Day Three: Not THAT Bad...

How did Mark Wahlberg get a supporting actor nod when he had maybe 5 minutes of screen time and Alec Baldwin obviously stole every scene he was in?

Also: Borat was adapted?

I agree, Nihal. Last year, there were only two nominees that I can say I actually liked (Good Night and Good Luck and Munich), and the worst of the five nominees was a solid D+ (the winner whose name shall not be spoken).

This year, I can say that I solidly like all five nominees. Come to think of it, I don't know if that has ever happened.

Mark Wahlberg should not be nominated. Not only did Baldwin steal his thunder in every scene, but Wahlberg's character was the one excessive element in The Departed. Funny as his one-liners may have been, there was no reason for him to be in that movie.

Borat is adapted from the character on the TV show. Duh.

How could I not chime in to the discussion of my favorite awards show?

Here are some of my initial reactions:

- Here's to LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA beating out DREAMGIRLS! The former is a masterpiece, the latter is an entertaining audience flick. It's no CHICAGO...but I still liked it enough to include it in my top 15. LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE is the year's lovable indie fave and Searchlight sure did a hell of a job propelling its (and Whitaker's) way to the top (PGA best picture over several other MUCH more challenging films as far as producing is concerned). But come on! Let's take a step back. Best Picture? In twenty years the movie will be forgotten. But then again, so have over half of the movies to have WON best picture in the past 78 years. I'm happy to see Alan Arkin, the Alan Alda of 2006, get his due, though.

- No VOLVER?! The Academy has been sucking Almodovar's cock for years now, and yet they somehow found five foreign language films they thought were better than his latest entry? I'm happy Cruz was recognized, but this is really a step back in a category that has gotten increasingly more responsible over the years.

- With the case of Baldwin vs. Wahlberg, they were a splendid comic duo in the movie, but Wahlberg's the one who's name is above the title in this case. In Academy terms, that gives him the upper hand to be nominated.

- What's crazy about the BORAT nomination is not its place in the Adapted category (as Jeff explained is justified) but the fact that the film is largely improvised and unscripted. The Academy felt they should give the movie something, since their age-old hatred of comic acting (Tom Hanks' well-deserved nom for BIG notwithstanding) insured the Cohen's snub in the Best Actor category.

- I do have to give it up for the man who took Cohen's spot: Ryan Gosling. I feel a bit weird hailing him so much since he's only a few years older than me, but the guy can act better than almost anyone else on the screen these days.

- If Meryl beats Helen, there will be hell to pay. As Pat Graham of the Chicago Reader wisely pointed out, she could play that role in her sleep. Then again, so could many of the people who have won acting awards in the past (most notably Russell Crowe in GLADIATOR...bleech!).

- At least UNITED 93 was nominated for director. Most Academy voters (and most people in general) don't have the balls to sit through something as disturbing as Greengrass's masterpiece. And that's exactly why it was not nominated for picture. But cheers to the editing nod!

- If CARS beats HAPPY FEET, I will, for the first time ever, curse Pixar.

- Does anyone know what's so great about the makeup in CLICK? (this will require someone to admit that they actually saw CLICK).

how many of the nominated foreign films have you seen?

and ben, i will defer to you on click. i was wondering about that myself, after my initial schoolboy glee wore off.

Click received some glowing reviews. The San Francisco Chronicle gave it the Metacritic equivalent of a "100", and even a generally pretentious publication, The Chicago Reader said, "This comic fantasy is the best vehicle he's (Sandler) ever had, a high-concept goof that gradually darkens into an emotional nightmare reminiscent of Capra."

Although The Wall Street Journal's generally shitty critic, Joe Morgenstern, did go so far as to call the film, "An abomination."

perhaps more importantly, wahlberg's character is much more relevant to the film's plot than baldwin is. i'm still surprised (in a good way) that they didn't automatically nominate nicholson or pitt for an oscar just for doing a supporting role at all.

While I don't want to ruin the "surrealist death dream" that is Click, I can tell you that it has a relatively long timescape that lends itself to oscar-friendly age make-up.

Also, I am sick of Jeff's 'unnecessary character' line about marky-mark in the departed. we are not all unfeeling screenwriter automatons who think only of the function characters fulfill in a movie's deep structure and run our efficiency algorithms on them. marky-mark and alec have similar characters with disparate charms.

My fault re: adapted. I guess I have a knee-jerk assumption that adapted means from a book, as it is most of the time. I guess I should really be questioning not the use of the word 'adapted' but the word 'screenplay'.

As for Mark Wahlberg, i know he was more crucial to the script, but I don't remember him doing anything of note. Baldwin on the other hand? Most bang you'll get for your buck. Why do you think Wahlberg was nominated? Do you think it's the academy trying to be hip and get in on the ground floor to support an actor they think'll go on to do better and brighter things? Or do you think they want to retroactively honor him for his past achievements?

I also don't appreciate the amount of time on screen/award ratio that's been kicking around in the past few years. Previous winners like Judy Dench and William Hurt with a combined on-screen prescence of about 7 minutes? Is this commentary on how low the bar's been set or on all the rest of the films released in that year? Just seems lazy.