The 2010 Oscar nominations, announced this morning, deviated very little from the expected template. In fact, I'm somewhat proud of how well I did a few weeks ago when I concocted my personal list of all the Oscar nominees in every category. You can check that out
here if you'd like. Every year we approach the Oscar nominations and awards with a mixture of dread and hope. These awards have disappointed us so many times in the past, yet, like a victim of Stockholm syndrome, we crawl back to see if, somehow, they managed to get it right. The 2010 nominations re-teach us several important lessons about these awards:
1. Populist entertainment will always be recognized. I have serious problems with films like
Avatar and
The Blind Side appearing in a list of the ten best films of the year. Seriously?
Avatar contains some of the worst writing in a major blockbuster this year, its dubious achievement bested only by the depraved, brainless depths of
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and
2012. Meanwhile,
The Blind Sidehas exactly one good performance in it. Neither film is
bad, but to consider them the best achievements in film in 2009 is ludicrous. If we're going to pick these two films, then why not
The Hangover or
The Watchmen?
2. Animation is breaking out of the ghetto. When the Animated Feature was created in 2001, it unfairly created a ghetto for animated films within the competition. But with the strong showing by
Up across the entire Oscar field, it's clear that animated films will simply not sit at the back of the bus. That said, I still maintain my position that
Upis unworthy of so much adoration. I mean, the score for the film is nominated this year - in, admittedly, a weak year - when the Academy completely ignored Michael Giacchino's brilliant score for
The Incredibles in 2004. It's all part of the evidence suggesting that animated films are slowly gaining acceptance and respect among the film community.
3. Clint Eastwood films will be nominated for everything he does until he dies.Invictus is a fairly bad film, yet it managed to steal two undeserved acting nods and threatened for Best Picture. This is due to Eastwood pandering for an Oscar nomination by choosing material that feels important. Hell, Eastwood's name almost managed to get the truly awful
Gran Torino an Oscar nomination last year; it was only because I sacrificed goats to Baal that the film made a last-minute disappearance from ballots. In any event,
Invictus definitely does not deserve consideration for anything over films like
Antichrist or
The Watchmen or
The Hangover, all of which are better films than
Invictus.
4. Sometimes a blind chicken will find a kernel of corn. It was heartening to see the nominations for
District 9, a bloody and unusual genre film that was in danger of being ignored by Hollywood earlier this year. Made outside the studio system,
District 9 shows that, every so often, the Academy gets it right.
5. Oscar will always go sappy and obvious in acting categories. Not only is
Invictus nominated for Best Picture, but Morgan Freeman finds himself unfairly nominated for his impersonation of Nelson Mandela in that film. The reason for this is simple: Freeman is playing a noble and well-respected political leader. There is no way Freeman performance deserves to be considered among the top five of 2009, to the exclusion of Sam Rockwell for
Moonor Sharlto Copley for
District 9.
6. Only major actors get nominated for Best Actor. It is unfathomable to give Christoph Waltz a Best Supporting Actor nomination for
Inglourious Basterds, when it was clearly the lead performance in that ensemble film. In 1991, Anthony Hopkins was given the award for Best Actor for his
sixteen minute performance in
Silence of the Lambs. If Hopkins can receive a Best Actor Oscar for that, then Waltz deserves to receive a nomination for Best Actor for this film, which he carries by himself. Let's face it: the most important arc of the film involves his Col. Landa. If Waltz is not the lead actor in this ensemble, then who is? Brad Pitt and his irritating Tennessee accent? Or is it Eli Roth and his fucking stupid smirk?? Of course Waltz is the lead actor ... but because he's unknown, he is given the lesser honor. Ridiculous.
7. Actors playing psychopaths will always get nominated. Stanley Tucci does not deserve to be considered among the top five supporting performances as the creep in
The Lovely Bones. Yes, he was sinister and unnerving ... so what? You give anybody a disgusting wig, gawdy glasses, and some schlocky horror music on the soundtrack, and they could accomplish what Tucci did in that indulgent Peter Jackson mess. Does Tucci deserve a shot over Anthony Mackie in
The Hurt Locker? Of course not. Frankly, I would have preferred it if Zachary Quinto as Spock in
Star Trek had been recognized over Tucci's stereotypical performance. A missed opportunity. Overall, the Oscars are close to correct in this, a weak year for outstanding films. My only other gripe would be the exclusion of
Anvil: The Story Of Anvil in the Best Documentary category. It is one of the most inspirational stories of the year, especially considering the positive aftermath the film had on that band's fortunes. But whatever. Considering past injustices meted out by the Academy, it's nice to see a set of nominations that feel somewhat accurate. Now, let's see if they pick the winners correctly in a month ...