The Acadamy are biased morons at the best of times (watch the awful The Help get a bundle of nominations next year). No doubt they'll ignore Drive and Ryan Gosling, Rise of the Planet of the Apes and Andy Serkis (once again) etc. To omit Senna (the best documentary for years) is typical of them.

Come on, they thought Bret Ratner (like the 'jewllery' seller in the 90's, selling us crap and knowing it) and Eddie Murphy (great in small doses, but 3 hours of him...please. Thank god he walked and Billy Crystal is in place) could save the plumeting audience figures.

I stopped watching the Oscars years ago, the show is just an excuse for the industry to throw the biggest party of the year.

Bring on the Kermode Awards!

To be honest, the Oscars have been predictable for years which is why it is so easy for film-makers to put together films that they know will tick all of the right boxes and appeal to the Academy and other award-givers such as BAFTA etc. There is very little surprise on Oscar night as most people will have been able to predict who the winners will be for a good couple of months before the ceremony is held.

The predictability of it all is probably one of the reasons behind the declining viewing figures that SiJ (post #1) mentions as people don't bother tuning into a show where they can probably already guess who and what is going to win.

And on the subject of Senna, as someone who has been watching F1 since I was about 3 or 4 and watched Ayrton in action, the documentary was the best thing I've seen all year. I'm hoping Santa will bring me the DVD.

I agree with SiJ, the Oscars are so far removed from what they should be. For a long time the nominations have been based on whether (to paraphrase Sally Field), they like you, they really really like you. If a discerning audience sees this, they realise it's not worth watching. In this time of recession who really wants to watch hours of people smugly congratulating themselves for doing a job for which they are grossly overpaid. The Oscar is a useful advertising logo. But it's all about the money and not the art of film-making.

Last year "Inside Job" won the best documentary Oscar. It was good, but it's win was undoubtedly because of the recent economic crisis, and not because of its quality (in which case the Oscar would have gone to "Exit Through the Gift Shop", one of the best and most interesting films of last year). When it comes to the best Documentary Oscar, it's nearly always to do with them being 'worthy' documentaries, rather than great pieces of work in and of themselves.

In recent years the best documentary Oscar has highlighted some excellent films 'Taxi to the dark side' being an example. Agree with the above post 'Exit through the gift shop' was clearly superior as regards to 'Senna' the Acadaemy could still save face when we the final list.

Althought if Lynne Ramsey doesn't get a best director nomination i'll spit.

The two most interesting documentaries of the year have been excluded: Senna and Tabloid.

The Oscars are now like the vision of Vegas from 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas': grotesque, bloated, horrifying and yet oddly compelling; totally unbelievable and yet sadly true.

The Acadamy has always been more of a popularity contest than a ceromony that recognises films for their worth. Probably sometime in the 1970s they probably did try to change and become something of value, but pretty soon they descended back into their popularity shell.

The Acadamy Awards have always been the pat on the back for the studios and their big budget films. Can you honestly see Drive getting short listed at the Oscars? We all know genre fare doesn't play at these award ceromonies if it hasn't got Quentin Tarantino's name all over it. But I hope I'm wrong.

Also in regards to BAFTA, any news of Kill List getting short listed for a nomination for Best British Film of 2011?

I am equally gutted if unsurprised that the enthralling cinematic Senna has been dissed. Akin to when we were kings in its excellent use of vintage footage and current commentary and excellent editing. I also note the fabulous searching for bobby fisher doesn't get a look in which is another brutal error. Further stunned by Dr K use of "bowling a googly" metaphor... even I don't know what that term means! ta

It's not just "Senna". "The Interrupters", "Tabloid" and not one, but two Herzogs ("Cave of Forgotten Dreams" and "Into the Abyss") were also left out.

On the other hand, "Chico & Rita" is now eligible for Best Animated Feature so it may become the first movie/person to both be nominated for an Oscar and receive a Kermode award.

I think the 'Kermodes' should be shown on BBC at the same time as the Oscars. It might manage to get any viewers with a brain to stop watching that rubbish.

Oh for goodness sake OSCAR get your act together. Dr K I think you have more than just a clear runner, you have a clear winner. I too have no interest in F1 but this doc engaged and moved me, I am staggered it has been ignored.
There have been so many good movies this year worthy of oscar nominations in various categories. I fear there will be more disappointments to come.

Sadly the way the Oscar's play out is very much a product of the PR machinery of the studios/distributors. You might as well blame Senna's production company for not pushing hard enough, not sending enough screeners and Senna themed trinkets (I thought the Formula 1™ 2011 Game, F1 2011 Dead Men's Curves add on pack that lets you replay play every fatality in F1 history was stretching the boundaries of taste, but those academy voters all have grandkids who love that stuff).

The Oscar's have been a lost cause, well, forever. I have a bone to pick with the Bafta's as they are headed in the same direction. This has mostly been since the Bafta's changed their rules and ceremony dates, in a bid for relevance between the Golden Globes and the Oscars. The rules have been bent to allow films which were eligible for Oscars, but haven't had a proper release in the UK the year before (there's a proviso that allows films "released" in the UK between Jan 1st up to 2 days before the BAFTA ceremony, to be nominated). A "release" constitutes 7 days in a single commercial cinema to paying customers which hardly encompasses the UK market, and as release dates are set in mud, some nominations have been for films that have openned neither small nor wide until after the ceremony (nominated Vicky Christina Barcelona had its date bumped until two weeks after the ceremony). Consequently the BAFTA nominations list consists almost entirely of films just on or about to be on general release, or about to have their DVD releases in the UK market. The fact that this is all orchestrated to chime with the Globes to Oscars buzz robs the BAFTA's of any distinction beyond the urbane wit lent by Mr Fry.

I would challenge all BAFTA members including Dr. K to sort this out, the BAFTA nominations should consist of films that the UK viewing public have had a decent chance to see before the ceremony, not just the members who have to fit in "viewings" or see films for their consideration as they may not have been meant to be seen on the flat screen with the lights on in a cluttered front room awash with pets and disaffected kids. The nominations should be relevant to the artists and the audience (us), not the distributors and the hacks. So please remove the BAFTA's as a pit stop between the Golden Globes and the Oscars, because the longer they sit there the more likely the industry will make them like BOTH, and nobody with any sense wants that.

Can I just say how thrilled I am that this post contains a YouTube video so that iPad owners (etc etc) can actually see the thing. May we never see that warning about needing Flash again, and may the BBC's use of Flash go the way of RealPlayer. Thank you.

@Brian: Yes, I have sometimes wondered whether it would be smart for Bafta to change tack entirely and have their award ceremony in September. Make the qualifying period July - June instead of the calendar year - after all, it's not as though the year of release matters that much. And it might influence the release dates a little too...

The long-list is disgusting. 'Project Nim' and 'Pina' are the only worthy nominees and they are both inferior to 'Senna' and both Herzogs. 'Into the Abyss' is one of the most moving and gut-wrenchingly honest films I've seen for some time.

What's worse than all this however is how the studios monitor and push for the Academy's overall shortlist decisions.

Fox Searchlight are pushing Brad Pitt for SUPPORTING actor for 'The Tree of Life' - Supporting. The Weinstien Company are pushing Berenice Bejo for supporting actress too for 'The Artist' as both categories are supposedly 'easier' to be triumphant in.

It's sad that studios are so desperate for awards success that they will happily undermine their own works and indeed their cast and crew just so the poster can boast about a nomination/win.

Anyone else feel like the next Oscars are going to be particularly odd, anyway? 2011 has had a larger percentage of good films than bad, but I couldn't tell you what the main contenders for Best Picture would be, when I could have done at the same point in previous years. There are rumblings about The Artist, but would those rumblings be as audible if the year hadn't had such a low number of quality "prestige" films? At this rate, I would think that HP7b will sneak in for at least a Best Picture nomination...

But hang on a minute the best documentary of the year was Benda Bilili and you ruddy know it.

Well, Senna is still my favourite film of the year, and I'm glad it's not being recognized by the Oscars. A Kermode Award has much more value.

Let's face it, the best movie/actor/director awards are:
A) Randomly selected. (Change the judging panel by one member, change the award.)
B) Rewarding those the directors (etc) that produce the most 'worthy' movies, however dull. (Hence Spielberg doing Shindler's List rather than Jaws 2.)
C) Rewarding those that make most money from a high class franchise with a distinctive feel e.g LOTR. (Expect Christopher Nolan to win an Oscar for Dark Knight Rises).
D) Movies with a disabled/racially disadvantaged/sexually different lead character.
E) Ignoring all movies made in languages other than English or outside North America & Europe (especially the UK).
G) Believing that good movies are only made in either the USA or GB using the English language (or are subtitled).
F) Buggin's turn.

I'm not saying that no movies receiving an award shouldn't deserve them. just that it's an arbitrary, subjective process.

I think the Oscars gave up being an opportunity to show reward the best films years ago as can be seen by what has won. It should be remembered that the Academy is made up of middle aged, middle class, right wing Americans which is why more often than not a film perceived to be anti-American wins. There have been occasions in the 1970's when good films won like Godfather 2, French Connection etc but recently the Oscars really have played it safe.

This is why in Raging Bull lost out to Ordinary People and Goodfellas lost out to Dances with Wolves. ET lost to Ghandi, Pulp Fiction lost to Forest Chump (sorry, Gump), LA Confidential lost to Titanic, Gangs Of New York lost to Chicago. When directors do win it is not because the film they win for is the best film of that year, it's because they should have won in the past. Spielberg should have won for ET but then won for Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. Scorsese should have won for Raging Bull and Goodfellas and won for The Departed (and I do not think that The Departed is his best film).

It has always amazed me that Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers did not get nominated for the Best Adapted Screenplay because it showed how to turn a very difficult and complex book into as good an adaptation as possible and yet it was ignored.

Going back to my original argument some films have won in the past and yet even now a lot of people actively dislike them. I loath Titanic and have done ever since I saw it. It was 90 minutes of very sloppy romance followed by 90 minutes of passable action. I can remember the great Barry Norman saying "Never mind the quality, feel the width." I can remember watching Chicago and being amazed that a film so anonymously directed could win Best Picture and Director Oscars. Chicago was so bland that anybody could have made it and when it is compared to Baz Luhrman's Moulin Rouge, Chicago looks like a film made in the 1950's.

The Academy do not like scifi or fantasy or horror films much. Silence of the Lambs and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King were very rare exceptions. The Dark Knight and Inception should certainly have won major awards and did not.

Oops, I should have said in the 1st paragraph of the earlier post that an anti-American film will NOT usually win.

Loved Senna, but my heart belongs to TT3D Close to the edge. Yes, yes, i know i`m biased,but if you got within a few feet of the bikes wizzing past you,you would be too.
As to the Oscars, how often is the best film of the year in a foreign language,e.g. Pans Labyrnth, City of God and an endless list of others. They know their better, but they don`t do subtitles, its hard wired into their DNA.

Sorry to go off topic here Mark, but having just watched Film 24 I had to share my disappointment having heard you use the phrase 'I could care less'.

I really thought you would find this Americanism completely disgusting, not to mention stupid. For shame!

We Need To Talk About Kevin - best film of the year, but won't win anything. Goodnight.

@14 cherry hinton blue can I just echo your comment on the entry being in youtube format? so much easier for ipad users. Thanks BBC

I can't remember whether you have a best cinematography category in your Kermode awards; but I think it's about time Roger Deakins was recognised with an award, maybe a Kermode fellowship perhaps.

+1 to the suggestion that the Kermodes ought to be broadcast on the BBC, and that Beeb ought to really pull out all the stops on it, and make a real program of it... no half-hour stuff, give it a full hour at least.

deffinately agree with number 13 about the change of date for the BAFTAS. SORT IT OUT! come on everyone, let Dr K know we want it changed!

As others have mentioned, its a crime that Oscars have overlooked Werner Herzog's "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" a mesmerising study in 3D of a pristine example of prehistoric cave art, that looks like it was painted yesterday. The film goes way beyond other documentaries I have seen recently, in that it becomes a reflection on civilisation and man's distant, forgotten past. Unforgettable. See trailer below:

http://youtu.be/oZFP5HfJPTY

Oscars = rubbish. Kermodes = much less rubbish. As far as awards shows go (and they're all abhorrent), I know which one I'll be paying attention to this year.

The documentary category has been poor for years, last year's early favourite Waiting for Superman wasn't nominated either, and Anvil! and Hoop Dreams were also famously overlooked.

You are completely right, because the amount of critics and actors/directors that have praised the film just make it strange it hasnt been longlisted.

I also think it is very likely the oscars will fail to recognize lynne ramsay and we need to talk about kevin, which is obviously your favourite film, i think that bafta will definitely have multiple nominations for kevin, tilda swinton and lynne ramsay but oscars will fail to recognize films like girl with dragon tattoo, kevin, shame and a dangerous method all of which i am extremely looking forward to.

If Senna has been ignored, then it seriously worries me that films like Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and We Need To Talk About Kevin will be ignored.

Here we go again.

@Scurra, I'm not that bothered about BAFTA using the calendar year, it's that they add provisos for films past that year to include films that were out in the States and most likely nominated for Oscars, but which weren't released in the UK in that year. However your suggestion might be a way to shake it up. They should pick 12 months and stick to it.

Sorry if my annual BAFTA annoyance is a bit off topic.

Senna's exclusion is mystifying. My non-cinema-obsessed wife enjoyed it even more than I did, and given that she'd be just as happy to wait for most doc's to play on TV, she was glad we caught it on the big screen.

Pina was OK, but as the documentary elements were secondary to the performances, which were a mixed bag, it's hard to credit it that much as a documentary. I don't begrudge Wim Wenders his effortless talent, but if the Academy recognize it through this film, it is either because they want to honor him for the rest of his body of work, or because this film gains stature by riding on the coat tails of its subject.

To an extent we mus'n't grumble, we should be strangely thankful that documentaries, which may make decent profits if suitably distributed, given their relatively low costs against features, but which rarely hit blockbuster proportions (apart from maybe Morgan Freeman and his cauldronless penguins), even get a look in at the Oscars. If they haven't yet (can't remember), they probably will be shunted into the Tech awards ghetto not done during the main ceremony. And not just to keep Michael Moore's trap shut.

RIP Ken Russell, a sad day

Sad news off topic: the loss of Ken Russell

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15917073

I'm sure that Mark will weigh in here or elsewhere on the great man, surely a lifetime achievement Kermode award .... (if that hasn't happened already, the Beeb content search engine isn't too good at finding past awards....).

Althought i never even met Ken Russell i still feel deeply saddened by his passing and my thoughts go out his family.

Ingmar Bergman called him "the British Fellini" a fitting tribute to an extraordinary talent.

Sad to hear of Ken Russell's passing just as his masterpiece was finally to get a DVD release.

Very disappointed with Nick Higham's report, dismissing The Devils and Tommy in favour of The Boyfriend. Will the good Doctor please set him straight.

I saw a DVD for SENNA and it had a review on the cover which just said "Unmissable". Not unlike the wall he smashed into.

Seriously, what is the big deal with SENNA? If the guy wasn't dead, no-one would be talking about him; no-one would be making a film about him, and certainly Mark - who doesn't know Alain Prost from Jack Frost - wouldn't even care about him.

Sad day today as I hear news of 'our' Ken Russell passing. A truly underrated maverick, a great director. Bold and brave and fun.

"I don't care if people like my films or dislike films, as long as they don't go off to make a cup of tea in the middle of them." -Ken Russell.

...and another thing.

These are the same awards which - as Mark points out - overlooked INCEPTION. On that basis, anyone who honestly thinks these awards are worth a damn needs a straitjacket.

INCEPTION is without doubt one of the greatest films of this decade. That's not my opinion, it's fact. Science. Empirical, demonstrable fact.

I gave up on the Oscars nearly 20 yeas ago. There were some interesting films in the nominations in the early 90's and some good films won, but then Titanic came along and it was such rubbish I didn't bother again. How could that film be nominated for anything other than special effects?!

Anyway, the awards have become fairly political (maybe they always were?) and given Formula 1 pulled out of Austin, Texas the other month it could be seen as a snub back to the sport. If Bernie hadn't pulled the plug maybe Senna would still be in the race?

IMO the reason for Senna's exclusion is due to the (lack of) popularity of F1 in the US. From their perspective, F1 is a minority sport in the same way that Rugby or Cricket are (namely, sports wildly popular in the rest of the world but which barely register at home) - "proper" motor-sport is either NASCAR or IndyCar...

@40

The big deal with Senna is that he was arguably the greatest racing driver of all time, which is why they made a film about him, which is why Mark now knows the difference between Alain Prost and Jack Frost and does seem to care about him.

[Note to Techies/Webmeisters etc. : All very well and good that you've tagged this entry with the category "awards", but it's the only one. Any chance you could go into the past and tag the other Kermode award bits as well, assuming they are there, and if not, could you grab them from the Culture Show and post 'em here. Much appreciated.]

We Need To Talk About Kevin won't win because there's no 'cute disabled people'* in it unless you count the little sister who lost an eye!

*The Cute Disabled Man was The Fast Show's take-off on Forrest Gump.

Well, we can at least be sure of one thing, this year's Best Picture winner won't be a comedy. Apparently, if one is to believe the modern version of the academy, comedies can't say anything about the human condition, can't convey emotions, and they certainly can't be examples of the way in which the construction of a narrative can be refined and redefined.

The Kermode Awards could quite possibly be longer, and involve knowledgeable, articulate people arguing with the good doctor over his choices. There should also be an award for "Best Jason Isaacs" (not always won by Jason Isaacs).

RIP Ken Russell.

@42 - many people share your opinion of Inception but plenty disagree with it - 'fact' it ain't. It wouldn't even make my top ten films of that year.

With its long, badly handled expositional scenes (The Matrix explains 'the rules of the game' much better) and its action sequences, which, the zero-g fight aside, I found less exciting than the opening chase and airport sequence from Casino Royale to name two fairly recent examples, it failed to live up to my expectations. My main problem with it is that I didn't find myself caring for any of the characters.

I admire the scope of the vision but too many things were lacking in the execution for me. Can't wait for TDKR though!

Have to agree with no.40 - Inception is the triumph of style over substance. I appreciate it has its admirers, but masterpiece it aint.

While this link might be filed under "other professional film critics are available" (i.e. Ebert), it usefully gives links to legal streams of some lesser seen Herzog doc's (hence relevance to this thread), including that shoe one. Handy should Mark become a papoutsiphage or a cocklaphage (I can't remember did he pledge to eat a shoe or hat on the advent of a Lynch 3D film playing in Bristol):

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/six-of-herzogs-less-known-docu.html

Oh, come on, Mark. "Senna" was a decent documentary but definitely not the cinematic masterpiece you make it out to be. I would expect it to see on ESPN on the telly or something but it's definitely NOT Oscar material (or Kermode material for that matter!).

Shame that "Into The Abyss" hasn't made it but I am happy to see "Paradise Lost 3" there.

We like to pretend that awards are about artistic merit, at the same time we all know that Hollywood is an industry, and the awards season is an integral part of that industry. But even in that context the exclusion of 'Senna' doesn't make sense.

You must watch TT3D again (and again).
I went to see it because of its good reviews, not because I am an obsessive motorcycle fan. I am not inclined to see films in the cinema twice, but TT3D was so good that I wanted to go again and, when my wife and daughters wouldn't come with me because it was about motorbikes, I took one her friends and her son. I bought the Bluray DVD as soon as it was released and a new full HD TV, so my wife and daughters, and anyone else I can get to sit down, have enjoyed it now (together with the "Charge" that comes with it - a film with two characters so extremely stereotypical that they would be implausible if the film were not a documentary). I also gave it to several people for Christmas.
I went to see Senna, having already seen TT3D, expecting similar great things. There was no comparison, and I wouldn't see Senna again. TT3D is a more exciting film about a more exhilarating sport with much more extreme characters. There are reasons for this. The TT is much closer than F1 to the pure racing that Ayrton Senna experienced as a go-karter, much less distorted by fame, money and politics, and the TT, being, as described in the film, more like mountaineering without ropes, involves more obsession than F1 even in Senna's era. When one of the TT stewards says in his incongruously slow Cornish accent, "If this doesn't excite you, you're not alive. And that's a fact.", it is impossible to disagree. But it is much more than all that. TT3D is a truly inspiring film (a cliche, but accurately used in this case), a perfect demonstration of the critical elements of success in any field: passion and diligence. Since those are the characteristics that sensible universities look for in applicants' personal statements, not the awful tripe that most students write, and are, unfortunately, encouraged to write, I have given a copy to my daughter's school too.
I urge you award a Kermode to TT3D not just to reward the film, but to ensure that more people see it. It will do them good. TT3D needs to help to overcome the crass connotations of a title with "3D" in it, to overcome the fact that it is about motorbikes, and to overcome the disadvantage of featuring no major celebrities apart from the MotoGP riders who spectate but cannot take part because of the risk.