DEEP VOTE: An Oscar-winning Academy member has agreed to let us in on his voting process for the remainder of the season!

Attention, fellow Oscar-watchers! At this point, we've screened all of the year's awards hopefuls, we've learned most of the precursor nominations, and we've talked ourselves into a tizzy -- but there's still almost a month to go until we actually find out whether or not our personal projections match up with the Academy's eventual nominees! This raises the question: What do we do now?!

* * *

Well, we can -- and surely will -- continue to debate amongst ourselves, but the truth is that the race is now in the hands of the 5,819 voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, an electorate composed of actors (1,243), producers (454), executives (440), sound technicians (412), writers (396), directors (374), art directors (373), public relation specialists (369), animation artists (330), visual effects artists (264), members at large (254), musicians (235), editors (223), cinematographers (195), documentarians (141), and makeup artists (116).

The Academy is one of the most exclusive clubs in the world, and like other exclusive clubs it has long guarded its membership and traditions from the general public. It has loosened up a little bit in recent years -- for instance, we once had little idea who the voters were, but we are now annually provided with a list of new members -- but much of the Oscar process remains steeped in mystery.

We don't know how many voters have actually watched the films on which they are asked to vote (there is widespread suspicion that many voters don't), or how many of those who have are still lucid (I've seen a few at various screenings who make me wonder); we are not furnished with vote totals (wouldn't you like to know how close "Brokeback Mountain" came to beating "Crash" in 2005?); and we rarely get to hear how a voter determines which films or people to include on his or her ballot (in part because some don't care to share, but more so because the Academy strongly discourages those who vote from sharing).

Fortunately, there is still a healthy number of voters who see the silliness of this and are willing to chat with me off the record each year. What is the value of these conversations, when even 20 to 30 would still fail to offer a reliable sample of the overall membership's preferences? Well, to be honest, I'm often less interested in their preferences than I am in the thought-process through which they arrived at them.

In past years, I've spoken with numerous voters, but only a few times throughout the season. This year, I will to do that again, but -- and this is today's exciting news -- I will also be speaking with the same voter regularly throughout the remainder of the season. Here's a description of how this came about and how it will work...

* * *

Last week, I sent an e-mail to a voter I've known for years -- an Oscar-winning screenwriter -- to wish him happy holidays and, ahem, solicit his thoughts on the race thus far. He wrote back to say that he, like most voters, hadn't yet seen much of anything but planned to start digging into his growing pile of films shortly and would welcome any recommendations I might have.

I wrote back and told him that rather than providing my personal preferences, I was attaching an alphabetically-ordered list of the films that have generated the most awards buzz thus far, in case that would help. For the purposes of full disclosure, they were:

• "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
• "The Dark Knight"
• "Doubt"
• "Frost/Nixon"
• "Frozen River"
• "Happy-Go-Lucky"
• "Milk"
• "Rachel Getting Married"
• "The Reader"
• "Revolutionary Road"
• "Slumdog Millionaire"
• "Vicky Cristina Barcelona"
• "The Visitor"
• "WALL-E"
• "The Wrestler"

He then wrote back to thank me for the list and tell me he would make a point of seeing each of them before any others over the few remaining weeks before nomination ballots are due back at the Academy. That's when I decided to give the old chutzpah a shot: I asked him if he might be willing to take a few moments after seeing each film to email me his thoughts, which I would then post anonymously on my blog. His response? No problem -- and you can use my name!

I told him I was thrilled -- but that I would not use his name, even though he had granted me permission, because that might get him in trouble, which was the last thing I wanted to see happen to him as a result of helping me/us. He wrote back, "OK... [but] I think anyone in the world is entitled to an opinion... [and] I don't give a damn about anyone disagreeing... but perhaps a well-phrased thought or two could help."

So, for the rest of the season, this Academy member -- who we'll henceforth refer to as "Deep Vote," for reasons that should be obvious -- will help us to peel back the curtain on Oscar voting by sharing his thoughts about the contenders as he discovers them and, eventually, his final ballot selections as he arrives at them. (These are his views and his views only, and do not necessarily represent, in any way, my own views or those of the Los Angeles Times.) I think it will be a fun and informative new feature. Following is the first installment.

* * *

MEMO #1

TO: THE FEINBERG FILES

FROM: DEEP VOTE

DATES: 12/25-12/28 (3 FILMS)

• "The Reader" disturbed me, though not in the way intended. Despite good acting, I found it overblown and pretentious in a thousand ways ... Films about the Holocaust that deal in a hokey realism are especially offensive to me and leave a bad taste.

• I've seen previous movies by Mike Leigh, some of them excellent (e.g. "Naked," "Topsy-Turvy," "Secrets & Lies"), and after the first 15 minutes, "Happy-Go-Lucky" turned out to be one of those. I worry that the slow and unclear opening will put people off -- and, of course, some reviewers get Mike Leigh authoritatively and definitively wrong. It turns out the young teacher is happy-go-lucky in a profound way, which allows her to deal with some of life's major difficulties, and even to risk herself. But I grew to love her as I grew to understand what she was saying (literally) and was happy for her at the end.

• I saw "The Wrestler."  I liked Mickey Rourke well enough, but the trouble is there is no story.  Maybe Hemingway could have told it as a short story, if he knew the world of minor-league pro wrestling.  Marisa Tomei is a good actress who has obviously kept in shape, but there is no connection between her and Rourke, hence nothing changes. There is a hint that it might change, but it doesn't. Ditto with his daughter, who is too simple about him. In fact, he himself is too simple ... and doesn't change. I hope the movie does not really parallel Rourke's life, though that is the irrelevant basis for promotion.

• I'm beginning to think this was not a good year for movies.... I hope to see a really good one yet ... so far, "Happy-Go-Lucky" remains the best, and that's a foreign one.

---

Please note: It has recently come to our attention that Roger Ebert has previously used the term "Deep Vote" in a similar context. As an openly-acknowledged homage to him, we will continue to use the term, as well.

Comments

[Matt Mazur]

I think Happy-Go-Lucky is going to surprise a lot of people...

Its still my film of the year, too!

Great work, Scott!

[Rob Wills]

I preferred The Reader to Happy-Go-Lucky. The saving grace of HGL was Eddie Marsan as the driving teacher. I liked the film when he was onscreen and not when he was off. Kate Winslet captured my interest while Sally Hawkins did not.

[NovicMode]

Where's Wall-E on that list? It has award buzz!

[Scott Feinberg]

Hey NovicMode,
You're absolutely right--my mistake. I've emailed him to add it to the list and I've added it to the list above.
Thanks, Scott

[Pedro]

Tell him to watch Ive love you so long

[Renaton]

And shouldn't "Changeling " and "Gran Torino" be included also?

After all, it's Clint Eastwood, so you never know...

[Marv]

The dark knight derserves a Best picture nomination

[Robert Hamer]

I'm shocked and disappointed that more people don't share my enthusiasm for The Wrestler. "Deep Vote" and I must have watched different movies.

[Amos]

The Wrestler was overly simplistic episodic with no emotional continuity between the characters. It takes more than a hand held camera & grainy look to effectively tell the story of a slipping down life. The director is now zero for four. Only for the easily entertained.

[Josh]

when do we get an update on other films he has probably now seen? Hopefully soon!

[Robert Hamer]

*rolls eyes* Whatever you say, Amos. Why don't you go back 29 years and bash Raging Bull while you're at it?