of the best films Spielberg has ever made.  Although I feel “King Kong,” “The Constant Gardener,” and “Sin City” should have been given more weight, I can not say that I am surprised none were included.  “Kong” is long and performed poorly at the box office, and on top of that, Jackson’s statuettes for “The Lord of the Ring” still have that new cash cow smell to them.  So really, the snub was not unsurprising.  “Constant Gardener” was a brilliant film from a brilliant director, and though beautifully crafted and acted, I have to admit to being slightly disappointed by it when I saw it.  However, I blame that on the fact that Meirelles last film “City of God,” may well be the best film ever.  That was a hard act to follow, but I think he did splendidly with “The Constant Gardener.”  The film was bold and complicated, but the emotional payoff at the end was a thing of beauty.  As far as craftsmanship, it probably tops “Good Night, and Good Luck.”  Finally, “Sin City” was not surprise as a shut out.  Violent and very different from most films this year, it was a unique and entertaining movie, but never stood a chance in a competition as staid as the Oscars™.

            In regards to acting, I have seen about 95% of the male performances compared to about 35% of the female.  That is an odd anomaly but it is easily understood when the bulk of the female nominations came from films that never really made it to my neck of the woods.  I’m trying still and a few I plan to rent this week on my day off, but it will take time for me to review a lot of the work.  Most surprising to me is that I’m torn between Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams.  On one hand, Weisz was so brilliant in “Gardener” that it hardly seems fair to anyone nominated against her.  On the other, so was Williams.  On top of that, I have been pulling for Williams since her days on “Dawson’s Creek.”  I never quite understood the fuss over Katie Holmes either in beauty or acting ability, when the lovely and extremely talented Williams was standing RIGHT NEXT TO HER.  But here we are, the end of the year and Holmes is leaden with the spawn of a bouncy toothed monkey impressed with his own mediocrity and Williams just had the beautiful baby girl of a man who is as much in love with her as Holmes man, but seems to manage to express all of his emotion right on his face.  I don’t know, maybe acting styles are indicative of how the actor actually shows emotion in real life.  This would explain why Holmes and Cruise over emote like a mofo and Williams and Ledger express total rapture, joy, and peace by the slightest of facial and body movements.  Golly, this paragraph on the acting nominations has not really discussed much of the nominations, has it?  So back to that.  The males are very strong this year.  Phoenix, Strathairn, and Hoffman are brilliant playing actual, famous people.  But Ledger and Howard are just as amazing playing actual, unfamous people.  I admit, I am a bit stumped as to who deserves to win but I think Hoffman has the edge, closely followed by Ledger.  It is unfortunate for Phoenix who inhabited the soul of Johnny Cash so expertly, that one could almost question how difficult it was for him.  That is the mark of a good actor, but I think Phoenix will end up being overlooked despite the level of his work in “Walk the Line.”

            The next amazing thing to me about the nominations is that I have seen three of the five documentaries.  That is a happy development I think.  This is not because I am proud of myself for seeing so many documentaries.  When I lived in DC, I saw a lot more documentaries, which was due mostly to the fact that documentaries are big in DC.  Living in Orlando now, far fewer come to town.  So even though I saw only about a third of the documentaries I have seen the previous two or three years, I ended up seeing more nominated films.  That is because this was the year of the documentary.  They were huge.  And not just one or two like in years past.  “March of the Penguins,” though very much like any special on Discovery Channel or National Geographic Channel (believe me, I have watched enough to make that assessment), was a runaway hit.  The baby penguins sure were cute, and who could blame kids for wanting to watch them waddle in that funny way penguins do.  Not to mention, much like in “Bambi,” a child can learn about death and the strength of love.  Though the logistics of shooting “March” alone are worth an award, for me, the two best documentaries of the year were “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room” and “Murderball.”  “Murderball” did not play so well in theatres, which is a real shame.  This was a moving and funny film about athletic quadriplegics, playing the rough sport of murderball.  Like most documentaries, it followed the lives, loves, and disappointments of its subjects, but unlike most documentaries, it was never boring.  “Enron” however has to get my vote for best of the year because it was not only well done, but it made you angry.  It made you want to do something.  And unlike when Michael Moore’s films make you feel that way, the creators of “Enron” did not have to do much manipulating.  The subjects of “Enron” are disgusting, foul, loathsome creatures and this documentary serves as a reminder that these people should not now or ever get away with what they did.  Even typing that short sentence has gotten me upset again.  The start of the major trials in Texas is even more laughable now that the doc has been nominated.  Every time I see Ken Lay grin that Karl Roveish smile and proclaim that he will be shown to be innocent, I want to punch him in the face.  He exhibits no remorse, because he has none.  The documentary “Enron” is a scathing view of the fall of the empire and never has a nomination for a film been more timely, expected, or deserved.  My greatest hope is that its nomination will cause more people to seek it out and see a lot of what the news did not report on.  America should be angry.  And that documentary is a nice place to start.

            Finally, a word on the directing nominations.  Though most were richly deserved, I think it was a terrible shame that Meirelles was shut out.  He is one of the most inventive and brilliant directors of recent history.  His work has reinvented and brought new life to film, and I think it is rather shocking not to see his name on the list.  Though I really enjoyed “Good Night, and Good Luck,” I would have bumped Clooney for Meirelles.  The sequencing of “The Constant Gardener” was brilliant, even if the pacing was a tad slow.  Though “Gardener” may not have been one of the best of the year (and that may be debatable actually), the direction was sublime and superior to the vast majority of films this year.  I think it was the most shocking of omissions, but then again, every year brings at least one omission that causes me misery.  Well two if you count the writing snub of "Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang."

     Every year, the nominations that do seem to always get things right are the writing nominations.  However, I think the omission of “Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang” is criminal.  The dialogue and freshness to the script was such a breath of fresh air, it hurts to think it was ignored.  I would have replaced “Syriana” with “Kiss” for the last nomination.  “Syriana” was good, but plot and dialogue wise, it was lacking.  “Kiss” had a nice flow and sense of humor to it that just should have been noted.  I am surprised it was ignored both here and in the WGA noms (although the WGA did see fit to nominate “The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” which was a happy surprise).  Considering its box office, I guess I should not be too shocked, but I think it had some of the best dialogue of any movie this year.  Oh well, it just is not award season without a little disappointment, right?