Oh, I'm Calling It, Friendo: Fearless Oscar Picks, Round Three

In the two Best Picture-nominated arthouse smashes of the year, There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men, the most charismatic and interesting characters remain cyphers throughout their respective films. We sat through those two films, waiting for some explanation for the unblinking, Terminator-like focus of Daniel Plainview and Anton Chigurh; in both cases, thanks in no small part to Sinclair Lewis and Cormac Mc Carthy, respectively, answer came there none. (A small tip of the hat to PT and the Coens for not imposing a simplistic Psych 101 explanation, a la Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). In many ways, the entire year in film also seemed to be without a center or a simple explanation. It was a year of incredible performances, astonishing cinematography and memorable soundtracks, but I'm not really certain if there was a film like 06's Pan's Labyrinth or Letters from Iwo Jima that seems destined to become an indispensible, iconic film. This is reflected in the fact that while many of the other categories seem relatively easy to predict, Best Picture may be the toughest call in years.


Best Picture

My greatest fear here, of course, is that the same people loved No Country and Blood, and therefore might split their votes. Michael Clayton is a terribly overbaked nonfactor, centered around a ludicrous script that pivots on the notion that a fixer is shocked, shocked to find that the agribusiness concern his white shoe firm represents has knowingly poisoned some farmers with their pesticide. Where's Captain Renault when you need him? The film was even dumber than the moronic Syriana, which takes us three hours and several trips around the globe to tell us that the oil companies run everything! Atonement was that rare bird, an excellent adaptation of an excellent contemporary novel; sorry all you fans of The Shipping News, but this does not bode well for the film's chances. If you pin me down, Juno was probably my favorite film of the year, one which on the surface looked alarmingly like a Sundance Mad Lib but which was able to surprise at many turns. I think it will win elsewhere, but not here. There Will Be Blood was a difficult film structurally (Citizen Kane meets Chinatown meets Giant), and like Best Picture losers like Raging Bull or A Clockwork Orange, had a complete nightmare for a protagonist. Ultimately the award will go to No Country, which has a vision as dark as PT's film within a much more palatable and familiar structure. I'll venture to guess that my fellow Little Lebowski Urban Achievers (and proud we are of all of them) and I wouldn't consider it the Coens' best effort; for my money, it falls short of Fargo, certainly of Miller's Crossing, and even in some ways of the cartoon farces of Raising Arizona and, of course, Lebowski. What's the most you ever lost on an Oscar pool?


Best Actor

Maybe we should just hand the award to Clooney for almost making Michael Clayton bearable. Has he given a bad performance in the last decade? Remarkable, given some of the crap he's in (does anyone remember that Ocean's 13 was also this year?). But he just won Supporting for Syriana a couple of years ago, so it's not his turn. No one saw In the Valley of Elah, or for that matter any of the spate of the well-intentioned bludgeons masquerading as thoughtful Iraq films released in the fall. Tommy Lee will have to settle for dusting his Fugitive Oscar this year. Viggo has to win eventually, but I must say that I'm not as thrilled as many are with his partnership with David Cronenberg. Eastern Promises was inferior in all ways to A History of Violence, except in the number of brutal throat slashings the viewer had to endure. Speaking of which, why not Johnny Depp this year? Granted, I say that every year he's up for something, but how many actors could acquit themselves so well as both Jack Sparrow and the Demon Barber in the same year? Depp's Sweeney is a one note performance, but the character does not have much more than one note to begin with. Just the idea that Depp could handle Sondheim with some grace (unlike the poor, outmatched HBC, for whom acting has become a series of theme and variations on a creepy bug-eyed stare) and make us feel sympathy for a mass murderer should put him over the top. But it won't, of course; Daniel Day-Lewis will drink Johnny's milkshake, as it were. I'll never forget seeing A Room with a View and My Beautiful Laundrette within a few months of each other back in '86 and not realizing that the same actor was playing in both. I've been a fan for a long time, and it would be an understatement to call his performance in Blood magnetic. That being said, John Huston was twice as terrifying playing the same sort of role in Chinatown, with about one tenth of the screen time. I'm rooting for Depp, but I will not be surprised or displeased if Day-Lewis wins his second.


Best Actress

This is a weird one; each of the contenders this year has a compelling story behind her, and with the very notable exception of Ellen Page, each was in a film that about eight people saw. Let's begin then with Juno; no matter how you felt about the film, her connection with the character was uncanny. That might be a positive, or it might hurt her in the eyes of voters who thought she was simply playing herself. Let's not talk about theories of acting; suffice to say that her youth may work against her. Unless it's a sweep for the film, she'll have to wait. Julie Christie is in the opposite corner. In her favor are her long history in the business, the whole playing mentally ill thing, and how cool it would be to have her two Oscars separated by over 40 years. No one saw Away from Her, but this year, that might not have so much of an impact. Cate B has no chance; Elizabeth was awful, and she's won recently for Aviator (and might again this year for the Dylan thing). I would not be surprised if Laura Linney, an actress who has never given a bad performance in her career, wins. She's very popular, and the small box office won't hurt. That leaves the buzz that has been building for Marion Cotillard's performance as Piaf in La Vie en Rose. It's an intriguing performance in a good film, and playing musicians did not harm Jamie Foxx and Reese Witherspoon as of late. I think she'll take it in a close one, but the real question is this: why is there such a disconnect between great female performances and ticket sales?

Best Supporting Actor

As if there could be any doubt. Anton Chigurh is a screen villain legend on par with Hannibal Lecter, thanks to Javier Bardem's brilliant performance. Who else could have made a scene set in a West Texas gas station that involves no bloodshed or violence whatsoever the most frightening scene in recent film memory? In the end, Bardem does nothing less than embody the random, inexorable terror of fate itself. Against an unusually weak field, this is a gimme.

Best Supporting Actress

The early money was heavy on Cate Blanchett here, for her note-perfect incarnation of Don't Look Back-era Dylan in I'm Not Here. Upon closer examination, however, things get a tad more twisty. First, very few saw the Haynes film, in spite of all the Times Magazine cover hype. Second, many who did see it didn't like it. As mentioned, she's won recently. And finally, it seems as though an annual Cate Blanchett nomination is almost an Oscar formality, on par with the necrology montage. So who sneaks through the Blanchett backlash? Not the chick from Atonement, who should buy a consonant. Ruby Dee would be a wonderful story, of course, but if the sentamentalists didn't give the honor to 146-year old Gloria Stuart for Titanic, they surely will bypass Ruby for a much hyped film that everyone a year down the road will forget was ever made. Tilda Swinton is one of the great treasures among film actors, but her performance in Michael Clayton was one extremely shrill note. She was poorly served by her script, but that matters little. It's clear that Amy Ryan's explosive, brutal performance in Gone Baby Gone was one of the year's most riveting, and I think she'll walk away with it.

Best Director

Before I say anything, can someone PLEASE explain to me how Tony Gilroy was nominated for a film without a single interesting shot or edit, while Tim Burton, who created an ur-London of the mind for the flawed, brilliant Sweeney Todd got shut out? Juno was all about that script, those actors and that low-fi soundtrack; instead of nominating Reitman, they should have given the nod to whomever animated the opening credits. I don't think that Schnabel will win, but he should get credit for turning a completely unfilmable book into a completely original vision. And so, how do I choose between the Coens and PT? I'd be happy if either won, although I think that the brilliance of There Will Be Blood is so intimately tied to that one performance. It bears very little resemblance (except in focusing on the scarring legacy of fathers and sons) to PT's other work, and I think it's a film that nearly any good director could have handled. No Country, in spite of the debts owed to Bardem, the rest of the cast, Cormac Mc Carthy and Roger Deakins, is clearly a Coen Brothers film, one that only they could have made. Joel and Ethan in a photo finish.

And so on...

In spite of the technicalities of the nominations, we must pause in wonder that the next Ennio Morricone might be Radiohead's guitarist, and that the next new wave is coming from...Bucharest?? We cross our fingers that all the Iraq films will cancel each other out, paving the way for another Oscar for Michael Moore, for what was in many ways his best film. Or that in a moment of clarity, the voters will bypass the viciously overrated Ratatouille for the brilliant wonders of Persepolis. Or that Diablo Cody's acceptance speech will be as entertaining as it promises to be. Or that Be Kind Rewind will make us forget all about an up and down 2007. Si se puede!