Think last year was a tough race?
Compared to 2002, 2001 was a piece of cake. Sure, there were some differences between the various industry organizations–some liked the indie In the Bedroom, others preferred the musical spectacular Moulin Rouge–but by the time the Golden Globes were handed out, A Beautiful Mind had Oscar written all over it.
The 2002 race for Oscar gold, however, is simply all over the map–and it may be a testament to the astounding level of quality films last year that makes the Best Picture frontrunner so unclear.
Almost every critics’ association has picked a different film. The Los Angeles critics chose the quirky About Schmidt while the New York and Chicago critics tapped the melodrama Far From Heaven. Boston, San Francisco and the National Society of Film Critics picked the Holocaust drama The Pianist. The National Film Board of Review chose the intense The Hours while the musical spectacular Chicago was the Broadcast Film Critics best bet. Those crazy online critics (wait, that’s me) and the Las Vegas critics picked Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. Go figure.
Then came the Golden Globes, what many consider the true barometer of what will go on to win the Academy Award. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association certainly narrowed the field when it anointed The Hours best dramatic motion picture and Chicago best musical or comedy.
Did The Hours and Chicago move ahead by a nose? Or will the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences surprise us with an unexpected contender? In this Oscar race, anything is possible.
Let’s weigh the pros and cons of this year’s most promising Best Picture candidates–and rate their chances of winning the Oscar on a scale from one to ten, ten being highest.
For it: The film about a 66-year-old retiree who takes a cross country trip in a Winnebago and learns a few life lessons along the way, played exquisitely by Jack Nicholson, is a very compelling film. Director and co-writer Alexander Payne painstakingly outlines every minute detail of this man’s life, and with Schmidt‘s superior script, it makes it hard for the Academy voters not to take notice.
Against it: It’s really a one-man show set in a small milieu. Nicholson‘s performance as the unyielding Schmidt dominates the film, but while this will assuredly secure him a spot on the Best Actor list, the overall scope isn’t exactly what Academy Award-winning Best Pictures are made of. About Schmidt will garner more than a few Oscar nominations–and possibly win a few to boot–but chances are it won’t take the top honors.
Rating: 4
For it: Although no one has picked this downright twisted flick as the best film of 2002, Adaptation still hit a chord with critics everywhere. From the furtive minds of screenwriter Charlie Kaufman and director Spike Jonze, the wacky adventures of a screenwriter on the edge boasts amazing performances from its trio of actors–Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper–with Streep and Cooper recently winning the Golden Globes in the supporting category.
Against it: Even if it is critically acclaimed, no one has voted for the film. Many detractors feel it falls apart in the second half, turning into the standard movie fare it parodies in the beginning (maybe I’m crazy, but isn’t that point?) Perhaps the outlook for a Best Picture Oscar is not so good.
Rating: 3
For it: It’s a musical, for the love of Pete! This reemerging genre is just too hot for words right now, as people are making the jaw-dropping realization your everyday movie star like Renee Zellweger or Richard Gere can actually sing and dance. Plus, the film’s narrative about two women on Chicago’s Murderess Row in the 1920s vying for the spotlight, interwoven with musical numbers, is just a lot of fun to watch. And, of course, it won the Golden Globe.
Against it: As much as everyone has been wowed by the film’s theatricality, its still a musical and may not have the weight required of a Best Picture Oscar. I mean, where’s the drama?
Rating: 8
[PAGEBREAK]
For it: It’s a nostalgic melodrama (music swells, heart thrums…). Academy voters love to remember how films used to be made and director Todd Haynes plays on this by paying homage to 1950s films by Douglas Sirk (Imitation of Life). Centering on a housewife who must deal with her husband’s homosexuality and her own burgeoning feelings for a black man, the film is just too lush and gorgeous to take your eyes off (watch for a definite cinematography nod) with excellent turns by its stars, including Julianne Moore.
Against it: Could be considered another In the Bedroom or Secrets & Lies; it’s just a little too indie for its own good. Of course, critics are going to heap praise all over it because of the “art” but if it doesn’t have the grand scope, the chances are slim it’ll win the coveted prize.
Rating: 2
For it: Now here’s what the Academy just eats up–sweeping epic period piece, bloody battles, historical backdrops, great acting–all rolled up into one powerful film. Gangs pulls no punches and shoves 1860s New York–warts (so many warts) and all–in your face whether you like it or not. It’s not a comfortable film to watch but an important one–and Academy voters admire that quality. Plus the Academy may feel it’s time to give director Martin Scorsese, who has never won an Oscar, his due.
Against it: The film has many knocks against it. First of all, it took forever to get released, having been pushed back a few times since its original date in December 2001. Many say Scorsese indulges himself too much, that this is not one of his best films, and that the main story is not compelling enough to sustain the weight of the historical context. On top of that, it failed to win the Golden Globe. It’s going to be tough call, but other worthy films may edge it out of a Best Picture win.
Rating: 7
For it: Want to know the honest truth? Even though this film is a heartbreaking, achingly beautiful, time-spanning portrait of three very different women, with unbelievable performances by absolutely everyone (Julianne Moore, Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, Ed Harris, Stephen Dillane, Miranda Richardson and so on), and a director (Stephen Daldry) whose meticulous guidance makes the film a seamless moment in time, The Hours ultimately made its mark by winning the Golden Globe–plain and simple. It’s now in each Academy voter’s individual consciousness.
Against it: Not a whole lot. The only thing that could hurt the film is the fact it is a bona fide “chick flick” and may not appeal to everyone. But that’s stretching it.
Rating: 9
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
For it: If you follow the guidelines for why Gangs of New York fits into the Academy’s Best Picture frame, then The Two Towers should fall right into that description as well. A period piece of the highest level, it has massive, violent battles and a true adventurous quest at its heart. Plus, there are Hobbits, Orcs, Ents and Wizards thrown in for good measure.
Against it: Fantasy epics are just always going to be a hard sell. Still, it’s the firm belief of many that the Academy will wait until 2003’s third and final installment The Return of the King to finally give this tremendous undertaking by director Peter Jackson its rightful due.
Rating: 6
The Pianist
For it: The Holocaust. Throughout the Academy’s history, it’s been proven time and again that members vote for stories about this horrific but tremendously important moment in history. Powered by the sole performance of Adrien Brody as real-life Polish pianist Wladyslaw Szpilman and from the heart of director Roman Polanski, who lived through the experience, The Pianist takes the story of survival to its fullest.
Against it: Since the Academy gave a Holocaust movie (Schindler’s List) the Best Picture Oscar not so long ago, not as many people have seen it, and because the competition is very stiff this year, Polanski’s film may be passed over.
Rating: 5
Honorable Mentions
The much-abbreviated (and happily so) adaptation of Charles Dickens’ Nicholas Nickleby has all the right makings of a Best Picture–a period piece, good acting, beautiful cinematography–but it’s just not as strong a contender to break past the rest. There also the small chance the enduring independent film My Big Fat Greek Wedding could snag what we like to call the “Babe” nomination–a film which makes it to the Oscar five simply because of its seemingly huge appeal.
