Sometimes the best films play on the fewest screens

Without question, my biggest passion in life is film.

A great movie can affect me deeply, with my first viewing of it lasting forever in my memory. Oscar night is one of the biggest events of the year for me, and the closer it gets to the awards, the more fervently I speak of the nominated films.

This year's Oscars took a lot of flack for bringing in low ratings. Critics say the ratings were low because so few people saw the nominees. I feel this is probably true, but I am compelled to defend the awards show, because the blame for this should not rest with the academy.

People who live near art theaters have a better chance of seeing obscure, esoteric films, which are likely to garner recognition during awards season. For them, it may only take a brief walk down a few city blocks or a short trip on the bus to see unpopular films like "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" or "Lars and the Real Girl."

Some, and I fall into this group, who are not fortunate enough to be near art theaters, are willing to drive up to an hour in some cases to seek out these less-prevalent features. These movies with rich characters, engrossing stories, something unique or bold performances are worth the effort. That's why I faced rainy weather and weekend traffic to drive from the suburbs into Bellevue to see "No Country For Old Men."

I journeyed to the same theater two days before Christmas, risking losing an eye to the flailing bags of frenzied shoppers, to be swept up in "Atonement." The roads were crowded, the gas was costly, and parking was not easy, but the memories of those hours at the movies bring me the extra push needed on hard days and fueled my enthusiasm for the Oscars.

I don't like to judge a movie without seeing it, but something tells me, if I were to make a much shorter trip to see "Fool's Gold," which opened on untold numbers of screens, I would not be granted the same push.

"No Country For Old Men" went on to win best picture and finally got a wider release in the weeks leading to the Oscars, but if more multiplexes would play the "No Country For Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood" types of films, audiences would see them and the Oscars would not be given this image of being boring.

Recently, Woody Allen's new movie, "Cassandra's Dream," opened for what seemed about two days on one screen and I am forced to wait for the DVD to see it. "Match Point" is one the finest movies I've seen in the past few years and when I heard Allen was making another noir set in London, I anxiously awaited its release.

I don't work in the movie business, so I don't know why the picture didn't have a better distribution. I do know it wouldn't be hard to market it, since it stars Ewan McGregor and Colin Farrell. Obi-Wan Kenobi is involved in a murder plot and hardly any theaters show it? I am hoping I won't have to suffer the same fate with "Married Life," the new film starring Rachel McAdams, which is struggling to find theaters to play in following a limited release last week.

When I was younger, I used to tire of movie critics complaining about audiences missing out on the good movies and here I am doing the same. Where I differ from them is I still have faith in audiences and feel it's not all on them. If film distributors and major theater chains would show a wider variety and take chances on "lesser known" films, those movies wouldn't be lesser known for long, and the Oscars will be more popular.

Chaz Holmes is the Columbia Basin Herald news assistant. He is the staff crusader for the obscure and unknown movies, giving his reviews to co-workers in an attempt to expand their cinema knowledge and appreciation.