The Oscar Grouch

Grumbling about the Awards I love to hate and hate to love.

Sunday, February 27, 2005

Genius Loves Company

I don't know why it's taken me until now, but I've stumbled across a connective tissue between all of this year's Best Picture nominees: Genius. Forgive me if this has been discussed elsewhere already, but I've suddenly realized that all five films deal with individuals striving for the extraordinary in their respective arts (no wonder The Academy tapped them), be it boxing, aviation, writing, music or writing again. These films are about what it takes to reach the level of genius (determination, vision, raw innate talent and inspiration - I'm leaving Sideways off because it's the one movie where the artists (Miles and Jack) fall short of greatness... and that's okay too) as well as the sad and lonely price these people have to pay for achieving it. These geniuses are isolated by their excellence (again, Sideways is the exception, where as Miles starts to accept his lack of greatness he's able to let Maya in).

If the five Best Picture nominees in a given year are somehow representative of a zeitgeist in motion pictures, then this theme can surely be seen in other notable films of 2004. Perhaps no three films addressed it more directly (sometimes through metaphor) than the "superhero" trinity of The Incredibles, Spider-Man 2 and Team America: World Police. In all three cases, the greatness was innate in the characters, so what they really focused on was the struggle between the desire to fit in and be average in this P.C. society (even if that means ignoring your God-/radiated spider-given gifts) and the responsibility an extraordinary person has to share their gifts with the world (with great power comes great responsibility).

And if movies are a reflection of the times we live in, both The Incredibles (obliquely and unintentionally, since it was written many years ago) and Team America (blatantly and very intentionally as it was written weeks before it was released) tied this dillema into America's place in the world at the moment as well as one of the fundamental questions at the heart of this year's electoral divide: When is it necessary to exercise our country's force?

The two biggest lightning rods of the year in cinema expressed a diametrically opposing view from The Incredibles, Team America and Spider-Man 2. Both The Passion of the Christ and Fahrenheit 9/11 preached a form of "With great power comes the need for great restraint" (I know that may not be the main point of The Passion, and perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but I seem to remember something about how Jesus had the power to get off that cross if he had wanted to yet chose not to use it).

Now I've gotten a little off track, and I'm probably stretching to tie all of this year's films to the theme of Greatness (comma the pursuit of, the burden of and the lack thereof). Though if I wanted to, I could extend this discussion to Kill Bill, Vol. 2, Collateral, Troy, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, Metallica: Some Kind of Monster, Spanglish, Bad Education, The Assasination of Richard Nixon, Baadasssss!, Being Julia and of course that epitome of Greatness - Alexander (the man, not the movie).

Just something for you to think about during the Best Original Song performances.

Friday, February 25, 2005

The Oscar Grouch's 2005 Academy Award Predictions

Best Picture
Will Win: The Aviator
Potential Spoiler: Million Dollar Baby
Dark Horse: Sideways
Who I’m Rooting For: Uh, I guess Sideways. Or Million Dollar Baby. Or The Aviator.

Best Directing
Will Win: Martin Scorsese, The Aviator
Potential Spoiler: Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby
Dark Horse: Alexander Payne, Sideways
Who I’m Rooting For: Martin Scorsese, The Aviator

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Will Win: Jamie Foxx, Ray
Potential Spoiler: Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby
Dark Horse: Leonardo DiCaprio, The Aviator
Who I’m Rooting For: Johnny Depp, Finding Neverland

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Will Win: Hilary Swank, Million Dollar Baby
Potential Spoiler: Annette Bening, Being Julia
Dark Horse: Imelda Staunton, Vera Drake
Who I’m Rooting For: Kate Winslet, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Will Win: Morgan Freeman, Million Dollar Baby
Potential Spoiler: Clive Owen, Closer
Dark Horse: Thomas Haden Church, Sideways
Who I’m Rooting For: Clive Owen, Closer

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Will Win: Cate Blanchett, The Aviator
Potential Spoiler: Virginia Madsen, Sideways
Dark Horse: Natalie Portman, Closer
Who I’m Rooting For: Cate Blanchett, The Aviator

Best Adapted Screenplay
Will Win: Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor, Sideways
Potential Spoiler: Paul Haggis, Million Dollar Baby
Dark Horse: David Magee, Finding Neverland
Who I’m Rooting For: Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor, Sideways

Best Original Screenplay
Will Win: Charlie Kaufman & Michel Gondry & Pierre Bismuth, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Potential Spoiler: Mike Leigh, Vera Drake
Dark Horse: Keir Pearson & Terry George, Hotel Rwanda
Who I’m Rooting For: Charlie Kaufman & Michel Gondry & Pierre Bismuth, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Best Animated Feature
Will Win: The Incredibles
Potential Spoiler: Shrek 2
Dark Horse: A write-in win for The Polar Express
Who I’m Rooting For: Shrek 2

Best Foreign Language Film
Will Win: The Sea Inside
Potential Spoiler: Downfall
Dark Horse: The Chorus
Who I’m Rooting For: The Sea Inside (of the two I’ve seen)

Best Documentary Feature
Will Win: Born into Brothels
Potential Spoiler: Super Size Me
Dark Horse: Twist of Faith
Who I’m Rooting For: Born into Brothels (of the two I’ve seen)

Best Art Direction
Will Win: Rick Heinrichs (art direction) and Cheryl Carasik (set decoration), Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events
Potential Spoiler: Dante Ferretti (art) and Francesca Lo Schiavo (set), The Aviator
Dark Horse: Aline Bonetto, A Very Long Engagement
Who I’m Rooting For: Aline Bonetto, A Very Long Engagement

Best Cinematography
Will Win: Robert Richardson, The Aviator
Potential Spoiler: Caleb Deschanel, The Passion of The Christ
Dark Horse: Bruno Delbonnel, A Very Long Engagement
Who I’m Rooting For: Bruno Delbonnel, A Very Long Engagement

Best Costume Design
Will Win: Sandy Powell, The Aviator
Potential Spoiler: Bob Ringwood, Troy
Dark Horse: Colleen Atwood, Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events
Who I’m Rooting For: Colleen Atwood, Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events

Best Editing
Will Win: Thelma Schoonmaker, The Aviator
Potential Spoiler: Joel Cox, Million Dollar Baby
Dark Horse: Paul Hirsch, Ray
Who I’m Rooting For: Jim Miller and Paul Rubell, Collateral

Best Makeup
Will Win: Valli O’Reilly and Bill Corso, Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events
Potential Spoiler: Keith Vanderlaan and Christien Tinsley, The Passion of The Christ
Dark Horse: Jo Allen and Manuel Garcia, The Sea Inside
Who I’m Rooting For: Valli O’Reilly and Bill Corso, Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events

Best Original Score
Will Win: Jan A.P. Kaczmarek, Finding Neverland
Potential Spoiler: John Debney, The Passion of The Christ
Dark Horse: John Williams, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Who I’m Rooting For: John Williams, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Best Original Song

Will Win: “Believe” from The Polar Express, Music and Lyric by Glen Ballard and Alan Silvestri
Potential Spoiler: “Learn To Be Lonely” from The Phantom of the Opera, Music by Andrew Lloyd Webber, Lyric by Charles Hart
Dark Horse: “Look to Your Path” from The Chorus, Music by Bruno Coulais, Lyric by Christophe Barratier
Who I’m Rooting For: Write-in votes for anything from Team America: World Police

Best Sound
Will Win: Kevin O’Connell, Greg P. Russell, Jeffrey J. Haboush and Joseph Geisinger, Spider-Man 2
Potential Spoiler: Tom Fleischman and Petur Hliddal, The Aviator
Dark Horse: Scott Millan, Greg Orloff, Bob Beemer and Steve Cantamessa, Ray
Who I’m Rooting For: Randy Thom, Tom Johnson, Dennis Sands and William B. Kaplan, The Polar Express

Best Sound Editing
Will Win: Paul N.J. Ottosson, Spider-Man 2
Potential Spoiler: Michael Silvers and Randy Thom, The Incredibles
Dark Horse: Randy Thom and Dennis Leonard, The Polar Express
Who I’m Rooting For: Randy Thom and Dennis Leonard, The Polar Express

Best Visual Effects
Will Win: John Dykstra, Scott Stokdyk, Anthony LaMolinara and John Frazier, Spider-Man 2
Potential Spoiler: John Nelson, Andrew R. Jones, Erik Nash and Joe Letteri, I, Robot
Dark Horse: Roger Guyett, Tim Burke, John Richardson and Bill George, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Who I’m Rooting For: John Dykstra, Scott Stokdyk, Anthony LaMolinara and John Frazier, Spider-Man 2

Best Animated Short Film
Will Win: Ryan
Potential Spoiler: Gopher Broke
Dark Horse: Lorenzo
Who I’m Rooting For: Ryan (of the three I’ve seen)

Best Live Action Short Film
Will Win: Little Terrorist
Potential Spoiler: Everything in This Country Must
Dark Horse: 7:35 in the Morning
Who I’m Rooting For: 7:35 in the Morning

Best Documentary Short Subject
Will Win: Autism Is a World
Potential Spoiler: Sister Rose’s Passion
Dark Horse: The Children of Leningradsky
Who I’m Rooting For: Haven’t seen any of these

The Big Ones

Oscar prognosticators seem to say this every year, but I truly believe that this is one of the closest races in recent memory (except for the lead acting categories). In almost every race, there are at least two very strong contenders, either of which I could easily predict for the win. I’ve never been this unsure about my picks (there have been years where I’ve purposefully gone out on a limb to call a long shot, but I at least knew who the favorite was – not this year).
No two categories are more distressing for me at the moment than the two big ones – Best Picture and Best Directing. And in recent years, the two have not gone hand-in-hand as much as in the past.

This year, the Best Picture race comes down to intellect vs. emotion, which isn’t to say that Million Dollar Baby doesn’t appeal to people on an intellectual basis or that The Aviator is without a heart. But it seems that most of The Aviator’s supporters “appreciate” its artistry and technical prowess whereas Million dollar Baby’s fans are “touched” by its humanity and heart wrenching drama. Both methods of impacting the audience have worked for Best Picture winners in the past (it’s hard to judge which has worked better). On paper, The Aviator seems to have everything going for it according to trends and rules (everything except that pesky DGA Award). But predicting the Academy Awards is about more than science – after all, it is The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. So we can’t forget the “Arts” part of the equation. There’s an intangible feeling surrounding Million Dollar Baby that has inspired most Oscar prognosticators to shift it from potential spoiler to the frontrunner.

This is something unique in my decade-or-so-long history of following the Awards.

Many have been comparing this year’s race to 1998 when Shakespeare in Love defeated Saving Private Ryan (analogizing Baby to Shakespeare and Aviator to Private Ryan), but there are few notable problems with that theory. For starters, I’m not sure that Shakespeare ever achieved the frontrunner status that Baby now has. Many (including myself) were saying that it had a very good shot at upsetting Private Ryan, but few were actually willing to go on the record and predict it to win (as I recall – memory can be a fuzzy thing). Also, Shakespeare had more total nominations than Private Ryan, which is not true of Baby. Shakespeare had a no-name director (well, it was a famous name, but for a different man) with no significant body of work who lost the DGA Award to the other guy – again, not true of Baby. And speaking of precursors, those went a little different back in 1998: Both Shakespeare and Private Ryan won Golden Globes for Best Picture, which was impossible for Baby and Aviator to repeat this year since they were up against year other in the Drama category; of the nine guild awards, Private Ryan won four and Shakespeare won two – this year, Aviator’s won three while Baby has only picked up one (I’m only counting SAG’s ensemble award, which Shakespeare won and Baby did not). The one important similarity between Shakespeare and Baby is that both had that intangible, in the air feeling of support working for them and building late-season momentum.

There are a few other similar races I could go into where there was a tenuous frontrunner – 1991, 1995 and 2002 – but each seems distinct enough from this year’s match-up that it hardly seems worth it (I wasn’t really on the Oscar beat in 1991, but one major difference is that The Silence of the Lambs swept the Writers, Directors and Producers Guilds; in 1995, Braveheart’s two chief competitors – Apollo 13 and Sense and Sensibility – failed to garner Best Directing nods, effectively crushing their once promising prospects); and in 2002, Chicago was sitting pretty, pretty much up until The Pianist’s three shocking “top-tier” wins).

I do however keep reflecting on 2000, when many were tipping Gladiator to win, but few could actually believe that it was going to be an Academy Award-winning Best Picture. The last minute DGA upset by Ang Lee threw some prognosticators (including yours truly) into a tizzy, I think because we were reaching for some sign that Gladiator couldn’t possibly win (I really enjoyed Gladiator a lot – but come on…). There certainly wasn’t much critical love for Gladiator (a lot of like, but not “like” like) and honestly, I don’t know of anybody outside of the teenage boy set who felt a passionate love for the film.

In my analogy, The Aviator is Gladiator (they even sound alike!) – despite Gladiator’s front-runner status. They’re both the well-respected, big-budgeted, lots-of-nomination-getting films that run somewhat cool on the passion scale (though The Aviator has fared better, I believe). The problem with 2000 as a template for this year is that there was no Million Dollar Baby back then. Chocolat was an amusing trifle, nothing more (despite what Miramax’ marketing would have you believe). Erin Brockovich and Traffic are ruled out, not just because of the Soderbergh split, but because even though both films have their lovers (myself included), I think that love was mostly felt for the brilliant technique whereas Baby’s love is for the characters and the story. Finally there’s Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (which I had pegged for a win, even though I knew it was a long shot). It had a lot of what Baby has – emotion, the second highest number of nominations, passionate supporters and a DGA win – but it had one thing more: subtitles. And those outweighed everything else.

Still, if Gladiator can win Best Picture, surely The Aviator can. And so, I have to go against the grain and predict The Aviator to win Best Picture. Though you should know, I have a tendency to pick the underdog (pretty much every year except 1998, when I let my love of Spielberg get in the way), so the safest bet for your Oscar pool is probably Million Dollar Baby.

As for Best Directing, I could go through a whole bunch of statistics and historical precedents, but in this category, it really does come down to a gut feeling. Despite the DGA, despite the general consensus in the press that Eastwood is a beloved figure in Hollywood who’s due for (another!) win, despite prevailing predictions to the contrary – I’ve gotta go with Scorsese. Yeah, I thought he’d win in 2002, too, but there was a lot of controversy and backlash then, and besides that, nobody liked Gangs of New York and many hated it.

And I just don’t buy this talk that Eastwood and Scorsese are (directing) legends of equal caliber. Putting personal feelings aside (I’m not a huge fan of either, though I respect both), how many generally accepted “classics” has Eastwood directed? I count one (it’s too early to judge how Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby will be considered in the future). Scorsese’s got three that outrank #98 Unforgiven on the AFI’s Top 100 list (Raging Bull, Taxi Driver and Goodfellas), and some would classify Mean Streets and The Last Temptation of Christ as modern classics.

What really irks me is that I keep reading that Eastwood is arguably one of our greatest living directors. Two back-to-back well-received films does not transform someone into the greatest. Are these people forgetting everything he did between Unforgiven and Mystic River (let me remind them: Blood Work, Space Cowboys, True Crime, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, Absolute Power, The Bridges of Madison County and A Perfect World)? Sure, Scorsese’s had a rough decade or so too (since Goodfellas, he’s made Cape Fear, The Age of Innocence, Casino, Kundun, Bringing Out the Dead and Gangs of New York, as well as a few documentaries), but I think that most of his failures were at least trying for something loftier than Blood Work, and even they have their ardent supporters and garnered some Oscar attention (not including Gangs, those films earned a cumulative twelve nominations to Eastwood’s grand total of one). Okay, this rant is over.

Anyway, I just have a feeling that Scorsese will win out. I feel much better about that prediction than my Best Picture prediction. I’d recommend going for the split in your Oscar pool, with Million Dollar Baby for Best Picture and Scorsese for Best Directing. But don’t blame me if you lose.

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Do Numbers Matter?

When I started tallying up the number of Best Picture winners that were and were not the most nominated films in their Oscar years, I was surprised by the results. Of the 76 Best Pictures, 35 had the most nominations, 18 were tied for the most nominations with at least one other film and 23 had fewer nominations than at least one other film. That last number (representing 30% of all winners) seemed high to me, until I realized that like many Oscar trends, it’s heavily skewed by including data from all 76 years. When you narrow the sample to the last 22 years, the number of Best Pictures that didn’t pick up the highest number of nominations drops to… two (0.09%).

The last three times that occurred were in 2001, 1991 and 1981 (notice any superficial patterns there?). In 2001, A Beautiful Mind was tied with Moulin Rouge! in a distant second to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings (8 nominations to 13). In 1991, The Silence of the Lambs was tied for third with The Prince of Tides (7 nominations apiece), behind both JFK (8 nominations) and Bugsy (10 nominations). Finally, in 1981, Chariots of Fire placed fourth with barely more than half the nominations of Reds.

So recent history does not favor Million Dollar Baby in its match-up with The Aviator. Even such non-historical epics as Chicago, American Beauty and Shakespeare in Love managed to earn the most nominations in their winning years. And there were mitigating circumstances that enabled A Beautiful Mind’s triumph over The Fellowship of the Rings (obviously Academy members were waiting to see how the entire trilogy would turn out before bestowing it with the precious gold).

Although I’ve stated time and again that rules and trends are made to be broken (and don’t mean too much to begin with when it comes to the Oscars), this one has me very hesitant to join the fray and call Million Dollar Baby in the Best Picture race. Especially because this rule isn't merely based in coincidence - the reason the film with the most nominations usually wins is because that represents across the board support in the various branches of the Academy.

More Best Picture analysis on the way, as well as my final predictions in all categories…

The Academy, Marty and Boxers in Brief

What is with Martin Scorsese, The Academy and boxing pictures? The last three times a boxing movie has been nominated for Best Picture (not counting Pulp Fiction, which did feature a story about a boxer), there’s also been a Scorsese film nominated: In 1976, it was Rocky vs. Taxi Driver; in 1980, the boxing movie was the Scorsese movie (Raging Bull); and of course, in 2004, it’s Million Dollar Baby vs. The Aviator. An odd coincidence, no?

The following is a list of boxing films (or films featuring boxers) nominated for Best Picture:

1931 The Champ
1941 Here Comes Mr. Jordan
1954 On the Waterfront (won)
1976 Rocky (won)
1980 Raging Bull
1994 Pulp Fiction
2004 Million Dollar Baby

Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven was only the third western to win Best Picture. Can his Million Dollar Baby be the third boxing movie to do the same (if you consider On the Waterfront to be a "boxing" movie)?

If The Departed manages to be in contention next year, does this mean it’ll have to face off with Cinderella Man? Oh the cruel hand of irony.

In addition, the following actors were nominated for playing boxers or retired boxers (this is by no means a comprehensive list - also, I can't recall whether the trainers played by Oscar nominees Burgess Meredith and Clint Eastwood were former boxers themselves, so I'm not counting them):

1927 Richard Barthelmess, The Patent Leather Kid
1931 Wallace Beery, The Champ (won in a tie)
1941 Robert Montgomery, Here Comes Mr. Jordan
1947 John Garfield, Body & Soul
1949 Kirk Douglas, Champion
1954 Marlon Brando, On the Waterfront (won)
1970 James Earl Jones, The Great White Hope
1976 Sylvester Stallone, Rocky
1980 Robert De Niro, Raging Bull (won)
1999 Denzel Washington, The Hurricane
2001 Will Smith, Ali
2004 Hilary Swank & Morgan Freeman, Million Dollar Baby

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Trojan Horse

There may be no less accurate an Oscar precursor than the USC Scripter Award in recognition of the “Best Realization of a Book Adapted to Film.” Dare I say, it’s even something of a jinx – like the Best New Artist award at the Grammys.

Of the seventeen movies that had won as of last year, only four went on to win Best Adapted Screenplay at the Oscars. Even fewer (only three – A Beautiful Mind, The English Patient and Schindler’s List) picked up Best Picture Awards from the Academy.

Granted, three of the winners of Best Adapted Screenplay Oscars (Traffic, Sling Blade and Driving Miss Daisy) were ineligible for the Scripter Award (because they weren’t based on books), but still, those are not good odds. Even perennial punching bag The National Board of Review has got a better track record of picking the Best Picture winner.

That’s not a good omen for this year’s winner – Million Dollar Baby – in either the tight Best Adapted Screenplay race or the tight Best Picture race. Like Kanye West, Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor should be breathing sighs of relief that they lost.

Best Art Direction

The Art Directors Guild is more in step with the Academy than their Costume Designing counterparts. Though the ADG has been handing out awards for two more hears than the CDG, they’ve only had three Oscar mismatches (as opposed to the CDG’s four). And whereas the Oscar winners weren’t even nominated for CDG Awards in the mismatch years, every one of the Academy’s choices for Best Art Direction were at least nominated by the ADG. In addition, they usually match the Academy’s nominees four out of five.

However, a Lemony Snicket win is by no means guaranteed in this category either. Pointless Trend Alert: The ADG’s mismatches have occurred in every even year after their inception in 1996 (when The English Patient won both the ADG and Academy Awards). If this pattern holds, then we’re due for another mismatch this year, and another potential win for The Aviator.

But not so fast: I think Lemony Snicket has a much better shot in this category than in Best Costume Design. As Jim Emerson notes, many times with the Academy, it’s not about quality so much as quantity (not to dismiss the quality of Snicket’s art direction, which I happened to love) and the movie with the most Art Direction often wins. It worked for Rick Heinrichs on Sleepy Hollow (again, I don’t mean to disparage the quality of his work there, which was most deserving of both its ADG Award and its Oscar) where the entire film was, like Snicket, shot entirely on sets, with all outdoor locations artificially constructed inside a soundstage.

When I started writing this post, I was ready to bet on The Aviator, but I think I’ve persuaded myself to shift support to Lemony Snicket for the win on Sunday (though I'm still a bit worried about it being more stylized and hyper-real than even recent winners Chicago, Moulin Rouge! and Sleepy Hollow -- something which I think may have contributed to ADG winner What Dreams May Come's (somewhat ironic, given its title's source) loss to Shakespeare in Love at the Oscars). We’ll see if I should’ve stuck to my gut.

Oh and here’s a fun little bit of trivia I noticed – in 1996, all but one of the Academy’s Best Art Direction nominees were based on stage productions. The winner? The lone non-theatrically-originated film: The English Patient.

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Best Costume Design

What does the Costume Designers Guild Award mean for Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events mean in terms of its Oscar prospects? Not much. Although the CDG Awards have accurately predicted the last two winners for Best Costume Design (which coincidentally went on to win Best Picture), before that they’d never made a match in their brief four year history. In fact, all four eventual Oscar winners (Moulin Rouge!, Gladiator, Topsy Turvy and Shakespeare in Love) weren’t even nominated by the CDG.

It appears they have a greater propensity for gothic and/or fantasy and/or family and/or Jim Carrey films than the Academy (rewarding Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, How the Grinch Stole Christmas and Sleepy Hollow), classifications which all fit Lemony Snicket (the first CDG winner/mismatch was Pleasantville, which in terms of costume design, I’d consider more of a straight period film than a fantasy one).

Also, it seems they aren’t as fond of Sandy Powell as the Academy is. Although she’s now been nominated for six Academy Awards (winning one for Shakespeare in Love), this year’s CDG nomination for The Aviator was surprisingly her very first.

So I’m predicting an Aviator win here, though if I were truly a stickler for trends, I’d go with either Troy or Finding Neverland (probably Troy), neither of which were nominated for CDG Awards.

Sunday, February 20, 2005

Spreading the Wealth

With all the fuss about how this year’s crop of Best Picture nominees are the least successful (financially) in 20 years, a small, positive bit of trivia has been completely ignored.

As of this weekend, the lowest grosser this year (Finding Neverland) is among the highest grossing lowest grossers ever (not taking into account inflation – which I admit is a bit of a cheat). Thanks to the handy charts over at Box Office Mojo, I’ve compared Neverland’s earnings with those of other bottom-dwellers dating back to 1978, looking at their total lifetime grosses and if they eventually made more than Neverland, looking at how much they made up until Oscar night (when possible).

So far, Neverland has pulled in an estimated $45.3 million, with a week to go until the big night. In all but four of the last 26 years, the lowest grossing Best Picture nominee has made less than that. And in three of those four years, the lowest grossers (Goodfellas, Bugsy and The Full Monty) had earned less than that as of Oscar night. That leaves only that other Miramax-produced Johnny Depp-“starrer,” Chocolat, which had accumulated $60.7 million on its way to $71.5 million in a year that saw a record four $100 million-plus movies nominated for Best Picture.

On top of that, Neverland has already made more than some second-, third- and even fourth-lowest grossers. In the last 26 years, 50 nominees earned less than $45.3 million in their entire runs. An additional six had accumulated less than that as of Oscar night (at the very least – I’m not sure how much Chariots of Fire, Ordinary People and The Deer Hunter earned before their big wins), and Neverland has a good shot at overtaking Awakenings’ and The Crying Game’s pre-Oscar hauls of $46.1 and $47.3 million, respectively, by next Sunday. And in that low-grossing year of 1984, Neverland would’ve been the highest grosser on Oscar night by a good ten million dollars.

The point is that yes, there may not be a Hundred Million Dollar Baby nominated this year, but the distribution of wealth among the five nominees is more even than in most years. If a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, then this year’s chain is one of the strongest.

For the record, the lowest grossing nominee from this period of time is 1983's The Dresser with a paltry $5.3 million, followed closely by that same year's Tender Mercies with $8.4 million. The lowest grosser of the last 15 years is Secrets & Lies, which picked up just $13.4 million back in 1996.

Sunday, February 13, 2005

In Pursuit of Trivia

I just spent most of my day trying to answer these very difficult Oscar trivia questions... and it's not like I didn't have anything better to do, because I did... I just didn't get it done.

By far the toughest and most time-consuming question was this one:

In how many years has the Costume Design Oscar been given to a period movie (i.e. Ghandi) as opposed to a film set in present time?

First of all, the answer is complicated by the fact that for the first few decades, two Costume Design Oscars were handed out each year (one for Black & White, one for Color). So if both winners were period movies, does that count as one or two? And if only one of the two winners was a period movie, does that year count?

Second of all, I haven't seen most of the older movies, and a few I'd never heard of (Les Girls?), so I had to try to figure out through some online detective work when they were set - and not all of them were as obvious as Cleopatra or Doctor Zhivago. I'm still not convinced I'm right on all of them.

Third of all, by his definition, I'm not sure how to classify Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the Kings. Neither one is set in the present time, but neither one is set in a historical period. Lord of the Rings looks like a period movie, it's as long as a period movie and it's as boring as a period movie - but when exactly did Orcs roam the Earth? And Star Wars may take place a long time ago, but it's set in a galaxy far, far away.

Needless to say, my response to Mr. Levy will be quite detailed, covering all my bases to avoid missing out on account of a technicality.

I can't believe there's still three more questions to go.

Thursday, February 10, 2005

And this time... IT'S PERSONAL!!!

As every so-called Oscar expert has pointed out ad infinitum, this year’s Best Actress race is a “grudge re-match” between Hilary Swank and Annette Bening (there will be audible gasps if Imelda Staunton wins – my main reason for betting against her is that despite what you might think, the Academy actually doesn’t like British actresses (South Africans and Australians are okay); witness Helen Hunt’s and Marisa Tomei’s victories as the lone Americans in their categories – and you have to go back to 1992 to find the last time a Brit won Best Actress, and 1973 before that).

As if the trumped up catfight weren’t an interesting enough narrative for these "journalistic" charlatans, they keep trying to sell the erroneous story that Swank was the underdog in the 1999 bout. Every time I read that, it makes me want to throw my computer out the window (it’s a good thing I don’t, or I’d have had to buy at least twenty-five new laptops by now). Where do people get the idea that Swank was such a long shot for Boys Don’t Cry? Granted, Bening’s last-minute SAG upset (and that was the real upset that year) threw many Oscar prognosticators off (including yours truly – remember though, this was the year after the Screen Actors were the only major signifiers of Roberto Benigni’s Oscar win (no offense, Las Vegas Film Critics)) and American Beauty had momentum, but just compare the two actresses’ precursor award wins (not counting nominations, film festival awards, breakthrough performance awards or ensemble mentions):

In Bening’s corner:
American Comedy Awards (Swank not eligible)
BAFTA (awarded after the Oscars; Swank not nominated until next year)
London Critics Circle Film Awards (Swank not nominated until next year)
San Diego Film Critics Society Awards
SAG

In Swank’s corner:
Boston Society of Film Critics Awards
Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards
Chicago Film Critics Association Awards
Chlotrudis Awards
Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association Awards
Florida Film Critics Circle Awards
Golden Globes
Golden Satellite Awards
Independent Spirit Awards (Bening not eligible)
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards
Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards
New York Film Critics Circle Awards
Santa Fe Film Critics Circle Awards
Southeastern Film Critics Association Awards
Toronto Film Critics Association Awards

By my count, that’s five rounds awarded to Bening compared to 15 rounds awarded to Swank. And three of Bening’s wins were in contests that Swank couldn’t compete in, while only one of Swank’s was in an exclusive race. On top of that, when Boys Don’t Cry was released in October of that year, all the buzz was that Swank had an Oscar in the bag.

In what world does that make her win a "shocking upset"?

Now that I’ve got that rant off my chest, back to this year’s contest.

So even with all the grudge match talk, everyone’s pretty much accepted that Hilary Swank is going to win again this year. She’s in the drama, she made a physical transformation, she’s in the movie with the Oscar momentum, people have seen her movie (whereas Being Julia has made even less money than Boys Don’t Cry had at this point), she’s on magazine covers. Yes, everyone agrees that she’s going to get yet another chance to make a joke about how she forgot to thank her husband last time. Except me. I’m still not convinced. For the same reason I was hesitant to predict twin nominations for Jamie Foxx (and look how that turned out): I just don’t feel she has the pedigree to pull off this rare Oscar feat.

So, as usual, I did some research. I was surprised to find that winning two Oscars for leading performances (for the purposes of this post, I’m only looking at actors who won two statues in the lead categories – not one in lead and one in supporting) actually isn’t as rare as I thought. It’s been done by seven men and eleven women.

Of the men, all had earned at least one nomination prior to their first wins, and only the back-to-backers (Spencer Tracy and Tom Hanks) didn’t pick up additional nominations between their two wins.

On the female front, six had earned at least one nomination prior to their first wins. Two of the actresses who won on their first at-bats (Katharine Hepburn and Glenda Jackson) were nominated again before their second wins (Hepburn eight times, Jackson once).

That leaves just three precedents for Swank to pin her hopes on: Luise Rainer, Vivien Leigh and Sally Field. As an interesting side note, none of these actresses were ever nominated again after their second nomination/win.

The actress whose career seems most similar to Swank’s is Field (though I can’t really compare since I was only four when she won her last Oscar). Both got their starts on mediocre TV shows (Field on Gidget and The Flying Nun; Swank on Camp Wilder, Growing Pains and Beverly Hills 90210 (not really mediocre, but for the sake of argument…)), both did time with Burt Reynolds (Field in Smokey and the Bandit I & II, The End, Hooper and real life; Swank on a season of Evening Shade) and both followed up their first Academy Award winning roles with crappy disaster movies (Field in Beyond the Poseidon Adventure; Swank in The Core). Finally, like Field, Swank’s two nominations come five years apart. However, Field was eight years older than Swank when she won her second Oscar and was (from what I gather) a considerably bigger star. Swank better just hope that the Academy really likes her.

So what about Bening? In some ways, she’s swapped positions with 1999 Hilary Swank (especially if you believe that Swank was an underdog back then). She was being called a sure thing back when her little indie movie was released in October and she’s the only nominee from her film (Swank was one of only two from Boys Don’t Cry back when Bening was part of the American Beauty behemoth). Like Boys Don’t Cry, Being Julia is principally talked about only in terms of the lead actress’ tour-de-force performance (though Boys is a considerably more substantive film). However, Swank has again won the lion’s share of precursor awards this year.

If Swank’s best hope is the Sally Field precedent, then Bening’s is probably the Jessica Lange precedent. Their cases aren’t exactly analogous, but Lange’s is the one I keep coming back to. In 1994, Jodie Foster’s turn in Nell was showier than Lange’s in Blue Sky (I have to admit that I’ve never seen Blue Sky, but they don’t get much showier than Nell). Foster probably would’ve been a considerable threat (and would’ve stood an excellent chance of winning) if she hadn’t just won her second Oscar three years earlier. In fact, she beat Lange at the SAG Awards that year, most likely because those awards didn’t exist in 1991, so the playing field was more level. With Foster already a two-time winner at the age of 29, the path was clear for Lange at the Golden Globes and then the Academy Awards (where she’d “only” won a Supporting Actress Oscar, a dozen years ago), even in a movie that nobody had seen (it made less than either Boys Don’t Cry or Being Julia) and that nobody talked about outside of Lange’s performance. And as with Lange, there’s a sense that Bening is “owed” a Best Actress Oscar. So Bening is still in this two-woman race.

For now I’m leaning towards the underdog (Swank), but I could change my mind right before they tear open the envelope… just like I did in 1999.

Madam, I'm Oscar

Hollywood Madam, a friend of The Grouch, has a nice column about the Adapted Screenplay race up over at Bookslut. Check it out.

Thursday, February 03, 2005

Drawing Lines

I really shouldn’t have been so shocked to see The Polar Express snubbed in favor of Shark Tale. If you recall, the first year that the Best Animated Feature category was introduced, the heavily-favored Waking Life was surprisingly passed over for Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius.

Apparently, the animators in the Animation branch don’t take kindly to live-action directors (Richard Linklater/Robert Zemeckis) treading on their turf, using new-fangled technology (rotoscoping/motion-capture) to essentially “trace” live performances (although there’s a lot more animated artistry involved than that implies, especially in the case of The Polar Express).

It may be payback for the bias that existed among the live-action Academy members against animated features for their first 73 years. Or maybe they simply let their five-year-olds vote for them (which would also explain the nomination for Treasure Planet). Either way, with this relatively new category, Oscar-prognosticators are still learning how to read the tealeaves. But I think I’m getting the hang of it now.

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com