This week Best Picture. The nominees are — “A Beautiful Mind,” “Gosford Park,” “In the Bedroom,” “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” and “Moulin Rouge.”
Anna Roberts: This is usually my favorite category. I can get behind a whole picture more than an individual — unlike actors, no one film has ever personally offended me (well, maybe “Mr. Magoo,” but I digress). I really liked the films this year and was entertained or moved (or both) by them all. I can also say the same for “Memento” and “Mulholland Drive,” and it’s a shame they didn’t get the recognition. Although, maybe they are better off, as this popularity contest can get ugly.
Adam Duerson: No other award will be impacted less by the actual goodness of the product than the Best Picture award. Instead, a questionable smear campaign against “A Beautiful Mind” and Russell Crowe has opened the door for two of the other four films to step up. We’ve seen objections being unanimously lobbed from all directions for the past several weeks, culminating with John Forbes Nash, Jr. having to defend himself on “60 Minutes” just last night. Why? Accusations of anti-Semitism, homosexuality and infidelity have plagued the film’s campaign from the beginning; but to me, the objection comes from the simple question of: Is this story real? The accusation is the movie strays too far from the book, one that tells the “real” story. Sure, a movie is a movie, but this particular movie has gathered sentiment for its claim to be real. Presented as fiction, I admittedly would not have been quite as moved.
AR: This is an important aspect to consider, more for the Academy than for personal preference. I enjoyed “Mind” for what it was. I did not watch it thinking, “Gee, golly what an amazing real-life man” as much as I just enjoyed good storytelling. The fact that it really seems to be a story doesn’t change my mind. “Forrest Gump,” “Rain Man” — these were stories of men dealing with their minds and both won Best Picture. I’m sure “Schindler’s List” was not 100 percent accurate either, and it took home a trophy or two. Should it matter what we were told?
AD: Should it matter? No. Does it matter? Yes. I can’t believe for a second that the reality behind this story didn’t affect you. What are you, a heartless robot? This whole issue rings so reminiscent of the “Hurricane” ordeal of two years ago and we all saw how quickly Denzel and his movie fell when its interpretation of “reality” was questioned. Further, it’s one thing if a movie that claims to be based on “reality” is questioned. It’s another when people begin to think that its hero was, in fact, an immoral person.
AR: The droid in me couldn’t agree more. The inconsistencies in “The Hurricane” pulled quite a TKO on the film around Oscar time, and the controversy surrounding Nash’s morality could be seen as just as criminal. Moreover, Howard’s direction to cover it up (a sidelong glance at a male-student? Hardly a tell-all maneuver.) may have been seen as detrimental. But I still can’t see any other heavy contender.
AD: A real contender? This has been an ever-changing story. For one, “Moulin Rouge’s” recent Producers Guild win shouldn’t be taken lightly. Any late-season award with a large constituent of Oscar crossover voters is a good way to gauge the current Oscar pulse (their Golden Laurel picks have predicted seven of the last 10 Best Picture winners). I think the most serious obstacle this movie faced was its early release date. I think maybe a month ago, “Moulin Rouge” was out. But we’ve had time to rethink our rethinking, and people are falling back in love with this movie — letting their emotions take over. Should it be any other way?
AR: We robots can’t let our emotions take over; otherwise, we’d electrocute ourselves with our tears. “Moulin Rouge” was my personal fave of the year, but I think it is ultimately too loud and roller-coaster-y for the staunch Academy. Other awards have the luxury of the non-Oscar name and can think outside the box when voting. Still, you may be on to something. The safe way out could be to give the golden boy to a fantasy pic, and “Rings” was the best one of these to come around in a long time. Like “Titanic,” it was able to utilize massive special effects to create a world and tell a story without having one run over the other. I admit, I scoffed at its nomination initially, but I could very well eat my words.
AD: That’s the thing. People initially rolled over in laughter at the idea that a fantasy nerd-pic could get nominated, let alone win. But it’s not that the critics aren’t seeing it so much as fantasy but rather as beautiful literature on screen. I take this all with a grain of salt, but you can’t ignore the fact that this is probably the one pic no one really disliked. It’s starting to look like “Moulin Rouge” and “Rings” will capitalize on the bad vibes circling “A Beautiful Mind.” My pick: “In the Bedroom.” It might have won any other year, but people aren’t feeling the “depression” vibe this year. Who’ll win? “Rings” — a far cry from the hearty laugh I emitted when I first heard Oscar and “Rings” associated.
AR: My heart belongs to “Moulin Rouge,” but I will stick by “Beautiful Mind” as the actual winner. Whether or not that is because of my lack of (or complete) faith in the Academy, I will never know.
