Conspiracy theorists are looking pretty smart in Hollywood right now.
After a winter that offered sparse big-studio critic bait, the academy has showered nominations on several smaller films. This supports the theory that studios have been steering clear of this year's competition under the assumption that Oscar voters have been waiting for the last installment of the trilogy to reward the filmmakers behind \The Lord of the Rings."" Looking at the field of competitors, the theory actually holds water.
Without winning Best Picture or Best Director awards up to this point, the trilogy has still established itself as an academy favorite. The first two films were nominated for a combined 19 Oscars. Now, ""Return of the King"" has been nominated for 11 more. All three films were shot at the same time, and before the second and third in the series were released, it was assumed they would all reach the same high level of achievement.
This led some to say that the first installment, ""The Fellowship of the Ring,"" did not win the major Oscars because the academy was waiting until the end of the franchise to give full rewards. The overwhelmingly positive response to ""The Two Towers"" matched the lofty expectations and prepared critics to praise ""Return of the King,"" which is now the favorite to win Best Picture and Best Director.
Part of the reason why ""Lord of the Rings"" is such a clear favorite this year is because the traditional season for the release of Oscar contenders was largely vacant this year. Normally, studios release their most critically-promising movies in the last three weeks of December. Last year, all five Best Picture nominees were released in that time period. Those weeks also saw the release of intended contenders like ""Catch Me if You Can"" and ""Antwone Fisher.""
This year, the traditional December Oscar-fodder season only brought us one Best Picture nominee-""Return of the King."" Most of the films released during Oscar time were only expected to be singled out for acting performances, such as ""Monster,"" ""Calendar Girls"" and ""Something's Gotta Give."" ""Cold Mountain"" and ""Big Fish"" both seemed like Best Picture and Best Director possibilities, but each received unspectacular greetings from critics and were shunned for the two nominations.
The most traditional big-budget multiple nominee this year-other than ""Return of the King""-is ""Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World."" Originally intended for summer release, the debut of ""Master and Commander"" was rescheduled for November.
""Lost in Translation"" received autumn raves, but it compares to 2002's ""Punch-Drunk Love,"" which was completely shunned last year. Both films saw critically lauded young writer-directors coaching critically lauded dramatic performances out of beloved funnymen-Bill Murray this time, Adam Sandler last year.
Meanwhile, ""Seabiscuit,"" a feel-good summer movie, garnered a Best Picture nomination almost by default after the weak winter.
Even if big-budget studio movies like ""Cold Mountain"" and ""The Last Samurai"" had fared better with the academy, the field would still be suspiciously weak compared to last year's. And it speaks volumes that two of the multiple-nominees-""Lost in Translation"" and ""In America""-were independently produced. Perhaps it is coincidence that ""Return of the King"" is faced with such a feeble Hollywood field. But whether you believe the theory or not, it's clear that the smart money is on ""Return of the King"" for Best Picture and Best Director.
And maybe, just maybe, the conspiracy theorists are right.
