Awards »

In case you missed the live-Tweeting and live-blogging from last night's Gotham Independent Awards at NYC's Cipriani, we're here to help. Indie favorite The Hurt Locker took home the two big awards, Best Feature and Best Ensemble Performance, although The Maid's Catalina Saavedra snagged the award for Best Breakthrough Actor, beating out The Hurt Locker's Jeremy Renner, Ben Foster (The Messenger), Patton Oswalt (Big Fan), and Souleymane Sy Savane (Goodbye Solo). Robert Siegel, who also wrote The Wrestler and wrote and directed Big Fan, snatched the Breakthrough Director award from The Hurt Locker's Kathryn Bigelow and the Coens.

Meanwhile, the stomach-churningly fascinating Food Inc. won best doc for its close look at how what's on our plates really got there, and how big biz helped (or harmed, as the case may be). And the Best Film Not Playing at a Theater Near You award went to You Wont Miss Me, which was directed by Russo-Young, who cowrote the film with Stella Schnabel. (The missing apostrophe is on purpose, natch.)

Sounds like there were some indie hijinks happening, as those on the scene reported that Rosie Perez congratulated Willem Dafoe, who was there to present Kathryn Bigelow with a career tribute, on his, uh, performance in Antichrist, declaring it a "sick-ass movie." (Truth.)

Do you think that these awards will have any affect on the rest of the award season? As Monika noted last night in her latest Girls on Film column, the Academy Awards Best Actress pool is a bit shallow. Could we see Catalina Saavedra ready to hit the red carpet for the Oscars? Have you seen any of the IFP films, and if not, are you going to seek them out now?

Check out the complete list of noms here.

The Indie Spirit Awards announced their nominations this morning, honoring a whole bunch of films that were only seen by film critics, artsy intellectuals and/or people who accidentally walked into the wrong theater while on their way to watch Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I kid, of course, because if it wasn't for shows like the Spirit Awards, a number of really great independent films (and performances) would probably go unnoticed. So I command you to check out the list of nominees after the jump and start tracking them down one by one (either in theaters or on DVD). Go! Now!

This year's crop of nominees is definitely stirring the pot a little bit. Surprises include Maria Bello for Best Female Lead in Downloading Nancy, a film that all of about one person (me!) actually enjoyed. 500 Days of Summer also took home a couple nods for Best Feature and Best Male Lead (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and even the viciously panned Gentlemen Broncos walked away with a nod for Best Supporting Male (Jermaine Clement). One of the more interesting (and talked-about) nominations went to Paranormal Activity in the Best First Feature category, alongside other notable indies like A Single Man, Crazy Heart, Easier with Practice and The Messenger.

But does Paranormal Activity really belong there, or is it being honored more because of what it achieved at the box office versus how good it actually is? I've seen some already poking fun at the nomination on Twitter, as if it doesn't deserve to shine the shoes of the other films listed alongside it. But is that just because it doesn't fit the 'Best Picture" mold? Is it because it's become a "fanboy" film?

With the werewolves out of the way, back to our regularly scheduled programming. A few weeks ago, The Hollywood Reporter ran a piece called "Shallow pool for Oscar's actress contenders." The basic premise: While the list of female directorial hopefuls is stronger than ever for the 2010 Academy race, the actress nods aren't so hot with Meryl Streep leading only a handful of other front-runners (Carey Mulligan and Gabourey Sidibe). The piece also noted the other potential Best Actress candidates, the possibility of notable performances in the remaining releases, the struggles women still face in Hollywood, and -- egads -- the fact that some are talking about Sandra Bullock getting a nod for The Blind Side.

Reading the article through, I quickly had a thought .... and it was most definitely not about that previously mentioned werewolf flick getting any award love. Usually a discussion like this might be disheartening or aggravating, but the thought wasn't negative. It was, in fact, quite positive.

Why don't we use this "shallow pool" as a reason to celebrate unconventional roles and performances?

There are a few good reasons to hate on the Satellite Awards. First of all, we really don't need any more end of the year movie and television honors. Second of all, the Satellites seem to be little more than a knock-off of the Golden Globes, which are already pretty unnecessary. Third, they happen way too early, missing out on seeing and thereby qualifying perhaps the biggest film of the year (Avatar).

But over the years I've come to appreciate the Satellites and their bestowing organization, the International Press Academy, for their constant surprises when it comes to nominating and awarding unlikely films and talent. Just look at some of last year's acting winners: Richard Jenkins; Rosemarie DeWitt; Ricky Gervais; Michael Shannon.

Now check out this year's nominees, which continue to prove that IPA voters like to go at least slightly against the grain. Okay, so there are a lot of predictable titles in the lot, including Up in the Air and Nine, which leads with 11 nominations. Yet there are some films I don't expect to be recognized by the Golden Globes, let alone the Oscars, such as The Maid and The Stoning of Soraya M., both of which feature in the Best Actress (Drama) category.

When you've glutted yourself on Turkey, must take a break from New Moon reportage, and want to get busy with the Oscar race, it's time to turn the writing work over to the celebs. Both Variety and Entertainment Weekly handed the pens over to the stars recently for two very different reasons -- one, to remember stars we've lost this year like Patrick Swayze, and two, to highlight Academy Award hopefuls in the ever-increasing Oscar race.

Of course, EW wants you to buy the mag, so they're only including one of the movie tributes online, and that's C. Thomas Howell writing about his memories of working with Swayze. The two worked together on The Outsiders all those years ago, and Howell writes: "The one thing that was great about him was also the most irritating fact about him: He was always somehow better than you, no matter what it was you were doing. It didn't matter if you were on horseback, shooting weapons, roller-skating, or reciting Shakespeare. He was a tough f-er and a free spirit." I don't know if I could pick a more apt description for him. Swayze always had that sense of ease about him, whether it was looking smooth on the dance floor, getting in on the Point Break action, or crying away his self-help guru woes. (Further tributes include Matthew Broderick on John Hughes and Keith Carradine on David Carradine.)

Maybe it's because I saw De Sica's classic Umberto D. again over the weekend, or maybe it's because I'm excited for tomorrow's release of the 25th Anniversary Edition of Cujo on DVD and Blu-ray, but I've got movie dogs on the brain. Last night I even randomly spent some time watching YouTube clips of my all-time favorite movie dog, Asta, from the Thin Man franchise (played by Skippy, who also appears in Bringing Up Baby and The Awful Truth).

So it was coincidentally fun this morning learning that the Fido Awards happened over the weekend. The ceremony, nicknamed the "canine Oscars," occurred in London Saturday, when trophies were handed out in five separate categories. To my surprise, the Fidos don't exclude animated dogs, as the talking dog, Dug, from Pixar's Up won the Blockbuster Bowser award, beating out pups from Gran Torino, Inglourious Basterds and another animation, Coraline, in the category.

Are members from the documentary branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences being paid to short list some films over others? That's what it sounds like director James Toback was alluding to when he spoke to the New York Times recently about how his buzzed-about documentary, Tyson, was left off the Academy's short list along with several other notable documentaries from the past year. Toback told the Times that at some point during the selection process he experienced something he puts "fully in the category of extortion", adding that he did not go along with it.

Speaking on behalf of the documentary branch -- which Toback refers to as "some tiny, dirty covert weirdly protective group" -- chairman (and filmmaker) Rob Epstein said, "I have no idea. It certainly hasn't come before me." Among some of the critically acclaimed docs snubbed this year are Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story, the awesome Anvil! The Story of Anvil, and The September Issue. This year's documentary short list was narrowed down to 15 finalists from 89 possible contenders. So, yeah, obviously you're going to see some fantastic films miss the cut, and, subsequently, some pissed off filmmakers, but it's a pretty bold move for Toback to go and claim extortion, don't you think?

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences documentary committee has watched the 89 eligible docs that were submitted and whittled the field down to 15 finalists, from which the five Oscar nominees will be chosen. But before we even get there we gotta talk about the snubs.

Notably absent from the shortlist are Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story and the highly praised Anvil! The Story of Anvil, which last month earned the distinction of being the first "for your consideration" screener sent to Academy members this year. Last year's best-reviewed documentary, Man on Wire, went on to win the Oscar; Anvil! holds that title this year (98% at Rotten Tomatoes), but it's not even going to be nominated.

Other noteworthy titles not among the top 15: Tyson (about the boxer, not the chicken company) and The September Issue (about Anna Wintour and Vogue magazine). Michael Jackson's This Is It and Chris Rock's Good Hair didn't hit theaters until October, qualifying them for next year's documentary category -- for docs, the eligibility period is September-August, not January-December. (This Is It might not be eligible anyway, since Academy rules forbid films that are "essentially unfiltered records of performances," which could apply here.) The highest-grossing documentary of the year, Earth, isn't eligible because it was mostly repackaged material that had already aired on TV.

The complete shortlist is after the jump.

[Note: Scott Weinberg has the pro side of this argument -- why Roger Corman does deserve an Oscar -- in an article that you can read right here.]

In a post yesterday about the honorary Academy Awards given out over the weekend, I said this about one of the recipients, Roger Corman: "Corman, who has directed more than 50 films and produced nearly 400 (!), has never been nominated for an Oscar, probably because all of his movies are terrible. But apparently the Academy is rewarding quantity now, too. So don't give up, Uwe Boll! Just make another 300 movies!" These remarks were met with much disapproval by many readers, and so I would like to elaborate -- assuming any of the people who swore they'd never read Cinematical again are in fact still reading Cinematical (which they are).

First, a correction. I shouldn't have said "all of his movies are terrible." I should have said something like "his movies are generally terrible." "All" suggests that I've seen all 400 of them, which of course I haven't. I ought to have used more general language. That was my bad, as the kids say.

I stand by the point I was making, though. If the Academy is giving out Oscars based on the production of quality work -- which, last time I checked, was the basic idea behind the Oscars -- then Roger Corman does not qualify. The vast majority of his output is mediocre at best. Some of it is downright awful. A few films are good enough on their own, but not to where any of them would deserve Oscars individually. Even as a body, those moderately good Corman movies don't outweigh the dozens -- literally dozens and DOZENS -- of cheap, forgettable clunkers.

Producing a huge quantity of work whose overall entertainment or artistic value averages out to be somewhere between "mediocre" and "mediocre-plus" isn't worthy of Academy Award consideration. That's neat and everything, producing 400 movies over the course of 50 years. Very ambitious of you! But the Academy should be rewarding quality, not quantity.

As you've probably already heard, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is shaking things up at this year's Oscars by having 10 Best Picture nominees instead of five, and by moving the honorary awards (read: the boring part of the show) to a special ceremony of their own. That ceremony will be held in November, and-- holy crap, it was this weekend! The almost-Oscars were on Saturday!

They're called the Governors Awards, and while they won't be televised, the AMPAS website has some photos and background info. Honorary Oscars went to actress Lauren Bacall (pictured), cinematographer Gordon Willis (the Godfather trilogy, Manhattan, All the President's Men), and director/producer Roger Corman (numerous MST3K films). Astonishingly, the legendary Bacall has only received one Oscar nomination in her 65-year career, for The Mirror Has Two Faces. Willis was nominated for The Godfather: Part III and Zelig. Corman, who has directed more than 50 films and produced nearly 400 (!), has never been nominated for an Oscar, probably because all of his movies are terrible. But apparently the Academy is rewarding quantity now, too. So don't give up, Uwe Boll! Just make another 300 movies!

The other award at the special ceremony was the Irving G. Thalberg Award, given to John Calley, who produced The Remains of the Day and Closer and oversaw worldwide production for Warner Bros. throughout the 1970s.

The Governors Awards were also a chance for Oscar telecast producers Adam Shankman and Bill Mechanic to drop a few hints about what the big show will be like on March 7. Mechanic said they're not going to repeat the thing the 2009 show did where a coven of five past Oscar winners introduced the acting nominees.