2006 OSCAR PREDICTIONS AND NOTES
We'll be using Ted's soon to be patented technique of counting key issues and weighing their relative importance regardless of the talent involved. Since I've not seen all the movies, I will nonetheless be issuing weighty pronouncements on which movies and performances are the best. Note that I don't give a damn about directors.
I'll then follow with my top 10 for the year and other awards including biggest snubs and most ridiculous nomination of the year.
* Means Will Win
! Means Should Win (Of those nominated)
& Means Did Not See
BEST PICTURE:
*&The Gay Cowboy Movie (Brokeback) (Social Issue+Western+MinorityDir+GayBonus AKA Brokeback Factor)
& The Gay Intellectual Movie (Capote) (Brokeback Factor+Intellectual)
! The Racial Montage Movie (Crash) (Social Issue+Token Black+Ensemble Cast)
&The Better George Clooney Lectures Us Subtly Movie (Good Night and Good Luck) (Social Issue+Black&White+Hollywood Royalty Directs)
The Steven Spielberg Movie (Munich) (Contemporary Issues-Foreign+Speilberg)
This year's contenders hit the key issues much harder than last year's making it a much more competitive field, even if all of these movies are veer towards lameness. I'd give Capote a better shot if it were in black&white. Crash won't win because it won the Golden Globe, which means it can't win again. That and it just doesn't have the social issues managerie that Brokeback does. Good Night might have had a shot if Clooney were Clint Eastwood. Speilberg's film gets it's obligatory nod as well - I'm tempted to add sex farce to it's attributes list. Do you think he'd show up if he didn't get nominated. If he hadn't put out Munich, would they have nominated that cess pool that was War of the Worlds, just out of fear. How bad does a serious Spielberg pic have to be for it to not get nominated, and I'm not talking one of those movies he farms out to the interns, like Jurassic Park 2.
Anyhow, the almost comical panoply of hot button factors for Brokeback makes it the pick. Unless Spike Lee were to direct a movie about midget Maoris in black&white, I don't see anyone beating it out ever. Unless their are issues I missed in the films I haven't seen, I can't see it not winning.
BEST ACTOR
*!&Philip Seymour Hoffman is Capote - Brokeback+Intellectual+Biopic+accent
&Terrence Howard is a black guy and drug dealer - Social Issues+Token Black Guy
&Heath Ledger is gay - Social Issues+Brokeback
&Joaquin Phoenix is Johnny Cash (Ray-blackness) - Black&White+E True Hollywood Story+accent
&George Clooney is a Crusading Journalist - Black&WHite+Biopic+Crusading Journalist
This is a more difficult choice. I think Ledger and Howard just don't have a chance because they don't have enough star power to overcome their hotbutton deficit. Hollywood stops for E! True Hollywood stories, so I'm scared of Phoenix, especially in b&w. And Clooney has collected a lot of factors in his favor. However, I'm going to go with PSH, mostly because I liked him in Almost Famous, and because I'd like to pretend that intellectual beats out crusading journalist, and I know the Brokeback factor beats out b&w.
BEST ACTRESS
&Dame Judi Dench is a classy English dame (apparenty this is acting?) - Sex Farce+accent
&Felicity Huffman is transsexual - Social Issues-Who?+Brokeback Factor
!&Keira Knightly is a Jane Austen character - Jane Austen+accent
*&Charlize Theron is a miner living in a man's world - Socials Issues+Accent+Playing Ugly
&Reece Witherspoon is an E!True Hollywood victim - Black&White+Accent
A weak crew, as is usually the case - movies are written by men. Or maybe women aren't strong characters. Who knows? It's one thing for Reece Witherspoon or whoever to claim an award for playing a real live person, it's another thing for Dame Judi Dench to claim an award for playing herself. Huffman is the darkhorse - how bad is her who? factor...if you replaced her name with any other on the list for that film, she'd win. Don't count her out - remember Hillary Swank and the chick from the Crying Game...or was that a man? So I hear Knightly was good in a good movie from a Jane Austen book, but since I'd rather Jane Austen be banished from the culture, I think the clear choice here is Theron. You've got women's lib, you've got oppressed iconoclast, you've got an accent, and you've got a beatiful woman playing ugly. It's a powerful combo.
SUPPORTING ACTOR
*George Clooney is a Noble Conspiracy Victim - Social Issues-Foreign+Playing Ugly
!Matt Dillon is a Racist But Somewhat Noble Cop - Social Issues+Complex-Comeon, Matt Dillon?
Paul Giamatti is a Gutsy Comedic Sidekick - Social Issues-Already Ugly
&Jake Gyllenhaal is the Other Gay Cowboy - Social Issues+Brokeback Factor
William Hurt is a Wry Gangster in a Non-Comedic Film - None
First off - William Hurt is my inexplicable choice of the year. It's one thing that he has no hot button issues. Then he has no great lines. In fact, his character is TERRIBLE. And he STINKS in it. He ruins the movie. The movie is this weighty, serious pulp novel and in swaggers William Hurt, swirling in his leather chair and cracking wry jokes to the audience. What the hell? Who thought that was a good idea? He doesn't even stand up!
Secondly, Clooney would be my solid second, and may win out. The question is whether he's hollywood royalty or not. More importantly, what happens when, someday, someone is nominated for two movies. Are they going to show him/her twice in the split screen. I think they should have a body double so that when he/she loses, one can look really happy and we can still have the satisfaction of the other one being crushed, bitter and jealous. Or maybe they could just have Bill Murray do that.
Giamatti was nice but come on, he doesn't touch the social issues with his character, and he's probably playing himself anyway. And they're the wrong social issues.
That leaves us with Dillon and Gyl...the other gay cowboy. Dillon's character is complex and compelling so all he had to do was not screw it up. In this he succeeds. So really, this award should go to the writer. That said, come on, it's Matt Dillon. Did anyone else see Wild Things and take the time to watch his performance. Outrageously bad. It's like giving an Oscar to Keanu. By process of elimination, it goes to the gay cowboy. I can't really see him up there winning, so I'll hedge my bets and say that Clooney is a strong choice here, but...you know what, I changed my mind. Clooney's going to win.
SUPPORTING ACTRESS
&Amy Adams is Someone I've Never Heard Of
&Catherine Keener is In A Gay Intellectual Movie - Intellectual+Brokeback Factor
!&Frances McDormand Decided to Take a Role This Year - Women's Lib+MerylStreep Factor
&Rachel Weisz is a Possibly Not So Innocent Noble Conspiracy Victim - Social Issues-Foreign
*&Michelle Williams is the Wife of a Gay Cowboy - Social Issues+Brokeback Factor
I originally thought McDormand would win, but she's too good. I'm going with the Brokeback sweep here. Incidentally, the one person I know who's seen her performance said that all the Brokeback guys in the audience laughed when her character finds out that her cowboy is gay. That's not cool.
THIS YEAR'S SNUBS:
OVERHYPED BLOCKBUSTER DIVISION - King Kong. I would have thought the Oscars would try to redeem this by giving it a nod or two. I guess Peter Jackson isn't Scorcese
TEPID FILM SET IN ASIA DIVISION - Memoirs of a Geisha.
SPIELBERG DIVISION - War of the Worlds
OVERHYPED BLOCKBUSTER SEQUEL DIVISION - Star Wars III. Come on, he even made Darth Vader George Bush...not even a little love for all that work?
GOOD EPIC DIVISION - Cinderella Man
BILL MURRAY DIVISION - Bill Murray taking stock as himself in Broken Flowers
MOVIES I WISHED I'D SAW:
The Whale and the Squid
Wallace and Grommit
Grizzly Man
Corpse Bride
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada
TED TYLER'S OFFICIAL BEST 10 FILMS I SAW THIS YEAR:
1. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
2. Match Point
3. Cinderella Man
4. Mr. and Mrs. Smith
5. Crash
6. Kung Fu Hustle
7. 40-Year Old Virgin
8. Broken Flowers
9. Be Cool
10. Get Rich or Die Tryin' (OK, so I didn't see it. But in a terrible year for movies, why the heck not?)
2 comments:
What about Harry Potter?
Here's my theory: Harry Potter--the book, especially--is an epic series. It's got all the important ingredients: a clear hero and his allies, a clear villain and his allies, a progression where the villian grows increasingly strong while the hero is still discovering himself, a number of potentially fatal flaws that the audience can empathize with, grand battles and serious personal sacrifice, and no shying away from death.
This last Harry Potter movie was the first serious effort to convey that sense in the movies, as opposed to just making fun and intriguing witch/wizard movies for kids.
A secondary effect of the new movie focus was making the special effects that much cooler. Since the whole movie was not dedicated to outdoing the Matrix, or dazzling children, the few instances of magic or wizardry were pretty good. And the applications of that magic helped reinforce the plot (think of the scene where Harry goes underwater and confronts the underwater-people. it's scary, but not just because the camera work is spooky. It's scary because the movie is about a serious battle of life and death between good and evil, and this scene is one part of that battle.)
The big downfall I recall was that Ralph Fiennes got too much screen time as Voldemort. He really blew all his credibility as an evil genius, and talked for too long. But he is a name actor, so maybe this is the best we can expect.
i can't believe you put 40 yr old virgin above broken flowers. although, i didn't see 40 yr old virgin.
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada was really good. the run-up was much better than the resolution, however.
i heard Wallace and Grommit was really funny and good. it was only showing here in german, so i opted not to see it. maybe another time.
Post a Comment