It's times like these when I consider that there are great advantages to not being a lazy bastard. In a parallel universe, an Eager and Energetic version of Andy Ihnatko looked at the previous years' documents, realized that he's been presenting the categories in the exact same order year after year, exclaimed "By neddy jingo!" (because he once saw a fictionalized documentary about late-19th-century timber barons and liked their style) and, determined not to be guilty of taking the easy route, he built it up again from the ground up, rethinking his entire approach.
Whereas the version of Andy Ihnatko that you and I are stuck with simply double-clicked on the 2002 edition and search-and-replaced "Moulin Rouge" into "Chicago." I mean, there's no need to knock myself out, here. It's because I respect you, the reader that I can confidently claim that "As Good As It Gets" could finally cop Jack Nicholson another Oscar this year. See, if I didn't respect your intelligence, I wouldn't rely on you to know that I really meant "The Witches of Eastwick."
Normally I don't really care about such things. Yes, the other Andy gets a lot more work done but sit him here next to me in front of the Playstation, and I'll prove to one and all who's the better man.
I suddenly envy him, though. At this moment he's starting off with "Best Original Score" and is having a great time with Michael Glass' nomination. Whereas I'm stuck with Best Performance By A Leading Actor, featuring five great actors in performances I loved. I mean, come on; can't I start with a category in which one of the nominees is a former Univision prize girl?
Oh, well. "Man is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards" and all that. And I wish I had this problem every year. Normally you have to replace the batteries in your Cynicism Generator at least once while considering a top-tier category. Do I see any Old Actors Who Have Never Won One And Will Probably Be Dead Soon? No. Nauseatingly hammy performances that unfortunately took place within the biggest blockbuster of the last ten years? Nu-uh. The beneficiary of a Miramax Oscar campaign bankrolled by Harvey Weinstien, who coated himself with a special shameproof body gel before getting started? Well, yeah, but he's got his thumbs in lots of pies this year.
Damn. Cynicism fails me so I actually have to go on performances and raw talent.
I'm going to strike Nicholas Cage and Michael Caine off the list simply because it's late in the day and cuts must be made. Cage was swell in "Adaptation" – I think the highest compliment you can pay Cage at this stage in his career is that I quickly forgot I was looking at the punk from "Valley Girl" – but I think complaints about "Adaptation" and a lack of awards momentum will work against him. "The Quiet American" is probably Michael Caine's best performance since "Blood And Wine" (also starring Jack Nicholson, incidentally) but this flick is well off of voters' radar. Caine is simply way too healthy to win an Oscar for this one.
Leaving us with Adrien Brody, Daniel Day-Lewis and – oh, for God's sake – Jack Nicholson, even. Honestly, this one is probably too close to call. Adrien Brody (as a Polish Jew living day-by-day during the Holocaust) easily delivered the most nuanced and powerful performance of the lot, in a movie in which he's really the sole character. Tom Hanks in "Castaway" could beat him in a Most Screen Time spitting contest but that's about it; Brody has to carry the whole film. And while "The Pianist" is widely regarded as an important film that ought to be recognized, there are plenty of other nominations sharing the load. Perhaps Brody's youth and the fact that this is his real breakout role will work against him; breakouts are great Supporting Actor fodder, but when you earn a nomination on your first splashy role you won't get that Oscar without air support.
Jack Nicholson continues to be Jack ****ing Nicholson. He went through a bit of a slump in the Eighties and early Nineties in which he seemed content to play Jack Nicholson, but after taking that apparent break he yawned, stretched, checked his watch, and got on with the business of Acting. He enters confident and unafraid, willing to try anything, even taking the role of a frustrated, insecure loser. On the one hand, almost everyone should want to see Jack Nicholson collect an Oscar, but on the other hand, he seems bigger than any award. He's going to be around for another fifty to sixty years; why not give him his next Oscar in 2019?
And then there's Daniel Day-Lewis. As Bill the Butcher, he's the most memorable actor in a movie that a lot of people liked. He won the SAG award, which is always a gold star for handicappers: the largest percentage of Academy voters are actors, so unlike the Golden Globes, the Screen Actors' Guild award is actually a legitimate straw poll. Of course, tell that to the poor saps who predicted Russell Crowe (last year's SAG winner) to beat Denzel Washington (last year's Oscar winner).
Ahhhh. Now that's more like it. Salma, hello and goodbye. The nomination is good for another couple of months in general release and a sticker for the DVD box, but little else. Nice work all the same, though; a different year, "Frida" would have been in there with a real chance. Ditto to Diane Lane. I didn't actually see "Unfaithful," but apparently neither did anyone else, and it's making zero headway against the three powerhouses in this category: Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, and Let's All Vote For Chicago Because It's A Big Splashy Successful Movie. Er...I mean "Reneé Zellweger."
Oh, I don't mean to slag Reneé. Remember, she was my personal choice to win last year, for "Bridget Jones' Diary." But I thought all of the performances in "Chicago" were pretty ordinary. The script just didn't give those actors a whole lot to do.
(And on a totally irrelevant and selfish and piggish note, I thought she looked better with her extra "Bridget Jones" pounds.)
There is that SAG award to consider, however; do let's note that Reneé beat this exact same lineup earlier this month.
But on Big-Time Acting Points alone, the race is between Kidman and Moore. Kidman (who was also nominated last year) had what can appropriately be termed a supporting role in "The Hours," but Virginia Woolf's presence is felt through every one of the more modern scenes inthe film. You feel as though Woolf is pulling the strings of the other two female leads, thirty and sixty years on. That's acting; Kidman's performance lingers. And as one of the most famous and glamorous actresses in the world, her ability to totally submerge in her character with the help of a rubber nose is laudable.
As for Julianne Moore, she had a far more prominent role in "Far From Heaven." This was a film with a great deal of faith in its lead actors: it refuses to give anybody cancer, have their kids fall down wells, or allow bits of them to be shot off in any war. With only two exceptions, the movie is all about the huge impact that small events and simple choices have on our lives. As the Fiftes wife of a prominent executive, Julianne Moore gets more mileage out of what she doesn't say and do than through anyone else. It's a bit like a good Holocaust film in that it's all about how people think and deal with events, and you leave the theater wondering what you might do in the same sort of situation.
You sing the National Anthem before every ballgame and it's as if I can't complete an Oscar report without pledging allegiance to Ed Harris. I should write a script and attach it to one of my function keys here, viz [F12]
ED HARRIS IS ALWAYS GOOD. ALWAYS. HE TURNS BAD MOVIES INTO DECENT ONES, AND GOOD MOVIES INTO LEGENDS AND HIS NAME ON A MOVIE POSTER IS A GUARANTEE THAT YOUR NINE DOLLARS IS SAFELY SPENT. I WOULD HAPPILY DRIVE OVER AND CLEAN THE MAN'S GUTTERS IF HE SO ASKED.
Not bad. I would probably only add that I don't mean "Clean the man's gutters" as a euphemism for something else, though frankly on the basis of "The Abyss" alone I'd at least be willing to hear him out before saying no to anything.
So Ed Harris is the first name to be struck off the list. It seems like can't help but do well in every role, but as a terminal AIDS patient siezed by dementia, I think his character was too flashy in "The Hours" to cop the Oscar. I'm convinced that the Academy is holding out for subtler performances that will surely come.
I'll lay my cards out here and say that I think Chris Cooper's gonna with this one. But I can't commit until I think this one through.
Can I simply write off Paul Newman? He's been moving more slowly these days and isn't quite so quick with the quips. And among Elder Statesmen in the Academy, he hasn't been terribly visible onscreen. Will voters see this as their last chance to see Fast Eddie give an acceptance speech?
And what brand of cologne did John C. Reilly switch to a few years ago? One whiff of it and Hollywood power brokers immediately feel that they must, simply must cast him in a supporting role in their next A-list production. Of course, it helps that the man's terribly talented and brings something interesting to every movie he's in, but I'm curious. Does he smell like bacon? I imagine that if you smelled like bacon, people who bend over backwards to work with you and they'd never really figure out why. People like bacon.
Oh, yeah, his nomination. No way. In "Chicago," he's there to project a little gullible-lug charm, sing a verse and chorus of "Cellphane" and then stay in town in case they need to reshoot something. Not much there.
Christopher Walken. Oh, man. Oh man oh man oh man oh man. Do I ever want to see Christopher Walken win. The writers of "Saturday Night Live" want to see him win, too. Speculation about what he'd say in his acceptance speech is fodder for a killer two-minute sketch, which the SNL writers will develop into an 8-minute one-joke production and then parlay into an insufferable running character. But voters want to hear his acceptance speech, too.
For the sake of honestly, though, I need to point out that the man was in "Kangaroo Jack" and "The Country Bears." True, he managed to stay out of "Dude, Where's My Car?" but this can't be good for his nomination.
The funny thing about the statement "Well, everyone is saying that Catherine Zeta-Jones can't lose" is that this is the Oscars we're talking about, and the Academy hears the same lame, publicity-fuelled buzz that everyone else does. And the publicity is usually fuelled by savagely overpriced gin, so when the buzz is this strong and points toward a performance that's so totally outclassed by other nominees, well then, that's 24-karat credibility.
Queen Latifah is out without another word on the subject. Kathy Bates – God bless her, she cheerfully did things in "About Schmidt" that the FCC wouldn't allow contestants to do on "Fear Factor" – is also out, just because "Schmidt" is Jack's film and Jack's nomination and it won't do anything for anyone else.
I think "Adaptation" was just too goofy to win anyone any Acting awards. Actually, it's just the last 25 minutes, but let's save that for the Adapted Screenplay awards. I also don't think this was a particularly good role for Meryl Streep. Now, if this nomination had been for "The Hours," I'd be blockading the doors to the Oscars and throwing hunks of tainted veal at anyone who didn't swear to me that they voted for her at least twice. But "Adaptation"? Eh.
Julianne Moore could give Zeta-Jones a real run for her money. I was biting my lip through nearly every scene she had in "The Hours." If anything's holding her back, though, it's (once again) the surface similarity between her roles in "The Hours" and in "Far From Heaven." They're two different roles entirely. In "Heaven" her character doesn't act because she doesn't know what she wants to do. In "The Hours" she knows precisely what she wants to do, but she doesn't dare move on it because the thought terrifies her. But they're both Ike-era housewives.