Oscars 2003 Preview
By Dean Kish

2002 was as much a rebuilding for Hollywood as it was for the rest of North America. It was a year of shuffling release dates due to real-life events impacting film. From the shuttle disaster to the Washington sniper, 20 or so films have watched their release dates come and go. It is a reflection of the times. Is America suffering from post-traumatic disorder?

I was quite disappointed with the films garnering so much attention during the latter portion of 2002. I deeply wanted to see something meaningful that would give me hope. But I really saw nothing that did. A lot were Hollywood films trying to be indies but none delivered a powerful enough message to reflect on our times. We need that kind of storytelling on celluloid as much as we need heroes.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the nominations this year for the Oscars reflect the best of what was offered not solely the best. As is usual with the Oscars none are really that risky or thought provoking. It was just more of the same Oscar politics.

When are we going to see films that hit us hard in the gut and heart but also give us hope in a world wrought with trauma? Come on Hollywood, hit me!!

Oscar Nomination Frustrations:
My frustrations and explorations this year seem to be centered in a couple isolated areas:
1. My biggest frustration with the Oscar nominations this year is the resurgence of the musical. It can be debatable that a musical should or shouldn’t be a worthy candidate for Best Picture since Oscar seems to be transfixed on dramas. It has been nearly 35 years since a musical has won a Best Picture Oscar. The last was 1968’s "Oliver!" but the world has changed a lot since then and there seems to be a division to where the musical is aimed. We also now have the Tony Awards and the Golden Globes. The smart thing about the Golden Globes is there are separate nominations for Musical/Comedy and Dramatic picture and performance. I think that if Oscar is willing to look to musicals for Best Pictures then why don’t they also look at Comedies as well. To constitute the "Best Picture of the Year" then all should be looked at. Furthermore, how can we judge if a great comedy is superior or inferior to a great drama? All should be weighed. Maybe the Academy needs to build a separate category for musicals and comedies like they have done with the "animated features". That could spell a sign of change and finally allow the Academy to look at film as a complete medium not just 90% drama focused. Praise each kind of film on its own merits.
2. My second frustration that everyone I talk to is shocked that Richard Gere wasn’t nominated for "Chicago". The truth is that Gere probably wasn’t nominated because of the time that he used the Oscar telecast to deliver a political statement on "Saving Tibet". This was highly frowned upon and I am not sure if Gere has or ever will be invited back since. I wasn’t surprised.
3. My third frustration is with the multiple nominations for "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers". Any of those nominations is like nominating a single scene from a much larger motion picture. This film is the second section of a giant novel. It isn’t a whole film but a 3 1/2 hour segment. Wait till the conclusion of the third film then lay on the nominations or better yet give away a special Oscar for achievement to Jackson and his crew once the epic is complete. This amazing achievement in film needs recognition and praise but it can be handled in due time.

Soothsayer’s Dream List:

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE (BEST ACTOR):

Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis in "Gangs of New York"
Why?: Day-Lewis is the centre piece of "Gangs of New York" and his performance is mesmerizing. He is that character and how involved and methodical his performance is leaves you with goose-bumps trickling down your spine. There wasn’t a villain this year who was played to near perfection as Day-Lewis was as Bill the Butcher.

Worst Case Scenario: Jack Nicholson in "About Schmidt"
Why?: Because even though Jack is such a great actor, he doesn’t need to be nominated and win an Oscar for every performance he does in his "twilight" years.

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE (BEST ACTRESS):

Winner: Julianne Moore in "Far From Heaven"
Why?: Year after year, movie after movie, Julianne Moore continues to prove again and again that she could be the best actress working in movies today. No matter what role she envelops herself in she blows us away. She is the Meryl Streep or Katherine Hepburn of her generation. Giving this fine actress the Best Supporting Actress Oscar would be seen as an after-thought and she is far from that.

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE (BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR):

Winner: Ed Harris in "The Hours"
Why?: If you have seen "The Hours" then you will know why I want to see him win. Harris’s portrayal of a dying AIDS patient is overtly gripping and painfully moving. Given more screen-time, Harris could have delivered a performance to rival that of Tom Hanks in "Philadelphia" and we all know what that role did for Tom Hanks as an actor.
On the other side, Harris has been viewed as a Hollywood bad-boy and has some political things against him. I just for once wish the Academy would give their awards on merit and skip the politics. Here’s wishful thinking.

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE (BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS):

Winner: Kathy Bates in "About Schmidt"
Why?: It has been quite awhile since Kathy Bates won her Oscar for "Misery" and her performance in "About Schmidt" is probably polar opposite to that performance. Since "Misery", Bates has carved out quite a career as a character actor and scene-stealer. Her performance in "About Schmidt" is very bold and risky but the actress does it with such stride and without conviction. Her comic timing is flawless and she is probably the most memorable supporting character in the film. Bates has done it again.

ACHIEVEMENT IN DIRECTING (BEST DIRECTOR):

Winner: Martin Scorsese for "Gangs of New York"
Why?: He is the last of the "old school" directors who hasn’t won an Oscar. His long escapade and fondness for New York have spoken volumes over the years. The majority of his films probably should have been recognized in this category. It’s Marty’s turn.

BEST MOTION PICTURE OF THE YEAR (BEST PICTURE):

Winner: "Gangs of New York"

OTHER CATEGORIES:

Visual Effects: "Spider-Man"

Makeup: The Time Machine

Best Documentary feature: "Bowling for Columbine"

Original Score: Thomas Newman from "Road to Perdition"

Original Song: "Lose Yourself" from "8 Mile" Music by Eminem
Why: Because the Oscars are in desperate need of some edge. Plus it was also the most memorable and played song of the year.

Best Nomination:
Winner: "Spirited Away", Best animated feature,
Why: Probably one of the most moving and cinematically enjoyable animated films of the past decade. This is probably the crowning achievement for Japanese master Hayao Miyazaki’s crusade in animated film. Miyazaki is the Kurosawa of the animated world and it is so nice to see that some in Hollywood has noticed him.

Worst Nomination:
Winner: "Adaptation", Best Adapted Screenplay, Screenplay by Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman
Why: This nomination is about as ludicrous as nominating "The Two Towers" for best documentary short subject. The whole point of the film, "Adaptation" was that struggling author Charlie Kaufman is having a hard time adapting the novel, "The Orchid Thief". But probably the most ridiculous thing about this nomination is that Donald Kaufman doesn’t even exist. He was a character made up for the movie.

Who will win, strategically?

My predictions:

Best Actor: Jack Nicholson, in "About Schmidt"

Best Actress: Nicole Kidman in "The Hours"

Best Supporting Actor: Paul Newman, in "Road to Perdition"

Best Supporting Actress: Meryl Streep in "Adaptation"

Best Original Screenplay: "Far From Heaven"

Best Adapted Screenplay: "The Hours"

Best Director: Martin Scorsese for "Gangs of New York"

Best Picture: "Chicago"

If you see a film this year that makes you smile and helps you look at our world a little rosier. Email me. Here’s hopin’ Hollywood challenges us in 2003.

So Says the Soothsayer.

Dean Kish