ARTSETC.
Best picture tango
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Mac VerStandig:
Related Stories:
- SAG gives 'Chicago' a push in Oscar race (January 29, 2003)
- Judge OKs sale of 'Kane' Oscar (March 10, 2004)
- Screening for pirates (October 23, 2003)
- Judge to Hear Filmmakers' Suit Over 'Screeners' (December 1, 2003)
- Songs go from stage to screen (October 10, 2005)
by Mac VerStandig
Thursday, March 13, 2003
It was April 14, 1969 when the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences named the hit musical “Oliver!” best picture. The trend since then has been clear: words over songs.
The motion-picture musical more or less died by the mid-1970s and was aptly absent from the Oscars for the duration of the 20th century. But then a new millennium and old art form came about in unison and Baz Luhrmann’s “Moulin Rouge!” had audiences abuzz with melody just over a year ago.
The motion-picture musical is back, and nothing will evidence this more than when, March 23, 2003, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will name the hit musical “Chicago” best picture. Yes, it is inevitable.
Notorious Oscar-purchaser Miramax has groomed “Chicago” for awards of greatness since its birth. And the film has been gaining momentum at a ridiculous pace.
First it practically swept the critics’ guilds (note the word “practically” — ironically, the picture didn’t with the Chicago Film Critics Association Awards). Then the film took the Golden Globe. And just this past weekend it ambushed the Screen Actors Guild Awards. If Miramax would drag the campaign out a few more months, the musical could probably snatch the Nobel Peace Prize.
Of course, to create the appearance of competition, four other films — “The Pianist,” “Gangs of New York,” “The Hours” and “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” — are nominated. Kid yourself not; they stand no chance.
“The Hours” is nominated for nine awards (a paltry count compared to the 13 racked up by “Chicago”) and did win the Golden Globe for Best Drama. But its Virginia Woolf subject matter is a tad highbrow for the Academy’s popcorn taste.
“Gangs of New York” is also being backed by Miramax and did manage 10 nominations. But the film seems to be more of a showcase for Daniel Day-Lewis than an actual collaborative effort, and its poor public reception should severely hamper its odds of winning.
“The Pianist” has seven nominations but has yet to win a serious precursor award and, resultantly, has no momentum. Also, the Holocaust theme might be a bit dark as America finds itself on the brink of war and seeking lighter forms of escapism.
As for the extremely popular “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers,” it just isn’t Academy material. Despite being based on J. R. R. Tolkien’s classic novel, the film is perceived as a lowbrow venture driven by special effects. Count on it sweeping the technical awards, but it will follow the way of “Star Wars” and miss the big award.
The other major award being considered here is Best Director. A number of cinema pundits, this critic included, are of the belief that the best-directed film of the year is inherently the best picture, as the two are truly synonymous. However, from time to time, the Academy has seen fit to split the honors.
Peter Jackson, the director of “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” is not nominated for the award. Rather, Pedro Almodóvar, who helmed “Hable con ella,” has taken his place. Almodóvar has garnered great note in recent years for his film “Todo Sobre Mi Madre.” But this is Almodóvar’s first Oscar nomination, and it is reasonable to assume that he will not go home a winner with a subtitled piece.
Stephen Daldry directs “The Hours.” This is his second nomination, having received one for “Billy Elliot” two years ago. Daldry, however, does nothing to distinguish himself sufficiently from his film such that the Academy would go out on a limb and split awards for him.
Martin Scorsese, who is widely considered to be one of the finest directors in Hollywood to have not won an Oscar, directs “Gangs of New York.” This is his fifth nomination, the first having come over 20 years ago for “Raging Bull.” If a split is to occur, it is possible the that Academy would send “Gangs of New York” home a loser and still bestow directing honors upon Scorsese as a loosely-veiled lifetime-achievement award.
Perhaps the most interesting of the directorial nominees is Roman Polanski. This is his fourth nomination, with previous nods for “Rosemary’s Baby” in 1969, “Chinatown” in 1975 and “Tess” in 1981.
But Polanski’s films are all bores compared to his life story. His wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by Charles Manson’s gang. She was eight months pregnant at the time. After mourning her loss, Polanski found a new girlfriend and started to move on. The only problem was that his new love was 13 years old.
Polanski is currently wanted in the United States on charges of statutory rape and has been in exile since 1978. If he attempts to enter the country for the Oscars, he will likely be arrested.
Assuming the Academy doesn’t split votes on the awards and give the honor to Scorsese or make some sort of radical statement by bestowing it upon Polanski, Best Director should go to Rob Marshall, who helmed “Chicago.”
A native of Madison, Marshall makes his big-screen debut with “Chicago.” And quite the debut it has been. Count on Marshall winning an Oscar for Best Director as the motion picture musical makes its long-awaited return to the Academy Awards March 23.
