By ALEX
FUNG
Last updated: 2002/01/29
Well, so much for the plan of getting the next column out by the Globes. Looks like the next few columns'll have to be big'uns, folks -- and to the many who've wrote in requesting shorter but more frequent commentary, allow me to assure you with the utmost sincerity that there's nobody who'd prefer to avoid penning these lengthy pieces more than I. Hopefully if I can finally catch up with all the developments in the awards race over the past few weeks, I'll be able to churn out quick reaction-type snapshots henceforth. Here's hoping, at least.What If We Held An Awards Show And Nobody Came/Watched?
Let's go straight to the recent awards ceremonies. After the American Film Institute dipped its toe in the water with the launch of its "Movies Of The Year" initiative in winter 2000, they decided to plunge headfirst into the pool this year with their first full-fledged awards ceremony honouring the achievements in film and television. Their decision to include accolades for TV projects raised eyebrows in some circles given that the AFI is primarily known for their focus on cinema, but the choice was not entirely unreasonable given that the organization's commitment is to "the advancement and preservation of the art of the moving image", a definition that's not exclusively film-oriented. (One could also make the somewhat specious argument that, as in a film discussion group I intermittently frequented, television programming constitutes 'filmed entertainment' and as such fulfills the 'film' component of the organization's mandate.)
In any case, it turns out that it was a mighty good thing that the inaugural AFI Awards banquet incorporated TV achievements into their slate of honours, since the attendance rate of the winners cited in the film portion of the ceremony was abysmal, with only one of the four acting winners actually making an appearance at the dinner; were it not for the TV stars, the embarrassment would've been even more pronounced. (Pundits now cheekily refer to this year's event as "the MIA Awards".) The widespread absenteeism made for a devastatingly inauspicious debut for the ceremony, with virtually every subsequent media report ridiculing the paucity of star power. Needless to say, this was hardly the sort of initial impression that this fledgling awards show would want to make. There are probably a myriad of factors pertaining to the relatively poor turn-out of actors who are theoretically campaigning for Oscar nominations and hence would want to take advantage of a high-visibility platform, ranging from a herd-mentality reluctance to be associated with unproven new telecasts (as with parties, nobody wants to be seen at a dud) to the dinner banquet's overly early date in the new calendar year (is January 5th just too soon after the holidays for one of these things?), but ultimately this year's ceremony has to be considered a major disappointment by its organizers.
The letdown extends to broadcaster CBS, who clearly hoped to add a successful awards show of its own to its lineup that would rival NBC's Golden Globes and ABC's Oscars. The AFI Awards was instead a veritable albatross on CBS's Nielsen ratings, drawing a scant viewership and pulling in XFLian-type numbers. While one is tempted to raise the possibility that the American public's obvious disinterest in the telecast was indicative of growing fatigue towards award shows in general, the fact that the Golden Globes held roughly two weeks later drew sizeable audiences seems to quash this idea. Suffice it to say that the most obvious move to improve ratings for the AFI Awards telecast would be to simply move it off Saturday evening; best to run it on a Sunday evening as per the Globes and Oscars when people are actually home and available to watch TV.
I hate to even raise it, but judging by the harsh reaction from TV critics, there appears to be a demand for the AFI awards ceremony to become even more populist. (In this respect, the Golden Globes hold a trump card over all other film award shows -- they attract big names and have long been accused of ignoring notions of merit or worthiness in order to issue prizes to top-flight movie stars, both certain audience-pleasers.) One aspect of the AFI Awards show which has been singled out for anti-intellectual disparagement was the inclusion of interview clips from various jury members commenting on the nominated films, as per the various AFI television specials of recent years. I agree that the commentary provided by film experts when discussing classic films in the various "100 Years ... 100 Movies" listing, which may be regretfully unfamiliar or obscure to many, is more meaningful than soundbites on contemporary pictures that are mostly recognizable to the majority of the television viewing audience, but I didn't mind hearing what the selected jury members had to say. From the sounds of it, though, the show might've been better received if they divested themselves with the clips in favour of, say, more star ogling. (Geez.)
(To be honest, I was rather surprised by the remarkably negative predisposition towards the AFI Awards by many journalists; while I've been vocal about the overabundance of awards ceremonies in recent years and have viewed the endless stream of annual AFI lists with amused skepticism, I wasn't nearly as blatantly anti-AFI as, say, Toronto film critic Norm Wilner [also of alt.video.dvd "Hey Norm!" fame], who questioned the AFI's jury process and juror integrity -- again, as per Oscar Column #4, I have no idea how a publicly-identified jury featuring accepted film experts and recognized industry personnel can be called into question moreso than the shady, resolutely obscure HFPA membership behind the Golden Globes. [Additionally, although I have no intention of being an AFI apologist, it's rather disingenuous for Wilner to suggest that the various AFI lists of previous years being drawn a candidate list of 400 films was a bit of subterfuge -- this was disclosed right from the start.])
While the AFI Awards ceremony introduced some other distinctive touches, such as providing an unusual forum for producers and other film participants to actually stand up and expound upon their films -- this is definitely the only awards show where you're going to see Jeffrey Katzenberg on TV talking about Shrek -- which effectively allows them to pitch their film directly to the potential AMPAS voting audience (think: free platform), there was clearly a lot room for improvement in the telecast; presenters often seemed poorly coached and ill-prepared, segues were awkward, and from a technical perspective even basic fundamentals like camera placement were frequently amiss, as during Christopher Nolan's acceptance speech for his Memento screenplay where for some reason the camera was sited to plainly pick up the flashing "Please wrap up" teleprompter in the background. I also question the decision to deny the winners of the Editor, Cinematographer, Digital Artist, Production Designer, and Composer prizes the opportunity to deliver an acceptance speech, thereby establishing a two-tier system of winners. Also decidedly problematic and almost certainly damning was that nobody, from the winners down to the audience in attendance, seemed to be having any fun.
Still, while the show itself was plagued with logistic problems, I can't really fault the AFI Awards in terms any of the chosen winners. This doesn't mean that I agreed with all of their selections, mind you -- my own personal picks would've diverged from the AFI jury's in many categories -- but, as was to be expected, the slate of winners seemed to be generally reasonable. As this is the inaugural year of the AFI Awards, it's hard to say what impact winning a statuette -- or whatever the winners receive (notice they didn't actually get anything, at least on stage?) -- will have towards Oscar bids, but one would have to assume that high-profile recognition of this sort would be weighed favourably from the perspective of AMPAS voters.
In the AFI Movie Of The Year category, Peter Jackson's epic The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring took top honours, beating out a slate of nine other 'nominees', all of which are potential Best Picture Oscar candidates (though it'd be a bit of a stretch to imagine Marc Forster's Monster's Ball or the Coens' The Man Who Wasn't There successfully cracking AMPAS' final five). It's clear that this first entry in the filmed trilogy based on J.R.R. Tolkein's books is bound for a Best Picture Oscar nomination -- consider it a lock -- and it's definitely a strong contender to capture the golden statuette. Although its mythic fantasy trappings render The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring as somewhat of an unconventional Best Picture candidate, as mentioned in a previous column -- it'd really be the first epic fantasy film of its type to receive an Oscar nomination for Best Picture since fellow blockbuster Star Wars -- it is clear that Peter Jackson's film is certain to rack up numerous AMPAS nominations come mid-February: aside from possibilities in the Picture, Director, Supporting Actor (Ian McKellen as Gandalf), and Adapted Screenplay categories, the picture is well positioned to factor into virtually every technical category -- art direction, cinematography, editing, makeup, sound, sound editing, visual effects, costume design, song, and score. If New Line's campaign is successful, The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring could wind up with a dozen or more Oscar nominations, which would likely make it the most-nominated production of the year, and it's well-known that there has been an extraordinary correlation in recent years between the film which receives the most Oscar nominations and the eventual Best Picture Oscar winner. (The last nine Best Picture winners -- Gladiator, American Beauty, Shakespeare In Love, Titanic, The English Patient, Braveheart, Forrest Gump, Schindler's List and Unforgiven -- have all led or co-led their respective years in terms of total Oscar nominations.) It's easy to understand the rationale behind this phenomenon -- when a film has strong across-the-board support from various branches of the Academy, it follows that it'd be tough to beat during the final round of AMPAS voting, where all eligible members can cast ballots in the Best Picture category.
The absent Denzel Washington captured the AFI Male Actor of the Year honours for his against-type work as volatile cop Alonzo Harris in Antoine Fuqua's Training Day, besting A Beautiful Mind's Russell Crowe, The Man Who Wasn't There's Billy Bob Thornton, and In The Bedroom's Tom Wilkinson, all of whom are viable Best Actor AMPAS candidates. Washington's dynamic, flamboyant performance had clearly earmarked him for a spot on the Oscar shortlist even prior to the AFI recognition, and at this moment it appears that he's the primary obstacle between Crowe and a second consecutive Best Actor Oscar statuette. Washington has much going for him -- he's a gifted, well-respected and well-liked actor, he's already won an Oscar but has never taken home a Best Actor prize -- but I wonder if the perception of his film as being yet another cop movie (it's actually much more savvy than the norm, though it admittedly falls apart in the final reel) may impact his chances, particularly when compared to Crowe's performance in service of a ostensibly lofty movie which has clearly been tailor-made to vie for Oscar attention. (Then again, that she performed in My Cousin Vinny didn't seem to hurt Marisa Tomei's chances back in 1992, so there might not be much to this line of thinking.)
Sissy Spacek continued her year-end awards success by adding another trophy to her collection courtesy of the AFI for her performance as an anguished mother in Todd Field's directorial debut In The Bedroom. There is little question that she can be inked down for a spot on the final list of five actresses who'll score Oscar nominations come mid-February; she's the category's certain mortal lock. (Spacek was the only winning film actor actually in attendance at this year's AFIs, and delivered an unremarkable acceptance speech.)
The (predictably) absent Gene Hackman won the AFI's Featured (as opposed to 'Supporting') Male Actor of the Year for his mischievous performance as the ne'er-do-well title character in Wes Anderson's The Royal Tenenbaums, beating out a slate of performers from similarly modestly-budgeted features: Steve Buscemi's record-collecting loner in Ghost World, Brian Cox as the conflicted pederast in L.I.E., and Tony Shaloub's slick-as-slick-can-be litigator in The Man Who Wasn't There. Touchstone is actually promoting Hackman for a Best Actor Oscar bid, but I don't anticipate that his victory in the AFI's Featured Actor category (which one would have to correspond with the traditional 'supporting actor' category) will result in much confusion among AMPAS voters. As an aside, I've been astonished by the relatively strong performance of the determinedly eccentric The Royal Tenenbaums in the commercial marketplace, particularly in comparison to the general apathy which greeted the narratively-stronger and much more accessible (and in my opinion, vastly superior and more rewarding) Rushmore; is it simply because Tenenbaums is chock-loaded with movie stars?
The successful reinvention of Jennifer Connelly as a serious award-calibre actress continued as the absent performer scored the AFI's first Featured Female Actor of the Year prize for her performance in Ron Howard's transparently inspirational A Beautiful Mind, beating out respectable competition in the form of Vanilla Sky's Cameron Diaz and Aussie actresses Cate Blanchett (Bandits) and Frances O'Connor (A.I. Artificial Intelligence). Given the Oscar-friendly nature of her film and the year-end accolades she's received to date, Connelly is shaping up to be the actress to beat in the Best Supporting Actress Oscar race; she's clearly en route for an Oscar nomination.
The absent veteran director Robert Altman took the AFI Director of the Year award for his helming of the light-hearted ensemble murder mystery Gosford Park. While the competition for Best Director Oscar nominations is quite fierce -- aside from Altman, one ought to consider fellow AFI nominees Todd Field, David Lynch and Ridley Scott, as well as Ron Howard, Peter Jackson, Baz Luhrmann, Christopher Nolan, Joel Coen, Steven Spielberg, Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Michael Mann -- given the quality of his work in Gosford Park, his age and his noticeably Oscar-free mantlepiece, I'd consider Altman to be a strong possibility to make the final cut for an Oscar nomination. (His biggest challenge is probably to get the nomination; if Altman can pass that stage, he's probably has a good shot at winning the prize outright.)
While I was unimpressed that the AFI chose to exclude editing, cinematography, production design and digital effects winners from the opportunity to take the podium, I'm relieved that they at least allowed this year's AFI Screenwriter of the Year, Christopher Nolan, to deliver an acceptance speech for his intricately-constructed Memento screenplay; screenwriters are so frequently given short shrift compared to actors and directors that it's nice to see one awards group give them some due. Memento's engaging backwards narrative structure has helped to make it such a word-of-mouth phenomenon -- besides David Lynch's Mulholland Dr., has any other 2001 release been as thoroughly dissected as Nolan's picture? -- that it's difficult to see how it won't receive a Screenplay Oscar nomination. The question remains whether it'll be considered in the "Best Screenplay Written Directly For The Screen" category or be placed in the "Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Published Or Produced" field; I've still seen no FYC advertisement on this front, and continue to believe it'll wind up in the former category (as detailed in Oscar Columns #3 and 4).
Moulin Rouge's Jill Bilcock received the AFI Editor of the Year prize for her frenzied work in the ostentatious Baz Luhrmann musical. I wouldn't call her a lock for an AMPAS nomination yet, but she's definitely a strong contender. On the other hand, I have no reservations about AFI Cinematographer of the Year Roger Deakins' prospects at scoring a corresponding nomination with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences for his work in the Coen Brothers' The Man Who Wasn't There -- he's probably the d.p. to beat and may finally pick up the first Oscar of his already-impressive career.
The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring captured an additional two AFI awards -- Grant Major picked up the Production Designer of the Year prize, while the film's various trolls, monsters, and other miscellany won Jim Rygiel the Digital Effects Artist of the Year. (I found the title of this category particularly interesting in its overt acknowledgement and validation of digital effects and computer manipulation as an art.) Based on previous year-end awards -- Major already won several critics' awards for his work in the Jackson epic -- both seem likely to snare Oscar nominations; you can probably pencil them down for their respective categories.
Finally, Moulin Rouge composer Craig Armstrong won the AFI's Composer of the Year award, beating out Angelo Badalamenti for Mulholland Dr., Patrick Doyle's Gosford Park score, and Howard Shore's music for The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring. To be honest, I'm going to have to revisit Moulin Rouge in order to pay attention to its score; I hadn't really noticed it at all, at least under all of the musical numbers.
Unstaked
Thanks to Joshua Kreitzer for bringing to my attention that Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust has been declared eligible for contention in this year's Best Animated Feature Oscar race. After initially being ruled ineligible because its official screen credits form was not submitted, the Academy apparently granted the Japanese anime eligibility status after it was determined the form had never been received by the appropriate parties. This increases the pool of contenders for the Best Animated Feature Oscar race to ten, from which three nominees (that is, Shrek, Monsters, Inc., and one other film -- probably Waking Life) will be drawn.
Gee, I'm really going to have to start churning out these columns over the next few days in order to keep up with all the latest developments. Next up: Golden Globe talk. (I'm also dying to talk about the various guild nominations, most of which have been delightfully unusual -- in an e-mail to a valued contributor yesterday, I expressed my hope that the Screen Actors Guild nominating committee would make a whole bunch of loopy choices as per the DGA and PGA just to help make the Oscar race thoroughly indecipherable; they didn't let me down. Gotta love it.) Also: the last of the major critics groups weigh in, the Independent Spirit nominees, the BAFTA nominees, the Academy Awards trim down the field in certain categories, and much much much much more.
Feedback or inquiries are welcome and may be reproduced in subsequent columns -- e-mail me. (Please indicate if you wish to remain anonymous; pseudonyms are also acceptable.)
Alex Fung (aw220@freenet.carleton.ca)
Back to Oscar Columns for the 74rd Annual Academy Awards.
Back to film page.