I guess we won't be seeing the first female President of the United States in 2009, but we could at least see the first female cinematographer nominated for an Academy Award (in the cinematography category, that is). In the 80 years of the Oscars there hasn't been one female nominee for Best Cinematography. Shocking, isn't it? But fortunately there's a chance for next year's ceremony: Mandy Walker, who shot Baz Luhrman's war epic Australia, could be a shoo-in for one of the five nomination slots if the film is Oscar-worthy in general.

The Oscar blog In Contention points out the possibility in a recent post celebrating Walker's reception Tuesday evening of the Kodak Vision Award at the Women in Film's Crystal + Lucy Awards (other honorees included Salma Hayek, Sherry Lansing, Ginnifer Goodwin, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Diane English and the ensemble of The Women). Clearly we only need to look at the trailer to see that Walker's work on the film is gorgeous and might have a shot. In Contention also notes Walker's previous achievements, such as her Independent Spirit Award nomination for Shattered Glass.

There's a piece of video being hosted over at Slashfilm that came from a Youtube guy who digitally messed around with the sound levels on Sofia Coppola's Lost in Translation, and claims to have uncorked the movie's biggest secret -- what is being said to Scarlett Johansson by Bill Murray in that famous final scene. I'm not going to give it away here, but I'm not even sure this spoiler is legit -- even amplified as best it can be, the words still require subtitles for you to follow along and it doesn't even seem like that's what Bill Murray is saying. The first part is especially a stretch I think, although I'd probably guess the last part is more or less accurate. And I will concede that it does seem like something that Murray's character would say and something that Coppola would write -- it's not, as some expected, Murray telling Johannson what he had for lunch or anything.

Lost in Translation was not my gateway film into Coppola -- for me, it was Marie Antoinette, so for me, this isn't some major cinematic mystery that I was dying to solve in the first place. I'm more concerned with the how and why Marie Antoinette got completely shafted at the Academy Awards and I look forward to the day when the Academy makes up for that huge mistake. Coppola will one day be recognized as a chip off the old block and hopefully, she'll also have more productive years and less time in the cinema wilderness than her pops. Check out the Lost in Translation video after the jump ...

It is always a curiosity when Hollywood families come together for a project. I love seeing the Estevezes (aka Sheens) appear together -- sure, even in Men at Work. And sometimes the Coppolas do well with one another -- Talia Shire in her brother's Godfather movies, for example. But often it is a bad idea to work with or cast family members. The most obvious case is Sofia Coppola (Shire's niece) being in her father's The Godfather: Part III. Just recently Jake Paltrow received a paltry reception for a movie he made featuring his sister, Gwyneth. Now, another new filmmaker is attempting a similar feat: According to Variety, Bruce Dern will make his directorial debut with Hart's Location, in which he'll appear alongside his ex-wife, Diane Ladd, and his daughter, Laura Dern. Written by Ashley Reed, the film will appropriately be about family estrangement. Laura will star as a woman seeking to regain custody of her son while also attempting to locate her father, who left when she was 3.

It is worth noting that Diane Ladd has been nominated for three Oscars, all for films in which her daughter also appears (Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore; Wild at Heart; Rambling Rose). The last of these even saw a nomination for Laura, as well, marking the first time a mother and daughter were ever recognized by the Academy for the same film. So, for the women, at least, Hart's Location seems to be a great idea. Maybe there's more Oscars in their future. On the other hand, it also seems to have a sort of novelty to it, like the badly-received It Runs in the Family, which featured a lot of the Douglases (Michael, Kirk, Cameron and Diana), in what appeared to exist just for the stunt-casting. Like that movie, Hart's Location also unites a real-life divorced couple (Dern and Ladd parted ways in 1969). Interestingly enough, though, Ladd has already directed her ex-husband, in 1994's little-seen Mrs. Munck. Hopefully Dern can do better in this reversal of roles. As long as he spends more attention on making a good movie rather than on working out his personal issues (he told Daily Variety that the project makes sense for them because it's about the things you wish you'd said to your family members), then I'll be looking forward to it. The film begins shooting in New Orleans in February.

With only three feature films, Sofia Coppola has already roused supersize portions of both praise and disdain. I am firmly planted in the former camp; Coppola's Lost in Translation (2003), is the best American movie I've seen since the year 2000. It's only too easy to explain the latter camp: Americans have never been too fond of women in powerful positions, and because of her obvious connections her detractors believe that she doesn't deserve her position. To many, she's just "daddy's little girl," and is only allowed to play on the big boys' field because of his guidance and protection.

There are even rumors that Sofia's brother Roman (her second unit director) actually directed her movies, which is ludicrous given that Roman's own directorial debut, CQ (2002), is nowhere near as good as Sofia's three films (which also includes last year's misunderstood Marie Antoinette). Historically, women directors have had difficult times sustaining long careers in Hollywood. If they lose any money, they suffer the consequences, whereas men can spend and lose ten times as much without fearing for their jobs.

Even more difficult to explain and defend is that Coppola is not really a natural born storyteller like her father. But this is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a mistake to consider cinema as merely an agent for storytelling; it has so many other possibilities. And, indeed, filmmakers like Orson Welles, Ingmar Bergman, Luis Bunuel, Federico Fellini, Mario Bava, Monte Hellman, Robert Bresson, David Lynch, Jim Jarmusch, F.W. Murnau, Hou Hsiao-hsien and many others are likewise not necessarily praised or beloved for their ability to tell a clear, concise story. That skill is not required for one to be considered a great cinema artist.

Anyone who reads Cinematical regularly knows that Oscar and I went through an amicable divorce a long while back. The Academy hasn't picked the best film of the year as the Oscar winner in at least ten years, in my opinion, nor are they above handing the big prize to a film that's not only unworthy, but legitimately bad. Crash? A Beautiful Mind? I'm not going to throw Chicago into that category, but it certainly didn't even deserve to be on the top ten list of any respectable critic, let alone walk away with the Best Picture statuette. Chalk up another major blunder this year. No matter which film walks away with Oscar -- whether it's Babel, The Departed, The Queen, Letters From Iwo Jima, or Little Miss Sunshine -- a really splendid work of art, Marie Antoinette, will go unrewarded. Normally, this is the part of the piece where I would launch into how all the critics were wrong and I was right, but the odd thing about the oversight of Marie is that the major critics seemingly agree with me.

Released back in October, before the calculated late-December releases begin muscling their way into the voters' memories, Marie was greeted by an ebullient four-star review by Roger Ebert. The Los Angeles Times' Carina Chocano seconded, calling the film "startlingly original," which it is. The Times A.O. Scott remarked -- "What to do for pleasure? Go see this movie, for starters." The Washington Post, Salon.com, The Hollywood Reporter, The Philadelphia Enquirer, Entertainment Weekly, and smaller outlets like Slant.com all heaped praise on the film, and declared it to be among the best of the year. Add in the pedigree of the director -- an important young filmmaker and prior Oscar winner, Sofia Coppola -- and it seems like the film would have been swept along by the tide until finally walking away the big winner tonight. Instead, the film will have only one opportunity to win an Oscar, in the throwaway category of Best Achievement in Costume Design. Yes, the costume work is good, but let's not kid ourselves -- it's a booby prize for a serious film, if it's won at all.

Has Slate, the online news magazine, really been around for nine years? I only got wind of "The Movie Club" last year, when several critics -- in the form of letters to one another -- batted back and forth the hot button issues of the movie year (last year "gay movies" was one of the topics). Several critics of my acquaintance and I passed around e-mails among ourselves furthering their discussions. If you love movies, it's the must-read item for January.

This year the debate is led by new Slate critic Dana Stevens, who started her duties just last summer. She invited Wesley Morris (the Boston Globe), Keith Phipps (The Onion A.V. Club) and Carina Chocano (the Los Angeles Times) to join in the discussions. Stevens starts out with a confession near and dear to my heart: she doesn't like war movies. At last someone has the guts to say so. (I secretly suspect that no one likes war movies, but no one wants to be portrayed as an anti-American commie terrorist, so everyone pretends otherwise.)

In her short tribute to Robert Altman, Stevens also poses -- but doesn't answer -- the question of who might be the director of the 2000s. Though I wasn't invited to Ms. Stevens' party, may I suggest, off the top of my head, Sofia Coppola, with her near-masterpiece Lost in Translation and the underrated, misunderstood pair The Virgin Suicides and Marie Antoinette? The Thai director Apichatpong Weerasethakul may be an even better candidate; he made his feature debut in 2000 with the amazing non-fictional, fiction film Mysterious Object at Noon, and followed it with at least two more extraordinary films, Blissfully Yours and Tropical Malady. (Perhaps Clint Eastwood is a better candidate? Maybe I'm just grasping at straws here; maybe there isn't a "director of the 2000s" yet...)

In any case, Weerasethakul's Tropical Malady was the best gay film of 2005. Along those lines, Morris asks whether 2006 was actually gayer than 2005. We also have attacks against and defenses for Babel, Little Miss Sunshine and Borat, as well as many other fascinating topics. ...

Do you prefer fact to fiction or fiction to fact? I think it's inevitable after watching any film based on real life individuals or happenings that you may find yourself fact checking choices made by the filmmakers. Did Johnny Cash really ask June Carter to marry him on stage like in Walk the Line? Yes, he did. But what if he didn't? Would you be annoyed or angry by the writer, director, and actor's choice to make the story more whimsical?

Variety did a little fact checking of their own on this year's films with notable historical references. The article rated films such as Catch a Fire, Pursuit of Happyness and The Last King of Scotland according to their historical relevance and gave a little synopsis of the filmmaker's "spin" on the story.

Almost all the films had a high rating according to factual validity although none scored a perfect ten. Why all the twisting of the truth to make an already good story better? Well first of all, most stories do not come with that tried and true "Hollywood Ending" that viewers love so much. A story, no matter how difficult it is throughout (Hotel Rwanda anybody?) ultimately needs to have an awe-inspiring ending -- leaving the audience member uplifted and with a sense of hope.

So which movies ranked the highest and the lowest? World Trade Center received a nine on the fact meter. The story is about two NYPD officers who survived after their extraordinary heroism following the attacks on 9/11. Writer Andrea Berloff had the upper hand though as she had direct accounts from the real life survivors; whereas Sofia Coppola couldn't have a word with Marie Antoinette. If she had a dialogue with the late queen she may have found out that Manolo Blahniks were not yet available at street markets and New Order wouldn't be arriving on the scene for a couple hundred more years -- but that doesn't mean the film is any less fun.

I say, write it well, direct it well, perform it well and then maybe I won't even care if it's fact or fiction.

On October 20 of this year, Roger Ebert published a glowing, four-star review of Sofia Coppola's third film, Marie Antoinette. It was matched by unvarnished praise from The Times' A.O. Scott -- "What to do for pleasure? Go see this movie, for starters" -- and The Los Angeles Times' Carina Chocano, who declared it "startlingly original." The Washington Post's Ann Hornaday went further, attacking the film's critics for having "missed the point." Entertainment Weekly, Salon.com, The Hollywood Reporter, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Rolling Stone and others raved. My own review on Cinematical was one of the only times this year that I actually lavished praise on a film, and rightfully so. Now, both main critics for Slant Magazine have stepped up, each declaring the film to be among the best of the year. So, the question asks itself -- what gives? Why is the film absent from nearly every recently released end-of-year list from the gilded halls of cinematic officialdom?

Obviously there were some substantive critics who simply disagreed with those I noted above, but a quick look at Rotten Tomatoes also reveals a lot of shin-kicks from websites I've never heard of and lazy quotes from other non-opinion makers like Richard Roeper, who dully declares the film to be "dreadfully dull." Did they poison the well? If you are a critic or a serious film fan who disliked the film, please humor me by summarizing one or two points in the comments section below. Do you really think a film like Marie Antoinette should be shut out while dreck like Bobby receives the highest praise from the Golden Globes? Also, if Marie supporters want to turn this post into an ad hoc petition, feel free.

Usually on Cinematical, when we talk about "exhibition" we are referring to the business of theaters showing movies. We are not referring to celebrities showing ... things we might prefer not to see. However, the recurring story that is buzzing all over the universe of celebrity gossip has to do with Britney Spears continually going out on the town in short skirts and nothing underneath, and then doing what is becoming known as an "upskirt," which simply means she forgot all those lessons from older female relatives about sitting in a ladylike and modest fashion. I have seen more photos this week with significant bits covered by stars or other graphics, and I prefer not to click on the photos to view what is being hidden. (Gawker simply posts the undoctored photos after the jump, which is something I found out the hard way.) Perhaps she's allergic to certain fabrics?

Rosie O'Donnell actually bought the actress/singer a pair of underwear (which look similar to the pair sported by Jamie Kennedy) and wants to teach Spears "how to wear underwear again." However, I feel that the best and most genteel solution might be intensive etiquette lessons with a strong focus on entering and exiting vehicles properly, even while under the influence of alcohol or Paris Hilton. And -- I can't believe I just wrote two paragraphs about a celebrity's lack of panties. I need to take a shower before I tackle the rest of last week's news highlights. Excuse me for a moment ...

The rumors were so absurd, they had to be false. But there was a tiny something inside all of us that was secretly hoping it was true. Beautiful actresses baring it all, diving into a historical epic that was rumored to be Sofia Coppola's next project. I mean, c'mon -- that sucker has Oscar written all over it. And such a move wouldn't be all too surprising, seeing as Eva Longoria is desperate to work her way up the big-screen ladder and Beyoncé Knowles would probably love a role that displays her acting chops, and not that fabulous singing voice.

However, in a rare move for an actor (or actress), Longoria herself has gone on record saying rumors of her involvement in a big screen adaptation of Tipping the Velvet are false. With words that made it sound as if everyone from Tony Parker to the mailman had been questioning her about this, she said, "Stop the madness. Believe me, I would love to work with Beyoncé one day. She's so talented. But this is definitely not something we are doing together. It's completely and absolutely not true." A spokesperson for Knowles (see, this is the way it's usually done) also denied rumors, insisting they've never heard of the film. And what about Coppola? Well, Cinematical's own Ryan Stewart recently spoke to her, and the director told him she was taking some time off to have her baby, and had no plans to direct anything in the near future. Yep, looks like we can chalk this one up as some lonely reporter's after-school fantasy and not an actual fact. Go figure.