I just went looking for an official list of this year's Oscar nominees. I felt like I was familiar with the Oscar BUZZ around films and performances, but when it came down to it, I couldn't say for sure who and what films were up for Oscars.
Turns out I've missed more than a couple of Oscar contender films. I'd love to fill in some of those gaps before Sunday, but there's only so much time left, and some of the flicks I missed cuz I simply wasn't interested (GEISHA, CINDERELLA MAN), while others seemed to disappear from the cinema before I could get to them (HUSTLE, NORTH COUNTRY).
I managed to knock THE SQUID AND THE WHALE off tonight at the Somerville Davis theater. I suggested seeing this to many a friend at different times and for whatever reasons - noninterest, crappy timing, a fear of men with beards - no one would have any of it. So, I ended up having to catch it on my own, and hafta say, I highly recommend it. It follows the implosion of a nuclear family in the 80s. Would make a great double feature with THUMBSUCKER. The parents, played by Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney, are intellectuals, writers in different stages of their careers, the mother on her way up, the father getting comfortable with making excuses and laying blame for an ongoing dry spell. Their relationship has been cooling off for years, and they finally decide to separate. The two sons instinctively take opposing sides, and act out in all kinds of ways - some of them will be familiar to Lifetime movie watchers, while others will be universally held to be, I think, extreme and bizarre...
Frack, I don't seem to have a decent ramble on the movie in me just now. Maybe I can pick it up again later on. I will say that the movie captures 80s-dom damn well, and makes use of an excellent button-pushing soundtrack, although it does sort of kill Pink Floyd's "Hey You..."
Back to the Oscars...
Usually I don't think too hard about the Oscars. I have a terrible memory for who's won what in what year. Just as I don't give a crap about what reviewers say about a movie when it opens - I'm gonna see what I think looks good - I'm not all that concerned with who wins what in what category - I like what I like.
For kicks, and blog material, I'm gonna try and attack the nominee list category by category...
-----------------------
Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role.
I think the academy will go with Philip Seymour Hoffman for CAPOTE. I can't really fight them on it. He deserves it.
Still... If it was up to me, out of these nominees, I kinda wanna give it to Strathairn. Just cuz. I know Hoffman will continue to wow us - even going head-to-head (but hand-to-hand?) against scientologist Cruise (let my Katie go!) in MI-3 - but when will Strathairn get another shot?
Not the strongest logic there, I know. But you're not really surprised, are you? =)
> Philip Seymour Hoffman - CAPOTE.
He is freakishly good in this. I wish I had some documentary footage of Truman Capote to do a split screen direct comparison. It may seem like the character is all affectation, but in the personality beneath, Hoffman captures and reveals some fearless will and a vicious, effortless, knack for manipulation. In the course of the film, we get to see these applied to Capote's singleminded devotion to achieving immortality through the practice of writing, of storytelling, and revolutionizing that practice.
> Terrence Howard - HUSTLE & FLOW
Alas, I missed seeing this. Felt like it came and went from Boston theaters in two weeks or so. Foo.
> Heath Ledger - BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
He is great in this. But hey, I saw TEN THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU and KNIGHT'S TALE... I'm really not surprised.
> Joaquin Phoenix - WALK THE LINE
An uncanny Johnny Cash. His performance is amazing. Along with his chemistry with his onscreen June Carter, it makes an otherwise formula musician's biopic a stand-out.
> David Strathairn - GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
Excellent performance. But then, everything about and every part of this movie evokes the word "craft" in my mind. It's a perfect little film. Every piece of it at every level feels well measured, applied thoughtfully.
-----------------------
Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
I think the Academy, in an error correction, will go with Giamatti. If it was up to me, given these nominations, I'd go with Matt Dillon in CRASH or William Hurt in VIOLENCE.
> George Clooney - SYRIANA
He certainly sells tortured. I don't know that he did anything incredible as Bob in this, though.
> Matt Dillon - CRASH
I love this movie, and Dillon is solid in it as one of the very excellent (except for - and I hate to say it cuz I really do like him and think him talented - Brendan Fraser, and I really don't know why : P) ensemble of human haters.
> Paul Giamatti - CINDERELLA MAN
I passed on CINDERELLA MAN in theaters. Have yet to catch it on DVD. Is this a nomination to make up for passing him over in SIDEWAYS (a fun "indie" film that I think must've been marketed hard to become the Oscar heavy people ended up believing it was)? They should really create a separate category for this sort of thing. Not the lifetime achievement, which is what it is, and certainly may be used to recognize actors who have been overlooked over the long term, but something specifically created, and appropriately named, for such a situation. The "How the F didn't we give it to you last time?" I suppose that opens the door, tho, to recursion, y'know? "How the F didn't we give you the How the F award last time?"
Hrmmm... Then again, perhaps these awards are already out there? I think they're called the People's Choice and Golden Globes, no? =)
Pig Vomit. Wine snob. Harvey Pekar. He definitely deserves something, donchathink?
> Jake Gyllenhaal - BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
This looks like strategic classification/crediting, doesn't it? To say that Jake's Jack was a supporting role compared to Heath's Ennis? Granted, it worked. That is, it got Jake (and the movie) a nomination. But I think while it succeeds in adding to the number of nominations for the film, it will fail to actually win Jake an award.
> William Hurt - A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
I hafta say, it really was a great bit of stuntcasting having Hurt play the gangster in this flick. His take on the character is definitely unique and a surprise, and every second of the short screen time his performance gets is damn entertaining. If you take "Supporting Role" to include a "bang for the buck" factor, I'd definitely say Hurt wins it. Does that make sense? How better to describe what I mean...?
Okay, how bout this? Going by my alternate interpretation of "best supporting role," Bill Murray in WILD THINGS should've been nominated. =)
Alas, I doubt that a majority of Academy members would subscribe to this notion.
But y'know, I think that if you do follow my interpretation, Marisa Tomei's win for VINNY makes more sense. =)
-----------------------
Allright, this is taking a lot more time and typing than I'd figured. I'll try to tackle the actress and film nominations in the next day or two.
Keep on keepin on~
No comments:
Post a Comment