Here's Roger Ebert's analysis of this morning's Oscar nominations:
Oscar is growing more diverse and international by the year. This year's Academy Award nominations, announced Tuesday, contain a few titles that most moviegoers haven't seen and some they haven't heard of. That's perhaps an indication that the Academy voters, who once went mostly for big names, are doing their homework and seeing the pictures.Read complete article at RogerEbert.comFrom relative obscurity came the nominees Ryan Gosling, whose overlooked work in "Half Nelson," as a drug-addicted high-school teacher was little seen, and Jackie Earle Haley, the conflicted child molester in "Little Children," an erotic tale of stolen love in the afternoon. Also consider 10-year-old Abigail Breslin, and 72-year-old veteran actor Alan Arkin, in "Little Miss Sunshine," a story of a dysfunctional family's cross-country road trip. Adriana Barraza, whose heartbreaking role as a housekeeper in "Babel" earned her a supporting actress nomination, and Rinko Kikuchi, whose emotionally wrenching performance as a grieving deaf teenager in "Babel" also earned her a nomination in that same category.
Did he get a chance to see most of the nominated films? His remarks about Letters of Iwo Jima and The Departed are vague and he did mention in an earlier message that he wanted to wait and see them on the big screen. As he's mentioned in years past, the movie with the most emotional resonance will be likely to move voters. How will he be able to gauge that and make his predictions if he hasn't seen them all?
It sounds like Roger's been busy seeing as much as physically possible; good for him! Nonetheless, his comments are leaving me scratching my head a little bit...
Then he goes on to mention Little Children, Little Miss Sunshine, Babel and Half Nelson. Maybe my logic is flawed here, but (1) since when have the Oscars really focused on movies that everyone from see to shining sea has seen as is familiar with (how many non-cinephiles do you think saw Raging Bull in 1980?)? The gap between the average person's movie experiences and that of the people who vote for these friggin' awards is pretty big, as much as it take to make something like Little Man a hit over A Prairie Home Companion.
Not only that, but those four movies mentioned are far from obscure or "out-there" for the general cinephile audience the Oscars tend to get off on; Billy Bob down the street who works the 9 to 5 probably hasn't heard of Half Nelson, but damn near everyone that I know on the movie circuit expected Gosling to be nominated. It troubles me that Roger is praising this as "doing your homework"...as good as some of those films are, it's not much more than simply watching all the complimentary "For Your Consideration" screeners that arrive on your front doorstep. "Doing your homework" would have been seeing Old Joy, Inland Empire, Neil Young: Heart of Gold and The Death of Mr. Lazarescu. I'm astonished if Rog's been able to catch up on this past year's slew of mainstream cinephilia, but he of all people should be holding the Oscars to higher standards.
Why should Oscars get more diverse? Other Countries have their on version of the Oscars. The Oscars should be about American films.
I only mentioned one foreign film and that was purely incidental....I could have easily mentioned four, or replaced Lazarescu with something like Infamous or the little-seen Sweet Land. Believe me, even if the U.S. was an island and foreign cinema wasn't part of the equation, the Academy would still be an embarrassment. Foreign films are eligible, but rarely make an impression (as Jim stated), purely because they're not as "popular" here, for reasons that boil down to superficiality and laziness. Other countries have their own awards but taking into account the level of dominance the AA's have, it's just an extension of American imperialism in the multiplex. If nothing else, some diversification beyond our own borders would make things a little less godawfully boring.
Well I am amazed again by the academy voters with their HUGE omissions to this years Oscar party! Only one nomination for "The Illusionist!" (Best Cinematography). This is truly a crime. Probably Paul Giamatti's best perfomance ever. Edward Norton has you mezmerized throughout the movie. Even Jessica Biel deserves recognition for her coming of age movie.
I haven't been this shocked since Leonardo DiCaprio wasn't nominated for Titanic. Roger Ebert doesn't even mention the movie in his write-up. This in and of itself is an abomination of sorts. I highly respect Roger's writing and commentary, but there needs to be a mention of the Illusionist somewhere on the AWOL list: best director, original screenplay...come on!
I really am sick and tired of the rhetoric lamenting about Dreamgirls being shut-out for the best picture nomination. Why should that movie be nominated over any other? Because of its almost completely black cast? That can be the only reason I can see for such exhaling of the smite that has befallen that movie. Why they had two actor nominations, therefore, they should have gotten a best picture nom as well; no one has seen fit to lament about Blood Diamond not getting a best picture nomination, despite its having two of its actors receiving nominations. Gee, I wonder why that it. Typical black overkill; nothing, then something, then everything even if is isn't that good. The storyline of Dreamgirls just isn't all that exciting. Just because some of the actors stand out doesn't automatically mean the entire movie does. Get a grip. There are no snubs. Let's just keep perpetuating the downtrodden black issue and nothing will ever be honestly earned in Hollywood or anywhere else; it's always going to come down to how many of which race have received whatever and when, etc. Give me a break!
Roger Ebert simply can't have seen most of the movies from this last year, so it is truly improper to take him to task for not mentioning every movie that any one individual thinks should be nominated.
Some other year, this might be a valid comment. Not this year.