Oscar Thoughts
I used to make book on the Oscars. I'd set up the odds and put my money where my mouth is. I usually won.
And when I say I set the odds, I don't mean those silly Vegas odds where they throw a bunch of nonsensical number at you. My odds added up. If I said someone was even money, that meant the other four nominees equaled 50% as well.
It's no fun any more. There are so many awards given out these day, especially Guild awards, that if you're paying any attention, you pretty much know who the favorites are.
So this year's nominations were just announced with essentially no surprises. Munich (and not Walk The Line or Syriana) for best picture was a bit of a shock, but that's about it. Some bad choices, perhaps, but no truly surprising omissions.
There'll be some politicking within the Academy now, but the favorites are clear. (If you don't know them yet, trust me.) Best Picture: Brokeback Mountain. Best Actor: Philip Seymour Hoffman. Best Actress: Reese Witherspoon. Best Supporting Actor: Paul Giamatti. Best Supporting Actress: Rachel Weisz. Best Director: Ang Lee. No guarantee they'll all win, but this is the way to go in the office pool (at present).
Some--on both the Right and Left--are making a big deal about how political the films are, but it seems to me that Academy is just playing the hand they were dealt. Not everyone loves Brokeback Mountain, but it's clicking pretty well with a sizable number--ignoring it would be the political move. If Memoirs Of A Geisha or King Kong were better, they'd be up there, too.
One thing's hard to miss--since they didn't nominate Walk The Line for Best Picture, none of the nominees are huge hits. Some did quite well, especially considering their small budgets, but there are no Titanics, or even Chicagos. If nothing else, this doesn't bode well for the size of the Oscar's TV audience.
George Clooney has to be pleased. He got four (!) nominations. Best Supporting Actor (gaining weight for a role always helps), Best Director, Best Screenplay and Best Picture (a producer's award). The nominations are his award, since he'll be going home empty-handed. I think Clooney has talent, but if you read my yearly wrap up, you may guess I don't even think he deserves the nominations.
Most interesting nomination? As often happens, it's in Best Song. Pretty lousy year for songs, as there are only three nominated (though, mercifully, this means the Oscar show will go faster). But what's that there? Why, "It's Hard Out Here For A Pimp" from Hustle & Flow. You know what I'll be rooting for come March 5.
posted by LAGuy @ 1:13 AM
4 Comments:
You tell me.
I think the right wing can twist any number of wins to decry Hollywood yet again as a bastion for bleeding heart liberals who don't understand politics (Munich, GNAGL, Crash, Capote if you want to stretch the anti-death penalty angle, Syriana, The Constant Gardener) who celebrate and award undesirables such as homosexuals (Brokeback, Capote again, Transamerica), drug users (Walk the Line), criminals (Hustle & Flow, A History of Violence), adulterers (Match Point), necrophilia (Corpse Bride), and divorce (The Squid and the Whale).
When I said some of the left and right were remarking on the politics of the films, I meant both sides were noting that several of the nominees tended toward the liberal (in their opinion). In general, right wingers are making a much bigger deal about this. My response is the Academy isn't trying to make any statement--you may not agree with their taste (I don't), but these are honestly the films they thought were the best.
As to what conservative films have won Best Picture? Well, first, most films that win aren't that political to begin with, like Titanic. But how about Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King, Gladiator, Shakespeare In Love, Braveheart and Forrest Gump, and that's just going back 12 years.
I take it back. There is a film that's been championed by a number of conservatives and has been nominated for best film--March Of The Penguins.
Post a Comment
<< Home