I really and truly did want to give up Oscaring after Black Sunday but I obviously can't. I'm not asking for your pity but I will accept monetary donations to foot the psych ward bills. Over @ the vintage site (I'm spending so much time on zee blog these days) I've added all the pages for next year's competition with my guess work, the charts (couple of the techs are spotty but i'm working as fast as I can), and now they come with explanations too --at least for the pictures and the acting categories, so you can give up wondering why I made those calls.
Enjoy. Or look quickly away --you know that crazy is contagious, right?
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
I may have also stopped obsessing so much if it weren't for this year's slate of films. It looks so good. Like, it could overtake 2001 as Best Year of the '00s easily if a lot of these titles are actually good.
Ok, my biggest problem with your nominations is that you have left Robert Altman COMPLETELY out of the running for Best Director for Prarie Home Companion. I realize that he just won an honorary award, and I realize that he is not even close to being the most reliable director in terms of nominatable quality, but I feel that whenever he has a movie coming out he should at least merit top 25 consideration. Especially because the movie is already considered to be pretty good according to reviews from festivals where the finished version has screened.
I think Nat putting Bruno Ganz for Best Actor is a smarter move than everyone realizes. He's been around for decades, he's done some very memorable work (in Wim Wenders' films especially), he's coming off a supposed career best (Downfall, which I haven't seen), and he's the star of a Daddy Coppola film - I could easily see a 'body of work' nom there.
I suppose it's never too early for predictions. I will keep your list in mind over the year. If anything, it at least gives me some titles to look out for.
Dreamgirls? Really? 2006 is shaping up to be even more boring than 2005.
I hate Anna Paquin. She's awful. If Margaret gets enough positive response to garner her a nom... fine. But I've read the script and its not that good. Certainly no You Can Count on Me. And she's the absolute worst choice for that role. You need someone decidely less whiny.
Well for those of us who aren't seeing "Dreamgirls" or, God forbid, Eastwood's flags, there's still a lot of great stuff to look forward to.
It could be a magnificent year.
Jeremy has a point...I check out the early list so I know what not to miss, especially in the early part of the year. Thank you for this indispensible service. As to the predictions:
Actress - This looks to be as deep as Actor was last year. I am curious...what happens if all three Cate Blanchett performances are awards-worthy? I would think this would increase the likelihood for vote splitting. Has anyone ever done a check on the statistics for how successful high-profile performers with three performances in a single year are in getting at least one nomination? I also like Bryce Dallas Howard a lot better than 16th if M.Night Shyamalan can break out of his slump with "Lady in the Water". Ditto for Paul Giamatti.
Supporting Actor - I like Kevin Kline for this with Kenneth Branagh directing him in "As You Like It". It's Branagh's first dip into the Bard's catalog in six years and he has a great ear for how Shakespeare should be written for the screen and filmed ("Love's Labours Lost" notwithstanding). Oscar has shown affection for Branagh's treatment of Shakespeare in the past, and Kline's voice and theatrical presence make him a natural for this. He and I just have to hope that this movie does not meet the same fate as Branagh's criminally under-recognized "Much Ado About Nothing", about which much ado should have been made.
Original Screenplay - I have to believe, with his brilliance and a shared Oscar with Charlie Kaufman for "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" already on the mantel, that Michael Gondry has a great shot at this for "The Science of Sleep". His earlier success shows he can overcome the usual Academy prejudice against weirdness, and this category is often much softer (and thus an easier get) than the adapted category.
Editing - "United 93" will play out the events of 9/11 against real-time running. This paints the editors into an almost "Five Obstructions"-grade corner. I think that how, and how well, this movie is cut will make or break it. If it is done in the gimmicky sort of way that the TV series "24" handles the issue, then the movie may fall flat. If it is done imaginitively and with consummate skill, then this could easily get a nomination not just for editing, but ride the 'Best Editing' train to Original Screenplay and Picture nominations as well. I have high hopes for it after watching the trailer. If it happens, remember, you heard it here first.
I feel your Oscar addiction out of controlness myself...I feel slightly crazy.
--RC of strangeculture.blogspot.com
To answer someone's question about Blanchett's vote-splitting... I think generally when that happens it's just the performance in the most oscar-favored film that gets noticed (assuming they are all of similar quality). Pretty standard rule. And usually one DOES get noticed (see Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman and Natalie Portman for recent examples). The last time I can think of with someone getting nommed for a role other than their lead in the big film was Natalie Wood for Splendor instead of West Side (VERY weird considering the latter won 10 academy awards).
Nate, I still haven't read your Oscar pages and I still don't really feel tempted. This doesn't mean I'm giving up on you, but I well and truly seem to be giving up on the Oscars. I didn't even have to try. Every mention of the Academy automatically repels me these days.
Lately I've been turning to film festival line-ups to get excited about future movies. It works much better for me.
Adam, the thing is, Natalie Wood was just not very good in West Side Story. Fine, but not good enough to be nominated.
On the matter of Bruno Ganz, I reckon if the film hadn't have been inneligable there could've been a real chance of him being nominated for Downfall. It would've been different though because the critix would've actually had a reason to award him prizes. When they're inneligable why should they when they can merely follow the pack?
I think Lily Tomlin is right up there for Supporting Actress for Prairie. If her oscar bit is any indication. Plus... she's Lily Tomlin!
I know Natalie's not all that great in West Side (even though my crazy love for it often clouds my common sense about that point), but just think about how weird it would be now if something won 10 academy awards and it's leading lady was nominated for something else instead. That would be like Sean Penn nommed for 21 Grams or Nicole Kidman nominated for The Others, which would NEVER have happened in today's world (and these were not even the best examples cause they weren't exactly oscar sweepers).
Hence my original point about how people are always nommed for their big oscar films and not the "other" ones.
Post a Comment