A recent post by Andrew Grant on Salon.com suggested that the films that get nominated for Oscars in the Best Screenplay category have more to do with the film’s popularity (in awards terms) than it does with the quality of actual writing. This is a valid argument and in many cases is true, but I find it interesting that the film Grant takes issue with this year is in the category of Best Adapted Screenplay, not Original. The popularity theory may be true, but it’s not the whole story. So let’s take a closer look.

In the adapted category, this year’s nominees are “An Education” (screenplay by Nick Hornby); “In The Loop” (screenplay by Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, and Tony Roche); “Precious” (screenplay by Geoffrey Fletcher); “Up In The Air” (screenplay by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner; and “District 9” (screenplay by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell). It’s not a bad group – you have two solid, respectable nominees that probably didn’t surprise anyone, two long-shots that maybe did, and one clear winner, for better or worse.

Let’s start with the more obvious ones, “Precious” and “An Education.” Interestingly, both are stories of young women trying to find their identity in a sobering adult world, yet the two are polar opposites. From a screenwriter’s perspective, taking on “Precious” is a daunting task. The book deals with some delicate subject matter, to say the least. The script keeps its integrity and tackles the story head on without losing the honesty or sympathy. It must have been quite a finesse job. Frankly, if the subject weren’t quite so dark, it could’ve been a front-runner. On the other hand,“An Education” – which is a solid piece of craft as well as just plain likeable – has the added advantage of being written by the beloved novelist Nick Hornby. Unfortunately, I think it’s simply not flashy enough for an actual win. Which is a shame because it’s the lack of flash that also points to Hornby’s skill – it’s written so fluidly that we forget or miss how smart it is and how complex and endearing every character is.

The two surprises/long shots are “District 9” and “In The Loop.” The Salon article’s gripe is with the inclusion of “District 9” over “The Informant!” And while I agree that “The Informant!” should be in there, “District 9” has earned its place, too. Admittedly, I think “District 9” may better have been served by nominations in some other categories, and it’s possible that Academy voters (or at least those who get to vote in multiple categories) felt it should be recognized in some way, and screenplay ended up being it. Taken in that context, the Salon article has a point, but it’s not the whole story. Whether “District 9” is a great screenplay in terms of dialogue and characterization is debatable, but there are many layers to a screenplay and one of the first is the simple idea. “District 9” has a very good idea at the heart of it, and that idea was executed into a good screenplay. It’s not literature, but it did form the blueprint for one of the more memorable films of 2009. Still, I think this is a case where being nominated is honor enough, and it won’t win.

Like “District 9,” “In The Loop” has the distinction of being the only other nominee not based on a book (it’s based on a British TV series, and “District 9” is based on a short film). In writing, less is generally more and that certainly goes for the number of credited writers – the more you see, the worse the script tends to be. With four credited writers, “In The Loop” has bucked that trend, and its satirical take on a U.S. President and British Prime Minister cooking up a war certainly makes it a movie indicative of the times. But, alas, there is some truth to that popularity theory, so this one has no chance, since virtually no one saw it.

That leaves the clear winner to be “Up In The Air.” I’m not saying it’s right, but there it is. How much of the credit goes to the screenwriters and how much to the source material could be argued to death. But consider this: the backpack speech that George Clooney gives, citing his every-man-for-himself philosophy? Not in the novel. The Anna Kendrick character (and, in my opinion, best part of the movie)? Not in the book. George Clooney’s character, Ryan Bingham, spends much of his time in the book alone, which you just can’t do in a movie. Now, it’s easy to add in a sidekick just to give your lead someone to talk to. But to make the character more than just a sidekick, to make them someone who opens your main character’s eyes and question themselves, and get at the heart of the themes of the movie – all the while fitting it in to the framework of the original novel and without messing that all up – well, it’s not easy. So from a purely writing standpoint, the nomination is well deserved. Throw in that popularity advantage, and now you’ve got a shoe-in.

Road to the Oscars series:

Podcasts – Kit Bowen, Nate Freiberg, Adam Spunberg, and Phil Wallace

February 4: Live Action Short – Kit Bowen

February 5: Animated Short – Kit Bowen

February 8: Documentary Short Subject – Christa Youngpeter

February 9: Documentary Feature – Nate Freiberg

February 10: Foreign Language Film – Paul Popiel

February 12: Animated Film – Nate Freiberg

February 15: Sound Mixing – Jeremy Martin

February 16: Sound Editing – Jeremy Martin

February 17: Original Song – Adam Spunberg and Savanna New

February 18: Visual Effects – Mallory Pickard

February 19: Original Score – Adam Spunberg

February 22: Makeup – Christa Youngpeter

February 23: Costume – Steve Neumann

February 24: Art Direction – Christa Youngpeter

February 25: Film Editing – Steve Neumann

February 26: Cinematography – Paul Popiel

February 27: Original Screenplay – Jeremy Martin

February 28: Adapted Screenplay – Jeremy Martin

March 1: Supporting Actress – Marla Seidell

March 2: Supporting Actor – Phil Wallace

March 3: Actress – Marla Seidell

March 4: Actor – Kit Bowen

March 5: Director – Adam Spunberg

March 5: Picture – Kit Bowen

March 7: The 82nd Annual Academy Awards!

In light of America’s afflicted age of evaporating business and surging layoffs, “bad timing” was admittedly my first reaction to the synopsis of “Up in the Air,” a film whose protagonist voyages around the country as the Grim Reaper of corporate downsizing. Not only is Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) a one-man professional firing squad– he genuinely enjoys his work and the compact lifestyle that comes with it.

Leave it to Jason Reitman (Thank You For Smoking, Juno) to completely defuse said negative assumptions and demonstrate in top form that now is the perfect time to explore the current status of America, and more importantly, the American dream. Reitman stays true to his style of weaving acerbic observations on American ethos into lovable, tangible characters, but it is his directorial dive into themes of self-discovery and the archetypal corporate machine that elevates “Up in the Air” into Oscar territory.

Take for example the scene in which Bingham (Clooney) prepares his overly ambitious protege, Natalie (Anna Kendrick), for her first firing in another no-name office building in a no-name town. Enter a brilliant cameo by JK Simmons. Kendrick rolls out her well-memorized, hollow pitch about new opportunities and slides the severance packet across the table like a checkmate. He doesn’t take the bait, and Clooney calmly interjects with a pitch so perfect that the lines between inspiration and beautifully packaged nothingness become blurred: “How much did they pay you to first give up on your dreams?”

It is these moments that allow Clooney to flawlessly portray a man who packages unemployment in the promise of the American Dream so well that “firing” becomes a sort of self-discovery facilitation. In reality, Bingham fires complete strangers for faceless companies too cowardly to handle it on their own, and without any sort of follow-up– both professionally and personally, he is a man who embraces artificial intimacy as a crucial part of his weightless lifestyle.

The challenges to his anonymity come in the form of two women. Natalie (Kendrick) is a Type A college graduate who joins Bingham’s firm with ambitions of turning the layoff business into a social media platform. The idea threatens to ground Bingham indefinitely, and when the two begin sparring about decency and the layoff process, the boss (Jason Bateman) assigns her to the road. Clooney and Kendrick create a humorously dysfunctional corporate-father-daughter rapport which namely involves Kendrick scrutinizing (perhaps ironically) Clooney’s detached way of life.

Challenge #2 comes in the form of Alex (Vera Farmiga), a gorgeous fellow frequent flyer who is openly attracted to Bingham’s plastic collection of elite memberships and credit cards. The sultry chemistry between Farmiga and Clooney has all the trappings of old Hollywood romance, and her presence on the road completes Clooney’s stand-in family. This is most apparent in a scene where Natalie outlines her American Dream (the Ivy League version involving a one-syllable name i-banking husband), and Alex advises her on what to truly seek including someone from a good family and a man who wants kids. In rare form, Bingham refrains from commenting and listens instead with an amused and somewhat distant look on his face.

It is not until the final scene that Bingham realizes the vacancy of the life he has chosen. Clooney perfectly captures the moment in which his dream of mobility and freedom from the machine finally meets reality as he stares blankly at another airline departure screen. The montage of talking heads from the opening scene then returns (note Reitman chose real people, not actors, who had recently been laid off for the film’s bookends), but the discussion has shifted from losing a job to the sustaining power of love and family in spite of loss.

Up in the Air unflinchingly portrays a culture of material identity, omnipresent marketing, and increasingly robotic interactions that all serve as various degrees of escapism from the bleak economic climate and more or less from reality. It does not preach, and it does not pass judgment; it simply is. One thing is clear though– no matter how loyal you are to a company or an airline or a brand name, no matter how much you embrace material culture as your own, it is having a family or someone to love that will sustain us when it all falls down– even the American Dream.

The host of awards the film has already won (including the Golden Globe and Critic’s Choice Award for Best Screenplay along with NBR awards for Best Actor, Best Film, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actress for Anna Kendrick) confirm that Reitman may have in fact chosen the perfect time to make Up in the Air. The film led the Golden Globes with six nominations, and most Oscar predictions are calling it a toss-up between Avatar, The Hurt Locker, and Up in the Air for Best Picture. I feel it undoubtedly deserves Best Screenplay, and given the impeccable cast, clean cinematography, and heightened relevancy, an Oscar for Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Director, and Best Picture would all be well-deserved.

Voting began this week for the Writers Guild of America (WGA) awards in the Screenplay category and it could be a preview into what we can expect come Oscar time. Both awards’ nominees are determined by other writers, who, in theory, should know a thing or two and truly allow the best contenders to rise to the top. Though a WGA member myself, let it be stated up front that I opted not to take part in the nominee process (I didn’t feel like I could make an informed enough decision based on the hundreds of possibilities). I will, however, of course, be casting my vote. And it’s an interesting list to choose from.

In the Best Original Screenplay category, the WGA has selected “(500) Days of Summer,” “Avatar,” “The Hangover,” “The Hurt Locker,” and “A Serious Man.” That’s a pretty eclectic bunch. And in the Best Adapted Screenplay category, the WGA nominated “Crazy Heart,” “Julie and Julia,” “Precious,” “Star Trek,” and “Up In The Air.” Again, quite a mix. To put it in perspective, only two of the WGA nominees were also nominated for the upcoming Golden Globes (“The Hurt Locker” and “Up In The Air”). Proof that it was a fertile year for writing, out of ten total nominees, the WGA didn’t get around to recognizing the excellent “District 9,” or the much beloved “Inglourious Basterds,” two of the other Golden Globes picks.

The biggest surprises, for me, are in the Best Original category. I’m proud to be a member of an organization in the motion picture industry that recognizes the difficulty of comedy. “The Hangover’s” nomination is well-deserved and I hope many of those who nominated it will do the same come Oscar time. But I doubt it will get that far. Both “Hurt Locker” and “A Serious Man” still have solid Oscar chances, but the one that I think has the best chance at going on to obtain Oscar glory is “(500) Days of Summer.” Not only is it a clever, funny, and heartfelt script, it was written by newcomers which seems to sit well with Oscar voters (see “Little Miss Sunshine,” “Juno,” “Good Will Hunting”).

The other big surprise here is “Avatar.” Should that screenplay go on to pick up an Oscar nomination (or especially if it picks up a win), it will surely spark raging debates amongst writers everywhere. On the one hand, James Cameron made up and populated and entire world. On the other hand, the inhabitants of said world are protecting a rare and hard to come by mineral called, uh, unobtainium. Clunky at best, no? Cameron’s last magnum opus, “Titanic” scored a record tying 14 nominations, but Screenplay wasn’t one of them.

The Best Adapted category is a little hard to judge, especially with no knowledge whatsoever of any of the source material. But the standout surprise is “Star Trek.” The writers did such a great job of retooling, reinventing, rebooting the iconic franchise that it hardly feels like an “adaptation.” Unfortunately, I think its chances of moving on to the Oscars are nil. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see any of the other four Best Adapted nominees in the exact same place come Oscar night.

Personally, I’m not sure I would choose any of these as the best of they year (if you must know, I love “Where The Wild Things Are” for Best Adapated and, because my vote doesn’t matter, I’m going with Rian Johnson’s “The Brothers Bloom” in Best Original, cause boy was it ever). At any rate, given that both the WGA awards and the Oscars nominated and voted on by writers, it will be very interesting to see how the lists compare. If the Oscar ballot is as varied as these WGA nominations then justice will have prevailed. But something tells me (sorry to be a cynic) that there’s a bias between the two. One (the WGA nominees) are what you really feel and the other (the Oscar nominees) are what you say in public.

Writers have long gotten short changed in Hollywood, so it should be no surprise that the nominations for Best Motion Picture Screenplay for the upcoming Golden Globe Awards are no different. But it seems a glaring discrepancy that the Globes should offer Best Picture awards in two different categories (Drama and Comedy/Musical), yet have only one category for Best Screenplay. When it comes to film, having the two categories is the one thing that gives the Golden Globes a slight edge over the Oscars. Just ask any comedy fan.

Granted, the directors are getting the shaft, too, and I could easily rant about that as well. It’s just that I have a soft spot for writers. And I know you’ve heard it before, but I’m trotting it out again, because it’s true: without the writer(s), there’d be nothing to direct, no “Best Picture” to enjoy. What’s more – the shit is hard! I know firsthand, having written a couple things for television. Hell, I’ll need a nap just from writing this. I digress, but hopefully you see my point.

Comedy and drama aside, there’s also the issue of original scripts versus adaptations – a distinction the Academy has long recognized by offering separate Oscars for each. The Golden Globes don’t even go that far. A glaring omission that was highlighted by a couple of articles recently published in Daily Variety outlining the plethora of quality work that the Academy has to choose from, along with insightful analysis of each script’s chance.

To be fair, the Hollywood Foreign Press selected a diverse crop for their Globe nominees. But in the diversity also lies the omissions, proving that one lonely category isn’t enough. For instance, “District 9” proved yet again that sci-fi is not just a genre for geeks, but can be used as a mirror to take a hard look at our own world and time. Yet the case for sci-fi was also made by this summer’s blockbuster “Star Trek” whose script ingeniously turned the original’s mythology on its head and opened the door to a clean slate for a new generation of fans. “The Hurt Locker” is an impressive take on the Iraq War, yet so is “The Messenger.” It’s nice to see “It’s Complicated” nominated, if for no other reason than it finally gives women some long and too often neglected recognition. But then again, there was also “Julie and Julia” in which Nora Ephron took on the daunting task of not only adapting two separate books, but finding a way to blend them into one seamless story.

Perhaps this is the HFPA’s main dilemma – if they were to separate out the Screenplay category, would it be by comedy and drama or adaptation and original? Where would “Julie and Julia” fall, as both a comedy and an adaptation? It’s still no excuse. Either division would open up the playing field and allow for more deserving writers to get recognized. The screenplay is often the award that gets used to honor a film that would have been left out otherwise. “District 9” seems to be a case in point for the Golden Globes this year – one could easily make a case for it in the Best Picture category as well as its star, Sharlto Copley in the Best Actor category. Stiff competition left it out in the cold, so I’m glad to see that the screenplay sneaked in there.

Too many others have been left out, though. From a quick scanning of the Variety articles, where’s “(500) Days of Summer” and/or “The Hangover” (both nominated in the Best Picture Comedy/Musical category, mind you)? From the animated category, where is the beloved “Up” or, my personal favorite, “Fantastic Mr. Fox”? What about that other critics’ darling, “Precious”? How about “Avatar” in which an entire world was invented? On paper first, need I remind you…