Reaching out to the various journalists and bloggers who write up the awards race reveals wise minds, and love of cinema.  The fact is, this isn’t an actual roundtable – it’s a q&a sent out to various people whose opinions I value.   I don’t think any of these writers would be doing what they do if they didn’t love movies.  This is really what drives the whole Oscar watching business.  Sure, it is about money, too, and it’s about the allure of being right, but underneath it all it’s the movies, stupid.

The participants are:

Ryan Adams, Awards Daily
Damien Bona, Inside Oscar
Brad Brevet, Rope of Silicon
Edward Douglas, Coming Soon
Gregory Ellwood, Hitfix
Scott Feinberg, And The Winner is
Pete Hammond, LA Times Envelope
Craig Kennedy, Living in Cinema
Tom O’Neil, The Envelope
Steve Pond, The Wrap
AJ Schnack, All These Wonderful Things
Kris Tapley, In Contention
Susan Wloszczyna, USA Today
1. Of the possible ten nominees for Best Picture, will there be one or more documentaries represented.  If so, what would it take to get them popular enough for Academy members to make them one of their top three choices for Best Picture?  Are there any you can think of right now that might make the cut?

Adams: In order for a documentary to get nominated for Best Picture it needs the element of personal drama to pluck the same heart strings as a narrative film.  This year I don’t see any documentary titles that tell that sort of story.   In past years we’ve had some: Man on Wire, The Fog of War, Capturing the Friedmans.  But documentaries built on a dramatic framework are pretty rare.  Because if the drama of a real-life story is compelling enough then Hollywood will fictionalize it.   If the suspicion is true that actors prevent animated features from getting BP nominations because they don’t see themselves onscreen, then what chance does a movie have that stars dolphins, E.coli, or subprime mortgages?

Bona: I can’t see any Documentary being nominated for Best Picture in the near future, or maybe not even in our lifetimes.  I think that, being people who work on narrative films, most Academy members don’t really think of documentaries as “real movies,” but rather as figurative step-children (albeit very smart step-children) for whom the Documentary category is enough.

Brevet: No. Capitalism was the only one that had a shot and it seems to have been roundly ignored and the talk of This is It having a chance was purely studio/blogger hype/speculation – it never had a chance.

Douglas: I don’t think we’ll see any this year. I’m not sure if Man on Wire, my #1 movie of 2008, would have gotten in even if there were 10 BP selections last year, but even the strongest of docs this year–We Live in Public, The Cove, Capitalism: A Love Story, Outrage, Food Inc.–are as strong or memorable as Man on Wire, and I’m guessing there aren’t that many Oscar voters as into docs as they are narrative films.  Of the docs released this year, I think The Cove would be the best bet, because many actors have tweeted about it, so I think that’s probably the frontrunner for the Doc Oscar right now.

Ellwood: There aren’t documentaries with broad support to make this happen this year. I think a documentary getting into the top ten will be an extreme rarity.  Sort of like the argument for having a best animated feature category I believe many members won’t see the need to push a doc into the overall race. I think it would have to be a transcendent pop culture film to really break in.  ‘March of the Penguins’ and ‘Farenheitt 9/11′ are the only two that immediately come to mind.  But those proposing ‘Michael Jackson’s This Is It’ are just stirring up page views.  That’s not happening.*

Feinberg: I don’t believe that a documentary will be among this year’s best picture nominees, even though there will now be 10 slots in the category. For a doc to make the cut in future years, I suspect that it will have to be a rousing anti-establishment piece, like “Fahrenheit 9/11″ (2004) and/or a newsmaking social-conscience work, like “The Thin Blue Line” (1988) and/or a new take on an old doc-subgenre, like sports doc “Hoop Dreams” (1994) and nature doc “March of the Penguins” (2005). In my opinion, any one of those films might have snagged a best picture nomination had today’s rules been in effect during their respective years of eligibility. This year’s “Capitalism: A Love Story” and “The Cove” seem to fit the first two descriptions and will probably generate some best picture votes, but I suspect that most voters will find the former too controversial and never see the latter at all. In my opinion, the one to watch for is “This Is It,” which meets the requirements of my third description by popularizing the concert doc. It has several other things in its favor, too: (a) it has gotten so much free press that virtually everyone knows about it and most will eventually see it; (b) it is already a critical and commercial success; and (c) it is ineligible in the best doc category because it missed the Academy’s NY/LA screening deadline, which means that people who want to recognize it are more likely to do so in the best picture category.

Hammond: Since the Academy tends to “ghettoize” docs, foreign language and animated by believing they already have their own “best picture” category I think any documentary would have a very tough time cracking this list, even with ten possible chances to do it. If there was anything that could it would probably be an “activist” movie like “The Cove” which has such great power but despite real support in the Academy among actors and others who have championed it I think it is largely going to be overlooked by the greater Academy voting body. Yes, they loved “This Is It” as well but the enthusiasm exhibited at its official screening will fade by the time ballots come around and it will just be chalked up to a ‘curiosity’ members, like the general public were interested in.

Kennedy: I don’t see a doc in the expanded Best Picture category this year because there doesn’t seem to be one that has captured the public’s imagination like in years past. Capitalism: A Love Story is no Bowling For Columbine. There’s no March of the Penguins or Man on Wire or Inconvenient Truth either. Those were films that played well as movies and not just documentaries and could conceivably had a shot at crossing over had there been more nominees. The most buzz I’ve heard this year is for the dolphin slaughter doc The Cove. Everyone loves dolphins, but it’s only a mediocre movie. It’s not even the best environmentally themed documentary of the year. That would be  No Impact Man, but it’s not getting nominated either. It’ll be lucky to get in for Best Documentary Feature.

O’Neil: I don’t think Jacko’s “This Is It” will be nommed for best pic, but a documentary will be nominated in that top Oscar slot someday soon, following the hottest entertainment trend that can be seen most pronounced in another medium: reality TV. As feature films inevitably become more like reality films, those reality films will gain public and critical support, then academy. Yes, be very afraid — possible future nominee: “WHERE THE WILD GOSSELINS ARE”

Pond: No documentaries will make the best-picture cut this year. And I include “This Is It” in that.  If “Capitalism: A Love Story” was a better movie with a bigger commercial and cultural impact, it would have had a chance. It’ll take a documentary that has become something of a phenomenon to get into the best-pic category, much less the voters’ top three, and nothing fits the bill this year.  Remember when Melissa Etheridge won the best-song Oscar for “An Inconvenient Truth,” because it was the only way to salute the film for the thousands of voters who weren’t eligible to vote in the doc-feature category?  It’ll take another one of those films, where AMPAS members who aren’t willing to sit through all the other docs are dying to write its name down.

Schnack: No, I don’t think that this is the year when the expansion of the Best Picture list to 10 will include a documentary.  Would have been interesting last year as I think there would have been a serious effort mounted for WALTZ WITH BASHIR and MAN ON WIRE, but this year it doesn’t seem like any film has made the kind of wider artistic and cultural impact to be considered.  Since some prognosticators wonder if THE HURT LOCKER will be stung by its smaller box office take, it would seem that films with a small fraction of HURT LOCKER’s box office would have a hard time making it to the Best Picture list.

Tapley: I think the only doc with a chance is “The Cove,” but even that seems unlikely at this point.  It would need to get in on the activist appeal but that has cooled considerably since the summer.  Regardless, it’s one of the year’s best films and deserves to be there, I think.  “Capitalism: A Love Story” had a shot, but it needed to be the box office phenom that “Fahrenheit 9/11″ was.

Wloszczyna: This is untested territory since no documentary has ever been nominated in the top category before. I am guessing that a commercial or controversial premise will be required.  While the decade has had more than a few that seem like they could have easily slipped into a 10-nominee best picture race — Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11. March of the Penguins,  An Inconvient Truth, Man on Wire — the only one this year with even a slight chance is Capitalism: A Love Story. But despite its timely topic, it never really captured the nation’s attention. And I doubt it will capture the academy’s attention, either.

2. Sometimes it feels like all of the best films are being made in foreign languages.  In that way, it is reminiscent of the late 1960s in Hollywood when foreign films began influencing American ones, which then gave birth to the best decade in Academy history (arguably), the ’70s.   To that end, which films right now feel good enough to bump some US titles to make it the Best Picture lineup, whether or not they were that country’s official submission?

Adams:  The White Ribbon and Un prophète are both better than any American movies I’ve seen in 2009, and honestly I think they’re both better than any Hollywood movie we’re likely to see all year long.  Summer Hours, Il Divo and Vincere are all better than any movie in English I’ve seen so far and none of them is even an official submission.   In more sparkly mode, Coco avant Chanel and Broken Embraces are among my personal ten favorite international films of ‘09, but again neither was submitted.  I think it’s conceivable that the star voltage of Almodovar/Cruz could be enough to earn Embraces a spot on some ballots.   As much as I love all these movies, I really don’t see any except The White Ribbon having the requisite combination of accessible message, visual beauty and emotional impact to push out any hometown favorites.  Over the past 20 years, in order for a movie with subtitles to get a Best Picture nomination it has to be a sappy cross-over crowd-pleaser (Il Postino, Life is Beautiful) or a thrilling blockbuster (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon).  Or be simultaneously sappy and thrilling and directed by Clint Eastwood (Letters from Iwo Jima).   I’m afraid none of the most lauded international films this year are corny enough or leaping-through-treetops enough to make much of a dent on provincial Academy ballots.   If it were up to me, Best Foreign Language Film would’ve been the category that expanded to 10 nominees.   America and the UK get 10 Best Picture hopefuls; 90 other countries get a total of 5?  Ridiculous and embarrassing.

Bona: To have a genuine chance at a Best Picture nomination, a Foreign Language film has to be a cross-over hit.  Not necessarily something that people at multiplexes in heartland malls are lining up to see, but a film which has enough cache for people in major urban areas and college towns to be talking about and recommending.  If there had been 10 nominees in 2002, Aldomovar’s Talk To Her – a Best Screenplay winner – might well have made the cut, but so far this year, I don’t think any release has had the necessary impact (Summer Hours comes closest, but apparently it’s not eligible, having been shown on TV in France).  But there is always the new Almodovar, Broken Embraces as a possibility. I’m sorry that the superb Danish film Flame and Citron didn’t receive more attention.  It would have had great appeal to Academy voters had they seen it – a World War 2 Resistance movie, which is both a terrific action yarn, and also a complex look at the ambiguity of morality.

Brevet: Unfortunately, I have seen a limited number of foreign films so far this year. I have yet to see The White Ribbon, Un Prophete, Mother or Broken Embraces so my opinion on a foreign film for Best Picture isn’t too valuable. However, instead of saying foreign films are influencing American films I would say American films are simply copying/remaking foreign films purely for profit rather than an attempt at bona fide filmmaking.

Douglas: I honestly can’t think of any. Do you know something I don’t?  I don’t think we necessarily have any Life is Beautiful/City of God/Pan’s Labyrinth this year. Even Michael Haneke’s The White Ribbon, one of the better foreign films that has played festivals, is fairly divisive.

Ellwood: I don’t think this is a good year for that to happen. France’s ‘A Prophet’ is a fantastic film, but it’s not going to play to the general Academy audience. I think in the near future we’re looking at one of Pedro Almodovar flicks or a foreign language film from a well-known international and already Oscar-embraced filmmaker (either by nomination or win) making the case for this down the road

Feinberg: I don’t feel like the “all of the best films are being made in foreign languages” and I don’t believe that any foreign language film, whether or not it’s the official submission of its home country, is even a serious threat to claim a spot among the best picture nominees.

Hammond: I don’t see a single foreign language film able to crack the top ten this year. See question #1 for more reasons why it won’t happen.

Kennedy: Many of my favorite movies of the year are foreign, but I doubt any of them will have the marketing muscle they’d need even for an expanded Best Picture roster. I loved Summer Hours and Flame & Citron but both of those are leftovers from last year and IFC probably wouldn’t mount a lavish Oscar campaign anyway. The two films with the best shot I think are Coco Before Chanel and Broken Embraces. I’m not sure either one was well enough received to break through, but Sony Pictures Classics might have enough juice to bring them to the Academy’s attention. Chanel should be right up Oscar’s alley and they’ve shown an affinity for Almodovar in the past. Having said that, I’ll be surprised if either one gets anything beyond acting or technical nods.

Pond: I think “The White Ribbon” and “City of Life and Death” are definitely good enough to deserve spots in the ten. (I hear “A Prophet” is, too, though apparently it won’t be eligible outside the foreign-language category.) But I don’t think they’re going to get nominations.  To get that best-pic nod, you’ve got to persuade a lot of voters to watch your movie – you won’t get there with just the foreign language committee members who see it because it’s their job.  And I don’t see anything out there that’ll draw enough viewers, barring a genius sales job from Sony Classics on “White Ribbon,” which is not the easiest movie to sell.

Tapley: his is tough, because it takes a lot to get a foreign film nominated, and I don’t think it means much for these films that there are 10 slots now.  The last film that came close was “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly,” but I think we’re safe in assuming the presence of Kathleen Kennedy and Jon Kilik as producers has a lot to do with why that film was even seen, to say nothing of how close it came to a nod.

Wloszczyna: The only one I can see having any sort of chance is The White Ribbon. And how it is perceived by critics and received by moviegoers in this country will partly decided whether it claims a spot.

3.   Is this a weak year for films or a great one?

Adams: This year looks stronger than 2001-2006.  Weaker than 2007.  Hopefully 2009 is as good as 2008.

Bona: To be honest, I’ve gotten so out of the habit of going to the movies that I don’t have an opinion.  I’ll let you know in 4 months after I’ve caught up with DVDs.

Brevet: I really think this will be decided by Avatar as this year’s The Dark Knight and December in general. I thought 2008 had some great films but was a merely a “good” year despite loving films like TDK, WALL-E, Vicki Cristina Barcelona, The Wrestler and Benjamin Button. 2008 was extremely top heavy in terms of greatness and if Avatar and Nine live up to expectations we may reach that level of a good year, but should Up In the Air, Invictus, Sherlock Holmes and The Lovely Bones blow us away December really could turn this into a great year. As of right now, 2009 is looking rather shaky… My favorites so far (http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/in-my-opinion-the-best-and-worst-movies-of-2009-so-far).

Douglas: Well, I think it’s important to help build buzz, because some of the movies I mentioned might not ever been seen if there weren’t critics raving about them. Certainly that was the case with The Cove and other docs.

Ellwood: It’s neither. It’s a solid year.  Lots of solid, good films, but few that blow you out of the water  In theory, a few could still surprise, but that’s 2009 in a nutshell for now.

Feinberg: 2009 strikes me as an average-leaning-weak year for films, thus far, although it’s obviously hard to render a judgment until we’ve seen Clint Eastwood’s “Invictus,” Rob Marshall’s “Nine,” Peter Jackson’s “The Lovely Bones,” and James Cameron’s “Avatar,” any one of which could be a game-changer.

Hammond: I think it’s an okay year for films in general and a GREAT year for animation. It would be swell to see one or more of these ‘toons make it into the top ten, certainly things like “Up”, “Fantastic Mr. Fox” and “Coraline” have the chops to do it but alas….See question #1 for more reasons why it might not  happen.

Kennedy: This isn’t a strong mainstream year with lots of great domestic product like No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood. Outside of Inglourious Basterds, Up (which is far from my favorite Pixar) and Where the Wild Things Are, there isn’t a single film that has cracked $60 million at the box office I’m really crazy about. Ok, you could add District 9 and Coraline though neither is a top 10 favorite of mine. Avatar could knock me out, but I’m skeptical. On the other hand there are lots of smaller and foreign films I loved. In addition to Summer Hours and Flame & Citron I’ve already mentioned, I loved A Serious Man, Tetro, The Girlfriend Experience, Limits of Control, Thirst, Seraphine and many more. For me, this has been a very good year at the movies.

O’Neil: It’s already a great year for films with such thrilling features as “Precious” “The Road,” “Star Trek” and promising pix to come like “Lovely Bones” and “Nine.” Contrarians who insist otherwise are just crusty curmudgeons.

Pond: It’s not a great one.  It’s a weak year to launch the expanded best-picture slate, that’s for sure.  Or, at least, it’s a year that won’t result in the kind of diversity in the category that the Academy wants. That said, if you step outside Oscar World, maybe it’s not such a bad year. But not great.

Wloszczyna: A weak year, especially since there is a considerable chance that Nine, The Lovely Bones, Invictus and Avatar might not live up to their maker’s previous Oscar winners. Besides Up in the Air and Precious and The Hurt Locker, there doesn’t seem to be much passion for other possible titles. The fact that the chances of This Is It are being seriously debated or even The Hangover sort of proves it, too.

4.   Do you think it’s still worth showing films to bloggers and critics long before they open to the public?  Do you think it helps or hurts the movies under this strategy?

Adams: Absolutely. Lots of critics aren’t any better at evaluating what clicks than many dedicated movie lovers.  But I don’t trust Joe the Sound Guy to always recognize a masterpiece when he sees one either.   Do intelligent reviews help or hurt the movies?  It helps the difficult brilliant ones and hurts the brainless bland ones.   (We’re talking about ‘hurts’ in terms of awards consideration, right?  Nothing can hurt the box-office of the most brainless movies, and it’s tough to help the most difficult ones break even.)

Bona: If a studio has faith in a picture, then it can’t hurt to have people on the web talking about it – unless the studio has made a major miscalculation and the ballyhooed film is an Australia.

Brevet: It’s definitely beneficial, and, no matter what, the old adage remains, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.” Avatar is a great example, people are complaining based on early looks, but these are all the same people that will see it opening weekend. Word-of-mouth is what makes or breaks a film. If Avatar is good it will continue to make money beyond opening weekend, a la TDK, if not it will fade just as the majority of movies do.

Douglas: Well, I think it’s important to help build buzz, because some of the movies I mentioned might not ever been seen if there weren’t critics raving about them. Certainly that was the case with The Cove and other docs.

Ellwood: This is something you need to review on a case by case basis.  There aren’t any films that have really hurt themselves in the awards race by showing early — at least this year.  You can argue it’s been an issue with mainstream releases in the spring and summer, but not for Oscar.  The issue should be whether films with distribution go to festivals much earlier than their release dates which is when many critics and journalists see them.  “The Road” is a dicey example with just as many detractors as supporters, but was it a disaster for the Weinstein’s to show it so early? Not really.  In fact, they probably got a few good quotes they weren’t expecting out of it.

Feinberg: Absolutely! Don’t you like getting to see movies before everyone else? I don’t care if it helps or hurts the movies — I like it.

Hammond: You have to show the films to critics but not necessarily long before they open. Quite frankly, and this may sound strange coming from a combo critic/blogger, is I think distributors would be a lot better off letting the Academy “discover” films before they are hyped to the skies. “Precious” is the perfect example of a movie that needs to be nurtured and marketed in such a way that the Academy thinks they have found this little gem, not been TOLD endlessly by writers that they are GOING to like it and nominate it. I think there can be a backlash when too much is expected of a small film. “Up In The Air” had a lot of good early buzz and reviews but smartly Paramount has been holding it back since the early fests and now it too will have a chance to be “discovered” all over again by the people who count.

Kennedy: I think critical buzz might increase the chances a potential Oscar voter will watch a film, but I doubt it has much impact on whether the voter likes it. For every voter that goes along with consensus, there will be another who wants to resist it. Getting the film noticed is an important first step, but it’s not the only one.

O’Neil: Award bloggers should be afforded the same courtesy as film critics in terms of seeing flicks before the public — as long as we continue to respect embargos on writing about them. It’s a new form of entertainment journalism that should receive the same treatment as the old kind.

Pond: The easy answer is that it’s worth it and it helps if you have a good movie, and it’s not worth it and it hurts if you have a bad one.  But I think the community of people who follow the advance word and try to read the tea leaves is so small and insular that it doesn’t have much effect overall. I may be tired of reading (or writing) about “Precious” and “Up in the Air” before they even open, but I’d bet that the average viewer, and even the average Oscar voter, is only dimly aware of their existence.

Wloszczyna: Inevitably, there will be a backlash — mostly ginned up by bored journalists — for these films if they do seem like frontrunners. Juno and Precious are the most recent examples. But if you truly have the goods, such as Up in the Air, I think it can definitely help.

5. For Your Consideration – if you could put up one ad for a film or a performance, whom or what would you choose?

Adams: Tahir Rahim, Best Actor for Un prophète.  And I’d like to see The Hurt Locker ad with my blurb 40 feet tall on a Sunset Blvd billboard.

Bona: (500) Days of Summer and everyone connected with it, especially the two leads.  I would be thrilled if this lovely, perspicacious film is remembered at Oscar time.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgVNgYXFi_Q[/youtube]

Brevet: Gabby Sidibe for Precious. She has the best performance of the year in what is easily the best drama I have seen all year. Let’s just hope the fact she doesn’t fit the Halle Berry mold and isn’t a past “American Idol” contestant doesn’t work against her. She’s had some spectacular appearances recently (Katie Couric and Ellen) and hopefully she and the film will be judged based on their merits as opposed to anything else.

Douglas: I’d go with Tom Hardy for Bronson. It was the type of well-rounded performance that would immediately get a Daniel Day Lewis or a Robert De Niro or any better known actor a nomination, and I think the combination of its low-profile release and the bizarre and violent nature of the movie makes it harder for it to get any sort of attention, let alone any sort of viable campaign. Unfortunately, the Oscars are all about how much money is being thrown into supporting the candidates and while I’m sure Magnolia is well aware of what an amazing performance Hardy gives, I don’t think anyone over there is crazy enough to believe that Oscar voters would enjoy the movie.

Ellwood: Michelle Pfeifer in “Cheri.” One of her best performances in years.  The Academy should and would embrace it if it was in their face, but with the current Miramax dismantling she’s probably going to get screwed once again.

Feinberg: I’d like to first stipulate that I would only put up an ad for a film or performance that is not already being campaigned for. That being said, the film would be Marshall Curry’s “Racing Dreams,” which is the best documentary and maybe the best picture of the year, and the performance would be Zooey Deschanel’s in “500 Days of Summer,” although I’m tempted to say Jessica Haines’ in “Disgrace” or Fred Melamed’s (as the unctuous Sy Abelman) in “A Serious Man.”

Hammond: For actress it would be Catalina Saavedra in “The Maid” because the tiny distributor behind it has no money for a campaign, at least not the amount it would take to make voters aware and because she is just so extraordinary in this Chilean black comedy. For actor it would be the criminally underrated Michael Sheen in “The Damned United”. He’s so good , as always, but the film doesn’t have the heat. Maybe SPC can turn it around with screeners but ads would help.

Kennedy: A Serious Man.

O’Neil: I’m still rooting for “Dreamgirls.” I just KNOW it’s gonna make an Oscar comeback!

Pond: Best documentary feature: “It Might Get Loud.”

Tapley: Tom Hardy, Best Actor in “Bronson,” because he is unfortunately destined to be ignored.

Wloszczyna: A Serious Man. I think it is the Coens at their most scathingly wonderful. Which is why it has so divided critics. Safe cinema it is not. And there has been too much of that this year. Why should the perfectly fine Star Trek make the cut when the far more audaciously original Iron Man and The Dark Knight went without last year?