Oscars 2011: 'The King's Speech'? Really?

If you don't already know all the results from Sunday night's Academy Awards show then I'd suggest you check out the full list on Deadline, but I'll summarise it for you here anyway. The night was dominated by the towering mediocrity that is 'The King's Speech', which scooped both of (what should be considered) the major gongs, bagging Best Picture and Best Director (for Tom Hooper). It also snared Colin Firth a well-deserved statuette for his eye-catching performance as the film's titular stammering monarch.

The plucky British film is certainly an amiable enough winner, with endearing lead performances and some deft repartee in its (now Oscar winning) screenplay. It is ridiculously popular too, having just broken the £40 million barrier at the UK box office - which is a huge sum - and earning long standing ovations wherever it has played (including 20-plus minutes in Berlin last month). I personally enjoyed the film too, albeit with reservations about its handling of history and romantic portrayal of the house of Windsor (as reluctant "indentured servants" serving an expectant, fawning public). But aren't award ceremonies supposed to reward "art" and not just pander to commerce? Isn't commerce its own reward?

OK, to clarify: I'm not suggesting 'The King's Speech' isn't "art" or that it only won because it has out-grossed its major rivals - 'The Social Network', 'Black Swan' and 'The Fighter' - and on a smaller budget (reportedly around £8 million). I'm just saying that the film is inoffensive, establishment fluff and that the virtuosity of its making pales in comparison with many of the other nominated movies. Possibly all nine of them. It's like a pleasant TV movie. It's like an HBO film that would quietly win a bunch of Golden Globes before disappearing into obscurity. Except it is apparently now considered the best piece of cinema of the last twelve months... and this makes me sad.

For instance, Darren Aronofsky's 'The Black Swan' is a more deserving candidate: a perfect synthesis of sound and image that cuts deeply into you emotionally and takes you to places you don't necessarily want to go. It's perfectly paced, with not a single unnecessary moment, as it manages to be both beautiful and horrifying in equal measure. Is Darren Aronofsky a better filmmaker than Tom Hooper? Almost certainly. At the very least, his next film will be interesting even if it is a 'Wolverine' sequel. Is there any guarantee that Hooper will ever again scale these heights? No. Yet he also beat David Fincher to the Best Director prize.

'The King's Speech' is a glossy, mum-pleaser of a film about an imagined past - in which Churchill was a staunch supporter of George VI and where Edward VIII pro-Nazi leanings can all be blamed on acceptable, establishment-sanctioned hate figure Wallis Simpson. But Fincher's 'The Social Network' is relevant and looks at the world we live in now. It justly won Best Adapted Screenplay for writer Aaron Sorkin, but it could and should have received so much more for its tightly handled, restrained camera work that turned a 'film about Facebook', mostly concerning nerds arguing with lawyers, into a dark and compelling thriller of Shakespearian proportions. I say with some certainty that filmmakers will still be referring to 'The Social Network' in several years time, whilst 'The King's Speech' will likely be consigned to mentions in dry academic books on heritage cinema.

It all reminds me of when 'Shakespeare in Love' beat 'Saving Private Ryan' to Best Picture in 1998. Spielberg's WWII movie, whatever you may think of it, will stand the test of time even if only for its jarring opening twenty minutes. Whereas nobody watches or talks about or even vaguely remembers the John Madden directed 'Shakespeare in Love' now, let alone in fifty or one hundred years. Incidentally 'Shakespeare in Love' and 'The King's Speech' have one major thing in common which could be said to account for the 'unlikely' success of both: the backing of Harvey Weinstein. A notoriously hard campaigner when it comes to winning Academy Awards with Miramax and now with The Weinstein Company, Harvey and his younger brother Bob have again fought to the last minute to lobby for votes in Hollywood. It is no exaggeration to say that without their backing 'The King's Speech' would not even have been on the radar of many voters.

The Weinsteins know what they are doing and, although they are obsessively keen to promote themselves as producers of 'prestige' films, this Oscar payload will earn them and 'The King's Speech' many more millions. Especially after the heavy-weight producers (no strangers to feuds with the MPAA) agreed to cut some of the film's comedy upper-class swearing in order to facilitate a PG-13 certificate re-release stateside. And so whilst The Daily Mail heralded the film's Oscar success by saying "for once Oscars night belonged to a small budget, independent movie that was a labour of love", 'The King's Speech' is far more powerful and successful than the underdog-favouring British press would like to admit amongst all the self-congratulatory anti-Hollywood vitriol.

This brings me back to my "art vs. commerce" point. 'The King's Speech' is benefiting from sailing in that perfect storm of being inoffensive enough that it was universally liked, whilst also being a commercial success story. The fact that it's about kings and queens is also a bonus, of course. But shouldn't the Academy award films based on artistic merit alone? Well, I guess that's subjective in any case and you could, rightly, point out that the Academy did exactly that. Not everyone has to agree with me that 'The Social Network' and 'Black Swan' were far and away the superior examples of the art form. Yet I feel that is the case and quite strongly, with Sunday's result feeling to me like a depressing one for cinema.

It's also a depressing win for the British film industry as a whole. No it seriously is - or at least should be. 'The King's Speech' is one of the last films to have been backed by the now defunct UK Film Council and so it seems that this oh-so-establishment film is, ironically and quite accidentally, also one in the eye for the budget-cutting Tories. Some have even expressed concern that this might be the high-point before a long period of woe for British film. In any case, I think it's depressing for UK film for another reason entirely: 'The King's Speech' is arguably the single least relevant of the ten Best Picture nominees.

Consider the other nine. 'Winter's Bone' is the kind of 'gritty' social realism, about poverty and strife, that Britain used to be famous for. 'Inception' and 'Toy Story 3' are both examples of state of the art visual effects and exciting story telling on a huge (dare I say 'cinematic') scale. 'The Kids Are All Right' is a thoroughly modern story about something parts of America still has huge problems with, as it follows a homosexual couple raising their two children. '127 Hours', directed by another British Academy Award winner Danny Boyle, is also based on real-life events and yet it is a contemporary story filmed in an (in my opinion excessively) vibrant, high-octane, fast-cutting style.

Boxing biopic 'The Fighter', like 'Winter's Bone', also makes a feature of white American poverty oft-unseen in popular culture, whilst the Coen brother's Western 'True Grit' may be more firmly rooted in the past than 'The King's Speech' in terms of its setting, but its cinematography and production design is among the very best around. I've already made the case for 'Black Swan' and 'The Social Network'.

I bear 'The King's Speech' no ill will whatsoever; not that I fancy my ill will would be of the least concern to the film's makers in any case. It's a perfectly enjoyable Sunday afternoon kind of movie. "Nan is coming round" you may at some point say, "lets stick 'The King's Speech' on." It's 'nice'. It is, as James Franco said, 'safe'. But just don't expect me to believe that it's a peak example of the art form I love and that which the Academy Awards are supposed to celebrate.

How to win an Oscar: "It's good to be the king!"

As Mel Brooks always says, "it's good to be the king" and so it might prove for Best Actor hopeful Colin Firth at this month's Academy Awards in Los Angeles. Firth was unlucky not to win last year for his understated performance in Tom Ford's 'A Single Man', being beaten to the prize by Jeff Bridges. But though Bridges is again nominated alongside the Englishman this time around, the circumstances surrounding the "race" couldn't be more different. This year it is Firth who has been earning all the major gongs en route, including the Golden Globe and the Screen Actors Guild award (pictured above). Both are reliable Oscar indicators, but the latter is more significant having gone to the eventual Oscar winner on the last six occasions. In fact since its founding year in 1994, the winner of the SAG Best Actor award has gone on to win the equivalent Academy Award on twelve occasions out of sixteen - one of the "mistakes" being when Benicio Del Toro won in 2000 for 'Traffic' and he ended up winning the Best Supporting Actor Oscar that year for the same role anyway.

Yet being the winner of the SAG award isn't the only bit of history which suggests Academy Award glory for Colin Firth on February 27th. There is also the matter of what he is nominated for: 'The King's Speech' in which he plays stammering reluctant-monarch George VI. After all, actors portraying British royalty have form when it comes to the Academy Awards. Judi Dench infamously won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar in 1998 for what amounted to an eight minute cameo as Elizabeth I in 'Shakespeare in Love'. Her success in winning that award was attributed by many as a sympathy vote for having been snubbed the previous year for her role as Queen Victoria in 'Mrs. Brown', for which she had been nominated in the Best Actress category. Helen Mirren finally sealed her place among the Academy Award winners in 2006 for her performance as Elizabeth II in 'The Queen', whilst Australian Cate Blanchett was nominated for her breakthrough role as Elizabeth I in the 1998 film 'Elizabeth' and again in 2007 for the film's sequel.



This love affair with the Royals doesn't end there either: Charles Laughton won his Oscar in 1933 for the starring role in 'The Private Life of Henry VIII' and Richard Burton was nominated for playing same monarch in 1969 for 'Anne of the Thousand Days'. One of Peter O'Toole's eight nominations (without a single win) was for playing Henry VII in 1964 film 'Becket' and Kenneth Branagh was nominated for his portrayal of Henry V from his 1989 film of the same name. Indeed Helen Mirren was previously nominated for portraying Queen Charlotte in 1994's 'The Madness of King George', with Nigel Hawthorne also nominated for his role as the titular loon. Don't forget that this year also sees Helena Bonham Carter nominated for her role in 'The King's Speech' playing the late Queen Mother.

Of course, many of those mentioned didn't win the ultimate prize - although I most definitely think Colin Firth will - but they still prove that, if you want to be recognised by the Academy, playing a member of the British royal family has never hurt anybody's chances. I predict that when the inevitable film about Princess Diana is made that role will be one of the most coveted in all of Hollywood for this very reason. So Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, Emily Blunt and all the other young British actresses need to start pestering producers and getting their names out there now if they want a golden statuette of their very own - for a feature that is practically guaranteed fourteen Oscar nominations and destined to be the toast of middle-England somewhere in our not-too-distant future.



Why this is is open to debate, but I think it has something to do with the assumption across the Atlantic that clipped Britishness is synonymous with "class" - that is in terms of style and not just social standing - and that British actors are automatically brilliant screen actors due to their inherent stagecraft, brought with them from the birthplace of the Bard. A good example of this curious assumption can be seen in the fact that Laurence Olivier was nominated for nine acting Oscars, winning one, despite the fact that he was as hammy a screen actor as there has ever been. It is the reason why it's OK to nominate Sir Ian McKellen for playing a wizard in 'Lord of the Rings' and Alec Guinness for playing a space-wizard in 'Star Wars' despite the fact the Academy wouldn't traditionally nominate those types of movies in acting categories. "Doesn't he speak beautifully?" Academy voters must say to one another all the time as they cast their votes.

It is ironic then that Colin Firth is nominated for playing an upper-class monarch without the usual eloquence. But don't be fooled by the stammer, Firth's King George has still been afforded a much nicer, cleaner British accent than his arrogant, playboy brother Edward VIII (Guy Pearce) who has a much more gratingly posh (and more realistic) aristocratic accent. It could also be said that the principle joy of 'The King's Speech' is born from the unusual sport of watching a man learning how to speak so pleasingly - and to the great approval of cheering crowds. This pleasure, when married to assumptions of British class and stagecraft and applied to the gravitas of playing royalty (which comes imbued with vaguely Shakespearian overtones by default), in part explains why 'The King's Speech' is not only an Oscar favourite: it is a highly exportable commodity for those in the former colonies basking in an unseemly collective nostalgia.

Oscar nominations in...

The 2011 Academy Award nominees were revealed today, a week after I made my own predictions. I'm happy to say that I was mostly right in my guesses, though not entirely. I got 9/10 Best Picture nominations correct, but was wrong when I said 'Monsters' might be in with a shot. I went so far as to list a number of alternate picks that I thought might be included if one from my list were not. But even among all of those I never saw the nomination for 'Winter's Bone' coming. It shouldn't have been too big a surprise though, as the film was met with overwhelmingly strong reviews and touted as an awards contender when it was released last year. I guess the fact that I didn't personally like it all that much forced it out of my mind.

I fared less well in the other categories. I got 3/5 Best Actor nominees, as I thought Ryan Gosling ('Blue Valentine') and Mark Wahlberg ('The Fighter') were certainties. But rather it was last year's victor Jeff Bridges ('True Grit') and previous winner Javier Bardem ('Biutiful') who got the nod. I got 4/5 Best Actress picks right, with my only mistake being to include Julianne Moore ('The Kids Are All Right') over Nicole Kidman ('Rabbit Hole').



I was close with my predictions for Best Director. Though my pick of 'The Kids Are All Right' director Lisa Cholodenko over Joel and Ethan Coen ('True Grit') was a mistake - though not an unhappy one. In the supporting categories I got 6/10 right - but as I said before, those categories are probably the hardest main awards to call. Anyone can get nominated for almost anything. Case in point, Australian film 'Animal Kingdom' gets its sole major nod in the Best Supporting Actress category with Jacki Weaver listed. The young star of 'True Grit' Hailee Steinfeld was also a surprise inclusion. Best Supporting Actor seemed like it might be less problematic, but I also got two of those names wrong. Michael Douglas didn't get his widely expected nod for 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps', but Jeremy Renner ('The Town') and John Hawkes ('Winter's Bone') were included.

I've posted the main categories below (as stolen from Deadline). I've emboldened those who I think will win on the night:

BEST PICTURE
127 HOURS (Fox Searchlight)
An Hours Production Christian Colson, Danny Boyle and John Smithson, Producers
BLACK SWAN (Fox Searchlight)
A Protozoa and Phoenix Pictures Production Mike Medavoy, Brian Oliver and Scott Franklin, Producers
INCEPTION (Warner Bros)
A Warner Bros. UK Services Production Emma Thomas and Christopher Nolan, Producers
THE FIGHTER (Paramount)
A Relativity Media Production David Hoberman, Todd Lieberman and Mark Wahlberg, Producers
THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT (Focus Features)
An Antidote Films, Mandalay Vision and Gilbert Films Production Gary Gilbert, Jeffrey Levy-Hinte and Celine Rattray, Producers
THE KING'S SPEECH (The Weinstein Co)
A See-Saw Films and Bedlam Production Iain Canning, Emile Sherman and Gareth Unwin, Producers
THE SOCIAL NETWORK (Sony Pictures)
A Columbia Pictures Production Scott Rudin, Dana Brunetti, Michael De Luca and Ceán Chaffin, Producers
TOY STORY 3 (Walt Disney)
A Pixar Production Darla K. Anderson, Producer
TRUE GRIT (Paramount)
A Paramount Pictures Production Scott Rudin, Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, Producers
WINTER'S BONE (Roadside Attractions)
A Winter's Bone Production Anne Rosellini and Alix Madigan-Yorkin, Producers

BEST ACTOR
JEFF BRIDGES - TRUE GRIT (Paramount)
JAVIER BARDEM - BIUTIFUL (Roadside Attractions)
JESSE EISENBERG - THE SOCIAL NETWORK (Sony Pictures)
COLIN FIRTH - THE KING’S SPEECH (The Weinstein Company)
JAMES FRANCO - 127 HOURS (Fox Searchlight)

BEST ACTRESS
ANNETTE BENING - THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT (Focus Features)
NICOLE KIDMAN - RABBIT HOLE (Lionsgate)
JENNIFER LAWRENCE - WINTER’S BONE (Roadside Attractions)
NATALIE PORTMAN - BLACK SWAN (Fox Searchlight)
MICHELLE WILLIAMS - BLUE VALENTINE (The Weinstein Co) -though never write off the lobbying power of the Weinstein's!

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
CHRISTIAN BALE - THE FIGHTER (Paramount)
JOHN HAWKES - WINTER’S BONE (Roadside Attractions)
JEREMY RENNER - THE TOWN (Warner Bros)
MARK RUFFALO - THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT (Focus Features)
GEOFFREY RUSH - THE KING’S SPEECH (The Weinstein Company)

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
AMY ADAMS - THE FIGHTER (Paramount)
HELENA BONHAM CARTER - THE KING’S SPEECH (The Weinstein Company)
MELISSA LEO - THE FIGHTER (Paramount) -he's the favourite, but I'm backing Adams at the third attempt
HAILEE STEINFELD - TRUE GRIT (Paramount)
JACKI WEAVER - ANIMAL KINGDOM (Sony Pictures Classics)

BEST ANIMATED PICTURE
HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON (DreamWorks Animation)
TOY STORY 3 (Walt Disney)
THE ILLUSIONIST (Sony Pictures Classics)

BEST DIRECTOR
DARREN ARONOFSKY - BLACK SWAN (Fox Searchlight)
DAVID FINCHER - THE SOCIAL NETWORK (Sony Pictures)
TOM HOOPER - THE KING'S SPEECH (The Weinstein Co.)
JOEL AND ETHAN COEN - TRUE GRIT (Paramount)
DAVID O. RUSSELL - THE FIGHTER (Paramount)

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
ANOTHER YEAR, Mike Leigh (Sony Pictures Classics)
THE FIGHTER, Scott Silver and Paul Tamasy & Eric Johnson, Story by Keith Dorrington & Paul Tamasy & Eric Johnson (Paramount)
INCEPTION, Christopher Nolan (Warner Bros)
THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, Lisa Cholodenko & Stuart Blumberg (Focus Features)
THE KING'S SPEECH, David Seidler (The Weinstein Co)

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
127 HOURS, Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy (Fox Searchlight)
TOY STORY 3, Michael Arndt, Story by John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, and Lee Unkrich (Walt Disney)
THE SOCIAL NETWORK, Aaron Sorkin (Sony Pictures)
WINTER'S BONE, Debra Granik & Anne Rosellini (Roadside Attractions)
TRUE GRIT, Joel Coen & Ethan Coen (Paramount)

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Algeria, Hors la Loi (Outside the Law) (Cohen Media Group) - A Tassili Films Production
Canada, Incendies (Sony Pictures Classics) - A Micro-Scope Production
Denmark, In a Better World (Sony Pictures Classics) - A Zentropa Production
Greece, Dogtooth (Kino International) - A Boo Production - I want this to win!
Mexico, Biutiful (Roadside Attractions) - A Menage Atroz, Mod Producciones and Ikiru Films Production

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN CINEMATOGRAPHY
Black Swan (Fox Searchlight) - Matthew Libatique
Inception (Warner Bros.) - Wally Pfister
The King's Speech (The Weinstein Company) - Danny Cohen
The Social Network (Sony Pictures Releasing) - Jeff Cronenweth
True Grit (Paramount) - Roger Deakins

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Exit Through The Gift Shop (Producers Distribution Agency) A Paranoid Pictures Production Banksy and Jaimie D'Cruz
Gasland - A Gasland Production Josh Fox and Trish Adlesic
Inside Job (Sony Pictures Classics) - A Representational Pictures Production Charles Ferguson and Audrey Marrs
Restrepo (National Geographic Entertainment) - An Outpost Films Production Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger
Waste Land (Arthouse Films) - An Almega Projects Production Lucy Walker and Angus Aynsley

Oscar prediction time 2011...

First things first: regular visitors might have noticed that I was unusually quiet last week. This was down to a mixture of the birth of my new baby brother James, a period of horrible flu-ness and general work at the cinema. I have now completed reviews that I started last week before illness temporarily shelved them and they can now be found below this post or on the "reviews" page. Yesterday I also posted a review of the 'Certified Copy' Blu-ray over on Obsessed with Film. So now that I'm back up and running, I thought I'd comment on the award season as it comes into full swing.

As I'm sure most film fans are aware, from all the Ricky Gervais furore and Colin Firth's mighty, flag-flying Best Actor triumph, the Golden Globes (that's the budget Oscars to you and me) were held yesterday in LA. The full results (at least for the film half of it) can be found on the Splendor Cinema blog so I won't bother to re-post them here. Today also saw the nominations for the BAFTAs announced, which you can read here. What I want to instead is look forward to the real deal: the Academy Awards, which are taking place at the end of next month (February 27th). The nominees are announced a week today (Tuesday 25th), so now seems like as good a time as any for rampant speculation.



Best Picture
For the main prize I'd have to say that obvious favoured candidates, 'Black Swan', 'The Social Network', 'The Fighter' and 'The King's Speech', will be joined by fancied outsiders 'Toy Story 3', 'Inception', 'The Kids Are All Right', as well as the now annual nomination for the Coen Brothers with 'True Grit' a likely contender. The final two films in the field of ten are harder to call. I'd guess that Clint Eastwood's 'Hereafter' could miss out after getting "mixed reviews" and failing to perform at the box office. Instead maybe Danny Boyle's '127 Hours' could sneak in, perhaps alongside Gareth Edwards' roundly-praised 'Monsters' (as this year's 'District 9')?

I'm not hedging my bets. Those previous ten are my picks. But if those aren't the chosen ones, then who knows? Maybe the Tilda Swinton vanity project 'I Am Love' could emerge as the token foreign language contender for the award? Or maybe even Alejandro González Iñárritu's 'Biutiful'? I'd also not discount 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps' as a possibility. Or the brilliant 'Blue Valentine', with the Weinsteins always keen to push their films for awards glory.

As for the winner, it'd be foolish not to expect the triumphant winner of the Golden Globe 'The Social Network' to win. However, the Globe hasn't often predicted the correct Oscar winner in recent years and last year saw 'Avatar' the strong Oscar favourite all the way through award season until a last minute surge for 'The Hurt Locker'. If it doesn't win for some reason, then I'd like to see 'Black Swan' do it instead.



Best Director
David Fincher won the globe and I believe he'll win the Oscar for 'The Social Network'. The director nominations will be drawn from the five most serious contenders for the main prize. In this case that would make the four "losers" Darren Aronofsky ('Black Swan'), David O. Russell ('The Fighter'), Tom Hooper ('The King's Speech') and Lisa Cholodenko ('The Kids Are All Right').



Best Actor
This category will be won by Colin Firth, last year's most popular loser after his performance in 'A Single Man' is generally liked and has been roundly heralded for his performance as a stuttering George VI in 'The King's Speech'. The makeweights in this field will likely be Jesse Eisenberg for 'The Social Network', James Franco for '127 Hours', Mark Wahlberg for 'The Fighter' and Ryan Gosling for 'Blue Valentine'. Personally, I'd like to see the Golden Globe "Best Performance in a Musical or Comedy" winner Paul Giamatti win the Oscar for 'Barney's Version', but that won't happen. He won't even be nominated. Out of the likely nominees, my pick would be James Franco. I disliked '127 Hours' but he was class in it. He is co-hosting the event with Anne Hathway, so it would be fun to see him win.



Best Actress
How long before this award is renamed "Best Female Actor"? I haven't heard the term actress self-applied in years, so it seems like only a matter of time. This is one of the hardest fields to call in the whole competition. It seems certain that Jennifer Lawrence ('Winter's Bone'), Natalie Portman ('Black Swan') and Michelle Williams ('Blue Valentine') will be nominated, with Portman the probable winner (and my personal favourite). However I'm not so confident about the other two names. Halle Berry ('Frankie and Alice') and Nicole Kidman ('Rabbit Hole') are among the favourites having been nominated at the Globes, but I think Julianne Moore and Annette Bening will both be nominated for 'The Kids Are All Right' - recalling Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick who were both nominated last year for 'Up in the Air'.



Best Supporting Actor
Another hard field to call. In fact, the "supporting" categories are always hard to predict because they can throw up literally any name and are especially prone to votes based on nostalgia or sympathy (Heath Ledger last year, or Pete Postlethwaite at this year's BAFTAs). On that basis Michael Douglas seems a likely nomination for 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps' due to his recent battle with throat cancer. Besides, he won an Oscar for the same role in 1987, playing Gordon Gekko in the original 'Wall Street', so it's not that far fetched an honour. Christian Bale will likely win the category for his role in 'The Fighter'. A certainty for at least a nomination is Geoffrey Rush for 'The King's Speech'. The remaining two names could be Andrew Garfield for 'The Social Network' and Mark Ruffalo for 'The Kids Are All Right'. If I had my way Ruffalo would win that one, though I haven't yet seen Bale in 'The Fighter'.



Best Supporting Actress
Golden Globe winner (and a Best Actress nominee last year for 'Frozen River') Melissa Leo will be nominated for her role in 'The Fighter'. As will Amy Adams, who has twice been nominated for this award in the past, for roles in 'Junebug' and 'Doubt'. Mila Kunis seems like a safe bet for 'Black Swan', as does Helena Bonham Carter, who will likely complete a trilogy of acting nominations for 'The King's Speech'. The final nomination is hard to predict. Jacki Weaver was nominated for the Golden Globe for 'Animal Kingdom', whilst the BAFTAs have 'Lesley Manville' up for 'Another Year' and Barbara Hershey for 'Black Swan' (and Miranda Richardson for 'Made in Dagenham', but I'm not going to entertain that as a serious Oscar choice). I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and suggest that Mia Wasikowska could be an outside contender for 'The Kids Are All Right' - a film I've nominated in most of the categories, but which could be left out altogether. Certainly the film's initial Oscar buzz has died down since its release. I think Amy Adams will win the statue itself. Third time lucky.



The Rest
'Toy Story 3' will win the animated film award without too much trouble. 'Inception' will pick up some of the boring effects and technical gongs, whilst 'The King's Speech' will win some sort of costume award for being a stiff, British period drama (then again 'Black Swan' could very well beat them to that one with its ballet costumes). The Best Adapted Screenplay award will go to Aaron Sorkin for 'The Social Network', whilst Best Original Screenplay may go to 'The Kids Are All Right' writers Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg. The Best Score award is a two way battle between Hans Zimmer for 'Inception' and Trent Reznor/Atticus Ross for 'The Social Network'. I have a feeling Zimmer will win this one even though Reznor scooped the Globe. The foreign language winner is impossible to predict on any year. Last time around 'A Prophet' and 'The White Ribbon' picked up every prize en route to the Oscars only for Argentine film 'The Secret in Their Eyes' to come from nowhere and win it. I honestly couldn't even guess. 'Biutiful' maybe? Who cares.

So, those are my picks for the 2011 Academy Award nominations. I'll no doubt write a follow-up to this when the real nominations come in on the 25th.

Felicity is back for January's Flick's Flicks

I had a great time hosting the last six months of Flick's Flicks, the online film preview show for Picturehouse cinemas. However the show's rightful (and superior) host Felicity "Flick" Ventom is back in the hot seat for this first episode of the new year. Here are the films to look out for in January 2011 (well, almost... 'True Grit' has been put back until February).

Welcome back Flick! And kudos to James Marcus Tucker for the show's classy new look.

CINECITY: 'The King's Speech' review:

When Jeff Bridges won the Oscar for Best Actor at this year's Academy Awards, for his turn in 'Crazy Heart', Colin Firth was considered to be the unlucky loser. In truth, after picking up every award going en route to that ceremony, the Oscar was always going to go to Bridges on the night - a fact Firth himself repeatedly acknowledged in the run up - but there were many who felt that it ought to have gone to the English actor for his compelling performance as a suicidal, homosexual professor in Tom Ford's 'A Single Man'. Yet there is a feeling that it could be second time lucky for Firth who has, seemingly undeterred by that defeat, brushed himself down and taken another swing at it right away, playing the role of King George VI in the award-baiting historical drama 'The King's Speech'.

Firth, along with his director Tom Hooper ('The Damned United') and co-stars Helena Bonham Carter and Geoffrey Rush, will have every reason to approach next year's ceremony with confidence following the film's enthusiastic response in Toronto where it was bestowed the audience award. In the last few year's winners of that award have included the likes of 'Slumdog Millionaire' and 'Precious' and there is a growing feeling that Firth - and quite possibly his co-stars - are due to be, at the very least, among the names nominated.



'The King's Speech' is inspired by real life events that apparently saw the stammering man who would be king, Prince Albert ("Bertie" to his mates), seek out the help of every speech therapist in the Kingdom in an attempt to improve his public speaking. Just when he has abandoned all hope at ever finding a cure, his dedicated wife (Bonham Carter as the Queen Mum) tracks down an unorthodox Australian by the name of Lionel Logue (Rush) who swears he can correct the royals speech - so long as the treatment is done on his terms as with his other (more common) patients. To complicate matters, Bertie's speech impediment becomes a greater concern as his brother Edward's (Guy Pearce) relationship with an American divorcée brings him unexpectedly to the throne.

Also looming in the background is the spectre of the Second World War and the Nazi's charismatic leader Adolf Hitler. When watching a newsreel of the dictator speaking at a rally, Bertie's daughter Elizabeth (the future queen) asks "what is he saying papa?" "I don't know, but he seems to be saying it rather well." It is vital then that in the mass media age Bertie must not only speak, but be able to inspire an Empire that spans the globe. But alongside these lofty concerns sits a personal story - that of the fraught friendship between two men of very different backgrounds: Bertie and Lionel.



The resultant film is, at best, a thematic mess that (as with many biographical films) indulges in cod psychology as it explores its subject. The films feeling towards the Windsor clan is a little confused. On one hand there are frequent (and fairly funny) jokes made at the expense of the upper class: "your physicians are idiots" chides Lionel. "They've all be knighted!" replies Bertie incredulously. "That makes it official then" responds the Australian. There are also numerous moments where the royals very real contempt for the average person comes into full view, and other moments where they seem downright horrid to one another. But ultimately the film is rather smitten with these characters and its treatment of the royal clan is nostalgic and sometimes downright celebratory. Even the Nazi sympathising of Bertie's brother David (the disgraced King Edward VIII) is never really dealt with explicitly. It is alluded to at several points, but 'The King's Speech' is so set on pleasing the establishment that it avoids too much unsavoury history.

Perhaps the film is especially troubling coming now, at a time of economic crisis where the tax payer is apparently due to pick up the bill for a wealthy young billionaires wedding, as it continues to peddle a number of unpalatable myths. At one point the Queen Mum-to-be likens the heavy burden of royal obligation to a form of indentured servitude - admittedly in jest, but the lines humour comes from its perceived truth: that these noble people are in some way suffering a life of slavish public service (jetting around the world waving at people and occasionally posing for photos whilst skiing).



In some sense, the narrative's central problem is also ever so slightly pathetic. The king must labour to read aloud a speech that he hasn't written, about events he will play no practical part in shaping. He literally just has to say the words. And he can't do that. His only bloody job. I'm not intending to sound glib or churlish about those with speech impediments, including George VI who I am sure possessed some measure of courage and a certain steely resolve in order to speak publicly. But the great historical and social weight placed on this personal struggle sums up our supposed love affair with our supposed betters. "Well done!" we are geared up to gamely cheer as the very well kept and expensively educated monarch learns to pronounce his 'P' sounds. Honestly, good for him. But let's not hold a street party.

As infuriating as that premise might be though, it is one which is carried off with disarming humour. Straight after the ultimate speech, his first wartime radio address, Lionel tells Bertie "you still stuttered on the 'W'" to which the king replies "I had to throw a few of them in so they knew it was me". It is to the credit of everyone involved that this film remains affable, watchable and entertaining from start to finish in spite of its royalist ways. Geoffrey Rush is especially likable and funny, whilst Firth is again in good form. His stutter is consistent and improves subtly throughout the film. Structurally it seems to take a wrong turn when the last half hour seems to build to two climaxes (the coronation and the radio address) but it is generally well paced stuff and decently executed stuff.



It is also sometimes "a little bit Richard Curtis", when moments of comedy come entirely out of the sound of an upper class English twit using words like "tits", "willy" and "shit". In fact, Firth is in a couple of scenes required to string together great reams of "fucks" and "buggers" during his sessions with Rush's therapist. Despite this heavy use of profanity the BBFC awarded the film a '12A' certificate, even though 'Made in Dagenham' was earlier this year controversially awarded a '15' for use of the same swear words. This has led to allegations of classism against the BBFC, who many commentators suppose have seen upper class swearing as non-threatening and funny, whilst working class swearing is violent and even potentially revolutionary. Whatever the truth behind that accusation (and I certainly see some) this particular humorous element felt cheap.

Whether or not the film's decent performances are going to prove Oscar winning, we'll find out next year. I certainly don't think the films romanticised picture of the monarchy will be much of a problem for American audiences and it is precisely the sort of backwards looking, period fare that sells all too well in the colonies, for whatever reason. Is Firth's performance here better than that which graced screens earlier this year in 'A Single Man'? Well, no. But more than a few have picked up Oscars for far less, often the year after a perceived snub. With no overwhelmingly clear favourite yet established for next year's Best Actor award, this is perhaps Firth's best chance to grab the glory. If he does, brace yourself for the inevitable stutter joke during his acceptance speech...

'The King's Speech' is rated '12A' by the BBFC and is due out on January 7th in the UK.

Cine-City 2010 Opening Night: 'The King's Speech'

Tonight the Duke of York's Picturehouse plays host to a screening of 'The King's Speech' starring Colin Firth as the 2010 Cine-City Brighton Film Festival gets underway. Having won the top prizes in Toronto earlier this year, 'The King's Speech' is thought to be an Oscar hopeful and is directed by Tom Hooper ('The Damned United') and co-stars Helena Bonham Carter and Geoffrey Rush as it tells the story of King George VI's speech impediment set during his impromptu ascension to the throne during the Second World War. Personally, I am expecting something very safe and establishment that romanticises the monarchy, but I'll give it a chance to impress me during tonight's show. Expect a review later this week.



Cine-City continues until December 5th, where it closes with Richard Ayoade's 'Submarine' (another Toronto hit). Along the way are a host of other big films which include 'The American', 'Never Let Me Go', 'Rare Exports', 'West is West', 'Of Gods and Men', 'Howl', 'Somewhere' and 'Biutiful'. I'll certainly be seeing all of those and reviewing them here over the next two weeks.

If you live in or around Brighton you should come and check out the festival, which also takes place at Brighton's Sallis Benney Theatre and features even more films than I have listed here! Here is the link to the web page again, so you can see for yourself.