excitement since the nominations have been announced. Sure, the noms themselves
offered some surprises -- a lot, in fact -- but it still seems like we know (pretty
assuredly) who the winners will be on the 29th.
Sasha over at Oscarwatch has done some pretty thorough breaking-down of the
big races, while Nathaniel at The Film Experience has been filling this admittedly idle
time with some very funny and topical journal entries. But the unfortunate truth
remains: Is this going to be the most boring and predictable Academy Awards since
"Titanic" hit that iceberg?
way, no question about it. I'm happy -- Jackson and company deserve it -- but it sorta
makes for a dull prediction. Remember in 2000 when there was a genuine three-way
race between "Gladiator," "Traffic," and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"? One won
the Drama Golden Globe, one took the DGA, and one won the Best Director Oscar.
Right before that Best Picture envelope was being opened, there was a genuine air of
suspense. Not gonna happen this year. For everyone who thinks that "Mystic River"
could pull a surprise upset, consider this: If there's one thing that Oscar voters stick to
most when handing away the big prize, it's forgone conclusions. "Return of the King"
seems destined to win. It just does. It's taken nearly every major precursor, and has
wide support throughout the Academy. I mean, it was nominated 11 times, so the bias
against this particular fantasy film can't be that strong.
Benigni-style upset is in the works.
For Best Actor, we have two solid choices -- Bill Murray and Sean Penn. Forget
the rest; Depp's nod is the award, Kingsley's film had little support (although a bit more
than we had thought, Shohreh), and Law somewhow miraculously survived the "Cold
Mountain" cleave. In my heart I would like to think that Murray could take this -- he'd
by my choice if I picked the winners -- but I just don't see why the Academy would
honor an outsider who blends his drama with comedy when they can honor an outsider
that's simply dramatic. Both are worthy (and we all know this may be Murray's only
real chance for the gold) but bet on Penn.
It does seem like a 3-way race is developing in the Best Actress category, but I
think that's just wishful thinking on my part and on the parts of my fellow
Oscar-predicting colleagues. (Wouldn't a 3-way race be great, though?) Our main
contenders here are Charlize Theron, Diane Keaton, and Keisha Castle-Hughes. While
it is true that Oscars sometimes go to children (Hughes) and legends (Keaton), they
most regularly go to beautiful women who makes themselves ugly (Theron). This is
not an original sentiment of mine -- you can find this reasoning all over the web and in
every movie magazine -- but it's true. It's s little unfair to Charlize, who I picked as the
Best Actress of the year, but it is indeed nearly fact.
I'm sure I'm alone on this, but I think Theron's main competition may be Naomi
Watts. She's second only to Theron in terms of critics' prizes, was famously snubbed
for superior work in "Mulholland Drive," and gives an all-stops-out emotional
performance full of shouting, crying, and deathly monologues (all of which work well in
the context of the film). If any sort of "Monster" backlash occurs -- the film itself is
rather pedestrian -- look for Watts to scoop up the Oscar instead.
There will be an "award presentation" to Tim Robbins. (C'mon, without Albert Finney
even in the running, no one else will be able to take the statue away from him.) The
Best Supporting Actress category is another matter.
While Renee Zellweger is still the heavy favorite, I can't help but think that the
tide is slowly turning against her. This is most likely wishful thinking on my part, but
hear me out...
Shohreh Aghdashloo is a very likely spoiler, turning in an endearing, emotional,
and wifely performance that is the stuff of which many past supporting Oscars (Marcia
Gay Harden, Jennifer Connelly) have been made. (Even the term "supporting" tells
you what you want to know -- give the award to a woman supporting her husband!)
But hers is a small film, and it may be too small to get major Oscar recognition.
It's not as small as Patricia Clarkson's film, though. If you've been reading this
site with any frequency, you know Clarkson would be my pick. She was alternately
hilarious and heartbreaking in "Pieces of April," and at least deserves some sort of
"body of work" Oscar; her other performances in last year's "The Safety of Objects,"
"The Station Agent," and "All the Real Girls" were equally luminous. (She's also great,
though underused, in the current box office hit "Miracle," which may keep her profile
high with voters.) But who am I kidding -- this Oscar's going to Granny Clampett,
right?
River" is perhaps the most logical choice for Best Adapted Screenplay, and "Lost in
Translation" should take the Best Original Screenplay with ease. (Sorry, Jim Sheridan
fans, it's the truth. With three nods this year -- producing, directing, writing -- voters
are going to give Ms. Coppola something.)
Questions, complaints? Email me here.
--Anthony
February 15, 2004
