Why is it, come this time of year, excitement about recognizing the best talent -- the best movie - screenplay - director-actors -- invariably turns to disillusionment and disdain, with this year being no exception.

Regarding those films inexplicably missed, the ones that don't even make it to the nomination list, there are two that deserve to be in the forefront of our consciousness for a long time to come.

When it comes to the best in film-making, I assume the criteria still applicable are: great story, thematic content - being current, relevant, layered and deep, character complexity and character arc, transcendent acting, dramatic conflict, rising tension, unexpected twists and take your breath away endings, exposing what we rarely, if ever, see or discuss. We're talking about drama of the highest order.

Eytan Fox, 32, director, and his lover of 16 years, Gal Uchuvsky, screenwriter, made Walk on Water (WW). In addition to meeting all of the aforementioned criteria, we get spiritual enlightenment. The main character and secondary character's transformation were journeys that leave us stunned by our own humanity and resiliency, our beliefs and pessimism shattered when we see people who couldn't be further apart eventually come together. WW reminds and assures us that the possibility exists; that peace and surrender lie beyond violence and hatred. In the end, we're left with a vision of hope, reconciliation and change.

By the time I walked out of the theater, I was permanently changed. Being an American Jew who had been trying to work out my issues with Israel for the past several years -- I wouldn't have stepped foot into that country. Now, I want to visit because I just want to be there, where so much has happened, and so much is happening. I saw that there is a division in the country, that there are many wishing to come together in the name of peace and compassion, and what's best for all.

In terms of thematic content, Fox and Uchuvsky give our counterpart third generation Germans, who wear the albatross of their Nazi grandparents' atrocities around their necks a voice. I always wondered about them. "How does one cope with their Nazi family legacy for their whole life?"

And, what about all of the American Jews, including myself, who, for so many years, automatically associated German with Nazi? In my effort to give the German the benefit of the doubt, to not stereotype them, I'd say to myself, "Even if it they weren't Nazis themselves, they were still Nazi's. They came from Nazis." I told myself that not all Germans are Nazis, but the distinction never made it to my heart. Now it does.

Fox and Uchuvsky also challenge our longstanding, deeply engrained homophobia by showing how an extremely homophobic man getting intimate, not sexually intimate, with another man, nevertheless, truly intimate; discovering that they were more alike and aligned than they could ever imagine. Another complexity, another dimension was added into the story, another reminder that sharing pain and understanding establishes the basis for a relationship, one that cuts through conflicts and differences.

The other relatively obscure film deserving Best Picture, but not mentioned for anything, was Brothers. Here we have another movie packed with power and emotional intensity, writing, acting and directing on the highest level, and a tight thematic focus. No one's ever heard of the writer, director and actors. Connie Nielsen, "Beautiful, but who is she? It may have been the only Danish film I've ever seen. I had no idea how involved Denmark was in world politics.

Every scene is riveting with dramatic tension and emotional intensity. How can things get any worse?! Guess what? They can and do! Brothers make us realize that conditions in war are far worse than we can or want to imagine. It's thematic content is related to how war (in Iraq, Afghanistan) is represented or misrepresented, how corrupted values become virtues; how traumatizing war conditions must be to those on the front lines, and how traumatizing it is to their loved ones. Brothers opens our eyes to what about Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome is all about and challenges us to be accountable for how we treat and view those who return traumatized. Do we embrace, shun or neglect them? Do we have any idea of what they've been through? How much do we care?

The story is an unbelievably great one, albeit painful too watch. Two brothers; one is the pillar of virtues - a solid, stable, loving father, husband, a man of integrity and who leads others, who garners his father's pride and respect; the other has just got out of prison for a brutal assault and robbery, a rebel who kept himself apart and against the establishment, and against his father who was ashamed of him and shunned him, who would have to spend the rest of his life proving himself worthy of respect. One would put his life on the line for what he believed in, while the other was alienated, unable to get through a day without drinking. That's where they started, but not where they end up.

Who does what under which conditions? What happens as a result? As the story unfolds, we begin wondering which brother was the more sane one, which one holds true to his principles and which one sells out; which one is more in touch with himself and which one sacrificed himself to be good in they eyes of others. Which one do we prefer to identify with? Those who want to be good are cautioned, "but at what price?" There's lots of food for thought.

Brothers' vision may also be considered spiritually uplifting because its ending is uplifting - an ending in which healing begins, when love and pain come together. Yes, bearing our soul to another human being revitalizes us and makes us resilient. Without true intimacy, our spirit will surely die.