The close of the bloated, epic shows tend to deliver so many touching moments (Halle Berry winning Best Actress, say) or shocking ones (“Shakespeare in Love” pulling Best Picture out from under “Saving Private Ryan”) that excruciating boredom seems to have been a small price to pay. This year, there’d better be more touching moments than usual–because there sure as hell aren’t going to be any shocking ones.
In 2003, even the most casual armchair prognosticator can pick the big winners from a mile away. And the award for Best Actress goes to … Nicole Kidman! And the award for Best Actor goes to … Jack Nicholson! And the award for Best Picture goes to … “Chicago”! Where’s the tension? Even the Supporting Actor and Actress categories feel like done deals this time around, with Chris Cooper and Catherine Zeta-Jones clearly at the head of the pack. In some ways, the Feb. 11 announcement of the Oscar nominations (that weird, drab little press conference held at some ungodly hour in Los Angeles) will be more thrilling than the Oscars themselves. We already know who won. Now tell us who they beat!
The lack of tension this time around has a lot to do with the fact that the number of pre-Oscar awards shows are quickly approaching infinity and are telegraphing Hollywood’s mood long before the Academy Awards arrive. The other day, there was a weird, uncharacteristic and sort of shocking little ripple when the Screen Actors Guild shut out Meryl Streep entirely, nominating her for neither “Adaptation” nor “The Hours.” But even this was explained away in an instant. The studio behind “Adaptation” had screwed up the SAG paperwork and positioned Streep’s role as a lead performance rather than a supporting one. As a result, Streep was competing against herself, split the vote and, presumably, watched in dismay as Michelle Pfeiffer’s supporting turn in the bomb “White Oleander” got the nomination with her name on it. All of which is to say: we finally got an exciting moment, and it turned out to be a clerical error.
Kidman, Nicholson and “Chicago,” it should be said, are certainly worthy winners. As for Nicholson and Kidman, they gave extraordinary performances this year, both of them utterly subverting our expectations and associations. Still, they will win, at least in small part, for personal reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with acting.
Kidman will win partly because she lost last year and because there’s never been a public recognition of the widely and deeply felt conviction that she came out of her divorce from Tom Cruise smelling like a rose while Cruise came out just sort of smelling. Nicholson will win partly because he’s so beloved in general and partly because he gives such insane acceptance speeches that Oscar voters will give him the award just to see what crazy crap he’ll say onstage. When he won the Broadcast Critics Choice Award on Jan. 17, he immediately announced that he was too “baked” to talk, and summoned Robin Williams to the stage to accept for him. What followed was five of the funniest, most unplugged award show minutes in memory. A couple of days later, when Nicholson accepted his Golden Globe, he was tame by comparison, opening his remarks by reassuring the crowd that he’d taken a Valium. Nicholson’s chief competition for the Oscar is Daniel Day-Lewis, who gave what is arguably a more astonishing performance in “Gangs of New York.” But Day-Lewis is someone who has publicly and repeatedly disavowed acting, the ultimate outsider to Nicholson’s ultimate insider. He hasn’t got a chance.
Then there’s “Chicago.” Leaving aside whether or not it’s a great picture (just to be curmudgeonly for a second, doesn’t it seem unfair that the far more inventive “Moulin Rouge” had to fight and scrape for respect and box office, while the foursquare “Chicago” has come out roaring like a lion?), the musical has been the most heavily promoted, advertised and publicized movie of the season. What’s going to beat it? “The Hours”? Just because it’s better? Come on. “Chicago” so clearly dominates the Best Picture field that no one can even figure out what the other four nominees are going to be. “The Hours” will certainly get nominated. Then what? “The Pianist”? Probably. (If “The Pianist” were a Miramax movie, like “Chicago,” it would probably win. Miramax would never let the Holocaust get beaten by some musical.) How about “The Lord of the Rings”? “Adaptation”? “Gangs of New York”? “Far From Heaven”? Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe. But they can’t possibly beat “Chicago,” ultimately, so who cares if they get nominated?
If you’re looking for a reason to stay awake till the 12th hour on Oscar night, you can pretend that the race for Best Director is exciting. But is it? Isn’t it clear the Martin Scorsese will win for “Gangs of New York”? The cast and the studio (Miramax, once more) have reminded voters subtly and not so subtly that Scorsese has never won an Oscar–which is, let’s face it, completely nuts. “Gangs” got mixed reviews and foundered at the box office, but Scorsese will get one of those belated, apologetic Oscars nonetheless. Here you go, Marty! Sorry about “Raging Bull”! It will be like Al Pacino winning Best Actor for “Scent of a Woman” instead of “The Godfather.” Watching Scorsese dash up the steps will be like watching Kidman and Nicholson collect their Oscars–we’ll know they’re great actors if they look surprised.
