Academy Morning

Nominations are in, (Here in case you're curious) and man, it's been a while since they were announced so late. Overall, we mostly know how the season is turning out, so there aren't a huge number of surprises.

It's kind of odd. I think Christopher Nolan has perhaps the most obnoxious fanbase for a legitimately good director. But even I feel bad for him every Oscar morning. There's being overlooked, and then there's just being mean. In most other circumstances, missing out to the Coen Brothers would practically be an honor, but even that feels a little like a slap in the face. Not Reader slap, but still...the Coens were recently awarded, and True Grit, while a fine movie, was the Coens playing. (Although yes, both parties were better than the traffic cop work of Tom Hooper). To be dissed in favor of a genre remake, when that's what got your movie dissed last time? The Academy's constant snubbing feels so very palpably stubborn and contrarian, I think I'd rather be Barack Obama in the House, than Christopher Nolan at an Academy Luncheon.

Looking at the nomination totals, which don't always mean anything, but it's fun to consider; The King's Speech leads the total in nominations. This often happens with period pieces, but there will probably be a lot of talk (Of which I guess I'm now culpable) of it possibly being the dark horse to win best picture. It's certainly the most "traditional" type of Oscar movie, as opposed the clinical look at youth culture that is The Social Network, or the outright surreality of Black Swan. But in turn, if King's Speech does take the top prize, it will go from being seen as a nice little throwback that could, to an example of the Academy's stodgy and cowardly mores. It's what I call "the unflattering magnifying glass of success".

As for the acting nods. Not too many huge surprises here and there. Javier Bardem kind of came out of nowhere. A lot of people were wondering if the Social Network would get a nomination for one of its supporting players, but I think between the relative wetness of the cast, and maybe a little vote splitting, it wasn't a major shock. In any case, it's nice to see John Hawkes get some recognition. He's a true working actor, and I do personally like seeing Deadwood alums making good. Perhaps the most surprising miss at all was Mila Kunis. (And there's certainly room for the argument Stanfield was put in the wrong category because it was "easier") But even then, it's not an inconceivable snub, most of us were just surprised she was plowing through the precursors. It's kind of funny to think of all the That 70's Show actors, she'd be the first with an Oscar nomination. Heck, she even beat Ashton Kutcher to playing Natalie Portman's love interest. There might be concerns about her being one-note, but we'll see where her career takes her.

Back to Inception, it really is crazy to think the movie got left out for editing, when they really did edit the hell out of that thing. I'll be the first to admit Nolan loves his gimmicks, but just Black Swan could have easily been Burlesque-level laughable without its cast, Inception could have been a trainwreck without a steady methodical hand. (See Zardoz for when a film gets way ahead of itself) Sort of sad to see Tron: Legacy get left out of two nominations it did deserve. Daft Punk's innovative score really made the movie, but then again, Score is one of the most notoriously conservative of the categories. And while most of us forgot Hereafter even existed, the VFX branch really, really gets impressed with water-based money shots.

All-in-all, not the worst slate of nominations imaginable, although there will always be the requisite grouchiness. But as I remarked a week ago how audiences were surprisingly receptive to Oscar bait this year, it seems the Academy has in turn kind of been very, very old school with their selections this season.