And we're baaack! Apologies for the lame title of this year's Annual Oscar Nominations Day posting, but none of the films really lend themselves to parody the way previous entries have. Either that, or I am officially getting less creative with every silver hair that appears on my head. At the rate I'm going, I should be happy that there are any hairs there at all!
But I digress. For, during this most magical time of the year, it's somehow not about me. Shocking, I know. Even in somewhat of a "down" movie year (more on that later), we must focus all attention away from TV gold like "The Inbetweeners" on BBC, "RuPaul's Drag Race" on LOGO and "Be Good Johnny Weir" on the Sundance Channel, and on fine films like "Crazy Heart," "District 9," and "Avatar." Oh, and apparently not-so-fine cinematic flare, like "Up in the Air" and "The Blind Side."
As usual, we shall progress from Best Supporting Actress up to Best Picture. So without wasting anymore of your time...
Performance By an Actress In a Supporting Role
One HUGE surprise, three not-so-big-surprises, and a definite winner (you'll notice a theme, as I progress to the other nominations...) in this category. Let's go in order from who I think is least likely to win to the hyphenated woman who will def be taking home some gold.
Least likely is going to have to go to surprise nominee Maggie Gyllenhaal. She's been nowhere on the major awards scene for her role in "Crazy Heart" yet this year, so this stolen nomination (should have gone to my beloved, Four-time Academy Award Nominee Ms. Julianne Moore) is going to have to be her prize. She was good in the film, but the film belongs to Jeff Bridges, not Maggie. Looking forward to seeing what she will be wearing - it's usually a train wreck that mostly succeeds in making me feel larger-breasted than she is.
In second-to-last place, we have Penelope Cruz in "Nine." I will confess to NOT having seen this yet, for reasons ordinary (it got freaking PANNED by the critics and every friend I know who saw it) and extraordinary (my hatred for the evil Daniel Day-Lewis, who starred in the film, somehow continues to grow faster than the rift between Tila Tequila and reality). Anywho, she won last year, no one likes this film, and she's about 37 x pi better at Spanish-speaking roles, so, um, no.
Next up, we have the women of "Up in the Air." Vera Farmiga gets my third-place vote, in a role that is doesn't get past being one-dimensional until the not very surprising conclusion of the film. It's a shame, actually, because for most of the film I REALLY enjoyed her performance. Unfortunately, the writing wouldn't allow her to take it to the next level - there is just no defining scene in the role, who we all know is a requirement for an Oscar win.
Anna Kendrick comes out higher than Farmiga for exactly that reason. Her story arc has her young, overachieving corporate exec laughing, crying, drinking, full-on temper tantruming - a delectable little role that truly defines "Best Supporting Actress." PLUS, we all know how much Oscar loves a newcomer in this category. Unfortunately, it's not quite her year, but expect big things to come from this talented young actress.
The year belongs to Mo'Nique. Now, if you had told me 11 months ago when I was wrapping up my post-Oscars recap that I would be writing about Mo'Nique's "sure" win in ANY category (other than perhaps an eating competition), I woulda laughed in yo face. See "Precious," however, and you will understand what the hype is all about. She is transcendent in this film - even for those who only know her from "The Parkers" (that would be you, Rajeev) or "The Queens of Comedy" (that would be anyone who went to JR's in DC at any point from 2002 - 2007). This is a role that sticks with you long after the credits have rolled, and she is truly worthy of her win. Now, if someone could get her to Nair her legs, that would be purrrrfect.
Will Win AND Should Win: Again, Mo'Nique
Should Have Been Nominated: I would be remiss if I didn't further acknowledge my beloved, for her role in "A Single Man." Early predictions for 2011 indicate that she has a shot for "The Kids Are Alright," which just screened at Sundance and killed it. Oh, and long-time readers will not be happy without at least ONE mention of the old bag from "Titanic," who now makes her record 12th appearance in this vaulted space. My annual check of her IMDB page, which will single-handedly raise her popularity stats on that page by 100% this week, indicate that she is still with us and turning 100 this year. Her last role is still listed as "Old Lady" from some film no one saw in 2004. You just can't make that stuff up...it's like, sometimes that's how you KNOW there's a higher power, you know?
Performance By an Actor In a Supporting Role
Probably the toughest for me to recap, considering I've only actually seen two of the movies and even those were not viewed in the movie theater. I'll do my best, and considering the winner is once again all but a lock, I think I'll come out ok.
So it should come as no surprise that 5th place goes to Woody Harrelson. Yes, this is the weakest category of the four acting categories, which is how everyone's favorite pothead snuck in. Expect to never actually see his performance in this small, rentable-only-if-all-copies-of-"Drop Dead Gorgeous"-are-checked-out-of your-local-Netflix film. Whatever...it leaves us with having to refer to Mr. Harrelson as "Two-time Academy Award Nominee" Woody Harrelson, so far that we should all be angry. Maybe not Prop 8 angry, but at least having to wait until April for new eps of "Glee" angry.
I'll go with Matt Damon in 4th place, if only because the film is a tremendous disappointment. I mean, how could they screw up an inspirational Nelson Mandela biopic (of sorts)? Oh yeah - make it about rugby, a sport that only the more insane and/or brutish American cares about. Now if they had somehow fudged the details to make it about roller derby or the Jersey Shore...just sayin.
Christopher Plummer - so attractive 429 years ago in "The Sound of Music." And now, well, he's still alive so that counts for something, including this Oscar nomination which puts him in third place. Plummer gets his nomination in the annual british film about someone important that 99% of the American public haven't seen film. In this one, he plays Tolstoy. Heard it's quite the little gem of a film and will hopefully catch it between now and the big night. Which, btw is March 7 (can't believe it took this long just to mention the date of the show!).
Now is when one would normally think that the heat would be on between the top two contenders. Unfortunately, no one has seen Stanley Tucci's work in "The Lovely Bones" either, so there goes that race. This is one of the two performances I have seen - maybe that's why I'm giving it second place. Tucci is good in the film, and has LONG been overlooked (ever see "Big Night?" SO GOOD). He plays a creepo in this popular novel that turned into an unpopular film, and does it well.
Just not well OR creepy enough to beat out Christoph Waltz's virtuoso work in "Inglourious Basterds." Never heard of him? Perhaps that's because 99% of his film's start with "Die," "Der" or "Herr." Despite his Austrian-born heritage and his continued lack of name recognition in this country, he is a sure bet for Oscar. Acting classes really should consider showing the manner in which his performance effortlessly flows from German to French to English and back, all while simultaneously fascinating and freaking out the viewer. Plus, he's the only actor from a Best Picture Nominated film, as if he needed any more ammo.
Will Win AND Should Win: Again, this is an easy one. It's Waltz all the way, though let's hope he gives better speech than his meandering Globes speech.
Should Have Been Nominated: So only one of four came from one of the TEN best picture nominees. Strange, eh? One could perhaps make arguments for Anthony Mackie or Brian Geraghty from "Hurt Locker," but that film definitely belongs to Best Actor Nominee Jeremy Renner. Same goes for Peter Sarsgaard in "An Education," which belonged to Carey Mulligan. So I guess we'll keep things they way they stand, even with Woody Harrelson.
Performance By an Actress In a Leading Role
OMG, people. We now have to refer to Sandra Bullock - yes THAT Sandra Bullock, not a similarly (yet oddly so) named newcomer as "Academy Award Nominee" Sandra Bullock. Scary, Scarier though, might be her somewhat solid chances of winning in what will be the tightest category in the acting bunch.
So even is this category, that going with Helen Mirren in 5th place seems somewhat crazy to me. I mean, we all know she can act, she's a previous winner here, and she's in a prestige indie...yet I just don't see her surpassing any of her four competitors here. Just not enough buzz for the film yet, though there are SLIGHT chances it could pick up steam in during the next 3 weeks of voting.
Harder yet is capping the chances of the 4th and 3rd place finishers in what looks to be a two-woman race. Just because I haven't seen the film yet, I'm going with Carey Mulligan in 4th place. She has been LOADS of buzz for her portrayal in this film, and Hwood LOVES a british ingenue.
Unfortunately, the film suffers from not having anywhere NEAR the buzz that "Precious" has (and no, I will not be referring to it as "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire" anywhere else in this post. Ridonkulous.). As previous candidates for the American presidency, at home "psychiatry," overly chipper 30 minute-meal cooking, and gay home decorating can tell you, get a little Oprah on your side and you are gonna go a LONG way. Good thing she has so much to give. Anywho, Sidibe is amazing in this film - it's hard to hear her being interviewed and not be amazed at how un-Precious she actually is in real life. Unfortunately, she's just too untested to take home Best Actress. It will be very interesting to see how such an unconventional-looking actress will transition into other roles.
So now we're down to two ladies for one Oscar, and
So now we're down to two ladies for just one Oscar, and it really is almost too tough of a race to call. Both are portrayals of "real" women; one very well known to the world and one hardly known outside of her community. One actress has been nominated more than any other in the history of the Oscars, the other is simultaneously nominated for a "Razzie" for Worst Actress for her work in last year's cinematic masterpiece "All About Steve." Who to go with? I'm going with Betty White.
Betty White?! Well, Meryl Streep has never shared screen time with our Rose Nyland, so she's NOT getting the nod for her work as Julia Child in "Julie & Julia." Truth be told, the film just isn't good enough because only half of it is about Julia Child! In a true biopic of Ms. Child, we might have been able to get more invested in Streep's amazing (as usual, snorrrre) work. Unfortunately, the film is too light and the role is not snazzy enough - just not the role to break Streep's long drought at the Oscars.
That means that Betty's "The Proposal" co-star, Sandra Bullock, will join a long line of pretty women who are just ok actors as Best Actress Winners (see Roberts, Julia or Berry, Halle). Look - despite the aforementioned "All About Steve," Bullock had a sensational "comeback" of a year this year, which Hollywood finds irresistible. Plus, the film is nominated for Best Picture, it's got the requisite make-you-laugh/make-you-cry/it's better than "Cats" moments, AND it's an inspirational, based-on-a-true story about a woman whose determination singlehandedly saves another person from a life of misery. Unless her handlers f this campaign up, I'm thinking this is her year.
Should Win: You know, of the 5 nominees, I'm going to have to go with Gabourey Sidibe. No one else completely melted into the role like she did. I mean, even with solid performances from Streep and even Bullock, I never got past it being them on screen. Sidibe WAS Precious, and Precious was heart-breaking. The one role that still lingers from what I've seen.
Will Win: Still going with Bullock here, though Streep might win 4 out of every 10 coin flips.
Should Hae Been Nominated: The only slighted woman here is probably Emily Blunt. Her turn in "The Young Victoria" is usually just what Oscar is made of. The film would have benefited from an earlier release, as it just never gained traction in the "Avatar" and "Blind Side" lead late fall.
Performance By an Actor In a Leading Role
No surprises at all here, and only one person who could be considered a slight snub, in what is basically another two-person race. Needless to say, I couldn't be happier about his no-nomination but more on that at the bottom.
Starting at the end of Best Actor Oscar likelihood, we have the man I honestly find most deserving this year. Mostly unknown, Jeremy Renner carried "The Hurt Locker" to such great heights this year (and last...the film actually came out in 2008 but is eligible for Oscars this year for complicated reasons). Although I ultimately am not as huge a fan of the film as the many, many critics who listed it in their Top Tens for the year, I challenge anyone to find fault with his dead-on work as a bomb detonation specialist dealing with work and isolation in Iraq. But he won't win.
Neither will Morgan Freeman for his work as Nelson Mandela in "Invictus." As I've already mentioned, it's somewhat shocking that Freeman won't be more highly considered, as this is normally the role that the Academy just can't help but honor. Damn you, rugby! Why couldn't they just play American Football in South Africa?
In third, we have the performance that I personally enjoyed most. Colin Firth's turn in "A Single Man" is breathtaking, though way too subtle and quiet to garner the sort of attention it deserves. SEE THIS FILM, people. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a shot because the film has been otherwise ignored. Oh well - it was billed all year as "Better than Brokeback" and the "next big, important, gay film," but has been largely ignored by award givers.
So that leaves us with two, and I am happy to say that Clooney is going to get second place. Am I the only one who realizes that he plays the same role in EVERY freaking movie, yet we still fawn over him like he's the second coming of Jimmy Stewart. This role, in particular, is nothing but a re-hash of his performance in "Michael Clayton" only this time he's firing unsuspecting people while learning more about himself. Look, he's fine in this film, which (like "Hurt Locker") was a film that I didn't like as much as the (paid) critics. But he really shouldn't be this highly considered for an Oscar until he stretches his wings and does something juicy and villainous. Oh, and maybe if he'd stop self-congratulating for his Haiti work, that might help too.
That leaves one man at the top - a very deserving Jeff Bridges. The guy has been in movies since he was two - TWO - and continues to pump out quality work. This is his fifth nomination, and arguably a role for which he will be remembered. So don't let anyone fool you into thinking his portrayal of a down-an-out country singer who never quite made it will be awarded as a "career" Oscar. Nosireebob - he's the real deal. I'm guessing that most of you have not yet seen the film - it's worth your while for his performance and singing alone.
Will Win: Jeff Bridges
Should Win: My vote would go to Colin Firth. I just found that his performance was more transformative than Bridges' was.
Should Have Been Nominated: The Academy probably got this one right, particularly by NOT nominating Daniel Day-Lewis in "Nine." Though many considered him a lock back in November, he film was really his to carry and he BOMBED. Drink that milkshake, Lewis. Drink it up. Erstwhile, I would have substituted the overrated Clooney for the underrated performance by Sharlto Copley in "District 9." In fact, if Copley were a nominee he'd get my vote over Firth.
Best Motion Picture of the Year
TEN FILMS? That's right...unless you've been living under a rock, or in Delaware, we have ten nominations for Best Picture this year. After years of arguments about certain "types" of film that never got their due in this category, the Academy thought they'd experiment. Results are mixed...comedies (like the wonderful, Golden Globe winning "The Hangover") still didn't make the cut, neither did "light" fare (like the extremely enjoyable "500 Days of Summer). Those films will have to continue to enjoy the Golden Globes I guess. More successful were Sci-Fi (the absolutely brilliant, probably my choice for Best Film of the Year, "District 9") and animated film (the surprisingly moving "Up"). The rest of the films are all critical darlings that had little to no impact on the bottom line, save for "Avatar" and "The Blind Side" for the most part.
Let's take a swipe at the five films that have no chance. These are the ones who do not have correlating nominations for Best Director, so must have been considered numbers 6 to 10 on the ballot. Of this bunch, I have not seen "An Education" or "A Serious Man," but neither has anyone else. So go away, in that order. I'm giving "The Blind Side" 8th place, only because it made bank and Bullock has such a great chance at Oscaring for it. 7th goes to "Up," because, well, there's a category for Best Animated Film and this movie doesn't do anything to make me consider it for a higher honor than that.
I'll give sixth place, and some more considerate paragraphage, to "District 9." A somewhat small South African film, this movie stole all of the thunder away from "Invictus" as THE South African film of the year. I personally went to the movies with somewhat low hopes for this one, and could not have been more pleasantly surprised - particularly by the aforementioned Copley's gripping performance. Rent it ASAP, and get ready for the inevitable "District 10."
Five down, five to go. I'm giving fifth place to "Inglourious Basterds." I finally saw this one on a flight, and it was well worth my time. Actually, it was the rare time when I I saw something on a plane and actually wished that I had seen it on the big screen. Definitely somewhat typical Tarantino fare, yet he manages to mature just enough to reach a wider audience without losing his touch. Unfortunately, the film's buzz peaked in the summer, though it will will for Waltz's performance and has a chance for a second writing win for Quentin.
Fourth place goes to "Precious." At one time, this was the "little film that could, featuring much-buzzed about performances. Then it turned into much-hyped-by Oprah and Tyler Perry. I definitely agreed with most of the hype, and the film carries an important and empowering message, but it just wasn't quite all there for me. I'm glad to see that it will bring much attention to its openly gay and black director, Lee Daniels. This should lead to more work for him, which can only make Hollywood at least a slightly less homogeneous place.
Third place begrudgingly goes to "Up in the Air," which I will admit to thoroughly enjoying 90% of. Like some of the other nominees, it's a good film that's just not "Best Picture of the Year" worthy. With that said, well-directed, well-acted, and a solid piece of work from Jason Reitman. Definitely rentable/an ironically good choice for an in-flight film.
That's leaving two films to battle it out for Best Picture. At this point, I'm going with "Avatar" for second place. I much as I cannot STAND director James Cameron, its hard to deny that this film is a visual, stunning, masterpiece. If you haven't seen it yet it's worth a trip to your local IMAX. See it in 3-D as well. It's a real game-changer for the industry. Sure, the story is a little weak/been done about a million times before. Who cares though...it will blow you away regardless.So yeah, I'm going with "The Hurt Locker" as the Best Picture of the year. The film, which came out in Europe in 2008 but not in the U.S. until June 2009, has managed to maintain its "Best Picture" buzz for 7 months. That's definitely saying something. Directed by Kathryn Bigelow, it could become the film that finally breaks the gender barrier for women in the Best Director category as well - though some think that Cameron will take that award again regardless of how the vote for Best Picture goes. It's another film that I would recommend renting - not nearly a "perfect" film, not one that will probably stand the test of time very well, but a solid choice nonetheless.
Will Win: Again, toss-up between "The Hurt Locker" and "Avatar." I'm going with "Locker."
Should Win: My personal choice here would have to be "District 9." Who would have known that I'd support a Sci-Fi movie? Maybe I like Sci-Fi after all? Hmmm...maybe I like a drama that just HAPPENS to have aliens in it. Yeah, I'm going with that instead (for now).
Should Have Been Nominated: As I mentioned before, I really would have liked to have seen an out-of-nowhere nomination for "The Hangover," particularly with 10 films to choose from. I'm very curious to see if the Academy sticks with this experiment next year!
So that's all from me for now. Thanks for reading, and looking forward already to recapping the big show, which will be co-hosted by the hilarious Alec Baldwin and the less-then-hilarious-these-days Steve Martin. See you in early March!
