 |
| Predictions: Who Will Take Home an Oscar? |
That dynamic -- young vs. old, Facebook vs. Mr. Darcy -- hasn't changed in the ensuing four months. And even with the late entry of three critically acclaimed box-office successes -- "True Grit," "Black Swan" and "The Fighter" -- this year's best picture trophy will recognize either the emotional uplift of "The King's Speech" or the exhilarating immediacy of "The Social Network."
And, from all appearances, it looks like voters are going with their hearts and not their heads.
Here's how the top races will go:
BEST PICTURE
The nominees: "Black Swan," "The Fighter," "Inception," "The Kids Are All Right," "The King's Speech," "127 Hours," "The Social Network," "Toy Story 3," "True Grit," "Winter's Bone"
The winner: "The King's Speech"
Possible upset: "The Social Network"
Why limit the 10 picture race to just these two films? For starters, no movie wins Best Picture without a nomination for its director, which eliminates half the field. And you're out, too, if you don't have a screenplay nomination. That leaves four films, with "The Fighter" and "True Grit" joining the two favorites.
One month ago, everything pointed to "The Social Network" winning. The film had taken every critics prize and the Golden Globe for drama. It's only the third movie since 1975 to win the top awards from the Los Angeles and New York film critics groups, the National Board of Review and the Globe. The other two, "Schindler's List" and "Terms of Endearment," went on to win the Best Picture Oscar.
All that history was wiped out when "The King's Speech" swept the Producers Guild, the Directors Guild and the Screen Actors Guild. These people vote for the Oscars. Critics do not.
So what happened? It'd be easy to chalk it up to another one of Harvey Weinstein's scorched-earth Oscar campaigns, where his minions wheedle Academy voters and Harvey himself calls in the heavy ammunition. (If Queen Elizabeth loved "The King's Speech," it must be terrific!) But, simply put: Academy members like Harvey's movie best. They feel an emotional connection to "The King's Speech." As for "The Social Network" ... well, it's just not that kind of movie.
Time will tell whether a win for "King's Speech" will be a source of embarrassment to the Academy akin to, say, "Ordinary People" beating "Raging Bull" or "Dances With Wolves" prevailing over "Goodfellas." I'd argue that Fincher's movie is nowhere near as accomplished as the two Scorsese films and that naysayers undervalue all the ways "Speech" goes against conventionality. But "Social Network" supporters tend to stamp their feet when differing viewpoints are offered, so my reasoning would probably fall on deaf ears anyway.
BEST ACTRESS
The nominees: Annette Bening, "The Kids Are All Right"; Nicole Kidman, "Rabbit Hole"; Jennifer Lawrence, "Winter's Bone"; Natalie Portman, "Black Swan"; Michelle Williams, "Blue Valentine"
The winner: Natalie Portman
Possible upset: Annette Bening
Not much of a contest here. Yes, Bening delivered a fine performance (though "Kids" co-star Julianne Moore one-upped her in terms of range), but Portman goes to another stratosphere in "Black Swan." Plus, it's a movie that speaks to the sacrifices performers make for the sake of their art.
You don't think that's going to resonate with this crowd?
BEST ACTOR
The nominees: Javier Bardem, "Biutiful"; Jeff Bridges, "True Grit"; Jesse Eisenberg, "The Social Network"; Colin Firth, "The King's Speech"; James Franco, "127 Hours"
The winner: Colin Firth
Possible upset: Firth doesn't deliver a witty and gracious acceptance speech.
Firth could well have won last year for "A Single Man." In fact, if he had bested Bridges, who prevailed for playing the boozy country singer in "Crazy Heart," it would be Bridges' turn to win the Oscar this year. And, one could easily make the case that Firth delivered a more nuanced, affecting performance for "A Single Man," and that Bridges' Rooster Cogburn was a superior example of a redeemed drunkard.
But that's just rummaging through apples and oranges in a race that, because of the way the Academy votes, belongs to Firth and Firth alone.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
The nominees: Amy Adams, "The Fighter"; Helena Bonham Carter, "The King's Speech"; Melissa Leo, "The Fighter"; Hailee Steinfeld, "True Grit"; Jackie Weaver, "Animal Kingdom"
The winner: Melissa Leo
Possible upset: Hailee Steinfeld
Leo ruffled a few feathers recently when she had the gall to buy her own glossy (i.e. tacky) trade ads featuring a glamorous shot of the 50-year-old actress along with the word "Consider." And, with the Academy Awards, you just don't do that kind of self-promotion because, as we all know, nominees don't actually campaign for the prize. No, they just hit the talk-show circuit and attend awards shows and press receptions and Academy screenings to promote the movie, not themselves.
"She just lost my vote," one Academy member reportedly told The Hollywood Reporter, a comment that concisely sums up the inane logic some Academy members use in marking their ballots. God forbid they actually vote on the work and not the sideshow.
That said, there's always a backlash to the backlash. The sniping might actually cement the win for Leo, who has long been the frontrunner in the category (a status that makes her ad purchase a doubly curious choice.) But if she loses, don't blame the misguided self-promotion. Having fellow "Fighter" cast member Adams in the category could split the vote, giving newcomer Steinfeld the win.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
The nominees: Christian Bale, "The Fighter"; John Hawkes, "Winter's Bone"; Jeremy Renner, "The Town"; Mark Ruffalo, "The Kids Are All Right"; Geoffrey Rush, "The King's Speech"
The winner: Christian Bale
Possible upset: Geoffrey Rush
The one nominee who didn't glad-hand this year was Bale, proving again that you don't have to make the rounds on the rubber chicken circuit to win an Oscar (Mo'Nique sure as hell didn't last year). Of course, you can afford that luxury only if the work makes voters' teeth drop from the get-go, and Bale's did. From the moment you glimpse his hollow cheeks and wiry frame, you know Bale has done another full-bore freefall in the name of art or insanity or some irresistible combination of both.
At any rate, there's no way he loses. Unless the Academy, really loves "The King's Speech" in a way that transcends categories and common sense.
BEST DIRECTOR
The nominees: Darren Aronofsky, "Black Swan"; Joel and Ethan Coen, "True Grit"; David Fincher, "The Social Network"; Tom Hooper, "The King's Speech"; David O. Russell, "The Fighter"
The winner: Tom Hooper
Possible upset: David Fincher
And, circling back to transcending categories and common sense, look at the nominees in this category. The Coens. David O. Russell. Aronofsky. Fincher. Four (counting the brothers as a two-headed single entity) of the greatest filmmakers working today. You could program a wonderful week-long film festival with their work and still have movies left over for, as they say, further viewing.
And then you have this year's likely winner, Tom Hooper, a Brit who spent most of his career working in television before making "The King's Speech."
You could argue that each of the indisputably great directors has made better films. And you could also note that Hooper invested his movie with plenty of interesting, intelligent visual touches. He moves the camera elegantly and his sense of composition is flawless. He also seems to have a way with actors. But that doesn't make it feel any less ... wrong (there, I said it) to be giving Hooper the Oscar over four equally deserving candidates, directors who have contributed so much to the past quarter century of cinema.
Fincher could still sneak in and win this. But chances are he'll get his Oscar 20 years from now for some halfway decent movie starring Brad Pitt, who will, by that point, have assumed the elder-statesman mantle from Jack Nicholson and be sitting in the Kodak Theatre's front row, applauding with gusto.
Read More: MSN