War fears subdue buzz over Academy Awards
By Terry Lawson
Knight Ridder News Service
 |
| SCORSESE (left): Is a best-director nominee
NICHOLSON: Up for best actor Advertiser and Asoociated Press library photos 75th Annual Academy Awards 6:30 p.m. Sunday ABC |
Of course, threats of war and terror alerts have proven a mighty distraction. But ironically, this may be the best and most deserving crop of nominees in years.
Yes, we can carp about the woefully overlooked — Peter Jackson's direction of "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers"; Dennis Quaid's performance in "Far from Heaven"; and the adapted screenplay by Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor for "About Schmidt." But any year in which you have to argue over which of the three actresses in "The Hours" was more deserving of a nomination is a good year.
There are no smear campaigns a la last year's swipes at "A Beautiful Mind," and the only rivalry of interest is being fought in house.
Miramax honcho Harvey Weinstein, who has two directors in the hunt, has thrown his girth behind Martin Scorsese — with whom he famously fought about the shape of "Gangs of New York" — over Rob Marshall, who dazzled everyone by turning "Chicago" into the movie to beat for best picture and reawakened Hollywood's interest in musicals in the bargain.
Both Scorsese and Weinstein might agree that Scorsese's win — which is not the lock everyone once presumed — would not be for his work on the technically complex if dramatically dubious "Gangs" alone. It would be for the great American movies — "Raging Bull," "GoodFellas" and others — that failed to win him the prize in previous years.
No one wants Scorsese to join the ranks of geniuses like Alfred Hitchcock and Groucho Marx, who had to settle for honorary awards in their twilight years, though Scorsese — like Peter O'Toole, who initially resisted accepting his honorary award — is likely to have a couple of Oscar-worthy movies still in him.
A week ago, I had my own picks pretty much locked, but Renee Zellweger and Daniel Day-Lewis threw a spanner into my works by taking home Screen Actors Guild prizes. Unlike the alleged journalists who choose the winners of the Golden Globes, members of the actors union actually vote for the Oscars.
But I'm sticking with my original choices. Per tradition, when my personal preference is at odds with who I think will win, I'll let you know.
Supporting actress: Catherine Zeta-Jones took home the SAG award in this category, but I'm sticking with Kathy Bates, whose tone-perfect performance in "About Schmidt" was Oscar-worthy even without the hot-tub scene where she bared her plus-size, 54-year-old bod.
My personal choice would be Streep, who seemed to be enjoying herself as much as I did in "Adaptation," while giving a brave — and sexy — performance.
Supporting actor: Every nominee on this list — John C. Reilly for "Chicago," Christopher Walken for "Catch Me if You Can," Paul Newman for "Road to Perdition," Ed Harris for "The Hours" and Chris Cooper for "Adaptation" — is deserving, and Walken won the SAG prize for a rare non-creepy performance in the role of a loving father.
But Cooper, playing the most unstereotypical hillbilly ever seen on film, is my choice, and I still think he'll be Oscar's, too.
Actress: While Diane Lane has picked up a lot of critics' awards for her portrayal of an adulterous wife in the otherwise forgettable "Unfaithful," critics' awards mean doodly in this league.
Though Renee Zellweger walked away with the SAG prize, her formidable competition is still Nicole Kidman, who was remarkable playing the prickly, mentally tortured Virginia Woolf in "The Hours."
But I'm heading for the limb on this one, picking Julianne Moore for her tricky turn in "Far from Heaven," in which she had to replicate the exaggerated acting style of 1950s melodrama while cutting to the honest emotional bone of her character's predicament.
Actor: The race here is between the SAG winner, Daniel Day-Lewis, for "Gangs," and Jack Nicholson, for one of the best performances in his storied career in "About Schmidt." My personal pick would be the wild card, Adrien Brody for "The Pianist," but in the actual voting, I back Jack.
Director: I keep reading that "The Pianist" has picked up momentum in the final weeks, but where?
Of the directors nominated — the exiled Roman Polanski for "The Pianist," Scorsese, Marshall, Stephen Daldry for "The Hours" and Pedro Almodovar for my favorite film of the year, "Talk to Her" — Almodovar and Polanski would split my vote if I had one.
And I believe Alexander Payne ("About Schmidt") Peter Jackson ("The Two Towers"), Todd Haynes ("Far from Heaven") and maybe even Steven Spielberg ("The Minority Report") are at least as deserving as the other three nominees.
Still, I won't be disappointed that Scorsese finally wins his Oscar — but then I don't take this as seriously as a lot of people.
Picture: "Chicago" certainly seems like a lock. If there is an upset, it will be "The Pianist," which would be my pick of the litter. But wouldn't it be a hoot if "The Two Towers" scored an upset? Man, was that film something.
