The Academy Awards (predictions)

Well, folks, it's that time of year again. Time to roll out the red carpet and put on your Sunday best, because the stars will be out to(morrow) night.

I now humbly offer my own personal predictions as to how the awards will turn out. This was certainly an interesting year for the movies. Few of the nominees were very surprising, but I have a feeling that the winners could well turn out to be surprising. This is one of those very rare years in which it not implausible to believe that all of the major awards could go to different films. Anyway, I guess we'll just have to hold our breath.

Best Actor
Don Cheadle - Hotel Rwanda
Johnny Depp - Finding Neverland
Leonardo DiCaprio - The Aviator
Clint Eastwood - Million Dollar Baby
Jamie Foxx - Ray

This was a year of strong male performances. Narrowing it down to only five must have been hell. Actors such as Paul Giamatti, Javiar Bardem, Tom Cruise, Jim Carrey, Liam Neeson et al could all easily have been deservingly nominated, but I respect the five choices. Cheadle gives a performance of rare dignity and courage. Depp gives an unusually restrained, understated, and touching performance. DiCaprio is amazing to watch as a man with so many layers and troubles it becomes difficult to keep up with them all. Eastwood gives a performance 70 years in the making. Foxx and Ray Charles... wait, they're different people? Coulda fooled me. People were already saying he was going to win Oscar gold months before the film even opened, and they're probably right. It's too bad, though, because, to me, DiCaprio's performance demonstrates all of the facets of great acting. But then again, with Foxx nominated in two categories he could split the vote and lose both. In that event, it's anyone's game. Though I think Cheadle has the least chance of winning.

Will win: Jamie Foxx
Should win: Leonardo DiCaprio

Supporting Actor:
Alan Alda - The Aviator
Thomas Haden Church - Sideways
Jamie Foxx - Collateral
Morgan Freeman - Million Dollar Baby
Clive Owen - Closer

I find it strange that year after year, the most difficult category for me to choose is the best supporting actor category. Honestly, I can see it going to either Morgan Freeman or Thomas Haden Church. Clive Owen might even be able to sneak in there after his Golden Globe victory. For over a decade, Freeman has been one of the most respected of all actors from audiences, critics, and Hollywood alike, but he has yet to win. Then again, Church came out of nowhere and stole the film as the immature, lecherous buddy. Alda won't win and Foxx has a far better chance in the best actor category. I'm just upset that David Carradine didn't get nominated for Kill Bill vol. 2, because I would have voted for him if he had.

Will win: Morgan Freeman
Should win: Thomas Haden Church

Best Actress:
Annette Bening - Being Julia
Catalina Sandino Moreno - Maria Full of Grace
Imelda Staunton - Vera Drake
Hilary Swank - Million Dollar Baby
Kate Winslet - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

I have yet to see, Being Julia, so my opinion here isn't as informed as it could be. But, in this case, I don't think it really matters. Just give it to Hilary Swank. When given a good role, she is almost unbeatable as an actress. With two nominations in her career thusfar, she will probably walk away with two wins. In the unlikely event that she loses, I would hope it would go to Imelda Staunton. I must say, however, I was pleased to see Moreno nominated. While she won't win, it was only her first performance in a film and she is a very natural actress.

Will win: Hilary Swank
Should win: Hilary Swank

Supporting Actress:
Cate Blanchett - The Aviator
Laura Linney - Kinsey
Virginia Madsen - Sideways
Sophie Okonedo - Hotel Rwanda
Natalie Portman - Closer

Here's another difficult race to predict. Cate Blanchett really can do anything and she never ceases to amaze me. Virginia Madsen just amazed everyone. And Natalie Portman continues to prove that she's probably the best young actress around. Portman already won the Golden Globe and my heart a long time ago, so I may be a bit biased, but she provided the strongest link in a chain of strong actors in Mike Nichols' film. I have to salute anyone who is willing to attempt to play Katharine Hepburn, because that's no small task. And I still can't count out Madsen who may well be the surprise choice.

Will win: Cate Blanchett
Should win: Natalie Portman

Animated Feature:
The Incredibles
Shark Tale
Shrek 2

Well, I haven't seen Shark Tale or Shrek 2, but I doubt I need to. I already know what deserves to win this category. I will be a disappointing day indeed if The Incredibles loses. But then again, Shrek swipped the honors from the more deserving, Monsters, Inc. a few years back. Did anyone even like Shark Tale?

Will win: The Incredibles
Should win: The Incredibles

Art Direction:
The Aviator
Finding Neverland
Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events
The Phantom of the Opera
A Very Long Engagement

It's about time that someone recognized that Dante Ferretti is the best production designer in the business today. After getting completely robbed for his work on Gangs of New York he should have no problem this year with The Aviator. If he doesn't win, however, it had better go to The Phantom of the Opera.

Will win: The Aviator
Should win: The Aviator

Cinematography:
The Aviator - Robert Richardson
House of Flying Daggers - Zhao Xiaoding
The Passion of the Christ - Caleb Deschanel
The Phantom of the Opera - John Mathieson
A Very Long Engagement - Bruno Delbonnel

And the winner is... Tom Stern for Million Dollar Baby... oh yeah, he wasn't nominated. I haven't seen A Very Long Engagement, but it seems that both Richardson and Deschanel were a little bit pissed that it won the ASC award. No matter though, Richardson should have little trouble picking up the little golden guy. But if the Academy voters actually have eyes then they should give the award to Zhao and bow down at his feet for the beauty he created in House of Flying Daggers.

Will win: Robert Richardson
Should win: Zhao Xiaoding

Costume Design:
The Aviator
Finding Neverland
Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events
Ray
Troy

Honestly, who really cares?

Will win: The Aviator
Should win: The Aviator

Director
The Aviator - Martin Scorsese
Million Dollar Baby - Clint Eastwood
Ray - Taylor Hackford
Sideways - Alexander Payne
Vera Drake - Mike Leigh

Alright, people, just give the damn thing to Scorsese. If he's ever going to win that elusive statuette, then this is probaby his best chance. Unfortunately, after the DGA, I'm pretty sure they're going to get it all mixed up. What is Taylor Hackford doing on this list?

Will win: Clint Eastwood
Should win: Martin Scorsese

Documentary Feature:
Born Into Brothels
The Story of the Weeping Camel
Super Size Me
Tupac: Resurrection
Twist of Faith

I've only seen one of the nominated films, The Story of the Weeping Camel which came into favor with some of the more reputable Christian critics this year. It's a good documentary with an almost magical ending. However, Super Size Me gained a lot of popularity and Born Into Brothels has been garnering critical acclaim of late. It's an uninformed guess, but I'll probably stand by it.

Will win: The Story of the Weeping Camel
Should win: The Story of the Weeping Camel

Documentary Short:
Autism Is a World
The Children of Leningradsky
Hardwood
Mighty Times: The Children's March
Sister Rose's Passion

Didn't Ryan Grant direct one of these? Okay, so I haven't seen any of them, but one of them is about children in Russia, so that sounds cool.

Will win: The Children of Leningradsky
Should win: ?

Editing:
The Aviator - Thelma Schoonmaker
Collateral - Jim Miller and Paul Rubell
Finding Neverland - Matt Chesse
Million Dollar Baby - Joel Cox
Ray - Paul Hirsch

Thelma, Thelma...! I'm not sure why I like her so much, but I maintain that she's the best editor in the business today. Teaming up with Scorsese wasn't a bad move on her part either. But it's been a long time since Raging Bull and her time has come again. But, I have to admit, they all have their editorial flourishes.

Will win: Thelma Schoonmaker
Should win: Thelma Schoonmaker

Foreing Language Film:
As It Is in Heaven
The Chorus
Downfall
The Sea Inside
Yesterday

Strangely enough, I haven't seen any of the nominees in this catagory. In fact, I am of the opinion that the best foreign films released this year weren't nominated. Neverltheless, Alejandro Amenabar's, The Sea Inside has gained some significant critical acclaim this year. Though recently, The Chorus has reached a good audience appeal.

Will win: The Sea Inside
Should win: The Sea Inside

Makeup:
Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events
The Passion of the Christ
The Sea Inside

Well, if The Passion of the Christ has a chance at winning anything, this is it. Good gore makeup usually doesn't get the credit it deserves. But gore on Jesus will probably win Academy gold.

Will win: The Passion of the Christ
Should win: The Passion of the Christ

Original Music:
Finding Neverland - Jan A.P. Kaczmarek
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - John Williams
Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events - Thomas Newman
The Passion of the Christ - John Debney
The Village - James Newton Howard

I see John Williams got his token nomination of the year. Kaczmarek's score helped bring the magic to Finding Neverland, but James Newton Howard was one of the few worthwile things about The Village. Who knows, John Debney may even manage to sneak in there, but I doubt it.

Will win: Jan A.P. Kaczmarek
Should win: James Newton Howard

Original Song:
"Accidentally In Love" - Shrek 2
"Al Otro Lado Del Rio" - The Motorcycle Diaries
"Believe" - The Polar Express
"Learn to Be Lonely" - The Phantom of the Opera
"Look To Your Path" - The Chorus

I doubt the Counting Crows will win an Academy Award. To me, it's probably between "Learn to be Lonely" because The Phantom of the Opera was a musical -- so it should win for song, right? The real standout, though, is "Look To Your Path" a beautiful song sung by a boys choir.

Will win: "Look To Your Path"
Should win: "Look To Your Path"

Best Picture:
The Aviator
Finding Neverland
Million Dollar Baby
Ray
Sideways

Forget about everything else, the battle is between The Aviator and Million Dollar Baby. Eastwood's film is the best of the lot and one of the best of the year. But Scorsese's delivers a lot of the things that Academy voters seem to love, and does it better than most. Can someone please tell me what Ray is doing here?

Will win: The Aviator
Should win: Million Dollar Baby

Animated Short:
Birthday Boy
Gopher Broke
Guard Dog
Lorenzo
Ryan

I have no idea, haven't seen any of them. But Eric told me about Ryan and Gopher Broke sounds promising.

Will win: Ryan
Should win: ?

Live Action Short:
Everything in This Country Must
Little Terrorist
7:35 in the Morning
Two Cars, One Night
Wasp

Again, beats me.

Will win: Little Terrorist
Should win: ?

Sound Editing:
The Incredibles
The Polar Express
Spider-Man 2

Another tough one. I'm torn between two of them and not good enough with sound to say which is better. So, I'll just say one will win and the other should.

Will win: Spider-Man 2
Should win: The Incredibles

Sound Mixing:
The Aviator
The Incredibles
The Polar Express
Ray
Spider-Man 2

Again, same problem as before, but now I'm torn between four or five of them. They all sounded pretty damn good to me.

Will win: The Aviator
Should win: take your pick

Visual Effects:
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
I, Robot
Spider-Man 2

I've only seen one of the films, but it'll probably win.

Will win: Spider-Man 2
Should win: Spider-Man 2

Adapted Screenplay
Before Sunset - Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy, and Ethan Hawke
Finding Neverland - David Magee
Million Dollar Baby - Paul Haggis
The Motorcycle Diaries - Jose Rivera
Sideways - Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor

In a perfect world, they would give the award to Richard Linklater and co. on a silver platter, but alas, it is not a perfect world. And the critical darling of the year, Sideways, deserves to win something, especially since it is a very well written film. Then again, Million Dollar Baby had a strong script and stands more than a good chance of winning.

Will win: Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor
Should win: Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy, and Ethan Hawke

Original Screenplay:
The Aviator - John Logan
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Charlie Kaufman
Hotel Rwanda - Keir Pearson and Terry George
The Incredibles - Brad Bird
Vera Drake - Mike Leigh

It's nice to see Brad Bird get some recognition, and he may even have and outside chance of winning, but probably not. I'm also glad to see Mike Leigh on the list even though he doesn't write scripts as they are traditionally thought of. But this will probably be the chance for Hollywood's quirkiest writer to get his due.

Will win: Charlie Kaufman
Should win: Mike Leigh


There you have it, ladies and gentleman. You may now place your bets.

The Wild Bunch

Sam Peckinpah described his film, The Wild Bunch as a story about bad men in changing times. And, in a sense, there really isn't much more to it than that. But it is also a statement about violence and men -- two themes which would follow Peckinpah for his entire career. Many call this his masterpiece and one of the greatest westerns ever made. I wouldn't call it either. I've seen it three times now, and I enjoy it more each time I watch it, but at the same time, I can't help but realize that, to the extent that I continue enjoy it, no new depths or truths are revealed through repeat viewings. Its reputation is primarily based on two scenes -- the opening bank robbery and the end shoot out -- the latter of which is undeniably one of the great scenes in cinema history. Peckinpah assembles a great cast of mostly familiar character actors that audiences already naturally associated with the Western. William Holden, as leader of the bunch, Pike Bishop, is the only one that, besides this film, I never associated with the genre, nevertheless, he gives one of his most memorable performances. Other cast members include Ernest Borgnine, Robert Ryan, Warren Oates, Ben Johnson, and Edmond O'Brien -- four of which were Academy Award winners, and Robert Ryan was once nominated. Only Warren Oates, never even received a nomination in their career. But watching them on screen, the last thing you're thinking is "I'm watching an Academy Award winning actor." You're mostly thinking that they're great character actors, because that's exactly what they were -- egoless actors who played a particular character as well as you're ever likely to see.

In 1969, when the film was released, Roger Ebert wrote that it was probably the most violent film he had ever seen, yet it was this very fact -- the extreme violence -- that, to him, it felt even more like a movie than had the violence been more tame. It ceased to be shocking or graphic, and became an element that made the film self-conscious. Today, 35 years later, I have seen numerous films that a gorier and more violent than this film, but, in a way, the violence in this film may be even more shocking now than when it was released. It is no longer the most violent film ever made, and now, no longer needs to be viewed as self conscious. But I don't find it shocking because of the numerous spurts of blood (it has been said, that more bullets were fired on the set of this film than in the entire Mexican revolution during which the film is set) or the fact that many of the deaths were in slow motions (Howard Hawks was quoted as saying he could kill off a half-dozen men in the time it took Peckinpah to kill one), but the mercilessness of it all. The villainous characters that make up the bunch are just that, villainous. I can't imagine such characters appearing in a film today. The bunch shoot women, instigate shoot outs with children around, and escape from a bank robbery by using a church parade as cover. It's very cold and detached -- very natural. They do not wrack themselves with guilt over the morality of it all and ultimately choose to kill, nor do they have a code of conduct determining who can and can't be killed and when, they merely kill without second thought.

But I can't deny that there is an invisible quality to the film that makes it better than it probably should be. The very nature of its violence seems to be making a statement about it. Men -- good or bad -- in the midst of changing times is a familiar theme to the Western, but it always seems to work. There is a quasi-spiritual aspect to the idea of men who refuse to be tamed by the mechinization of industry and the conquest of progress. It is here were the Western will always relive its glories as one of the few, pure American art forms. I don't think that this is one of the greatest Western's of all time, but it does have a deserved influence and a quality that will continue to attract viewers for decades to come even if they have no idea who Sam Peckinpah was.

Woman of the Year

The "woman of the year" in 1941 was Katharine Hepburn. Strangely enough, she may be the woman of the year for 2004, or at least Cate Blanchett's interpretation of her. Woman of the Year was the first time Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn starred together in a movie, and for those of you who saw The Aviator, you would know that this came soon after her breakup with Howard Hughes. I've never more enjoyed watching either of them than in this movie. Hepburn is one of a kind and there will never be another like her. But honestly, I've never really liked Spencer Tracy. He is often lauded for the quiet dignity he gives to his characters, but what some call quiet dignity, to me, comes across as superiority. He's smarter than us and there's no use trying to talk to a bunch of idiots, so he just stays quiet and nods his head as if to say "they just don't get it and probably never will." Granted, that may sound a bit harsh, and I'm obviously reading between the lines here, but that's often how it comes across to me. All that is to say, I liked him in this film. He seems more toned down. The chemistry between the two is undeniable and a joy to watch, but don't get the impression that this is a great film. It's not bad, but it's by no means great. George Stevens was a good studio director, and he did just that, made good movies, but only one or two great ones, of which, this was not one. Katharine Hepburn has a kind of beauty that takes some getting used to. She was never a knock-out, but after watching her for a while, you just learn to love her style. But she never been more lovely than in this film and she gives probably her most openly sexual performance. Notice the way that each of their faces lights up when the other enters the room. I haven't said much about the film or the story, because neither of them are the reason you should see it. The two leads work well together, and that's why it's worth watching.

Frogs

I have to admit, walking into Frogs I was expecting the typical, B-grade, trash horror film that you just love to watch (or, I do, anyway). Instead, I found this this to be a legitimately good horror film. If Hitchcock can make a horror film about birds, then American International can make a horror film about frogs. Actually, I think this could be described as the unwanted younger brother of The Birds. I say unwanted because the title alone would steer away most audiences, whereas the name Hitchcock will attract others. This film could also be accurately retitle, Revenge of the Reptiles and Amphibians, but I think that's just too long. You see, the frogs never directly do any of the killing, and that probably works to the film's advantage. You don't have to worry about bad special f/x frogs eating people. Instead, the dirty work is left to the snakes, alligators, lizards, and if I'm not mistaken, even a snapping turtle. But through it all the frogs seem omnipresent and ever watchful -- as if they are controlling the revolt. It takes place on a Southern island plantation. Ray Milland is the stern, stubborn family patriarch, and a young Sam Elliott plays a photographer who, by chance, meets up with this family. The suspense scenes are surprisingly well executed and don't strain disbelief. It even manages to build up eerie atmosphere thanks to the inventive photography and Les Baxter's subtle, underlying score. I think this is the kind of film that both the fans of the B-grade horror film and fans of the "legitimate" horror film can enjoy.

They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

I've always had a little bit of a problem with the Jane Fonda persona. She often seems to play the noble cynic who thinks she knows more about life than anyone else in the room. She utilizes her superiority by demeaning the more "naive" individuals. She is rebelling against society, but it seems like she rebels mere for the sake of rebelling. All that is to say, I didn't really like her character in Sydney Pollack's, They Shoot Horses, Don't They? But what makes her performace a little bit remarkable is that despite all of that, I still sympathised with her. The setting is the early 1930's - the middle of the depression - somewhere in the Los Angeles area. A bunch of Hollywood extra's who must have nothing else, enter a dance competition for the chance to win $1,500. The last couple standing wins. Throughout the course of the competition they have occasional breaks to rest, eat, or take a shower, but for the most part, it's dance till you drop. Dance competition, doesn't sound that bad, right? Wrong. This is one of the most painfully, grueling comepetitions I've ever seen on screen. When they start going beyond hour 1,000 (over 40 days!), you really have to question their sanity. And some of them lose it. Red Buttons is enjoyable as an aging sailor who's been in more than one of these contests, and Gig Young is a stand out as the announcer who, while almost torturing the contestants because the depression-era audience wants to see people in a worse spot than they are, still manages breathe humanity into a character that could easily have become very one-dimensional. I have to admit, it wasn't until the very end shot that I realized that this competition is meant as a metaphor for life. I enjoyed the film and its many strength's, but I also found it to be overly cynical and simplistic in its view of life. But hey, it's probably worth it just for the title.

Opening Night

The first half-hour or so of Opening Night appears to have all of the trappings of a classic, Hollywood melodrama, except for one key fact: the film is directed by John Cassavetes who does nothing the typical, Hollywood way. And you begin to realize that a little ways into it. It's about an aging, alcoholic stage actress who is playing and even older woman in her latest play. Watching this film makes you realize how, at one time, Gena Rowlands was America's most underrated, great actress. She often reminds me of Ellen Burstyn, only better and not as famous. She is photographed in such a way as to simultaneously emphasize her aging facial features and her kind of beauty that make you want to reach through the screen and touch. As I mentioned before, Cassavetes never takes his story in the direction that we have been trained to expect, and, at times, I have to wonder if the whole thing isn't just an elaborate metaphor for his feud with the Hollywood establishment. In one of the opening scenes we see a crucial scene from the play performed as scripted and intended. It would do you well to remember it, because you will never see it performed the same way again for the remainder of the film. Much of this is due to the fact that the Rowland's character is an alcoholic, and almost seems to be on the verge of a breakdown. I wish I could explain more, but the beauty of a Cassavetes film is in its naturalism and the way it has an uncanny ability to reach into raw, emotional truth in the most ulikely of situations and in the stragest ways.