Christy Lemire of the Associated Press wrote up a story last week about the combined "unpopular" nature of this year's Best Picture hopefuls, and I have to say, more than a few points rang a bit false to me.  I get frustrated when journalists attempt to consolidate what an Oscar season is into tiny, bite-size, consumable ideas.  I also become frustrated when such ideas are in fact apparent, but become a little skewed in the reporting.

Let me just indicate a few examples from the piece:

Oscar-nominated films are often small, dark and unintended for mass audiences; they're about art, after all, not commerce. But that's especially true of this year's crop, which has little mainstream buzz and among the lowest box-office totals in recent years.

Not exactly.  The Academy is quite famous for erring on the side of popularity, though the group has slowly shifted its perspective of "populaity" from mass appeal to critical approval, for whatever reason.  The same pressure to give the biggest grossing film of all time the Best Pic laurels over the critical consensus in 1997 has manifested itself in the Academy's apparently conscious decison to recognize films somewhat out of its typically safe wheelhouse due to critical insistence ("No Country for Old Men," "There Will Be Blood").

But even still, the notion that "Oscar-nominated films are often small" and "dark" is a stretch to anyone who has paid attention long enough.  There is a reason films like "Atonement," "The Aviator," "Seabiscuit," etc. are consistently considered Oscar favorites from afar.  The Academy likes broad acceptability, and that doesn't necessarily indicate "small" and "dark" to me.  But, admittedly, things have been slowly changing for at least three or four years now.

Moving on...

Four of the movies nominated last week for best picture — "Juno," "Michael Clayton," "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood" — got the so-called "Oscar bump" that comes from audiences checking them out the following weekend. (The sweeping romance "Atonement" dropped slightly.)

Still, they've only combined to make about $246.3 million domestically. In contrast, "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" already had grossed about $364 million all by itself by the time it won best picture in 2004.

This isn't the best of points because "The Return of the King" was a phenomenon, and the end result of a three-part series destined for Oscar glory in its denouement.  It is just also one example from 3 years ago.  The box office scenario has slowly been fleeing from the vogue scene where Oscar is concerned, witness by last year's relatively modest monetary crop and especially 2005's, which has been considered one of the most unpopular line-ups ever (and, indeed, saw the Oscar telecast's lowest viewership of all time).

I think the better point for a piece like this to make is the steady march to where we are now, rather than trying to posit the class of 2007 as any sort of major bellwether.  But I don't want to go through Lemire's piece with a comb or anything.  It is valuable to note how incredibly low-key the year's contenders are, and even how relatively dark and "70s" the consensus possibility is ("Michael Clayton").

Also, the only demographically "classic" Best Picture nominees from the past few years have been "The Aviator," "Ray" and "Atonement."  Two of them came in 2004 and I don't think one could make similar arguments for the likes of "Crash" or "Munich" or "Babel."  The idea of what an "oscar movie" is seems to be changing at the same time, which is interesting.  In five or six years, a new "sort" will be consistently considered a contender from afar (how about that alliteration?).  And then, the cycle will likely start all over again.

Interesting, no?  Check out Lemire's AP story.