THE 2003 OSCARS

If Seabiscuit wins, we'll have to endure a furlong of bad headlines the following morning. "Seabiscuit Wins By A Nose!" "Seabiscuit Rallies For An Upset!" "Seabiscuit Gallops To Victory!" You get the idea. Still, it would be a small price to pay to see what's by far the best film in this year's category receive its deserved recognition.

The third "Lord of the Rings" installment has the back-to-back Best Picture losses of its two predecessors hanging around its neck like an albatross, but the buzz this year places it as the odds-on favorite. The irony is that LOTR 3 wasn't even as good as LOTR 2, but once the Hollywood hype machine gets rolling in high gear, no amount of reality placed in its path can divert it.

"Master and Commander" is a rather curious selection. By no means is it a bad film, but there's also nothing about it which suggests "Best Picture." The story is nothing special, and the scope falls far short of epic proportions. Yes, the acting was good, but that's what the "Best Acting" category is supposed to be for.

Mystic River is an interesting yet seriously flawed film, overflowing with metaphor but coming up short on entertainment value. Plus it plays false with its audience. It may be a long shot as the dark horse in the race, but I wouldn't bet on it. (Hey, these horseracing metaphors are fun! )

Then there's Lost in Translation, whose presence proves yet again what I say every year: There's always one absolutely lousy movie among the Best Picture nominees. Why this is, I've yet to completely fathom, but it happens too regularly to be an accident. Perhaps there's a small group of elitist snobs among the nominating committee, who feel the only way they can distinguish themselves from the unwashed masses is by endorsing a movie so awful that it must indicate advanced aesthetics to appreciate it. How else to explain such past nominees as The Hours? Why didn't they just go all out and nominate Elephant while they were at it? Reminds me of a story about a king and his new garments. Fortunately, The Motion Picture Academy as a whole has seen through this veneer of baloney the past few years, so let's hope they relegate Lost in Translation to the also-rans.

What I think should win: Seabiscuit
What I think will win: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
What I pray won't win or I'm joining the Communist party: Lost in Translation

The filmmakers apparently never got the memo that Pirates of the Caribbean was supposed to be a cheap gimmick piece, and instead turned around and made one of the best movies of the year. When I first saw Depp's performance, I frankly had reservations about it because it seemed more than a little over the top. After further viewings, I'll concede it works well within the framework of the rest of the film. What I'm now wondering is whether Depp was brilliant enough to foresee how his campy performance would complement the unearthly happenings in the story, or whether he was just hamming up a part he felt was beneath him (as so many "name" actors are wont to do). I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here, and say he deserves the Oscar.

Ben Kingsley was certainly competent, but I didn't think the role was particularly demanding. Kingsley also suffers from "Michael Caine Affliction," where his performance is understatedly superb in every role he tackles. Enough to make him a standard staple among the Oscar nominees, but not sufficiently differentiated from his other performances to earn this one stand-out recognition.

I believe Jude Law was nominated because historical dramas seem like the type of film where the actors should get nominated - i.e., the roles are perceived as prestigious and important. And high-brow. Law's chances may additionally suffer from a backlash caused by the public stink over Cold Mountain not receiving a Best Picture nomination, which isn't fair to him.

Sean Penn was okay in Mystic River, but he's far too controversial at the present time to garner wide support. Plus, I don't think his performance was really anything special.

Last, and certainly least, is Bill Murray's one-note "woe is me because I'm so very very bored in this foreign city where they talk funny" performance. The wallowing in self-pity tack certainly paid off in Oscar gold for Nicolas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas, of which Lost in Translation is virtually a carbon copy in many respects, so we can't rule out the Academy pulling another similarly boneheaded move here. Murray's also got the "he's been a part of Hollywood for so many years we really should give him an Oscar" sentiment going in his favor, just like Cage did. Of course, being the nephew of Francis Ford Coppola didn't hurt Cage's chances either, unless you think the Oscars are completely devoid of Hollywood politics. Fortunately, no one involved in Lost in Translation is in any way related to Coppola, so that shouldn't be an issue in the voting this year.

Who I think should win: Johnny Depp
Who I think will win: Bill Murray
Notable omissions: Jeff Bridges, Chris Cooper (Seabiscuit)

Best Actress nominees: Keisha Castle-Hughes (Whale Rider), Diane Keaton (Something's Gotta Give), Samantha Morton (In America), Charlize Theron (Monster), Naomi Watts (21 Grams)

I think Charlize Theron probably has this category locked up, based upon the tremendous change in appearance she undertook for her lead role in Monster. That type of radical departure from one's previous roles (and one's appearance in previous roles) has historically found favor with the members of the Academy. And Theron's acting was certainly effective, also, so she deserves the award as much as anyone.

Whale Rider was out so long ago, I barely remember much of Castle-Hughes' performance, and I suspect many members of the Academy are in the same canoe. Maybe some will actually bother to watch their screener DVDs before posting them on the internet.

I didn't see Something's Gotta Give, and I'm eternally thankful for it, so I can't comment on Keaton's performance.

Haven't seen In America yet, either - for some reason I have this problem every year in the actress categories. The best actresses should make an attempt to work in better movies.

Naomi Watts was believable in 21 Grams, but I'm forced to wonder if her decision to appear topless earned her points from some voters as "dedication to her craft." Normally, I'd think of a topless scene as decreasing viewers' respect for the actress (topless actress = brainless bimbo), but somehow when it happens in a small artsy independent film, it supposedly has artistic merit. Especially if that film is thoroughly depressing. Go figure. Or go ask Halle Berry.

I was kind of surprised Jennifer Connelly wasn't nominated for House of Sand and Fog. Never mind her skilled performance, just that shot of her in the see-through bra should've merited an award. Possibly, she was overlooked because she just won Best Supporting Actress two years ago for A Beautiful Mind. Or maybe people still partially blame her for The Hulk.

Who I think should win: No preference
Who I think will win: Charlize Theron
Notable omissions: Jennifer Connelly (House of Sand and Fog)

No strong opinions in this category. Del Toro could just as easily have been placed in the Best Actor category, which usually indicates an unfair advantage over the other nominees who had smaller roles. On the other hand, Tim Robbins is in the exact same situation. How can anyone who saw Mystic River decide that Sean Penn was the lead actor and Tim Robbins played only a supporting role? Their contributions to the film were darn near identical. Plus, Robbins should earn extra accolades for being able to deliver that vampire speech with a straight face.

Geoffrey Rush should definitely have been nominated for Pirates of the Caribbean. The dry wit with which he delivered his lines is what made many of the scenes so successful.

Who I think should win: No preference
Who I think will win: We'll both be surprised
Notable omissions: Geoffrey Rush (Pirates of the Caribbean)

Best Supporting Actress nominees: Shohreh Aghdashloo (House of Sand and Fog), Patricia Clarkson (Pieces of April), Marcia Gay Harden (Mystic River), Holly Hunter (Thirteen), Renee Zellweger (Cold Mountain)

Not much to add here, other than to ask what in the hell is Pieces of April? That, and Zellweger's performance is the kind of offbeat, attention-grabbing stint that attracts golden statuettes like Rochester attracts snow.

Who I think should win: No preference
Who I think will win: Renee Zellweger

Best Visual Effects nominees: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, Pirates of the Caribbean

Cribbing from last year's write-up, which is still quite appropriate:

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.

Lord of the Rings features a mixed bag of visual effects. Some are well conceived and rendered. Many others look surprisingly cheap and hurried. Absolutely none of them are anything we haven't seen many times before, in movies such as Starship Troopers, Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, The Harry Potter films, and The Matrix Revolutions.

Care to guess which film the Academy picks?

Who I think should win: Pirates of the Caribbean
Who I think will win: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Notable omissions: The Matrix Revolutions

Best Cinematography nominees: City of God, Cold Mountain, Girl With a Pearl Earring, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, Seabiscuit

Hmmm, I'm really surprised "Lord of the Rings" didn't make the cut here. Usually beautiful outdoor scenery (and mountains! and lush, green valleys!) translates into kudos for the cinematography. This is sort of what's happening in the nomination for Cold Mountain. I'm not saying this is wrong or unfair, just that outdoor landscapes tend to get the cinematography noticed.

I've proven a jinx in my two previous attempts to decipher this category. Both times, I thought there was a clear and obvious winner, and both times I've been wrong. So this go 'round I'm keeping my mouth shut.

And what's up with The Last Samurai being left out?

Who I think should win: I'm not gonna say
Who I think will win: Whoever I don't pick
Notable omissions: The Last Samurai

And, to wrap things up for another year...

Best Director nominees: Fernando Meirelles (City of God), Peter Jackson (The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King), Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation), Peter Weir (Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World), Clint Eastwood (Mystic River)

I haven't seen City of God, so it could conceivably be the greatest thing since flavored envelopes, but if Meirelles wins Best Director I'm sure I won't be the only one with his jaw resting on the floor.

Peter Jackson appears to be the early favorite. Yet he was completely snubbed in this category last year (for reasons I don't pretend to understand), so I'm wondering if maybe he has less than universal support among the Academy members.

The best measure of Sofia Coppola's directing ability is to screen Lost in Translation for yourself. Enough said.

I'm really not sure what the Academy found so enthralling about "Master and Commander," particularly since they saw fit to disregard the performances of Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany, which were the strongest parts of the movie. It's therefore hard for me to get too excited about Peter Weir's directing here. It's certainly competent, but it can't be said to have made the movie, since the movie itself is nothing spectacular.

Which leaves us with... Clint Eastwood? He's directed some good movies in the past, but awarding him Best Director for Mystic River is stretching things.

So what to do? How about giving Best Director to the person who not only made a great movie, but whose directorial style greatly contributed to that film's effectiveness? That would be Gary Ross, for Seabiscuit. That Ross is not included among the nominees is perhaps this year's most damning proof of the irrelevance of the whole Oscar awards system.

Who I think should win: Gary Ross (write-in ballot)
Who I think will win: Peter Jackson

The Awards ceremony will be held on Sunday, February 29.

Copyright © 2004 by the Net-Monster. All rights reserved.