For Your Consideration
Well, earlier this week the Oscar nominations were released, at the ungodly hour of 5:30 a.m. (see how we Left Coasters have to accommodate you folks on the Eastern seaboard? Hmph.) As a film buff, I admit I enjoy the awards season, since it helps me to determine which films I might have missed earlier that would be worth viewing, or which movies I've seen that I enjoyed rated as award-worthy by the Academy. Some years I've seen none of the films, and have had to wait for video release. In recent years, with the advent of DVD and the improvements in captioning offerings/technologies, I've seen anywhere from at least one to nearly all the movies by the time the Oscars roll around.
This year's choices are not only a motley lot, they're also not obvious box-office choices. I've only seen one so far, "Crash," in the major categories. There's been a lot of moaning and groaning around town about the box-office slump, and newspapers and columnists around the nation have picked up the baton to explain why this is. Personally, I think a large part of the problem is ticket prices. For us, we can get away with matinee viewings, and it isn't too bad as long as we don't go too often (Marina Del Rey is our choice, thanks to the captioned movies there, and the matinee price there is $6.50). But consider the average family of four in this country-- admission alone would run anywhere from around $30 to $40 dollars, depending on time of viewing and age of minors in said family. Throw in the inflated concessions prices, and you're talking about a total cost just for the theater itself at around $50-$60. How often these days can a family afford to go the movies?
The second big problem is the fact that the idiots in charge of the studios keep jumping on the bandwagon and making several movies in one particular genre to the point of exhaustion, or worse yet, remaking movies that are best left alone. Sequels are problematic too. Some are good, most are bad.
There's a few other things that I think could be fixed too, but back to the Oscars for now. It'll be interesting to see whether the Academy gives a nod to politically and socially relevant movies ("Good Night and Good Luck," "Crash," and "Munich"), or to films dealing with sexual issues ("Bareback..." oops I mean "Brokeback Mountain" and "Capote"). No "Titanic," "Lord of the Rings," or "Cold Mountain" type of films this year. These are the kinds of movies and scripts that play well in art houses or do better on DVD than in the nabes.
Some years I have absolutely no idea who'll win; other years, the winners seem fairly predictable. Sometimes I'll enter contests, and other times I'll just sit back and relax. For all the hoopla, often films that are much better or worthy don't get nominated. For example, one of my all-time favorite movies is "Lone Star," which only garnered one nomination, for writing. Its director, John Sayles, makes good movies, in my opinion, but rarely is recognized by the Academy. Even Sayles' weaker efforts, such as "Silver City," contain far more layered nuances, character development, and intelligent dialogue than the average film, and does so without being too intellectual or "artistic."
Usually my choices or guesses don't always win. One year I entered a contest at my hometown video store, and won either second or third place. The prize was something like 10 or 20 free rentals, and the videos of "Babe" and "The Aristocats." Not too shabby. Since then, my record has been hit and miss. However, this year, I think I can safely predict at least some of the winners. So I'm gonna throw caution to the wind and tell you who I think has the best chance. We'll see if I'm right come March 5th.
For Best Actor, I'd prefer David Straithairn in "Good Night and Good Luck." He's a great actor, has been in some Sayles films such as "Eight Men Out" (he played pitcher Eddie Cicotte), and at a time when our county is in dire straights, portrays one of the best journalists of the 20th century, a man who stood up to McCarthy and McCarthyism. However, I'm going to venture that Phillip Seymour Hoffman wins. From what I've read (and no, I haven't seen "Capote," so this is a wild guess in a way), he practically owned the role and the film.
For Best Supporting Actor, I'd love to see Matt Dillon win. He is an underrated actor who has come a long way since his teen acting days (and even then he was pretty good- for example, see his turn as a bully in "My Bodyguard."), and he did an excellent job as a racist cop in "Crash." But Paul Giamatti got burned by not copping an Oscar last year for "Sideways," so even though the Academy has already honored the requisite boxing movie with "Million Dollar Baby," my guess is Giamatti gets it for "Cinderella Man."
For Best Actress, Reese Witherspoon will probably walk the line for "Walk The Line." I don't see any of the others having much of a chance, especially considering Charlize Theron and Judi Dench have already scored their statues.
I'm not as certain when it comes to Best Supporting Actress. Just going by careers alone, and the buzz surrouding the movies they're in, I'd say it's either Catherine Keener in "Capote" or Rachel Weisz in "The Constant Gardener."
Considering all the press its gotten, and the fact that its director is quite good, I'm gonna go with popular sentiment at the moment and say that Ang Lee and "Brokeback Mountain" take the Best Director and Best Picture awards, respectively. If for some reason that doesn't pan out, I'd say "Good Night and Good Luck" and George Clooney has a shot, if only for the fact that many of us out here in L.A. are rather socially and politically liberal, and this movie is an antidote to the current bunch in the White House.
Those are the main categories-- I'm not as certain about all the other categories, but I will say that I think "Wallace and Gromit" will get the Best Animated Picture. For all of Disney's ballyhooed switch to computer animation, simply junking your traditional 2-D hand-drawn animation unit doesn't guarantee an Oscar nod. It's about the story, you fools, and "Wallace and Gromit" did well in that area. "Corpse Bride" was neat to watch, but the story was skimpy and quite predictable. A nice way to kill 80 or so minutes, but definitely not something for the ages.
So there you have it. I'm not exactly Ebert or Maltin, but for what it's worth, that's my take, for your consideration.
This year's choices are not only a motley lot, they're also not obvious box-office choices. I've only seen one so far, "Crash," in the major categories. There's been a lot of moaning and groaning around town about the box-office slump, and newspapers and columnists around the nation have picked up the baton to explain why this is. Personally, I think a large part of the problem is ticket prices. For us, we can get away with matinee viewings, and it isn't too bad as long as we don't go too often (Marina Del Rey is our choice, thanks to the captioned movies there, and the matinee price there is $6.50). But consider the average family of four in this country-- admission alone would run anywhere from around $30 to $40 dollars, depending on time of viewing and age of minors in said family. Throw in the inflated concessions prices, and you're talking about a total cost just for the theater itself at around $50-$60. How often these days can a family afford to go the movies?
The second big problem is the fact that the idiots in charge of the studios keep jumping on the bandwagon and making several movies in one particular genre to the point of exhaustion, or worse yet, remaking movies that are best left alone. Sequels are problematic too. Some are good, most are bad.
There's a few other things that I think could be fixed too, but back to the Oscars for now. It'll be interesting to see whether the Academy gives a nod to politically and socially relevant movies ("Good Night and Good Luck," "Crash," and "Munich"), or to films dealing with sexual issues ("Bareback..." oops I mean "Brokeback Mountain" and "Capote"). No "Titanic," "Lord of the Rings," or "Cold Mountain" type of films this year. These are the kinds of movies and scripts that play well in art houses or do better on DVD than in the nabes.
Some years I have absolutely no idea who'll win; other years, the winners seem fairly predictable. Sometimes I'll enter contests, and other times I'll just sit back and relax. For all the hoopla, often films that are much better or worthy don't get nominated. For example, one of my all-time favorite movies is "Lone Star," which only garnered one nomination, for writing. Its director, John Sayles, makes good movies, in my opinion, but rarely is recognized by the Academy. Even Sayles' weaker efforts, such as "Silver City," contain far more layered nuances, character development, and intelligent dialogue than the average film, and does so without being too intellectual or "artistic."
Usually my choices or guesses don't always win. One year I entered a contest at my hometown video store, and won either second or third place. The prize was something like 10 or 20 free rentals, and the videos of "Babe" and "The Aristocats." Not too shabby. Since then, my record has been hit and miss. However, this year, I think I can safely predict at least some of the winners. So I'm gonna throw caution to the wind and tell you who I think has the best chance. We'll see if I'm right come March 5th.
For Best Actor, I'd prefer David Straithairn in "Good Night and Good Luck." He's a great actor, has been in some Sayles films such as "Eight Men Out" (he played pitcher Eddie Cicotte), and at a time when our county is in dire straights, portrays one of the best journalists of the 20th century, a man who stood up to McCarthy and McCarthyism. However, I'm going to venture that Phillip Seymour Hoffman wins. From what I've read (and no, I haven't seen "Capote," so this is a wild guess in a way), he practically owned the role and the film.
For Best Supporting Actor, I'd love to see Matt Dillon win. He is an underrated actor who has come a long way since his teen acting days (and even then he was pretty good- for example, see his turn as a bully in "My Bodyguard."), and he did an excellent job as a racist cop in "Crash." But Paul Giamatti got burned by not copping an Oscar last year for "Sideways," so even though the Academy has already honored the requisite boxing movie with "Million Dollar Baby," my guess is Giamatti gets it for "Cinderella Man."
For Best Actress, Reese Witherspoon will probably walk the line for "Walk The Line." I don't see any of the others having much of a chance, especially considering Charlize Theron and Judi Dench have already scored their statues.
I'm not as certain when it comes to Best Supporting Actress. Just going by careers alone, and the buzz surrouding the movies they're in, I'd say it's either Catherine Keener in "Capote" or Rachel Weisz in "The Constant Gardener."
Considering all the press its gotten, and the fact that its director is quite good, I'm gonna go with popular sentiment at the moment and say that Ang Lee and "Brokeback Mountain" take the Best Director and Best Picture awards, respectively. If for some reason that doesn't pan out, I'd say "Good Night and Good Luck" and George Clooney has a shot, if only for the fact that many of us out here in L.A. are rather socially and politically liberal, and this movie is an antidote to the current bunch in the White House.
Those are the main categories-- I'm not as certain about all the other categories, but I will say that I think "Wallace and Gromit" will get the Best Animated Picture. For all of Disney's ballyhooed switch to computer animation, simply junking your traditional 2-D hand-drawn animation unit doesn't guarantee an Oscar nod. It's about the story, you fools, and "Wallace and Gromit" did well in that area. "Corpse Bride" was neat to watch, but the story was skimpy and quite predictable. A nice way to kill 80 or so minutes, but definitely not something for the ages.
So there you have it. I'm not exactly Ebert or Maltin, but for what it's worth, that's my take, for your consideration.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 10:30 PM
<< Home