The films eligible for last year's Academy Awards were generally considered the finest crop of pictures to emerge since the fabled cinematic year of 1939. With so much quality smacking audiences in the face, it was ironic that the Oscar ceremony itself was a complete dud. The suspense was absent because the four major awards (three of which went to "American Beauty") were a forgone conclusion by the time they were eventually presented. And at that point in the evening, the viewers' senses had been so dulled by a myriad of montages, perfunctory speeches and lamo musical numbers (South Park's "Blame Canada" an admitted exception) that the only surprise left was figuring out who won the office Oscar pool.
Perhaps the opposite will prove the case at the 73rd Annual Academy Awards on March 25. This year's field of movies remains a lackluster follow-up in terms of quality, so maybe the show will be an unpredictable, entertaining spectacle. Already Steve Martin has been anointed the host, Sting will perform his smash hit from "The Emperor's New Groove" and the new producers are even going to bring back those saucy dance numbers that were so noticeably stricken from last season. Then again...
Actually, all the bells and whistles that any Oscar telecast musters aren't the point. The real drawing card is broken down into two areas:
1) Hoping someone will say or do something stupid.
2) The element of surprise.
As for the first category, it's no guarantee there will be such oddities as a streaker, the sight of Jack Palance doing one-armed pushups or Roberto Benigni climbing on people's heads. And there's no predicting if there will be such amusingly dire lapses in production judgment as Rob Lowe and Snow White singing a duet or Ann Reinking putting a maudlin Broadway spin on a Phil Collins tune. (But the odds that Debi Allen will choreograph a grotesquely overdone riverdance to the homoerotic strains of "The Patriot" are high.)
No, the real thrill this year is that the major awards are up for grabs. And three (maybe even four) of the five Best Picture nominees have a legitimate chance at taking home the golden statuette.
The factor working against the two supposed frontrunners in the Best Actor race is that they are such unsentimental choices. Few doubt the talent of Russell Crowe, and many believe he should have won for last year's "The Insider." But since moving to the A-list with "Gladiator," the Australian actor has cultivated a nasty reputation in the industry as extremely difficult to work with he reportedly threw endless tantrums on the Moroccan set of "Gladiator" while continually rewriting the script. And he hasn't endeared himself to the public, what with his prodding the tabloid breakup of the 10-year marriage of Meg Ryan and Dennis Quaid. As for Tom Hanks, he's been nominated four times in the last seven years, and he's won twice. People are sick of him even though they'll be the first to admit he is the only reason "Cast Away" is worth seeing.
Does this leave the door open for Javier Bardem ("Before Night Falls"), Geoffrey Rush ("Quills") or Ed Harris ("Pollock")? Not exactly. Bardem is competent but unexceptional in the overrated biopic of Cuban writer Reinaldo Arenas. Rush isn't much of a crowd pleaser in his role of the Marquis de Sade plus he won the Oscar recently for "Shine." Harris is an extremely recognizable face in Hollywood, who has developed a great reputation in both indie ("The Third Miracle") and mainstream ("Stepmom") films. And as obnoxious-but-talented modern artist Jackson Pollock, Harris displays a new skill by directing himself in the film. This would be the year for the just-turned-50 star to pull the upset, if not for one reason: His performance could have been duplicated by a dozen other Hollywood actors. Playing an alcoholic introvert is a paint-by-numbers affair at this point. But few actors could match Crowe's physical intensity and emotional subtlety required for the role of Maximus Decimus Meridius bad rep and all.
Best Actor: (55 percent certain) Russell Crowe for "Gladiator."
In a year when everything is up in the air, one category is very grounded: Best Actress. Despite a contingent that sees exceptional performances from fellow nominees Joan Allen ("The Contender"), Laura Linney ("You Can Count On Me") and especially Ellen Burstyn ("Requiem for a Dream") and competent-but-overmatched work from Juliette Binoche ("Chocolat") Julia Roberts is the lone lock at this year's awards. In the title role of "Erin Brockovich," she is in nearly every scene and is given more dialogue than in "Pretty Woman" and "Steel Magnolias" (her other nominated roles) combined. It's a brash, memorable character and performance, and is the exceptional element to a film that in lesser hands could have become a marginal teleplay. Plus, it's the only film this year whose central character is based on a Lawrence High School graduate.
Best Actress: (99 percent certain) Julia Roberts for "Erin Brockovich."
Supporting Actor offers such interesting choices that it's arguable each has a shot. But there's a large financial dichotomy separating these performances. Jeff Bridges ("The Contender") and Willem Dafoe ("Shadow of the Vampire") are the bigger Hollywood names, but they appear in little-seen films, whereas their competitors were each in efforts that eclipsed the $100 million mark. Albert Finney as the crotchety attorney in "Erin Brockovich" and Joaquin Phoenix as the emperor with "issues" in "Gladiator" provide fine performances despite being somewhat unusual casting choices. But viewers will likely reward these blockbuster pictures in the larger categories. Benicio Del Toro is the one to bet on in this quintet. His Mexican cop flirting with the realities of the drug war is a tremendous piece of work. Sympathetic yet ambiguous, Del Toro gives the elaborate "Traffic" its emotional foundation. And he plays the majority of the role in Spanish, which gives Academy voters the impression of making a more cultured selection.
Best Supporting Actor (80 percent certain) Benicio Del Toro for "Traffic."
In all the categories during the Academy's history, Supporting Actress is the squirreliest. At times it defies logic (remember Marisa Tomei for "My Cousin Vinny?"). At times it flies in the face of a "sure thing" (remember Lauren Bacall in "The Mirror Has Two Faces" losing to Binoche in "The English Patient?"). In short, it's a crap shoot, and sometimes it's just crap.
British thespian Judi Dench already won two years ago for far superior work in "Shakespeare in Love," so she poses little threat with the frothy "Chocolat." Same goes for Julie Walters as the supportive ballet teacher in "Billy Elliot" Americans rarely lose to Brits in this category. Marcia Gay Harden is impressive as the long-suffering artist Lee Krasner in "Pollock." Like her co-star Harris, the actress has earned a rep for balancing art-house fare ("Miller's Crossing") with commercial blockbusters ("Space Cowboys"). But there's a question as to how many voters have actually seen the modest biopic.
As the professorial mom in "Almost Famous," Frances McDormand (an Oscar winner for "Fargo") is a hoot. But her co-star Kate Hudson is even "hootier." While history has proven that multiple nominees for the same film tend to split the vote in a single category, it still feels like Goldie Hawn's daughter Hudson is the second-generation favorite. In my original Mag review of "Almost Famous," I wrote, "As superior as the material is, the film may be remembered most for launching Hudson as a major star. (She) reveals a natural honesty that transcends most other younger actresses." I'm sticking with that assessment even while taking into account that past precedence confirms anyone can win this category.
Best Supporting Actress (70 percent certain) Kate Hudson for "Almost Famous."
Best Director is generally a prophetic giveaway, for it nearly always mirrors the Director's Guild of America Awards. This year's DGA victor is Ang Lee for "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" a particularly interesting choice considering his film is not favored to win Best Picture, and those tend to go hand-in-hand. Though some assume Steven Soderbergh will win because he is the first director since Michael Curtiz in 1939 to be double-nominated (for "Erin Brockovich and "Traffic") in this category, remember about that splitting-the-vote-in-the-same category albatross. Incidentally, Curtiz also lost.
Best Director: (90 percent certain) Ang Lee for "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon."
No matter how much lobbying Miramax Films can manifest, "Chocolat" will not win Best Picture. And I have too much faith in humanity to believe anyone would think Soderbergh's "Erin Brockovich" is somehow superior to his other nominated film. However, the remaining three flicks all have a nearly equal chance.
It's still hard to believe that this summer's hit "Gladiator" is even remembered nearly a year after its May release, let alone that it's the Oscar frontrunner. Though it features an excellent cast and accomplished director (Ridley Scott), the movie is a routine revenge fantasy that borrows from better source material. It's muddily staged (the barbarian battle at the beginning is an organizational mess). The effects are cheap (check out that laughable CGI coliseum). The dialogue flirts with cheesiness ("It vexes me. I'm terribly vexed"). And could the final duel between emperor and general be a little more anticlimactic? If "Gladiator" wins, it will go down with "Driving Miss Daisy," "Gandhi" and "The Greatest Show On Earth" as the most embarrassing selection in the event's history.
Ang Lee's "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" is a gorgeous film that offers action sequences as kinetically dazzling and graceful as waterfalls. And it has a tremendous relationship with voters because there is the sense that the film has been turned into an overnight sensation due to its unexpected nomination. (It's the rare foreign-language project considered a genuine contender for Best Picture, though none has ever won.) However, this Mandarin epic delivers little emotional impact despite its "serious" reputation. It's difficult to manufacture much interest in the characters or plot; they feel merely like a vehicle to get from one beautifully choreographed fight scene to the next.
"Traffic," however, is deeply moving while still being thoroughly exhilarating and suspenseful. It brings up real issues that are going to be plaguing this country for decades, and deals with them in an original and balanced manner. Both loftily cinematic and completely accessible, only one other film this year ("Almost Famous") moves me like "Traffic" does. Here's hoping the Academy feels the same way when handing out its most prestigious honor. Of these five prominent pictures, "Traffic" is the only one that will stand the test of time.
Best Picture: (45 percent certain) "Traffic."
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.