Predicting the 75th
Oscars
by
Ian Waldron-Mantgani, March 22, 2003
You know, I used to be a better predictor of the
Academy Awards. The force is not so strong these days -- the ritual of the
Oscar process remains fascinating, but I just can't be bothered to follow
the minutiae any more. My message is this: Read the following forecast for
pleasure and curiosity, but don't blame me if you lose money at the
bookie's.
BEST PICTURE: "Chicago"
A cakewalk. Immensely popular and stylish, and it furthers the exciting
resurgence of the musical that was begun last year by "Moulin Rouge!" Voters
who didn't reward that film will have their chance to make up for it now.
Of the competitors: "The Hours" is the best film nominated, so that pretty
much cancels out its chances. "The Pianist" is kind of a possibility, but
Miramax is campaigning harder for "Chicago" -- and what Harvey Weinstein
wants, he gets. Same deal for "Gangs of New York". "Lord of the Rings: The
Two Towers" just isn't enough of the Academy's cup of tea; if any of that
trilogy is going to win their top prize, it will be the last part, next
year.
BEST DIRECTOR: Martin Scorsese, "Gangs of New
York"
It's time for Marty. That the man who made "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull" and
"GoodFellas" has yet to win an Oscar is a chip on most every filmgoer's shoulder.
Roman Polanski has a shot for "The Pianist", being as he won the BAFTA, and
many of the same folks will be voting, but see above for the politics of
Miramax campaigning. Harvey is behind Scorsese, as well he should
be.
Possible upset: Rob Marshall. Despite Robby baby's
annoyingly smug grin, and despite even the fact that a sharper and more
experienced director would have given "Chicago" strong tone as well as
choreography, this guy cannot be counted out. Scorsese has so far been cursed
by losing to two first-time filmmakers, and they say these things happen
in threes. The doddery old guard of the Academy may not be in tune with the
importance of Scorsese, and vote for the guy who made their favourite
picture.
But I dunno. Scorsese is still in there. Everyone
knows about his Oscar snub, about his long struggle to bring "Gangs" to the
screen, and the nominations show the Academy knows it was a terrific film.
The Director's Guild of America prize went to Marshall, and that is an almost
infallible predictor for Oscar, but Scorsese was already getting an honorary
award from the DGA this year, and maybe that influenced the voting. I keep
thinking back to a few years ago, when Steven Soderbegh triumphed for "Traffic".
Maybe the Academy are hip enough to do the right thing.
BEST ACTOR: Daniel Day-Lewis, "Gangs of New
York"
He was amazing, and he won at the Screen Actors Guild. Jack Nicholson has
won too many times already. Nicolas Cage may be considered to have won too
recently, and he is in a film that could seem too weird (and too comedic)
for Academy taste. Michael Caine is a living legend without a Best Actor
win, but the momentum of "The Quiet American" has faded. Adrien Brody seems
the likeliest upset -- he's a rising star, he's the only nominee to never
have won before, and if he doesn't win, "The Pianist" may go completely
unrewarded in major categories.
BEST ACTRESS: Renee Zellweger,
"Chicago"
Tough call, this one. I don't want to believe that Zellweger can win -- that
performance wasn't Oscar-worthy, was it? But she won at the SAG and Golden
Globes, and seems to be the popular favourite, so I'll go with the flow.
I have a gut feeling that Julianne Moore could win for "Far From Heaven",
a movie that was surprisingly overlooked in most of the nominations, but
my prediction of "Moulin Rouge!" for best picture last year demonstrates
that my guts have shit for brains. Nicole Kidman was the early favourite,
and my gut is leaning towards her too -- the Academy likes to reward big
celebrities performing classy material, and she gets to wear a false nose
and die in "The Hours", which can only boost her chances. It's probably safe
to say that Diane Lane ("Unfaithful") and Salma Hayek ("Frida") can be counted
out.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Ed Harris, "The
Hours"
Popular opinion is going with Chris Cooper, and popular opinion is usually
right in this category, but I'm gonna be stupid and stick my neck out. Ed
Harris is beloved in Hollywood, has been nominated on three previous occasions
without winning, and if neither Kidman nor the screenplay win, "The Hours"
will be left without any major awards. A trophy for Christopher Walken ("Catch
Me If You Can") is not impossible; wins for John C. Reilly ("Chicago") or
Paul Newman ("Road to Perdition") are improbable.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Catherine Zeta-Jones,
"Chicago"
I'm blinded here, because she was so darn good that I desperately want her
to win. She did win the SAG award, so there you go.
In other categories...
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: "Far from Heaven", because
I'm deluding myself into thinking that "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" cannot
win an Oscar
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: "Adaptation"
ANIMATED FEATURE: "Ice Age" (let's pray that I'm
wrong)
DOCUMENTARY FEATURE: "Bowling for
Columbine"
FOREIGN FILM: "The Crime of Father Amaro"
(Mexico)
ORIGINAL SONG: "I Move On", from
"Chicago"
ORIGINAL SCORE: "The Hours"
FILM EDITING: "Chicago"
CINEMATOGRAPHY: "Road to Perdition", probably.
It looked great, and is the sentimental favourite, due to the recent passing
of Conrad L. Hall. "Far from Heaven" has its vociferous supporters, correctly,
and is strong competition. "Chicago" may get swept in, but I think this is
a two-horse race.
ART DIRECTION/SET DECORATION: "Gangs of New
York"
COSTUME DESIGN: "Chicago"
MAKEUP: "Frida"
SOUND: "Chicago"
SOUND EFFECTS EDITING: "Minority
Report"
VISUAL EFFECTS: "Lord of the Rings: The Two
Towers"
ANIMATED SHORT: "The Chubbchubbs"
DOCUMENTARY SHORT: "Twin Towers"
Oscar coverage begins on BBC1 at 12.50am Sunday
night.
COPYRIGHT©
2002 Ian Waldron-Mantgani
Commentary
Index
UK
Critic main page
|
![[Image]](http://www.ukcritic.com/posbanr2.gif)
