"Trouble in Paradise" ... "The Scarlet Empress" ... "Bringing Up Baby" ... "His Girl Friday" ... "Shadow of a Doubt" ... "Laura" ... "Out of the Past" ... "Kiss Me Deadly" ... "The Searchers" ... "North by Northwest" ... "A Hard Day's Night" ... "Point Blank" ... "2001: A Space Odyssey" ... "Once Upon a Time in the West" ... "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" ... "The Shining" ... "Cutter and Bone" (a.k.a. "Cutter's Way") ... "Drugstore Cowboy" ... "Miller's Crossing" ... "Dead Man" ... "About Schmidt" ...
All these movies have three things in common: 1) I regard each as the best of its year. 2) None won the Academy Award as best picture. 3) And none was even nominated. For that matter, most of my second and third choices weren't nominated, either.
Thirty-nine Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences years that's happened. And I'm not counting the dozen or so years when I favored a foreign-language film. Opening the field to personal top pics that were nominated increases the number by only 10 ("Citizen Kane," "It's a Wonderful Life," "Chinatown," "Nashville," "Saving Private Ryan," etc.).
All of which is to say, I don't place a lot of stock in the Academy Awards. But that doesn't stop me from being fascinated, more often than not, at the way the contest plays out, and from feeling warm and googly when I see how happy some people, mostly talented folks who have given a decent amount of pleasure to us moviegoers, get to be when their names are called out on Oscar night. Even if I wasn't rooting for them.
This will not be a white-knuckle Academy year for me. I really have no dog(s) in this fight, nor all that much to rail against. My top film is nowhere mentioned (yep, "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada" - oh, that makes 40). Then again, there are no embarrassments among the best-picture nominees ("Memoirs of a Geisha," the second film directed by the man who gave us "Chicago," once seemed a shoo-in, till people saw it). Nor were there nominations for a couple of inoffensive but also unremarkable high-profile pictures on which a lot of ink was lavished: "Cinderella Man" and "Walk the Line." Despite nomination-worthy performances by Reese Witherspoon and Joaquin Phoenix as June Carter and Johnny Cash, respectively, "Walk the Line" is much less worthy a motion picture than, to my surprise, "Ray" turned out to be last year. "Ray" boasted not only Jamie Foxx's bravura centerpiece performance but 12-15 other sharp characterizations; apart from Johnny's inconsolably gloomy pa (Robert Patrick), there essentially is no one else in "Walk the Line" but the two main characters.
Yet "Cinderella Man" and "Walk the Line" have their boosters, especially among people who look at this year's Oscar nominees and see not films (and filmmaking, and performances, and stories) but agendas. Last year the roiling Right took the powerful, classically fine "Million Dollar Baby" and characterized it as a position paper on ... well, a certain volatile social, cultural and political issue (which I won't name, for the sake of those who have yet to experience the film). This year the agenda bug has taken off like bird flu. Hollyweird is perceived as out to establish every manner of ideological beachhead by nominating films and performances that celebrate homosexuality ("Brokeback Mountain," "Capote"), transsexuals ("Transamerica"), liberal journalists ("Good Night, and Good Luck."), human-rights activists ("The Constant Gardener"), rap music ("Hustle & Flow") and suspicion of Big Oil ("Syriana") and Big Business ("The Constant Gardener") and nationalism carried to extremes ("Munich").
Now, some of those movies are pretty explicit in having political sympathies (or "agendas" - or just a working brain). What matters - what should matter - is that, to the extent that they're legitimately provocative, they're good films. They tell specific stories about specific characters, not die-cut types, with dramatically complex itineraries and daringly original moods and vectors. If you want to look at "Brokeback Mountain" and talk about the pain and risk of loving someone of the same gender in 1963 Wyoming, or 2006 anywhere, you can do that. You can even do that intelligently. But surely the main thing is that "Brokeback Mountain" is one heartfelt, and heartbreaking, movie about two particular people who fall in love, and some other eminently sympathetic human beings (wives, offspring, parents) who also are part of their lives, one way or another. Of course, many of the people who are most disposed to loathe and fear what they assume is an allegorical endorsement of homosexuality are unshakably determined never to see it. Their loss.
But enough about talking around the movies. Let's take a quick look at the candidates in the leading categories.
Picture: With a slew of awards already in hand and more Academy nominations than any other film, "Brokeback Mountain" is the official, if not quite impregnable, frontrunner. Anything can happen, of course, and the climate among Tinseltown voters has been known to change dramatically as the deadline for ballots draws nigh. "Capote," a decent movie, has been overrated enough that voters should start catching on pretty soon, and "Munich" is way too controversial (just getting nominated is victory enough, and rather remarkable in the circumstances). My sense is that the best chance for upsetting "Brokeback"'s apple cart lies with "Crash" - the weakest nominee, with its rigid grid of good/bad dichotomies for every character, which some will take for profundity - or the Edward R. Murrow-vs. - Good Night, and Good Luck." Hollywood clearly loves George Clooney right now, with good reason (as actor, director, co-writer and de facto - albeit uncredited - co-producer, he's effectively nominated in four categories, something only Orson Welles and Warren Beatty have managed previously). Besides, with "GN,&GL." he's done an impeccable job of filmmaking, if a mite too hermetic. My bet: Stick with "Brokeback."
Director: The worst thing anyone can say about Ang Lee is that he may have too much good taste. He's already collected the Directors Guild award for "Brokeback Mountain," and Academy voters over the years have rarely contradicted the DGA's judgment. Steven Spielberg's work on "Munich" is breathtakingly assured, but people take that for granted from him; and he's being beaten up, not saluted, for finding moral-ethical complexity where others prefer simple outrage. First-time helmers Paul Haggis, "Crash," and Bennett Miller, "Capote," drew terrific performances from fine casts, but "Crash" as a movie is too calculated and "Capote" too "Masterpiece Theatre" muted. Again, likeliest challenger is that man Clooney - especially since actors, the largest voting branch in the Academy, like to vote for other actors in this category. (Interesting trivia note: If memory serves, this is the first year since 1964 when nominations for picture and director have directly coincided.)
Actor in a Leading Role: Terrific slate. All signs point to Philip Seymour Hoffman walking away with it in the title role of "Capote" - a movie and a portrait whose "daring complexity" verges on the self-evident. It doesn't hurt Hoffman's chances that he's been a redoubtable supporting player heretofore and this is his stellar showcase.
The same can be said for David Strathairn, who's been one of our finest character actors since he first appeared in John Sayles' "Return of the Secaucus 7" in 1980, and whose Edward R. Murrow in "Good Night, and Good Luck." is unimprovable. Heath Ledger, already much awarded for his unexpectedly powerful work in "Brokeback Mountain," appears to have lost the Big Mo. Joaquin Phoenix's channeling of Johnny Cash in "Walk the Line" can't be counted out, though his distaff costar is even more impressive than he. My own fondest hope is that the winner could be Terrence Howard in "Hustle & Flow," with starpower and acting chops to burn. Of course, the guy who should be up for this award, and winning it, is Jeff Daniels, "The Squid and the Whale."
Actress in a Leading Role: My bad. I've yet to catch two of the nominated performances, Keira Knightley's in "Pride and Prejudice" and Felicity Huffman's in "Transamerica" (can Hollywood really resist the post-Oscar headline "Hoffman and Huffman's the one"?). Charlize Theron's yeoman work in "North Country" doesn't deserve to have been nominated when the likes of Maria Bello ("A History of Violence") and Laura Linney ("The Squid and the Whale") have been passed over. Judi Dench has once again received The Obligatory Judi Dench Nomination, for the delightful but inveterately minor "Mrs. Henderson Presents." By a country mile: Reese Witherspoon, "Walk the Line."
Actor in a Supporting Role: As in the lead-actor category, Hollywood really can't go wrong with five such nominees as George Clooney, "Syriana"; Matt Dillon, "Crash"; Paul Giamatti, "Cinderella Man"; Jake Gyllenhaal, "Brokeback Mountain"; and William Hurt, "A History of Violence." Gyllenhaal has as much right as Heath Ledger to compete for best actor in a leading role, whereas Hurt's deliciously zany/freaky 10 minutes in "History" arguably don't merit this slot as richly as Ed Harris' work in a bigger part. Giamatti and Dillon are both excellent character actors receiving their belated due, but I'm guessing Hollywood will make sure George Clooney gets something out of the evening, and this is the best place to do it.
Actress in a Supporting Role: This is a stronger race than lead actress. Catherine Keener is the female David Strathairn, and her Nelle Harper Lee in "Capote" had my vote - until I belatedly saw Amy Adams' astonishing, quicksilver performance in "Junebug." Adams probably won't add an Oscar to the critics awards she's copped so far; the smart money appears to be on Rachel Weisz in "The Constant Gardener." Michelle Williams was hurtfully good as the unloved wife in "Brokeback Mountain," but she must content herself with winning Heath Ledger offscreen as she didn't on. They probably stamped "nomination guaranteed" on Frances McDormand's copy of the script for "North Country"; it's not her fault that the part is so calculated and clichéd.
In screenplay-adaptation, it'll be highway robbery if anyone but Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana, "Brokeback Mountain," gets to the podium. Best original screenplay should, but won't, go to the only nominee from "The Squid and the Whale," writer-director Noah Baumbach. Expect the aforementioned Mr. Clooney and Grant Heslov to be beatified for "Good Night, and Good Luck." - unless the Academy votes a double consolation prize to Paul Haggis (whose script for "Million Dollar Baby" didn't win last year) and Bobby Moresco, "Crash."
For me, the interest level seriously drops in the subsidiary categories this time around. Cinematographer of the year was Chris Menges for his work on "Melquiades Estrada" and "North Country" (you could feel the weather, smell the interiors), but he's not nominated; I hope the award goes to either the estimable Emmanuel Lubezki, in excellent form on Terrence Malick's "The New World," or Rob Elswit, never nominated for his stunning work on Paul Thomas Anderson movies ("Hard Eight," "Boogie Nights") but cited at last for "Good Night, and Good Luck." On Oscar night, best editing is supposed to be an early tipoff of best picture, but this year only two best-pic candidates are nominated.
The 78th Academy Awards will be presented March 5 on KOMO-4. For a complete list of nominees, visit oscar.com.
Richard T. Jameson has been a member of the National Society of Film Critics since 1980. He's the editor of our associate publication, the Queen Anne News, and may be reached via editor@sdistrictjournal.com.[[In-content Ad]]
