Who's Supporting Who?

I admit, there are a lot of things I don't understand about the Academy Awards - how Roberto Benigni won a Best Actor gong, for example, is right up there with the greatest mysteries of the twentieth century.

Another is how the acting awards are split into 'lead' and 'supporting' and who is slotted into what category. I mention this because I have just seen The King's Speech which is a well made movie clearly with Oscar in mind. Prestige subject matter - check; Character afflicted with disability - check (if somewhat mildly); Period piece - check; presence of Geoffrey Rush - check.

And there's the rub - Colin Firth is widely being discussed as presumptive favourite for Best Actor while Geoffrey Rush is somehow relegated to the category of supporting actor. How is this possible? Surely the two leads in this film are Rush and Firth with Helena Bonham-Carter and Guy Pearce the most notable of the supporting cast.

The film works best when Rush and Firth are on screen and theirs is the critical relationship in the movie. But alas, our Geoffrey, who is excellent, gets reduced to a 'support player' when awards season comes around.

I suspect it's because there's an old fashioned notion that a movie should have a male lead and a female lead. Or maybe it's because studios try and maximise their chances by spreading the talent around the categories - Rush and Firth, head to head, would take votes off each other?

Perhaps Oscar should get with the programme, expand the number of nominations in Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor, and remove the gender distinction. All I know is Colin Firth is good, but it's Rush who makes the movie work.

Speaking of categories, is the screenplay for The Social Network an original one or an adaptation? It's based on the book The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich which was being written concurrently with the screenplay. Probably doesn't matter as the script will win whatever category it is in.

Finally, my own awards on the last day of 2010...

Best Film - This proved to be very hard to decide - The Social Network left me a little cold, Inception left me underwhelmed, The King's Speech was good but not spectacular, Toy Story 3 was excellent but, at times, I felt the strings being pulled too overtly... which leads me to:

Animal Kingdom. Without meaning to come off as parochial, this was totally absorbing fare and the best Australian film I've seen in a long time. Good to see it found international recognition as well.

Worst Film - This was an easy decision. The Expendables was the biggest load of old tosh I have seen in a long long time.

Most Over-rated Film - It has to be Inception. I wasn't convinced it was the masterpiece many were saying the first time around and on a second viewing it diminished even more.

Best Performance - Again, going the Aussie route here with Ben Mendelsohn from Animal Kingdom who supplies the menace that kicks that film up a notch.

Worst Performance - anybody who was in The Expendables though Mickey Rourke probably gets the nod for his ridiculous monologue that was flat out awful.

So there it is, 2010 done and dusted. Have a great New Year's and here's to a creative and prosperous 2011!

And the Oscar goes to ...

I admit it, I love the Oscars. I simply don't understand people who say they hate it. Sure, it's overlong, cheesy, often makes egregious errors (I'm looking at you Roberto Benigni!), can be misappropriated for tedious political statements and has more waterworks than Adventure World when Best Actress rolls around. But it's a celebration of film and film-makers that really can't be topped.

There's a little extra spice this year with the Bigelow v Cameron showdown. To corrupt a Sorkin couplet, I'm hoping it goes something like this:

Josh: “Toby, come quick. James Cameron's getting his ass kicked by a girl.”

Toby: “Ginger, get the popcorn.”

I made no secret of my dislike for Avatar and it's been interesting watching opinion sway in the lead up to tonight's awards. When Cameron's film passed the $2 billion mark for worldwide receipts there seemed to be a sense of fait accompli about him winning Best Picture and Best Director. Now the tide has definitely turned with The Hurt Locker assuming favouritism and Bigelow odds on to take out Best Director for an historic win. You can bet every camera in the western world will be trained on Cameron when those two gongs are announced.

Other sub-plots - can this really be a world where Sandra Bullock wins an acting award, any acting award, let alone an Oscar? Will the Academy really give Tarantino an Oscar for his bloated basterdisation? How many ways will Sheldon Turner find to make subtle digs at Jason Reitman while seemingly praising him when they win Best Adapted Screenplay? Will everyone get bored halfway through tributes to the ten Best Film nominees and decide half of them are only in there as a practical joke?

Speaking of which, the decision to go to ten nominees seems bizarre. Okay, so The Dark Knight wasn't nominated last year - get over it. Do we have to suffer The Blind Side and District 9 et al as penance?

They would be better to split the category - not like the Golden Globes where it's Best Drama and Best "the other stuff we didn't think was a drama but we're not really sure what to call it" - but maybe based on production budget AND marketing. Say a category for films under $50 million and a gong for those behemoths over $50 million. Again, for combined production and marketing budgets. Just a thought.

Anyway, looking forward to the tears, the controversy, the lame jokes and musical numbers, the post midnight finish and the obligatory cut to Jack in shades while the Hollywood elite indulge in mass back slapping and knifings. Now THAT is drama!