Arguing with the Academy over its nominations is like arguing with your grandparents over politics. Even if they could hear you, there's not much point in it. You'll never agree.

Or will you? I'm curious how my 2011 Oscar nominations compared with the Academy's:

• BEST PICTURE: Four of five. I would've assumed “Tree of Life” not making the cut rather than “Young Adult.”
• BEST DIRECTOR: Three of five. I'm fine with their choices. It's a tough category. As best picture used to be before the New Happiness. 
• BEST ACTOR: Three of five. I'll take my five.
• BEST ACTRESS: Two of five. Grandma likes biopics more than I do. And she thought that Charlize Theron was just mean.
• BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: One of five, the likely winner, Christopher Plummer.
• BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: One-half of five, Jessica Chastain, but for a different movie. I went “Taking Shelter,” they went “The Help.” I trended young, as AMPAS used to in this category.
• BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: Three of five. But I'm fine with their choices. Well, I would've gone Diablo over Woody, but you know how much Grandpa likes Woody. Plus that Diablo was just mean. And didn't she used to be a stripper or something?
• BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: Four of five. They went “Ides of March,” I went “Captain America.” I stand by the good Captain.

So more agreement than not in the non-acting categories (14 out of 20), and more not than agreement in the acting categories (6 1/2 out of 20). Particular disagreement with supporting and with women.

Overall, though, in a squeaker, I find I do agree with the Academy more than not: 20 1/2 out of 40.

“Charlize was just mean in that movie.”

All previous entries