My thoughts on the Oscar-nominations in some categories. I will only
comment on categories of which I have seen at least three of the five
nominated films; the reviews of the films are available by clicking on the titles
of the underlined movies. It might be that I add thoughts as I see more of the
nominated pictures. Stay tuned!
NOTE: The winners have been announced! They are highlighted in yellow.
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
According to my own rating system (from zero to four stars), I would give the
Oscar to ‘Lost in translation’. Looking at the five movies in this category, I
truly believe this is the best film of the five nominated, but the Oscar will go to
‘Lord of the Rings’ I am sure. The Academy may not easily give it to a fantasy
epic, it is still more likely to give it to an epic (fantasy or not) than to an
independently produced film about two strangers that meet in Tokyo and
share one kiss only. This is Hollywood. They like stories of taking risks and
overcoming obstacles and Peter Jackson’s and New Line’s gamble to film the
three stories back to back in a year and a half in New Zealand and it
becoming an enormous artistic and box-office success fits that bill perfectly.
DIRECTING
Fernando Meirelles - CITY OF GOD
Peter Jackson - THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
Sofia Coppola - LOST IN TRANSLATION
Peter Weir - MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
Clint Eastwood - MYSTIC RIVER
What goes for best film, I suppose, will also be valid for the ‘best director’
nod. I would award it to Sofia Coppola for her fresh and quirky look at
unusual friendship between strangers. But awarding it to A) a woman, and B)
the daughter of Oscar winner Francis Ford Coppola (15 nominations, 5 wins)
who executive-produced her film is not so sexy as awarding the golden statue
to a director from New Zealand who had made no film of major artistic or box-
office success before Lord of the Rings.
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
‘House of sand and fog’ has a wonderful performance by Ben Kingsley,
though I must admit it is a very Ben Kingsley performance. I don't think he will
be awarded an Oscar for this though it is among the best this year.
This is Jude Law's second nomination (after one for The talented Mr Ripley)
but I think people will not put him on par with the other actors in this category.
Johnny Depp’s performance was great but comedy is not easily recognised
by the Academy and I suppose many voters will think he will do more serious
roles that are possible Oscar material, such as his role as playwright J.M.
Barrie in 'Neverland', coming out next year. That leaves us with two actors:
Sean Penn and Bill Murray. Sean Penn could win, people might feel he is
overdue, but I think Bill Murray really did turn in a career best performance in
'Lost in translation' and I am not sure whether he will have a lot more
opportunities such as this role that was especially written for him by Coppola.
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
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
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
WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)
Robert Pulcini & Shari Springer Berman - AMERICAN SPLENDOR
Braulio Mantovani - CITY OF GOD
Fran Walsh, Queen of the Geeks & Peter Jackson - THE LORD OF THE
RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
Brian Helgeland - MYSTIC RIVER
Gary Ross - SEABISCUIT
I have always had a problem with this category. What exactly is the Academy
awarding here? I refuse to believe that the people voting in this category
have not only seem all five movies, but have also read the five books (or
other source material) that these screenplays are based on. Thus, the
Acadamy does not award an Oscar for best possible adaptation of another
medium to film. Perhaps one could say the only thing that separates these
screenplays from the ones in the 'original screenplay' category is that they
are, well, not completely original. This to me seems like a way of sneaking in
another Oscar under false pretences, or otherwise they should also have an
Oscar for say, 'best remake', or 'best song with interpolation of previously
produced material'. I understand that writing a screenplay from scratch is
something really different from adapting a book or article to a movie. This
does not mean that I believe that the people that vote in this category are
only voting for the screenplay that they thought most worthwhile regardless of
the fact whether they have read the source material or not. So for the people
voting there are no different criteria between voting for an adapted and an
original screenplay. If people would know the source-material, I suppose
some choices that screenwriters have had to make might seem more logical.
On the nominees: it is funny to see Seabiscuit and Mystic River nominated,
whilst the biggest problem I had with these movies were their scripts. Lord of
the Rings might have a possibility, though the third film is the film that differs
most from the book. Perhaps it will go to one of the two smaller films.
WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)
Denys Arcand - THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS
Steven Knight - DIRTY PRETTY THINGS
Andrew Stanton, Bob Peterson & David Reynolds - FINDING NEMO
Jim Sheridan & Naomi Sheridan & Kirsten Sheridan -IN AMERICA
Sofia Coppola - LOST IN TRANSLATION
If Sofia Coppola's masterpiece will be rewarded somewhere, I suppose it will
be in this category (and perhaps with a best actor nod). Just reflect on this:
how does one write an incredibly entertaining, inspiring and yet quiet and
thought-provoking movie about two strangers that meet in Tokyo with the
added problem of a quite an age-difference and NOT using sex?
>>more thoughts on the nominations here
