BOOKS AND ARTS FEBRUARY 20, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Hollywood giveth and Hollywood taketh away. 2007 was a good year for film and arguably an even better one for Oscar picks. Yes, a few gems were overlooked--Zodiac and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford come to mind--and the foreign film nominations were a scandal; but overall, the Academy did a better-than-usual job of separating the wheat from the chaff. (The ceremony’s broadcast ratings were another matter.)
This year, there will be a whole lot of chaff up on stage. 2008 wasn’t a particularly strong cinematic year, but the Academy aggravated matters by overlooking many of the high points it offered. WALL-E, for my money the best film of the year, was relegated to the animated-film ghetto from which only Beauty and the Beast has ever emerged. The Dark Knight--which, for all its flaws, was an ambitious, fascinating work of pop mythology--will have to content itself with whatever technical awards it can scrape up. (Best Visual Effects! In your face, Iron Man!) And even as the Academy ignored the summer’s big mass-cultural phenomena, it simultaneously managed to skip over the fall and early winter’s quieter, more thoughtful indies--The Wrestler, Rachel Getting Married, and the bleak, bewildering Synecdoche, New York.
Instead, this year is all about the mushy middle, a showcase of high-toned, politically palatable films meticulously engineered to approximate art: Frost/Nixon, Milk, The Reader, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Doubt (which was not nominated for Best Picture but received an absurd four acting nominations). These are films intended to make viewers feel thoughtful, provided they don’t think about them too closely. The spirited, global vibe of Slumdog Millionaire is the only thing likely to distinguish the Oscar ceremony from a political convention--and even it offers a mixed blessing, with its expected dominance of the non-acting categories likely to rob the proceedings of much suspense.
Indeed, for the first time in memory, the most intriguing questions may surround not the eventual winners but the broadcast itself. Will the paradigm-busting choice of Hugh Jackman to host--and his reported Baz-Luhrmann-directed opening song-and-dance number--be a delight? A disaster? A delightful disaster? (Those seeking a sense of the peril and possibility can sample Jackman’s Tony awards work here, here, and here.) What are we to make of the producers’ enigmatic promise that the awards will be presented “in a completely different way”? Such questions may not be the stuff of high drama, but they offer something to ponder while we wait for Mickey, Kate, Heath, and Penelope to be awarded their anticipated hardware, and Slumdog to walk away with everything else.
Best Picture
It’s Slumdog versus the field. The sheer cinematic brio of director Danny Boyle’s film makes it the runaway audience favorite of the bunch. But it also has the advantage of being the kind of underdog the Academy likes (small budget, came out of nowhere) and the kind of overachiever the Academy likes even better (so far pulling in $25 million more than Milk, Frost/Nixon, and The Reader combined).
If there’s an upset, Milk may be the most likely candidate, especially in the wake of Brokeback Mountain’s egregious non-win. (Though someone might want to remind the Academy that it already gave the superior The Times of Harvey Milk an Oscar 24 years ago.) Benjamin Button did relatively well at the box office and is the kind of romantic/historical epic the Academy generally adores, but in the end it seems to have left everyone a bit underwhelmed. It’d be unwise to count The Reader out altogether as long as it has a pair of “H”’s--Harvey Weinstein and the Holocaust--up its sleeve, but it’s still an awfully long bet. And it’s hard to see Frost/Nixon getting much love, which is probably as it should be given the film’s extreme historical fraudulence.
What will win: Slumdog Millionaire
What ought to win: Slumdog Millionaire
What deserved to be nominated but wasn’t: WALL-E, The Dark Knight, Revolutionary Road, The Wrestler
What didn’t deserve to be nominated but was: Frost/Nixon, Milk, The Reader, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Actor
A two-man race between Sean Penn (Milk) and Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler) in which Rourke seems to have emerged as the favorite. Though his is a terrific comeback story in a town predicated on the possibility of redemption, he hasn’t done himself many favors in the past several weeks--announcing his plan to participate in Wrestlemania 25 when he won the Screen Actors Guild Award, dropping F-bombs when he won the BAFTA, and generally being a little too Mickey Rourke for his own good. As for Penn, he’d be a lock if he hadn’t already picked up a Best Actor for Mystic River; as is, he’s in the awkward situation of being the “safe” alternative for his portrayal of gay San Francisco supervisor Harvey Milk.
It’s hard to see anyone else sneaking in here, but after Tilda Swinton edged out Cate Blanchett and Amy Ryan last year, who knows? Brad Pitt’s performance (Benjamin Button), like his movie, seemed as though it had a good shot until everyone watched it. Frank Langella (Frost/Nixon) made the crucial mistake of not becoming a beloved character actor before embarking on his current string of Oscar-worthy performances. And Richard Jenkins (The Visitor)? I love you dearly, but you’re lucky to be here.
Who will win: Mickey Rourke, though anyone looking for an upset might bank on the Academy’s eagerness to advertise its moral elevation and go with Penn
Who ought to win: Mickey Rourke
Who deserved to be nominated but wasn’t: Leonardo DiCaprio (Revolutionary Road), Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man)
Who didn’t deserve to be nominated but was: Brad Pitt, Richard Jenkins
Best Actress
Another apparent two-horse race, between six-time nominee Kate Winslet (The Reader) and 15-time nominee Meryl Streep (Doubt). The smart money is on Winslet who, if she goes home empty-handed, will join Thelma Ritter and Deborah Kerr as the most-nominated actress without a win. Less noted is that, despite Streep’s record-breaking haul of nominations, she has only won twice (one lead, one supporting), and the last time was for Sophie’s Choice, 26 years ago--when Winslet was seven. Still, Kate is the clear favorite, even if the Academy perversely nominated her for the wrong movie.
Early on, Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married) looked as though she had a good shot here, but like non-nominees Kristin Scott Thomas (I’ve Loved You So Long) and Sally Hawkins (Happy-Go-Lucky), her smaller, quieter picture seems to have been pushed to the side by the rollout of Worthy Studio Contenders. Under the circumstances, Melissa Leo (Frozen River) is lucky she was nominated at all for her pitch-perfect performance in a tiny indie. And one can only assume that Angelina Jolie’s nomination for Changeling was powered by the votes of Academy members who didn’t actually see the film.
Who will win: Kate Winslet (for The Reader)
Who ought to win: Kate Winslet (for Revolutionary Road)
Who deserved to be nominated but wasn’t: Kate Winslet (for Revolutionary Road), Kristin Scott Thomas (I’ve Loved You So Long), Sally Hawkins (Happy-Go-Lucky)
Who didn’t deserve to be nominated but was: Kate Winslet (for The Reader), Angelina Jolie, Meryl Streep
Best Supporting Actor
Another year, another shoo-in psycho. Heath Ledger’s Joker (The Dark Knight) may be more manic than Javier Bardem’s Anton Chigurh, but this award was destined to be his even before his tragic death. If someone were going to steal the statue, it’d be Philip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt) or Josh Brolin (Milk), but no one’s going to be stealing anything. Robert Downey Jr.’s nomination for Tropic Thunder was likely a nod to his Iron Man work as well, and Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road) should count himself lucky that he managed to get a nomination despite his movie’s Oscar free-fall.
Who will win: Heath Ledger
Who ought to win: Heath Ledger
Who deserved to be nominated but wasn’t: This is actually a pretty strong list, though John Malkovich (Burn After Reading), Ralph Fiennes (In Bruges), or Eddie Marsan (Happy-Go-Lucky) could’ve comfortably swapped places with any non-Ledger nominee
Best Supporting Actress
Man versus machine? A computer regression analysis by the very sharp Nate Silver declares Taraji P. Henson (Benjamin Button) to be the strong favorite here, but I’ll cast my lot with the flesh-and-blood consensus that this is Penelope Cruz’s to lose, for her tempestuous turn in Vicky Cristina Barcelona. One reason to root for this outcome: It would enable Cruz to receive the statue from paramour Javier Bardem, last year’s Supporting Actor winner. A better reason: None of the alternatives are terribly deserving. Viola Davis was very strong in Doubt, but it was a small, narrow role. Amy Adams is generally marvelous, but her performance in the same film was flimsy and forgettable. And though Marisa Tomei was quite good in The Wrestler, she still has a bit more digging to do to make up for that Oscar for My Cousin Vinny.
Who will win: Penelope Cruz
Who ought to win: Penelope Cruz
Who deserved to be nominated but wasn’t: Rosemarie DeWitt (Rachel Getting Married), Elizabeth Banks (W.), almost any of the actresses in Synecdoche, New York (Dianne Wiest, Samantha Morton, Emily Watson, Catherine Keener, Hope Davis)
Who didn’t deserve to be nominated but was: Taraji P. Henson, Viola Davis, Amy Adams
Best Director
Very difficult to see this winding up anywhere but in Danny Boyle’s mitts. If someone were to upset him, it would likely be David Fincher (Benjamin Button), but it’s a considerable long shot. Gus Van Sant (Milk), Ron Howard (Frost/Nixon), and Stephen Daldry (The Reader) are basically here because the Academy also put their films up for Best Picture and couldn’t think of anything better to do with the directing nominations.
Who will win: Danny Boyle
Who ought to win: Danny Boyle
Who deserved to be nominated but wasn’t: Sam Mendes (Revolutionary Road), Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight), Jonathan Demme (Rachel Getting Married)
Who didn’t deserve to be nominated but was: Gus Van Sant, Ron Howard, Stephen Daldry
Best Cinematography
Once again, there’s a good chance Slumdog will be the bride and Benjamin Button the bridesmaid, though it’s possible the Academy will rate Claudio Miranda’s stately camera work over Anthony Dod Mantle’s restless lens. (If it doesn’t, Benjamin Button could conceivably go an unprecedented 0-for-13 on nominations.) This is the biggest award The Dark Knight is up for, but cinematographer Wally Pfister almost certainly won’t be bringing it home. Chris Menges and Roger Deakins (who split work on The Reader) are unlikely to be in the mix unless The Reader emerges as a strong contender elsewhere, and Tom Stern (Changeling) won’t be in the mix regardless.
Who will win: Anthony Dod Mantle
Who ought to win: Claudio Miranda
Who deserved to be nominated but wasn’t: Roger Deakins (Revolutionary Road), Mandy Walker (Australia)
Who didn’t deserve to be nominated but was: Chris Menges and Roger Deakins (The Reader), Tom Stern (Changeling)
Best Adapted Screenplay
Familiar contenders by now, and possibly a familiar result, with Slumdog’s Simon Beaufoy the favorite. Benjamin Button’s Eric Roth would have a better shot if he hadn’t already won for the same script 15 years ago. John Patrick Shanley (Doubt), David Hare (The Reader), and Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon) aren’t out of the question, but any would be a considerable surprise.
Who will win: Simon Beaufoy
Who ought to win: Simon Beaufoy
Who deserved to be nominated but wasn’t: Justin Haythe (Revolutionary Road), Maurizio Braucci et al. (Gomorra)
Who didn’t deserve to be nominated but was: John Patrick Shanley, Peter Morgan
Best Original Screenplay
In a year of generally disappointing adaptations, there were quite a few excellent original scripts. Milk (by Dustin Lance Black) was not one of them, in my view, but it’s the favorite here anyway, especially if Academy members don’t give it their votes for Best Picture and Actor. Andrew Stanton and Jim Reardon (WALL-E) have a shot if the Academy wakes up and realizes what a terrible job they did with this year’s nominees. Martin McDonagh (In Bruges), Courtney Hunt (Frozen River), and Mike Leigh (Happy-Go-Lucky) are presumably happy they were invited to the party.
Who will win: Dustin Lance Black
Who ought to win: Andrew Stanton and Jim Reardon
Who deserved to be nominated but wasn’t: Charlie Kaufman (Synecdoche, New York), Christopher Nolan and Jonathan Nolan (The Dark Knight), Michel Gondry (Be Kind Rewind), Joel and Ethan Coen (Burn After Reading)
Who didn’t deserve to be nominated but was: Dustin Lance Black, Martin McDonagh, Courtney Hunt, Mike Leigh
Christopher Orr is a senior editor of The New Republic.
25 comments
the best film of the year, without question, was Let the Right One In, which could not even secure Sweden's entry nod because it lacked distribution/marketing funds even domestically. it's tragic that, as a result of this, so few people will ever be aware of this film, which on substance, style, directing, acting, photography, editing, score, and screenplay, obliterates anything nominated this year. it re-defines a genre, it is brilliantly spare in its presentation, and it features a protagonist with such a gut wrenching paradox on his hands that you ponder over his ultimate fate for weeks after viewing.
- hp
February 20, 2009 at 10:23am
I agree with almost everything here. I've a ritual of watching all the best picture nominees and this year's crop was really sub-par. Little quibble: Dark Knight will lose the visual effects trophy to Benjamin Button. While Button was essentially pointless, the old-age visual effects were mind-blowing.
- matthias
February 20, 2009 at 10:37am
Both Leo and Kate forced it far too often in Revolutionary Road. It was a fairly powerful movie, but there were too many longs stretches were I couldn't focus on the movie because of how bad their acting was. I am willing to chalk it up to bad direction, but to suggest they deserved best actor/actress nominations is absurd.
- warfang
February 20, 2009 at 12:57pm
Am glad you had the guts to call out Jenkins's merely-average performance. He just doesn't have the screen presence and charisma necessary for a leading man, which is why he was much better in supporting roles in two eastwood pictures, "The Bridges of Madison County" and "Absolute Power".
- kevincollins
February 20, 2009 at 1:01pm
I can't imagine Mickey not getting the best actor in spite of his looniness. It was as brilliant a performance that I have seen since, well, lasts years Javier's performance. I also remember reading about "Let the right one in." Previously one TNR and checked it out. Very desolate movie, greatly acted, incredible ending, and a very, very spooky girl. I don't think it is anywhere near the best movie, but it is the best movie for its genre.
- blackton
February 20, 2009 at 1:16pm
Best movie 2008 "Gran Torino". Its that simple.
- Mac
February 20, 2009 at 2:10pm
Why not take on the foreign film nominees? You go on about the Academy's lackluster sensibility - we know that ALREADY! - yet you're content with going through the motions yourself in this round up. Is there really nothing to be enthusiastic about other than WALL-E and the Dark Night in 2008? Did you see Revanche? Gomorrah? Let the Right One In?
- AiA
February 20, 2009 at 2:38pm
An interesting contest is between Mickey Rourke and Sean Penn. I loved Rourke's performance on every level and loved, loved I say, the movie. But Mickey played himself, did not play against type, much like Dexter Gordon who was brilliant in Round Midnight. I *admired* Sean Penn's performance, thought he played brilliantly against type, but didn't love the movie, though I thought it was good. Biopics often suffer from lack of imaginative expanse. If I was voting, I'd vote for Mickey, because finally him and his movie got me where I love movies and acting to get me, in some meeting place between my guts and my heart.
- blackton
February 20, 2009 at 3:15pm
I found all the nominated films this year, and other "on the bubble" films ("Gran Torino," et al) to be pretty ho-hum. "Milk" is probably the most holistically crafted piece, but it's still a basic bio-pic. And "Slumdog" is certainly heartfelt and energizing, but nothing ground-breaking. "The Reader" is a lazy film, "Frost/Nixon" rather a bore, and "The Curious Case..." while charming and enjoyable can't be called a great film. At least "The Dark Knight" tried to re-invent the popular action film genre and "Wall-E" brought a stunning humanity and moral conscience to a genre usually wallowing in its own cleverness. Both are far worthier than "Frost/Nixon" and "The Reader." But the Academy gets lazy, listens to "buzz" and nominates what it thinks it should when what it REALLY should nominate it doesn't (best example: "The Lives of Others" should have won best picture and not just best foreign film, however miraculous it was that it got that one right in what was a strong year for that category). The Oscars are a homecoming pageant. Every so often the smart brunette wins. Every so often the head of the chess club gets nominated. But usually the perky blond wins. Only the most media-hungry and self-absorbed Hollywood actor thinks that the Oscars reward merit. Ask Harvey Weinstein. He'd campaign for Oscar glory for "Revenge of the Nerds 7" if he had made it... It ain't about who actually DESERVES to be honored.
- shaw-man
February 20, 2009 at 3:35pm
Post 8 was mine. I put Blackton's name in the name slot by error. Sorry Blackton
- itzik basman
February 20, 2009 at 5:12pm
For me, it was a year for French movies. I don't see a lot of French movies normally, but, for some reason, this year I think that I ended up really liking more French movies than American ones. (All of these were first released widely in the U.S. this past year, although several are older than '08.) - The Class: the most pitch-perfect realistic and heartbreaking depiction of a modern classroom anyone will probably ever see on screen. Nobody here is teaching angry black kids that poetry is just another way to rap. - Tell No One: Glossy Hitchcockian thriller with a heart and a mind and Kristen Scott Thomas. - Roman de Gare: Claude Lelouch takes gorgeous pictures, in this case in the service of a glossy Hitchcockian thriller with a heart and a mind and no Kristen Scott Thomas but it's okay. - I've Loved You So Long: Flawed but engaging movie about a just-released maybe-murderer I will see again due to the acting prowess of one Kristen Scott Thomas. - Priceless: Adorable little comedy about an adorable little kept woman and the lowly bartender who becomes a gigolo in order to afford her. Will true love prevail? Yes. Yes it will. - The Last Mistress: "The Sex and the Fury, French Aristocracy Style," said the headline of the NYT review, which pretty much sums it up, except Asia Argento -- whom I didn't know from the cult flicks -- is something else. - A Christmas Tale: A sprawling mess of humanity goes home for Christmas and things ensue. Most memorable is a lack of mother-love and sister-love despite the presence of a mother and a sister. It's another one I think might be flawed but that held me and that I want to see again.
- jhildner
February 21, 2009 at 2:27am
in bruges was great. sharply written, it totally deserves to be in their. Other than that, I haven't watched any of this year's oscar nods. But from what i've heard, I agree with everything you said. For next year, I'm looking forward to terrance malick's next flick. it better be great so i can have something to root for.
- jamesmn
February 21, 2009 at 2:53am
I'm in the position of having seen none of the Best Picture nominees. If there's enough critical support behind a film--as with last year's There Will Be Blood--usually I'll make the effort to get into the cinema, but otherwise they have to wait for my roughly annual trans-Pacific flights. (Generally I can squeeze in five features during each leg of my Melbourne-LA round trip.) This year there was nothing inspiring enough to get me off my can. I did, however, see Wall-E. (I have kids.) I gotta tell ya, Chris, if you think Wall-freakin-E deserves consideration as the best film of the year, your judgment is seriously in question. Wall-E was a cheesy environmental parable that scanned like it had been written by kids in an after-school gifted-and-talented program at some well funded public junior high. Sure, the photo realist effects of the Earth sequences were jaw-dropping--though didn't you find the space-bound fatsos a little disappointing by comparison?--but I'm waiting for the day when CGI gets good enough and cheap enough that some latter day Felini, a true auteur, can unleash computer animation's uncanniness and make an actual piece of art.
- aeromonas
February 21, 2009 at 6:19am
When I was a kid I liked the Oscars. Johnny Carson or Bob Hope hosted, and this or that movie was nominated. Film criticism, to me, is insane. It's words piled on to meaninglessness. "Wall E broght a stunning humanity and moral conscience" -- okay it was about a lonely robot cartoon. The protag was a cute, persistent robot. But the robot had no more "moral conscience" than a fairy tale figure. I mean ask yourself: why did he have a moral conscience? Because he was sad and lonely, he was a child, infantalized. Which is fine, but it has nothing to do with a "moral conscience". It's Hollywood sapp-sucking. A Moral conscience implies tough, complicated choices, and there were none in Wall-E. I guess when he jumped onto to the rocket ship that was a pivotal moral choice, but honestly did you have any doubt about the outcome? Anyway, I still don't see how it's not healthier to hate hollywood.
- Dave
February 21, 2009 at 7:35am
Yes, it's that time of year again, where all the Academy experts come out of the woodwork: "The Academy thinks like this, the Academy doesn't think like that" and grace us with their unsupported opinions (this film/actor/screenplay should have been nominated, that one wasn't) and predictions (this actor/screenplay/film will, that one won't) stated as fact. What a great job, getting paid to watch movies and having opinions for a living! At the very least you'd think they'd hire an actor, a director, a screenwriter to offer up informed opinions -- you know, someone with actual experience and expertise at making movies.
- Danny
February 21, 2009 at 9:29am
"Biopics often suffer from lack of imaginative expanse. " Explain?
- cvh
February 22, 2009 at 1:37am
I'm surprised that the two slum kids who portrayed the hero and heroine of slumdog millionaire have not been considered for best supporting actor/actress. Everyone I know who saw the film remarked that their performance was simply amazing and I agreed. That would be true even if they had some experience as actors. What makes it all the more remarkable was that they didn't; they were genuine slum kids from Mumbai who'd never appeared in front of a movie camera before. They richly deserved to be at least nominated for supporting roles. As an aside here, Director Danny Boyle deserves some of the credit for bringing the best out of them. I heard the kids being interviewed on the BBC and they said, when they saw the camera they were very scared, but Boyle put them at their ease. He was friendly and warm and asked them to just be themselves and act natural. That was the only acting lesson they ever had and it worked brilliantly. No wonder it looked like they weren't acting, they were "being."
- veekay
February 22, 2009 at 5:59am
Let The Right One In WAS best, and Jenkins DESERVED to be nominated, and Wall E is better than all the nominated best pix, yes. Also, Taraji might win because she shoulda won for Hustle & Flow. They do that all the time. Watch Bill Murray win it for the next thing he does, because he shoulda won it for Lost in Translation. And because all these voters are simpletons, they're going to pick Milk because "gay" shoulda won for Brokeback Mountain.
- psantillana
February 22, 2009 at 8:17am
I haven't seen Benjamin Button but Pitt should have been in the Best Supporting list for for Burn After Reading. Yes, Let the Right One In fully deserves to be in the foreign movie slot. It a sensitive, scary, and unflinching movie with a truckload of empathy for its two young protagonists. And Sally Hawkins deserved a nom for Happy-Go-Lucky and it's a sin that she's missing and Doubt's Davis and Adams are both there.
- ironyroad
February 22, 2009 at 5:10pm
HP, it is a pleasure to discover another english speaking individual who has seen Let The Right One In. I doubt i have ever seen a film so riddled with sublime symbology, or delicacy. Nice one.
- Caleb
February 22, 2009 at 5:51pm
I hear people saying La Jolie was good in Changeling and to be honest I cannot understand it so thank God someone agrees. She's a pretty lousy actress and should be confined to the Lara Croft genre (I had the misfortune of watching her movie with Banderas and I have to say that I have never seen two supposedly hot people looking as embarrasingly un-hot in their scenes together). Not surprising Winslet forgot her name. And agree about Jenkins too - and I thought The Visitor itself rang a bit false and cliched with all the djembe, Muslim guy, Black girlriend, repressed white man finding his soul - please!!!!!
- Shama
February 22, 2009 at 6:57pm
No one can fully appreciate how ridiculous the Oscars are until you've seen SHOTGUN STORIES and WENDY AND LUCY, the best American films of 2008.
- Rob
February 22, 2009 at 7:25pm
It was an average year for movies. But there was nothing overly compelling about Wall-E (preachy) nor Revolutionary Road. The nominees were as good as the omissions for the most part. Let the Right One in sounds interesting....I'll have to find it.
- P.E.Overbrook
February 22, 2009 at 11:03pm
I'll third the Let the Right One In props - best film of 2008 by far for me.
- Dan
February 24, 2009 at 6:38pm
I'm going to fourth Let the Right One In. The vampire genre never, ironically, had so much vitality to it.
- Autumn
February 27, 2009 at 1:04am