Guest Critic Article: Frank Ochieng out in the Forefront The Predictions for Oscar Gold |
|
Guest Critic Article: Frank Ochieng out in the Forefront The Predictions for Oscar Gold |
|
Frank Ochieng is a guest critic who also writes reviews for his own personal website, located here. To become a Guest Critic for CINEMA
2000, please notify David Keyes.
|
Written by FRANK OCHIENG
Predicting who will win the Academy Award isn’t just an exclusive art designed for the world’s vast majority of film critics. In fact, it’s a privilege that anyone and everyone is entitled to engage in with their heart’s content. Believe me when I say that it is a treasured ritual when conducting such a task of second-guessing who and what will cop Oscar glory and who and what will settle for being the gloried runners-up when all is said and done. Well, it’s that time to put our money where our mouths are and pony up some sure-fire predictions as to where we think the golden statuette is headed for the upcoming 75th Academy Awards ceremony. Of course you out there in CINEMA 2000 MovieLand have your own predictions and overall take on what you feel will be recognized. But as a featured movie reviewer here at this site, I can only share with you my impressions of where I feel the good ole Oscar recognition will go to. Remember, predicting Oscar gold is not necessarily an exact science in the tradition of…let’s say…splitting an atom. But still, one shouldn’t downplay the tricky and agonizing duties of trying to assess where the winners are victorious and where the losers are yesterday’s footnote. I know-ultimately the clichéd census is that there are no real winners or losers in the glamorous world of an Academy Award utopia. Without further ado, let me serve up my spin of this whole excitable ordeal by offering my annual Oscar predictions on what lucky source will be blessed with accepting an Academy Award thus propelling them into the movie history books. There will be a couple of considerations to acknowledge when offering my analysis of who’ll be an Academy Award winner-I will convey a.) who/what I think the Academy will grant the Oscar to and b.) who/what I would like to see win the Oscar personally. Is that simple enough? Good...we’ll proceed!! Now let’s get on with “Frank Ochieng out in the Forefront: The Predictions for Oscar Gold”. And remember, the 75th Annual Academy Awards broadcast is slated for telecast on Sunday, March 23, 2003 (unless there’s a change due to other current affairs taking place to warrant a special rescheduling). I. BEST FILM The Academy’s selection: Chicago Explanation: With Chicago as the crowned frontrunner (leading with 13 nominations) and a surging momentum that has triggered an unheard of frenzy regarding Rob Marshall’s deliciously spry movie musical, look for the snappy song-and-dance showcase to emerge victorious as the best picture of the year. Chicago will manage to do what Moulin Rouge couldn’t accomplish last year-transcend the interest of the movie musical genre to new heights where mainstream appreciation otherwise lacked. Scorsese’s beloved but uneven “Gangs” won’t get the green light although the director himself may finally get that elusive statuette to put a definitive stamp on his legendary filmmaking career. The Hours has the poignancy and sophistication that would represent Oscar admirably but this high-powered artsy “chick flick” may not be palatable to all the demographics concerned. Roman Polanski’s return to prominence with the utterly soulful and blistering Holocaust drama The Pianist is appropriately realized. However, the lingering backlash from Polanski’s personal past may keep voters from championing his piercing portrait of art concerning one talented man’s remedy to survive despite the ominous goings-on of human indignation. Personally, I would like to see “The Two Towers” reign supreme as it has the difficult task of juggling many components (action, romance, technical vibrancy, unique storytelling devices) and effectively gelling them together in order to deliver Peter Jackson’s robust narrative as the rousing and riveting piece of entertainment it convincingly is. Overall, The Pianist is probably the best film of the lot that should nab the Oscar outright due to its haunting and heartfelt subject matter. But “all that Academy Award jazz” and such will be directed in Chicago’s direction. II. BEST ACTOR The Academy’s selection: Jack Nicholson for About Schmidt Explanation: The cinematic badboy and three-time legendary Osacr-winner Jack Nicholson is on the verge of becoming the first actor in motion picture history to win FOUR Oscar awards should he claim the best actor prize for About Schmidt. So look for Nicholson to add some distinction to his impressive and lengthy film career by reaching that feat of scoring his fourth astounding Oscar (his previous wins were for “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” (best actor), “Terms of Endearment” (best supporting actor) and “As Good As It Gets” (best actor). Oh yeah, it does help that Nicholson turned in a fine performance as the bewildered retiree Warren Schmidt lost in his own emotional oblivion. Former Oscar winners Nicholas Cage (“Leaving Las Vegas”), Michael Caine (“Hannah and Her sisters”, “The Cider House Rules”) and Daniel Day-Lewis (“My Left Foot”) are also up for the honors of competing for another Oscar. Cage’s dazzling turn as real-life neurotic screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (and his fictional twin brother Donald) in Spike Jonze’s subversive Adaptation was simply marvelous but the zany movie may upstage Cage’s brilliant participation in it. Caine’s turn as a lovestruck journalist in The Quiet American was astounding indeed but there weren’t enough folks who were privileged to see the actor’s revered work in it. And Daniel Day-Lewis, always the masterful thespian, was the consistent solid force that made Scorsese’s flawed but presentable project in “Gangs” flow with intrigue. But the wily Nicholson should merge the winner thanks to his flirtation with Oscar history not to mention delivering another wry, skillful performance. First-timer Adrien Brody (“Summer of Sam”) grabbed my attention immediately as the fragile-looking and gaunt musician Wladyslaw Szpilman looking to make sense out of his insane situation in war-torn Nazi occupied Poland with only his ability to play sweet music as his sane emotional escape hatch. Brody is compelling and embodies a weary puppy dog-eyed delicate spirit in the midst of an ugly and unconscionable period of time in mankind’s checkered history. Brody challenges himself to no end by getting into the tormented but creative skin of Szpilman’s existence. III. BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR The Academy’s selection: Chris Cooper for Adaptation Explanation: This is a very interesting category that boasts worthy veteran actors who all have had their share of Oscar exposure (Newman (“The Color of Money”) and Walken (“The Deer Hunter”) are former Oscar winners; Harris has been nominated a few times before). Both Cooper and Reilly have been around for a while but finally get a chance to see what the big dance is like thanks to their extraordinary turns in the movies they helped gain some supportive consideration. The Academy will bestow Cooper his first well-deserved Oscar as the bizarre-looking, stringy-haired orchid stealer with an erratic agenda in the imaginative and complicated comedy Adaptation. Cooper is absolutely inspired in this role and brings a fortitude that elevates the performances of his fellow Oscar-nominated co-stars Nicholas Cage and Meryl Streep. Harris is his usual brilliant self in The Hours playing a dying AIDS-infected poet but his supporting work may be considered too brief on screen for a real shot. The ubiquitous Reilly could have been nominated for at least a couple of other films based on his sound acting chops. However, his noteworthy performance will be lost most likely in the almighty aura of the “Chicago” winning storm. As aging Irish gangster Frank Mooney, the legendary Newman was thoroughly involving in Road to Perdition. Still, Newman’s period piece flick failed to register anything solid as it lost steam as the summer came to a close (witness the absent nods for Newman’s co-star Tom Hanks or his director Sam Mendes or his film that he appeared in). My personal pick would be for both Cooper (for the reasons I mentioned above) and Walken, one of my all-time favorite actors period. In “Catch Me” Walken is right on target as the disillusioned patriarch Frank Abagnale Sr. who becomes the embittered pawn of the government thus motivating his future law-breaking offspring Frank Jr. to wreak havoc on society with his own psychological method of “getting even”. I was glad to see that the nominating committee didn’t overlook the sensational Walken in a revealing performance that is unassuming in its quiet explosiveness. If I had it my way, both Walken and Cooper would be co-owners of the best supporting acting Oscars. IV. BEST ACTRESS The Academy’s selection: Renee Zellweger for Chicago Explanation: The Best Actress category seems to get more difficult as the years pass on. Maybe it’s because the roles for women are getting more diverse and challenging. And what better way to represent the best in women’s movie roles than to appoint these five fine actresses as the best the previous movie season had to offer. The clear frontrunners, in my estimation anyway, are Kidman for her spectacular turn as perplexed novelist Virginia Woolf in The Hours and Zellweger as the opportunist fame-seeking entertainer Roxie Hart in the finger-snapping musical Chicago. The edge may go to Zellweger since her vehicle Chicago is rolling on while gathering impressive awards and notices. This is not to say that Kidman and her moving role as Woolf is a slouch-that’s far from the truth. But the reality is that Zellweger’s role of Hart is so bouncy and exuberant that it immediately registers as the colorful prototype that Oscar loves in its optimistic fiber. It’s nice to see Spanish beauty Hayek selected for her work in Frida although I doubt that not too many people saw her touching, resilient performance. Lane’s turn in Unfaithful was provocative and stimulating but may not be counted as much since it was displayed to the movie audience way back in the beginning of last summer. My personal pick would be for Julianne Moore’s exceptional portrayal of 1950’s housewife Cathy Whitaker in the impeccable Todd Haynes presentation Far From Heaven. Moore shrewdly plays a woman in denial that’s forced to live a lie in the restrictive taboo confines of a lily-white Eisenhower-era society. Whether reluctantly accepting the reality of her loveless marriage to an alcoholic homosexual or willingly embracing her attraction to the honest sensibilities of a handsome black gardener, Moore’s Cathy Whitaker is probably the best well-rounded, tragic and daring feminine character to tap into the audience’s psyche in quite some time. V. BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS The Academy’s selection: Kathy Bates for About Schmidt Explanation: For some strange reason, the Supporting Actress category is known for throwing us some inventive, quirky winners in the mix (witness Marissa Tomei for “My Cousin Vinnie”, Anna Paquin for “The Piano” or Linda Hunt for “The Year of Living Dangerously”). Although this is a strong roster of names listed for former Oscar winners (Bates and Streep), a previous Oscar nominee (Moore) and a couple of first-timers (Latifah and Zeta-Jones), my money will be on Kathy Bates to claim her second Oscar for her wacky brave turn as the disrobing free-spirited mother-in-law in About Schmidt. Bates does what most actresses in Hollywood over 40 wouldn’t care to do, and that’s expose her roly-poly body to the world for the sake of her character’s ability to live life and not hold back despite what anyone says or thinks. Bates is fabulous as the frivolous alternative to Jack Nicholson’s highly-guarded and uptight title character Warren Schmidt. Moore has the distinction this year of receiving a double nomination (her other nomination is in the Best Actress category for Far From Heaven) but her best chances may be winning for “Heaven” based on her other dysfunctional Golden Age portrayal of a woman in silent peril. What a surprise (and a great one at that) to see singer and former television actress (Fox-TV’s ‘90s sitcom “Living Single”) Queen Latifah receive an Academy Award nomination for her durable work as jail warden “Mama” Morton from Chicago. Still, one might be concerned with Latifah’s limited screen time to garner her any serious consideration for the gold. Plus, Latifah may cancel out her other Chicago co-star Catherine Zeta-Jones who’s also in the running for the same trophy. Zeta-Jones has a juicier role (not to mention the Golden Globe) and some may argue that she belongs in the lead actress category along with Renee Zellweger. And the magnificent Meryl Streep is in a league of her own. Streep’s co-star and fellow Oscar-nominee Adaptation counterpart Chris Cooper has a better shot at the Academy Award than she does. Some may say that the real winner isn’t Streep’s performance so much as it is her name value and the film’s writing that made her role of writer Susan Orlean flourish and come to life in the material. Then again, all of these actresses can be guilty of the same thing, right? Anyway, the Academy-much like myself-will agree that Bates will be reunited with Oscar once again after a twelve-year absence since her 1990 Best Actress win for Misery. VI. BEST DIRECTOR The Academy’s selection: Martin Scorsese for Gangs of
New York Explanation: All these filmmakers being mentioned here are truly gifted and have fortified their valuable films with doses of inspiration and tenacious forethought. Look for one of the most astute and contemporary visionary moviemakers of our time-Martin Scorsese-to finally get the reward he deserves…the Oscar for his tenacious labor of love Gangs of New York. Personally, I didn’t feel that Scorsese’s extravagant 19th century period piece was all that special by his standards. Nevertheless, Scorsese will probably receive his Best Director’s Oscar honors indicative of his impeccable moviemaking career more so than he would receive it for the sketchy but ambitious “Gangs”. That’s my take on this matter anyway. Marshall’s picture will most likely get its due with Chicago winning Best Picture accolades thus justifying “rewarding” its capable director in another sense. Daldry’s and Almodovar’s director nominations were certainly worthy as their films (The Hours and Talk To Her respectively) were critically received by critics and sophisticated moviegoers alike. But unfortunately with Scorsese’s sympathy factor in place and the universal appeal for Marshall’s wickedly merry movie musical, both Daldry and Almodovar will have to settle for backseat applause at best. It was a shock to see that the Academy actually was brave enough to nominate the maligned Roman Polanski for the best director’s race for Oscar. Whatever one’s opinionated views are on Polanski and his past personal demons, you certainly cannot deny the fact that the filmmaker has produced one of the most viable and cinematically soul-searching character studies since Steven Spielberg’s gripping Schindler’s List that took the moviegoers’ consciousness by storm. Polanski is in rare form and his exposition The Pianist automatically reflects the sentiment he exhibits: an artist in need of overcoming the crashing walls around him by virtue of letting his resounding craft rescue his otherwise empty void. And now, let’s continue to list the other 75th Academy Award nominees and the predictions sans the explanations, alright? **NOTE: (A)= The Academy’s selection and (FO)= Frank Ochieng’s selections Best Animated Feature Film Best Adapted Screenplay Best Original Screenplay Best Foreign-Language Film Achievement in Art Direction Achievement in Cinematography Achievement in Costume Design Best Documentary Feature Documentary Short Subject Best Film Editing Achievement in Makeup Best Original Score Original Song Best Animated Short Film Live-Action Short Film Achievement in Sound Achievement in Sound Editing Best Visual Effects � David Keyes, CINEMA 2000. To keep the content of these pages at near-perfect quality, please e-mail the author here if the above review contains any spelling or grammar mistakes. |