Ranking Best Actor and Best Picture Winners From the 00's

This past decade saw noticeable trends in both of these categories.  The bio-pic was clearly a favored genre in both categories, with Best Actor having more success in winning when nominated.  Despite the apparent popularity of the genre, only one bio-pic (A Beautiful Mind) actually won Oscar's top prize.  Whereas, five of the men that won as lead actor did so for portraying a historical figure.  Best Picture winners were more often given to films in genres the Oscar previously ignored.  This started with Gladiator, only the second sword and sandal epic to win.  This followed with the resurgence of the musical with Chicago's win in 2002 and then again the next year as Return of the King won as the third movie of a fantasy trilogy, not to mention some of the other recent winners.  My preference for the film's and performances follow


Best Picture


9.    Chicago (2002)
8.    Crash (2005)
7.    Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
6.    A Beautiful Mind (2001)
5.   Million Dollar Baby (2004)
4.   Gladiator (2000)
3.   The Departed (2006)
2.   No Country For Old Men (2007)
1.   The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)


Best Actor


9.  Jamie Foxx - Ray (2004)
8.  Denzel Washington - Training Day (2001)
7.  Adrien Brody - The Pianist (2002)
6.  Sean Penn - Milk (2008)
5.  Phillip Seymour Hoffman - Capote (2005)
4.  Russell Crowe - Gladiator (2000)
3.  Forest Whitaker - The Last King of Scotland (2006)
2.  Sean Penn - Mystic River (2003)
1.  Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood (2007)

The Politics of Avatar and Hurt Locker - Hype or Real?

One of the major plotlines of this Oscar season has revolved around the politics or lack thereof in The Hurt Locker.  As with most war films it’s difficult not to read some political subtext into Kathryn Bigelow’s masterful film.  Unlike her ex-husband’s film Avatar, Bigelow doesn’t bludgeon her audience with her message.  Whether Bigelow was successful in her attempt to show the dehumanizing aspects of war is debatable, what she does shows is that for even the most modest of people war can change them fundamentally.  Now that the film has reached frontrunner status, it has earned detractors.  Much of this has been highlighted by the recent news that one of the film’s producers has been sending emails asking voters for vote for the film.  Yet, many of these negative voices how come from veterans of our conflict in Iraq.  This only serves to heighten the political nature of the film.

Many of these negative voices have been raised about the realism of what is depicted, despite the so-called “independent” nature of the film; it presents a Hollywood version of war.  Regardless of intentions, the film is still profiting of a conflict in which we are still engaged.  Bigelow can make the point of how her film has anti-war message, the film works because it so exhilarating.  I’m as guilty as anyone for being caught up in the thrill ride; after all it is very well made.  Any political intentions are secondary to the audience identifying with these characters.      

Another point of controversy to arise over the last month is regarding Bigelow’s gender.  Many of the detractors have said she winning her awards based on her gender, rather than her work as a director.  To be sure Bigelow is not one of the top directors working today, but neither is she a complete hack.  As much as her supporters would like to beg to differ, at some level the fact she is a woman is driving their desire to see her win.  Considering no female director has ever won has to play on us at even a subconscious level.  The fact she has made a really good film heightens this desire.  This holds true to both men and women, women who want a support of girl power and guys that some sexiness added to the proceedings.  To be clear I fully support her win, but the work of other directors in this field does not make her a clear favorite and a win by any of them would not be a travesty.

Avatar on the other hand wears its politics on James Cameron’s sleeve.   Cameron’s action films in the past have always relied on underlying social messages to propel them past your average action flick.  With Titanic he extended those messages to class distinction and the arrogance of the rich.  I’m not so sure he is aware of his own arrogance, but seeing as hubris has yet to catch up with him, I think he remains acutely blind to it.  With Avatar he comments further on environmentalism, but also our unifying humanity.  Many have praised its criticism of imperialism and capitalism, others point out that it’s another story of a white man saving a native culture.  These debates make Avatar more controversial while also keeping the spotlight on it, an aspect that should hinder its chances of winning.

We haven’t been treated to such political questions regarding the Best Picture race since 2005 when Crash stole Brokeback’s thunder.  Both liberal films to be sure and the Academy certainly felt like they were being noble in honoring a film about race.  However, the film presents a very simplistic view on race relations, we all have prejudice but can also do great good and for such a large ensemble the audience is never given a chance to connect with many of the characters.   The fact that they passed over the more liberal minded Brokeback Mountain remains a head scratcher.  I’ve never been entirely convinced that its tale of forbidden love is a timeless classic, but the film was still much stronger than the mediocre Crash.      

Wrapping things up, I should note that Avatar is very much a war film, so the political debates remain just as relevant for it as they do for Hurt Locker.  Yet, despite the position of some Hut Locker isn’t a complex art film.  The movie plays out more as pure entertainment than many of the other nominees.  District 9 while highly entertaining is also very political, same holds true for Inglourious Basterds.  Precious has also been the center of political backlash and its focus on an inner-city teen certainly puts a large focus on race and class.  Lastly, The Blind Side has been bashed by many as being a Republican movie.  Of course that it seems to represent a Hollywood understanding of Republicans is rarely discussed.  With just a week to go expect these discussions to increase, and continue after the victor is announced.  

Avatar and the Actors?

One aspect that seems to be glossed over in the discussion of the Best Picture race is Avatar's lack of a SAG ensemble nomination.  Since the SAG started handing out awards some 15 years ago the only film to win Best Picture without it was Braveheart.  Given that many actor's mgiht not be too keen on Avatar's use of technology could hinder the movie even further.  Yes, of the favorites it's the most emotional, but given how cutting edge it is I wonder how much the older members of the Academy will be behind it?  Just some food for thought.  I hope to have another spreadsheet up on Monday chronicling the history of the Best Picture award and then my final predictions later next week.

The "New" Rules of Oscar Season

Matthew Belloni over at The Hollywood Reporter wrote a rather concise and insightful article regarding "old" Oscar rules as they apply to this year's slate of ten nominees.  The gist of Belloni's argument is that despite the supposed changing of the Oscar race, the expanded field did little to change the state of the race.  Admittedly the slate of nominees matches up well with the usual field of nominees, but with an extra five pictures thrown in.  Despite the lack of change I've been firmly on the record regarding my support for the ten nominee field.  Movies that have otherwise missed the shortlisted have been allowed their just recognition (District 9 and Up being my two favorites).  There are plenty of quibbles regarding the lack of Star Trek, The Hangover, (500) Days of Summer and Moon among others, but these films have always fallen outside of the usual Academy favorites.  A few short thoughts on Belloni's rules follow:



1. "No Laughing Matter" 


As Belloni points out, Annie Hall was the last fully comedic film to win Best Picture at the Oscar, though the film was released in 1977 not 1976.   Very few films have even successfully earned that coveted Best Picture nomination.  Instead comedies are usually reserved for nominations in the Screenplay categories, and occasionally acting categories.  Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda and Alan Arkin in Little Miss Sunshine are some of the few examples of awards winning performances from comedies in recent years.  Many expected the expanded field to benefit The Hangover or It's Complicated,  but The Hangover is too much of a "guys nite out" and It's Complicated failed to gain the needed reviews of box office.  However, (500) Days of Summer is a quirkier comedy and more romantic than the other two, a quality lacking in the other two, but its lack of screenplay nomination doomed this critical favorite.  A greater inclination towards comedies would have been appreciated, but for now the Academy looks just as adverse to laughing as before.


2. "Brand Support"


Belloni's next point focused on The Coen Brothers and A Serious Man.  Given the Academy's inclination towards the Coen Brothers I was less than surprised than others to see this make their short list.  A Serious Man had serious supporters to help propel it towards a nomination in a nomination process that favors fervent support in small pockets as much as it does wide-spread acclaim.  In the past the iconic brothers needed their film to garner enough broad support to make the short list, but with the expanded field it only made sense for them to sneak in with a nomination.  Had the field been expanded to ten in the past I'm sure O'Brothe Where Art Thou would have been a nominee.  If the Academy likes a writer or director they get stuck on that director, look at Woody Allen's many writing nomination.  Much like Joel and Ethan, Woody would have likely seen more success in the Best Picture field.  The expanded field also benefited Pixar, as Up finally got the Lords of Animation a coveted Best Picture nomination, something I'm sure most other Pixar films would have achieved.    


3. "Performance Art"


This is one category I'm less inclined to side with Belloni on.  Belloni's assertion is that a performance with strong buzz (Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side) can propel a movie towards a best picture nomination now.  However, he seems to neglect that Jeff Bridges couldn't translate that buzz into a nomination for Crazy Heart.  Of course The Blind Side has made close to 200 million more than Crazy Heart, so box office success may have influenced part The Blind Side's inclusion.  Belloni cites performances of Bates, Lange and Theoron in their Oscar winning performances as films that won Best Actress without any other nomination.  However, for much of the same reason Bridges' performance (though Crazy Heart took two other nominations) those movies lacked the box office pull of The Blind Side.  Whether strong performances will fuel other Oscar nominations in the future seems more questionable to me.


4. "Cost of Doing Business"


Oscar campaigning has become a major part of the Awards season, and strong campaigns can certainly help in gaining actors and movies nominations.  In the past this hasn't always worked, Road to Perdition had a beautiful campaign some eight years ago, only to receive six nominations without making the shortlist in Picture.  Campaigns also help voters stay aware of smaller films they might otherwise miss, Little Miss Sunshine had a campaign critical to its awards success.  The Hurt Locker this has also used a well run campaign this past Winter.  Yet as Belloni correctly points independent films like Hurt Locker are funded by distributors with considerable clout and more money to spend then truly marginal distributors like Magnolia or Oscilloscope have.  Belloni points to the later distributor's failed effort to gain a picture nomination for The Messenger.  Belloni is dead on when he says you still need money to get your film in the coveted ten.


5. "Franchise flounder"


Belloni's last rule focuses on the lack of franchise films in the field of 10. However, I don't know if citing Harry Potter supports his argument, as the Harry Potter series has never garnered serious consideration at the Oscars.  The Academy still sees the series as geared towards youngsters to seriously consider it.  On the other hand is reference of Star Trek makes a strong argument.  However, Stat Trek is seen largely as a genre film (Sci-Fi) something the Academy avoids, particularly the sci-fi genre.  Yes, District 9 gained a nomination, but that also boasted larger critical support.  There was certainly hope that a commercial hit like Star Trek could make the field, but without the universal acclaim a franchise type film is still going to be shutout.   


My only problem with Belloni's list is his lack of attention towards genre films in general.  Genre films were expected to make a larger impact on the race given the expanded field, but aside from District 9 genre films struggled again.  Additionally, his exclusion of Up when talking about many of these categories is also confusing, Up seems to support several of his arguments.  Of course we might have to wait next year to see how these rules hold up again, but for now the movies that make the most sense next year should be our ten nominated movies.  

Hello Clarice

Last weekend was the nineteenth birthday of The Silence of the Lambs, a great movie to be released right after Valentine's Day.  I'll be watching this Oscar weekend in my celebration of Oscar winners - until then heres a clip

Five Favorite Oscar Winners

Not really a list of what consider the greatest Oscar winners, but a small listing of a few of my favorites listed chronologically.

On the Waterfront (1954)

Featuring Marlon Brando's greatest performance and the won for which he won his first Oscar, On the Waterfront is highly deserving of the many accolades it has received in the last 55 years. Brando's embodiment of Terry Malloy fuels this great drama of a dockworker taking a stand against the mob control of the docks. Also featuring an award winning performance from Eva Marie Saint and a terrific supporting cast, On the Waterfront is required viewing.

Patton (1970)

Patton's success hinges on George C. Scott's towering portrayal of World War II's infamous general. From the opening monologue Scott and director Franklin Schaffner hook the audience into Patton's world. Scott nails down the dominant figure of Patton, while never forgetting that he was still just a man. Patton remains one of the greatest biopics, but also works effectively well as a war film.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)

One of the few Best Picture winners known just as well for its source material, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a shining example of 70's cinema. Jack Nicholson's winning performance helped to mold as the crazy persona for which he is now famous for. Louise Fletcher is also terrific as the oppressive nurse, emasculating the men she treats. The theme of male identity is fully fleshed out by the supporting cast of patients. Ken Kesey never liked this adaptation, which skipped over several key themes of his novel. Regardless of Kesey's opinion, the movie succeeds through its terrific performances, a great script and assured direction.

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Like the Cuckoo's Nest, Silence of the Lambs dominated the Oscars in its respective year, by winning both lead acting categories, Best Director and Screenplay to sweep the five major awards. Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster both fit comfortably in their roles and have terrific chemistry despite being separated by glass and bars. Hopkins manages to frighten us, but at the same time appreciate Lecter's intellect, while Foster stands strong as a woman standing out in a world dominated by men. The movie never fully receives its proper due for exploring themes of gender identity and personal identity, but Ted Tally's writing fleshes out this context for Thomas Harris' novel. Lastly Jonathon Demme's direction prevents the film from becoming a simple procedural drama.

American Beauty (1999)
Some have claimed this movie hasn't aged as well over the past decade, and admittedly 1999 had better movies that could have taken the Oscar. However, after intially being on the fence with it, American Beauty has grown into a favorite movie of mine. Kevin Spacey leads a terrific cast of people trapped in conventions of surbibia. What has led them down this path is not important, what is important is how they respond when they realize that happiness has eluded them for years. The movie isn't as anti-family as it might appear, but rather demonstrates how easily we can get trapped by those conventions. Aside from the cheesiness of the dancing bag, American Beauty reminds us not get too caught up in commercialism or success at the expense of our soul.

Other Favorites: It Happened One Night (1934), Rebecca (1940), The Best Years of Our Lives (1946), Marty (1955), The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), The Apartment (1960), Lawrence of Arabia (1962), The French Connection (1971), The Godfather I,II (1972,74), Annie Hall (1977), The Deer Hunter (1978), Amadeus (1984), The Last Emperor (1987), Unforgiven (1992), Braveheart (1995), Return of the King (2003), The Departed (2006), No Country For Old Men (2007)

Worst Best Picture Winners

The last two days I took a look at overrated and some under-appreciated Best Pictures. Today I look at some of the worst movies to win the big prize. Many of the titles considered were from the early days of the prize, which have not aged particularly well. I've narrowed the list to five, but could've included several more. Once such example was Elia Kazan's Gentleman's Agreement which is simply a dated movie about anti-Semitism in America. A good movie for its time no doubt, but the emotional impact has been mooted over the last several decades. Other movies just prove to be rather ordinary (In the Heat of the Night, Chariots of Fire, Kramer vs. Kramer, A Beautiful Mind). Look tomorrow for a list of five of my favorite Oscar winners.

5. The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)

Cecil B. DeMille's lone Oscar winner is a bloated epic, that was a box office smash of 1952. A prime example of a movie owing its success to large cast of stars, The Greatest Show on Earth lacked a story then and nothing memorable for modern audiences to care about.

4. Out of Africa (1985)

Out of Africa has beautiful cinematography and little else going for it. One of Meryl Streep's least impressive performances and a less than compelling romance make for one of the Academy's larger bores. There is nothing inherently terrible about this movie, but neither does is it compelling. To care about someone's affair you must first care about the character, and the movie doesn't portray that effectively. However, the movie had little competition and easily won the Oscar.


3. Cimarron (1931)

An early Western that takes place over several decades, but fails to engage the audience in any meaningful way. Cimarron is a rather difficult movie to sit through and to keep your attention on. The story lacks any connective tissue to scenes and time frames, and its racial stereotypes have shown how we have progressed.

2. Shakespeare in Love (1998)

If you read my column Wednesday you know why

1. Gigi (1958)
I hated this movie, from its arranged marriage of a 14 year old to the disturbing opening number Thank Heaven For Little Girls. Gigi continually asserts that young girls exist only to be shaped by other women to marry men and little else, yet argues that our title character somehow falls in love with the douchebag Gaston. Containing not one catchy song or a character to care about along with its horrible story and disgusting themes Gigi easily takes the crown as my least favorite Best Picture.

Oscar Upset in the Works?

We're just over two weeks from the Oscars, with many of the major categories seemingly locked up. However, with the later date of this year's ceremony it's difficult to gauge which direction the buzz is building for certain films and performances. It’s best to try and not to over think certain performances and movies. As much as you want to find an upset in Best Actor, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress races, the truth is all the precursors and buzz point to a foregone conclusion in these races. James Cameron and Quentin Tarantino might pose a threat to Bigelow, but it seems like there is enough support to propel her to victory, regardless of the Best Picture outcome. The two major categories that are most in question remain Best Picture and Best Actress.

Best Actress
Since Bullock's win at the SAG's, people have jumped on the Bullock bandwagon, but her win has never felt that secure. The Blind Side certainly has support as evidenced by its Best Picture nomination, but how deep does that love run? As beloved of an actress as Bullock is, she also lacks the sentiment of being overdue for an Oscar victory. Her SAG win has more to do with the respect she has among all actors, a voting base deeper than that of the actor's branch in the Academy. For many of those voters Bullock is a far fresher face to them than Streep. How deep does that love run outside of the actor's branch?

Despite Streep's two previous victories there seems to be large sentiment that she deserves a third Oscar and her first 27 years. Yet, Streep's performance also comes from a movie that was hardly a critical darling; neither movie seems to be headed to all-time esteem. After comparing these two "lightweight" movies, Streep's performance had garnered more love and praise and that goes a long way in determining a winner. Streep has the further edge in that I expect her to garner more consideration from the other branches (writers, producers, editors, etc) where the Bullock love may not run as deep.

I have read other bloggers that have wondered rather Gabourey Sidibe or Carey Mulligan could win. I won't count out either surprising us with a win, but Sidibe's performance seems to have been lost in the Mo'Nique buzz. Far more likely is Mulligan's chance for a victory Incidents of voter splits have happened in the past (Art Carney beating Jack Nicholson and Al Pacino being the most infamous.) However, I'm most reminded of the Oscars for 2002, when Jack Nicholson and Daniel Day-Lewis were fighting it out for the Best Actor statuette. Yet, in the end Adrien Brody came sweeping in for the surprise win and a kiss of Halle Berry. To that point the only significant win Brody had taken was from the Boston Film Critics, so Brody was barely on the radar come Oscar night. Granted The Pianist gave Chicago a scare by winning Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay, indicting some deep love for Polanski's film. An Education does have its strident following, particularly for Mulligan's performance, while remaining a contender in the Adapted Screenplay category. Mulligan is also young and pretty, an attribute that the Academy likes in their lead actresses (in less Katherine Hepburn is involved). Mulligan's performances has its supporters, whether it has enough to win in case of a vote split is unknown.

Best Picture
The Best Picture race is still very much in flux, which is always a good thing. Oscar night is poised to be Avatar vs. The Hurt Locker, a battle of big and small films. Additionally we have ten nominees for the first time in close to 70 years, a decision that has met considerable criticism. Criticism I have found unfounded as the list of nominees includes blockbusters, moderate hits, critical darling and independent hits. Despite the field of ten nominees most people have boiled this down to a two horse race. However, a growing sentiment has arisen that Inglourious Basterds will take the win, or if you listen Kris Tapley over at InContention that Up or Up in the Air are the stealth contenders given the preferential balloting system.

I'm more inclined to side with Kris on this one, as much fun as Basterds is, Tarantino is a still a very divisive filmmaker, which could hurt his film in balloting. This is much my argument against Avatar a film with many lovers, but lacks love across the board. Furthermor, James Cameron's epic has lost buzz since the Globes and even lost some of its box office luster. By the way, I'm less convinced the Globes win means anything, of the last five Best Picture winners only Slumdog Millionaire won at the Globes as well. Yet, The Hurt Locker is hampered by its small gross, something this is somewhat negated by its successful DVD run. Despite its prestige and Oscar's love for the war genre, I never got the feeling of it being an Academy movie either. The movie justly received critical praise and most of the critic awards, but neither did feel like the personal dramas that the Academy tends to favor. If we wanted to predict the win solely on this Precious or Up in the Air would be the likely favorites. Was it so long ago that these two were the favorites?

Given this we must look at the preferential ballot system, which rewards a movie that has a broad range of love not just small pockets of fervor. Up in the Air is far more likely to have broader support than Precious a movie that has garnered considerable criticism since its critical peak. Up is another movie with broad appeal, however it's hampered for being the frontrunner of Animated Film. However, The Hurt Locker has also owns universal love, all three films have been listed towards the tops of many top ten lists. With three movies poistioned with broad support, its difficult to go against the favorite.

Five Most Overrated Best Picture Winners

The Academy has created plenty of controversy in the past selecting such winners as Ordinary People over Raging Bull, Crash and Forrest Gump among others. This list represents my opinion of the five most overrated Best Picture winners. I have excluded those pictures that have lost luster over time (Cimarron,Greatest Show on Earth, Around the World in 80 Days, but rather films that maintained a healthy following.

5. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

The universal acclaim for this movie still baffles me as the movie is a rather simple telling of a modern day Dickensian storyline. The movie certainly has some thrilling scenes, but beyond that the storyline is very conventional. A movie without memorable characters and forced antagonism along with a traditional frantic Hollywood ending that doesn't belong or fit with the rest of the movie. An entertaining movie, but worthy of high praise it is not.

4. The Sting (1973)

A rather strange anomaly in the Best Picture canon, a movie of pure entertainment winning the big prize. Considering some of the other challenging movies of the 70's to win, The Sting simply feels out of place. The movie contains a great cast and is a rather enjoyable, but neither is it memorable. Considering some of the other challenging and more memorable films of 1973, The Sting's victory seem all the stranger.

3. Chicago (2002)

More of Hollywood's apology for not rewarding Moulin Rouge the year before, Chicago provides a few entertaining musical numbers, without a story to care about. Musical sequences have nothing to do with the story and rarely flesh out the characters. By the way the characters are selfish and nasty, hardly traits to identify with. Granted I'm no fan of musicals, but the Academy could've done much better than this bland release, considering The Two Towers, About Schmidt, The Pianist, Far From Heaven and Road to Perdition were also released that year.
2.My Fair Lady (1964)

Just another musical I just don't get. Beloved for its star Audrey Hepburn, My Fair Lady is an overlong production of an overdone story.

1. Shakepeare in Love (1998)

I've started watching this three times, I fell asleep three times, enough said.