I have varied tastes, having argued the merits of gross-out comedy vs. Oscar bait type of movies. Everyone I met in the movie business claimed “Election” was their favorite movie of 1999, and the only person I met who had actually seen “Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo” was Rob Schneider’s agent. And he was lukewarm about it.

Total worldwide box office take for “Election” = $16M ($14.8M Domestic).

Total worldwide box office take for “Deuce Bigalow” = $92M ($65M Domestic).

Not bashing either movie; I love them both. But you can see a discrepancy.

Anyway, the nominees for Best Picture:

“Gladiator” – Saw this at the pre-ArcLight Cinerama Dome and was blown away. Still have to watch it on TNT at least one of the thirty-eight times a month they play it.

“Erin Brockovich” – One of my favorite genres: Movies that suck on paper but are actually really good. I never expected the movie to be as funny as it is. Albert Finney wuz robbed.

“Traffic” - The crowd where I saw it at the General Cinema AVCO Center in West L.A. booed Orrin Hatch’s cameo. Childish? Yes. Hilarious? Hells yes. Really like the movie a lot.

“Chocolat” - Wait, what?

“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” – Ang Lee brings high wire kung fu to the masses.

WHAT SHOULDA BEEN NOMINATED?

“Erin Brockovich” - You know why everyone thinks that all lawyers are backstabbing bloodsucking scumbags? Because they are!

“Memento” - I told my boss about your condition and stuff, and he said try and rent him another room.

“Almost Famous” - They want you to get drunk on feeling like you belong.

“Traffic” - Is this like freebasing? No, not like. It is.

“Gladiator” - It vexes me. I’m terribly vexed.

WHAT SHOULDA WON

“Erin Brockovich” wins by a nose for me. The truth behind the movie doesn’t bother me so much because unlike in the case of, say, “Fair Game” (this one, not this one), the filmmakers sought to make an entertaining movie. The liberal agenda was not the focus of the movie. Furthermore, an argument could be made that it’s not a liberal movie at all.

Soderbergh finally took a stab at a mainstream Hollywood movie with 1998’s “Out of Sight,” which didn’t find the audience it deserved. 1999 saw him return to edgier fair with “The Limey,” a fractured crime drama with a great performance by Terrence Stamp. Was he as good in “The Limey” as he was in “The Phantom Menace?” I’m not sure. Chancellor Valorum is a character that will be remembered for-never.

“Erin Brockovich” has no business being as good as it is. The key to me is the humor. It’s a really funny movie with a great central character. Julia Roberts tears into the title role, and she has the perfect foil in Albert Finney, who plays a rumpled, somewhat frazzled attorney who’s just never met anyone like the snarky, bitchy Erin.

I worked in a movie theatre in Austell, Georgia in 1999. It was the type of theatre where “Election” bombed and “Deuce Bigalow” made bank. At least half of the people who bought tickets for “Notting Hill” did so as follows: “Two for the Julia Roberts movie.”

If you question Julia Roberts’ talent, fine, we can disagree. But she was, at the time, a pure movie star. Consider the poster: her. Sneering. In sunglasses. With a baby slung on her hip.

Movie. Star. She is such a big star that when “Duplicity” bombed, no one thought to ask if it was because Clive Owen isn’t a movie star. Sexist Fair or not, the movie’s failure was placed entirely on her shoulders. Audiences were rejecting her, not Clive Owen. I guess that makes sense.

She’s never been better than in “Erin Brockovich,” stepping just outside her comfort zone to play a woman who’s sometimes tough to like. But we like her anyway because (a) Julia Roberts plays her and (b) she says things many of us wish we had the nerve to say. And she’s funny.

It’s not a perfect movie. This wasn’t a great year for movies. But Soderbergh, screenwriter Susannah Grant, and Julia take a very standard story that could have been a preachy, weepy, Lifetime movie and make it a funny crowd pleaser by turning the template for this type of movie on its ear. Time after time, this is what Soderbergh excels at doing, from “Traffic” to “Oceans Eleven,” he defies and winks at genre conventions, which – when he’s on — sets his movies apart from others in their respective genres.

That means somber biographies – “J. Edgar,” “The Iron Lady,” and “My Week with Marilyn” – will compete with Steven Spielberg’s “War Horse” and a few other films that practically scream, “Vote for me!”

So where does that leave “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2?”

The eighth and final film in the ridiculously popular franchise hits Blu-ray and DVD shelves this week, a timely reminder that it deserves serious consideration in the biggest Academy Award category, Best Picture.

Normally, popcorn fare is excluded from most Oscar chatter. Even “The Dark Knight,” a film which delighted critics and audiences alike, couldn’t nab a Best Picture nod.

But this season is shaping up to be a particularly weak one for Best Picture contenders.

Recent films like “Moneyball” and “J. Edgar” earned mixed to solid reviews at best, while the early buzz on director Alexander Payne’s “The Descendants” is solid, not terrific. “The Iron Lady’s” released date just got bumped to late-late December, not a sign of confidence from the studio. “The Help” might slide into a Best Picture slot simply by being both topical and uplifting, but the film’s 75 percent “Fresh” rating at RottenTomatoes.com hardly screams artistic excellence.

And spare us the talk that Woody Allen’s overrated “Midnight in Paris” deserves Oscar consideration. Has the bar been set so low for Allen that even his mediocre fare fires up award chatter?

“Deathly Hallows – Part 2″ is a terrific film, both a stunning visual achievement and an emotionally satisfying coda to a complicated film franchise. Oscar voters often nominate films that mean something, or that cap an historic film achievement. Just consider the Oscar coronation for “The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King,” the third film in that triumphant fantasy franchise.

The final “Harry Potter” film deserves that kind of emotional voting, but it shouldn’t need it. It’s good enough as is, an epic tale of good versus evil that proved long-running franchises can end on the highest of notes.

The nominees:

Dances With Wolves: I love it, but then my Indian name is Struggles with White Guilt.

Ghost: I distinctly remember thinking, really? Ghost? Really?! I don’t dislike it, but it wasn’t exactly Oscar bait. Maybe that’s a good thing.

Awakenings: Mmmmmm, L Dopa. Yummy, delicious L Dopa.

Goodfellas: Scorsese’s career seemed to build to this and plateau with this. I love some early Scorsese, and I love some later Scorsese. But this is the centerpiece of his career, in my opinion.

The Godfather Part III: Okay. Really? Really?!!! There were about a hundred gangster movies released in 1990, so it was practically unavoidable that two of them would wind up Best Picture Nominees, but seriously?

WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED

Dances With Wolves: Probably my dad’s favorite movie. He dragged me to it, I didn’t want to see it. And while I don’t think it should have won, it’s not the blow-out that some people make it out to be. It’s a legitimately great movie, as noted by Nolte.

Total Recall: Get. Your ass. To Mars.

Miller’s Crossing: Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling.

Goodfellas: From the first line (“The f*%k is that?”), Scorsese’s masterpiece sucks you in and never lets go. Scorsese tells the story of Three Decades of Life in the Mafia through the eyes of Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), an Irish-Sicilian kid who longs to be a part of the Lucchese crime family. His Sicilian blood allows him access to the family and he becomes an earner, but his Irish heritage prevents him from ever advancing to any sort of official leadership in the organization. As such, he provides a perspective on the mafia that we didn’t get in “The Godfather” saga. He’s a blue collar guy, working for the man, whereas Michael Corleone was the man.

Surrounding Henry are thugs and assassins, many of whom we get to know on an intimate basis. You just knew watching this movie that no one involved would probably ever be this good again. Lorraine Bracco. Ray Liotta. Frank Vincent. But Joe Pesci’s performance is an example of the perfect actor finding the perfect role. His Tommy is menacing and hilarious, his dialogue endlessly quotable. Of course there are exchanges and lines that became instantly famous, like, “Whaddaya mean I’m funny?” and “No more shines, Billy,” but the movie is also jam-packed with throwaway, inconsequential lines that add authenticity and never fail to make me laugh.

• “Maybe I should let him drive.”
• “Trying to make me think what the fu*% I did here.”
• “Can you believe that? A Jew broad, prejudiced against Italians.”
• “No, you ain’t alright, Spider, you got a lot of f*%in’ problems.”

As a rule, I try not to get too pretentious, but this is exquisite filmmaking. Scorsese invented neither the freeze frame, nor the extended tracking shot, nor the use of pop songs in place of a score, but he uses all of these tools and techniques to the greatest effect possible.

The violence is always brutal, often horrifying, and more-than-occasionally funny. Most of all, it’s casual. It just happens. Guys are smiling one minute and getting whacked the next. Sometimes without cause. Notice, though, that Henry is rarely in on the violence. He’s often at least mildly horrified by it. He pistol whips a guy for attempting to put the moves on his wife, but this act of violence is portrayed as darkly chivalrous: he was protecting someone. During  a jaunt to Florida, Henry and Jimmy (Robert De Niro) hassle a guy who owes the mob money. Henry definitely participates, but it’s an act of violence that’s on the record — Henry serves time for it. But the rest of the time, he’s an observer. At the end of the movie, we learn that his narration has been courtroom testimony — Henry has wisely painted himself as less involved than those who are on trial. The revelation gives new meaning to earlier narration, for example, his description of Jimmy:

He liked to steal. He actually liked it. He was the kind of guy who rooted for bad guys in the movies.

For all we know, Henry also liked to steal and also rooted for bad guys in the movies, but the circumstances of his narration dictate a need to make everyone else out to be the bad guy.

The key scene in the movie, for me, is the one where Tommy, Jimmy, and Henry go to Tommy’s mom’s house in the middle of the night to borrow a shovel so they can bury a nearly dead gangster wrapped in tablecloths in the trunk of Henry’s car. Over a sumptuous meal, the boys engage in a casual, friendly conversation with Tommy’s mom. They discuss her paintings (noting that one of her subjects looks like the guy in the trunk), Tommy asks to borrow a knife (“Well. Bring it back,” his mom responds), and the mom notices that Henry isn’t very talkative.

“I’m…just listening,” he stammers.

The mom goes on to relate a story about a quiet guy who never talks. When asked why, the guy responds, “What am I going to say? That my wife two-times me?” To which his wife responds, “Shut up, you’re always talking.” Tommy reveals that in Italian, it sounds better, and that the guy’s true nature is lost in the translation, explaining, “He’s content to be a jerk.”

This perfectly describes Henry, as he’s seen on the stand at the end of the movie, casually identifying Jimmy and Paulie (Paul Sorvino) for the prosecution.

It’s my favorite movie. It never fails to entertain or suck me in. Others in my personal top five or ten change places depending on my mood. But “Goodfellas” leapt to the top of the list around 1991, and has stayed there. So it goes without saying that I believe it should have beaten “Dances With Wolves.”

“Toy Story 3″ wasn’t just the best picture of the year, it was the best picture of the year by a long shot. To drop it in the ghetto of Best Animated Feature is not only a disservice to the film itself, but a disservice to Hollywood’s own history — a history it writes itself every year with every Best Picture winner. 

Earlier in the countdown I mentioned that in my opinion only my first choice in this countdown ranked as a picture truly worthy of all that the title Best Picture of the Year should mean, and I meant that. I’m certainly fond of “Winter’s Bone,” “Inception,” “The King’s Speech,” and “The Social Network, but Best Picture worthy? No. To me, a Best Picture winner must tower over more than just a single year’s worth of entries, it must qualify as something as timeless as a Beethoven symphony.

Think about it: Every year literally hundreds of motion pictures are produced by thousands of talented artists putting  everything they have into the greatest art form ever devised. In some cases those individuals pour years of their lives and tens of millions of dollars into a project that will all come down to a single moment of judgment – that first screening when it’s determined whether or not every drop of sweat and blood was all worthwhile.  But above the money and sweat equity, there are hopes and dreams and aspirations poured into every frame and every edit. And out of this incredible symphony of activity and passion, one film will emerge above all the others and that film must be worthy — and not just in comparison to the others.

The Best Picture of the Year speaks to the year and it should be the picture that says to history, “This is what Hollywood accomplished, what we are most proud of, what defines who we are and what we believe matters.” The winner should be the crown jewel of that year and most importantly, the film most likely to survive, fad, fashion and time. For example, if there’s a civilization in a hundred years, there’s no doubt in my mind my ancestors will be watching “Toy Story 3.” The others, probably not, including “The King’s Speech.”

It’s happened before where the winner wasn’t as timeless as other films produced that same year. Looking back to 1978, how many Best Picture winners over the past 33 years really pass that test? I’d say less than half. The sad part is that there were usually other films more worthy that ended up being passed over. This decade has been especially weak. “The Departed,” “Crash,” Chicago,” Slumdog Millionaire,” “The Hurt Locker”? Are you kidding me?

Evidence of our declining motion picture industry can also be found in just how few films were truly Best Picture worthy this decade. By my count 14 (though I’m probably forgetting a few): “Up,” “The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford,” “The Dark Knight,” “The Passion of the Christ,” “Mulholland Drive,” “Once,” “Ratatouille,” “Gone Baby Gone,” “Amelie,” “Watchmen,” “The Lives of Others,” “In the Bedroom,” The Station Agent,” and “Sexy Beast.”

All subjective ,I know, but to boil what I’m saying here down to as simple as I can possibly say it, a Best Picture winner should be a film you can never get enough of.  And no matter how many times I see it, I will never get enough of “Toy Story 3.”

Here’s the full countdown. Thanks for hanging in there with me.

“The King’s Speech“

Of course we all know by now that this was the big winner Oscar night; Picture, Director, Actor, and Screenplay — and deservedly so. What we have here is the perfect “Academy movie,” a look at one man overcoming a handicap — in this case a merciless stutter — which is always prime Oscar bait, especially when it’s pulled off as well as “The King’s Speech.”

Based on real-life events, what really makes the story sing is the relationship between King George VI (a terrific Colin Firth) and commoner Lionel Logue (a splendid Geoffrey Rush), his unorthodox speech therapist. This is essentially a love story between two men who meet under extraordinary circumstances and through a number of ups and downs both in their own personal lives and between each other, grow a real and lasting friendship.

The stakes are high, as well. After his hard partying, Charlie Sheen-ish brother is forced to step down, Firth is unsure of himself when it comes to assuming the throne of England. With Hitler spreading his reign of terror across Europe, Britain needs a king who can help to  rally and inspire its people against seemingly impossible odds. But the stutter makes speaking nearly impossible and is only a symptom, not the real problem. And so if this oddball and somewhat eccentric speech therapist is going to cure his patient’s speech impediment, it will require, in part, turning the King into A King, building the confidence and self-esteem of an insecure man unaware of his own potential.

The production looks great, the supporting cast – especially the lovely and always interesting Helena Bonham Carter — is uniformly superb, and there’s a specific and somewhat personal moment I couldn’t get out of my head for days that has little to do with the film itself. On television, I’ve seen documentary footage of Hitler’s concentration camps and on the big screen I’ve seen recreations of this horror in films such as “Schindler’s List,” but I’ve never seen actual documentary footage on the big screen before and it hits with a wallop.

My pal Ned Rice might disagree, but a theme I very much liked was the respect paid to the tradition of the British monarchy. Logue is portrayed as one of us, a commoner not very impressed with his country’s symbolic royalty and unwilling to defer or accept the role of a lesser being in the presence of his king. An eloquently handled and quite moving part of the story involves Logue’s character arc, how he watches a man grow into someone worthy of his respect and affection — not the title, but the man holding the title. This is a moment that quietly and effectively speaks volumes about both men, their friendship, and the British peoples’ sometimes complicated relationship to the throne.

Other than my top pick, I didn’t see — in the truest sense of what it means — a single Best Picture-worthy film all year, including this one. But to see the Academy award a story that honors tradition, the idea that good and honorable men are the best bearers of that tradition (the hedonistic brother is portrayed as a disastrous king), and most importantly, a thematically driven film that effectively makes a case for American-style democracy — is a good thing.

For better or worse, because it now holds forever the title of Best Picture, “The King’s Speech” will live on for as long as there’s a civilization, and because it forcefully defends and makes a case for that civilization, we should be grateful for that.

These are my Oscar predictions for Sunday’s ceremony. I don’t cover all the categories, because it would be disingenuous of me to predict the winner of Best Animated Short Film. 

Best Picture:

The early thunder of “The Social Network,” which took most of the earlier award shows by storm, has given way to a resurgence by “The King’s Speech,” now considered the front-runner. Both excellent films, remarkably differing in style and tone: one a tried-and-true drama about British royalty, the other a slick exploration of the contemporary price of genius and success. Although “The Social Network” is easily the better film and certainly the one that will be re-watched endlessly over the years, “The King’s Speech” shows all the signs of claiming the prize. Still, an upset is possible, but not by any of the other eight nominees, none of which stand a snowball’s chance in hell. 

Prediction: “The King’s Speech” 

—

Best Director:

It’s certainly true that Best Picture does not equal Best Director, and Academy voters know this better than anyone. Though “The King’s Speech” was finely directed by Tom Hooper, Academy voters are likely to respect and recognize David Fincher’s phenomenal work on “The Social Network,” which make what could be a boring drama about computer geeks into a thrilling morality play. 

Prediction: David Fincher, “The Social Network” 

—

Best Actor:

The lock of the night: Colin Firth, for his portrayal of a humiliated and reluctant king struggling mightily to overcome a crippling stutter. Firth, a highly-respected veteran of the awards scene, ensures that this will be perhaps the only suspense free category of the night, Best Animated Feature Film notwithstanding. In other years, I’d say that James Franco’s turn as an imperiled hiker in “127 Hours” and Jeff Bridges’ crusty Rooster Cogburn in “True Grit” would be serious contenders, but this year, Firth will be crowned king. 

Prediction: Colin Firth, “The King’s Speech” 

—

Best Actress:

Natalie Portman’s psychotic ballerina from “Black Swan” hits a veritable Oscar checklist: physical labor, precarious mental condition, film with a sterling pedigree. That said, some have predicted an Annette Bening upset for her matriarchal lesbian physician in “The Kids Are All Right.” I don’t see it; just as Portman’s role hits a lot of the notes Oscar voters like, Bening’s is subdued, and not even written or played in a way that consistently reminds viewers of the alternative-lifestyle vibe that the film is sold on.

Prediction: Natalie Portman, “Black Swan” 

—

Best Supporting Actor:

Here’s one of the night’s closest races. Geoffrey Rush is pitch-perfect as the king’s speech therapist, a balance of confidence and humility, working with the world’s highest profile speech therapy client, caught between the British regard for class and his need to teach the proper way. On the other side of the coin is Christian Bale, giving a raw, edgy turn as a crack-addicted ex-boxer in “The Fighter.” Whereas Rush demonstrates uncanny measure, Bale feels spontaneous, looking well-lived in with his gaunt frame and twitch mannerisms. It’s incredible that a handsome, dashing actor readily recognizable as Batman can disappear so completely, never reminding us who we’re looking at. It’s a close call, but Rush already has a statue, and it’s looking to be Bale’s turn. 

Prediction: Christian Bale, “The Fighter” 

—

Best Supporting Actress:

Melissa Leo, a splendid character actress with a wide range of tricks, seemed to be the lock. But two factors are working against her. The first is that her “The Fighter” costar Amy Adams shares a nomination, which threatens to siphon off votes from voters determined to honor “The Fighter” by awarding it a supporting win. The second is the public relations beating she took after some self-financed “For Your Consideration” ads opened her up to a fair amount of scorn and ridicule from her peers. There’s a reasonable chance for an upset in the form of Hailee Steinfeld, the 14-year-old actress who gave the best performance in a film with the unimpeachable Jeff Bridges giving it his all. That said, Leo’s still the horse to place your bets on. 

Prediction: Melissa Leo, “The Fighter” 

—

Best Writing – Original Screenplay

Since “The King’s Speech” writer David Seidler certainly consulted a number of texts when writing his script, should this even count as “original”? A contest between “The King’s Speech” and “The Social Network” is likely more interesting on a writing level than a picture one, but never mind. The front runner for Best Picture should have no trouble picking up the writing prize, beating out the vastly more original “Inception,” among others. 

Prediction: David Seidler, “The King’s Speech” 

—

Best Writing – Adapted Screenplay

Readers of BH might be aware that my opinion of Aaron Sorkin the man, the one who proudly admits to getting a cruel kick out of hunting accidents, isn’t particularly high. That said, one needs to grade the work before the artist, and his script for “The Social Network” is a shining example of how to turn material with a high potential for dullness into great drama. Sorkin’s apparent liberties with objective facts don’t seemed to have fazed any voters, not much of a surprise considering that it’s an industry that specializes in warping reality for any number of purposes. 

Prediction: Aaron Sorkin, “The Social Network” 

–

Best Cinematography

Word on the street is that Roger Deakins, the brilliant lensman best known for shooting Coen Brothers’ films, will find that ninth time’s the charm for his lovely, haunting work on “True Grit.” But were I an Academy member, I might prefer Wally Pfister’s work on “Inception,” which accomplished the Herculean task of making the brilliant Christopher Nolan’s dreamy vision into something tangible. 

Prediction: Roger Deakins, “True Grit” 

–

Best Animated Feature Film:

You know how I said that Best Actor was the only suspense free category of the night, Best Animated Feature notwithstanding? Here, “Toy Story 3” is the sole picture of the three nominees to also receive a Best Picture nomination. The math does itself. 

Prediction: “Toy Story 3” 

–

And here, just for kicks, are my predictions for most other categories, short a few I can’t legitimate knowledge of. 

Best Film Editing:
Prediction:“The Social Network”

Best Visual Effects:
Prediction: “Inception”

Best Art Direction:
Prediction: “Alice in Wonderland”

Best Original Score:
Prediction: “The Social Network”

Best Original Song:
Prediction: Randy Newman, “Toy Story 3”

Best Sound Editing:
Prediction: “Inception”

Best Sound Mixing:
Prediction: “Inception”

Best Makeup:
Prediction: “The Wolfman”

Best Costume Design:
Prediction: “Alice in Wonderland”

Best Documentary – Feature
Prediction: “Inside Job”

Best Foreign Language Film
Prediction: “Biutiful”

So I took a look at this year’s Oscar nominees for Best Pictures to determine the overarching theme, as well as guess at the subtext (intended or otherwise).  Sometimes the latter reveals some deeper revelation about society, the filmmaker, or the story that illuminates.

(Regrettably, I did not see The Fighter and The Kids Are All Right)

Black Swan

Moral: The quest for perfection kills.

Those that achieve perfection are sometimes regarded as superhuman, rather than just human.  Nobody’s perfect, as the saying goes.  In one reading of the film’s climax, Nina sacrifices her own life for perfection.

Subtext:  We find our true selves in artistic expression.

What permits Nina to reach perfection is the assimilation of her dark side into her being.  Carl Jung spoke of the Shadow, the part of ourselves that we repress because it represents the baser, more unflattering parts of our personality.   However, it is also the seat for creativity, representing the “true spirit of life as against the arid scholar”.  A pretty perfect description for Nina, if you ask me.  The movie can be read in many different ways, which is why it’s a great choice for Best Picture.  One reading is that this is actually a story of a woman confronting her Shadow, which Jung indicates is the path to fully realizing the Self, the unified conscious and unconscious of a person.  Thus, Nina does not actually die in the end.  Her previous psyche has died — the one that was only half-alive, controlled by her mother, neurotic, and angst-ridden.

Inception

Moral:  Salvation lies in reality, not dreams.

Dom is grappling with the suicide of his wife and separation from his kids.  He chooses to hide in the dream state rather than grapple with the grim truth of reality.  He eventually confronts his own complicity in her death, and reunites with his children.

Subtext: We never really know what is reality and what isn’t.

Mr. Nolan certainly didn’t intend the interpretation I’m about to spout, but the truth is that it’s the only thing that comes to mind.  I refer to the Internet, which has become our collective waking dream.  How many times have we been fooled by an Internet hoax?  How many times have we formed opinions, especially political ones, based on information we read on the Internet — that is later proven false?  Always be vigilant.  Test the reality with your own personal totem — your mind.

The King’s Speech

Moral:  “Friendship is the only cement that will ever hold the world together”  (Woodrow Wilson)

It isn’t simply Lionel’s devotion to helping others that permits King George VI to transcend his stutter, it’s his friendship.  At the critical moment of the big speech, it is just these two men facing each other — Lionel standing beside his friend — to deliver a speech that firmly sets Britain’s resolve against Hitler in WWII.

Subtext: Speak truth to power.

It is George’s inability to stand up to his father that is the source of his stammer.  He is completely unable to muster any fight against the man.  He literally loses his capacity to speak.  Right from the start, Lionel speaks truth to power — to George, the Prince.  He treats him like any other client.  The result is a slow, grudging respect from George until friendship, loyalty, and trust develops between the two.  The ultimate goal: speak truth to the ultimate evil power, Hitler.   It is so accomplished.

127 Hours

Moral:  Live alone, die alone

Aron has had a history of failed relationships.  His inability to connect with others, to give of himself, leads him to believe he doesn’t need anyone.  Then he gets trapped alone in a remote canyon.  Oops.

Subtext:  Our increasing disconnectedness will doom us.

Interestingly, three films in this year’s list are related to human communication.  The King’s Speech is the most direct treatise on the significance of direct, compassionate human interaction, and its power in bringing hope to the masses.   With 127 Hours, Aron’s disconnectedness nearly dooms him.  It isn’t just his will to survive that gets him out of his jam, it’s his desire to connect with people for real.

The Social Network

Moral:  Revenge isolates

Facebook is born out of Mark’s desire to humiliate the girl who breaks up with him.  Everything that comes after is fruit of this poisonous tree.  His self-worth becomes entirely tied up in becoming a big shot, to show everyone that he’s Da Man!  And in the end, he’s all alone, having alienated the one true friend he had.  The end of the film recalls the end of In The Company of Men, where Howard is left shouting at the deaf woman he fell for, “Listen to me!  Listen to me!”

Subtext:  The Internet is not your friend; real people are.

Yes, the Internet can bring people together, but it won’t keep them together. It’s interesting that communication is what brings the characters together in The King’s Speech, but that the invention designed to enhance communication tears the characters apart in The Social Network. Some may read the film’s conclusion as a step forward for Mark, in that he’s reaching out.  I read it as a sign that he has so alienated everyone and so scornful of human interaction, that he’s left to stew in his own loneliness.

Toy Story 3

Moral:  Friendship saves

Another recurring theme: friendship.  All the Toy Story movies have been about this, and what is there to say — Woody and pals survive only by sticking by each other.  What a bummer that a movie about toys provides the most powerful statement of friendship.

Subtext:  Growing pains

What makes all three Toy Story movies so wonderful is that the subtext is so beautifully crafted in the very DNA of the story.  The movies each show us the pain of growing up, of being forgotten, left behind, drifting away from friends, mourning our childhoods…if I keep going, I’m going to cry.  You get it.

True Grit

Moral:  Persistence will see you throw any challenge.

The title tells the tale.  So do the characters, and the story.

Subtext:  Justice has no boundaries.

It is fitting that the pursuit of Chaney takes our heroes into the wilderness.  We’ve seen this kind of thing before, in Tommy Lee Jones’ The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada.  In both films, the participants enter a no-man’s land — a purgatory — where justice and crime will duke it out.  Justice will pursue a man to the farthest reaches of both geography, and the soul.   The characters, weather, and terrain Mattie and Rooster encounter are heavily symbolic.  They don’t know it, but they are on a mythical journey.  The pursuit of justice takes a person deep into the blackest territories, so one best be prepared.

Winter’s Bone

Moral:  Disloyalty kills

The movie is all about family.  Everyone in the film is related by blood in some fashion.   Ree’s father snitched, and he is murdered for it.  And even though folks do a lot to dissuade Ree from pursuing the truth, in the end, they come through for her.

Subtext:  True Grit

A second film about a teenage girl completely committed and resolved to achieve her goal.  This time it isn’t about justice, it’s about keeping her family together.

Conclusions

There’s a lot of Hollywood-bashing here at BH.  Yet, the morals and subtexts presented by these films are something Hollywood should be rather proud of.  They are life-affirming, driven by communication, friendship, loyalty, justice, and family.

But on closer examination, few of these films are pure Hollywood — produced by a studio and directed by a regular studio filmmaker.

The King’s Speech – British

127 Hours – British

Winter’s Bone – Indie

Black Swan – Indie-studio hybrid, directed by indie filmmaker

Inception – Hollywood, directed by a Brit (and the weakest of the films)

True Grit – Hollywood, directed by indie filmmakers

Toy Story 3 – Hollywood (from the “family” studio, Disney)

Social Network – Hollywood

What does this mean?  You tell me.

None of these movies sniffed the Oscar. The nominees for Best Picture, please…

“Driving Miss Daisy”: Morgan Freeman’s performance approaches greatness, and I’d love to go to bat for a movie filmed and set in Atlanta, but like “Batman,” the movie may have won the Oscar for Best Picture of 1989 but it feels like a relic.

“Dead Poets Society”: Some really great performances, but the ending seems more manipulative the older I get.

“Born on the Fourth of July”: Stunning, great film.  Nolte nails it here.

“My Left Foot”: I know that I really loved this movie when it came out, especially Daniel Day Lewis’ Oscar-winning performance, but I have never felt the desire or need to see it again since.

“Field of Dreams”: A tricky one. The premise is goofy, the movie is corny, but…(continued below)

What Should’ve Been Nominated

“Field of Dreams”: …if you get on board with it, the movie grabs you and you forget that you’ve bought into something goofy. And when Ray says to his dad, “You wanna have a catch,” and you don’t tear up, you are either a woman or a soulless robot. Or both.

“Born on the Fourth of July”: Again. Nolte. Seriously.

“Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”: Easily the most fun movie of the year. Distant second, “Lethal Weapon 2.”

“When Harry Met Sally”: The template for the modern romantic comedy? I think so. Shout me down below.

“Do the Right Thing”: And here’s where I start to step in it. So, to preface: Spike Lee is a loudmouth. A judgmental know-it-all. Racist? I doubt it. Prejudiced? Probably. But this is just about his movies, really only one movie, and so…it’s my pick.

It was one of the most talked about movies that year, from the second it premiered at Cannes, where it lost to Soderbergh’s aforementioned debut because of RAAAAAAAAAAACISM!

Or maybe the Cannes Jury just liked Soderbergh’s movie more. Yeah. Maybe that’s possible.

Set on the hottest day of summer in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, the movie examines racial tensions, primarily between African-Americans and Italians, though virtually every race is represented. Lee portrays Mookie, an irresponsible twenty-something who delivers pizzas for Sal’s Famous. Academy-Award nominee Danny Aiello plays Sal, the owner of the shop, who has been in the neighborhood for years. He likes Bed-Stuy, likes the people. His youngest son, Vito (Richard Edson) shares his pop’s affection for Bed-Stuy. Then there’s his oldest, racist son Pino (John Turturro), who tells pop, “I detest this place like a sickness.” It turns out that Pino got Sal’s anger, and Vito got his tender heart. The authentic feel to Sal’s Famous is one of the movie’s many strengths. The entire production design is great, but you can practically smell the pizza. Sal has a Wall of Fame filled with pictures of famous Italian Americans, from Al Pacino to Frank Sinatra.

The story unfolds  as Mookie makes his way through the neighborhood delivering pizzas. He’s got a girl, (Rosie Perez), and a kid. The characters are as authentic as they come, and when we meet Buggin’ Out (Giancarlo Esposito), we sense trouble.

He’s not a thug or a bad guy. He’s a loudmouth, badgering a white guy for stepping on his Air Jordans and for living in his neighborhood. When he complains that Sal should have Black people on the Wall of Fame, Sal tells him, “Get your own place, you can put brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles on the wall.” Buggin’ Out goes on to argue that Sal takes black dollars, so he should cater to the black clientele.

What I continue to love about the movie is the build, the pacing, the characters, the cinematography, the humor, and the varied reactions it provokes — which itself is due to the film’s greatest strength, its ambiguity. While the movie ends with Black people rioting, they are far from the only victims of prejudice. Every race in the movie is revealed to harbor sometimes viciously prejudiced views of another race. Here is what I think Spike Lee gets right in his movies, a fairness that never shows up in his soundbites about, say, Tarantino’s use of the N-word.

The safe and politically correct move would have been to portray Buggin’ Out as some kind of victim. But Lee doesn’t do that. Buggin’ Out is an instigator, and matches Pino’s prejudice and distrust beat for beat, at one point hassling Mookie for hanging out with Vito, “What’s up with the white boy?” Now, if Buggin’ Out is Spike Lee’s surrogate, and given his “stay black” attitude and penchant for NEVER SHUTTING THE HELL UP, he might just be, the character is nothing less than Spike laying bare his soul. Even if Buggin’ Out doesn’t represent Spike’s point of view, it’s an honest character; flawed, desperate for just one person to back his pretty shallow cause.

No one will back him up in his quest to get some “brothers up on the wall” at Sal’s. Most of his neighbors tell him he’s nuts. But then, he learns that Radio Raheem has had an altercation with Sal over Raheem’s loud stereo. “No rap, no music, no music, no music,” Sal barks at Raheem. Raheem joins the cause, and he and Buggin’ Out confront Sal just after closing time.

The question everyone was asking (Lee says only white people asked it, which I think is probably bullshit — I think he reserves honesty for his movies), was “Who did the right thing?” I don’t think anyone did the right thing within the context of the story. It was more varying degrees of wrong. Characters say and do things in the movie, especially at the end, that we wish they wouldn’t say or do. Even if one agrees with Buggin’ Out’s cause, it’s hard to sympathize with his technique. And Raheem’s motivation for the boycott has nothing to do with there ever being a boycott to begin with.

Chris Rock has a bit, stolen from my crazy uncle’s philosophy, where he talks about the difference between “black people” and “you-know-what’s.” As funny as Chris Rock is when he breaks this down, he can’t touch my crazy uncle’s timing, and his accent really brings the humor home. The problem with the bit as a redneck philosophy, though, is that it’s bullshit: my uncle seemed to really be talking about all black people when he said “you-know-whats.”

You-know-what is the game changer in “Do the Right Thing,” causing people who seem to love Sal and who were “born and raised” on his pizza, to turn on him, even though his angry tirade is clearly aimed only at Buggin’ Out. “Oh, so we’re you-know-what’s, now?” one kid responds.

Did this moment reveal Sal’s racism? I don’t think so. I think Sal’s a good guy, human, and flawed, whose buttons were pushed and pushed and pushed. The anger inside him boiled over, and it’s probably something that he would have regretted even if it didn’t lead to the riot in the film.

Is it a liberal film? I don’t think so. It examines race and class issues, but doesn’t offer answers. Spike Lee shows guts in not making the minority characters likable victims who we always want to root for. In fact, in many ways we root for Sal, which is one of the tragedies of the movie. Spike is an outspoken liberal, of course, and while I can agree with him that racism and prejudice is a problem, I suspect we disagree on the solution. He and other liberals believe it’s a problem we can legislate, when in reality it’s a problem inherent in human nature, it’s written on our hearts to distrust anything that’s different. Overcoming such a flaw is a personal struggle, not a societal one.

The Academy Awards show has a fine tradition of pampered celebrities popping off with something stupid when they hit the stage.  It must be something about TV cameras and the opportunity to make damn fools of themselves before tens of millions of people around the world that the Hollywoodoids find irresistible.  Notice how you never hear any fallout from the “technical awards” ceremony?  You know, the non televised ceremony recognizing the boring technological stuff that actually makes movies possible that is usually held at the Beverly Hills Elks Lodge with hosts Steve Guttenberg, Charo and/or one of the lesser Sweathogs.

Some of the past magic moments are legendary.  Remember back in 1993, when Tim Robbins and his then-gal pal, tranny vomit insanity enthusiast Susan Sarandon, harangued the crowd about the detention of Haitian refugees?  Of course, right after that these stars led the way by opening up the grounds of their mansion to these huddled Haitian masses.

Roberto Benigni engaged in memorably tiresome antics after winning “Best Foreign Language Film of 1997” for the Worst Film of All Time, the insanely appalling Life Is Beautiful.  Life has certainly aged well, and Benigni’s shtick has only gotten fresher, contributing to the runaway freight train of success that his career has become since then.

Another highlight was the 1973 appearance of Indian activist Sacheen Littlefeather to accept Marlon Brando’s Oscar for The Godfather.  Of course, after that powerful indictment of American society, things began to change.  Her earnest speech was the inspiration behind the movement to allow Native Americans to reject reservation socialism, to fully embrace the free market model, and to find prosperity delivering quality entertainment, gaming and vacation opportunities to their fellow Americans.  Or so I’ve heard.  Little known fact:  She convinced Brando to let her accept the award by offering him a muffin.

Occasionally the real people who actually make movies happen – the teamsters, the grips, and the other hardscrabble folks behind the scenes – will make their presence known during a particularly stupid speech.  For example, back in 2003, Michael Moore decided to use his win to spout off as America headed to war in Iraq.  Running down our country in front of a teamster?  Bad, bad idea.   The thunderous booing of these all-American Joes and Janes humiliated the clown who fancies himself their voice – not that he’d be caught dead within a dozen miles of blue collar Americans.  It also led to Steve Martin’s joke about Big Mikey being helped into his limo’s trunk – a zinger on a couple levels.  Moore was lucky to get out of there without an Oscar suppository.

So who is going to spout off this year?  Oh, the competition is fierce.

Let’s look at the Best Picture nominees.  There’s what – 37 of them this year?  So many opportunities to say something dumb.  

The Blind Side and Up are positive pictures with important messages of hope, so we don’t need to bother with thinking about what happens if they win because they won’t.  A Serious Man takes religion kind of seriously; count that out too.

The same with District 9, though if it does sneak through – remember 3-6 Mafia – then expect the producers to repeat, in an indecipherable Boer accent, its profound message that apartheid of intergalactic crustaceans is very, very bad.

Up In The Air is a movie about (among other things) the trauma of losing your livelihood.  Don’t hold your breath for an unflattering reference to the current Administration’s campaign of employment extermination.  At best, watch for an “It’s still all Bush’s fault!” sideswipe if George Clooney takes Best Actor.

The same is true of the urban nightmare Precious.  As we know, the ghetto was a fairytale wonderland before the BusHitler contingent came in and ruined it.

A win for An Education, a tale of a teenage girl having sex with an adult, is the perfect moment for a shout-out of solidarity with Roman Polanski – who, after all, is the real victim.   

If Inglorious Basterds wins, look for lots of log-rolling about how brave the Academy was to choose it, with its graphic violence, interminable stretches of over-praised dialogue and coherence-optional story line.  The courageous ballot-casters of Hollywood are the real heroes.  And heaven forbid chatty Quentin Tarantino win as Best Director.  First, he’s an overpraised hack.  Second, his speech will take 20 minutes out of our lives that we’ll never get back.

You’ll hear plenty about how the producers “support” our soldiers if The Hurt Locker pulls off Best Picture.  It would be nice to hear some support for servicemembers not just as tragic victims but for their performance in winning the war they found (and still find) important enough to volunteer to go off and risk their lives fighting.  In the off chance that someone, somehow should utter the word “victory,” watch the entire proceedings come to a flying stop.

If Kathryn Bigelow becomes the first woman to win Best Director, expect lots of talk of glass ceilings, breaking barriers and “the pioneers who came before me.”  That’s all okay – she really is a trailblazer, you know, kind of like Sarah Palin.  Nice to see Hollywood finally catching up with the Republican Party on gender diversity.

Now, if Jeremy Renner wins Best Actor for The Hurt Locker, I expect nothing but class.  This is a guy who seems to have worked hard, perfected his craft, and finally caught a break.  In interviews he seems not entitled but – gasp! – grateful, and he always gives credit to others like Anthony Mackie, his co-star who was freakin’ robbed of a Best Supporting Actor nomination.

Similarly, if Sandra Bullock wins for her role as a decent human being – for many other actors, this is a huge stretch – I expect a classy speech.  The same is true about Meryl Streep and the rest of the Best Actress contenders.  However, in the Best Supporting Actor category, we might have some awesome opportunities for inanity. 

Matt Damon is nominated and he’s sure to pick up Tim Robbins’ Torch O’ Stupidity and carry it aloft.  There’s health care reform, climate change and, of course, supporting the troops but not the war – it’s a cornucopia of topics upon which he can offer the full benefit of his inexperience.

Woody Harrelson plays a soldier, so should he win, look for some “We support the soldiers but not the war” nonsense – assuming he moderates his pre-ceremony bong hit intake enough to find the stage.

And then there’s Avatar, the bête noir of Big Hollywood.  Will we see James Cameron issue a humble statement of regret that its giddy depiction of American soldiers being slaughtered was misconstrued?  Doubtful, since it hasn’t been misconstrued.  Cameron’s petty god complex has been in full effect for a couple of decades now, so don’t look for humility.  More likely, if the King of the World wins we’ll see shrill crowing about his come-from-behind triumph over the unnamed “critics” who refuse to suspend their disbelief and love of country and embrace the magic that is his masterpiece, Space Fahrenheit-Pocahontas 9/11.  

And, no matter what, to the extent it comes up, he’ll “support” the troops.  They always support the troops.  Just not anything the troops actually do.

And it’s Avatar by a nose! If history is any indication, James Cameron’s eco-action flick will be the big winner at the industry’s annual self-love fest. Three main factors point to the bloated opus taking home the best picture statue.

First off, it’s a box office smash. Now, that doesn’t always translate into gold at the Oscars – see last year’s unconscionable failure to even nominate The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan’s critically praised film that was, at the time, the second-highest grossing film of all time – but it’s a pretty solid indicator.

Recall Cameron’s previous triumph: Titanic received decidedly mixed reviews, turning into an awards-season juggernaut only after racking up record-breaking dough at the box office. You could make the argument that Lord of the Rings: Return of the King benefited in the same way, serving as the capstone to a trilogy that grossed more than a billion dollars domestically and almost two billion more overseas.

Also consider that in recent history one of the top two grossing nominees usually picks up the win. That would suggest the most likely victor this year is either Avatar or Up; given that the Academy is even more loathe to reward a cartoon than an action picture, it’s safe to say that Up isn’t a legitimate threat to the noble Na’vi.

Second, it’s a game-changer for the medium. Return of the King was something of a lifetime achievement award for the Lord of the Rings series, a recognition that the back-to-back-to-back filming schedule, advances in computer generated imagery, and the sheer scale of the endeavor needed to be rewarded. This is what led to what was arguably the weakest entry in the series winning gold at the Oscars.

Like box office success, technological advances by no means guarantee success at the Academy Awards: Who can forget Annie Hall trumping Star Wars in 1977? But Titanic certainly benefited from the lavish spectacle and impressive advances that accompanied that picture. Given the precarious state of Hollywood attendance figures, members of the Academy might lean toward rewarding a picture that ushers in a new method of getting rear ends in multiplex seats and served as the launch point for an important new era in filmmaking: The 3-D era.

Finally, and most importantly, Avatar’s politics are just right. If you look at the history of the Academy Awards, it’s not too much of a stretch to make the argument that the movie that appeals to the most liberal platitudes will take home the medal. This isn’t rightwing conspiracy mongering or whining so much as fact: Crash, American Beauty, Dances with Wolves, Titanic: Anytime you can paint white elites as boorish racists/classists/bigots – except for the one redeeming protagonist who realizes the folly of his people’s barbaric ways – you’ve seriously bolstered your Academy Award credentials.

Without belaboring the point too much, I find it hard to believe the members of the Academy will turn down the chance to award a movie that so appeals to the great triumvirate of modern liberalism: Environmentalism, the cruelty of military conflict, and the racism of Americans, past, present, and future.

None of this is to suggest that Avatar isn’t an entertaining popcorn picture – despite my problems with the story, which is just dreadful, I found it to be an engrossing piece of visual escapism. But without these three factors in its favor (especially the last), all talk of a best picture victory would be dismissed as so much nonsense.

There is a chance that Avatar could falter, but it has nothing to do with the quality of the films in competition. As Hendrik Hertzberg points out in the latest issue of The New Yorker, the bump from five best picture nominees to ten was accompanied by a shift in the voting procedures:

This scheme, known as preference voting or instant-runoff voting, doesn’t necessarily get you the movie (or the candidate) with the most committed supporters, but it does get you a winner that a majority can at least countenance. It favors consensus. … few people who have seen “The Hurt Locker”—a real Iraq War story, not a sci-fi allegory—actively dislike it, and many profoundly admire it. Its underlying ethos is that war is hell, but it does not demonize the soldiers it portrays, whose job is to defuse bombs, not drop them. Even Republicans (and there are a few in Hollywood) think it’s good. It will likely be the second or third preference of voters whose first choice is one of the other “small” films that have been nominated.

If The Hurt Locker pulls off the upset – a scenario I would certainly applaud, given that I considered it the second best picture of 2009 and my number one choice, A Serious Man, has no shot at winning – odds are it’ll be because of the accounting trickery inherent in the new system and not because a majority of voters chose it as the best picture of the year. Still, a win’s a win. Three cheers for consensus!