2003 Oscars

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=90 BGCOLOR="#006699" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="002285a1erlcgo.gif"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFCC66" FACE="Arial" ><B>www.chapmansfriend.com</B></FONT><B>     |     </B><A HREF="default.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="www.chapmansfriend.com"><U><B>home</B></U></A></div> <div>                                                   </div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#FFCC66" TEXT="#080000" background="001d2c00dkelyh.gif"> <div> <A HREF="id5.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Movies"><U>Movies</U></A></div> </td> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B>2003 Oscars</B></div> <div> Albeit under different circumstances this year, it <B>is </B>time once again for Oscar. Not Oscar Gamble or Oscar Mayer or Oscar Madison, but simply... Oscar. As Dave Letterman often says, "You know, in Hollywood... <I>Oscar is King</I>!"</div> <div> Here goes with my handicapping of the big awards.</div> <div> <B>SUPPORTING ACTOR:</B></div> <div> Nominees: Chris Cooper, <I>Adaptation</I>; Ed Harris, <I>The Hours</I>; Paul Newman, <I>Road to Perdition</I>; John C. Reilly, <I>Chicago</I>; Christopher Walken, <I>Catch Me if You Can</I></div> <div> You know, out of these nominees, that Newman fellow might have had a career for himself if he hadn't spent so much time making the salad dressing. </div> <div> Since this year I have actually seen some of the performances, if I had a vote I'd probably select John C. Reilly, because his role actually defines the term "supporting". He doesn't really steal any scenes, but he sets up scenes for the lead actors. Chris Cooper had almost as much screen time as Nic Cage, I'll bet, while Ed Harris' role went the other way... only a few scenes, and no acting with anybody other than Meryl Streep. Those three were the only ones I saw.</div> <div> But, I don't have a vote, and the purpose here is to pick the actual winner. Throw out Paul Newman; his nomination is a nod toward his legendary status, I think. Reilly made it into three Best Picture nominees this year, and I don't know if that's ever been done before, but I'll bet he's not showy enough to get a lot of votes. That would leave the other three, all of whom I've heard buzz about. Cooper seems to be the favorite, and it would serve the purpose of giving the award to a consistently good character actor. Walken has his Oscar, from back in the days before Michael Cimino torched his career, and as I say, Ed Harris might not have enough of a presence. So, <B>Chris Cooper</B>.</div> <div> <B>Supporting Actress:</B></div> <div> Nominees: Kathy Bates, <I>About Schmidt</I>; Julianne Moore, <I>The Hours</I>; Queen Latifah<I>, Chicago</I>; Meryl Streep, <I>Adaptation</I>; Catherine Zeta-Jones, <I>Chicago</I></div> <div> I happen to have seen all five of the nominees in this category. Using the same reasoning regarding "support" being the main criteria, I guess I'd have to vote for Queen Latifah, whose character was truly supporting, over Julianne Moore, whose performance I actually liked better. In a way, her character is the one on whom the whole movie revolves, so under that interpretation, maybe I could vote for her anyway with my imaginary ballot.</div> <div> The winner in this category is usually either an up-and-comer (Mira Sorvino, Marisa Tomei, Anna Paquin) or a veteran who has escaped recognition until now. None of these nominees really fit either case, except maybe Queen Latifah. (Question: should she always be referred to as "Queen Latifah", or can she also be called Ms. Latifah?) Julianne Moore has the dual nomination this year, which often but not always indicates a win in the supporting category. Either Streep or Zeta-Jones would make a good "story" if they won-- Streep for winning her first Oscar in 20 years for a kind of light role, and CZJ 'cause she's pregnant and it would match hubby's acting Oscar. To me (maybe to the voters too), Kathy Bates' performance was another of the "straight-talkin' mama" characters she seems to be able to do in her sleep, so I doubt she will win. I almost picked Moore to win here, but at the last minute I'm switching to <B>Catherine Zeta-Jones</B>.</div> <div> <B>Actor:</B></div> <div> Nominees: Adrien Brody, <I>The Pianist</I>; Nicolas Cage, <I>Adaptation</I>; Michael Caine, <I>The Quiet American</I>; Daniel Day-Lewis, <I>Gangs of New York</I>; Jack Nicholson, <I>About Schmidt</I></div> <div> I have only seen Nicholson and Cage from this group, but I have to say I wasn't as impressed with Nicholson as a lot of people were. I liked the fact that he wasn't playing a variant of "<I>Jaack</I>", but I still never felt he was giving a lot of insight into his character. He can certainly "play understated"-- check out <I>Reds </I>sometime, or even <I>Chinatown </I>and <I>Five Easy Pieces</I>-- but I think he's done better. Cage did a great job in his "dual" role, so I'd probably vote his way.</div> <div> Adrien Brody? Who dat? Which leaves four past Oscar winners-- no easy out by picking the unrecognized. The favorite seems to be Day-Lewis, who has the advantage of having won least recently, except for Michael Caine, who seems to be well-respected but was in a movie I doubt many saw. Again, a tough category, but... <B>Daniel Day-Lewis</B>.</div> <div> <B>Actress:</B></div> <div> Nominees: Salma Hayek, <I>Frida</I>; Nicole Kidman, <I>The Hours</I>; Diane Lane, <I>Unfaithful</I>; Julianne Moore, <I>Far From Heaven</I>; Renee Zellweger, <I>Chicago</I></div> <div> In judging the performances I've seen, I can only comment on Kidman and Zellweger. In <I>Chicago</I>, Zellweger was perfectly fine, but I was really impressed by Nicole Kidman as Virginia Woolf. I don't think it had anything to do with the makeup and the fake nose (in fact i'd argue it wasn't necessary at all for her to be effective), or with being surprised she's an excellent actress (make too many <I>Days of Thunder</I>s and <I>Far and Away</I>s and people will underrate you). It was just a fascinating performance, which was doubly hard to do because a lot of her scenes just involved her sitting and thinking.</div> <div> I've given myself away, I think... I believe <B>Nicole Kidman</B> was so good that she's the clear favorite. The fact that she's a glamour girl is just the icing on the cake for voters. The only nagging doubt I have is whether academy voters will think she didn't have enough screen time to be a "lead" actress. If Julianne Moore wins an award this year it's more likely to be for her supporting role. Diane Lane? Was in an Adrian Lyne movie. Will there ever be an acceptance speech in which the words, " I couldn't have done it without my director, Adrian Lyne!" are uttered? I mean, no offense, but... trashy movies seem to attach themselves to him, no? Zellweger might already have a step up for next year when she's in <I>Cold Mountain </I>(ironically, Kidman's in that one too). Salma Hayek? Thanks for playing our game. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.</div> <div> <B>Original Screenplay:</B></div> <div> Nominees: <I>Far From Heaven</I>; <I>Gangs of New York</I>; <I>My Big Fat Greek Wedding</I>; <I>Talk To Her</I>; <I>Y Tu Mama Tambien</I></div> <div> I saw none of these movies, so I can't offer a personal selection. There's a clear trend for screenplays from best picture nominees to win, so since <I><B>Gangs of New York</B></I><I> </I>is the only qualifier, I'll go with that. I'm sure there's a <I>Big Fat Greek Wedding </I>joke to be made here, but I'm just too darn lazy.</div> <div> <B>Adapted Screenplay:</B></div> <div> Nominees: <I>About A Boy</I>: <I>Adaptation</I>; <I>Chicago</I>; <I>The Hours</I>; <I>The Pianist</I></div> <div> Of these nominees, I've seen <I>Adaptation</I>, <I>Chicago</I>, and <I>The Hours</I>. (In a switch from my usual pattern, I've read <I>About A Boy</I> [liked it], but didn't see the movie.) <I>Adaptation </I>had a great concept, but too much was thrown into the last part of the movie. Besides, theoretically, the movie was adapting the Susan Orlean book, but almost <I>none </I>of the movie was concerned with that! Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie, but it was... curious. I'd vote for <I>The Hours</I>, just because even though some have criticized the movie for being too <I>artsy</I>, it was the movie with the most <I>artistry</I>.</div> <div> As for what will win, we can throw <I>About A Boy </I>out because of no accompanying best picture nomination, and the same for <I>Adaptation</I>. Even though <I>The Pianist </I>is a nominee, I think it will all come down to <I>The Hours </I>and <I>Chicago</I>. <I><B>The Hours </B></I>ought to win here, even though I think it's going to be a <I>Chicago </I>night otherwise.</div> <div> <B>Best Picture:</B></div> <div> Nominees: <I>Chicago</I>; <I>Gangs of New York</I>; <I>The Hours</I>; <I>The Lord of the Rings; The Two Towers</I>; <I>The Pianist</I></div> <div> I've tipped my hand already. <I>Chicago </I>was entertaining, but then so was <I>Die Hard</I>, and I don't remember that winning any Oscars. <I>The Hours </I>is a movie that just seems to be more about excellence in all fields-- acting, writing, directing, editing. It would be my choice based on my limited knowledge of the nominees.</div> <div> Of course, that means <I><B>Chicago</B></I> will be the runaway winner at the Oscars. Again, it's not a bad movie; it's well-done, and kept my interest even though musicals aren't really my bag. I just wouldn't rate it as Oscar material. The funny thing about this year's nominees is that in most years, <I>none </I>of them would have a chance, based on usual trends. Most Best Picture winners aren't so heavily dominated by actresses, so if there was a, say, <I>American Beauty</I> or <I>Saving Private Ryan </I>type of movie nominated, it might win. </div> <div> Why will <I>Chicago </I>win, based on hard analysis instead of "well, everybody says it will"? Throw out <I>Lord of the Rings </I>beacuse it has no Best Director nomination. There seems to be a feeling that <I>Gangs of New York </I>was nominated because it's a Scorsese film, but there's no buzz for it. <I>The Hours </I>seems to match up well against <I>Chicago</I>, but the sense that it's a difficult or "arty" movie won't help it against a big blockbuster like <I>Chicago</I>. <I>The Pianist </I>might be a longshot to win, but both <I>The Hours </I>and <I>Chicago </I>are loaded with acting nominations, which <I>The Pianist </I>isn't. So, <I>Chicago</I>. </div> <div> <B>Director:</B></div> <div> Nominees: Pedro Almodovar, <I>Talk to Her</I>; Stephen Daldry, <I>The Hours</I>; Rob Marshall, <I>Chicago</I>; Roman Polanski, <I>The Pianist</I>; Martin Scorsese, <I>Gangs of New York</I></div> <div> Since I would vote for <I>The Hours</I>, I'd also vote for Stephen Daldry. But, realistically, this will come down to: jump on the <I>Chicago</I> bandwagon, or vote for Marty Scorsese? It surely would be galling for Scorsese to lose Oscars to John G. Avildsen and Kevin Costner, then to lose this year to a first-time director again. But, should he win for a movie that even many Scorsesephiles aren't crazy about. Sure, if he had won for <I>Taxi Driver </I>oh so long ago, this wouldn't be a problem now. But it is... I believe that the majority of the academy are confident that Scorsese can make a more-Oscar worthy movie in the future (remember, I haven't seen it, I'm just judging by others), and will follow the DGA award and give the Oscar to <B>Rob Marshall</B>. Although just for sheer fun, seeing Roman Polanski's name called would be hard to beat...</div> <bR> <div> <B>Immediate Postscript:</B></div> <div> <TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="612" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="VOID" RULES="NONE" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#FFFF00 HEIGHT= 630 WIDTH="608"><div> A perfect example of an actor who has been hovering on the brink of stardom for far too long, Adrien Brody has become all too familiar with the slings and arrows of outrageous PR. With an undeniable talent and looks that recall a young and hungry Al Pacino, Brody has long seemed a candidate for the role of one of the leading actors of his generation. With his appearance in two high-profile movies, Terrence Malick's <I>The Thin Red Line</I> and Spike Lee's <I>Summer of Sam</I>, Brody has once again found himself on the verge of stardom, a place he has visited many times before. </div> <div> Born and raised in New York City, Brody knew he wanted to be a performer from a young age. He got his first taste of acting when he was 12 years old, performing as a magician at children's parties. With the encouragement of his photographer mother, he enrolled in acting classes, attending both the American Academy of Dramatic Arts and the High School for the Performing Arts. He found work in off-Broadway productions and made his television debut in the 1988 PBS movie <I>Home at Last</I>. </div> <div> After his debut and some minor TV work, Brody went back to school and attended a year of college before being cast in Steven Soderbergh's 1993 drama <I>King of the Hill</I>. The film, which cast Brody as the lead character's delinquent mentor, met with wide critical acclaim and presented the actor with new opportunities. He won roles in several films, including 1994's <I>Angels in the Outfield</I> and 1997's <I>The Last Time I Committed Suicide</I>, which co-starred Keanu Reeves and the then-unknown actresses Gretchen Mol and Claire Forlani. In 1997, Brody also had lead roles in <I>The Undertaker's Wedding</I> and <I>Six Ways to Sunday</I>, two fairly obscure pictures that paved the way for both more high-profile work and a turn as one of <I>Vanity Fair</I>'s Hot, Young, and Photogenic cover boys. With his 1999 <I>Vanity Fair</I> cover and principle roles in two highly anticipated films, <I>The Thin Red Line</I> (1998) and <I>Summer of Sam</I> (1999), Brody seemed perfectly positioned to step into the limelight. Despite the disappointment of having most of his <I>Line</I> scenes cut, his turn as a bisexual punk in <I>Summer of Sam</I> helped to guarantee that whether or not the actor finally found stardom, he had certainly won critical respect and the privilege of further, steady employment. Though he would continue to flirt with full-fledged stardom in the coming years, it was <I>The Pianist</I> that truly delivered Brody into the good graces of the critics. As a brilliant pianist and Polish Jew who bears witness to such Nazi atrocities as the construction of the Warsaw ghetto and desperately attempts to escape their clutch, Brody's wrenchingly sensitive and melancholy turn delivered the sort of desperation that touched audiences worldwide.</div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <div> Dat's who Adrien Brody is... and now he has an Oscar. My apologies, sir :)</div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>