The Big Surprise Is Who’s <i> Not </i> on the List

What’s that? You say “Fatal Attraction” has been nominated for six Academy Award nominations, including best picture and best director?

You bet. New Hampshire went for Pat Robertson and Gary Hart. Queen Elizabeth got thrown out of a bar, and the Raiders traded for a quality quarterback.

The list of Academy Award nominees is always just a little bit harder to explain than it is to swallow, but the 4,000 voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences outdid themselves this year.

Their generosity with “Fatal Attraction” would be enough to make 1987 a very special year, but it was the omissions that sent our jaw crashing against our chest.

As usual, the directors’ branch of the academy (all nominees except best picture are voted by branches) provided the most stunning news.

Two years ago, the directors failed to nominate Steven Spielberg, while Spielberg’s “The Color Purple” was receiving 11 nominations elsewhere.

Last year, they left off the name of Randa Haines, whose “Children of a Lesser God” was being nominated for best picture by the entire body of academy voters.

This year, the directors ignored Spielberg again, though Spielberg’s “Empire of the Sun” got six nominations. Even more shocking was the omission from the list of director nominees of James L. Brooks.

Before Wednesday, Brooks’ “Broadcast News” was considered a front-runner for the best picture Oscar, along with Bernardo Bertolucci’s “The Last Emperor.” Since no movie has ever won without its director at least being nominated, the directors’ branch has seriously reduced “Broadcast News’ ” chances.

How could Brooks have been overlooked by his fellow directors? His script was nominated for best original screenplay. His three stars--William Hurt, Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks--were all nominated for acting awards.

Has James Brooks been too successful for his own good, an explanation that was used by many people to explain the directors’ snub of Spielberg for “The Color Purple”?

The parallel doesn’t really hold. The quality of “The Color Purple” was vastly more controversial than the quality of “Broadcast News.” People who liked “The Color Purple” accused the directors’ branch of exercising petty jealousies. Those who didn’t like the film said the directors were merely exercising their integrity.

It is hard to know what they exercised this year. “Broadcast News” was discounted by some people as being no more than a slick feature-length sitcom, the implication being that Brooks simply did what he learned to do best as a writer for the “Mary Tyler Moore Show.”

If that is what was on the directors’ minds, what were they thinking of when they voted for Norman Jewison? If 20th Century Fox’s “Broadcast News” is a sitcom, then MGM was merely counter-programming with “Moonstruck.”

Maybe the directors do vote against success. Certainly, Brooks has had it, winning Oscars for writing, directing and producing his first feature, “Terms of Endearment.”

The directors, who passed on Stanley Kubrick for “Full Metal Jacket,” were far from being alone in their balloting oversights. The actors’ branch, in particular, made some dillies.

Steve Martin, easily the best comedy actor of his generation, was once again ignored, this time for “Roxanne.” Martin won the best actor award from the Los Angeles and national film critics associations, but could not convince his peers.

Also left off the best actor list was John Lone, star of “The Last Emperor.” The movie received nine nominations--more than any other film--but the actor who was asked to virtually carry it was not nominated. Amazing.

The snubbing of Barbra Streisand for “Nuts” was not surprising, considering her lack of popularity in the industry. But the fact that “Nuts”--and particularly the performance of Richard Dreyfuss--was shut out seems a little severe.

There was some pleasant news among the jolts. The directors’ branch nominated “Hope and Glory” director John Boorman, rectifying the most glaring omission made by the Directors Guild of America last week.

The actors’ branch ignored studio Oscar campaigns and placed Albert Brooks (“Broadcast News”) and Denzel Washington (“Cry Freedom”) in the supporting actor categories where they belonged.

(The writers’ branch nominated Tony Huston for the adapted screenplay for “The Dead,” while the director’s ignored what many critics believe will come to be regarded as the late John Huston’s best film. The writers also gave a nod to Kubrick for co-writing “Jacket.”)

The actors were able to ignore the hype of the Lillian Gish-Bette Davis pairing in “The Whales of August” and vote a best supporting actress nomination for the one great performance in the film--Ann Sothern’s.

Like this year’s presidential campaign, the 1987 Oscar race appeared months ago to be more wide open than any in years. The nominations have, if anything, put the outcome even more in doubt.

“Broadcast News” seems a long shot now without a nomination for director Brooks. “Hope and Glory” may not recover from the snub of Boorman by the Directors Guild (no film whose director was not nominated for the DGA award has ever won the best picture Oscar).

Bertolucci’s “The Last Emperor” received the most nominations and it has the size, scope and social airs that the academy traditionally loves to honor.

But the fact that its star was not nominated suggests that the film’s most common criticism--that it is cool and uncompelling--may deflect its support as the final Oscar voting deadline draws near.

So, what are we left to believe--the unthinkable? That “Fatal Attraction,” a crafty unattributed remake of Clint Eastwood’s ignored “Play Misty for Me,” will win it all?

Or, has “Moonstruck,” an immense crowd pleaser, moved to the front?

One thing is certain. ABC-TV, which will telecast the Oscar show April 11, has to be thrilled with the list of nominees. It has been a long time since so many viewers will have seen so many of the films being honored.

How nice for them.