One evening last December,
as I sat in an overheated Whistler, B.C., multiplex chamber watching the last few minutes of "The Last Samurai," a lovely dream wafted across my consciousness: Wouldn't it be beautiful if Ken Watanabe, who was giving such a gracious and witty performance in the title role, got nominated for an Academy Award and Tom Cruise, who may have thought he was playing the title role, didn't?
I wished more and more that my dream might come true after I'd returned to the States and encountered morning-show host after afternoon-show guest after evening-show entertainment reporter wondering aloud, with a throb in the voice and a tear in the eye, whether Tom was finally going to get "his" Oscar.
O for Jon "Daily Show" Stewart to freeze the picture at any of those moments and say, in his inimitably absurdity-blasting way, "'His' Oscar? Dude, the guy sucked!"
As far as I know, Stewart never did that. And when the Golden Globes agglomeration of gossip hounds, caterers and busboys announced their nominations, there was Cruise among the candidates for best-actor-in-a-drama honors. (Which cued the real drama: Would Nicole have to present the award to her ex on a goldenly global international telecast?)
Still, there is a God. Cruise didn't win at the Globs on Jan. 25. And when, at 5:30 a.m. Pacific time two days later, the Oscar nominations were announced, Ken Watanabe got a supporting-actor nod and Cruise got bupkes.
Might it have gone otherwise? In years past there has been time for the Golden Globes - a ludicrous affair but a great occasion for everyone in Hollywood to get giddily smashed and not worry about acting dignified - to have an influence on the Academy's nominating process. Not so in 2004.
This year Oscar Night has been moved up a month, to Feb. 29, and the interval between the announcement of the nominations and the presentation of the awards shortened from more than six weeks to just a month. The ballots had long since been collected when the Globs were handed out. The aim of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences board of governors was to narrow the window for studios' and candidates' lobbying, electioneering and advertising in the trade papers - not to mention de facto or out-and-out bribery - to ensure there will be fewer unseemly scandals unworthy of a great industry: Not quite so multi-many multimillion dollars spent by Harvey Weinstein to wheedle awards for Miramax releases. Less time to drag out skeletons in the closet such as Roman Polanski's late-'70s debauching of a barely teenage girl. No threats to kidnap Russell Crowe (who in any event isn't nominated this year).
However effective or ineffective the governors' new strategy proves to be, and whatever the results on Feb. 29, the 76th Academy Awards are shaping up to be, slot for slot, a gratifyingly credible contest. There's no "Chicago" - an obscenely specious artifact that became the second-worst film ever to win best picture - to dominate the nominations (and maybe embarrass even the Academy voters who chose it as picture of the year: Polanski's "The Pianist" copped the for-real achievement awards in 2002's best-direction, screenplay and lead actor categories). The big gasp at the predawn nominations press event came at the realization that Miramax's certified Oscar-kit contender, the tepid "Cold Mountain," though nominated for only one fewer Oscars than its eight Golden Globes mentions, got left out in the cold in picture and direction.
Of course there are disappointing omissions. "American Splendor," the choice of the National Society of Film Critics and our own Seattle Film Critics as best film of 2003, was entirely shut out except for screenplay (the likeliest category for an independent production to score a token nomination). The one American indie to figure prominently in the running is "Lost in Translation," the pleasant but very minor sophomore effort of Sofia Coppola. Perhaps nominating a Coppola is just an ingrained habit. Also, the non-American indie attention accorded last year to "Talk to Her" and "Y tu mamá también" this year went to the exciting, prodigiously inventive Brazilian movie "City of God," including a directing nomination. Fine by me.
To the major categories, then. -
Best Picture
In all of Academy history there's never been a situation like this. "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" shapes up to win (as it's already won the award of the comparatively stodgy New York Film Critics Circle) - not because "LotR: King" is the single best film released in 2003, but because it's going to cash in on the goodwill and cumulative high regard for the entire, one-film-in-three J.R.R. Tolkien trilogy that's been coming out for the past three Decembers. This is one towering class act: an astounding sustained effort in state-of-the-art filmmaking by a cottage industry in New Zealand, the best argument for hi-tech imagemaking since "Titanic" in 1997, a stirring affirmation of the human spirit, and an irresistible, if partly inadvertent, post-9/11 allegory of the war between Good and Evil. It must win.
Even in the eyes of someone who fervently believes that "Mystic River" is the greater film, and the hands-down best movie of 2003. I've written enough about Clint Eastwood's masterpiece as the epitome of classical filmmaking in the noble, richly complex tradition of John Ford, et al. The picture has six nominations, and just as fervently I hope it collects on most of them. If it does, I can spare this one to Peter Jackson & Co.
For the record, my third choice would be Peter Weir's wellnigh-unimprovable, timelessly swell maritime adventure "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" (10 nominations, and I wish Russell Crowe had made it 11). "Lost in Translation" is a nice little movie filled with lovely moments. "Seabiscuit," a pleasant entertainment with an irresistible true history to relate, boasts splendid horse-racing sequences but unfortunately stops every two minutes to restate its themes in dismayingly flatfooted fashion.
Best Direction
Please let this be one of those years when picture and direction go their separate ways (an increasingly frequent phenomenon in recent years). All praise to Peter Jackson, but no one deserves it more than Clint Eastwood, the finest American film director alive. Peter Weir ("Master and Commander") and Fernando Meirelles ("City of God") are also worthy nominees. Sofia Coppola is number five; better they should have honored the awesome, still-evolving talent of Quentin Tarantino ("Kill Bill - Vol. 1").
Best Actor in a Leading Role
Johnny Depp's delightful shenanigans in "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl" is actorish doodling. Ben Kingsley gives a subtle and dignified performance in "The House of Sand and Fog," a film that blends erratic filmmaking and empty pretentiousness. Jude Law, a fine, charismatic actor, displays little fineness or charisma in "Cold Mountain." Bill Murray belongs in the race, but was better in two movies he should have been nominated for and wasn't, "Groundhog Day" (1993) and "Rushmore" (1998). That leaves Sean Penn, "Mystic River," who would belong at the top of the list even if the competition were better. And better that competition should have included Paul Giamatti as Harvey Pekar in "American Splendor."
Best Actress in a Leading Role
Naomi Watts' nomination for "21 Grams" was one of Oscar's happiest surprises; the film has been given short shrift by most awards-voting groups so far. Her naked vulnerability and power make her the front-runner in my book, though probably not the Academy's. Look for Charlize Theron, whose acting has been underrated so often because she's so stunningly gorgeous, to take home the prize for "Monster." I'm leery of prosthesis-enhanced, weight-gain performances, but she gets inside every tortured nuance of serial killer Aileen Wuornos.
Confession: I still haven't seen "Something's Gotta Give," but I don't doubt that Diane Keaton rates her nomination. Samantha Morton is strong as always as the Irish-émigrée wife and mother in "In America." Thirteen-year-old Keisha Castle-Hughes has two great expressions, but they're enough to get her only about halfway through "Whale Rider." In a year of remarkable juvenile portrayals, hers ranks sixth or seventh.
Best Actor in a Supporting Role
The only thing wrong with nominating Tim Robbins for his heartbreaking work as the grown victim of childhood trauma in "Mystic River" is that by rights he ought to be slugging it out with costar Sean Penn for best actor. My second preference is (and was in the Seattle Film Critics balloting) Benicio Del Toro in "21 Grams." Ken Watanabe ... see above. That leaves Alec Baldwin in "The Cooler," storming his way admirably through possibly the phoniest movie of the year, and Djimon Hounsou, overrated in a showcase role in "In America." Sean Astin should be here for his Samwise Gangee in "LoTR" - coming into his own as a full-fledged character in "Return of the King," but he brought tears to my eyes hymning the grandeur of storytelling in a dark age in 2002's "The Two Towers."
Best Actress in a Supporting Role
I'll sit this one out. Again, sins of omission: I still haven't seen "Pieces of April," with Patricia Clarkson, and "Thirteen," with the oft-nominated Holly Hunter. Renée Zellweger's gonna get it for the shamelessly Oscar-targeted Ruby in "Cold Mountain." Marcia Gay Harden should be getting it as Tim Robbins' wife in "Mystic River." Iranian actress Shohreh Aghdashloo is fine in "House of Sand and Fog," but her nomination seems slightly tokenish as an internationalist gesture.
Now, what about the Bolger girls, either or both, but especially the elder Sarah, in "In America"? She was the moral and emotional center of that movie, with more gravitas than most adult players this year. (She was 10 at the time.)
Best Original Screenplay
Brian Helgeland, best adapted screenplay for "Mystic River," would suit me right down to the ground, but "American Splendor" is the most dazzling script effort of the year. Probably both will lose to "LotR: King," unless they throw it to the undeserving "Seabiscuit" as a something-for-everyone prize.
My favorite for original screenplay would be, of all things, "Finding Nemo" (my personal choice, "21 Grams," isn't nominated). Look for Sofia Coppola to claim it for "Lost in Translation."
The best-photographed film of the year, "Kill Bill" (DP Robert Richardson), isn't nominated for best cinemography. All the nominees are creditable; I'd vote for Russell Boyd's work on "Master and Commander" or Eduardo Serra's on "Girl With a Pearl Earring" (which is almost too photographed in its emulation of Vermeer), but I'm guessing "Seabiscuit."
The awards show will be televised locally by KOMO-4 on Sunday, Feb. 29. Make a date now to celebrate leap year with Peter Jackson ... and, let us pray, Clint.
[[In-content Ad]]
