For the third year in a row, I've had the pleasure of sitting down with an Academy Member and discussing a few things on my mind. This year's anonymous contributor had a lot to say and went against the grain perhaps more than anyone I've chatted with before. But is this person indicative of the Academy at large or an outlier, a voice of reason in a sea of madness? (In my world, The Artist sweeping is madness, madness I say! But will probably happen. Ugh.) Only Sunday will tell. For now, enjoy these insider thoughts on the year in film, Oscar picks and issues that have to be dealt with by the Academy sooner or later, like motion capture.

How did 2011 in film compare to last year?

The films nominated this year are terrific, but I don't really see any potential sweeps and have to admit that a movie I nominated as best picture of the year and was hoping the most would make the cut did not even make it into the top nine. That was Warrior, which I literally had to be dragged to and was blown away by on all counts. I also thought this was an exceptional year for genre films, which are generally ignored by the Academy, except in the technical and craft awards, but are easily among the best films of the year, these include Rise of the Planet of the Apes, X-Men: First Class, Captain America, Attack the Block, Take Shelter, Source Code, Mission Impossible, The Skin I live In and Harry Potter--- the perfect end to a monumental series of films.

I still wish that the Oscar nomination process was not at the end of, and so influenced by, all of the other awards and critics, which in my mind tends to limit the Academy's choices at the end of the day. It seems odd to me in a year where there are some really excellent and commercially successful movies, that the top ten films nominated for Oscars have attracted such small audiences. I think the grand total of the nine nominated this year is less than the top two nominated ones last year. I don't mean it as a criticism of the films and I know it's crass to talk in these kinds of terms, but I just mean that the nominees this year aren't very appealing overall to wide audiences, which is interesting.

That being said, a number of my favorite films of the year were nominated and the three I wrestled with most about actually voting for were Hugo, The Descendants, and Midnight in Paris for different reasons. Unlike last year when I was Social Network all the way, I found myself unsure of film to vote for because the one I felt most passionate about wasn't nominated.

So were there not a lot of movies this year that blew you away the Warrior did?

Not that gave me the same visceral reaction and surprised me so much--- especially because it was also about so much more than it appeared to be. I actually thought the film had more in common with Death of A Salesman or Long Day's Journey Into Night than it did Million Dollar Baby or The Fighter. Both Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton were riveting.

In my heart of hearts, probably the most entertaining of the nominated films, and the one I could see multiple times and enjoy as much, is Midnight in Paris. But I didn't feel that anyone in the movie, aside from Owen Wilson, was any more than part of a Greek chorus of sorts instead of real characters, so there wasn't much actual acting going on-- although I loved all the historical cameos. Telling a human story about real people, but in an unusual setting, not only made The Descendants watchable and satisfying as entertainment, but it had the most heart of the three. Some have said that depth of human emotion is the one thing that Hugo is missing, but it had all the elements of a classic epic film that, while nodding to the past even more effectively than The Artist did, also took modern technology and 3D to the next level, utilizing every aspect of the craft of movie making at its finest, telling a touching story that encapsulates both the history and importance of movies, directed by one of the true modern masters of movie making. Any conceivable reason one might have for voting for The Artist, is true tenfold of Hugo. 

When it comes right down to it, my choice for Best Picture has to include two basic elements, would I want to see it again and would I recommend it?

How do you feel about the front runner, The Artist?

I thought it was a fun, entertaining exercise that held my interest for about forty minutes. Most of my friends and colleagues in the business I've talked to don't understand what all the fuss is about, so I don't really know if it's the front runner Harvey has convinced all of us and all the pundits it is. Or if it would really win without such an overwhelming campaign. A year from now, it'll be just another silent movie, and I can recommend some truly great ones for those interested.  (laughs) And hey, call me an early adopter, but I prefer talkies. I think they're really going somewhere.

What do you think about Entertainment Weekly's Actress Academy voter saying Hugo shouldn't win Best Picture because it's a "children's film"?

Off hand, it's part of the same mind set that prevents genre films from being nominated and considers them less than art--- and I wonder if such sentiment would include past films like Wizard of Oz, 400 Blows, The Black Stallion, Beauty and the Beast, Babe, Toy Story 3 - it's a silly argument. Sure, they ultimately didn't win, but to boil it down to "it's because they are children's films" is incorrect and a somewhat shameful reason to admit to overlooking something. It shows a lack of understanding about film that I find unsettling. To judge the quality of a film based on its intended audience is unfathomable. Great is great, and any great children's film ultimately transcends that and appeals to adults too.

Anyone you were sad to see not receive a nomination?

Warrior, obviously. I thought Gosling and Brooks in Drive were both terrific and certainly Shame deserved some acting nods. Also, Fox Searchlight sent Margaret out so late and it was so mired in post production woes, it didn't stand a chance, but I highly recommend it. The film was a wonderful example of a novelistic approach to film making with a fascinating performance by Anna Paquin, similar in theme to A Separation--- about how something tiny can cause an accident and set off a chain of events that deeply effect theretofore totally disconnected lives.

And Andy Serkis. Although it might not seem obvious at first, both Andy Serkis and Jean Dujardin played the leads in their films virtually silent, one by overacting in the style of the 20s and the other by underplaying a chimpanzee to the point where you could see what Ceaser was thinking through his eyes. If an Oscar could just be given out for what you could do with your eyes, Andy would deserve it.

I thought Charlize Theron gave the best performance of her career in Young Adult and I pretty much fell in love with Felicity Jones in Like Crazy and Emma Stone in Crazy Stupid Love and I thought Mia Wasikowska captured Jane Eyre more effectively and beautifully than all the other versions of a story that seems to be filmed every five years like clockwork.

And finally, no offense to Sergio Mendes, but I can't believe the opportunity for a Flight of the Concords song-off was missed by Jermaine Clement not getting a Best Song nod.

What do you think should be done about the motion capture quagmire?

The easy solution is to create a new category that takes into consideration the talent and skills necessary to perform motion capture. But it's a tricky area. There was a time when Disney started using rotoscoping in order to give their animated humans more natural movements, like Mowgli in the Jungle Book, and animators were essentially accused of tracing. But that technique became totally accepted and during the Disney Renaissance of the 90s, the actresses who performed these duties for Little Mermaid and the like were celebrated for it. Motion Capture could be seen as the next step in the evolution of this, and still qualifies as animated in that respect. But there is a big difference here and that is that the essence of the performances are coming from a place of head-to-toe acting, where the motion capture suit is essentially digital makeup. If John Hurt can be nominated for Elephant Man, Andy Serkis should be nominated for playing a chimp. So perhaps MoCap can really fit into both categories, depending on the movie being made.  If it's live action with performance capture, i.e. Lord of the Rings or Apes--- that's live action acting.  If it's Jim Carrey playing Scrooge or Andy Serkis as Capt. Haddock in Tintin, in an all animated movie--- that's animation. That seems like an easy way to sort it out. And when it's animation, you know, in the past, production designers, animators and sfx artists all used brushes, paint and clay. Now they use a keyboard and computer. The result is the same. It's all art, in every category, however you get there. And if Tintin wasn't nominated for Animated Film because of a bias against motion capture, that's a real shame.

Where are we likely to see an upset?

The best I can do is answer how I voted differently than what has been predicted, Like Jane Eyre for costumes, War Horse in the sound categories (I mean come on, it's got war AND horses), Hugo in cinematography, and of course most of the big awards. The tech awards are interesting because it's generally colleagues who aren't experts voting on things nominated by experts, so you have to make a judgement  based mostly on your reactions as a movie fan--- thinking back on what made the most impression on me as a viewer--- which sound transported me the most, which costumes served the story and reflected the characters best, etc  Jane Eyre featured period costumes you believed those characters got up and put on that morning, it wasn't just creating a bunch of various costumes of a particular era.  Plus, on top of the fact that Harry Potter did have the best makeup, and Apes did have the best visual effects, both movies actually deserve an Oscar and these awards are a good way to recognize them.

Best Actor

Brad Pitt. As much as I loved George Clooney, I never really lost sight of the fact that it was Clooney being a bit shlubby and un-George Clooney-ish. Brilliantly, but still, I ultimately decided to vote for Pitt, who I felt was just totally immersed in the role. Absolutely spot-on understated performance. I forgot it was Brad Pitt playing Billy Beane and just saw the character.

Best Actress

Viola Davis. She was the soul of the movie and elevated the entire film. I thought Michelle Williams was wonderful, but think it's silly to keep giving people Oscars for playing other actors and performers.

Best Supporting Actress

I actually think this category is a lot more interesting than people expect. While Octavia Spencer was wonderful, I couldn't ignore the balls out comedic performance of Melissa McCarthy--- that managed to still be grounded in such honesty and believability, like someone you actually know, not just an over-the-top caricature. That is not easy and McCarthy made it look like a breeze. (laughs) Plus I'm a Gilmore Girls fan.

Best Director

Going back to my choices of the three best movies of the year, unquestionably, Midnight in Paris and The Descendants were the best written, but Hugo is the best directed. I mean, have you SEEN the movie? It was monumental. An epic undertaking. Intricate detail in 3D, creating a sense of wonder for a modern day audience that audiences in the early 20th century felt watching Melies' films. The 3D was at once so cutting edge yet reminiscent of old sepia stereoscopic photos. Ultimately Hugo was a breathtaking experience and Scorsese deserves it more for this than he did for The Departed, which I saw more as a career award.