|
|
|
| Oscar Column Archive | Back to... [Home] [Oscar Columns] |
I'm not going to bore you with some pre-game paragraph. I'm going to give you my choices and explanations as to why. And the title has "quasi" in it, by the way, because I'm perfectly entitled to change these up until the broadcast of the Oscars (Sunday the 27th on ABC with host Chris Rock), and I probably will. Plus that's when I'll do all the technical predictions, too.
Give me more time to think and I could say that The Aviator, with its grand epic-ness and awards pedigree, could sweep in for the upset from Million Dollar Baby, which is seen as the favorite now. The Aviator definitely holds the second place spot now (and for some, the first) and it could easily win. But most people, from what it seems like, honestly seem to think that "M$B" is the best movie of the five nominees, and since it was made by Hollywood god Clint Eastwood, they're not going to have that many second thoughts about checking off this box. The timing was perfect for the movie as right now as they're mailing in their ballots, it's at the peak of its popularity. And as an added bonus, there's been some controversy over the ending of the film (by people trying to shove their own political agenda onto a film that quite simply doesn't have one, but whatever). What was the last Best Picture nominee to have a bit of controversy swirling about it? A Beautiful Mind -- the winner. As for the others, Finding Neverland and Ray are the fillers, and Sideways, which once had a three-way tie with the top two, seems to have been punched out of the spotlight by M$B (although it did just win the Writer's Guild Award).
You know, it's kind of funny - Eastwood's the favorite to take Best Director even by people who think The Aviator has a good shot at Picture. You'd think the Academy would want to hand a career Oscar to Martin Scorsese and give Eastwood the big prize, that way everyone's happy - but no, it's almost the opposite of that. Anyway, I really think this guy (Eastwood, not Scorsese) is the most respected living person in Hollywood. And he's obviously a very talented director who made a great film. Enough said. As for the other nominee's, Alexander Payne directed a small-scale comedy (Sideways) so his directing efforts probably won't be considered win-worthy, Mike Leigh was the surprise nomination for Vera Drake, and with surprise nominations, the nomination is usually the reward. Same can be said for Ray's Taylor Hackford.
Leonardo DiCaprio, congratulations on winning the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Drama. Clint Eastwood, congratulations on directing Million Dollar Baby. Johnny Depp, congratulations on being a really popular actor at the moment. Don Cheadle, congratulations on breaking through the ranks and establishing yourself as a leading man in Hotel Rwanda. But Jamie Foxx is going to win. Anyone else will be the biggest upset since I've watched the Oscars.
Her career arc resembles Jodie Foster's - you're never really a huge star because you only work sporadically, but you win two Oscars within a small time span. Swank's biggest competition seems to be Annette Bening for Being Julia, which I don't buy at all for two reasons: first, Being Julia made zero money. I barely even know what it's about. Second, it reminds me of last year's Charlize Theron/Diane Keaton debate. Everybody respected Keaton as a veteran actress but had to give the better performance to the younger actress. Same here. As for the others, Catalina Sandino Moreno for Maria Full of Grace was great but once again, the nomination was the award. Kate Winslet got great reviews for Eternal Sunshine, and her nomination clearly means the Academy supports the film, but it's not really her story at all, it's Jim Carrey's. Imelda Staunton in Vera Drake is the possibility for a dark-horse upset, but she's only a dark horse because the film wasn't widely seen at all. The three surprise nominations for the film, though, seem to inclinate that a surprise here has a stronger shot, than, say, Foxx not winning Actor.
Okay, so I've thought about this a lot and it just seems to make sense. At first, Thomas Haden Church seemed to be an early frontrunner for Sideways but then failed to win both the Golden Globe and the Screen Actor's Guild award (though his film did pick up Best Ensemble). He's also playing in a comedy role which the Academy typically doesn't honor beyond a few nominations. Clive Owen, who stole the Golden Globe, has it all - he's an up-and-coming actor, he's as classy as you can get, and he had a great performance in Closer. But then there are the downsides: his character was a bit of a villain, a type which rarely wins; Closer doesn't seem to have much overall support and sharply divided audiences; and biggest red flag of all, he wasn't even nominated for a Screen Actors Guild award, let alone win it. So who wins? Morgan Freeman, that's who. He's been nominated four times and has yet to win, so he's due, and he's a respected and veteran name in Hollywood. He had a great performance in Million Dollar Baby, maybe even his best. And the clincher: he won the SAG over Thomas Haden Church. Like I said, it just seems to make sense. Jamie Foxx for Collateral doesn't have a chance (congrats on Ray). As for Alan Alda, you're awesome, but congratulations on the nomination.
So the Academy voters that went for Million Dollar Baby are looking at their ballots and they're thinking, crap, I haven't given The Aviator anything. Oh good - Cate Blanchett was great as Katherine Hepburn, real emotional depth, not just an imitation, yadda yadda - she'll do. And the Academy voters that did go for The Aviator - they'll vote for her as well. At least, that's what I hope is going to happen. The truth is, I think the most overrated performance of the year was Virginia Madsen in Sideways. A seemingly nice, attractive woman approaching middle age playing a seemingly nice, attractive woman approaching middle age. Like I said before in my review of Sideways, I really think she's getting the acclaim because she's the Academy voter's version of Natalie Portman. I found nothing noteworthy about her performance at all, and would even go so far as to say I didn't really buy it. I really do think Blanchett has the better chance - she's been nominated a few times and seems like the type, in addition to the other reasons - but if her closest competition Madsen wins, I'll be angry. That being said, I think it would be great if Natalie Portman won for Closer - the Academy has a history of rewarding young attractive females in this category (Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Connelly, etc) but she has the exact same things going against her that Clive Owen does - no Sag nomination, divisive film, etc. Sophie Okenedo (Hotel Rwanda) and Laura Linney (who was the sole nomination for Kinsey), congratulations on being nominated.
So keep going with me with this visual here: the Academy voter is sitting down writing his ballot. Oh look, he says to himself, I haven't given anything to Sideways yet, the indie hit of the year (directed by someone not named Clint Eastwood, anyway). And if he has, he clearly loves the film. So they write in Sideways for Adapted Screenplay; that even takes care of awarding Alexander Payne for his three nominations (as writer/director/producer). It just makes sense - after all, a similar situation happened last year: indie hit of the year Lost in Translation is nominated for Picture and Director but isn't strong enough to win those categories, so they award it in the screenplay category. Sadly, the screenplay category has long been the dumping ground to hand film awards that didn't have the buzz, or were too offbeat, to propel them to bigger awards (which has actually made this the category where the most iconic films win - Pulp Fiction's a recent example, but even Citizen Kane only took home a lone Screenplay award on Oscar night. Plus, Sideways just won the Writer's Guild Award for Adapted Screenplay. Million Dollar Baby seems like the clear other choice here, and could get swept into a M$B sweep, but this will be Sideways' moment. For the others - how many times shall I say this? - the nomination was the reward.
I'm pretty torn between my choice and The Aviator. Let me get the others out of the way first this time - no animated film has won this before, so why should The Incredibles; Vera Drake I've heard experimented with improvisation, so purists won't want to award it, and as for Hotel Rwanda, it's nomi...well, you know. So let's see. On the one hand, we have this epic semi-masterpiece that has the potential to take the big award, and if voters go for Madsen in supporting actress they might choose here as the choice to award Aviator. On the other hand you have crazy-man Charlie Kaufman with another one of his mind-bending altered-reality scripts. So my reasons for picking Eternal Sunshine over The Aviator? (1) A lot of people said The Aviator was too long and could've been tighter. (2) Eternal Sunshine clearly has strong support since it picked up an actress nomination for Winslet. (3) Eternal Sunshine won the Writers Guild award. (4) They haven't awarded Kaufman yet for Being John Malkovich and Adaptation (which could conceivably be a disadvantage, but many think this is his best work yet, myself included). (5) The Aviator doesn't seem like a Screenplay winner. Screenplay winners are on the outside edges of the Academy's inner circle, too unconventional to take the big awards, yadda yadda, Pulp Fiction, read the previous paragraph. So I'll go with ESOTSM.
Back to... [StrandedinManhattan.com] [Oscar Columns]