Well, it's that time of year again - the time of year when I, Robogeek, boldly make my Oscar predictions. (Well, except for short films; I'll get to that later, but meanwhile - go Pixar!)
PLEASE NOTE: "Will Win" means who I think will win the Oscar, but not necessarily who I think should. "Should Win" means who I think should win, but not necessarily who I think will. "Puke" refers to what my response will be if that nominee wins – NOT my opinion of that nominee, per se, just my absolute abhorrance to the idea of their getting the Oscar. Got it? Okay.
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
"Go The Distance" from "Hercules," Alan Menken and David Zippel - PUKE
"How Do I Live" from "Con Air," Diane Warren - PUKE
"Journey To The Past" from "Anastasia," Stephen Flaherty and Lynn Ahrens - PUKE
"Miss Misery" from "Good Will Hunting," Elliott Smith - PUKE
"My Heart Will Go On" from "Titanic," James Horner and Will Jennings. - WW; SW
First off, I must praise Allah that one of the worst Bond songs ever - "Tomorrow Never Dies" by Sheryl Crow and Mitchell Froom - didn't get a nomination. However, I am very disappointed that one of the best Bond songs ever - "Surrender" by David Arnold, David McAlmont and Don Black - didn't get the nomination it deserved. I would've loved to have seen k. d. lang perform it at the Oscars, but if that's the price I gotta pay to keep Sheryl Crow off the stage, well... I'll live with it.
But you know what? It doesn't matter. "My Heart Will Go On" has got it in the bag. First off, it's actually a rather lovely and even timeless song (the version in the film and on the soundtrack, not the over-produced version on Celine Dion's album and the video). Secondly, 16 of the last 18 songs which won the Golden Globe have gone on to win the Oscar. Thirdly, have you seen the charts lately? I mean, this song just broke the record for the most airplay of any single in history, and the soundtrack has sold in excess of 8 million copies already (Celine Dion's album ain't doing so bad, either). And, fourthly, this is TITANIC we're talking about, remember?
BEST ORIGINAL MUSICAL OR COMEDY SCORE
"Anastasia," Stephen Flaherty, Lynn Ahrens and David Newman - PUKE
"As Good As It Gets," Hans Zimmer - PUKE
"The Full Monty," Anne Dudley - PUKE
"Men In Black," Danny Elfman - WW, SW
"My Best Friend's Wedding," James Newton Howard - PUKE
First off, I am compelled to point out that one of the gravest travesties of justice in this year's nominations occurred in this category. The most inventive, inspired and interesting score of the year should be on this list, and it should win - Eric Serra for "The Fifth Element." Were people still mad at him over what he did with the "Goldeneye" score a couple of years ago, or something? Admittedly, that bordered on a crime against humanity, but get over it! He more than redeemed himself with "The Fifth Element," an absolutely wonderful score.
That said, this category holds very little interest for me this year, given the slate of nominees - though I'm pleased as punch that "Hercules" was left off the list. This is particularly ironic, given that Disney's domination of the score category not so many years ago led to its being split up into the musical/comedy and dramatic divisions. Oh, well.
The "Anastasia" score had it's moments, but overall just didn't do it for me. As for "As Good As It Gets," well, as much as I usually like Hans Zimmer ("Crimson Tide" was brilliant, for instance), I thought he was out of his element with this film, and turned in a score that was uneven and intrusive. The scores for "The Full Monty" and "My Best Friend's Wedding" are nice enough - what there is of them - but I don't think they were particularly noteworthy achievements.
Which brings me to one of my favorites, Danny Elfman - who has yet to win an Oscar. While some might say the "Men In Black" score sounds like a lot of his other work, I simply say it's Elfman doing what he does best - great scoring. It's a perfect match for the film, and deserves to win. He's earned it.
BEST ORIGINAL DRAMATIC SCORE
"Amistad," John Williams - PUKE
"Good Will Hunting," Danny Elfman - PUKE
"Kundun," Philip Glass - PUKE
"L.A. Confidential," Jerry Goldsmith - PUKE
"Titanic," James Horner - WW, SW
Granted, all these scores are really good. "Amistad," however, I find overdone and not up to par with Williams' greats. "Good Will Hunting" is a nice change of pace for Elfman, but isn't great (go back to his "Black Beauty" to hear that). "Kundun" is, well, Philip Glass - which is definitely an acquired taste, one I'm sure most Academy voters don't have (though critics did). "L.A. Confidential" is a little gem from Goldsmith, but that film is rather sparsely scored.
Which brings me to TITANIC. Now, let me say this - I have a love/hate relationship with Horner. He's shamelessly derivative, but refuses to admit it. He steals right and left, but always denies it - even when he's stealing from himself (like when he stole "Aliens" from "Star Trek II"). I could write a dissertation going through every score he's done, showing things like how most of "Willow" is straight out of Schumann's Third Symphony. This stuff really, really frustrates me...
BUT, he's still brilliant. He produces absolutely gorgeous work, like "Legends of the Fall," "Glory" and the like. He's come a long, long way. And, when you get right down to it, everything is derivative at some level. Everybody steals, even if it's subconsciously. There's virtually no such thing as entirely "original" anymore. On a purely philosophical level, it may not even be possible. But I digress...
In large part, for me, pretty much all the categories should be weighed with regard to "degree of difficulty." And this was arguably one of the most challenging film scoring assignments of the decade. Plus, Horner's never won, but deserves it. He's paid his dues and earned it. And, okay, so one of the main themes sounds suspiciously like "Wild Mountain Thyme" (don't know that song?) and another is obviously derived from Enya's "Book of Days" (which was temp tracked on the scene). Does it really matter? It's a breathtaking score, with expansive range spanning intimacy and grandeur, love and terror, joy and sadness. There are so many ways in which the score to this film could have gone way wrong. But at virtually every moment, the score is perfect. I bought it the day it came out, and can't stop listening to it. I can't wait to buy Volume Two (when the hell is that going to be released?) so I can have the piano solo version of Rose's theme (played during the portrait scene) among so much else from the treasure trove of this score.
To me, this is film scoring at its best and most effective. (And given how it's the best-selling film score of all time, my opinion seems to be widely shared.) For another score to win this year would be a sacrilege.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
"Donnie Brasco" - Paul Attanasio
"L.A. Confidential" - Brian Helgeland and Curtis Hanson - WW; SW
"The Sweet Hereafter" - Atom Egoyan
"Wag The Dog" - Hilary Henkin and David Mamet
"The Wings Of The Dove" - Hossein Amini
The second best picture of the year may have to settle for just one Oscar, but this is perhaps the one it is most worthy of receiving. There's no chance it won't win this. "The Wings of the Dove" and "The Sweet Hereafter" are close contenders and significant accomplishments, but not a significant threat to the most critically lauded film of the year.
BEST SCREENPLAY WRITTEN DIRECTLY FOR THE SCREEN
"As Good As It Gets," Mark Andrus and James L. Brooks
"Boogie Nights," Paul Thomas Anderson - PUKE
"Deconstructing Harry," Woody Allen - PUKE
"The Full Monty," Simon Beaufoy
"Good Will Hunting," Ben Affleck and Matt Damon - WW; SW
Excuse me, for I must rant.
Where the HELL is James Cameron's script for TITANIC? I am sorry, but its exclusion in this category is both unfathomable and inexcusable. There is NO WAY anyone can tell me that "Boogie Nights," Deconstructing Harry" or even "The Full Monty" are better scripts. TITANIC is masterful, compelling storytelling. And, again, think "degree of difficulty" here. Cameron is a GOD. Some people have picked on him for his dialogue. Well, go back and watch "Casablanca," "Ben-Hur," "Gone With The Wind," and "Dr. Zhivago" and tell me there isn't some downright silly dialogue in those films. This kind of nitpicky nonsense is both shallow and blind. (Plus, if it had been nominated, I would have been right in predicting 15 nominations for TITANIC.)
Granted, even if TITANIC had been nominated, I would have picked "Good Will Hunting" to win, and it should. Much like "L.A. Confidential," this is the one award it perhaps deserves most. And while Mark Andrus and James L. Brooks are definitely in the running for "As Good As It Gets," Matt and Ben are going to walk away with the prize. The screenplay and acting categories are the best opportunity the Academy has to "spread the wealth" a little in a year that will be dominated by TITANIC, and that's exactly what'll happen. And given that the writing category has lately been into awarding writers who are new, young, and actors, "GWH" has got it in the bag. (And it'll be a truly great Oscar moment to see Ben and Matt accept.)
BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN COSTUME DESIGN
"Amistad," Ruth E. Carter - PUKE
"Kundun," Dante Ferretti - PUKE
"Oscar and Lucinda," Janet Patterson - PUKE
"Titanic," Deborah L. Scott - WW; SW
"The Wings of the Dove," Sandy Powell - PUKE
What a triumph. Sheer perfection on a mind-boggling scale. Again, think "degree of difficulty" here. Not only is the work in TITANIC flawlessly beautiful, it is done on an unrivaled scale. The attention to detail, the meticulous historical accuracy - it's a stunning accomplishment. It would be a crime not to award it the Oscar.
However, where the hell is "The Fifth Element" and Gaultier's daring designs? A serious omission in this category.
BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND
"Air Force One," Paul Massey, Rick Kline, D.M. Hemphill and Keith A. Wester
"Con Air," Kevin O'Connell, Greg P. Russell and Arthur Rochester
"Contact," Randy Thom, Tom Johnson, Dennis Sands and William B. Kaplan
"L.A. Confidential," Andy Nelson, Anna Behlmer and Kirk Francis
"Titanic," Gary Rydstrom, Tom Johnson, Gary Summers and Mark Ulano - WW; SW
Let me just say it - no other film this year can hold a candle to TITANIC in any of the technical categories. Period. The sound, like everything else, is absolutely extraordinary. (Kudos, however, to "Air Force One" and "Contact.")
BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN CINEMATOGRAPHY
"Amistad" (Dreamworks) Janusz Kaminski
"Kundun" (Buena Vista) Roger Deakins
"L.A. Confidential" (Warner Bros.) Dante Spinotti
"Titanic" (20th Century Fox/Paramount) Russell Carpenter - WW; SW
"The Wings of the Dove" (Miramax) Eduardo Serra
This is a particularly tough category, with serious competition - particularly "Amistad" and "Kundun." But for me, it's still no question - TITANIC. Absolutely breathtaking, drop-dead gorgeous camera work that's technically wondrous. Again, it comes down in large part to "degree of difficulty" for me. Granted, the line between cinematography and visual effects is often blurred in TITANIC, with a dizzying array of mind-boggling composite shots. But not everything was created on computer. That sunset was not made on computer. The portrait scene was not done on a computer. The boarding of the Titanic at Southampton was shot. I hope Academy voters realize how much of the breathtaking visuals in the film were actually captured by camera, and don't jilt Carpenter's work because they think it was all done with computers. That would be a terrible injustice.
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
"Ayn Rand: A Sense Of Life," Michael Paxton
"Colors Straight Up," Michele Ohayon and Julia Schacter
"4 Little Girls," Spike Lee and Sam Pollard
"The Long Way Home," Rabbi Marvin Hier and Richard Trank
"Waco: The Rules Of Engagement," a SomFord Entertainment/Fifth Estate Production
Uh, excuse me, I must rant again...
Where the hell is "Fast, Cheap and Out of Control" and Errol Morris? Not only should that film be in this category, it might even deserve to win!
Granted, I've only seen "Waco," and frankly I'm stunned it's nominated. Not because it doesn't deserve to be - quite the opposite, in fact. I'm just amazed that the historically stodgy and often clueless documentary branch of the Academy dared to nominate something so controversial and provocative. I'm thrilled by the nomination, because this is a film that should be seen - and hopefully a distributor and a cable outlet will have the nerve to pick it up and show it. What good is a documentary if no one sees it?
That said, I've been eagerly awaiting "4 Little Girls," and am likewise thrilled by its nomination. It would be a beautiful irony if this was how Spike Lee finally won his Oscar. I would love to hear his acceptance speech. For that reason alone I'm tempted to root for it, but I can't do that in good conscience; having not seen the five nominated films, I don't feel entitled to make a judgment.
BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND EFFECTS EDITING
"Face/Off" (Paramount and Touchstone) Mark P. Stoeckinger and Per Hallberg
"The Fifth Element" (Sony) Mark Mangini
"Titanic" (20th Century Fox/Paramount) Tom Bellfort and Christopher Boyes - WW; SW
Again, no other film this year can hold a candle to TITANIC in any technical category. Awesome, sense-stunning artistry.
BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN VISUAL EFFECTS
"The Lost World: Jurassic Park" (Universal), Dennis Muren, Stan Winston, Randal M. Dutra and Michael Lantieri - PUKE
"Starship Troopers" (TriStar), Phil Tippett, Scott E. Anderson, Alec Gillis and John Richardson - PUKE
"Titanic," Robert Legato, Mark Lasoff, Thomas L. Fisher and Michael Kanfer - WW; SW
I just have two questions.
One, why even nominate any films beside TITANIC this year?
Two, why hasn't this category been expanded to five nominees, so "The Fifth Element" and "Contact" could get the nominations they deserved?
Again, in this category, think "degree of difficulty." On top of that, step back and appreciate the fact that TITANIC elevated the craft of visual effects to a level of sheer artistry never before acheived. Witness the scene transition/morphs between past and present as just one jaw-dropping example. Look at the astonishingly perfect composite tracking shots that were feats of overpowering beauty. By comparison, "Lost World" and "Starship Troopers" are strictly paint-by-numbers.
BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN ART DIRECTION
"Gattaca" (Columbia), Art direction Jan Roelfs, Set direction Nancy Nye
"Kundun" (Buena Vista) Art direction Dante Ferretti, Set Direction Francesca Lo Schiavo
"L.A. Confidential" (Warner Bros.) Art direction Jeannine Oppewall, Set direction Jay R. Hart
"Men in Black" (Columbia), Art direction Bo Welch, Set direction Cheryl Carasik
"Titanic" (20th Century Fox/Paramount) Art direction Peter Lamont, Set direction Michael Ford - WW; SW
It was a very good year for art direction in film, but the work done in TITANIC is an unrivaled accomplishment. Unparalleled attention to detail on an unchallenged scale. Again, repeat after me - "degree of difficulty." Thank you. (However, "The Fifth Element" certainly deserved a nod.)
BEST FOREIGN-LANGUAGE FILM
"Beyond Silence," from Germany (A Claussen+Wobke Filmproduktion GmbH/Roxy-Film GmbH production)
"Character" the Netherlands (A First Floor Features production) - WW
"Four Days in September" from Brazil (A Production L.C. Barretto Ltda./Filmes do Equador Ltda. production)
"Secrets of the Heart" from Spain (An Aiete Films/Ariane Films production)
"The Thief" from Russia (An NTV-Profit/Productions le Pont/Roissy Films production).
Excuse me, where is "La Promesse"? Where is "Mononoke Hime"? Where is "Shall We Dance?" Where is "Knocking on Heaven's Door"? Etc., etc., etc...
Do you, dear reader, have any idea how utterly frustrating this category remains for me, year after year? When is the Academy going to wake up, join the global economy, and throw out their antiquated, isolationist eligibility requirements?
Is it not staggeringly stupid that the Academy limits each and every country to submit only one film? What exactly is the point of that? Is there some legitimate rationale that I'm missing here?
If a film is released during the calendar year and at least half of it is in a foreign language, it should be eligible. Period.
As for my picks in this category, well, I haven't seen any of them, but I can't help but pick "Character" since I'm half-Dutch. (Hey, "Antonia's Line" won!)
BEST MAKEUP
"Men In Black," Rick Baker and David LeRoy Anderson - PUKE
"Mrs. Brown," Lisa Westcott, Veronica Brebner and Beverley Binda - PUKE
"Titanic," Tina Earnshaw, Greg Cannom and Simon Thompson - WW; SW
Between the work done on Gloria Stuart as Rose to the sea of frozen corpses to the beautiful period makeup, TITANIC contains the most effective and impressive makeup work this year. And, again, the sheer scale of the achievement is beyond compare. (Yup, it's back to the "degree of difficulty" mantra again, folks!)
BEST FILM EDITING
"Air Force One," Richard Francis-Bruce
"As Good As It Gets," Richard Marks
"Good Will Hunting," Pietro Scalia
"L.A. Confidential," Peter Honess
"Titanic," Conrad Buff, James Cameron and Richard A. Harris - WW; SW
TITANIC is a shrine to editing artistry. The steady acceleration in pacing towards the climax is brilliantly executed. The portrait scene alone is magically cut. Admittedly, this is a strong category, and "L.A. Confidential" is a solid runner-up, but as I've been saying repeatedly, look at "degree of difficulty" here, and there's simply no question that TITANIC far out-distances every other nominee in level of achievement.
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Kim Basinger in "L.A. Confidential" (Warner Bros.) - PUKE
Joan Cusack in "In & Out" (Paramount in association with Spelling Films)
Minnie Driver in "Good Will Hunting" (Miramax) - PUKE
Julianne Moore in "Boogie Nights" (New Line) - PUKE
Gloria Stuart in "Titanic" (20th Century Fox/Paramount) - WW; SW
For me, this is the most clear-cut choice in the acting categories this year. Gloria Stuart is an absolute treasure, and masterfully performs the crucial task of anchoring the narrative of TITANIC at beginning and end. And her performance is in perfect harmony with Kate Winslet's (wouldn't it be magic if they both won for the same role?). The film simply wouldn't work without her presence. On top of that, she's a huge sentimental favorite. My God, she was in 1933's "The Invisible Man" with Claude Rains, for heaven's sake! She's a founding member of SAG! She's the oldest acting nominee ever! There won't be a dry eye in the house when she gives her acceptance speech, I guarantee.
(And, come to think of it, a lot of Academy voters may want to ease their guilt for not giving this Oscar to Lauren Bacall last year - though they did the right thing by giving it to Juliette Binoche. This year, however, there is no Juliette Binoche.)
As for the rest, well, first off, I thought Sigourney Weaver would be nominated for "The Ice Storm" instead of Minnie Driver. But as much as I liked her in "GWH," I just didn't think her performance was "great." As for Julianne Moore, I'm a long-time fan and have seen just about everything she's done - but "Boogie Nights"? Who outside of New York and L.A. actually likes that movie? And, besides, Moore has been better. Now, admittedly, I shamelessly adore Joan Cusack - always have - and won't be too surprised (or terribly displeased) if she pulls an upset and wins.
But Kim Basinger, whom many regard as an odds-on favorite to take the statue (especially after snagging the Golden Globe), should not win. I liked her performance a lot, but it wasn't of the caliber demonstrated by Crowe, Pierce or Spacey in the same film. And it certainly wasn't great - except relative to her other performances of recent years. But just because an actress lands a spot in a great film after spending many years in bad ones doesn't mean she earns the Oscar. Being surrounded by greatness - as she was in "L.A. Confidential" - doesn't count unless you bring equal greatness to the table. She didn't. End of story.
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Robert Forster in "Jackie Brown" (Miramax)
Anthony Hopkins in "Amistad" (DreamWorks)
Greg Kinnear in "As Good as it Gets" (TriStar)
Burt Reynolds in "Boogie Nights" (New Line Cinema) - WW; PUKE
Robin Williams in "Good Will Hunting" (Miramax) - SW
Quick rant: I really wanted Billy Connelly to get nominated for "Mrs. Brown," though I knew he wouldn't be. What really surprised me is that Forster got nominated over Rupert Everett for "My Best Friend's Wedding." Which, considering that Kinnear got nominated, raises an interesting issue...
Did the acting branch think Kinnear played a more convincing gay character than Everett did, even though Everett is gay and Kinnear isn't? Or did they decide that since Everett is gay, he wasn't doing as much "acting" as Kinnear? Either way, Everett was robbed. His performance was brilliant, and he totally stole the film.
And what about Kevin Spacey for "L.A. Confidential"?
Anyway, Burt seems to be as much of a sure thing as anything else this year, having won virtually every other award this year. And, it'll give us a sentimental acceptance moment. But Williams should win for "Good Will Hunting," if for nothing else than to send him a message that this is the kind of work he should be doing, instead of garbage like "Flubber." A very close second choice in my book is Hopkins, though. He's masterful in "Amistad." Kinnear's quite good, but I seriously question Forster's nomination, especially given those who were left out of this category.
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Helena Bonham Carter in "The Wings of the Dove" (Miramax) - PUKE
Julie Christie in "Afterglow" (Sony Pictures Classics)
Judi Dench in "Mrs. Brown" (Miramax)
Helen Hunt in "As Good As It Gets" (TriStar) - WW; PUKE
Kate Winslet in "Titanic" (20th Century Fox/Paramount) - SW
First off, I predicted that Pam Grier was going to get nominated instead of Julie Christie (I didn't think enough people had seen "Afterglow" yet) - and that if she had she would have won. I had the logic of it all worked out, but alas...
Arguably, Helena Bonham Carter inhabited what was among the best and most complex roles for a woman this year, and did so masterfully. Critics loved her. Oddsmakers have named her the favorite in this race. But you know what? People don't like her. Actually, a lot of people hate her. Really hate her. And she didn't play a character that viewers could readily identify with or connect to on an emotional level, much less warm up to. She's simply not likable. And, generally, voters are tired of seeing her in yet another period costume drama, even if her character is a departure. It comes down to this: do Academy members want to see her on stage accepting? No. She won't win.
As for the other leading contender, well, Helen Hunt is the only American in this category. (Uh-oh.) Granted, she's actually acting in "As Good As It Gets," instead of whatever she was doing in "Twister" (ugh). But was it a great performance? No. Pretty damn good, sure. Affecting, yeah. But great? No. But she's awfully likable, and that may be enough to get her the Oscar. Don't get me wrong, I like "AGAIG" - but it's pretty lightweight, rather transparent, and extremely obvious. A good movie, but not a great film. However, a.) "AGAIG" is considered a real "actor's movie," with showy performances (as opposed to "Titanic"); b.) people love Brooks, and are mad he didn't get a directing nod; and c.) this film can't leave the Oscars empty-handed. All these factors conspire to give Hunt the Oscar by default, which I find both unfortunate and unfair.
Judi Dench and Julie Christie, on the other hand, I both worship. Both gave exquisite performances. But will enough Academy voters see their films? I doubt it. And neither performance really jumps out as a clear favorite. Then again, Dench did win the Golden Globe, so anything's possible. But I consider them both long-shots.
Which brings me to Kate Winslet - the greatest living acting talent under 30 (a claim I do not make likely). At age 17, she made the most stunning film debut in a generation with "Heavenly Creatures" (for which she deserved at least a nomination). Since then, she's done "Sense and Sensibility," "Hamlet," "Jude," and now "Titanic" - a total of five extremely challenging and widely diverse roles. Show me another actor who's had a string of films (and perfomances) like that, of or at any age. (Have to think back quite a while, don't ya?) At 22, she has her second Oscar nomination (her first was for "S&S"), and has earned her first win.
You know how I've been harping on "degree of difficulty" throughout this article? Take a look at how it applies here. TITANIC is Rose's story. It's a journey we take through Winslet and Stuart. Together, they have captivated audiences around the world, beyond anyone's expectations. Look at what she goes through in the film. Imagine what an extraordinary, historic moment it would be if they both got Oscars for playing the same character. And while most of the actors nominated this year represent Hollywood's past, Winslet represents Hollywood's brightest possible future.
I could make a detailed case for Winslet, analyzing every moment of her performance. But I'll just tell you to simply look at the entirety of it, and then one particular scene.
When Jack and Rose are floating under the night sky on the frigid Atlantic. When Rose says goodbye, and keeps her promise. Look at her. Listen to her.
That scene caps off an Oscar-winning performance if I ever saw one. Kate should win, hands down. But I doubt she will. (Academy voters, do the right thing and prove me wrong!)
BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE:
Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting" (Miramax)
Robert Duvall in "The Apostle" (October Films)
Peter Fonda in "Ulee's Gold" (Orion) -
Dustin Hoffman in "Wag The Dog" (New Line) - PUKE
Jack Nicholson in "As Good As It Gets" (TriStar) - WW
This is the single toughest call for me to make, one I keep going back and forth on. In fact, when I first wrote this article, I put my money on Fonda. Now it's on Nicholson. At the moment, truly, it's still a toss-up. If I could, I'd say that it's even money and call it a draw. But since I have to choose, I think Nicholson has greater momentum, and will pull ahead. (Besides, Hallenbeck picked Fonda.)
Yep, it's the duel of the Easy Riders. Both won a Golden Globe. On the one hand, we have Fonda, whose subtle, carefully modulated performance recalls the work of his illustrious father. If he wins, we're set for another heartwarming, historic acceptance that will be sheer Hollywood magic, and a celebration of an acting legacy. How can the Academy possibly resist? Just imagine the moment - after Stuart and Reynolds have won - when Peter Fonda takes the stage. Another familiar face reminding us of Hollywood's past, finally receiving long-due rewards. Again, not a dry eye in the house. I'd love to see that.
But then you have Jack. Everybody loves Jack. As Harry says, he hasn't won in the 90's. And while "Ulee's Gold" is fading in people's memory, "As Good As It Gets" is fresh - and shows Jack doing what he does best. Go back and read why I think Helen Hunt will win, as it all applies here to an even greater degree. Plus, voters would love to see Jack on stage giving a hysterical, irreverent acceptance. But personally, between these two I'd pick Fonda.
Duvall has an outside chance, running third. And while there seems to be some momentum building for him, I don't think it's going to be enough. And since I haven't seen his performance, I'm restraining from naming a "Should Win" in this category (though right now my pick would be Fonda.) As for Damon, he's too young and doesn't have the body of work yet - and besides, he'll win the screenplay Oscar. As for Hoffman, why the hell is he even here? Djimon Hounsou (Amistad), Russell Crowe (L.A. Confidential), Ian Holm (The Sweet Hereafter), Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic) and even Al Pacino (Donnie Brasco) are all more worthy.
BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN DIRECTING
Peter Cattaneo, "The Full Monty" (Fox Searchlight) - PUKE
Gus Van Sant, "Good Will Hunting" (Miramax) - PUKE
Curtis Hanson, "L.A. Confidential" (Warner Bros.) - PUKE
Atom Egoyan, "The Sweet Hereafter" (Fine Line Features) - PUKE
James Cameron, "Titanic" (20th Century Fox/Paramount) - WW; SW
There's a little voice in the back of my head that the Academy may split director and picture, and give this to Curtis Hanson for "L.A. Confidential." They've done it before, and they might do it again this year if they still can't get past the budget. (But, dammit, TITANIC is massive hit - get over it!) However, as much as I love "L.A. Confidential" and admire Curtis Hanson, Cameron is the man. How can any other directing achievement this year not look insignificant by comparison? (Degree of difficulty, dammit!)
BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR
"As Good as it Gets" (TriStar) - PUKE
"The Full Monty" (Fox Searchlight) - PUKE
"Good Will Hunting" (Miramax) - PUKE
"L.A. Confidential" (Warner Bros.) - PUKE
"Titanic" (20th Century Fox/Paramount) - WW;SW
Runner-up "L.A. Confidential" will have to take a back-seat to TITANIC as it sails into Oscar history. Yes, for those of you keeping score at home, I am boldly going way out on a limb and predicting TITANIC will win more Oscars than any film in history, nabbing all but one of the14 it's nominated for, topping the 11 "Ben-Hur" won in 1959.
Indeed, TITANIC is, hands down, the film of the year - if not the decade.
At it's heart, TITANIC is an old fashioned love story - the kind Holywood used to tell in its Golden Age. It's also a sweeping, sense-stunning epic - the first true epic in a generation. It's the first film of the modern era that can be justly compared to "Doctor Zhivago," "Gone With The Wind" and the films of D.W. Griffith. It's a near-perfect marriage of classic storytelling and cutting edge technology. It is a monumental achievement in filmmaking - both artistically and technically.
TITANIC reminds us of the magic inherent to the medium of film. It is a film that history will remember. It is what movies were made for. And, in a very real way, it may just have saved the soul of the studio system, and restored the world's faith in Hollywood. TITANIC reminds us of the kind of film Hollywood used to make, and that air of nostalgia will permeate the mood at the Oscars this year.
For these reasons and more, TITANIC should - and will - win Best Picture. And while there will be a few who scoff at the notion, it is simply because they are too jaded and cynical to embrace a film that dared to defy all expectations. A film that has the nerve to be a hit and a work of art.
Similarly, there are those who may be trapped by a issue they've held on to too tightly - the budget. Admittedly, rewarding TITANIC with Oscar could be viewed by some as setting a dangerous precedent, absolving the budget overruns and opening the gates to a wave of behemoth budgets. But think about it - priced per minute, TITANIC was cheaper than "Speed 2." More importantly, it delivered.
The lesson of TITANIC is simple: make great movies. Cheap or expensive, invest in quality - not crap. Then get out there and sell it. It's really pretty simple.
For too long audiences have been swamped in a seemingly endless flood of disappointing studio drek. TITANIC is a movie for all those people who ask "why don't they make them like they used to?" and "why can't they make a big budget effects picture that's actually has a heart?" That's why people who never go to movies anymore are going to see it. That's why people who never see a movie more than once are returning again and again to experience it. That's why it's reaching across all generations. Greatness is rewarded.
As it will be rewarded at the Oscars on March 23. As it will be rewarded when it passes a billion dollars at the box office.
And I'll be cheering when it does.
Robogeek
