With 31 nominations (40 if you count its half interest in “The Hours,” which the studio has distributed overseas), the only way it could not come out on top is if everything is won by “The Pianist,” “The Two Towers” and “Road to Perdition.” Ain’t gonna happen.
Miramax lives for Oscar season–everyone agrees the company is the best and most ruthless at campaigning–and is spending wildly in support of “Chicago” and “Gangs of New York,” to the point where there is talk of a backlash. Harvey Weinstein has made it his personal campaign to get Martin Scorsese his first Oscar. It’s not just the enormous advertisements he takes out in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. You can feel the Miramax hand behind the Scorsese tributes and retrospectives popping up everywhere, as well as the screenings of his documentary on the Italian cinema, “My Voyage to Italy.” Scorsese, with Weinstein as his Karl Rove, has hit the campaign trail like a veteran politician. The latest, and most desperate, ploy is a large ad appearing everywhere signed by two-time Oscar-winning director Robert Wise. Under the headline SCORSESE DESERVES THE OSCAR FOR ‘GANGS OF NEW YORK,’ Wise goes on for eight paragraphs about his colleague’s brilliance, being careful to remind the voters that Marty has never won. I don’t know about the voters, but I’m beginning to feel embarrassed for Scorsese. Now if he doesn’t win (and he lost the Directors Guild Award race last weekend to “Chicago’s” Rob Marshall) he’ll be as humiliated as W., Cheney and Rummy if they have to call the troops back home.
Which brings us to the other question looming over the 75th Academy Awards. What is the tone of the evening going to be like if war breaks out the week before, as many are predicting? Hollywood red-carpet glitz may look terribly out of place if blood is flowing in the Middle East. Though it seems unlikely the awards program will be postponed (as it was when Ronald Reagan was shot), you can bet that a blanket of Good Taste will be draped over the occasion, while the show’s nervous producers cross their fingers and hope the notoriously antiwar movie folk will bite their political tongues.
Either way, suspense is in store. While there are a few easy calls this year, many of the races have gotten harder to figure as the Big Night approaches. To illustrate my point, let’s start the prognostications with the one category I find almost impossible to figure….
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
The nominees are “Far from Heaven,” “Gangs of New York,” “My Big Fat Greek Wedding,” “Talk to Her” and “Y Tu Mama Tambien.” This is one strange list: never before have two Spanish-language screenplays been nominated in the same category, and why “Greek Wedding”–which was based on Nia Vardalos’s one-woman show–is not considered an adaptation is a mystery to me. Confusing the issue further, the Writers Guild gave its original-screenplay award to a movie that wasn’t even nominated: “Bowling for Columbine,” a documentary no less.
At first I thought “Far from Heaven” was the obvious winner, but it’s become clear that the Academy does not go for this movie, and the WGA snub confirmed it. You might think “Gangs of New York” should have the edge, because it’s the only one of these films nominated for Best Picture. But even the film’s biggest admirers acknowledge that the script is the movie’s weakest link. Who in their right mind would vote for it?
If the audience were voting, “Greek Wedding” would be the winner–no contest. Since this is the comedy’s only nomination, though, the Academy clearly feels it’s a lightweight affair. Could a film in a foreign language win best screenplay? It’s never happened. Both movies are terrific, but I suspect Almodovar’s “Talk to Her” has the better chance than Alfonso Cuaron’s “Y Tu Mama Tambien.” (Neither was eligible for the WGA award.) If only writers and directors voted, I’d say “Talk” would win. But how many of the 5,700 voting members (the biggest percentage being actors) have seen it? So who gets the Oscar, when there’s good reasons for all of them to lose? My hunch is “My Big Fat Greek Wedding,” because those voting actors always like to see one of their tribe win. (How do you think Kevin Costner and Mel Gibson won best director?)
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Now we’re back on terra firma. It won’t be “About a Boy” because comedies–unjustly–rarely win. It won’t be “The Pianist” because even though it’s a real contender for Best Picture, the screenplay has gotten little credit for the film’s power. And it won’t be “Chicago” because it’s a musical, and Bill Condon didn’t write the lyrics. So that leaves a duel between the wildly original “Adaptation,” one of the rare movies in which the writer got more attention than the director, and “The Hours,” which was viewed as a triumph of adapting a difficult novel into screenplay form. The WGA tilted toward David Hare for “The Hours,” and it’s the one that got a Best Picture nomination. Hare by a hair.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Catherine Zeta-Jones has been the favorite from the start, and I’m still putting my money on her, but there could be an upset in the making. Meryl Streep in “Adaptation” won the Golden Globe, but Zeta-Jones was in the lead category there. And though Zeta-Jones won the Screen Actors Guild Award in this category, Streep wasn’t in the competition because the studio entered her as a lead. The most-nominated actress ever, Streep hasn’t actually won one since 1982’s “Sophie’s Choice,” and she could pick up some sympathy votes for being excluded from the Best Actress race in “The Hours.” You can’t count out Julianne Moore, either. Those who don’t vote for her in “Far From Heaven” might feel she deserves an Oscar for at least one of her two terrific performances. Kathy Bates will get her share of votes too, but when the Academy failed to nominate “About Schmidt” for best adapted screenplay it became clear that the movie had lost its momentum, and that hurts Bates. Queen Latifah is hot right now and well liked, but Zeta-Jones’s is the “Chicago” performance everyone is buzzing about. The intangible factor in this race is how the voters feel about Zeta-Jones off-screen. Her reputation as an imperious diva leaves the door open for a surprise.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
This was a particularly strong category this year, with lots of deserving candidates as also-rans. Some people think Paul Newman has a good shot at winning for “Road to Perdition.” After all, many old-timers win this one–James Coburn, Jack Palance, George Burns, etc. But none of them were stars of Newman’s magnitude: in a sense, it’s a credit to his stature that he won’t win. He’s beyond sentimentality. Ed Harris has always been a favorite with his fellow actors, but I don’t see him winning as the dying poet in “The Hours,” a performance that provoked greatly divergent responses. Everybody admires John C. Reilly and his “Mr. Cellophane” number was the highlight of a year that saw him in a half dozen movies. But the role is too small to win this year. It’s down to the two Chrises, Walken and Cooper. Two juicy performances in two juicy roles. Walken is the better known, and “Catch Me If You Can” lets him show a range he doesn’t always get to demonstrate. And his win at the SAG Awards makes him the man to beat. Will it hurt him, however, that he’s already won, for “The Deer Hunter”? Cooper’s wacked-out performance as the orchid expert in “Adaptation” comes as a total surprise, overturning everyone’s idea of him as a quiet, introverted, nose-to-the grindstone kind of guy. The Academy loves it when an actor redefines himself. I change my mind every day on the outcome of this one. Today I’m leaning toward Walken. His momentum is peaking at just the right moment.
BEST ACTRESS
This was supposed to be the easy one, the best bet of the night. Everyone you asked said it was Nicole Kidman’s moment, for a host of reasons. The uncanny physical transformation into Virginia Woolf. The fact she didn’t win last year for “Moulin Rouge.” The growing realization that she’s an actress of great range and ambition, and not just a pretty face (call it the Jessica Lange Effect). The Golden Globe victory. And yeah, the divorce. A few people may have thought Julianne Moore could pull off an upset for “Far From Heaven,” but respected as she is, when “Far From Heaven” failed to get a best picture nomination her chances of winning probably went down the drain. The dark horse was Diane Lane. As a Hollywood veteran who’s never gotten her due, she can’t be totally written off, but “Unfaithful” came out too early in the year, and she’s up against mighty tough competition. What has thrown a large wrench into the race is Renee Zellweger’s totally surprising SAG win over these same actors (Selma Hayak being the fifth). How to account for it? Was it just a matter of her popularity amongst her fellow American actors? Could there be a “Chicago” sweep in the making? Does this now make her the favorite? I don’t think so. Kidman still seems a safer bet but nothing like a lock. If she has an Achilles’ heel, it’s the fact her role in “The Hours” is so much smaller than any of her rivals’.
BEST ACTOR
Yet another example of a lead-changing race. The day the nominations came out, the smart money was all on Jack Nicholson, with Michael Caine (“The Quiet American”) and Daniel Day-Lewis (“Gangs of New York”) figuring as his toughest competition, and a few lonely forecasters predicting an Adrien Brody upset. (Nicholas Cage has never seemed in the running, in spite of playing two roles in “Adaptation.”) But as the weeks went on, you could feel a subtle shift in the air. Maybe people felt Nicholson had won enough. Maybe “About Schmidt” was too quiet a film, too much a critics’ darling. Whatever the reason, the buzz has shifted to Day-Lewis, in spite of his reputation as a reluctant thespian happier at home than on a movie set. The buzz was further confirmed Sunday night when he won the SAG award. The unknown factor is Caine. He wasn’t in the SAG race, and if he pulls enough votes away from Day-Lewis for the Anglophile vote, Nicholson could still come out on top. It’s down to the wire, but I expect Day-Lewis will collect his second Best Actor Oscar on the 23rd.
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Unlike the categories above, the voters have to see all five nominated films to be eligible to vote. Which means that a small pool of voters decides this upset-prone category. None of the five movies are widely known, so there’s no clear popular favorite as there was when “All About My Mother” and “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” won. The Chinese entry, Zhang Yimou’s “Hero” (which Miramax will distribute later this year) is visually spectacular, but this tone poem disguised as a martial arts epic is all style, without the emotional content the voters always look for. The Finnish entry, Aki Kaurismaki’s “The Man without a Past,” is a film-festival favorite, but Academy members don’t usually go for its deadpan style. I haven’t seen “Zus & Zo” yet, but I know people who are charmed by it, and Dutch movies have done well in this category. The Mexican contender, “El Crimen del Padre Amaro,” a juicy anticlerical melodrama, seems too much the potboiler to win. I’d put my money on “Nowhere in Africa” from Germany, the tale of a Jewish family that flees the Nazis to start a new life in a remote corner of Kenya. With its epic sweep, historical setting and humanistic vision, it’s the kind of foreign film the Academy tends to love. And it’s actually good, too.
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
It’s a cardinal rule of Oscar prognostication that you don’t vote with your heart. But if “Spirited Away” doesn’t win this one, the Academy should hang its head in shame. This is not to dis the competition. “Lilo & Stitch” is fresh and clever and fun. I had a good time at “Ice Age,” a tale well-told. “Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron,” though a bit too earnest for my taste, was beautifully animated. “Treasure Planet” I skipped, and so will the voters. But Miyazaki’s “Spirited Away” is a wondrous, magical, original film, one that really belongs in the best picture category, as well. What’s interesting about this race politically is that “Treasure Planet,” “Lilo” and “Spirited Away” were all released by Disney. And “Lilo” is Miyazaki’s toughest opponent. “Lilo” was made by Disney; “Spirited Away” was merely dubbed and distributed by the studio. And while it claims not to be playing favorites, Disney clearly has a vested interest in “Lilo’s” victory. Still, I’m putting my bet on “Spirited Away,” because I can’t imagine that anyone who sees it could possibly not vote for it. My fear is that not enough voters did see it.
BEST PICTURE
Two films can be eliminated from the running off the bat. Too many people find “Gangs of New York” claustrophobic and oppressive for it to win, for all its ambition and gigantic sets. And the failure of “The Two Towers” to get nominations for either its director, Peter Jackson, or, for that matter, for best makeup, was the tip-off that the Academy is holding off until the final installment to hand out the gold to the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. (New Line is praying there isn’t much competition at the end of this year.) At the Golden Globes, “The Hours” won best drama and “Chicago” best musical, and they seemed poised to go head to head for the ultimate prize. “The Hours” has strong partisans, but it also has a fair share of detractors. If any film can topple “Chicago”–the clear favorite by virtue of its 13 nominations and its wins from both the producer and director’s guilds and its three SAG awards–it’s going to be “The Pianist.” Roman Polanski’s powerful Holocaust drama speaks deeply to the Academy, and some voters may feel, with the world in crisis, that the Best Picture winner should be appropriately serious. But it’s getting harder to really believe in an upset here. The “Chicago” juggernaut now seems unstoppable, its support spread evenly across every branch of the Academy. What does it say about Hollywood in 2003 that this acid-dipped musical, filled to the brim with cutthroat showgirls and cynical hustlers, is in fact the feel-good movie of the year?
BEST DIRECTOR
So does Scorsese get his long overdue Oscar or not? The Academy should be embarrassed that he’s never won, especially when in 1991 he lost to Kevin Costner, that filmmaking giant. (He’s also lost to Robert Redford and Barry Levinson.) But the truth is, “Gangs of New York” isn’t in the same league as “Raging Bull” and “GoodFellas,” and a lot of people in the industry flat out dislike it. (How’d it get 10 nominations then? Good question.) Last year, the guilt vote didn’t go Robert Altman’s way, when many expected him to finally win one for “Gosford Park.” So for all Miramax’s attempts to make a Scorsese victory seem inevitable, it’s anything but. The race is as tight as a celebrity facelift. It’s highly unlikely that either Pedro Almodovar (“Talk to Her”) or Stephen Daldry (“The Hours”) could pull an upset. The wild card is Polanski. Given how deeply personal a project “The Pianist” is for this Holocaust survivor, and given how Hollywood loves comeback stories, you can’t rule him out. But of course there is one little problem. The girl. The scandal. The exile. In the current political climate, charges of child molesting, no matter how ancient, may be too unfashionable even for Hollywood, which loves to forgive sinners of just about every other stripe. (It’s a shame we can’t see the final tally: wouldn’t you love to know how close Polanski came to winning?) The question is whether the Academy’s giddiness for “Chicago” will sweep Rob Marshall onto the stage at the Kodak Theatre, clutching an Oscar for his first movie. The best picture winner, after all, usually corresponds to the best director, though lately this rule has been often broken. How significant was Marshall’s victory over Scorsese at the DGA? Perhaps Marty lost only because he was also getting a lifetime achievement award from his fellow directors and they didn’t want to overdo the laurels. The conventional wisdom says Scorsese. I’d agree if it was any movie but “Gangs.” Sorry Marty, my money’s on Marshall.
