Two years ago, Time critic Richard Corliss wrote an article that clearly must have resonated at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The Oscar telecast was sinking in the ratings, he wrote, because the nominees were largely unwatched by the masses. It used to be that the Best Picture prize went to mainstream box-office hits. "Now when the nominations come out, people try to catch up with the finalists, but it's almost like homework."

The 2010 Oscar nominations clearly signal that Hollywood is trying to return to a broader vision of the Oscars, as something more than an insular critics’ circle that likes only the self-consciously arty and obscure. That signal came most obviously with the announcement that there would be ten nominees for Best Picture. That list hadn’t seen 10 nominations since 1943, when the winner was "Casablanca."

Arty films that almost nobody has seen are still there – like "An Education." But arty blockbusters are there as well, like "Avatar" – current box office gross: $601 million -- and the animated film "Up," with $293 million. (By contrast, two years ago, the Best Picture box office leader was "Juno" – at $85 million when the nominations came out.)

<p><img src="http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2010/01/avatarposter.jpg" align="right" vspace="3" width="121" border="0" height="161" hspace="3" />Finally, a movie where the Americans are the bad guys, and it's making a KILLING at the box office. </p><p>Yes, <a href="http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/01/07/zeitgeist-patrol/" target="_blank">Time columnist Joe Klein</a> is pumped about &quot;Avatar.&quot; </p><p>It's not because he's a fan of special effects or blockbuster action flicks, but because the &quot;timely&quot; liberal message of the movie could &quot;ripple&quot; through the culture in a manner favorable to, wait for it, &quot;enviro-theism&quot; (emphasis mine):</p><blockquote>