Monday, February 9, 1998
With PR bias, Oscar picks may be as good as it gets
COLUMN Though imperfect, Academy Awards serve purpose in the
industryBy Tommy Nguyen
Tuesday morning the Academy will announce its nominees for the
70th Academy Awards and, like any respectable entertainment source,
The Bruin has decided to post its predictions. Well, here are my
predictions. No one really cares at the office.
It’s important to note that these are predictions of who will –
not who should – be nominated. I know you have your own favorites,
and if it were up to me, "Gummo," "La Promesse" and "Starship
Troopers" would be the toast of all the Oscar after-hours.
But we have to admit that Academy members know more than us –
not because they know the best movies, but simply because they know
what’s best for them.
Like any business, the Academy has an image to uphold, and no
doubt Oscar night is the biggest PR moment they have: They’re going
to pick the movies that best advertise their industry. And besides,
members have old scores to settle, new bones to pick and big feet
to play footsies with.
These little corrupt antics don’t ruin the Academy’s
credibility; they’ve awarded some great movies through the years.
But certainly these practices (along with critics awards, box
office rankings and movie publicity departments) supply enough
cheat sheets for the Academy not to do its homework – which is to
go out and look for the best movies. But I digress. This is
probably what they’ll come up with …
Usually I would say "ladies first," but certainly the men outdid
the women in 1997, and we owe it all to the strong performances of
"The Godfather" generation. Jack Nicholson ("As Good As It Gets")
and Peter Fonda ("Ulee’s Gold") are definite shoe-ins, along with
Robert Duvall, whose knock-out performance in "The Apostle" should
win the whole thing, in my opinion. Dustin Hoffman ("Wag the Dog")
should also benefit from the renaissance, even though his co-star
Robert DeNiro had the better performance. And wouldn’t that be
something if we could throw on DeNiro to complete the retro
outfit.
But there’s going to be an outsider. Daniel Day-Lewis had a shot
early on, but strangely the "Boxer" has had almost no press.
There’s been talk of Kevin Kline for "In & Out," and certainly
the Academy is tickled pink that his gay teacher character is a
product of Tom Hank’s 1994 Oscar speech. But that’s just it –
Kline’s role (which will be mistaken for a performance) is too
apparently contrived. Why not Mark Wahlberg for "Boogie Nights?"
Too much penis. Why not Leonardo DiCaprio for "Titanic?" Not
enough.
The Academy should be hunting down Ian Holm ("The Sweet
Hereafter") or Christopher Guest ("Waiting for Guffman") – but it
looks like the only hunting the Academy is doing is "Good Will
Hunting" – a lazy hunt if you ask me.
The support for Matt Damon is mostly derived from a
small-town-boy-makes-good sentimentality that’s been seduced not
only by Damon’s character in the movie but also by the equally
touchy-feely story of how the movie was made (childhood friends
Damon and Ben Affleck wrote the script when they were out-of-work
actors).
The Academy eats up that kind of ancillary talk-show drama, and
I’m afraid it won’t be long until the Academy becomes one big Oprah
show, where a member will yell out, "My favorite part in the movie
was the apple scene! Come on, Mr. Damon, do that apple scene, cuz I
sure do love them apples too!"
The women have three even-money bets: drawing-room icons Helena
Bonham Carter ("Wings of the Dove") and Judy Dench ("Mrs. Brown"),
and living-room icon Helen Hunt ("As Good As It Gets"). And
although it was not her best performance by a long shot (go see
"Heavenly Creatures"), Kate Winslet should sail with "Titanic."
People who have been keeping score would know that Julie
Christie should be mentioned, having won two very hefty critics
awards (New York and National Society). But her movie "Afterglow"
is not viewer-friendly to say the least; Academy members will
simply have a hard time finishing the movie.
It’s going to be Pam Grier for "Jackie Brown" – not only the
best performance of last year, but the best female role too. Props
to Quentin Tarantino for having a poor 44-year-old African American
stewardess with an unflattering rear end – as noted by the movie –
as the title character for his movie; it’s just as wonderful as the
Coen Brothers having a wobbling pregnant sheriff with morning
sickness as their heroine for "Fargo." Hollywood needs to find more
women’s roles we’ve never seen before – the Academy should help out
by celebrating the assorted realities of women, not their exhausted
Mother Courage virtues.
Hollywood makes enough good movies each year to justify its
existence. But what’s remarkable about 1997 was that the studios
filled its quota with just three movies: "As Good As It Gets,"
"L.A. Confidential" and "Titanic." Combined, these three movies
covered every visual and emotional moment we can only get from
Hollywood. And with these movies leading the pack in the Oscar
race, studio execs, after being embarrassed by an indie-dominated
1996 Oscar season, seemed to have said, "OK, maybe we can’t make
great films the way independent filmmakers can. But at least let’s
try to make the movies we do know how to make the best we can."
Hey, that’s all we ask for, guys.
"Good Will Hunting" will also ride on the studio tide. Yes, it’s
a Miramax film, but the movie is more mainstream than most studio
projects. It’ll strip off its sheep’s clothing for Oscar night.
The real independent visions of last year will be the ones
who’ll suffer: "The Ice Storm," "Boogie Nights" and the very best
film of last year, "The Sweet Hereafter." And although it’s painful
to know that none of these films will be nominated, I find some
solace in believing that "Amistad" won’t be nominated either.
I’m looking past the fact that Spielberg has once again made a
feel-good Holocaust film for the masses. I’m ignoring the debate
that he shouldn’t be making this kind of movie in the first place.
Quite simply, "Amistad" is awful, a bullying oaf of a melodrama at
its most yankee-dee-do-da pretensions.
Film critic Kenneth Turan once said, in reference to "Higher
Learning," that simply presenting important social issues on the
screen is not the same thing as dramatizing them effectively. I’ll
sign any petition that will get "Amistad" in every fourth grade
classroom in America, but get the movie away from the Academy
Awards. An important movie should not be mistaken for a good
one.
It looked like "Wings of the Dove" had a chance when it first
came out, but Miramax is doing a horrible job with its publicity.
"Seven Years in Tibet" is giving Scorcese’s "Kundun" a bad name,
which is too bad. "Deconstructing Harry" is Woody Allen’s best
movie since "Crimes and Misdemeanors," but he says the "C" word too
much – it’ll get him a nod from the urinal-laden director’s branch,
but the rest of the Academy won’t be too happy. And Hollywood likes
Clinton too much to draw attention to the perceptively prophetic
"Wag the Dog." (I do, however, think Sadaam Hussein is real.)
I’m predicting "The Full Monty." I know I’m going out on a limb
here (well, a group of limbs, if you want to be silly), but some
people don’t realize how many British members make up the Academy,
and all of them probably see the movie as their best hope. But in
general, the older members of the Academy will embrace "The Full
Monty" the way soccer moms embraced "The Macarena," and I say more
power to them. It’s the Academy’s way of proving to themselves that
they’re hip, with it, that they’re down and dirty. Good God.
There’s a definite development going on with these five
nominees, which reflects how uncynical our society has become these
days. Think about it – the two main characters of "As Good As It
Gets" and "Good Will Hunting" have to fight through their cynacisms
to find love, and the five stars of "The Full Monty" are infectious
because of the movie’s unabashed goofiness. Yes, the ending of
"L.A. Confidential" is a bit cynical, but the whole narrative of
the film is Hollywood’s return to good, old-fashioned storytelling,
wonderfully earnest in all of its aims to please. And "Titanic?"
Come on, it would take just an ounce of cynicism from an audience
member to make the movie sink.
And look around you – why is Leno beating Letterman these days?
How do you account for the Spice Girls, Psychic Friends networks,
and "Touched By an Angel"? Why are so many people discovering
religion (and apparently dying for it)? I have two words for you:
millennium, baby.
People don’t have the time to be cynical. Certainly not the
Academy members, with their feel-good extravaganza just a month
away.
Tommy Nguyen, an English student, is open to accepting angry
e-mails from screaming Matt Damon fans at tommyn@ucla.edu.