THE 2002 OSCARS

In that spirit, let's give the Academy a hand at picking out the winners:

I haven't seen The Pianist, and just between you and me that situation isn't likely to change any time soon. But then, most of the members of the Academy haven't seen it either, so unless it pulls a Chariots of Fire out of the hat, we can safely dismiss it from consideration. The second Lord of the Rings movie wasn't bad, but it's hardly Best Picture material. That it's a sequel to a nonwinner will make it very difficult for the snobby Academy to vote for it ("It just doesn't have good breeding, Wadsworth!"), and there really should be some kind of rule automatically eliminating movies with a colon in their title. The Hours was absolutely wretched, and is a better candidate for the Razzies than the Oscars. Hopefully, it's on the list only to satisfy the Academy's mandate of always having at least one shitty movie among the nominees. That it won the Golden Globe award for Best Picture is just further ammunition against it. Who in their right mind really gives a damn what the foreign press thinks of American movies? Which leaves us with Gangs of New York and Chicago. GONY was a well-made film, and fits the historical epic mold that the Academy often leans toward, so I give it an outside chance. But Chicago was both the proverbial artistic triumph and also downright entertaining, and I get the feeling it's going to round up an armful of gold statuettes on Oscar night.

What I think should win: Chicago
What I think will win: Chicago
What I pray won't win or I'm moving to Canada: The Hours

UPDATE: The Oscar goes to Chicago. Woohoo!

Michael Caine is good in everything he does, which rather works against him here. His performance in The Quiet American is par for the course for him, which means it isn't distinctive enough in itself to attract sufficient voters. Plus it was deliberately understated, whereas the Academy usually goes for over the top. Sorry, Michael. Adrien, didn't see your movie, but I heard it was good. Nicholas Cage already earned an (undeserved) Oscar for Leaving Las Vegas, and there's an unwritten Academy rule of only one charity award per person. (If Julia Roberts ever wins again, you'll know this rule has been rescinded.) Jack Nicholson turned in a good day's work in About Schmidt, but I think he too much played Jack Nicholson to earn him the hearts of the voters. Daniel Day-Lewis didn't look or sound anything like Daniel Day-Lewis, which usually is enough to sway the Academy by itself, but the added prestige of the performance coming in a Martin Scorsese film should seal the victory for him.

Who I think should win: No preference
Who I think will win: Daniel Day-Lewis
Outside shot: Jack Nicholson

UPDATE: The Oscar goes to Adrien Brody. ADRIEN BRODY?!

Best Actress nominees: Diane Lane (Unfaithful), Julianne Moore (Far From Heaven), Salma Hayek (Frida), Nicole Kidman (The Hours), Renee Zellweger (Chicago)

As far as the actresses are concerned, I'm in a bit of a conundrum. Renee Zellweger certainly lit up the stage in Chicago, but it was mostly her singing and dancing which impressed. Does this count as acting? We need a ruling here. Nicole Kidman was adequate in The Hours, but every scene just called for her to be morose. I didn't witness a whole lot of acting range, is what I'm saying. I didn't screen any of the other three films, so I can't offer you any help there. Diane Lane's nomination is a bit interesting, because if I remember rightly Unfaithful largely got thrashed by the critics. Usually even good performances get overlooked if the film itself gets panned.

Who I think should win: No preference
Who I think will win: I'll be as surprised as you
Actress I'd most like to see naked: Diane Lane

UPDATE: The Oscar goes to Nicole Kidman.

Paul Newman already won this category for The Color of Money, and knowing what we do about charity awards (see above), that should eliminate him here. And Newman's Oscar for The Color of Money was the biggest undeserved gift the Academy ever bestowed on a Hollywood favorite son. However, here's where it gets complicated: Newman actually deserves to be nominated this time, and there are no obvious standout performances among the other nominees. John C. Reilly is an excellent actor, and he always gives it his all even when the movie blows. But was his part in Chicago really substantial enough to merit an Oscar? Ed Harris is another fine actor, and a supporting nom would've been quite appropriate for several of his past efforts. But not here. Not now. Please, not for this one. Of all the nominees, Christopher Walken's performance in Catch Me If You Can played the most integral part in the film, so he gets the nod here.

Who I think should win: Christopher Walken
Who I think will win: Christopher Walken
Outside shot: Paul Newman

UPDATE: The Oscar goes to Chris Cooper. Also, I've been reminded that Newman's Oscar for The Color of Money was actualy for Best Actor, not Best Supporting Actor. Which makes me wonder what the Academy thought Tom Cruise was doing in the movie.

Best Supporting Actress nominees: Kathy Bates (About Schmidt), Julianne Moore (The Hours), Meryl Streep (Adaptation), Catherine Zeta-Jones (Chicago), Queen Latifah (Chicago)

Okay, I've been politely restrained up until now, but here's where I get angry. What idiot had the bright idea of putting Catherine Zeta-Jones in the Supporting Actress category?! Dude, she MADE Chicago, even more than Renee Zellweger did. She's more of a lead actress in Chicago than some of the Best Actress nominees are in their respective films. Do the Academy members purposely go out of their way to look like jackasses? Not only does Zeta-Jones get screwed, but so do the other Supporting Actress nominees because now they have no chance whatsoever. Think there's any possibility the voters will select Queen Latifah (who did a good job, by the way) over Zeta-Jones in the same movie?

Who I think should win: Catherine Zeta-Jones
Who I think will win: Catherine Zeta-Jones
Should be shot: The Academy

UPDATE: The Oscar goes to Catherine Zeta-Jones.

Best Visual Effects nominees: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Spider-Man, Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones

The way the technical categories work is that the nominees are selected by a subgroup of Academy members who are knowledgeable on the subject. Then the entire Academy membership is allowed to vote on who should win. Ideally, this allows the subgroup to narrow the field to only those films truly deserving of recognition, while at the same time allowing the full membership to select from that small field. Unfortunately, this often results in the most popular film of the group being chosen rather than the most deserving. In this year's visual effects category, this shouldn't be a problem, since all three nominees were widely popular at the box office. Plus, none of them showcased groundbreaking effects this time around, so there's no one to get undeservedly slighted. My only complaint here is that Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was ignored; although it wasn't a particularly satisfying movie, its visual effects were probably superior to any of the three finalists. While we're at it, The Sum of All Fears sported some outstanding miniature work, which traditionally falls under "visual effects" as far as the Academy is concerned. As for the films that were nominated, I give "Star Wars" credit for at least being a marked improvement over its predecessor. Spider-Man attempted what is still one of the harder computer animation tasks: rendering moving people realistically (in this case, swinging from one skyscraper to the next). Having said that, the final product was still not up to the quality of its two competitors. The effects in "Lord of the Rings" were very competent, although in my book points should be deducted from any film featuring talking trees. If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say the Academy will pick "The Lord of the Rings," because the Star Wars franchise is getting old (and is thus perceived as less "cutting edge"), and "Spider-Man" lacks the scope of the other two films.

Who I think should win: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (write-in ballot)
Who I think will win: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

UPDATE: The Oscar goes to The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.

Best Cinematography nominees: Chicago, Far From Heaven, Road to Perdition, Gangs of New York, The Pianist

Road to Perdition should be docked points for that pretentious scene where all the guys get mowed down in the rain in slow motion. Unfortunately, that's probably the scene that got it nominated. Didn't see Far From Heaven or The Pianist, but I assume all the shots were in focus and properly exposed. Gangs of New York owes its nomination in this category to the tremendous sets which the camera trucked around and through - more a credit to the sets than the camerawork. Chicago seems the natural choice here because the cinematography made a major contribution to the successful artsy look of the film, and I have a feeling Chicago is going to take home the gold in all the artistic categories. I should warn you, though, the last time I made predictions (1999), I used similar reasoning to conclude Sleepy Hollow was a lock for best cinematography, and it lost.

Who I think should win: Chicago
Who I think will win: Chicago

UPDATE: The Oscar goes to Road to Perdition. Major shocker.

Best Film Editing nominees: Chicago, The Hours, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Gangs of New York, The Pianist

As I've stated elsewhere, good editing generally goes unnoticed. Only in the cases where it's egregiously awful (e.g., Battlefield Earth, Red Planet) does anyone who isn't a professional editor even think about it. Having said that, I did notice the editing in the musical numbers in Chicago, because the cuts integrated so well with the overall feeling of the music. Here was an instance which allowed the editing to be emphasized, rather than being relegated to the background. So I think it's the obvious choice for the winner of this category. "Lord of the Rings" has an outside chance, mainly because of its format of multiple stories happening simultaneously - the cuts between stories thus call attention to themselves. I'll give Gangs of New York an outside shot as well, only because Martin Scorsese is so notoriously finicky about the editing of his films. Some of the Academy members of lesser intellect may vote for "Gangs" based solely on Scorsese's reputation. Whatever possessed them to nominate The Hours in this category is a complete mystery to me. The movie clunked along like a train with square wheels.

Who I think should win: Chicago
Who I think will win: Chicago

UPDATE: The Oscar goes to Chicago.

And, finally...

Best Director nominees: Rob Marshall (Chicago), Roman Polanski (The Pianist), Stephen Daldry (The Hours), Martin Scorsese (Gangs of New York), Pedro Almodovar (Talk to Her)

Best Picture and Best Director are so deeply intertwined, I could never understand how a movie could be nominated in one category and not the other. For example, how can director Pedro Almodovar be nominated, but his film Talk to Her be ignored? Are they saying, "Your direction was awesome, unfortunately the film sucked"? Or in the case of "Lord of the Rings," I guess they're implying, "It was a good movie, in spite of its director." From my point of view, since I voted for Chicago as best picture, Rob Marshall deserves best director. There's a bit of an undercurrent going around that "Gee, Martin Scorsese has done all these fine films, but never won an Oscar. And he's getting on in years." That kind of thinking scares me, because it occasionally leads to the charity Oscar we all scorn. And in spite of all the press given Scorsese's behind the scenes battles with his producers for the sake of the artistic integrity of his film, I don't regard the finished product as being particularly Oscar worthy. With regard to the others, I'm not even sure Roman Polanski is allowed in the United States, which would create a public relations nightmare for the Academy if he were to win. And Stephen Daldry should simply be run out of town on a rail, or at least not be allowed to make any more movies.

Who I think should win: Rob Marshall
Who I think will win: Martin Scorsese

UPDATE: The Oscar goes to Roman Polanski. Now I've seen everything.

The winners will be announced in a dreadfully overhyped and drawn-out awards ceremony on Sunday, March 23. Let's hope there's something worth going to see at the movies that night.

Copyright © 2003 by the Net-Monster. All rights reserved.