Its going to be a tough year for predictors at the moment. With no clear cut favourite, any of five of ten or eleven films could make the cut. Usually at this stage there is at least one film which everyone knows will make it for one reason or another – but this year, as we’ll see there are pros and cons to each of the potential winners.

Of course this should make the build up a hell of a lot more fun. Since the Crash/Brokeback Mountain shocker a few years ago, it seems now everyone is back on a knife-edge when the ceremony rolls around. Nothing feels like a safe bet anymore. Not even the biggest film of the year.

There is little doubt of the shadow that The Dark Knight has cast over 2008. The biggest box-office film of the year (except for in the UK, where it was outsold by Mamma Mia! of all things) would have been huge even were it not for the passing of its co-star Heath Ledger, but after his tragic death, the whole world seemed to go a little bit crazy (The Dark Knight held the #1 spot on imdb.com briefly after release) and there was little doubt what would gross the most this year.

Not that Oscar is primarily worried by such things as Box-Office gross. But as with Titanic, there might be a feeling in the Academy that if The Dark Knight is nominated then viewing figures of the ceremony would skyrocket (after last years dull show, it’d at least shake things up). The trouble the Academy is going to have is that however it is dressed up (a lot of people talking about it as a crime thriller), it is still a comic-book movie. Not the sort of thing they would want to touch usually. They bowed to public pressure eventually by honouring the third Lord of the Rings though, so maybe they will here.

Elsewhere, most of the names in the awards tombola are yet to arrive. Slumdog Millionaire, directed by Danny Boyle (Sunshine, Trainspotting, 28 Days Later among others) has arrived a little early stateside to incredibly positive reviews, meaning its an early frontrunner for a nomination. The story of a street urchin who enters Who Wants To Be A Millionaire to attract a girl he knows watches the show, Slumdog should prove to be a crowd favourite that seems to tick the Academy’s boxes.

Changeling is another one already in cinemas, but it has received disappointingly mixed reviews stateside. The Academy loves Clint, but they might feel its time to honour him for his acting (his “last role” in Gran Torino is also in the mix). Angelina Jolie should pick up a nomination here for her revelatory performance.

Ron Howard’s new one Frost/Nixon should garner a few nominations. An adaptation of a wildly popular stage play, it tells the story of the meeting of the fallen British journalist and the even further fallen post-Watergate president. It’s kept the same cast as the play, so assuming it doesn’t look too stagey, should be in with a good chance. Frank Langella is looking a strong bet for Best Actor too.

Australia by auteur Baz Luhrmann was my pick for Oscar gold this year, with its epic look and feel, a director the Academy does like, and a starry cast with the chance for some revelatory turns it looked a shoe-in. The film has been hampered with bad press in the last week or so though after Fox spoiled the film for everyone by announcing they were changing the ending. No spoilers here, but if you look it up you can find it easily enough. Will the Academy be put off by the studio interference?

Revolutionary Road could be a good bet for a nomination too. Billed as a reteaming of Titanic duo Kate Winslet and Leo DiCaprio, the adaptation of Richard Yates classic novel takes apart the myth of Suburbia – much like American Beauty, which won Oscars for Revolutionary Road director Sam Mendes.

The Wrestler is an odd one. Darren Aronofsky’s latest is being billed as a comeback for Mickey Rourke, which should be enough to see him nominated in the actor stakes. Whether it gets a Best Picture nomination or not will depend on how seriously the Academy takes a film about wrestling. I think they might need convincing.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a popular choice, seeing a reteam of Brad Pitt and David Fincher. The story of a man who ages backwards, it might just come down to whether the Academy thinks its too cutesy or weird. It has been getting mixed press from the festivals, suggesting it isn’t as good as it sounds on paper. The Academy might feel it’s a good chance to give Fincher a nod though, as all his previous work wasn’t really Academy material.

Milk is another front runner, by cult director Gus Van Saant. There is no getting away from the reason this might not get nominated, gayness. With Brokeback Mountain they proved they would nominate a film about homosexuality, but that was about coming to terms with something that was difficult – and even that divided the Academy. Milk has the theme of gay pride. One fears that unfortunately, this might be too much for the conservative Academy. Let us hope not.

Lastly, Valkyrie. Its an interesting one, on paper it looks like Oscar gold, Bryan Singer, Tom Cruise, and a heroic film about taking down Hitler. The press snipes towards the film however have been nasty. Mostly of course this is aimed at The Cruiser, who has committed the sin of believing in something that most of us don’t. I actually think the film looks really good. But whether the negativity will put of the Academy, I don’t know. Perhaps what The Cruiser needs to do is take a couple of years doing nothing and then star in a film like this and present it as his “comeback”, the Academy love that shit.

I have not yet watched this whole movie. Whenever it is on, I manage to watch excerpts from the movie, but not the whole movie. No doubt this is a fault. I haven't watched the whole of Driving Miss Daisy either, another award winning movie. Even though I must admit, from the various scenes, that the Dancing With Wolves is a great movie. It has all the elements of greatness, of the epic historical movie. And it's great to have work for so many excellent Native American actors. Nevertheless, this is the same story.

It's the same story as the story in which Tom Cruise is in the Asian world, getting to play hero. It's the same story. You know the movie. The Last Samarai. Tom Cruise?

It's the same story as Tarzan. These are glorified Tarzan movies. It's the same mythology.

Basically there's nothing wrong with this mythology, as long as you know it's mythology. And mythology--racial and national--always has its role. Like the myth of American innocence has its role.

Of course this is a great story, a great mythology, where Europeans find themselves among the "natives," and they become hero in the native's story, they control the native's story, and the natives celebrate them and praise them. They even "get the girl," whether it's a white girl or the native girl. They always get the girl. It's the same story, told and retold and told and retold.

Sometimes this story is real, sometimes its myth, sometimes it virtual.

There's nothing wrong with this story, with this mythology. And there are many examples of Europeans coming among the natives, in the real world and easily gaining authority, control and prestige among the natives. And many of them continue to be the producers, directors, funders of the films, so rightfully they can tell their stories. They can select the types of stories, the stars, the milieu. Every now and then they are like Clint Eastwood, an "American Master" (ref. the PBS series, here) and allow the natives to have "their point of view" as the Japanese "natives" in the award-winning Letters from Iwo Jimo. Outside the movie, however, Clint still gets to play hero, as in his "Bird" movie, and the natives are just as fond as Clint as others. Certainly the natives admire Dirty Harry Callahan. For many of them he's a culture hero also, and likewise with cowboy Clint, "The Stranger," etc. I happen to be a fan of Clint Eastwood's. Movies are very addictive. American movies are American #1 industry, and for a good reason. However, we find that many of these other movie makers, the more we learn of them, are quite extraordinary also, those of us who like the foreign film festivals.

There are many such heroic stories, while the natives are generally "every which way but loose."

We witness the natives don't have any problem accepting these culture heroes either. But this is the same story.

Most of us don't mind this story because the movies are quite entertaining, and the pundits, including the native pundits, that do interfere with the American myth cannot compete with that myth. It's being told and retold and retold and retold.

Europeans are going to continue to tell this story and natives are going to help them tell this story. Sometimes the natives get to play Othello, sometimes they get to play Caliban.

Sometimes the natives refuse to help them tell this same old story.

But how dare them?

Then other natives come along to help them tell and retell this story, this same old story.

There's nothing wrong with these stories. Every people have their cultural heroes and their cultural mythologies and their standard stories. The Europeans have Beowolf, the Africans have Mwindo. There's nothing necessarily wrong with these stories. It's acceptable to have a story in which Kevin Costner gets to play hero, saving Whitney Houston.

Nevertheless, it's the same story. It's the same cultural mythology, told and retold in different stories, but the same story, the same mythology. It's even in all the science fiction stories, except the aliens sometimes get to play hero. Sometimes the robots get to play hero. But it's the same story. A Space Soap Opera. A Space Western. The same story of Western Civilization, and Western hegemony.

There's nothing wrong with this story, it's just recognizing the myth.

But I must admit there is truly a great and poignant scene when Rodney A. Grant, Native American Actor, Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota, USA, named Wind In His Hair in the movie (also had a role in Geronimo: An American Legend, 1993, with Wes Studi as Geronimo) calls out to Kevin Costner, holding up his spear,

Do you see that I am your friend? Can you see that you will always be my friend?

An all-time great scene.

But why is it that Kevin Costner--Dancing With Wolves--doesn't reply?

Of course natives every which way but loose natives don't have anything against Kevin Costner, Tom Cruise or any of their heroics. They are in our cinematic imagination.

Every now and then the native pundits complain. The People go to the movies, like The People go to Disneyland. In Paris. In Hong Kong. In Japan.

What A Dancing With Wolves in which you have a native man and woman the center and hero. They tried this with Geronimo--An American Legend movie. Every now and then they tried it with other "American Legends" that are not European.

I don't mean as a "native" that we can't continue to have the Kevin Costners--Tom Cruises--even the Madonna heroes in the native movies and real native world. Certainly not. And when these people have the funds they should have the right of control.

So of course the Will Smiths and the Oprahs and the ordinary the people are going to have to fund their own movies. Like when the women complain about not having any roles.

They are going to have to fund their own movies. However, the women, Europeans, have always had pretty great roles, even if not always the leading roles.

A Russell Wong instead of a Tom Cruise as the hero?

As for the box office appeal--maybe that's a problem. They keep telling us these people don't have box office appeal.

But for some of these movies, we might have to forget the box office appeal. Just make an independent movie.

Maybe all of these natives are going to have to have their Telemundo, their BET, even though we have many complaints about these efforts. But they are making their own movies.

Many of these great Native American actors in Dancing With Wolves, including handsome leading men and leading women should be the heroes in their own movies. Certainly maybe Native Americans themselves are going to have to be the producers and directors and actors and screenplay writers, and they are going to have to educate the general public to be able to perceive them as leading men and leading women and heroics.

And all of us every which way but loose natives can't wait to be discovered, like George Lopez.

Even when African Americans have heroic roles, if we're honest, it's usually in movies where they're saving white people, like Denzel Washington saving little Dakota Fanning. I'm not going to call Denzel Washington a glorified Uncle Remus when he saves little Dakota or little Julia, because he certainly is modern, postmodern, intelligent, manlier man. And Kevin Costner can save little Whitney a few more times, if this is the American mythology that we want.

By the way, it's good that somebody discovered "America" to play Ugly Betty, and it's good that Ugly Betty starring "America" won a Golden Globe.

When blacks were saving each other in their cinematic renaissance we called it Blaxploitation or Black Exploitation, and we, even blacks, did our best to convince blacks not to make any more of these movies. We convinced them that postmodern versions of the old stereotypes are acceptable. These are the old stereotypes in a modern and postmodern version, in which they get to be intelligent and heroic, but for whose benefit?

Or we can allow them (these American "natives"; think Richard Wright) to save Asians, as in The Art of War. They can save a few of us Latinos, if they want. They can even save some Native Americans, if they want. They can even go to Africa and save a few Africans, if they want.

We natives are every which way but loose.

Latinos of course find ourselves playing every stereotype in the book, every which way but loose, until we make our own "LatinoFlavored" productions and production companies. Then "Jose Speaks." Let Jose speak for himself.

Natives must pen works that return us to the center of their own heroic universes We have these great works, our Dancing With Wolves. Many people don't know of them, don't read them, some go unpublished.

We're all "Mischief Makers," (Amazon.com), to use the title of a Nettie Jones' work. This native work should be made into a movie, with all of these natives returned to the center of their heroic stories. Read of Mishe Masaube, Chippewa Indian, the natives at the center of their own universe, the center of their own stories, their own magical mythologies. Called "lyrical, mystical" prose.

There is N. Scott Momaday.

There is James Welch.

There is Leslie Silko.

There is Paula Gunn Allen.

There are the self-pubished Native Americans at Lulu Press.

There is The New Native American Novel: Works in Progress (Amazon.com).

There is When Brer Rabbit Meets Coyote (African-Native American Literature).

There are the books by the natives and the non-natives.

We find the natives in Dancing With Wolves welcoming Kevin Costner and accepting him as a member of their "tribe." However, they also know that he is an "exception." He's certainly not the "rule." From the point of view of the whites of that era, certainly he has "turned Indian," and certainly he is a traitor. He gets to play hero nevertheless.

Many of the Indians just get to play Indians.

Many of the natives just get to play natives.

Sometimes the natives are--every which way but loose.

Sometimes the natives are--any which way you can.

Here are just a few comments on Dancing With Wolves. Thoughts and opinions. A great movie. However, I would like to see more Native American movies with Native American men and women as the heroes and heroines, and at the center of their own noble and heroic universes, and where they control the stories, we learn their myths, they legends, their magical mythologies, and yes hear more of their languages, their many native languages.

There are many books written by great Native American writers that would make great movies. Many of them can be found online, some published by the great commercial publishers, some by small press, some by the Native Americans themselves.

We natives have our folklores, folktales, adventure stories, wisdom stories, and sacred stories in which we ourselves get to play the the heroes and heroines and the many personalities and types--many of these can be made into plays, TV and theatrical movies.

There’s some good stuff in here but there it’s over edited. It’s like Eastwood wanted to shoot a war movie but later realized that the point was real heroism verses heroism by fame. So he chopped it up. There are two other, more likely, reasons for the strange flashback/flash forward style. The first is that all the stuff on the home front was dramatic but boring and the interjected, slowly evolving, war story helped break up the potential monotony.

Another possible reason is that Iwojiima didn’t lend itself to story. Like most major battles there are a thousand stories and you have to pick one and follow it. Unlike the war in Europe much of the fighting in Asia wasn’t witnessed by a civilian population (millions of empathetic peers). Another difference is that wars are fought differently in Asia. Secret societies, assassins, psychological warfare, and guerrilla warfare were perfected throughout Asia. In some ways we were as surprised by the way war happens in the orient as the British were by the way war is fought in America during the revolution. Viet Nam proves this point.

In Viet Nam however the controversy became a huge target for movies. The entire Japanese front in WWII was the victim of the glorious early days in Europe. From General George C. Marshal turning a 40 thousand man army into a 5 million man army in time for D day, to the creation of new paratrooper divisions, our entry into a war and drive for quick victory against the back drop of our own ancestral homes makes an easy story. The Japanese were considered a strange enemy with a strange culture. We fought for desolate piles of rock in the middle of the pacific. It was tremendously expensive and it was the bitter end of our resources and resolve. It was a tough story.

What about the “R” Rating?

This is a war movie and it is graphically violent. You either like this kind of film or you don’t. If we look at “Saving Private Ryan” as the benchmark this movie is roughly equivalent. Unlike Ryan this movie breaks up the fighting scenes giving us a chance to be re-shocked with each scene of violence.

This one thing is noteworthy. There is a character that was taken prisoner and tortured by the enemy. His remains are found, but not shown. We are only shown the response of another character when he sees them. My hat is off to Mr. Eastwood for using this classic technique rather than trying to prove that modern special effects are up to any challenge. It allows our imagination to fill in the details and it relies on the actor to convey an emotion, ie act.

What if I hate Clint Eastwood?

Then you aren’t an American. Come on you’d hate Dirty Harry. That’s like hating Jimmy Stuart. He doesn’t appear in the film, but he seems to have done everything else including some of the music.

Larger Story

The major theme of the movie is heroism real and imagined. This movie has a lot to say on the topic and it’s interesting that it would be directed by Clint Eastwood—who doubtless wonders about movie “action heroes.” Most of the hero stuff in this movie is true and well stated. Unfortunately it’s berried a bit behind a very subtle anti-war theme.

The storyline of the film is a son having to go to great lengths to discover who his father is. He finds out that not only was his father set up as a hero but he really was a hero. Most importantly he comes to terms with the reason his father never opened up with the details of his life. It’s very likely that this movie will resonate with a lot of men and I have refrained from dogging it despite some of its aspects which failed. As a whole the picture worked.

A lot of speculation has gone into Arnold's life after his term(s) are over. Will he return to Hollywood?

It's a good question. Arnold enjoyed huge box office success before his decision to run for governorship of California and was one of the few bankable action stars around. Arnold had done sci-fi, action, comedy and fantasy with huge success -- can he do it again? More importantly, does he want to?

If Arnold wins another 4 year term, he won't be available for starring roles until 2010. Ouch. That would make him 63! Of course, he'll still be big and buff - but will he be wanting to do action? Will it be believable if he chooses to? Most importantly, will his audience shrivel up and die?

Arnold's career as governor has been loved by some and hated by others, but definitely well-heeded by the press. So, his popularity has not suffered, but will his politics affect further filmmaking should he choose to continue? A lot of his fans favored his tough talk on politics when he was asked while an action star. Arnold has proven to be a moderate, though. Will those fans melt away a la Dixie Chicks or will they let politics be politics? On the flipside, Arnold's moderation has won him new fans - would they be his new movie-going crowd?

Very few actors and actresses have entered politics professionally - although almost all are seen parading their pet politic somewhere. Clint Eastwood is the most notable figure that entered politics in the 80s and saw only further success on the big screen when he returned. Of course, Eastwood was voted in as Republican and stayed the course for his two-year term. Only later did Eastwood morph into the libertarian he is today. So even Eastwood's career will not be much of a standard to hang Arnold's on.

I guess the only standard we have is Arnold himself. He's always been capable of getting to the top. As Mr. Olympia AND Mr. Universe, Arnold broke records in the bodybuilding world. The popularity of bodybuilding has largely been attributed to him. His marriage to Maria Shriver confounded many and its continuity amazes most. His success in comedy baffled the critics. His savvy in the business world proved he's not all brawn and fortune - he's very smart. Truly, Arnold breaks barriers and achieves his challenges. So, my buck is Arnold's continued success should he choose to return to film.

But of course, this may be the one challenge in his varied career that even he can't overcome...