Hollywood's Golden Boy? Brad? George? Phillip? Terrence? Heath? Joaquin? David? Matt? Paul? Jake? William?(and that's just this year's...). Nope. OSCAR!!!!

   Since he was first handed to Emil Jannings for TWO performances in 1929, (and that's the end of the hard facts, folks), Oscar has been coveted like the Golden Fleece it turns out he is. While not all careers take a giant upturn on winning and possessing him, he sure does make a difference. And he doesn't even write, coach, direct, produce, act, or pout like a divo/diva. The careers that DO take a guaranteed upturn, however, are the ad sellers at the Reporter, Variety and local L.A. newspapers. Talk about influence....ok, I will, albeit briefly.

   Don't get me wrong. To my thinking, there are only three real awards shows - Oscars, Emmys, and Grammys. (Ok, maybe five - The Indys and SAG Awards - smaller by a lot but catching on). These are actual industry awards. Given by peers. The bretheren, (and sisteren), sometimes specifically in only a given category, (actors for actors, etc). There's nothing more accurate, if you ask me. Minus a small bump for the popularity contest angle, of course. These few are truly achievement awards. So, while the ads do influence a lot of the more general categories, they really only serve to remind the participants of what's been out the preceeding year.  A great friend, and fellow blogger, Rick Siegel, points out the insane rush of year end films and how the studios that release them count on that proximity to voting, sometimes in lieu of box office results. So the ads really only help films like "Crash", which was released earlier in the year, and actually shown the previous year on the festival circuit. And a film that good, and provocative, hardly needs the help.

   But this isn't about the ads, it's about the awards. So, without further adieu, my picks, (not to be confused with who may actually win),  pans, and comments:

   Best Actor: Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Does the word transformation mean anything to you? How a guy his size and mild demeanor became so much smaller physically and so much bigger and more flamboyant in character far surpasses what any of the other men did. Stunning. (And my honorable mention goes to the brilliant Joaquin, who also transformed himself, but with far less physicality involved. David was amazing, also, and deserved the nod, but Terrence, who was terrific, in "Hustle...", and Heath, ho-hum, in "...Molehill" paled by comparison).

   Best Actress: Felicity Huffman. For the exact same reason as PSH. This is a truly feminine woman who became a man waiting to become a woman unbelievably convincingly. Enough said. (Honorable mention to Reese, again for the same reason as Joaquin, and Keira, who I absolutely did not expect this superb level of performance from. Judi was Judi - and she's always great - and Charlize was, well, not quite Sally Field in Norma Rae, but taller).

   Best Supporting Actor: Paul Giamatti. This was an underrated, underseen film, that also came out way too early in the year, in which this guy's just the bomb. Besides the aforementioned PSH, is there another man working who's this talented, and more of a chameleon? He chewed up every scene he was in, and made both Russell (who's also terrific in this film) and Renee (who's not so great, to me, in anything) look even better by pulling them up and allowing them to be half as good as he was. (H. M. to George in "Syriana", another transformation performance. Matt - as Matt - mumbled really well, William was good but not there enough, and Jake just added to the "...Molehill" uberhype).

   Best Supporting Actress: Rachel Weisz. Why this wasn't a lead actress nod is completely beyond me. Her multi-hued, affecting performance made "Constant Gardner", (which I really loved), for me. She has become a real tour de force, carry-the-film performer and this pic showed that unequivocally. (H. M. to Catherine Keener, who unselfishly helped PSH to greatness. Amy was great in a virtually unseen movie, Frances was wasted, and Michelle was a real treat but I couldn't get behind - pun intended - this movie).

   Best Director: Paul Haggis. This movie was pitch perfect. Everything a director is responsible for, he did. But mainly he made us think. Very, very impressive. (But, I admit, I am really torn on this one, and that's not like me. I want to give it to George, who had a tremendous year, and in a way, also really deserves this for the same reason as Paul, Stephen who hasn't done a movie this thoughtful and powerful in ages, and Bennett who caught an era photgraphically, a yeoman feat, especially for a first timer). 

   Best Picture: Crash. All the films in this category were easily the best group of films in this category in years. And I saw them all at least twice, "Crash" three times, (the third at a screening where Haggis and Moresco spoke afterwards). For the simple reasons that this film has stuck with me the longest, affected me the deepest, and provoked more spirited conversations, it gets my nod.


   And now, I'm almost done. There are other categories and if/when I get over my gilt, (another intentional one, kids), for having taken so long to get this much up, I'll add 'em. But I do have one thing left. I really think George Clooney proved his value to the industry as a whole this past year, and I think it will reward his efforts with Best Screenplay. And it will be deserving, too. Just maybe not by me. It was almost perfect, but there were a couple of others that were closer. And my conflict comes from the fact that I truly want him to get recognition beyond just the tabloid crap. Man about the world George. Because as devil-may-care an image as he may put out there, I think he really does care, no devil, about an industry that's been great to, and for, him. And he, this year at least, for it.

   Good Night, and Good Luck........