A few hours ago Sasha Stone, Scott Feinberg and I recorded a special Oscar Poker (#18) about this morning’s Oscar nominations. I’d been in a funk all day about the 12 nominations handed to Tom Hooper‘s The King’s Speech, and the meaning of that number. Our discussion was basically about raising the spirits of those who, like myself, felt grief-struck about the “wrong” film suddenly seeming to become (emphasis on the “s” word) the leading Best Picture contender.

To me (and to most of the world) the 12 TKS nominations indicated a return to the old Oscar mentality of the ’90s, to notions of Anglo-Saxon safety and familiarity and upscale formula, to Merchant-Ivory/Masterpiece Theatre brand of royal British cinema. I felt deeply bummed by this because, to me, The Social Network almost represented a kind of Prague Spring movie — youthful, buzzy, fresh, GenY, 21st Century, etc. So to me this morning’s King’s Speech power-surge felt like repression, like Soviet tanks rumbling into Prague in August ’68. I stood on the street and wept.

But you know what? Our conversation raised my spirits somewhat. Here’s a stand-alone link,

Park City’s Yarrow Hotel bar, 14 or 15 minutes into Barack Obama‘s State of the Union speech.

Every last MCN Guru of Gold voter who changed his/her Best Picture prediction in favor of The Social Network over the last three or four weeks reversed course this morning after the Oscar nominations were announced, and now they’re all King’s Speech supporters again. (Except for Awards Daily‘s Sasha Stone, who abstained.) It was almost the same deal at Gold Derby’s prediction chart except for five journalists who have, it would seem, at least a semblance of faith in previous perceptions and/or a backbone — Cinematical‘s Erik Davis, Village Voice‘s Michael Musto, Gold Derby‘s Tom O’Neil, NextMovie‘s Kevin Polowy and myself.

From the wise and reputable Lewis Beale, via CNN.com: “Oscar has proven, once again, that it just doesn’t get it. By ‘it’ I mean that the Academy voters seem to be stuck in some sort of time warp where solid, dependable, well-crafted, but utterly non-innovative films like The King’s Speech get a bushel of nominations –12 in all, leading the pack — while a cutting edge, brilliantly directed and written, this-is-what-life-is-about-today film like The Social Network is relegated to third place, behind True Grit, in the nominations total.

“By relegating The Social Network to also-ran status, the Academy is sending a very strong message: ‘We like traditional filmmaking. We don’t want to think too hard. We want our lead characters to be sympathetic or, at the very least, colorful. This year contemporary issue films aren’t necessarily our cup of tea.’

“They’re also saying, last but not least, ‘What century is this, anyway?'”

Christopher Hitchens‘ 1.24 Slate piece about The King’s Speech is not some rash smear job. It’s a sensible and researched argument that deserves a read by every Oscar blogger and Academy member. He’s a Brit who knows his British history — he’s Christopher effin’ Hitchens — and he’s explaining quite simply and clearly that King George VI (a.k.a. “Bertie”), former British prime minister Neville Chamberlain and the Windsors all leaned toward appeasement at a crucial time in British history. So’s what’s with all the pride and glory at the end of The King’s Speech?

“It is suggested [in The King’s Speech] that, once some political road bumps have been surmounted and some impediments in the new young monarch’s psyche have been likewise overcome, Britain is herself again, with Winston Churchill and the king at Buckingham Palace and a speech of unity and resistance being readied for delivery.

“Here again, the airbrush and the Vaseline are partners. When Chamberlain managed to outpoint the coalition of the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, and the Churchillian Tories and to hand to his friend Hitler the majority of the Czechoslovak people, along with all that country’s vast munitions factories, he received an unheard-of political favor. Landing at Heston Airport on his return from Munich, he was greeted by a royal escort in full uniform and invited to drive straight to Buckingham Palace. A written message from King George VI urged his attendance ‘so that I can express to you personally my most heartfelt congratulations…[T]his letter brings the warmest of welcomes to one who, by his patience and determination, has earned the lasting gratitude of his fellow countrymen throughout the Empire.’

“Chamberlain was then paraded on the palace balcony, saluted by royalty in front of cheering crowds. Thus the Munich sell-out had received the royal assent before the prime minister was obliged to go to Parliament and justify what he had done. The opposition forces were checkmated before the game had begun.

“Britain does not have a written Constitution, but by ancient custom the royal assent is given to measures after they have passed through both houses of Parliament. So Tory historian Andrew Roberts, in his definitively damning essay ‘The House of Windsor and the Politics of Appeasement,’ is quite correct to cite fellow scholar John Grigg in support of his view that by acting as they did to grant pre-emptive favor to Chamberlain, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter to you) ‘committed the most unconstitutional act by a British Sovereign in the present century.’

“The private letters and diaries of the royal family demonstrate a continued, consistent allegiance to the policy of appeasement and to the personality of Chamberlain. King George’s forbidding mother wrote to him, exasperated that more people in the House of Commons had not cheered the sellout. The king himself, even after the Nazi armies had struck deep north into Scandinavia and clear across the low countries to France, did not wish to accept Chamberlain’s resignation. He ‘told him how grossly unfairly he had been treated, and that I was genuinely sorry.’

“Discussing a successor, the king wrote that ‘I, of course, suggested [Lord] Halifax.’ It was explained to him that this arch-appeaser would not do and that anyway a wartime coalition could hardly be led by an unelected member of the House of Lords. Unimpressed, the king told his diary that he couldn’t get used to the idea of Churchill as prime minister and had greeted the defeated Halifax to tell him that he wished he had been chosen instead. All this can easily be known by anybody willing to do some elementary research.

“In a few months, the British royal family will be yet again rebranded and relaunched in the panoply of a wedding. Terms like ‘national unity’ and ‘people’s monarchy’ will be freely flung around. Almost the entire moral capital of this rather odd little German dynasty is invested in the post-fabricated myth of its participation in ‘Britain’s finest hour.’

“In fact, had it been up to them, the finest hour would never have taken place. So this is not a detail but a major desecration of the historical record — now apparently gliding unopposed toward a baptism by Oscar.”

Jacob Aron Estes‘ The Details, which I saw this morning, is about things going badly for a Seattle-residing doctor and family man (Tobey Maguire), in part due to his own poor decisions but also because of horrible pre-ordained luck — fate or God or some overpowering force simply being against him. A similar theme drove the Coen brothers’ A Serious Man — God doesn’t care, and He might even be messing with you because He’s a perverse mofo possessed of a sick sense of humor.

Cosmic disfavor is clearly indicated in The Details in the very first scene. Maguire is shown sitting alone in front of an office building during the day when all of a sudden a large piano falls from above, flattening him. We all know what it means when anything falls from the sky in a movie (like the frogs in Paul Thomas Anderson‘s Magnolia) — i.e., someone up there is displeased. So this morning I asked Estes if he could express what his film is saying theologically, in 25 words or less. He said that God isn’t really in his film and that we all create our fate or destiny with our choices and our character. That struck me as blatantly dishonest given his use of the falling piano, but maybe I’m being too strict about this.

A Fandango poll is reporting that the biggest surprise, according to the majority (34%) of respondents, was the nomination of John Hawkes for Best Supporting Actor in Winter’s Bone. There was also a “Top 10 Oscar Nomination Snubs of 2011” poll, and the results are as follows: (1) Christopher Nolan, Best Director, Inception (48%); (2) Tangled – Best Animated Feature (9%); (3) Mila Kunis — Best Supporting Actress, Black Swan (8%); (4) Despicable Me – Best Animated Feature (6%); (5) Ryan Gosling — Best Actor, Blue Valentine (6%); (6) Waiting for Superman – Best Documentary (5%); (7) Black Swan – Best Original Screenplay (5%); (8) Andrew Garfield – Best Supporting Actor, The Social Network (5%); Julianne Moore – Best Actress, The Kids are All Right (4%), and (10) Inception — Best Editing (3%).

“There are two interesting stats to keep in mind when considering the Best Picture race between The King’s Speech with its 12 nominations, and The Social Network with its 8 nominations,” writes columnist Scott Feinberg. “The last time that the Academy had 10 nominees prior to last year’s awards was 1943. That year The Song of Bernadette, which had 12 nods, lost Best Picture to Casablanca, which had 8 nods. (Casablanca‘s ultimately won 3 Oscars compared to The Song of Bernadette‘s 4 Oscars.)

“Conversely, in 1942, Mrs. Miniver, which had 12 nods and is a film in which “everyone displays strength of character in the face of tragedy and destruction,” won best picture over The Magnificent Ambersons, which had fewer nods and is a film about the impact of a major technological advance on American society.”

In an interview with Moveline‘s Elvis Mitchell, 127 Hours star and Oscar telecast co-host James Franco says the following: “Look, Social Network is about new technology and how people are communicating now? Or it’s supposed to be? They don’t deal with any of that! It’s a very classically structured movie and classically made movie. [People] just want the old. They want more of the old, boring stuff. People sitting around talking.”

Obviously the 12 Oscar nominations gathered this morning by The King’s Speech (and congrats to everyone concerned) suggests that the Spirit of 1993 is alive and well among Academy members. Usually any film with that many nominations tends to be considered the Best Picture frontrunner. But is it? Is The King’s Speech a skilled surfer riding a perfect wave, or is it a boogie board coasting along on whitewash? Is there a way to spin this, or should I just face facts and give up?

I need to accept and deal wiith what’s happened but…but…wow, I don’t feel so good. I like and admire The King’s Speech — it’s a very stirring and well-made film — but at the same time I feel like Milan Kundera did when the Soviet tanks rumbled into Prague. And standing next to the turret on the tank at the head of formation are Dave Karger, Anne Thompson, Peter Howell and their allies, all wearing Soviet military uniforms and beaver hats.

Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay wins for David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin aside, is the Social Network actually going to get attaboyed-but-no-cigared by the rank and file? Maybe I should take a walk or do a half-hour on the treadmill and work off some of the gloom.

Congrats all the same to producer Scott Rudin for the 18 nominations that his two films have gathered — 8 that went to The Social Network and 10 collected by True Grit.

Who would’ve predicted last summer that Inception‘s Christopher Nolan would get shafted on a Best Director Oscar nomination? That film was such a stunning vision, but I guess too many people were just confused by it. I understand what happened and don’t dispute the nominating of Black Swan‘s Darren Aronofsky, True Grit‘s Joel and Ethan Coen, The Fighter‘s David O. Russell and The King’s Speech‘s Tom Hooper. But it just feels unjust on some level. Is it because Nolan, a somewhat dry and circumspect fellow, didn’t schmooze around?

HE’s hearty congrats to Javier Bardem for his Best Actor nomination, just announced, for his highly exceptional performance in Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu‘s Biutiful. (I did what I could to push for this, and so did Steve Pond, Dave Karger, Julia Roberts, Ben Affleck, etc.)

And to Inarritu and the Roadside Attractions team for their Best Foreign Language Feature Oscar nomination.

And I need to say it again — poor Lesley Manville. We all knew weeks ago that the Another Year costar wouldn’t make the Best Actress cut, but I still feel badly for her. If she’d been put into Best Supporting Actress contention, I think she might have beaten out The King’s Speech‘s Helena Bonham Carter . But slaphappy hugs for The Fighter‘s Amy Adams and Melissa Leo for their nominations in this category. And to True Grit‘s Hailee Steinfeld and Animal Kingdom‘s Jacki Weaver.

Wait…Amir Bar Lev‘s The Tillman Story, Alex Gibney‘s Client 9 and Davis Guggenhiem‘s Waiting for Superman didn’t get nominated for Best Feature Doc Oscar? And Lucy Walker‘s Wasteland (a.k.a. “the garbage movie”) and Josh Fox and Trish Adlesic‘s Gasland did? Along with Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger‘s Restrepo?

But congrats to the Exit From The Gift Shop guys (Banksy, John Sloss, Jaimie D’Cruz) for their nomination in this realm, and especially to Charles Ferguson and Audrey Marrs‘ Inside Job, which will almost certainly win now, I think.

Get Low‘s Robert Duvall was denied a Best Actor nomination. The Social Network‘s Andrew Garfield was stiffed in the Best Suporting Actor category. And Mila Kunis didn’t make the Best Supporting Actress list.