The Oscars are Hollywood's chance to shine and pat itself on the back. It's a chance to single out various achievements and award those both deserving and undeserving.
For the first time in 3 years, there's no frontrunner-no \Lord of the Rings,"" no ""Chicago"" and no ""A Beautiful Mind""
Numerous races are wide open, and The Daily Cardinal places their bets on some of the best races.
""The Aviator""
""Finding Neverland""
""Million Dollar Baby""
""Ray""
""Sideways""
Most of the time, the winner of Best Picture is painfully easy to predict, since there is usually one nominated film almost everyone can agree on.
Oscar nominations are always the result of a precarious balancing act - distinctive critical darlings and crowd pleasers, whether mainstream or independent, have to be represented in some way. Unfortunately, quantity of hype has infinitely more influence than overall quality as seen by ""Titanic"" winning the 1997 Oscar over ""L.A. Confidential.""
The determining factor lies in how generally ""safe"" the film is.
This isn't meant to be a cynical deconstruction of the wily ways of the Academy, but a simple observation: the Best Picture isn't always the ""Best Picture,"" but it almost always is the ""Safest Picture."" By and large, safe pictures are either epics (brevity is not a positive attribute), dramas with an element of heart-tugging, but not depressing, emotion, or ""important"" films (""Schindler's List""). Most of these elements show up in more than one of the nominees this year, but this is one of those fun years where there is notably more speculation than certainty.
The 2004 slate of nominees is complete with its share of snubs and surprisingly spirited choices, but it is shaping up to be one of the more unpredictable years in quite a while.
""The Aviator"" is Martin Scorsese's best work since ""GoodFellas,"" while ""Million Dollar Baby"" came out of nowhere to deliver a double K.O. (and coax film critics into making bad boxing metaphors). ""Sideways"" is a ubiquitous yet crowd-pleasing comedy with the most memorable characters of the year. These three deserve their best picture status.
Regrettably, films like ""Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,"" ""Mean Creek,"" ""Before Sunset,"" ""Closer,"" ""The Incredibles,"" ""Collateral,"" ""Maria Full of Grace,"" ""Kinsey,"" and many more were nominated for other awards, but were shortchanged Best Picture nominations because they were not as safe as ""Finding Neverland"" and ""Ray""-nor was there any way for 11 pictures to be nominated.
""Ray"" and ""Neverland"" are the weakest biopics in a year rife with admirable ones-""Ray"" has a proficient leading performance but remains a flashy yet hackneyed and derivative look at Ray Charles. Any praise for the soggy, stiflingly banal ""Finding Neverland"" is confounding. However, these films have the least chance of winning the Oscar.
Since process of elimination justifiably eliminates the unnecessary nominations, a three-way race emerges between ""Aviator,"" ""Million Dollar Baby,"" and ""Sideways.""
Most agree these are the films that should have been nominated, and no prominent favorite is discernable. Pundits have generally given the edge to ""Million Dollar Baby,"" which has been overwhelmingly acclaimed as Clint Eastwood's best film, but it's a close call. My personal and prospective pick for Best Picture is ""The Aviator,"" which will probably win the most Oscars as well.
""The Aviator"" is a great film, and considering the Academy's tendencies, it also has all the right moves. It is a period movie, a lengthy epic, a technically gorgeous film and a chance to bestow long overdue honor on a brilliant director.
Scorsese has never taken home a statuette for Best Director (whose win usually coincides with the year's win for Best Picture), none of his films have won for Best Picture (the overlooking of ""GoodFellas"" and ""Raging Bull"" being the most egregious), and the Academy can rectify their multiple errors in one fell swoop by letting ""Aviator"" sweep.
It is still too close to confidently call. ""Million Dollar Baby"" is right on the heels of ""The Aviator,"" with ""Sideways"" cunningly poised to collect the upset win. ""Million Dollar Baby"" and ""Aviator"" may likely split the drama vote, leaving ""Sideways"" to attain the prize.
Almost everything regarding the Academy Awards this year is up in the air, and upsets could run rampant. When even the Best Picture nominations involve considerable guesswork, you know it will be a memorable year at the Oscars.
Martin Scorsese -""The Aviator""
Clint Eastwood-""Million Dollar Baby""
Taylor Hackford-""Ray""
Mike Leigh-""Vera Drake""
Alexander Payne-""Sideways""
The only thing certain about this category is that Taylor Hackford and Mike Leigh don't have to worry about clearing any space off their mantles.
Although one cannot totally dismiss Alexander Payne's chances, the real duel in the category is between Clint Eastwood and Martin Scorsese.
In almost any other year, Eastwood would be the easy favorite, as ""Million Dollar Baby"" has drawn nothing but praise and won the Golden Globe for Best Director. But then along comes Martin Scorsese, whose film is also a critical favorite and won the Best Picture Golden Globe.
As is often the case with the Oscars, the final decision will be made by looking at each director's history. Eastwood already has two Oscars, both for ""Unforgiven"" which took home honors for Best Director and Picture in 1992.
Scorsese, despite all his praise and clout, has no Academy Awards. All he has to show for his efforts are seven nominations from over the years.
As time goes on the Academy must feel increasingly guilty about these snubs. On top of that, no one is in love with Hollywood more than itself, and ""The Aviator"" scores big points for its depiction of Hollywood during the studio era.
When all is said and done, look for Martin Scorsese to finally pick up an Oscar. Does he deserve it over Eastwood? It's hard to compare the epic grandeur of ""The Aviator"" to the quiet intimacy of ""Million Dollar Baby."" In terms of careers, Eastwood has directed a film that may be his best. ""The Aviator"" is not Scorsese's finest work, but it's a great movie nonetheless. In terms of direction it's a breathtaking spectacle, and it would be hard for anyone to argue that Scorsese didn't earn it if he walked home with an Oscar.
Don Cheadle-""Hotel Rwanda""
Johnny Depp-""Finding Neverland""
Leonardo DiCaprio-""The Aviator""
Clint Eastwood-""Million Dollar Baby""
Jamie Foxx-""Ray""
Five actors, five nominees, and five very different reasons for being there. That's what marks the Best Actor category this year. Last year saw an odd group of nominees emerge from a weak movie year. This year sees an even more eclectic pack from a year that provided at least eight male leading performances that would likely have been nominated last year. Of them, the Academy picked four obvious choices and one rather bizarre option.
After an admirable supporting career, Don Cheadle took his biggest lead in the hotly topical ""Hotel Rwanda"" and offered a controlled, but devastating performance. Another partnership with Martin Scorsese saw Leonardo DiCaprio take that final step out of teen idol status with his accomplished and entirely grownup role in the celebrated ""The Aviator.""
Clint Eastwood? As a legend at the center of a self-directed, character-heavy ""Million Dollar Baby,"" his nomination was obligatory. Meanwhile, comedian Jamie Foxx took the lead in ""Ray"" and delivered one of the most praised and career-changing performances in modern Hollywood history. All of these nominations are pretty much beyond reproach, at least in practical terms.
And then there was Johnny Depp. In a year with so many viable candidates, the only way to make heads or tails of the Academy's selection of Depp is that it wanted to make up for lost time. After a prolific career, Depp received his first Oscar nomination only last year for ""Pirates of the Caribbean."" But this year, voters have gone back for more, even though ""Finding Neverland"" saw Depp put forth a solid, yet entirely unremarkable leading performance. His nomination this year makes the most sense as an apology for past neglect.
So who will win? Not Depp. But beyond that, it becomes a bit trickier. Eastwood is probably in line for an honor this year, but more likely as director or producer than actor. Meanwhile, Cheadle lacks the track record, buzz and box-office returns for his role.
This leaves DiCaprio and Foxx, the two flashiest performances of the bunch. A job as jaw-dropping as Foxx's is the clear favorite, so look for the Academy to award the Best Actor award to the year's best performance, for once.
Annette Bening-""Being Julia""
Kate Winslet-""Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind""
Hilary Swank-""Million Dollar Baby""
Imelda Staunt??on-""Vera Drake""
Catalina Sandino Moreno-""Maria Full of Grace""
At the 2000 Oscars a heated battle occurred between Annette Bening, star of ""American Beauty,"" and ""Boys Don't Cry"" star Hilary Swank. Bening, the favorite, ended up losing out to the former ""Next Karate Kid"" as Swank claimed the hardware, while Bening was left empty-handed.
Now five years have passed, many movies have been made, and once again, Swank and Bening find themselves battling head to head in the Best Lead Actress category. This time, however, ""Million Dollar Baby's"" Swank is the favorite while ""Being Julia's"" Bening represents the underdog.
After receiving the role of a lifetime in ""Boys Don't Cry,"" Swank found herself relegated to dreck such as ""The Core,"" and ""The Affair of the Necklace."" These films must have represented her cinematic death, because her ""Million Dollar Baby"" character, Maggie Fitzgerald is also the role of a lifetime.
One actress, with two roles of a lifetime; Swank should prepare her acceptance speech right now.
However, spoilers do exist. Due to similar circumstances, Bening could easily fill the same niche Swank took to claim her 2000 Oscar - that of star in a powerhouse role for a relatively unknown movie taking enough votes to edge out the big star of the blockbuster hit.
Imelda Staunton's sincere, believable role as the titular character to ""Vera Drake"" could give her an outside chance of bringing home the gold. The intricate rehearsal and improvisation process behind ""Drake"" should further help Staunton's cause.
Kate Winslet's role in ""Eternal Sunshine"" could earn her a career award. This is the fourth nomination Winslet's grabbed, and might be her first win.
Come Sunday night, Swank should claim her second Oscar. She had the bravura role and played it to the bone.
John Logan-""The Aviator""
Charlie Kaufman-""Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind""
Keir Pearson and Terry George-""Hotel Rwanda""
Brad Bird-""The Incredibles""
Mike Leigh-""Vera Drake""
The Academy's criteria for what constitutes an adapted screenplay versus an original screenplay are, judging by this year's nominees, slightly muddled.
Two biopics found their way onto the Best Original Screenplay list-two too many in a year featuring plenty of interesting original screenplays.
Meanwhile, for some unknown reason,""Before Sunset"" is classified as an adaptation solely because it's a sequel and thus the screenplay is ""based"" on the characters from the original.
Questionable categorization aside, Original Screenplay is one of the more clear-cut awards of the ceremony. ""Vera Drake"" is a dark-horse generating very little buzz and is lucky to be nominated.
While ""Rwanda"" was a film that was well-written, the script is easily overshadowed by Don Cheadle's lead performance. ""Aviator's"" script was also excellent (despite length issues) but will take a backseat to DiCaprio and Scorsese's nominations. Two clear front-runners emerge.
""The Incredibles"" was written and directed by Brad Bird (""Iron Giant"") and marks the largest outside contribution to a Pixar film yet.
""Incredibles"" is easily the front-runner for Best Animated Film due to excellent voice-acting, animation and some of the best direction from an action movie, even if it is a cartoon. The virtual camera movements and editing by Bird are pure magic. But interestingly, the weakest aspect of ""Incredibles"" is, in fact, its script. The trajectories of each character are instantly predictable; the family conflict between Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl lacks any serious weight. As a narrative, ""Incredibles"" is fairly paint-by-numbers.
That leaves Charlie Kaufman's narrative acrobatics in ""Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind."" While the film owes a lot to director Michel Gondry's surreal imagery and amazingly nuanced performances from Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet, the script is amazing as well.
""Eternal Sunshine"" is drenched with Kaufman's trademark meta-humor. Further, the film's structure truly makes its memory-erasing premise more than just a gimmick. Joel Barish's memory becomes an alternate reality, and Kaufman deftly bounces the audience between that memory and reality.
While it is possible that ""Aviator"" or ""Incredibles"" could grab a win, it appears this is one of few categories where the best nominee is also the most likely to win. The bigger question is what to expect from Charlie Kaufman when his name is called to claim his statue.
-Dan Marfield, Kevin Nelson, Amos Posner, Joe Pudas, William Temby
