March 21, 2003
DUELING PREDICTIONS FOR THE 75TH OSCARS
by Derek Miner & Michael Dequina
Derek Miner:
So this is the eighth year I've predicted the Oscars. All of those years I've done it from sunny Florida, on the East Coast where we don't hear the Hollywood Buzz. Out on the West Coast, where the whole media circus is based, I could be out and about, gleaning some idea what's trending up or down and perhaps even getting some hot scoops. But on the East Coast, I have to rely on my knowledge of previous years and guessing
about trends, based on reports and stale gossip.
Despite this, I've done pretty well. I usually win or tie in prognostication at Oscar parties thrown by friends. This year, however, I wanted more of a challenge. I needed to see if I could overcome my inherent disadvantage of geography and try to best someone outside of the state of Florida. So I proposed going up against fellow Movie Poop Shoot columnist Michael Dequina, who actually lives in the center of The Buzz.
This is the East Coast vs. West Coast battle that only Roger Ebert could love! It should be interesting to see how this comes out, considering I'm also playing it less safe than I have in the past.
As my friends know from previous years, I predict winners in all categories. This is important to me for both the challenge in making an educated guess and the advantage it gives me over the average person who is likely to randomly pick one of the unfamiliar nominees to win. So let's start with all those little awards that most viewers can barely tolerate while waiting to glimpse some celebrities. I usually group the categories by similarities, like...
STUFF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN (WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS)
Live Action Short Film
DM: FAIT D' HIVER - Dirk Beliën and Anja Daelemans
Michael Dequina: INJA (DOG) - Steven Pasvolsky and Joe Weatherstone
Animated Short Film
DM: THE CHUBBCHUBBS! - Eric Armstrong
MD: THE CHUBBCHUBBS! - Eric Armstrong
Documentary Short Subject
DM: TWIN TOWERS - Bill Guttentag and Robert David Port
MD: TWIN TOWERS - Bill Guttentag and Robert David Port
Documentary Feature
DM: SPELLBOUND
MD: PRISONER OF PARADISE
Foreign Language Film
DM: NOWHERE IN AFRICA
MD: NOWHERE IN AFRICA
DM:
What are the two exceptions you ask? In the Animated Short category, Pixar slipped in MIKE'S NEW CAR, which appears on the MONSTERS, INC. video, and thus will be recognized by many. Then there's BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, a quite successful film, nominated in the Documentary Feature category. Call me crazy, but the recognition isn't helping either of these nominees. I have a gut feeling voters would feel tacky rewarding a mediocre spin-off from MONSTERS, INC., unfortunately bringing Pixar's tradition of netting this award to an end. As for BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, I might be the only one suggesting it will lose. I can't see how overwhelming support by actors and writers for this film can translate to a win considering you have to see all five nominees - in a theater - to even vote. How many bothered going to all the trouble? Plus, purists might take issue with BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE for being more what I call "a visual essay" than a documentary. The same "all or none" rules apply in the Foreign Language Film category, which I predicted based on some online mentions of NOWHERE IN AFRICA. Funny that I saw more foreign language films in 2002 than in all my 27 previous years combined, yet I saw NONE of these nominees. What about Y TU MAMÁ TAMBIÉN or CITY OF GOD, two highly acclaimed foreign films?
MD:
As with most others, I'm flying blind when it comes to the Live Action and Documentary Short categories. For the latter, TWIN TOWERS seems a safe bet if only for its 9/11 theme, let alone the heart-string-tugging subject of firefighter/police officer siblings. In the former category, a quick perusal of the synopses as Oscar.com make me lean toward the apartheid-themed INJA (DOG) due to its inherent dramatic weight and air of "importance." For Animated Short, THE CHUBBCHUBBS! has the clear advantage, having played theatrically last summer with MEN IN BLACK II.
BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE's popularity is a nonissue in the Documentary Feature race as the winner is not determined by the membership at large. I'd give the win, then, to PRISONER OF PARADISE, this year's Holocaust-themed entry. The Foreign Language trophy would easily be HERO's if Harvey Weinstein had released the damn thing in the U.S. already; alas, the domestic release date is still set for November. I give NOWHERE IN AFRICA the edge since all the buzz pegs it as not only prototypical Oscar bait, but a good film in its own right.
TECH GEEK AWARDS
Visual Effects
DM: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS - Jim Rygiel, Joe Letteri, Randall William Cook and Alex Funke
MD: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS - Jim Rygiel, Joe Letteri, Randall William Cook and Alex Funke
Sound Editing
DM: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS - Ethan Van der Ryn and Michael Hopkins
MD: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS - Ethan Van der Ryn and Michael Hopkins
Sound
DM: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS - Christopher Boyes, Michael Semanick, Michael Hedges and Hammond Peek
MD: CHICAGO - Michael Minkler, Dominick Tavella and David Lee
Film Editing
DM: CHICAGO - Martin Walsh
MD: CHICAGO - Martin Walsh
Cinematography
DM: ROAD TO PERDITION - Conrad L. Hall
MD: ROAD TO PERDITION - Conrad L. Hall
DM:
The Visual Effects category is almost guaranteed. I just want to know how even the best effects films of today have shots that seem weak compared to the decade-old dinosaurs of JURASSIC PARK. Okay, I admit Gollum in THE TWO TOWERS is a step in the right direction. The sound awards are likely to go to THE TWO TOWERS as well, just for the epic nature of the film and the great results. Editing is often - but not always - tied in with Best Picture. In this case, there's something in CHICAGO's razzle-dazzle that can justify that combination. I had initially thought that the recent passing of cinematographer Conrad L. Hall would keep voters from picking ROAD TO PERDITION in Best Cinematography. But I started picturing the Academy as sensitive and sentimental, keeping this race in PERDITION's favor.
MD:
Gollum alone--and the implied de facto shout-out to Andy Serkis--guarantees THE TWO TOWERS's victory in Visual Effects, let alone the fact that it's the only one of the three nominees (SPIDER-MAN and ATTACK OF THE CLONES being the others) whose effects weren't loudly criticized for being too obviously digital. TOWERS is also a cinch for Sound Editing given the minimal love in general (nominations-wise, that is) for MINORITY REPORT and the general subtlety of ROAD TO PERDITION. Sentiment certainly pushes PERDITION over the top in Cinematography, but I would pick it even if Hall were still alive; the photography was the one thing viewers unanimously agreed on, and it's the most traditionally "pretty" of all five nominees. The Sound Oscar generally rewards decibel levels, but I'm thinking that the CHICAGO love is strong enough to defy that tradition, not to mention there will be naive, reductive thinking about its musicality making it the best sounding picture of the five. That same line of thinking will win it the Film Editing trophy, as most editing is generally thought to automatically signify the best. That the Film Editing trophy traditionally syncs with the Picture winner is just icing on the cake.
THEATER GEEK AWARDS
Art Direction
DM: CHICAGO - Art Direction: John Myhre; Set Decoration: Gord Sim
MD: GANGS OF NEW YORK - Art Direction: Dante Ferretti; Set Decoration: Francesca Lo Schiavo
Costume Design
DM: CHICAGO - Colleen Atwood
MD: GANGS OF NEW YORK - Sandy Powell
Makeup
DM: FRIDA - John Jackson and Beatrice De Alba
MD: FRIDA - John Jackson and Beatrice De Alba
DM:
Perhaps I'm too bullish on CHICAGO, but the mixture of the real and theatrical settings within the film is so appealing, I can easily see voters picking it for Art Direction and Costume Design. The Makeup category has got to be some sort of joke. I used to laugh that they gave this to NIXON all because of a fake nose, but it's just as laughable that there are only TWO nominees for this category and neither of them is THE TWO TOWERS. Knowing that, FRIDA is an easy choice over THE TIME MACHINE.
MD:
FRIDA over THE TIME MACHINE in Makeup is one of the easiest calls of the night--though the latter film's being a major studio co-production and a more traditional makeup-heavy vehicle could be factors for an upset. I doubt it, though. While betting against the CHICAGO juggernaut is a dicey proposition, I think Miramax's other big nomination-reaper has a leg-up in the Art Direction and Costume Design categories. As loved as CHICAGO is, I don't think too many people are harping on the sets as costumes as much as the performances and music--whereas in the case of GANGS, the astonishing authenticity of the sets and costumes are among the few rarely-debated-about aspects of the film.
WRITING AND SINGING AND DRAWING (OH MY!)
Original Screenplay
DM: HABLE CON ELLA (TALK TO HER) - Pedro Almodóvar
MD: MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING - Nia Vardalos
Adapted Screenplay
DM: THE HOURS - David Hare
MD: THE HOURS - David Hare
Original Song
DM: "I Move On," CHICAGO - Music: John Kander; Lyric: Fred Ebb
MD: "I Move On," CHICAGO - Music: John Kander; Lyric: Fred Ebb
Original Score
DM: THE HOURS - Philip Glass
MD: CATCH ME IF YOU CAN - John Williams
Animated Feature
DM: SPIRITED AWAY
MD: LILO & STITCH
DM:
THE HOURS is not a film liked by all. But there seems to be enough momentum for the Screenplay and Score to win Oscar night. If the film loses both, however, Nicole Kidman is likely NOT going to win the Best Actress award. The Original Screenplay category is interesting, with two Spanish-language nominees. MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING has a shot, as fairy tale success stories can sway votes, but I think it comes down to support going up for TALK TO HER while support is down for FAR FROM HEAVEN. For Original Song, I thought U2 had a lock early on for their GANGS OF NEW YORK number, despite the fact that it seemed so ill-fitted to the movie itself. But the likeability of CHICAGO might have moved some voters to choose the lone new tune in the film. The Animated Feature category is ludicrous already in only its second year of existence. I don't know anyone who considered TREASURE PLANET "best" anything. Here's hoping all the wonderful things I've heard about SPIRITED AWAY lead to an upset against the hopelessly commercial competition.
MD:
Vardalos and her BIG FAT blockbuster is most definitely the least awards-worthy in the Original Screenplay race, but I can't imagine the film not winning this, its only shot at formal recognition of the night. FAR FROM HEAVEN was a major also-ran in the nominations race, and its support is waning with each second; the GANGS OF NEW YORK nomination feels like a piggy-back nod, considering its battery of rewrites (and all the scars to show for it); Y TU MAMÁ TAMBIÉN is well-regarded but came out so long ago, not to mention there's the whole foreign language issue--which will also count against TALK TO HER. While there has been some sort of groundswell for Almodóvar, one has to keep in mind what was perhaps the biggest reason why WEDDING became such a smash in the first place: it played extremely well to older audiences, and given the not-entirely-inaccurate perception of the Academy as being a group of old folks, that fact cannot be discounted.
Over on the Adapted end, I see it being a three-horse race. ABOUT A BOY's luck begins and ends with its surprise nod; THE PIANIST is seen more as a triumph of acting and direction that writing. CHICAGO-mania could carry along Bill Condon's savvy and faithful adaptation, but that latter quality also makes his work all too easy to overlook. That leaves ADAPTATION. and THE HOURS, and while the writing categories are traditionally where experimentation and true originality is rewarded, Hare's work in adapting a famously "unfilmable" novel looks likely to trump that of Charlie Kaufman and his dearly departed twin bro Donald.
Eminem had maybe one shot (albeit very slim) at winning the Original Song trophy, but he missed his chance when word got out that he wouldn't appear, let alone perform, on the show. Other clear-cut also-rans in this category are "Burn It Blue" from FRIDA, which made for a nice end credits tie to the film's final image, but good luck finding enough people who remember the song; and "Father and Daughter" from THE WILD THORNBERRYS MOVIE, which may be too obscure to benefit the Baby Boomer goodwill for Paul Simon. In the final GANGS versus CHICAGO showdown, the latter wins, if nothing else because it's a musical. The Original Score category is a little harder to call. However, John Williams's cool jazz score for the Spielberg film handily beats Philip Glass's THE HOURS in the end for one simple reason: I can't think of anyone who found the music in CATCH ME IF YOU CAN annoying, which is a complaint often leveled against THE HOURS.
My fear regarding this year's Animated Feature category seems to have come to pass. Hayao Miyazaki's critics' darling SPIRITED AWAY is clearly the most audacious, ambitious work of the lot, but it needed a big campaign by distributor Disney to take the trophy. Alas, the Mouse not so surprisingly decided to favor one of its two homegrown nominees, LILO & STITCH (the other, the megaflop TREASURE PLANET, is a rightful non-factor), and I think its rather omnipresent campaign (since the nomination announcement, there has been a noticeable glut of commercials--all playing up the nomination--for the months-old video and DVD airing on local television) will push it past its closest competitor, Fox's hit ICE AGE. DreamWorks's SPIRIT: STALLION OF THE CIMARRON is also getting a pretty aggressive push, but considering not one of Bryan Adams's many (awful) plot-driving tunes failed to score a spot in the Original Song category, I don't think it'll be enough. Or, at least, I hope it won't be enough.
THE BIG SIX
Supporting Actor
DM: Chris Cooper, ADAPTATION.
MD: Christopher Walken, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN
DM:
Well-deserved kudos to a very crucial part in ADAPTATION. This gets to be a tighter race every day, however.
MD
Three nominees can be eliminated right off the bat: CHICAGO's John C. Reilly, who got one good song number and little else to play; THE HOURS's scenery-inhaling Ed Harris, whose presence here mystifies me; and ROAD TO PERDITION's Paul Newman, whose fine work and enduring appeal is counteracted by a film that is seen as an underachiever (including in the nominations race). I give Walken the edge over Cooper since, I think, the against-type work of the well-liked Walken in a widely-seen film will speak louder for voters than a funny wig and teeth, on which Cooper's performance can easily (and unfairly) be written off as being dependent.
Supporting Actress
DM: Catherine Zeta-Jones, CHICAGO
MD: Catherine Zeta-Jones, CHICAGO
DM:
Many are singling her out as THE best part of the movie.
MD
No use in doing the whole elimination rigamarole here--it's Mrs. Douglas or bust. ADAPTATION.'s Meryl Streep is poised to be the spoiler, but that issue is moot.
Actor
DM: Adrien Brody, THE PIANIST
MD: Daniel Day-Lewis, GANGS OF NEW YORK
DM:
If I'm going to fall on my face, let's make it big. Something keeps nagging me that Brody can pull this off. Who seems to give a crap ABOUT SCHMIDT anymore? All the praise for Jack Nicholson was somewhat deserved, but was more hype than anything. Everyone has been talking about Daniel Day-Lewis who was spectacular in GANGS OF NEW YORK, but support is flagging for the film, I think. Love for THE PIANIST seems up, and Brody has been highly praised. It's not even that wild of bet, with ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY giving him 3-1 odds, same as Jim Broadbent's odds last year.
MD:
First, the easy write-off: weeping in a bathroom stall (and a fairly muted Miramax push) can only take you so far, so goodbye, Michael Caine. Nicolas Cage's two-pronged performance in ADAPTATION. was indeed great, but ADAPTATION. is simply too devisive a film. If ABOUT SCHMIDT fared better overall in terms of nominations, Nicholson would perhaps be the front-runner the media continues to inacccurately peg him as being (that very recent, very undeserved win for AS GOOD AS IT GETS is an additional strike against him). Brody's bravura turn has come-out-of-nowhere victory written all over it, but ongoing controversy may discourage Academy members from wanting to recognize director Roman Polanski in any oblique way. And then there's the fact that THE PIANIST wouldn't be as widely seen as GANGS OF NEW YORK, swinging the odds decidedly in favor of a deserving Day-Lewis.
Actress
DM: Nicole Kidman, THE HOURS
MD: Renée Zellweger, CHICAGO
DM:
Very tight race. Perhaps the tightest of the year. Everyone except Salma Hayek has a shot. I would love to see Julianne Moore take away a highly deserved award, but all the talk about how great she is seems to have vanished into the Twilight Zone. Support is definitely up for the wonderful Renée Zellweger, but Nicole Kidman has turned into something of a buzz magnet over the past couple years. Even though THE HOURS hasn't lived up to expectations in some eyes, Kidman has surpassed them. Anyone who wants to champion Acting! should be voting for her.
MD:
Of the five nominees, I'm probably rooting for Hayek. Not that I think she's the best here, mind you (I'd say Moore is); I think it would be a nice vote of support for her consistently underrated talent, but moreover I just think it would be cool to have two Revlon spokespeople win this award in consecutive years. Yes, I'm that shallow. Seriously, though, Hayek unfortunately has no realistic shot, and Moore's chances are only marginally better, as are those for UNFAITHFUL's Diane Lane. Much has been made about Lane getting the "well-liked Hollywood veteran makes good" vote, but let's get real here--does anyone want to give a film as horrific as UNFAITHFUL one of the industry's highest honors? It certainly doesn't help that Lane's quite fine Oscar clip scene is intercut with ridiculous shots of co-star Olivier Martinez blowing on her belly and crotch. And so it's Kidman and Zellweger in a down-to-the-wire race. Zellweger's somewhat surprising Screen Actors Guild Award win proves to me that the CHICAGO love really is that widespread, and I think that will carry her past Kidman and her prosthetic nose.
Director
DM: Rob Marshall, CHICAGO
MD: Martin Scorsese, GANGS OF NEW YORK
DM:
CHICAGO's been in development for years with big-name directors, but first-timer Marshall got it done. He also pulled off something few people expected to work, and made it look effortless. Supposedly Harvey Weinstein of Miramax has been personally crusading for Martin Scorsese to win for GANGS OF NEW YORK, but Roger Ebert be damned, Scorsese does not deserve it. Or more precisely, GANGS does not deserve it. If Scorsese can manage another masterwork to stand alongside RAGING BULL and GOODFELLAS, he can take this award then. Not this year. And I think that vibe is out among the Academy as well. I mean, the Directors' Guild picked Marshall over Scorsese!
MD:
I think the DGA's favoring of Marshall over Scorsese is misleading; after all, this year they gave Scorsese a lifetime achievement award, so there was no need to bestow onto him the award proper for this year. So despite some vocal, valid voices of dissent, I think Miramax will successfully guilt Academy voters into voting for Marty even though GANGS was far from his finest hour. Marshall is still very much in the picture, though, unlike the other nominees: THE PIANIST's Roman Polanski (too controversial); THE HOURS's Stephen Daldry (also too controversial, given his threat to give a political speech should he win); and TALK TO HER's Pedro Almodóvar (too foreign).
Picture
DM: CHICAGO
MD: CHICAGO
DM:
I knew back in January it had the stuff Oscar is made of, as well as the luck of arriving in a fairly weak year. Upswell for THE PIANIST is the only serious challenger.
MD:
History shows that any studio co-production nominated for Best Picture takes home the crown: see SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (Miramax/Universal) in 1998, GLADIATOR (DreamWorks/Universal) in 2000 and A BEAUTIFUL MIND (Universal/DreamWorks) in 2001. THE HOURS has that distinction this year, but look for the unstoppable CHICAGO to break the streak. That said, if an upset is in the offing, it will be THE HOURS--THE TWO TOWERS's absence in other major categories count it out immediately; GANGS OF NEW YORK is too uneven (and will get its recognition elsewhere); and THE PIANIST suffers from Focus Features' inability to match the high-rolling campaigns for the two front-runners.
FINAL THOUGHTS
MD:
I just hope the current world situation won't make for an overly heavy atmosphere. If the awards are already a trial to sit through when at full festive blast, imagine how unbearable it would be with a somber tone. But then again, the whole idea of a de-glitzed Oscars is oddly fascinating, and maybe that'll make for a bizarrely watchable event. I hope.
DM:
With CHICAGO pretty much guaranteed to win Best Picture, Oscar Night will feel a bit anti-climactic. I was going to place odds on whether war would lead to a postponement of the Academy Awards, but the producers seem determined for the show to go on. Which leaves only one other question: How long will the damn thing last? They promised to be over by midnight. They promised! No way, I say. Well, a month ago, I'd believe it, but in the current climate, the show will most definitely run over. Look for something in the neighborhood of three hours and forty-eight minutes.
That wouldn't happen on the East Coast.
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR |
ARCHIVES
