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!

The Film Editing Oscar is the one award most closely related to the Best Picture award. However, with this years ten Best Picture nominees, the Film Editing award seems to be forgetting some. Almost two-thirds of the Best Picture winners have also won Best Picture. This years nominees are coming from some vastly diverse pictures and the majority are sitting with their first nomination. This could really make the Oscars an interesting evening.

Julian Clarke is basically an unknown and is sitting with his first nomination for District 9. Clarke did a stunning job in the science fiction pic. The action sequences and the suspenseful quiet moments are perfect for keeping you on the edge of your seat. The editing job really brings you into District 9 as if you were one of the characters. Julian Clarke has set himself up to possibly make a surprise steal in this category.

Another first time nominee, Joe Klotz, nominated for Precious: Based on the novel “Push” by Sapphire, is the one that, in my personal opinion, doesn’t belong. I had issues with the film editing in this picture. There were sequences that seemed to not be as fluid as well as some minor mistakes in continuity. There were sequences in and out of Precious’ imagination that were done beautifully as well as the sequences that really brought out the emotion. While I liked the film and its performances I just don’t feel the editing is even close to the other nominees in the category.

The third nominee is a Tarantino regular, Sally Menke for Inglorious Basterds. The editing in the film was superb. Menke has set herself with her second nominee and could be have an even larger chance of pulling the upset than Clarke does. The weaving of the various story lines is where this film really excelled. It was cut at just the right time to keep us on the edge of our seats and attached to each specific story line. The sequence in the tavern scene was beautiful. Seeing the perspective from the various characters at just the right time added such suspense to that scene. Let’s not forget the film that was shown in the theater as the audience was being locked inside. Gripping edits in this film and a serious contender.

Now we are left with the two films that are probably the favorites for Best Picture and if recent history continues then these two should also be the favorites for Film Editing. First, let’s take a look at Bob Murawski and Chris Innis’ work on The Hurt Locker. This is a film that truly takes you into the trenches and the editing is deserving of that credit. You are put in situations as you watch the film that bring you into the action and doing that is always in objective in a war film and I feel these gentleman have succeeded. The editing seems as if it had the audience and its emotions in mind when it made the decisions it did. If they win this award, they could steal Best Picture as well.

Lastly, the overwhelming favorite, Stephen Rivkin, John Refoua, both with their first nominations, and James Cameron with his second for the epic Avatar. This had to be a terribly daunting film to edit. Considering so much of the film was done with special effects and technology that was groundbreaking, it makes since that they actually had their editing machine on set during the entire process. With that, it allowed them to use various takes from scenes. For example, they could take one actors second take and the other actors sixth take. This would give them the advantage of truly taking everyones best moment. This film also had another character that people seem to forget about and that was the planet and its nature. The editing process gave the trees, the animals, the flowers, etc., a life and character that made the film so compelling. Now I know, people love or hate this film, but it is going to be a difficult task to upset these men in this category. This film was all about the editing, and without the perfectionist attitude of James Cameron, this film may have never been what it became.

So get out your scorecards and select the editors from Avatar as the victors in this category. If you really want to take a chance and possibly stir up the Oscar betting pools, go with Sally Menke and Inglorious Basterds.

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!

After several months of hysterical tweeting and ravenous Advil consumption, we finally get the results of Best Picture expansion. As with many groundbreaking events in life, sometimes the actual transition has to happen before the effects can truly sink in. Now we can really pose the question: Has the Academy succeeded in bringing more mainstream interest to the show, or has its flagship category become too diluted?

Unfortunately, while the five extra nominees should quicken the pulses of a few eager fans, the end result is something of a charade. The biggest problem is that anyone can pick out the tag-alongs from the already-theres, and it has nothing to do with possessing some great insight or film savvy.

Best Picture may have expanded to 10 nominees, but the other categories remain unchanged. That includes Best Director, which – in the five-for-fighting days – often sported the same quintet as Picture. For 2009, we have Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, Up in the Air, and Precious competing for Best Director honors. What does that say for District 9, An Education, A Serious Man, Up, and (gasp!) The Blind Side? Should we even bother putting them on the ballot when it’s so obvious that they’re the bottom feeders?

Put Directing aside and take a look at the Screenplay awards. Eight of the Best Picture nominations found a spot within Best Original Screenplay or Best Adapted Screenplay. Missing? The Blind Side and Avatar. We can excuse Avatar, since we all know it wasn’t the dialogue that drove that film (“Look at all that cheddar!”), but that’s strike two for The Blind Side.

What about Cinematography? Making it from the Best Picture list are Avatar, The Hurt Locker, and Inglourious Basterds. While not a tell-all category by any means, The Blind Side’s omission from Best Director, a Best Screenplay, and Best Cinematography has pretty much assured any viewer that its inclusion was a sham. Sorry Michael Oher.

Perhaps one could argue that by giving a movie like The Blind Side a spot, the nomination itself serves as its own form of recognition. There is definitely some truth there, but how meaningful is that honor, truly, when the field has been so trivialized? The Blind Side simply does not belong.

On the flip side, the new format is not without benefit. At long last, we have an animated, Pixar film in Up that breaks the barrier. Expect that to be a trend in the coming years, as long as the 10-movie system is in place. Also, a thought-provoking sci-fi epic like District 9 gets a little more spotlight, and the glorious An Education (probably sixth on the Academy’s list) might enter the consciousness of the everyday filmgoer. These are all worthy causes.

In summary, I would have to say that the expansion has been a failure, but it is has its merits too. If the ceremony is in such need of a shakeup, why not compromise at eight films instead of 10? That way, at least all the nominees have a decent chance of garnering extra nominations in Directing, Screenplay, and/or Cinematography.

Of course, maybe the most sensible option would be to recall the famous song from worthy 1971-nominee Fiddler on the Roof: Tradition! Some things are best left as they were, if for no other reason than to honor the standards of yesteryear.

Neill Blomkamp’s District 9 and James Cameron’s Avatar both wowed audiences in 2009, but which will come away a winner come awards season? District 9, bolstered by Peter Jackson’s involvement, was met with critical acclaim despite a relatively modest budget and no-name headliners (Sharlto Copley anyone?). Cameron’s Avatar, however, much ballyhooed for the five years it’s taken to create, is $300 million worth of newly minted A-listers (Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana) and big screen icons like Sigourney Weaver.

So who prevails in the unwanted alien race, District 9 “prawns” or Avatar’s “blue monkeys”? Both see the leading man defy their respective evil organizations to transform into the very creature he’s been sent to eradicate, but with polar results. Will the academies favor a happy ending on an alien planet, or the anti-hero in Johannesburg?

Sam Worthington impresses in his Terminator: Salvation follow-up big budget action film as a paraplegic Marine sent to a secret program on fantasy-world of a planet known as Pandora as a last minute replacement to his fallen twin brother. Worthington (as Jake Sully) quickly embraces the Na’vi culture he’s assigned to infiltrate and betray, and falls in love with their warrior princess, Neytiri and lines blur between his human reality and his “dream walker” alter ego with the natives.

The plight of the Na’vi is a sort of futuristic allegory of the Native American’s plight in the United States in the expansion of the Western states. In 3-D! Incredible visuals aside (we all know they’re ground breaking, breathtaking…), is the story gripping enough to earn statues beyond special effects?

Back on Earth in District 9, the aliens stranded in Johannesburg, South Africa face a futuristic apartheid while relegated to their human-built slums and subject to endless persecution by locals and a company known as Multi-National United. Wickus (Copley) is a nerdy cubicle-dweller brought up through the ranks by his powerful father-in-law and subsequent subject in a documentary-style expose. Like Worthington, Copley forces his way into the alien camp, only his transformation is totally involuntary and his terrifying mutation is a wildly entertaining table-turning tale, finding him fighting for his life (and the life of an unlikely friend) on the other side.

Both films capture the devolution of human relationships in favor of alien ties, voluntary or not, relying on a male lead. One sees a love story with a happy ending, while the other leaves our anti-hero alone amidst sometimes tough to stomach racism and genocide. While Avatar has certainly garnered more buzz thanks to its ridiculous budget and bombastic director, District 9 may be the dark horse come Oscar season.