Editor's Note: Yeah, we know this is late(he submitted this about four days before the show). But Derek spent so much time on this that we felt bad. Besides, we probably won't pay him for it. If you think he should be paid for this article, post your comments. Otherwise, poor Derek is going to have to eat ramen noodles again.Foreign flicks. Summer blockbusters. Two guys named Steven Soderbergh? No,
this isn’t exactly the most predictable Oscar year, and it wasn’t exactly
the most traditional year at the movies either. With the “Oscar season”
(usually jam-packed with award-nominee hopefuls) failing to deliver this year,
it’s harder to not only predict the winners, but really accept that this is
all we can choose from. Sure, there’s some good stuff in there, but let’s
just say I don’t see Chocolat being called “best picture of the year”
by too many critics. Nonetheless, I’ll take my medicine and venture into
another year of handicapping Oscar races, and crossing my fingers for the prizes
that various web (and home) contests deliver.
BEST PICTURE: I have yet to hear a single guy come up to me and
gushingly say, “You have got to see that Chocolat! It kicks ass!”
To be honest, I have yet to hear any reason to really see the movie, and the
popular opinion is pretty much that Chocolat’s nomination is a victory
in itself.
I still fail to rule out Erin Brockovich, mostly because it’s
the type of film the Academy could very easily fall for, the “stand up and
cheer, overcoming all odds” tale. This is one of two nominees directed by some
hack named Steven Soderbergh, and it seems that more votes will go to the more
ambitious effort, Traffic. When this many newspapers and policy
makers begin talking about a film’s importance, it certainly makes Academy
members want to recognize it. Of course, I have my doubts that too many older
voters will get a warm, fuzzy feeling seeing the inter-racial rendezvous of an
addicted teen sleeping with her drug dealer. I assume if the Academy really
enjoyed free-basing and needles, Requiem for a Dream and Trainspotting
would’ve been Best Picture shoo-ins.
What I’m left with is two heavy-hitters. In one corner, there’s the
critic’s darling, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. On the other
hand, there’s the multi-million dollar hit, Gladiator. Crouching
Tiger has a number of things going for it, including the later release (for
the large number of Academy members with poor memory), a Director’s Guild win,
and the fact that it has now become the highest-grossing foreign film of all
time. Of course, there in itself is the film’s major flaw: subtitles. As a
virtual shoo-in for Best Foreign Film, most members may think of that as honor
enough, and give Gladiator a vote.
The Academy gets a stiffy seeing period epics, and since Gladiator is
really just “Braveheart goes to Rome,” Ridley Scott’s picture gets
that edge. My deciding factor comes from the fact that every single Academy
voter gets to pick the winner (whereas nominees are determined by that voting
block - actors choose actors, directors choose directors, etc.). Considering
that, Gladiator is the most technical film of the five, and is likely to
gather all the smaller votes needed to put it over the top.
My Pick: Gladiator
BEST DIRECTOR: Keeping in mind what I said earlier, there’s usually an
odd man out, and since Stephen Daldry’s Billy Elliot failed to
nab a nomination for Best Picture, he has about as good of a chance as any cast
member of Dude, Where’s My Car?
Steven Soderbergh is the first guy since 1939 to be nominated twice in
the same year. It must be flattering and all, but with Steven failing to align
himself with one of his pictures (even though Traffic is certainly the
better of the two, if not all five . . . though I still haven’t seen Chocolat),
expect even the slightest splitting of his own vote to hurt his chances.
Besides, the guy nominated in 1939 (Michael Curtiz for you sticklers), lost,
too.
I’ve never understood this category’s purpose, to be honest with you.
What the hell is the difference between Best Picture and Best Directed Picture?
Sounds, looks, and feels like the same thing to me!
Nontheless, natural logic would be to align myself with Gladiator’s Ridley
Scott. However, there is no award for Best Foreign Film Director, so my
instincts (and the opinions of many other Oscar aficionados) are telling me that
somehow, Ang Lee can’t lose.
My Pick: Ang Lee, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
BEST ACTOR: I can only tell you one thing for sure. It’s not Geoffrey
Rush, though I’m starting to think I shouldn’t even rule him out.
This is the tightest of all races, with four legitimate contenders, no matter
what anybody tells you. Yes, I hadn’t heard of Javier Bardem either,
but his performance in Before Night Falls is wowing critics and spans
decades, so two good things going there. Factor in (this is strictly second-hand
info, F.Y.I.) a screening held by Jack Nicholson in an effort to get people to
see the film, and we have a guy who’s no longer such a dark horse. What kills
his chances, though, are those damn subtitles. Yes, Roberto Benigni won two
years ago, but his film had much stronger word of mouth (and Benigni’s
borderline insanity made for a good acceptance speech), and something tells me
we’ve got enough subtitled performances being honored for one night (we’ll
get to that later).
Russell Crowe is considered one of the two heavy favorites. This comes
as a little bit of a shock to me, because the performance is more about presence
than acting. There are sure to be some sympathy votes from those who felt Crowe
was robbed for The Insider last year, but I’m guessing that his media
image of being a homewrecking bad-boy isn’t going to win him any style points.
It isn’t a Best Actor race without Tom Hanks, and this year’s tour
de force performance in Cast Away certainly puts him in front.
Considering the gross transformation Hanks makes in the film and the fact that
he’s a one-man show (besides the damn volleyball), this is a role ripe for the
award. Of course, Hanks has won twice before. With another race being called a
lock, aren’t we afraid of being so predictable?
For surprises, we can turn straight to the simple nomination of Ed Harris.
Small film? You bet. Small chances? Hardly. I’ve been pondering, and I’ve
come up with these hard-to-ignore facts. Voters love actors who direct
themselves as he did in Pollock. There’s some votes. Harris is a
reliable veteran who has yet to be honored, and some may find he’s overdue.
There’s some more votes. He plays a drunk. Add in some more votes. For those
who argue the actor/director thing isn’t helpful (see Robert Duvall in 1997’s
The Apostle), consider that some will tell you (I’ll be the first, by
the way) he should have been honored two years ago for The Truman Show.
Sympathy factor gets more votes, and when you add it all up, Tom Hanks (still
the safest bet) may not be such a shoo-in after all.
My off-the-rocker Pick: Ed Harris, Pollock
