Last night’s Oscars threw me for some loops, especially the winners for Best Foreign Language Film (The Lives of Others beating out Pan’s Labyrinth?) and Best Cinematography (Pan’s Labyrinth over Children of Men?). Alan Arkin’s Best Supporting Actor win was just a mildly pleasant surprise, especially since I was the only one in a family pool of 11 to pick him. Melissa Etheridge winning in the Best Original Song category with her piece for An Inconvenient Truth, beating out three nominations from Dreamgirls, was pretty clearly a political move (not necessarily a partisan move, but political, nonetheless). But does anyone really care about the Best Original Song category?

As I was scanning other blogs and sites this morning, I found a few post-Oscar pieces especially worth looking at. Pajiba writes in today’s post that although they’re not interested in big awards shows…

Mostly, we just provide this post so that our readers have a space to bellyache, though it’s hard to get too worked up about anything in last night’s show. In fact, the biggest complaint we have was that the 79th Oscar telecast offered so little to kvetch about.

Pajiba’s post and some of its comments (there are lots and they’re kind of fun to sift through) also brought up some suggestions on how to make the Oscars program shorter. Not surprisingly, everyone has an opinion.

GreenCine Daily also has a day after post worth checking out. And HairyLime on Spout wrote a “Post Oscar breakdown” that was followed by a couple interesting comments. Let us know what you liked, hated, and were bored or surprised by on Oscar night.

Politics & Period Flicks: Kristin interviews Michael Apted, his new film Amazing Grace opens tonight. Kevin and Paul discuss Cint Eastwood’s Oscar nominated Letters from Iwo Jima. Dodd Alley (moviedodd from spout.com) reviews the movie Smokin’ Aces.

Download FilmCouch #4 or subscribe to it in the iTunes store (search for “filmcouch” or click here to launch iTunes) and a new free episode will download every Friday.

Oh, I’m so naive to be shocked by this:

Movie studios traditionally spend up to $25 million a year per nominated film in an attempt to secure Hollywood’s highest honor. This time around, Fox Searchlight (”Little Miss Sunshine,” “The Last King of Scotland”) and Paramount (”Babel,” “Dreamgirls”) are leading the pack. With marketing budgets commonly running around $40 million to $50 million for high-profile films, that extra $25 million smarts. But many studios feel it’s worth it.

The above is from an article in yesterday’s Daily News, called “The business of Oscar.” It seemed like a fitting, albeit depressing, follow up to Monday’s post about the push to get Half Nelson star Ryan Gosling a best actor nomination. No wonder our “who-we-think-should-win” and “who-we-think-will-win” lists rarely line up.

I’m sure I’m not the only one raising a glass to the good news that indieWIRE’s Undiscovered Gems film series is on for a second year. The New York Times and Emerging Pictures came through again with the support to make it happen.

For those who aren’t familiar with Undiscovered Gems, for ten years now indieWIRE has been making an annual list of films they love that have not been distributed in the US. This year, for the first time, critics from all over participated in the voting through indieWIRE’s online critics poll. (Here’s the resulting list of “best undistributed films.”) While the list has always created awareness of the films, in 2006 the films on the list became a film series, with one film shown per month in selected venues.

This year, as indieWIRE’s announcement says, “the series will bring one film per month from indieWIRE’s annual list to theaters in a minimum of 15 cities, including New York City; Wilmington, DE; Ft. Lauderdale, Lake Worth and Key West, FL; Martha’s Vineyard, MA; Buffalo, NY; Tulsa, and Oklahoma City, OK; Scranton, PA; Cary, NC; Ann Arbor, MI; and Washington, DC.” Audience members will vote at each venue, resulting in a winning film, which will be announced in December 2007 at an award presentation in New York City.

Steve Barron’s Choking Man will kick off the series next week. The film was awarded “Best Film Not Playing at a Theater Near You” at the 2006 IFP Gotham Awards ceremony.

The obvious thing to love about this series is that great films are getting an audience and at least some of the attention they deserve. But I also love the choice of cities for the series. Some are obvious (umm, New York and Washington?), but how great to live in Buffalo or Scranton or Tulsa and get to see these films! I realize resources are limited, but that’s what I would like to see more of in the future–more small cities in out-of-the-way places getting access to great undiscovered films. Wouldn’t it be cool is we could vote for cities next year, like Four Eyed Monsters did in its DIY distribution efforts?

Anne Thompson of the Hoolywood Reporter’s Risky Business column wrote a great piece about how an Indy production costing less than $1 million was able to position itself for a prominent Oscar nomination. It was no accident that Half Nelson star Ryan Gosling is a Best Actor nominee, Thompson says in her column “How ThinkFilm goosed Gosling’s Oscar drive.”

ThinkFilm’s distribution and marketing president Mark Urman “made the decision to pursue a Best Actor Oscar nomination” when ThinkFilm acquired Half Nelson more than a year ago at Sundance 2006. The strategies were put into play. Among them were the film’s August opening (squeezing in ahead of the pack), sending out thousands of DVDs to the Academy and SAG nominating committee, and taking out ads in the LA Times that focused on Gosling as a brilliant new talent. Urman and Gosling also had luck on their side, because the best actor competition was lighter than usual. And, as Thompson quotes Urman in her column, from time to time the Academy likes to take part in the “discovery” of new talent:

Urman, a veteran Oscar marketer who’d played a role in winning campaigns for Lionsgate’s “Gods and Monsters” and “Affliction,” knew that acting nominations for breakthrough newcomer performances are doable. “We all generalize that the Academy is one giant brain,” he says. “But there are trends. There is a steady affection for the discovery, like Julie Christie in ‘Darling.’ The Academy has always enjoyed making an investment in a career.”

Apparently so. Urman’s strategies worked. I’m happy for Gosling and Half Nelson, that an Indy film and emerging actor can play with the big boys. But even while it gives me more faith in the Academy, it simultaneously gives me less. Gosling made it to the short list not as much for his stunning acting talent as for ThinkFilm’s marketing talent and the money they were willing to throw into promotions. It’s still all a big game, which is made even more apparent when you see all the two-columned prediction lists out there–one column for who various critics think will win the top honors, and another column for who they think deserves to win.

Discussing “The Best & The Worst.” Paul reviews The Queen with Helen Mirren, best picture and best actress nominee for the Oscars 2007. Kevin reviews A Sound of Thunder. George Lucas betrays The Empire Strikes Back. Risselada calls in unhappy about our coverage of Sundance.

Download FilmCouch #7 or subscribe to FilmCouch in the iTunes store (search for “filmcouch” or click here to launch iTunes) and a new free episode will download every Friday.

As a follow-up to my Love and Movies post, a related article that was published earlier this week in the LA Times. The article, titled “Not in the Mood for Love,” looks into the decline of romantic comedies and what might be to blame for that decline. Maybe our penchant for humiliation? Or our generally lowered standards of entertainment? As Rachel Abramowitz, the article’s author, writes:

Some blame the decline of the romance on the cultural climate. One of America’s favorite pastimes these days is ritual humiliation–a penchant for shame that can zap even the sturdiest lovers.

Or maybe it’s just more difficult to string out a good love story in the wake of the sexual revolution of the 1960s:

As film historian Molly Haskell notes, “Sex is so easy you can’t pretend that it’s the holy grail. The condition that made for the sparkle and sexiness of the old films was the fact that there wasn’t any sex. You could easily keep two people apart for an hour and a half. Now the ways of keeping them apart are increasingly strained.”

Abramowitz looks into other possible causes, too. Give “Not in the Mood for Love” a read and let me know which theory you buy.

OK. Here’s the Spout V-Day question: Is there such a thing as a romantic flick that leaves you feeling the way you want to feel about romance?

I realize there are as many answers to this as there are different types of people, but I’ve been thinking about it, because I’m stumped as to how to spend Valentine’s Day. I feel like I want to ignore it, as always, because of its sad status as a Hallmark holiday. But at the same time, I’m in love! It seems like I shouldn’t let the day go by without some recognition and celebration of love. So…where does that leave me? No trying to get into a favorite restaurant for dinner…no expensive gift…maybe handmade card, a bottle of wine, and a romantic movie at home?

It’s a nice plan, but most movies labeled “romantic” could also be labeled “cheesy.” Do you agree? My friend Ryan does. He happened to be nearby as I was writing this, so I asked him if there are any movies that he’d want to watch with his girlfriend on Valentine’s Day. He mentioned films like The Science of Sleep and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and The Last Kiss. “There’s so much more in those movies that helps me connect in real ways to my real relationship,” Ryan said. “I don’t want to just feel good, I want to find something meaningful that I can learn from in a movie.”

My brother Bill (who’s a bit of a romantic in all the best ways) puts his favorite romantic flicks into two categories: “They either capture that idealized romance, or they are very realistic about romance and the difficulties of people actually coming together into a relationship.” He mentioned A Room with a View, The Accidental Tourist, and Moonstruck at the top of his list, along with others: All the Real Girls, The Princess and the Warrior, In the Mood for Love, Before Sunset, Out of Sight, and The English Patient.

Two other things Bill mentioned that I found insightful:

“I do love the period love stories quite a bit, and those are more idealized…It somehow seems we’re more okay accepting the idealized romanticized love story in period garb, like it’s something that doesn’t as much belong in our time.” And: “Even the definition of a ‘Love Story’ is difficult, because that suggests that it must be the main subject of the movie, and I think many of my favorite love stories in movies are not the main point, they’re side episodes or side characters.”

Very true. Maybe that’s key for me in finding a romance movie to watch–the romance should be a side story, not the heart and soul of the film. Warm and fuzzy romances mostly make me feel embarrassed to be crazy-in-love. In some ways, they go as far as to diminish the whole idea of love.

But my purpose here is not to knock the importance of feel-good films (or the importance of feeling good in general). Whatever your preference is when it comes to romantic flicks, check out these lists on Spout if you’re looking for something to watch tonight with your special someone.

Romance (or How I Learned to Fall in Love) by e_machiela

Lover’s Lane by spoutgirl

Romance Films by kunfu-koala

Date Movies by gothere

Romantic Comedies I Love by aktyson

Favorite Romantic Comedies by coppermaus

Ah, the age-old debate: Do you have to get a formal education to succeed in the arts? From painting and poetry to song writing and filmmaking, successful artists have done it both ways–with school and without. (Unsuccessful artists have done it both ways, too.) Either way, the bulk of the learning emerges from doing, right? And formal programs are so often lagging behind what’s really happening in the field. Of course, we all know that one of the most valuable things to gain from going through a program is connections, but are they worth the college debt? Especially considering that few people find the arts to be a lucrative career path?

As a writer, I have struggled with these questions myself, so a headline in yesterday’s New York Times caught my eye: “Where’d You Go to Film School? In My Bedroom.” The article points out how a formal education in filmmaking can seem even more pointless in “the era of miniDV digital video cameras, Final Cut Pro editing systems and YouTube auteurs with development deals.”

But now there’s something in between a formal education and the clueless dive-in-head-first approach–filmmaking tutorials offered on DVDs and CDs. On one level, it’s super exciting to think that you can gain some level of expertise and direction without wasting all the time and money on school. I’m a big fan of figuring out what your story is and then telling it, without a whole lineup of excuses that do nothing but set you back. (I’ll tell it after I get my degree, or after I save X amount of money, or after I move to New York…you know the drill.)

At the same time, while it’s important to just tell your story, maybe knowing how to tell your story is the thing you can’t learn off a DVD. Maybe you need another human being–a mentor–to ask the right questions and push you in the right way. Maybe you need someone experienced to help teach you how to weave together your narrative and the technical aspects in an engaging way. Here’s how a film professor quoted in the Times article put it:

Tom Denove, vice chairman for production in the film, television and digital media department of the film school at the University of California, Los Angeles, contended that educational software often misses the real point of making a film: the inherent power of a narrative.