Column rushed but finalized..
Talking Heads
I'd meant to touch on this in my previous columns dealing with reactions to the Academy Awards nominees, but figured I ought not to delay that piece any longer. As one of the objectives of this web site is to attempt to further an informed filmgoing audience, it irritates me to no end to see film journalists and (especially) broadcasters -- people in a position to reach a wide audience and have a positive impact -- continually squander their opportunities to provide knowledgeable insight by handling Oscar coverage in such a thoroughly sloppy, slapdash fashion. It's one thing if they simply don't care about the Academy Awards -- I can certainly respect that -- but it's remarkably annoying to see commentators repeatedly pollute the airwaves with misinformation, uninformed musings and flat-out incorrect statements. A letter I received in the wake of the Academy Award nominee announcements struck a chord with me:
"I'm not sure what coverage you watched for the nominations, but I saw the E! coverage and was highly disappointed with their commentary. I don't mind the personal comments so much as that should be expected. But they made so many factual errors. First, the one Oscar "expert" didn't know for sure that Beauty And The Beast was the only animated Best Picture nominee. Another said that Dorothy Dandridge was the only black Oscar nominee, though they managed to add a few later. They also kept referring to the "critic's choice" awards. That was rather vague. What's worse is that, I think, they were referring to the Broadcast Film Critics Award which has only been around for three years, which is a little short to consider having a track record. Maybe I'm being petty, but you would think that these "experts" would have better basic knowledge and be a little more well-informed."- Kevin Dennis
I don't think it's petty at all, and I don't think it's too much to expect that so-called experts who are invited to discuss the Oscars in the media be reasonably well-informed about the current goings-on of the awards races and have a solid general knowledge about the history and procedures of the Academy. I would fully expect that someone raising the topic of animated Best Picture nominees should know that Beauty And The Beast -- a film which is less than fifteen years old -- has been the only such nominee in AMPAS history, and that an expert would suggest that Dandridge was the only black nominee in Oscar history is utterly laughable.
I wasn't privy to this dreadful E! coverage, as I instead tuned into CNN to watch the Academy Awards nomination announcement and was immediately reminded to the extent that their once-solid entertainment department had gone into precipitous freefall. Whether it was devoting air time to explore the insightful Oscar predictions of, of all people, 'film expert' former NATO Supreme Allied Cmdr. Gen. Wesley Clark (snort) or having grumpy anchor Jack Cafferty being incapable of distinguishing the difference between an actual Oscar nominee and a potential nominee candidate, the coverage was the epitome of carelessness and superficiality. It was almost morbidly entertaining watching the post-nomination reactions chat where an Us Weekly editor had to patiently explain to star anchor Paula Zahn (whose dreadful screen presence and inability to actually listen to her interview subjects has pretty much turned me off of CNN's morning coverage altogether) that, yes, Tom Wilkinson did indeed get an Oscar nomination.
Of course, CNN and E! were hardly the only ones screwing the pooch with their awards coverage. I'd also heard horror stories about Joel Siegel flubbing up a storm on ABC's Good Morning America. (ie. "If Russell Crowe wins again this year, he'll be the only person other than Tom Hanks to ever win consecutive Oscars!"; nah, Spencer Tracy, Luise Rainer, Katharine Hepburn, and Jason Robards never did this.) I'm continually amazed by the calibre of experts that keep being trotted in front of the camera to discuss the Academy Awards; sure, it's a high-pressure situation and people do make mistakes -- god knows I do -- but the calibre of discourse and the quantity of blunders observed is unforgiveably poor. I have no doubt that many of my readers could do a better job than several of the 'awards experts' who annually appear in Oscar coverage segments.
Awards Rage
I wound up missing my opportunity to weigh in on the respective impact of the NAACP Image Awards and the BAFTAs for ew.com -- for the record, I don't think that the former has much of an influence on the Oscar race (we all knew that Denzel Washington was the leading black contender for the Best Actor race, so winning the Image Award for his performance there really tells us nothing; at most, it helps to reinforce the perception that his is an award-calibre performance) and the latter plays a slightly larger role in the awards campaign mostly due to its wider scope of nominees and, most importantly, its recent shuffling in the calendar to a critical junction in the Oscar voting schedule -- but it turned out that one of the most remarkable and potentially most significant developments in this year's Oscar campaign occured during one of these festivities. However, it wasn't the results of this year's BAFTAs that wound up making entertainment headlines across North American for days as much as the aftermath of an incident involving Oscar nominee and defending Academy Award-winner Russell Crowe.
The winner of this year's BAFTA Best Actor prize for his Oscar-nominated performance in Ron Howard's A Beautiful Mind, Crowe reportedly became enraged when he learned after the ceremony that a Patrick Kavanagh poem he recited during his acceptance speech had been edited out of the BBC One television broadcast. Cornering television producer Malcolm Gerrie at the post-awards dinner, an altercation reportedly broke out in which Crowe shoved him against the wall of a storage room in the Grosvenor House Hotel and cursed at him. "I don't give a fuck who you are. Who on Earth had the fucking audacity to take out the best actor's poem?" Crowe was quoted as shouting at Gerrie. "You fucking piece of shit, I'll make sure you never work in Hollywood." The actor reportedly punctuated his physical and verbal assault by kicking over three chairs before stomping out of the room.
Upon the announcement of the slate of Best Actor nominees on February 12th, 2002, my feeling was that Russell Crowe's performance in A Beautiful Mind was of a distinguished calibre (in a sufficiently award-friendly picture) that he would certainly be a major player in the Best Actor race. Denzel Washington's performance in Training Day was clearly going to be the other major competition in the category, but the respected actor faced some not insignificant obstacles in that his picture was perceived to be a less weighty entertainment and that he was playing a hateably villainous character. Given the Academy's propensity to share the wealth and generally avoid awarding consecutive Oscars to a performer and Crowe's Best Actor win last year for Gladiator, voters needed a viable reason to not throw their support behind the burly actor for a second straight year.
This BAFTA fiasco may very well be it. I wouldn't go so far as to classify his actions as "Oscar suicide", as some pundits have, but it goes without saying that Russell Crowe certainly did not help his cause by attacking the television executive in such an abusive and threatening manner. (And it certainly does not help him that the media latched onto this story wholeheartedly, giving the incident major play for a full week and refusing to let it die, thereby ensuring that most Academy members would become well aware of Crowe's behaviour; on the other hand, fortunately for Crowe, most outlets avoided describing the incident with the damaging term assault, which it surely was by any standard definition.) The actor's surliness and volatile temperment have been well-documented -- there's a long list of directors who've praised Crowe's talents while conveying barely-veiled disdain at the experience of actually working/clashing with him -- but the BAFTA incident underlined a potential personality-driven issue in most unflattering fashion.
(Receiving less play but also of some interest was an incident occuring a few days before the BAFTAs in which Crowe blithely refused to accept a British charity award after learning that the previous year's recipient was Joan Collins. Exclaiming from his seat "Joan Collins? You can stick your Silver Heart up your arse, mate!", Crowe refused to take the stage and left reportedly Variety Club officials embarassed and humiliated. Again, this is not exactly proper etiquette, particularly for a man campaigning for an Academy Award. The litmus test in gentlemanly behaviour [however bland and colourless it may be] which generally comes to mind is: Would Tom Hanks do this?)
It doesn't help that Crowe spectacularly misplayed damage control of the BAFTA incident every step of the way. In the wake of media reports of the confrontation with the BAFTA telecast producer, Crowe bragged to the Sydney Morning Herald that "He's not bruised, he's not battered but I'm quite sure his ears are still ringing," and added "If you know anything about me, you know I am going to stand up for myself if I believe I've been wronged....I have no regrets about what I said to him. I have very little remorse for what I said...though possibly it was a little more passionate in the cold hard light of day than I would have liked it to have been."
From a strategic perspective, these comments were most unhelpful; Crowe could've either decided to express remorse for his actions or stand by them without commenting too vigorously upon them, thereby letting the story die out. By boasting about his feat and insinuating that it was he that was the wronged party, Crowe merely added fuel to the fire by giving the story new life. I have to (and do) appreciate the actor's unusual candor and forthrightness -- amidst all the carefully-crafted campaigning and stategizing, it's wonderful to have someone toss all that aside and truly speak his mind (and it's bloody entertaining to boot) -- but in terms of p.r. savvy, it's relatively safe to say that Crowe is certainly lacking.
In a comment of almost wilful self-deception, the actor also opined to the tabloid Inside Edition that he expected the incident would have little impact on his Academy Awards prospects, laughing "I think the Oscars are supposed to be about the performance that you've given, and I don't think I'm nominated for a 'Worst Argument with an English TV Executive.'" This is obviously ridiculous; yes, the Academy Awards are technically supposed to be exclusively about the calibre of performance given, but it's silly to ignore the reality that a myriad of other factors (including, among others, popularity, charisma and amiability) play significant factors when voters cast their ballots, as is the case in all elections.
Crowe's comment to Inside Edition that "I don't feel that I need to apologize to him. I believe in everything I said and I'll stand by it." wound up looking laughably hollow mere days later when his spokesman announced that the actor had telephoned Gerrie (in an obvious bit of handler-orchestrated damage control) to apologize for his actions after the BAFTA awards, a credibility-defying about-face from his earlier defiancy. "My language was excessive because I was livid [and] I behaved inappropriately. I was overreacting because I felt passionately about it at the time," a cowed Crowe told London's The Sun. While Crowe's reported pentinence successfully put an end to media reports on this sorry debacle, I think the damage had already been done.
Does this incident kill Russell Crowe's Best Actor chances? Not at all, particularly when one considers his subsequent Screen Actors Guild victory in mid-March. However, did it damage his prospects at repeating as Best Actor for his performance in A Beautiful Mind? I think so; it's easy to see moderate voters being turned off by loutish and belligerent behaviour and decide to recast their votes elsewhere. Whether this is enough to allow another actor to slip into the lead in the Best Actor Oscar race shall be seen soon enough.
A letter:
"The news said that some voters has changed their vote because of Russell Crowe's BAFTA's incident.This must be one of the most hypocritical things to do that Ive heard to date. These Academy voters obviously are not being strictly professional and doing their job. You are supposed to judge a movie and the acting, but they're judging on tabloid fodder. Has the academy chosen the wrong voters?
It makes me squeamish to realise that 3 of our nominated actors may not win because of bad PR and because they are "bad boys".
1. Russell Crowe is notoriously well known for his terrible PR skills. How he won last year with the Meg Ryan issues is a miracle. The fact is Russell isn't going to change who he is no matter what you write about him. The guy proved how he isn't going to change by the BAFTA incident right smack in the middle of his campaign. He thinks it was a little rich but he isn't apologising, he is who he is, and the fact is he is an extraordinarily gifted actor. I believe that he gave the performance of the year but will he lose out because of tabloids. Am I really hearing this.
2. Denzel Washington's PR have been out and about doing a no no as well. They have been waving the black card. Forget that Denzel's performance is mesmerising, the Academy wont be pushed around.
3. Sean Penn, doesn't have any time for the establishment, so he won't get the win.
Did we not have the People Choice awards (or something along the same lines) just recently where Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks took home awards for most liked actors. Why doesn't the academy just hand out it to these two because they won't give it to 3 actors who deserve the ward for acting merit because they are bad boys.
I'm strongly feeling negative over the Academy not keeping the professionalism about them. The Award is for best Actor not most liked or best PR skills. I'm really astonished. Whether the Academy likes it or not 3 actors who don't kiss ass are nominated. Let's give it to the person who has put the best performance in, not the most liked. Pull your head in voters and please do the task at hand."
- Aydhen Symister
It's certainly true that AMPAS voters ought to be voting strictly on the quality of the performance given, but the fact of the matter is that when it comes to any sort of vote conducted by people, it's virtually impossible to take the human element out of the equation. This is, after all, an entirely subjective tally in which voters can cast their ballots based on any factors they deem appropriate. For example, when it comes to important votes such as, say, choosing the President of the United States of America, one will regularly hear from people who choose a candidate based not on who's best qualified or capable to run the country, but instead on more nebulous factors like who's more photogenic or who one would rather sit on the porch with and share a beer. If you can't get people to treat elections of that magnitude with the sort of reverence you expect, good luck with the Oscars.
I received some good-natured chastisement about including some Russell Crowe-related gossip fodder in my Golden Globes reaction column awhile back, and I can certainly understand why many might see this sort of stuff to be unworthy of comment. However, the fact of the matter is that the general perception of a performer is a very significant factor in the Oscar race, and if there's a general air of admiration or dislike for a given actor, actress or filmmaker, it would be imprudent to ignore this. Behaving badly can and perhaps will adversely affect your Oscar chances, while being accessible, gracious and courteous can improve them. Sally Field's infamous acceptance speech had a kernel of truth to it -- by selecting her as Best Actress, the Academy at large was indicating that, yes, they really did like her and her performance in the film.
Academy Award Winner Predictions
(Nominees are ranked in order of perceived win probability. Commentary in certain categories [obviously] rushed.)
| 1. Moulin Rouge | |
 | 2. A Beautiful Mind |
| 3. The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring | |
| 4. Gosford Park | |
| 5. In The Bedroom |
Prediction: Moulin Rouge
I'm obviously taking a major risk in picking decided underdog Moulin Rouge to walk away with the coveted Best Picture Oscar, and am hardly confident about my prediction but will stick with it. Todd Field's drama In The Bedroom certainly stands no chance at winning the Best Picture category -- even Miramax has all but conceded on its prospects -- and Robert Altman's Gosford Park has slim-to-none chances of taking the Big Prize; for it to capture the Best Picture Academy Award would require a stronger base of support than I perceive it to have and a remarkably fortutious vote split amongst the other leading nominees. That it won the Screen Actors Guild prize for Best Ensemble Cast is of no consequence (and no surprise either; I was startled to hear that many pundits considered this an upset victory -- honestly, who else would the SAG prize go to?); Gosford Park is an unlikely candidate. I'd love to see it win -- amongst the five nominees, it's my personal favourite -- but would hardly hold my breath.
The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring would seem to be a clear favourite for the Best Picture Oscar. It has more nominations than any other film -- pictures which fall into this classification have a disproportionate success rate at capturing the statuette -- and the film's thirteen nominations indicates that it clearly has a broad base of support across many branches in the Academy. This would seem to be an obvious pick as a winner. However, I still believe that the Academy's historical coolness towards fantasy films will be a factor in this case -- The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring may be perceived as a solid, well-made and well-crafted entertainment, but not weighty or "important" enough to be worthy of the key Best Picture Oscar. I can't help but note the parallels between Rings and the last epic fantasy film which managed to snare a Best Picture Oscar nomination -- George Lucas' Star Wars. In both cases, the film were commercial blockbusters which captured the imaginations of youngsters and fantasy fans across the world. In both cases, the films were nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, and snared a Screenplay cite. In both cases, the films had a virtual sweep of nominations in technical categories, indicating an Academy impressed by the craftsmanship of the pictures. In both cases, the films' sole acting nomination went to a veteran, knighted British actor playing a wisened, sagelike role in the Best Supporting Actor category. Star Wars lost its Best Picture nomination bid to Annie Hall. This parallel may not necessarily hold up for The Lord Of The Rings -- it's a definite possibility -- but I don't detect any indication that the Academy has warmed to fantasy films in recent years.
A Beautiful Mind is the nominee which best fits the mold of a classic Best Picture winner, but I do wonder whether the negative campaign against the film has succeeded in damaging its prospects to an extent where it might not be able to score the Best Picture Academy Award. While I don't think that the charges about fabrication and whitewashing of John Nash's life were serious enough to capsize the film, the recent dramatic accusations pertaining to anti-Semitism are very grave and not to be taken lightly; while Universal has gone into full damage control mode in getting Ron Howard to speak out and trotting out the Nashs in front of 60 Minutes and other high-visibility media venues, the damage may have already been done. I hope not; I'm not very fond of A Beautiful Mind and would not endorse it for Best Picture (which in itself may be a good sign that it will win), but one hates to see a film torpedoed in this fashion -- I'd rather see it lose (if it does) on its own merits or lack thereof.
This leaves the Baz Luhrmann musical Moulin Rouge. While the film has won the Producers Guild of America Zanuck prize, normally a decent precursor for the Best Picture of the Year Oscar, I would not actually give this development much weight after taking into account that the composition of the PGA has dramatically changed this year. Still, despite its failure to nab a Director nomination for Luhrmann and its lack of an Original Screenplay cite, I believe the picture has a chance. It's a dazzling production, its story involves artists in the process of putting on a play (which might win it points amongst this voting pool of artists), it's the one nominee in this category with real heart and emotion (A Beautiful Mind's pen ceremony just made me scoff), and it's a candidate whose supporters are fervent and ardent. Perhaps it's a bit of wishful thinking on my part, but I do believe Moulin Rouge has a legitimate chance at pulling out a surprise Best Picture win.
Case in point - a passionate letter from an industry advocate:
Few films in recent memory have divided everyone I know, and the movie-going public at large, like Moulin Rouge has. I have to say that I am a passionate advocate of this film, perhaps because I expected the worst going in, having hated Romeo and Juliet and Stictly Ballroom as well; I am not a film goer who submits to the assaultive approach readily. I was completely blown away by Moulin Rouge, a rare occasion for me as a die-hard film buff (from a tender age) and as an assistant costume designer with fourteen years and films like Titanic, Legends of The Fall, and Minority Report to my credit. The artistry with which this film was conceived, created and realised is astounding. I fully comprehend the dismay of those who hate its frenetic pace, or archetypal (to some cliched and simple-minded) story. But even those who dislike Moulin Rouge must, if they are true film lovers, applaud the passion, singularity and complete lack of compromise that went into its creation. That it exists at all in todays sterile, desperate, design-by-comittee Hollywood production environment is truly a miraculous. (Kudos to 20th C Fox for having the balls to get behind it one-hundred-percent) And this film is nothing if not a prime example of directorial vision as the unifying force that crystallises the disparate (and in this case pretty dazzling) fragmentary elements into the cohesive and expressive whole that a movie, ideally, is. So, added to the irony that Hollywood's first true musical (and a lavishly mounted, Golden-Age style one at that) in many years is ineligible for recognition of its musical score (which is, having viewed the film a half-dozen times, beautifully rendered and pitch-perfect) and its signature original song, we now have a film nominated for eight Academy Awards including Best Picture, with nary a nom for poor old Baz Luhrmann's directorial achievement. Ridley Scott? One of our most consistently underrated directors, way overdue for a win. Peter Jackson? Brilliant, and an astounding job on LOTR, and boy, it coulda been a monumental mess. David Lynch? Now there's my idea of a director, always happy to ses him given his due (tho I can't help but point out that his is Mulholland Drive's sole nom). Ron Howard? The nicest man in Hollywood, but let's face it, not a film artist of the first rank, though he sure does try (Grinch, anyone?). And Altman? Well I'm 46, and I've yet to see a film of his that grabbed, moved, or truly engaged me; I find his misanthropic tone, and generally tart condescension to his characters, to be pretty tiresome. He is fortunate in the clever (though not as original as it's touted to be) script for Gosford; it rambles less aimlessly than most of his oeuvre. (obviously, I'm not a fan)Anyway, whatever. We all know that the Oscars are mostly a pile of crap. But I will be watching my fortieth straight Oscar telecast on March 24th, and it is still thrilling to see artistry that speaks to one in some significant way recognised and celebrated. Too bad about Luhrmann, and, for that matter, though I may be shot for saying this even from this remote distance, about Titanic taking Best Picture from LA Confidential. Them's the breaks in a popularity contest that is seldom truly about excellence, though excellence, as we all know, is a pretty subjective thing.
- David Le Vey
| 1. Denzel Washington, Training Day |
| 2. Russell Crowe, A Beautiful Mind | |
| 3. Tom Wilkinson, In The Bedroom | |
| 4. Sean Penn, I Am Sam | |
| 5. Will Smith, Ali |
Prediction: Denzel Washington,
Training Day
Smith and Penn have no chance. Wilkinson will only sneak in with surprising amount of support and a Crowe/Washington split. Category is a heat between Crowe and Washington. Figure that Crowe's BAFTA implosion and anti-A Beautiful Mind combined with his previous Gladiator win will allow the respected Washington to win his first Best Actor Oscar. Wish his supporters hadn't played the race card so much, though.
| 1. Sissy Spacek, In The Bedroom | |
| 2. Halle Berry, Monster's Ball |
| 3. Nicole Kidman, Moulin Rouge | |
| 4. Judi Dench, Iris | |
| 5. Renée Zellweger, Bridget Jones's Diary |
Prediction: Sissy Spacek, In The Bedroom
Zellweger is obvious filler; the remaining four all have viable chances. I would not rule out any of them -- even Dench at #4 is a real possibility. Despite SAG win for Berry, I'm unenthusiastically putting Spacek as my pick; veteran actress, respected. Kidman could factor in given the totality of her 2001 work. Toughest four-way competition of the night.
| 1. Ian McKellen, The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring | |
| 2. Jim Broadbent, Iris |
| 3. Ben Kingsley, Sexy Beast | |
| 4. Jon Voight, Ali | |
| 5. Ethan Hawke, Training Day |
Prediction: Ian McKellen, The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring
I will be pleased if Hawke wins, but obviously not counting on it. Ali unpopular -- forget about Voight. Kingsley electrifying, but I don't see the Academy going for the occasionally-difficult and non-AMPAS friendly Sexy Beast. Category probably boils down to McKellen and Broadbent; leaning towards McKellen in the wake of the SAG nomination and operating under the assumption that the success of The Lord Of The Rings will help him in this thin field; a Broadbent win, however, is very possible and should not be considered a surprise.
| 1. Jennifer Connelly, A Beautiful Mind |
| 2. Helen Mirren, Gosford Park | |
| 3. Maggie Smith, Gosford Park | |
| 4. Marisa Tomei, In The Bedroom | |
| 5. Kate Winslet, Iris |
Prediction: Jennifer
Connelly, A Beautiful Mind
That my predictions are in alphabetical order was not out of sheer laziness. Connelly seems like a solid bet to win this category. Mirren and Smith are possibilities but could split Gosford Park support; Mirren has received the most acclaim of the duo. Tomei is also a possibility, although her role is dwarfed by Connelly's voluminous screentime. Winslet seems like an outside shot given Iris' soft performance.
| 1. Robert Altman, Gosford Park | |
| 2. Ron Howard, A Beautiful Mind |
| 3. Peter Jackson, The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring | |
| 4. Ridley Scott, Black Hawk Down | |
| 5. David Lynch, Mulholland Dr. |
Prediction: Robert Altman, Gosford Park
Altman did fine work in Gosford Park and has never won an Oscar; getting up there in age -- hate to use the phrase "career Academy Award", but it might be time for him. The same could be said for well-liked Howard (obviously more popular as a person than Altman, if not as respected), but he's not in his 70s. Jackson's successful work on such a major undertaking as Rings puts him in contention. Don't count on Scott or Lynch, though.
| 1. Shrek |
| 2. Monsters, Inc. | |
| 3. Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius |
Prediction: Shrek
Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius obviously is a non-factor in this race. It's between Shrek and Monsters, Inc., and my feeling is that the enormous popularity of the former will allow it to topple the well-liked Pixar entry to nab the first-ever Animated Film of the Year Oscar.
| 1. Moulin Rouge: Catherine Martin |
| 2. The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring: Grant Major | |
| 3. Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone: Stuart Craig | |
| 4. Gosford Park: Stephen Altman | |
| 5. Amélie: Aline Bonetto |
Prediction: Moulin Rouge
It's between Moulin Rouge and The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring here. Should be a tight contest, but I think the glitzier Catherine Martin work as well as strong advocacy by Moulin's supporters will win out.
| 1. The Man Who Wasn't There: Roger Deakins | |
| 2. The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring: Andrew Lesnie |
| 3. Moulin Rouge: Don McAlpine | |
| 4. Black Hawk Down: Slawomir Idziak | |
| 5. Amélie: Bruno Delbonnel |
Prediction: Roger Deakins, The Man Who Wasn't There
Roger Deakins should win. I think he will.
| 1. Moulin Rouge: Catherine Martin and Angus Strathie |
| 2. The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring: Ngila Dickson | |
| 3. Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone: Judianna Makovsky | |
| 4. Gosford Park: Jenny Beavan | |
| 5. The Affair Of The Necklace: Milena Canonero |
Prediction: Catherine Martin and
Angus Strathie, Moulin Rouge
Another Rouge versus Rings showdown, but I expect Martin and Strathie's glamorous costumes to win out over Dickson's Middle Earth wardrobe.
| 1. Moulin Rouge: Jill Bilcock | |
| 2. The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring: John Gilbert | |
| 3. A Beautiful Mind: Mike Hill, Dan Hanley | |
| 4. Memento: Dody Dorn | |
| 5. Black Hawk Down: Pietro Scalia |
Prediction: Jill Bilcock, Moulin Rouge
Among the five nominees in the Editing category, I consider Pietro Scalia's to be the bleakest for his work in the Ridley Scott film Black Hawk Down; after faring relatively poorly in this year's Oscar nomination race, the Somalia-based war drama's Academy Awards campaign has tailed off considerably and despite its victory with the American Cinema Editors guild for Best Edited Dramatic Feature Film, I don't expect it will be a major player in any of its nominated categories; I freely admit that I could be well off-base on this.
Aside from this, I perceive the remaining four Editing nominees to be viable contenders. Although I have Memento's Dody Dorn ranked fourth in terms of probability to win the Oscar, it's a legitimate possibility (particularly taking into account the degree to which the film's structural flow impacts its performance). A Beautiful Mind's editing team of Dan Hanley and Mike Hill could grab the Oscar if Ron Howard's film goes on a tear, and John Gilbert is a real possibility considering the pains which have been taken to distill the first installment of the epic The Lord Of The Rings saga into a coherent three-hour chapter. My bet, however, is behind ACE-winning Jill Bilcock's work in the musical Moulin Rouge; she's already won the AFI award, and I've become increasingly sold on the calibre of her work upon repeated reviewings of the picture. The Editing category is a fairly wide-open race, though, and no candidate is a sure bet.
| 1. No Man's Land |
| 2. Amélie | |
| 3. Lagaan | |
| 4. Son Of The Bride | |
| 5. Elling |
Prediction: No Man's
Land
A letter:
"One thing did occur to me when I was reading the Oscars rule 14 today. Specifically the part about who can vote (part IV, #2 and #3):2. Final voting for the Foreign Language Film Award shall be restricted to active and life Academy members who have attended Academy screenings, or other exhibition, of all five films nominated for the award.
3. Viewing Foreign Language Film entries on videocassette will NOT qualify a member for voting purposes in this category.
Two observations: First, this means that Amélie's big audience is not too big an advantage. And given the Academy's taste for more serious fare, I decided that my prediction will be No Man's Land.
Second, by singling out videocassette in #3, the rule seems a little ambiguous. If one were to see an "exhibition" from DVD of, say, Lagaan (which is available), could one vote? My guess is that this is not the intention of the rule, but they should tighten the language next year if that is the case."
- Mike Weston
Correct -- despite the fact that Amélie handily outgrossed its four competitors in the Best Foreign Language Film category by a factor of ... well, a sizeable amount, this is not necessarily an advantage for the Jean-Pierre Jeunet film since voters in this category must have seen all five nominated films. Similarly, the fact that this year's Cesar Best Picture winner managed to nab five Oscar nominations, thereby indicating a solid base of support in many branches of the Academy, will not necessarily work in its favour; if most of Amélie's AMPAS advocates didn't get around to checking out Elling or couldn't sit through all four hours of Lagaan, they can't vote for the Audrey Tautou-starrer and hence their support is rendered irrelevant.
This rule seriously cuts into Amélie's base of support and lends the other four nominees a serious boost in their goal of nabbing an upset Oscar victory. Cognitive of this fact, Miramax amusingly put out a request for the distributors of the other four nominated pictures to add additional theatrical screenings of their films in order so that more AMPAS members would have the opportunity to see all five of the nominated pictures and hence be eligible to vote. The tactic was transparent, of course -- were other distributors to do so, this would increase the number of Amélie fans who could vote and hence give Jeunet's film a better chance at winning the Oscar -- and hence it was immediately scoffed at by rival campaigns. (The request was even more amusing when considering that Miramax has used this "voters must have seen all five of the nominees" AMPAS rule to its favour in the past by limiting the number of screenings of some of its pictures.) In theory, I'm all for making the films as available as possible in order to maximize the potential pool of AMPAS voters, but I also believe in strategizing within the confines of the rules; it is absolutely fair game to try to work the voting pool in your favour so long as no AMPAS regulations are being broken.
As such, I also think (hope?) that this skewed voting pool might allow for the possibility that No Man's Land might sneak past the heavily-favoured and highly-touted arthouse hit Amélie to win the Foreign Language Film Oscar. We'll see.
In terms of point #3, I would also think that viewing Lagaan on DVD would not be sufficient for a viewer to be able to indicate that he's seen an "exhibition" of the film -- my interpretation is that an "exhibition" must be another theatrical screening of the picture, albeit one which is not necessarily an official Academy screening -- but agree that the language should be tightened up in future years to avoid any potential ambiguity.
| 1. The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring |
| 2. Moulin Rouge | |
| 3. A Beautiful Mind |
Prediction: The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The
Ring
As surprised as I was that A Beautiful Mind managed to score a Makeup nomination (this over Planet Of The Apes? What gives? Okay, I won't start that up again...), I would even more flabbergasted if it managed to walk away with the Oscar; I consider its chances as slim. I consider the Makeup category to be a battle between The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring and Moulin Rouge, and expect that the extensive creature work and hair work in the Peter Jackson fantasy odyssey should beat out the wigs, moustaches, and the like in Baz Luhrmann's rollicking musical by a fairly good margin. (If Moulin Rouge takes this Oscar, I would interpret this as a very strong sign that the film has really struck a chord with AMPAS members and may be on to a big night.)
| 1. A Beautiful Mind: James Horner | |
| 2. The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring: Howard Shore |
| 3. A.I. Artificial Intelligence: John Williams | |
| 4. Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone: John Williams | |
| 5. Monsters, Inc.: Randy Newman |
Prediction: James Horner, A Beautiful Mind
I'd scratch Randy Newman's Monsters, Inc. score from the running right off the bat, and would deem John Williams unlikely to win the Oscar for his Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone. (That it managed to nab a nomination, as mentioned in Oscar Column #11, is in itself rather remarkable.) The three major competitors for the Original Score Oscar would seem to be James Horner's A Beautiful Mind score, Howard Shore's music in support of The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring and John Williams' second representative in this year's category, A.I. Artificial Intelligence.
While I consider Williams' work in the Spielberg picture to be the strongest of the five nominated musical scores -- it was also well-received by film music buffs upon the film's theatrical release -- given the film's cool reception by the Academy I consider it unlikely to take home the Oscar, leaving this race to be a battle between Shore's thundering compositions and Horner's melodic work. I think this race is a real toss-up, but while Shore has netted some critical kudos for his acclaimed two-and-a-half hour's worth of musical backing, I suspect Horner's insistent and evocative music might edge out a victory. A Shore victory wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, though -- I think this is a very close affair.
| 1. "May It Be", The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring | |
| 2. "Vanilla Sky", Vanilla Sky | |
| 3. "Until...", Kate & Leopold | |
| 4. "If I Didn't Have You", Monsters, Inc. |
| 5. "There You'll Be", Pearl Harbor |
Prediction: "May It Be", The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring
I'm sufficiently unenthused about this year's candidates that I was trying to guess whether or not Randy Newman's "If I Didn't Have You" might sneak its way into an Oscar purely out of a sympathy vote given that it's readily known that the veteran musician is on the verge of setting a new record in Academy Awards futility. I was developing a scenario in which he might win the Best Song Oscar, but giving the "tune" another listen promptly scuttled that idea for me; honestly, without re-examining the nominees from previous years, is this the worst-nominated song of the past five years? What a stinker.
Despite its stomach-turning qualities, I'm not ruling out "If I Didn't Have You" as a legitimate Best Song Oscar possibility -- the only nominee that I would consider entirely out of the running is the Diane Warren ballad "There You'll Be" from Pearl Harbor. Newman is a sympathy vote possibility, and Sting's Golden Globe-winning "Until..." is frankly much better than I'd expected (or less awful, depending on how you want to look at it) and has a real chance at the prize, although I wonder about whether the song has had a sufficient amount of exposure. Paul McCartney's title track for Vanilla Sky is also a possibility, and he certainly fits the mold of last year's Best Song winner (Bob Dylan took the prize for the dull "Things Have Changed" from Wonder Boys in another awful year for the category) in terms of being a legendary rock star whose appeal to aging Academy members might help him nab the golden statuette. However, I'm going to go with "May It Be", which fits perfectly within the musical scheme of The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring and may successfully ride the Peter Jackson film's popularity to an Oscar.
It is really difficult to get excited about this category.
| 1. The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring | |
| 2. Moulin Rouge | |
| 3. Black Hawk Down |
| 4. Pearl Harbor | |
| 5. Amélie |
Prediction: The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring
| 1. Pearl Harbor |
| 2. Monsters, Inc. |
Prediction: Pearl
Harbor
Given that all Academy members can vote for winners in the Sound Editing (and most of the other competitive) categories, I suspect that Pearl Harbor will benefit from this broad base of voters as its sound-related attributes are more readily apparent to Academy members (who may not be fully aware of what Sound Editing entails) than the animated Monsters, Inc.; I'm going with the Michael Bay film to take this category. (I've got a fifty-fifty chance, I suppose.)
| 1. The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring |
| 2. A.I. Artificial Intelligence | |
| 3. Pearl Harbor |
Prediction: The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The
Ring
I strongly expect The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring to convert its Visual Effects nomination into an Oscar victory. As indicated by its sparse representation in this year's Academy Awards nominee listing (two cites), A.I. Artificial Intelligence clearly was not embraced by the AMPAS membership, and Pearl Harbor's work may not be sufficiently splashy to score the Oscar victory. The Spielberg film might pull out a surprise victory if members review the amount of impressive work throughout the picture, but I look for the monsters and wizardry in Peter Jackson's film adaptation of the J.R.R. Tolkein novel to capture the Academy Award in this category.
| 1. Memento: Christopher Nolan | |
| 2. Gosford Park: Julian Fellowes |
| 3. Amélie: Guillaume Laurant & Jean-Pierre Jeunet | |
| 4. Monster's Ball: Milo Addica & Will Rokos | |
| 5. The Royal Tenenbaums: Wes Anderson & Owen Wilson |
Prediction: Christopher Nolan, Memento
I perceive the Original Screenplay category to be a two-race horse between Christopher Nolan's intricately-structured Memento and Julian Fellowes' WGA-winning Gosford Park; I don't consider either of the remaining three nominees to be major threats to take the Oscar. (Through process of elimination, I'd rank the Amélie script highest amongst the also-rans, as I'd be quite surprised if the gloomy, calculated Monster's Ball screenplay or the quirky, idiosyncratic The Royal Tenenbaums script struck a real chord with the Academy community at large.)
While Julian Fellowes' Gosford Park screenplay has already won the Writers Guild of America prize and has collected a bevy of critics awards and other accolades for the Robert Altman Best Picture nominee, I'm going against the grain by siding with Christopher Nolan's Memento. Although the screenplay was not up for the WGA prize -- it was rendered ineligible for consideration due to guild technicalities -- my feeling is that the attention-grabbing narrative construct of the script and the film's enormously potent word-of-mouth will help the screenplay from the lower-profile production edge out Gosford Park. Memento's acclaim has largely been based upon its screenplay, and if the picture proves to have built up as much of a following as I suspect it might have, this category would be the most obvious one in which it would be acknowledged.
| 1. A Beautiful Mind: Akiva Goldsman |
| 2. In The Bedroom: Rob Festinger & Todd Field | |
| 3. The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring: Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens & Peter Jackson | |
| 4. Shrek: Ted Elliott & Terry Rossio and Joe Stillman and Roger S.H. Schulman | |
| 5. Ghost World: Daniel Clowes & Terry Zwigoff |
Prediction: Akiva Goldsman, A Beautiful
Mind
One would think that the massive amounts of criticism that A Beautiful Mind has faced in recent weeks over its distortion and/or exclusion of real-life events and people in order to fit the film's agenda would most adversely affect its prospects in the Adapted Screenplay category, but I continue to think that Akiva Goldsman stands the best chance amongst the five nominees in winning the Oscar for Best Screenplay Based On Material Previously Produced Or Published.
The Ghost World screenplay by Daniel Clowes & Terry Zwigoff can quickly be discarded as a possibility; it has no chance. Despite the film's popularity and mass appeal, it's also unlikely at this point that the Academy is prepared to acknowledge the screenplay of an animated film in the form of Shrek's nomination here, leaving the field of viable contenders to three.
While the difficult task of adapting J.R.R. Tolkein's novels into a workable format for The Lord Of The Rings franchise is a significant undertaking, I'm not confident that Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Peter Jackson will be able to top A Beautiful Mind. The pensive and ostensibly more-cerebral (and, if nothing else, more socially relevant) screenplay for In The Bedroom by Rob Festinger and Todd Field may have a better chance at the Oscar -- aside from Sissy Spacek in the Best Actress category, this is the only other category in which the film's supporters can viably express their advocacy -- but Goldsman's WGA-winning script for the Ron Howard film seems best-positioned to walk away with the statuette.
| Predicted Academy Award Leaders | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| Next up: The Academy Awards (finally). |