In 1990, when GoodFellas lost
the Best Picture award to Dances With Wolves, I decided that the Academy Awards have nothing at all to do with the actual
quality of films, a realization that has only been confirmed in the following years.
Nonetheless, hope indeed springs eternal each year, I hold out hope against hope that the deserving films will be recognized,
usually only to be met with disappointment. Here's what I would do if I had the
deciding vote. Discuss amongst yourselves:
UPDATED! Actual winners
and additional comments in orange. Did the Academy read my thoughts and vote accordingly? Decide for yourself!
BEST PICTURE
Nominees: Chicago,
Gangs of New York, The Hours, The Pianist, LOTR: The Two Towers
Probable winner:
Chicago
My choice: The Pianist
Comments: The Hollywood Musical is back! Oh goody. Actually, Chicago is a fine entertainment, but it doesnt even approach the emotional and moral complexity
of Polanski's masterpiece (that's right, I said it.) Though I enjoyed all of the nominees this year, Pianist blows them away
in terms of total impact on the audience. The primary reasons it won't win have nothing to do with the film itself: The director
had sex with an underage girl (who has since forgiven him) thirty years ago, and Academy voters don't want to recognize another
film about the Holocaust (as if there's some kind of limit).
Winner: Chicago, to absolutely
no one's surprise, especially the Douglas clan, who just happened to be presenting. Gosh!
BEST ACTOR
Nominees: Adrien
Brody (The Pianist), Nicholas Cage (Adaptation), Michael Caine (The Quiet American), Jack Nicholson (About Schmidt), Daniel
Day-Lewis (GONY)
Probable winner:
Jack Nicholson, or Day-Lewis
My choice: Adrien
Brody
Comments: Nicholson
will probably win a lifetime achievement Oscar. Too bad, as its not one of his
better perfs and certainly the weakest of this crowded field. My choice would be Adrien Brody, who undergoes not only a profound
physical transformation, but also an enormous psychological metamorphosis over the course of the film. And he does it with very few lines of dialogue. It's a distinctively
filmic thing and should be recognized by the Academy. Day-Lewis was great in
GONY, but it was really a supporting role. Caine was extraordinary, but I believe Brody's part was more demanding. Cage deserves special recognition for convincing me that he can actually still act.
Winner: Adrien Brody! Also won
my award for "most sensitive acceptance speech that criticized the war while giving a shout out to the troops." See below
for more evidence that the Academy members read and agreed with my rant before voting.
BEST ACTRESS
Nominees:
Salma Hayek (Frida), Nicole Kidman (The Hours), Diane Lane (Unfaithful), Julianne Moore (Far From Heaven), Renee Zellweger
(Chicago)
Probable winner:
Nicole Kidman
My choice: Kidman
or Moore
Comments: A considerably
weaker field than the men-folk, the nominees accurately reflect the dearth of decent roles for women in mainstream films. I havent seen Frida or Unfaithful, and though Academy members don't actually have
had to see a film to vote for it, I hold myself to a higher standard. Odds are
good that Kidman will win because she wears an ugly fake nose in the movie. Unfortunate,
as her performance is actually quite good. Julianne Moore was also excellent, but will likely suffer because her film did
not get an Oscar push from the studio like The Hours received.
Winner: Kidman. Can you
believe the presenter said "by a nose"?
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Nominees: Chris Cooper
(Adaptation), Christopher Walken (Catch Me If You Can), Ed Harris (The Hours), John C. Reilly (Chicago), Paul Newman (Road
to Perdition)
Probable winner:
Paul Newman, but possibly Walken or Cooper
My choice: Chris
Cooper
Comments: I recently
had a lengthy discussion/argument with Erin Flynn about the nature of movie stars, centering on the question of whether the
audience ever really believes a stars performance, or if we just buy into it. After
seeing Adaptation, I'd argue that, while extremely rare, there is such a thing as a completely believable performance. Cooper just inhabits the role and never gives the audience any reason to question
it. One of the best performances I have ever seen on screen. Newman will probably win--and he is certainly not undeserving--but Cooper was better than everyone else
this year.
Winner: Cooper. Yeah, baby!
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Nominees: Meryl Streep
(Adaptation), Queen Latifah (Chicago), Catherine Zeta-Jones (Chicago), Kathy Bates (About Schmidt), Julianne Moore (The Hours)
Probable winner:
Up for grabs as of this writing
My choice: Meryl
Streep
Comments: Streep
is such a perennial awards candidate, I thought twice about selecting her. But she really is deserving. As much as Cooper became his part, Streep was utterly believable as Susan Orleans (or at least as the movie's
idea of her, as I've never met the real Orleans), even when her plot veered off into Nutty Charlie Kaufman-Land. It says something that the Cooper-Orleans subplot was just as engaging as the film's primary plot, as does
the fact that I would have actually paid to see the film The Orchid Thief as imagined in Adaptation. That said, it would be cool if Julianne Moore won both Best Actress and Best Supporting, though theres
as much chance of that happening as the proposed GW Bush-Saddam Hussein debate.
Winner: Zeta-Jones. Yawn.
BEST DIRECTOR
Nominees: Pedro Almodovar
(Talk to Her), Stephen Daldry (The Hours), Rob Marshall (Chicago), Roman Polanski (The Pianist), Martin Scorsese (GONY)
Probable winner:
Daldry, or possibly Scorsese to atone for years of rogering by the Academy
My choice: Roman
Polanski
Comments: I'm all
for the Academy making up for pissing on many of Scorsese's great films. The
only trouble is, GONY aint one of them, and a good deal of the fault lies with the directing.
Though many suspect that the original cut may have been more cohesive, the cut that we have to judge is, in many respects,
a complete mess. Even worse, the edgy, hyperactive energy of Scorsese's other
films (even Casino, dammit!) is completely absent in Gangs, replaced by an overblown epic feel that dovetails nicely with
the bombast of the crappy U2 song on the soundtrack. Polanski should be credited
for 1) recreating the nightmare of the Polish Ghetto in absolutely believable fashion (thanks largely to the smallest details
rather than the verisimilitude of the sets); 2) Eliciting a mindblowing performance from his star; 3) Crafting an extremely
moving (and obviously very personal) story that draws large implications from small moments.
I'm a pretty big Polanski fan. I love Chinatown and Rosemarys Baby; heck, I even like Dementia 13 and his super-weirdo
version of Macbeth. This film is better than all of them, and he should be recognized
for topping an already amazing body of work. Too bad he won't.
Winner: Holy crap! They gave
it to Polanski. Biggest surprise of the night, obviously. Though after re-reading my earlier comments and having seen The
Pianist again, I think I have to backtrack on my claim that it's better than Chinatown. It's not, but it's still damn good
and I stand by my praise for Polanski's direction.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Nominees: Far From
Heaven (Todd Haynes), Gangs of New York (Jay Cocks, Stephen Zaillian, Kenneth Lonergan), Talk to Her (Pedro Almodovar), My
Big Fat Greek Wedding (Nia Vardalos), Y Tu Mama Tambien (Alfonso & Carlos Cuaron)
Probable Winner:
Big Fat Greek (?)
My choice: Y Tu Mama
Tambien
Comments: I don't really know
the advance buzz on this one, but I'm guessing the Academy will reward Wedding for making a boatload of money, even though
the script is basically a sitcom (albeit a pretty funny one). The deserving winners
are los hermanos Cuaron, whose script featured great back-and-forth dialogue, a touching story, and subtly played political
undertones. They capture the essence of what its like to be a teenage boy--which
isnt as easy as one might suspect--and they don't turn the object of the leads' lust into a one-dimensional sex object. Its a crime that this film wasnt nominated for Best Foreign Film (apparently because
of politics on the Mexican Film Commission), so it would be nice to see it get some much-deserved recognition at the Oscars.
Winner: Almodovar. Haven't seen
the film yet, but it's nice to see one of world cinema's truly unique voices recognized in this country.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Nominees: About A
Boy (Paul & Chris Weitz, Peter Hedges), Adaptation (Charlie & Donald Kaufman), Chicago (Bill Condon), The Hours (David
Hare), The Pianist (Ronald Harwood)
Probable Winner:
Chicago
My choice: Adaptation
Comments: Somebody
from the Academy please explain this to me. Adaptation is up for best adapted
screenplay because its based on The Orchid Thief by Susan Orleans. Yet there is a published book entitled Gangs
of New York, written by Herbert Asbury (who died in 1963, presumably before the film's screenplay was written). Scorsese has publicly stated many times over the past 20 years that Asbury's book was the inspiration for
his film project. OK, so Asbury's scholarly work doesnt include the simpleminded
revenge plot that comprises the bulk of the movie's story. I'm pretty sure that
The Orchid Thief doesn't include the writer snorting lines of orchid dust with the titular subject of her book. Inexplicable categorization aside, the Kaufman brothers need to win this award. The
screenplay for Adaptation is overly clever, reliant upon much-used metafictional devices, and self-indulgent. There's no way in hell it should work, and yet it does. Beautifully.
It lays down all the rules of movie scriptwriting, breaks them, then gives in to the most hackneyed Hollywood clichés--and
still it works. I'm not sure how or why, but it just plain works. Plus,
Kaufman needs to win so that we can see how he'll honor his co-writer, his fictional brother Donald. This is, I think, a first in Oscar history--an imaginary character winning an Academy Award, though Robert
Towne got a nomination for his dog (P.H. Vazak) when his script for Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan was nominated in this
category in 1985.
Winner: Harwood. Here's where
I have to disagree with the voters. While my love for The Pianist is obvious, there was nothing particularly exceptional in
Harwood's adaptation of Szpillman's autobiography. For one, the middle act of the movie has virtually no dialogue! There are
some nice moments, especially with Kretchmann's doomed Nazi at the end, but I credit the film's great emotional impact to
the acting and direction, not the rather workmanlike script.
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Nominees: Ice Age,
Lilo & Stitch, Miyazakis Spirited Away, Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, Treasure Planet
Probable winner:
It better be Spirited Away
My choice: Spirited
Away
Comments: OK, so
the only one of these I've seen besides Spirited Away is Lilo & Stitch, which was actually pretty good. It doesn't matter. Spirited Away should win up against these films, and up against pretty much any animated
film ever, with the possible exceptions of Fantasia and Snow White. If you've
seen it, you know.
Winner: Miyazaki, and his films
are reaping the benefit. My friends with Disney-film age children have seen this one as a result of the Oscar publicity (and,
of course, loved it), and his back catalog is finally being released by Disney on DVD. Right on.
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Nominees: Ying Xiong
(China), Mies vailla menneisyytta (Finland), Nirgendwo in Afrika (Germany), El Crimen de Padre Amaro (Mexico), Zus & Zo
(Netherlands)
Probable winner:
Your guess is as good as mine
My choice: Are you
kidding? I live in Denver. These films will come here--never.
Comments: It should
have been Y Tu Mama Tambien, which by all accounts is a far superior film to the one entered by Mexico. Or what about The Fast Runner, the first great film produced entirely with Inuit dialogue? Hell, it's the
only film produced entirely in Inuit!
Winner: Nowhere In Africa, which
actually showed here after the win, and was a pretty darn good movie.
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Nominees: Chicago
(Dion Beebe), Far From Heaven (Edward Lachman), Gangs of New York (Edwin Ballhaus), The Pianist (Pawel Edelman), Road to Perdition
(Conrad L. Hall)
Probable winner:
Conrad Hall
My choice: Conrad
Hall
Comments: The Academy
will likely award Hall the Oscar because he died this year. But he really does
deserve it for his outstanding atmospheric work on Road, as well as his amazing body of work.
If, at some point in the distant future, art historians are debating whether or not motion pictures are indeed art,
Hall's work might make a pretty good case for the pro side.
Winner:
Hall
SHORT TAKES:
Best Art Direction:
LOTR: The Two Towers, which should also win for Best Costumes and Best Makeup--but it wont, because it wasnt nominated in
these categories. Fwhuh?!
Best Original Score:
John Williams, Elmer Bernstein, Elliot Goldenthal, Thomas Newman and Philip Glass. Four
prolific film composers and one 20th Century master. Wonder who deserves to win this one?
Winner: Goldenthal. Again, fwhuh?!
Best Song: Please,
God, let it be Eminem who will then proceed to embarrass the bejeezus out of the Academy and assembled guests.
Winner: Well, it was Eminem.
Which is cool. But he wasn't there to accept, robbing me of what was sure to be the best acceptance speech since
Brando's girlfriend or Benigni's leg-humping antics, and leaving most embarrassing speech to...
Best Documentary:
The Academy better have the cojones to recognize Bowling for Columbine.
Winner: Well,
they had the cojones. I just wish Moore had had the cojones to write an actual speech instead of spouting inflammatory rhetoric.
I happen to agree with him, but his ham-fisted expression of them sure didn't win him any converts. But then again, I guess
that's not what a self-styled provocateur like Moore is all about.
Short Subjects: The
chance of me catching any of these is--see Best Foreign Language Film
Winner: I still have no idea.
I think I was taking a bathroom break during this.
