GREAT post, Jeff. And great points.

The one thing that I find so off-putting about the Oscar handicapping is the tendency of critics-- including yourself-- to talk about movies they love in such absolutist terms. It's not just enough to love one movie more than another, you have to trash the other movies that fell out of favor, AND trash the critics and audiences who found their film better than yours.

And thus the viscious partisan circle of life.

Trouble is, you, me, and most readers of your blog-- hell, most film lovers, period-- have room for ALL KINDS of favorite films. I loved No Country for Old Men, but I also loved Into the Wild. I also loved Superbad, FWIW. Are any of these movies "better" than the other? By which measurement? This isn't math, Jeff-- at the end of the day, it's all subjective, because we're dealing with art-- low art, pop art, high art, art for the ages, all kinds.

I liked Zodiac, Jeff. Found it to be an outstanding film. Excellent craftsmanship. But I would be hard-pressed to put it on my ten best list because it's not one of MY ten best of 2007. I can admire its craft and accomplishment, and recognize that critics with far more movie knowledge than I would find it a "better" film. That's why I'm all for indulging your constant battle to champion Zodiac-- because you're passionate about it, and it *IS*, undeniably, an excellent film. If it's your favorite movie of 2007, well good on you, Jeff. We SHOULD discuss it, and argue it, and illuminate our discussion with our shared wisdom and perspective.

But at the end of the day, I'm not going to lose all that much sleep over which five movies get nominated for Best Picture. Will I watch the Oscars? OF COURSE-- I love film. But I'm not going to chastise anyone's tastes for thinking that my favorite film of 2007 was only the Academy's SIXTH favorite film, or sixtieth, even.

And neither should you, Jeff.

I agree that the Oscars can act as a snapshot of the business at any given time but I don't know about core values.

In other words, how do The Greatest Show on Earth and Around the World in 80 Days fit into all this?

Maybe in some strange way Crash will be a kind of classic because people will re-watch it to learn about the shallowness of political discourse in the noughties..

The Oscars are also about taking down Eddie Murphy, for having the nerve to star in Norbit, and have it released during the last few weeks of the Oscar season.

The Oscars are about working the room after your film screened for the Academy. Working the party circuit. Campaigning for votes. Campaigning for a nomination. (ask Roberto Benigni, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, Jamie Foxx, and this year..Diablo Cody).

The Oscars are about voting for your friends, and letting your housekeeper fill out your ballot.

Don't let anyone tell you any different.

Jeff's take on the Oscar's reminds me of Big Willie's take on Hitler.

Good points, but still... when it comes to all of this pre-Oscar crap, the more I hear the more I want to stab myself in the eye.

Let's look on the bright side...Jamie Foxx won't be nominated for anything.

I like the distinction Jeff draws between the Oscars and the Superbowl. The Oscars have a Superbowl element to them, they are a spectacle, but Jeff is right in that there is a kind of cultural or intellectual investment in the winners or losers. Whether you stand for Crash or Brokeback Mountain or Saving Private Ryan or Shakespeare in Love, it says a little more than whether you stand for the Cowboys or the Patriots.

But just like the Superbowl, once the game is over, unless you've got a physical stake in the winner or loser, it stops mattering and we all go home and forget about it.

It's the game itself that really matters, but only until the final whistle blows.

Not to split hairs or anything, but is a second-trimester abortion considered "late-term"?

I disagree. In sports, the best team wins. It's that simple. The Oscars are more like a grown up version of a high school prom.

I disagree. In sports, the best team wins. It's that simple. The Oscars are more like a grown up version of a high school prom.

The "best" team doesn't win. The team that scores the most points on a particular day wins. The film that gets the most votes a particular year wins (same goes for politics). In either case, the winner may or may not be the best.

The difference is that everyone knows going in what the rules are and what is going to matter in sports and teams can formulate strategies to enable them to score the most points. In the Oscars, no one knows whether a "meaningful" artistic film will count more that a less artistic but satisfying big budget spectacular, or whether an ensemble piece about lives in Los Angeles affected by violence will be worth more than a film about gay lovers in Wyoming.

Well put, Silverscreen. Which is why we have the term "upset" in sports.

Though I'd argue baseball and basketball at least have best of seven championship series, which adds a bit more validity to their winners, even though upsets happen occasionally there as well.

But you'd have to say, weren't Crash and Shakespeare in Love both considered upsets in their respective years? When you describe Brokeback next to Crash it does look much more obvious what happens, but there are statistics in awards races as well; the track records of the filmmakers, the pre-Oscar accolades, etc. And don't think that the marketing departments of the various studios don't work out strategies as elaborate and specific as any football coaching staff.

"The "best" team doesn't win. The team that scores the most points on a particular day wins."

That doesn't make any sense. Of course the team with the most points wins. Teams have all year to prepare for that "particular day" known as Superbowl Sunday. The best team is the one that wins it all. All teams deal with injury, bad calls, off the field distractions, but the cream always rises to the top.

That's what I love about Sports. The atheletes control their own destiny.

In the film industry it's a popularity contest.

Harvey Weinstein proved in the 90's, that Oscars and nominations can be bought.

I'd have more respect for the Oscars if they did away with the campaigning, parties, and all the b.s. and had Academy members vote throughout the year. EVery time you see a movie, you can rate it, and vote for it. At the end of the year, the 5 films with the most votes, get nominated for Best Picture.

This would level the playing field for smaller films, and films like Breach, that opened 10 months ago.

This would also elimintate the need to have 20 films opening on the same Friday in December, so that they'd be fresh on the voter's minds.

"Do we believe that a man in his 30s can go back to his native country and somehow redeem himself for having abandoned a childhood friend and helped to destroy his life?"

What film is this? It's going to drive me crazy all day unless I know.

Kite Runner.

It doesn't matter which team (or movie) wins, what matters is who you root for and why. My point was that the reasons behind the movies we root for are more interesting than the reasons behind the sports teams we root for.

To me.

Since no one else is going to bother to defend Harvey Weinstein/Miramax or Shakespeare in Love, I'd like to remind everyone that Dreamworks spent MORE money promoting Saving Private Ryan. Harvey was willing to go toe-to-toe with them, and shouldn't be faulted for doing so. The film with the better script (and acting ensemble) won. No crime involved.

Also, there wasn't much studio fare competing seriously in 1996, so I don't know that The English Patient's Oscars were paid for, either. Had Harvey not spent the money, we could easily have been looking at Best Picture: Jerry Maguire, so I'm pretty thankful.

With the exception of the Lasse Hallstrom entries,the films that Harvey got behind and scored big with, from a nominations and wins standpoint, deserved what they received. He's not the guy responsible for crap like Crash, A Beautiful Mind or Gladiator further lowering the credibility of the Academy's credibility.

"Harvey Weinstein proved in the 90's, that Oscars and nominations can be bought."

Whereas George Steinbrenner *never* bought his way into the World Series...

Wow, that was really heart-felt. It explains to me why an intelligent guy like you continues to put himself through the wringer every year over the Oscars. At least you made your obsession understandable to me, even though I don't share it. It always seemed like a mystery to me before.

"He's not the guy responsible for crap like Crash, A Beautiful Mind or Gladiator further lowering the credibility of the Academy's credibility."

Hear hear.

Great post Jeff. Thanks.

I have said it before and I'll say it again: it is useless and kind of silly to have a subjective competition over art. The only way the Oscars could have any credibility would be to throw out all the categories and each year honor excellence in film, sort of like what the Peabody Awards do with television. There would be no set categories and no fixed number of nominees. And I agree the campaigning is just ridiculous. If the Oscars are all about recognizing excellence there should be no need to kiss anybody's ass at all. Performers shouldn't be snubbed because they are difficult to work with, nor should they win because they are beloved.

And the sports analogy is an apt one and it proves true most of the time. And even when it isn't at least both teams play the same game by the same rules in the same weather conditions.

Another thing I just thought of in regards to the sports analogy: this is why ESPN Espy awards are a joke. There is no need to have a subjectively voted upon awards shows for athletes. They get to decided who is best on the field of competition.

I'm begging here. If you're going to make a huge point -- and I think an interesting, well-played one at that -- about the validity of Oscar handicapping and campaigning, it would be awesome if you updated the balloons. Or are you still pitching Halle Berry for one of the Best Actress slots? The Balloons are a nice visual presentation of the data, but feed us the raw meat and keep them updated.

I think this year more than ever everday issues are influencing how critics are viewing this year's performances.

For example: Why is Amy Ryan's performance in 'Gone Baby Gone' resonating with so many critics? One possibility is Britney Spears. Her life out in the open as an unfit, drug using mother probably has some influence on the believability of Ryan's performance. We are an escapist society, and it is easy for many people (critics included) to get caught up in a performance that is indicative of real life issues. It is sometimes easier to "deal" with an onscreen performance than to acknowledge the world as being pretty messed up.

I have also noticed some people are now sniping at Ellen Page's performance in Juno. Is it because Jamie Lynn Spears, Brit's sister, is pregnant at the ripe old age of 16? So that to honor this role is to say that it's okay for for anyone to be pregnant at this age?

Everyday values do have an impact on how we review movies. Art imitating life to the point of dead-on accuracy can cause viewers and critics to either endorse that performance or bash it in order to save face.

I think this year more than ever everday issues are influencing how critics are viewing this year's performances.

For example: Why is Amy Ryan's performance in 'Gone Baby Gone' resonating with so many critics? One possibility is Britney Spears. Her life out in the open as an unfit, drug using mother probably has some influence on the believability of Ryan's performance. We are an escapist society, and it is easy for many people (critics included) to get caught up in a performance that is indicative of real life issues. It is sometimes easier to "deal" with an onscreen performance than to acknowledge the world as being pretty messed up.

I have also noticed some people are now sniping at Ellen Page's performance in Juno. Is it because Jamie Lynn Spears, Brit's sister, is pregnant at the ripe old age of 16? So that to honor this role is to say that it's okay for for anyone to be pregnant at this age?

Everyday values do have an impact on how we review movies. Art imitating life to the point of dead-on accuracy can cause viewers and critics to either endorse that performance or bash it in order to save face.