Mon, February 18, 2008

This doesn't make my job any easier: we're facing the most unpredictable Oscar slate in recent memory. I'm not entirely upset about that, because one reason it's so hard to pin down is the unusually high number of good movies on the nominees list. Apparently, if you place a mule between two identical and equidistant piles of hay, it will starve to death trying to decide which to eat. I'd suffer the same fate in this year's Best Picture and Original Screenplay categories, whereas most years I'd be setting fire to each pile of hay and then verbally berating the ashes afterwards.

Back when American Gangster came out, EW asked its heavy-hitting co-leads about Oscar possibilities. (Neither man was among the film's scant two nominations.) Russell Crowe, with whom I rarely agree, shied away from too much Oscar talk, fearing it might turn away potential filmgoers. "I think [saying a film is an Oscar contender] gets into a ho-hum thing. Because how many people will run that flag up the pole when they're trying to make shit look like chocolate ice cream?" Certainly the producers of Gladiator – I'll say that. Most years we're overrun with Best Picture nominees that have succeeded at exactly the switcheroo he describes. This year, only Atonement comes close. (There Will Be Blood really wanted to be that kind of movie, but it ended up actually being pretty good.)

Take these predictions with a grain of salt – I'll give the "conventional wisdom," for whatever that's worth, accompanied by my usual unconventional semi-coherent ranting. My votes are subject to change right up till the last minute; yours probably should be as well.

Best Picture: No Country for Old Men

Before the nominations were announced, it seemed a foregone conclusion that Atonement would win this award. But I always forget about this completely nebulous, phantasmal concept of "Oscar buzz." What sense does that make, really? I'm with American Gangster's Denzel Washington: "There's no Oscar gym you go to to get in Oscar shape. [...] The work [of making the film] is done." The movie's already out there, standing pretty much on its own merits. What amount of "buzz" is going to change that?

Apparently, it's all-important: Atonement has no "buzz," so it can't win. (Some accounts blame the film's old-fashioned appeal for this buzzlessness. They say Atonement is too much like a Best Picture winner to win Best Picture. Sweeping epic, period setting, the whole list of reasons I avoided seeing it in the first place. I've lost plenty betting against movies that seemed "too Best Picture-y" – so regard this Oscar buzz theory with even more skepticism than usual.)

No Country for Old Men apparently has the momentum, and I'd be delighted for the Coen brothers to win a Best Picture Oscar. (I've also lost plenty betting on movies whose win I would be delighted to see.) It was a powerful picture, even though its unnecessarily opaque ending soured the experience for some. It bears some thematic similarity to There Will Be Blood, which is another movie people are falling all over themselves to celebrate, but apparently it's not favored to win Best Picture. I enjoyed There Will Be Blood, but its ending alienated me even more than No Country for Old Men and overall it left me with less to think about.

Obviously, we all know what a Best Picture nomination for Juno means: congratulations on your screenwriting Oscar, Diablo Cody. If Juno were to win, it would signal a massive and overdue shift in the Academy's thinking. As fun as that would be, I still can't say I'm honestly rooting for Juno here, even though I preferred it to the other nominees, including the compelling and straightforward Michael Clayton.

What Should Win: I hate to say it, but my heart still belongs to Rita Wilson's War.

Best Director: Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, No Country for Old Men

These things pretty much go hand-in-hand with Best Picture, except when they don't. This year they won't not – I mean, who in this field is worthier than the Coens? If there were an Oscar for "Most Improved Director," I'd give it to P.T. Anderson, who finally managed to step out of the way of one of his movies and just let it be on the screen. (Almost. There were still a few of those shots that scream, "Look at me! I'm composing a shot here!" But the fact that I can count them on one hand is a drastic improvement.)

The Coens occasionally make a movie that sort of misses me, but their approach to storytelling is always resolute. They craft each movie as capital-F filmmakers, giving each its own uniquely tailored style but never obscuring that unmistakable glint of Coen-ness. The Best Director award often seems to be nothing more than another way of phrasing "Best Picture," but the Coens are among few who truly embody the theory of director-as-author, and it's almost shameful they haven't had a win in this category already. (Particularly shameful when you look at who they lost to.)

It'd be fun for first-timer Tony Gilroy to take the award for Michael Clayton, which was a finely constructed film with great performances (so great they garnered multiple nominations!), but it's clear he'll be back on this stage many times, so I imagine the Academy is in no hurry this year, when there are other worthy nominees to consider.

No Oscar for you, Jason Reitman. As a consolation prize, enjoy your awesome life. Next time I go to film school, I am seriously considering this "trying" approach I've heard so much about.

(Apparently, Julian Schnabel is a guy who directs movies.)

Who Should Win: It's a rare year when I don't think the Coen brothers should win this award. This year, they happen to be nominated for it.

Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood

Everyone acts like Day-Lewis just has to show up to get an Oscar, but he's lost twice out of three nominations. He was fine in There Will Be Blood. (I can't pretend not to love a character who spends the whole story fighting against a power-hungry preacher, and whose central speech includes a line like: "I hate most people. [...] I want to earn enough money that I can get away from everyone." That's me!) But I really hope we're not giving this award out merely for remembering to limp throughout a five-month shoot. It was a gritty, unforgiving performance, but how hard is that when your character is given so many gritty, unforgiving things to say? Acting awards are usually given to the people who manage to be cast in the most acclaimed movies, and this award smells a lot like that to me.

Day-Lewis has also cultivated this mystique that seems to hit Oscar voters right in their voting-part. You can't interview him, he appears in very few movies, and his process is just as elusive and mystical. (And he's an absolute lock when you consider the really important issues: "The Actor" from this year's anonymous EW panel says, "His acceptance speeches have been so eloquent.")

Also nominated are Johnny Depp, who's been overlooked in recent years for far finer work; Tommy Lee Jones, in a movie nobody saw; Viggo Mortensen, in a widely acclaimed performance from a film even fewer people saw; and George Clooney, who is unrelentingly awesome. I swear I could spend an hour watching a loop of his scenes from the Leatherheads trailer, especially the one at the end where he and John Krasinski punch each other in the face.

Who Should Win: Always George Clooney. I'll take "unrelentingly awesome" over "mysteriously elusive" any day. His acceptance speeches have spawned entire South Park episodes!

Best Actress: Julie Christie, Away from Her

Or Marion Cotillard, from La Vie en Rose. Don't ask me; I have no idea. I haven't seen either film, but people are incredibly bullish on Julie Christie this year. (She beats Daniel Day-Lewis's elusiveness by a factor of five!) Sources inside screenings of La Vie en Rose tell me Cotillard was astonishing in her role, and EW's anonymous panel indicates strong support for her as well. (Keep in mind, these same people praised Heath Ledger over Philip Seymour Hoffman two years ago because Hoffman "only communes with other actors" while Ledger was "a regular guy" who "took a year off to raise his kid." And we all saw how well that worked out for Heath Ledger.) It's Oscar Pool Poison to split the vote in a "big six" category, but I might have to this year – this one is too tough to call.

Which is a shame because it'd sure be fun to see Ellen Page win for her fantastic performance in Juno. I really don't see how that role or that film would have been more than a piffle without her. And Laura Linney is being regarded as a sucker bet, even though almost every movie she's been in should have earned her an Oscar. Cate Blanchett has stronger support in the Supporting Actress category, although frankly I'd like to see her take a little time off – she's proved she can have Oscar whenever she wants it, so let the other kids have their turn.

Who Should Win: Violating my own "vote based on the performance" doctrine, I give this one to Laura Linney in recognition of a lifetime of snubs.

Best Supporting Actor: Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men

An undeniably compelling and forceful turn as this year's most thought-provoking character earns Bardem a huge head of steam going into the Oscar voting. I loved him in this movie, particularly the small touches. His performance incarnates the stark, haunting style the Coens brought to the film as a whole. It's especially impressive when compared to his previous performances, which were every bit as committed but nowhere near as interesting.

Losing out in this maelstrom of Bardemania are Tom Wilkinson, who was passionately endearing as the corporate attorney who finds his soul in Michael Clayton and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Gust Avrakotos, the brassy agent from the CIA's Middle East desk who helps Tom Hanks wage covert war in Afghanistan in Charlie Wilson's War. Hoffman took Aaron Sorkin's dialogue – which was already guaranteed to sparkle – and gave it even more crackle and zip. Even as he awed me with his sarcastic, weary swagger, he fully disappeared into the role – I'm a huge fan of his, and I often forgot it was him on the screen.

Hal Holbrook is a favorite among people who still shudder at the thought of Jack Palance's and James Coburn's wins in this category. Casey Affleck isn't really anyone's favorite among this particular field of contenders. Except Casey Affleck, probably. Or Casey's mom.

Who Should Win: Philip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Wilson's War. Hands down, the year's most excellent performance.

Best Supporting Actress: Tilda Swinton, Michael Clayton

Pretty much the only person you can safely bet against is Saoirse Ronan, the little girl from Atonement. Which is a shame because I hear she's excellent, and I giddily enjoy pronouncing her name. There is strong support for Golden Globe winner Cate Blanchett (when isn't there?) despite the fact that her nomination, like Linda Hunt's in 1984, underscores the argument I have with the way Oscar divides the acting categories into male and female. This isn't like basketball where performance ability naturally varies between the genders – the distinction here is the types of roles available. A male role like Bob Dylan belongs in the same category as a male role like Gust Avrakotos. That would mean three of this year's acting awards might possibly go to women – so what? Let Lukas Haas play Edith Piaf if you need to balance out the score. I know I sound like a raving lunatic when I talk about this, but so did little girls in the 1950s who wanted to be president, and now one of those little girls is (for better or for worse) within spitting distance of that goal.

Back within spitting distance of my point: Ruby Dee is also strongly favored (she won the SAG award, and many Oscar voters are actors), and Amy Ryan has her contingent as well (she's won roughly a trillion critics' awards). The wind seems to be blowing in Swinton's direction, if only for the flimsy reason that her film scored the most acting nominations. I wish someone would give us a scientifically controlled ranking of these women's acceptance speeches; then we could settle this category definitively.

Who Should Win: I've only seen Michael Clayton and Gone Baby Gone, but I'd give it to Amy Ryan – she was fantastic in that, as was everyone else.

Best Original Screenplay: Juno

This is the space where we rant every year about how the writing categories are always regarded as the "consolation prize" for Best Picture – the movie everyone actually liked more but felt uncomfortable labeling it "Best Picture" because it wasn't dreary enough, or it wasn't set in the past. If everyone knows it's the better movie, goes the rant, why not just call it Best Picture and get over yourselves? If you're dead-set on preserving the integrity of the Best Picture category, I'm sorry but that ship has sailed.

It works for me this year, though, because no bet on this year's ballot is as safe as Diablo Cody for Juno. The very fact that Juno was nominated for Best Picture indicates people are crazy about it, but you'd be insane to think it might win there. For some reason, that's exactly the type of film this category has rewarded for most of the past fifteen years.

Also nominated: Lars and the Real Girl, Michael Clayton, Ratatouille, and The Savages

Who Should Win: I sure loved Ratatouille, but I'd pick Juno this time.

Best Adapted Screenplay: No Country for Old Men

To which EW adds: "Can the Coens really win four awards in one night?" Remember, these are the same people who referred to anything less than an 11-for-11 sweep by Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King as an "upset." Really? Might they win four awards for singlehandedly writing, directing, and editing the Best Picture front-runner? The film which gathered rave reviews and a massive list of honors? I don't know. Put some chubby dwarves in your movie, then we'll talk.

Also nominated: Atonement, Away from Her, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, and There Will Be Blood.

Who Should Win: I enjoyed the writing of There Will Be Blood (haven't seen the others), but I'll never forgive P.T. Anderson for handing his hipster devotees the gift-wrapped T-shirt slogan, "I drink your milkshake." Give all four to the Coens, I say.

Best Foreign Language Film: The Counterfeiters

I do feel a little guilty employing the same criteria in this category and the documentary awards every year: pick whatever's the most Jewish or Holocaust-related film. I swear I'll stop doing it as soon as it stops being right. In this case, the choice is between Beaufort, Israel's entry, and The Counterfeiters, a movie from Austria about Jews recruited by the Nazis to produce fake dollars and British pounds. EW gives the edge to The Counterfeiters, and I'll go with them – not only does it sound pretty Holocausty, it also sounds like something I'd be interested in seeing.

What Should Win: Obviously, I have no dog in this fight (too soon?), but I'm kind of hoping Poland's Katyń doesn't win, because my Oscar Pool "winner" font doesn't display that weird accented N very nicely.

This reminds me of Seinfeld's comedy routine about the names on taxi drivers' licenses in New York. He expresses puzzlement over the O with the slash through it and jokes that a driver's name might be something like "Amal – and then the symbol for boron." The symbol for boron is a plain B – but Seinfeld knows "boron" is funnier-sounding than something with an actually offbeat chemical symbol, like "ytterbium." In fact, none of the symbols employ any strangely accented letters; I've always liked that Jerry was willing to sacrifice the pure accuracy of the line in favor of the more appropriate laugh.

***

From here on in, we generally side with EW's picks, and usually make drastically fewer references to ytterbium. I've sided with EW's picks in the bigger categories, too, this year... my only alternative method for picking the actress categories would be reading tea leaves or throwing a dart.

Best Art Direction: Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Whether you liked or completely hated this film, the one thing Tim Burton movies always bring is fascinating, imaginative art direction.

Best Cinematography: There Will Be Blood

The award for best pretty landscape shots. There were plenty of them in There Will Be Blood, and they were quite beautiful. (And you had ample time to soak them in – if you cut out half of each sweeping Western vista, the movie would barely have topped two hours.) I feel pretty comfortable picking it over two movies full of sweeping Western vistas from the often-nominated Roger Deakins, but not because of EW's lame-brained theory about his dual nomination splitting the vote. (They seem to think any time a name appears more than once in a category, voters check a box entirely at random, resulting in two perfectly equal vote tallies, each exactly half of what he'd have won if he'd only been nominated once. I know Academy voters are idiots, but this is preposterous.) Deakins has never won in five previous nominations, and more than that I think people will want to give something to There Will Be Blood, which is set to lose to No Country for Old Men in most of the other major categories.

Best Film Editing: No Country for Old Men

Probably my most anticipated win of the night. As you've likely read by now, the Coens edit their own movies under the pseudonym Roderick Jaynes. (Seriously, how awesome are they? They also use the same editing software I do – yay!) So, if Jaynes wins here, it's assumed they'll accept "on his behalf" and it has the potential to be kind of cute. But could the Coen brothers really win four awards in one night? Orson Welles couldn't do it for Citizen Kane. Maybe the Coens could set the record, with an asterisk for their brazen use of Performance Enhancing Siblings.

Best Original Score: Ratatouille

EW picks Atonement. I'm almost never right in this category, so I'm loath to strike out on my own, but Michael Giacchino is a fantastically versatile composer and his score for Ratatouille is even more masterful than the entire rest of the film. Atonement incorporates typewriter noises, which is a bold and interesting choice for a film like Stranger Than Fiction but seems wildly out of place in an epic period romance. I'm listening to the iTunes clips right now, and I just can't bring myself to vote for it over Ratatouille. Appropriateness to the film in question must factor into the Original Score voting, mustn't it? I'd take Hans Zimmer's worst glockenspiel-in-a-clothes-dryer noisefest over this typewriter jam session.

Best Original Song: "Falling Slowly" from Once

I got into trouble in this category last year with some shoddy research, but my theory still held up on Oscar Night, when Melissa Etheridge won for "I Need To Wake Up." (It turns out Evita was the "exception that proves the rule" that Broadway adaptations never win Best Song.) EW wrongly contended that one of the songs from Dreamgirls would win because the film had three nominations in the category, and this year their mea culpa attributes their miss to "fatal vote splitting." Incorrect! It's because the songs were bad, and I've already proved why. The three nominated songs from this year's Enchanted won't suffer the same problem, because it's an original musical.

They're unlikely to cause any vote-splitting fatalities either: "So Close" is pretty terrible, and "Happy Working Song" – while perfect in the context of its scene – is kind of not a standalone song. If people want to vote for Enchanted, they'll vote for "That's How You Know". It was a truly excellent show-stopping number in a really good movie. However, "Falling Slowly" is more of a real song – the kind you might hear on the radio, and the kind that wins Oscars these days. It serves as an emotional anchor for a key moment of the film – my favorite scene, in fact. So, setting aside my complete ignorance of anything to do with August Rush, I think Once will probably win here.

My point is: I'm picking with EW in this category, too, but I'm rejecting everything about the way they reached their conclusion.

Not one of the magnificent songs from Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story appears in this category, and I'd love an explanation for that. These songs were all catchy and hilarious, and also carefully crafted to fit into specific periods of Cox's long and fictional career arc, parodying a variety of artists along the way. I regarded Walk Hard more as a spoof of Oscar-bait movies than of musical biopics – is the Academy snubbing it because of the well documented void where their sense of humor should be?

Best Visual Effects: Transformers

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (the follow-up to last year's winner of this award) also had fantastic effects. Both Pirates and Transformers fell well short of their potential as movies. Still, the intricately articulated robot transformations pack a punch – no reason to overthink this one.

Best Sound Editing: Transformers

...and...

Best Sound Mixing: Transformers

These awards are usually Bruckheimer's to lose. I'd love to see a couple of wins for The Bourne Ultimatum – the year's best film and the best example of how to elevate a franchise movie above the potential pitfalls of franchise hell – but you could fill the dark, vacant Shrine Auditorium with Oscars not awarded to films I'd love to see win.

Best Costume Design: Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

There are maybe three costumes in the whole film that are not varying drab shades of grey and tan, but those three are pretty great costumes and the visual style awards are typically awarded to Tim Burton's movies. Colleen Atwood won two years ago for Memoirs of a Geisha. Maybe Atonement will win, but it will probably be her.

Best Makeup: La Vie en Rose

Makeup nominations are usually divided among special effects makeup (creatures, old age prosthetics) and classical stage makeup (historical epics, period movies). La Vie en Rose is a rare case of straddling both. (Factoid! The technically innovative fat suit Rick Baker financed with his own money for Norbit went unused because Eddie Murphy refused to wear it. The full-body shots of Rasputia in a bikini are actually digital head replacements with a body double. I don't know how to feel about this.)

Best Animated Feature: Persepolis

EW predicts Ratatouille, which obviously I want to do as well. It was the best reviewed film last year. But recently the Academy has been eager to show it's not in Pixar's pocket the way some awards shows are. And Persepolis has broad support from those frustrated by its absence from the Best Foreign Language Film category. I think Oscar would like to award an animated movie without any talking animals in it. Thank heaven Persepolis offered them a way to do that without nominating Beowulf.

Best Animated Short: I Met the Walrus

A notoriously challenging category to pick. EW also gives mention to Madame Tutli-Putli and Peter & the Wolf. Last year, I watched clips of all the nominees and subsequently moved all my votes away from the one contender which seemed absolutely impossible – and of course that one got the award. It's best not to overthink these things; God knows the Academy voters don't.

Best Documentary Feature: No End in Sight

You heard nothing but raves about this one all year, and it's anti-Bush. Kind of a perfect storm. I'd love to see Sicko win because more people should swallow their Moore-hate and see it – he eschews most of his customary slant, and I wish more people were thinking about the healthcare issue. The chief obstacle blocking America's overdue return to prosperity and solvency is the ridiculous stranglehold the insurance and pharmaceutical companies have us in. But in terms of Academy voting? Did I mention No End in Sight is anti-Bush?

Best Documentary Short: Freeheld

From Entertainment Weekly:

Sari's Mother follows an AIDS-afflicted boy in Iraq, but the edge goes to Freeheld, a moving drama about a dying New Jersey cop who battles county officials for the right to pass her pension on to her longtime lesbian partner.

Hm. Seems like a clear-cut victory for Sari's Mother, the way I read it. Are they thinking a Freeheld win would be a referendum on the gay marriage issue? Does Hollywood think anyone is unsure of its position on that one?

Best Live Action Short: Tanghi Argentini

EW also mentions At Night and The Tonto Woman, but the only person I've read who sat through all four hours of this year's nominated "shorts" also picks Tanghi Argentini – as close to a lock as you'll get in these wildly unpredictable races. Voting in the shorts categories is limited to those Academy members who attend special screenings of the nominees – their inscrutable whims are magnified by the small sample size, so literally anything is possible.

© onebee · all rights reserved