Miscellaneous, etc.

I still get excited about the Oscars. I can’t tell you why.

And I’m not saying this to sound like a snob, like those people you overhear at Starbucks while they’re ordering their triple-blend Sumatra Lintong Lake Tawar non-fat lattes that take forever to make and force you to wait twenty-five minutes just to get the Triple Brownie Frappacino that you’ve been saving up for a week to buy. You know the ones: The agonizingly hip city singles in leather jackets and trucker hats who sneer, “It’s all so shallow anyway. The best movies aren’t being made in Hollywood anyway, they’re being made by (insert name-dropping of irrelevant independent director) in (insert non-Hollywood U.S. city of choice). Why don’t they recognize those?”

Above: An irritating hipster, unsure that his trucker hat is sufficient evidence of his coolness ratio, elects to pose dangerously next to Selma Blair. Moments later, the collision of his girlishness and Blair’s mannishness causes such a significant explosion of gender confusion that all in the room are rendered sexless for days afterwards.

I am not those people. I admit that I own a trucker hat, but it’s black and it says G.I. JOE on it, and I got it as a reward for joining the G.I. Joe Club when I was ten. When I wore it to Play Day at my elementary school, a kid with braces and headgear leaned over to a kid with a hearing aid to point it out and laugh at me — so if being singled out and mocked by outsiders of that calibre doesn’t disqualify me as a pretentious hipster, then I should just break my cyanide tooth right now.

And yet, despite the fact that I am very clearly a nerd, I still can’t figure out why it is that I like the Oscars so much. Many other people enjoy the Oscars, and roughly 33 million were watching when Chicago won Best Picture last year, so there must be something interesting about them. I just don’t know quite what it is.

The ceremony is long. Hours and hours long. Very too long. It is longer than any single task that I perform in my daily life. If I spent that long driving, I would run out of gas; if I spent that long on the toilet, I would dehydrate and die. That it could actually be longer — that the producers and directors have had to resort to releasing packs of dogs onto the stage to chase celebrities away and truncate their acceptance speeches — astonishes me.

Also, celebrities are very often stupid. Powerfully stupid. Given the opportunity, celebrities will prove that they can act as idiotically as you can at your worst moments, except that when you puke at the office Christmas Party, at most a dozen people will find out about it; when Michael Moore embarrasses himself, it’s on the news for two weeks.

And very frequently I despise the movies that win. Chicago? Titanic? Shakespeare in Love? Hey, former Oscar Winners: If I can find your movie on the $6.99 DVD rack at the local Wal-Mart, then your victory for Best Picture has not, in fact, secured your place in the ages. And if I can’t find you at all — Shakespeare in Love, you know I’m talking about you, don’t look around the room like that — then all the Oscars in the world won’t save you from obscurity.

So why do I watch? Two reasons:

1. Watching the Oscars is like reading the Star and the Enquirer and the Globe about twenty times in five minutes. The clothes! The hair! The baffling statements! The mysterious dates! How proud did I feel predicting that Benjamin Bratt and Julia Roberts were going to split up after I heard him making pissy remarks to her on the red carpet? How wonderful is it to chart the slow decay of Helen Hunt, or the crazification of Sharon Stone? How sweet can it be to have my crushes on classy, odd foreigners like Cate Blanchett or Rachel Weisz validated when they show up in simple, elegant gowns that put Junk Food Girls like Jennifer Lopez to shame? Yeah, sure, it has absolutely nothing to do with the real world, but for seventeen hours on one Sunday night, I can put aside all sense of propriety and realism and just stargaze.
2. It might as well be gambling.

Seriously, I might as well be at the pony track, or the creepy off-track betting parlor that sits below my local pub. You have your horses, you know the track, you know which are weak and which are strong, but once that bell rings, it really is anyone’s game. Go have coffee with Mira Sorvino sometime — she doesn’t have that much else to do, trust me — and she’ll tell you all about it. The Academy’s voting system seems to be based entirely on spilling the guts of a goat, spreading them around within a chalk circle, and consulting with witch doctors to determine who should win the awards.

And, just like at the track, there are countless superstitions, strategies and theories designed to predict the outcome. “Seabiscuit is an animal movie, it’s sure to do well,” they say. “Bill Murray and the Academy? Yeah, they don’t get along. He’s a long shot for sure.” But it never means anything, and depending on my emotional investment in the competing movies or actors, I’m always in suspense right down to the opening of the envelope. I gnashed my teeth when Halle Berry and Julia Roberts won; I cheered when Frances McDormand and Emma Thompson took their honors. Just like any other sport you can put your money on, the Oscars at their worst can make you wonder why there was ever a point to watching at all.

Above: Two members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences deliberate over whether to award the Best Supporting Actress award to Eva Mendes for whatever she does in 2004. Not pictured: Twelve dead goats sacrificed as part of the on-going discussion.

But at their best, they can make you believe in justice, good judgement and fairness in this world. Until you forget about it the next day, anyway.

So, in the spirit of optimism and bright hopes for the future, this year I’ve decided to put it all on the line and actually try to predict who the winners of the Oscars should be. I know this doesn’t differentiate me from every other website in the world that’s doing the same, except for the fact that I am putting this down as a matter of personal record, so that when you hear a tiny little voice outside your window screaming, “Fuck you Sean Penn! Fuck you in the eye until you go blind and die!” you’ll know where it was coming from, and you will know it’s sincere.

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

Johnny Depp - PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL
Ben Kingsley - HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG
Jude Law - COLD MOUNTAIN
Bill Murray - LOST IN TRANSLATION
Sean Penn - MYSTIC RIVER

Well, the vote from the insane teenagers who continue to comment in my Pirates of the Caribbean review would clearly favor Johnny Depp, and while that’s probably a franchise role for him, it’d be like giving Harrison Ford an Oscar for playing Indiana Jones. Ben Kingsley already has enough Oscars and Oscar Nominations that he probably has Awards In Excellence Trophy Fights with Meryl Streep whenever he sees her passing by in the street (the winner being whoever scores five “Golden Bruises” — or hits to the upper body with a trophy — first). The only thing I’ve ever seen Jude Law in that I remember clearly was Gattaca, which should be enough said on the subject of him.

That leaves Bill Murray’s turn in Lost in Translation versus Sean Penn’s in Mystic River. Both are critical darlings, and there was certainly more Oscar buzz about Penn’s performance than Murray’s — but I just like Murray more, for shedding crap like The Man Who Knew Too Little that’s usually reserved for recovering alcoholics, and moving on to small and interesting movies like Rushmore and Lost in Translation.

At least, until he does the voice in the Garfield movie.

Anyway, my point is that I hate Sean Penn, I don’t know why, I always have, he probably makes great movies and he’s a powerful actor whatever blah blah. But even though he’s very likely to win, I will still cry in outrage and curse him with blinding eye-fucking (per above).

Pick: Sean Penn
Who should win: Bill Murray.

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Alec Baldwin - THE COOLER
Benicio Del Toro - 21 GRAMS
Djimon Hounsou - IN AMERICA
Tim Robbins - MYSTIC RIVER
Ken Watanabe - THE LAST SAMURAI

Above: Not the Oscar-nominated star of In America, no matter what your kids might tell you.

This ought to be easy, because I haven’t seen any of these. So let’s break down what we know about each actor:

• Alec Baldwin is currently attempting a comeback through quirky/excellent supporting roles, starting with The Cooler and continuing with The Cat in the Hat, and most recently being capped by Along Came Polly. Also known as The Dennis Quaid Manoeuvre, this combination of heavy drama, quirky comedy and family movie should be enough to propel him back into at least B-List celebrity; however, I doubt it’ll net him an Oscar.
• Benicio Del Toro is really good, everyone knows it, and we’ve all forgiven him for The Way of the Gun. But he already has one of these for Traffic, and Hollywood isn’t ready to bestow the title of “Two Time Academy Award-Winner” to him just yet.
• Djimon Hounsou doesn’t stand a chance. Sorry, Digimon. We all liked you a lot as the other guy in Gladiator, and we’re pretty sure that you’re good in whatever movie this is, but it’s an honor just to be nominated. So remember that when someone else is up on the stage, okay? Honor. To be nominated. Learn it, live it, love it.
• Tim Robbins was in Mystic River? There’s some tension here between recognizing the movie and giving a trophy to a potential embarrassment like Robbins, in whom there is considerable potential for a hijacked microphone and a political tirade. Thus, since the Academy’s lawyers unimaginatively ruled the employing of snipers as “premeditated murder”, his chances are greatly diminished.
• Ken Watanabe might be sort of the equivalent of when they nominated Graham Greene for Dances With Wolves, since The Last Samurai is Tom Cruise’s equivalent of Dances with the Japanese, but the consensus is that Watanabe was the best thing about the movie, so I think he stands a pretty good chance.

Pick: Benicio Del Toro
Who Should Win: Ken Watanabe

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

Keisha Castle-Hughes - WHALE RIDER
Diane Keaton - SOMETHING’S GOTTA GIVE
Samantha Morton - IN AMERICA
Charlize Theron - MONSTER
Naomi Watts - 21 GRAMS

These other people are nice, but this is a dead heat between Charlize Theron and Diane Keaton — the up-and-comer who did more acting than smiling for once, and the old Hollywood favorite who everyone likes just so darned much, God bless her.

On the one hand, you have Theron, who put on all kinds of weight and played a psychotic prostitute who went on a serial killing spree. On the other, you have Keaton, playing a middle-aged woman discovering romance at a late age whatever something I’m bored just writing about it. I had never even heard about Monster until all the Oscar buzz started about it; I heard about Something’s Gotta Give way too fucking much, since it was advertised more to the Baby Boomers more heavily than even Viagra, but never heard anything good.

So it’s kind of a toss-up: First stellar acting effort versus good old practiced charm.

Pick: Charlize Theron. Keaton can wait for her lifetime achievement award.
Who Should Win: Charlize Theron. Like Renée Zellweger, she gained weight; unlike Renee Zellweger, she didn’t treat it like she just cured syphillis. Plus she does animal rights ads for caged circus bears in China. How can you deny someone that good-natured?

Above: Charlize Theron shocks audiences with her weight gain and brutish performance.
Below: Diane Keaton shocks audiences with her natural charm and tens of thousands of smile lines.

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Shohreh Aghdashloo - HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG
Patricia Clarkson - PIECES OF APRIL
Marcia Gay Harden - MYSTIC RIVER
Holly Hunter - THIRTEEN
Renée Zellweger - COLD MOUNTAIN

Is Marcia Gay Harden nominated for Best Supporting Actress every single year? In 2007, am I going to be reading the nomination lists and see, “Marcia Gay Harden - THAT ONE CADILLAC COMMERCIAL WHERE SHE’S IN THE SUV AND IT TALKS”? I know that this category tends to attract the same actors over and over, but I seriously feel like every year I have to look into those dark, glittery, Broadway-sincere eyes. It’s starting to wear at me. I don’t know if I can take it for much longer.

Renée Zellweger might have a shot at this, just because she’s been up for it a couple of times and she hasn’t won yet. Plus, Cold Mountain is the kind of epic that the Academy likes to reward, and it’s nowhere near as edgy as Thirteen. One mustn’t vote for movies that might reward independent films too thoroughly, you know.

Pick: Renée Zellweger
Who Should Win: Who cares?

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

BROTHER BEAR
FINDING NEMO
THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE

I just listed this because it’s funny. Does the Academy really think that the producers of The Triplets of Belleville are sitting around a table at a cafe somewhere, debating their chances of winning the award?

Sylvain Chomet: I do not know if I have a chance of winning this award. I have been nominated before, you know, with no success.
Other French Person: Do not be insane, Sylvain! What do these other movies have that you do not have?
Sylvain: One is by Disney, and the other is by Pixar, which might as well be Disney.
French Person: I hardly see the problem. Disney is like the Satan or the Russians, no? Who would vote for such evil things?
Sylvain: I don’t know, I am still concerned. Finding Nemo was the most successful DVD launch ever in history, and even though Brother Bear was a failure like that horse movie — The Spirit of Cinnamon or what-have-you — it still had both Phil Collins and the Mackenzie Brothers in it. What do I have to compete with that?
Frenchie: Sylvain! You do not give yourself enough credit! You have a whimsical, bizarrely-animated story about a Tour De France Cyclist who is kidnapped by the mob, and whose grandmother enlists the help of her dog and a trio of eccentric singers to save him!
Sylvain: …
Other French Person: Ah, you’re right. Here, have a Palm D’Or and let’s just forget about it.

Pick: Finding Nemo
Who Should Win: Finding Nemo, hands down.

DIRECTING

CITY OF GOD
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
LOST IN TRANSLATION
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
MYSTIC RIVER

This is where the evening can go one of two ways, depending entirely on the Academy’s take on the Lord of the Rings saga. If they take the same posture to the films that many in the literary community take to the books, then the nomination is a polite nod to the impact of the movies, and should be enough to satisfy everyone without wasting precious Oscars that could be rewarding Russell Crowe for three more hours of on-screen masturbating.

If someone actually takes a look at the box office returns on these movies, though, and considers that there hasn’t been a successful trilogy like this since Star Wars, then there’s a good chance that Peter Jackson could walk away with the trophy.

Personally, every time Lord of the Rings has been nominated for anything up to this point, I’ve told people not to get their hopes up. “He’ll get it for Return of the King or nothing,” I’ve said, and I’m pretty sure I’m right. The only really stiff competition is going to be Mystic River, but I’m pretty sure that the acting awards will go that way so that the directing award can come this way.

Pick: Return of the King
Who Should Win: Ditto. Go ahead and compare it to Braveheart, if you have to.

WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)

AMERICAN SPLENDOR
CITY OF GOD
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MYSTIC RIVER
SEABISCUIT

WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)

THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS
DIRTY PRETTY THINGS
FINDING NEMO
IN AMERICA
LOST IN TRANSLATION

I like to call the writing Oscars the Also Awards, because they always go to the movies that are good enough to impress the judges, but not good enough to get votes for Best Picture.

“But Mike,” you say, “That doesn’t help me! I’m going to lose the office Oscar pool unless I have some kind of system for predicting the awards, and I just can’t let that fucker Barry win again. He already got that promotion, and– and I won’t let him take this away from me too!”

Why, all you need to do is put yourself in the mind of an Academy member! Don’t let yourself be bogged down in “conventional logic” and “reasonable thinking” that might lead you to think that the Best Film of the year might also have the best screenplay. Instead, try to think like a Hollywood insider — that’s right, just empty your mind of all but the most arbitrary of judgements, and follow these simple steps:

1. Review the list of nominees.
2. Immediately disqualify any nominee that you’ve already voted in for Best Picture
3. Get rid of the God damned foreign stuff, unless it’s about the Holocaust
4. Find your second pick for Best Picture
5. Cast your vote for Best Screenplay!

It’s just that simple!

Adapted Screenplay Pick: Mystic River
Who should win Adapted Screenplay: Lord of the Rings, only because someone had to prune all of that Tolkien out of the script. If that person doesn’t get an Oscar, then at least put them first on the list for a liver transplant or something.

Original Screenplay Pick: Lost in Translation
Who Should Win: Lost in Translation, even though Sofia Coppola wrote it, and she fucking ruined Godfather III.

BEST PICTURE

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
LOST IN TRANSLATION
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
MYSTIC RIVER
SEABISCUIT

And finally, Best Picture. Let’s do this Joe Average-style and just start cutting the losers first, shall we?

Seabiscuit, you’re gone. You were really nice, and we had a lot in common with the wholesome story and the grand history of the depression. But I’m a free spirit who wants to see the world, and all you can do is talk about your horses and the depression and winning races. We’re from different worlds, Seabiscuit, so I’m afraid I won’t be asking you to continue on.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, I don’t think this is any surprise to you. I think you had a hard time fitting in with the others from the very start, and we really never got the chance to connect. Yeah, I know you had both Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany to recommend you, plus the grand historical sweep and the exploding ships — you’re like a grown-up Pirates of the Caribbean. But I think we’re just at different points in our lives. I’m a young, pop-culture obsessed audience, and you’re based on the books my father reads before he falls asleep in his recliner. I’m sorry, Master and Commander, but you’re on the Far Side of my heart.

Lost in Translation, this is awfully hard for me. We had such a good time together, and I learned so much from you — how Bill Murray’s turn in Rushmore wasn’t just good luck, how good Scarlett Johansson can look just lounging around in her underwear — but I’m just not sure that we’re right for each other. Sure, now I know there’s room in my life for quiet little movies that you can think about when you’re alone in the shower, but I’ve had that experience before with Momento. While I hope we can always be friends, I just don’t think I can give you my Oscar.

Mystic River, oh Mystic River. Everything about you is supposed to be so right: You’re directed by Clint Eastwood, you star Sean Penn and Tim Robbins and Marcia Gay Sadeyes and Kevin Bacon and Laura Linney, you have a story full of pain and rage and angst. But why can’t I bring myself to be interested in you? Why is it that when I look at you, all I can see are the capital-A Actors and the capital-D Drama, and not an actual story that draws me in? How come I get the feeling that you’re not brought to me by the director of Unforgiven, but by the director of Bloodwork? Why do I think you’re the movie everyone says I’m supposed to see, but nobody is really rushing out to put on their shelf? No, I’m afraid that I’ll have to give my Oscar to…

Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Not because it’s the fanboy favorite, not because of the Quest for the Ring Meal Deals at KFC, but because it’s the last step in a film trilogy that’s had an enormous impact on movies. It carried all the weight with it that the ludicrous Matrix movies were supposed to, with a little bit of epic literary credibility. Maybe Return of the King on its own isn’t the best film, but taken as a single volume — the way the books were originally written — Jackson deserves his fair recognition.

Pick: Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Who Should Win: Yeah.

There are other Oscars, of course — those of technical merit, of musical score, of editing and cinematography and digital effects. But I prefer to stick with those awards in which I have some emotional investment, and since I have never in my life lifted a hand to my mouth and said, “Oh God, I hope that guy gets the post-production editing award! I can’t imagine who else could deserve it more!” then I shouldn’t start trying to care about it now.

Instead, I can only offer these as my predictions, my own auguries that hopefully match whatever arcane practices the Academy employs to decide its winners. If I’m right, then at least I’ll know that my February will have come to a satisfying close, and that occasionally the right people win the awards they’re supposed to.

And if not? Fuck you in the eye, Sean Penn. Right in the eye.