Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Richard Gere gets snubbed, gay directors romp, Diane Lane wins one for the tramps, and Polanski is still at large -- but he might take home the golden nude.
Feb 12, 2003 | Most everything fell into place with this year's Oscar nominations. Perhaps the only "What the hell?" omission was Richard Gere from the best actor list. Otherwise, Meryl Streep had a mixed day, "Lord of the Rings" got set up for next year and the nasty musical "Chicago" ran off with 13 nominations, helping Miramax, with four best-picture nominations, rout DreamWorks in its ongoing Oscar feud.
Besides being just about the only person connected with "Chicago" not nominated, Gere actually did something we haven't seen him do -- unlike the five men who were nominated. The relish with which he sang and danced, and the delightful way he balanced sleaze and charm, resulted in the most buoyant performance of his career. Instead, the Academy nodded at Adrien Brody for brooding in "The Pianist," Nicolas Cage's deadpan bemusement in "Adaptation," Michael Caine's beautiful soul-searching in "The Quiet American," Daniel Day-Lewis' overacting in "Gangs of New York" and Jack Nicholson for "stretching" by underplaying his role in "About Schmidt."
The miscast Nicholson was hardly believable as an uptight, buttoned-down Midwesterner, but sometimes just being Jack Nicholson is enough for a nomination. Until this morning, Nicholson had been the favorite to win, but since the film received only one other nomination -- for Kathy Bates as supporting actress -- there is evidently a lack of affection for it among Academy members. Nicholson is not out of the race, but it's no longer an easy win. Day-Lewis might be a front-runner, but how must Billy Zane feel? He was lambasted for his ludicrous villain in "Titanic," and Day-Lewis received a nomination for the same performance.
The only bright spot for Gere is that his omission has already brought him more attention than a nomination would have. A Gere nomination would have been "Chicago's" 14th, which would have tied the film with all-time leaders "All About Eve" and "Titanic." But it was good to see that, in honoring Bill Condon's "Chicago" screenplay, the writers branch showed that it understood that writing the screenplay for a musical involves creating structure for the film and the tricky integration of songs and narrative, not simply coming up with banter between production numbers.
At this point, "Chicago" is the obvious favorite for best picture. The two runners-up in nominations, Martin Scorsese's "Gangs of New York" and Stephen Daldry's "The Hours," both seem to have as many detractors as fans. In the tradition of little-remembered past best-picture nominees "The Dresser" and "The Accidental Tourist," "The Hours" is merely this year's most self-consciously "literate" release -- not a film for the ages.
Although it is highly unlikely that "Gangs of New York" will win instead -- it's too messy and unfocused -- there already has been a concerted movement to get Martin Scorsese the best director Oscar, thus turning the category into a lifetime achievement award. Steven Spielberg has been pushing for him, as has Miramax's Harvey Weinstein, even though the other favorite in this category is Rob Marshall for "Chicago" (also a Miramax picture). Apparently, Weinstein is one of those people who would come right out and tell you which one of his children is his favorite.
Actually, Roman Polanski, nominated for the third time for best director ("The Pianist"), is every bit as -- and arguably more -- deserving of a career award as Scorsese. This is, after all, the man who made "Rosemary's Baby," "Repulsion," "Chinatown," "Tess" and "The Tenant." He's also older than Scorsese and has been making films for a longer time, so is more overdue. Nominated for seven awards, Polanski's "The Pianist" may actually have the best shot at upsetting "Chicago." It's a Holocaust film that looks at the Holocaust from an unusual perspective; it focuses on emotional and spiritual degradation, taking a slightly cool, distant approach to the material. It remains to be seen whether Polanski's fugitive status will have any bearing on his Oscar chances. There is a chance that because his transgression was having sex with an underage girl, the so-called family-values gang will protest his nomination. That in turn may result in a backlash from those who insist it's the art that should be judged, not the artist. In an Oscar season that has yet to provide any controversy, we may well see things heat up.
It was a mixed day for Meryl Streep, but a big one for Julianne Moore. With a best supporting actress shot for "Adaptation," Streep now has 13 nominations, breaking Katharine Hepburn's record for the most ever. At the same time, she was overlooked for her part in "The Hours," while the Academy acknowledged costars Nicole Kidman and Julianne Moore, as best actress and best supporting actress, respectively (even though Moore had more screen time than Kidman). Moore is also up for best actress in Todd Haynes' '50s melodrama-style "Far From Heaven." She is the ninth person nominated in two acting categories in the same year.
There's no clear front-runner for best actress, although Kidman, Moore and "Chicago's" Renée Zellweger are in the best position. The brevity of Kidman's appearance -- about 30 minutes -- may work against her, if not the almost comical manner in which she portrayed mental illness, furrowing her brow and looking off into the distance, more flummoxed than emotionally disturbed. Julianne Moore's performance as a troubled housewife may be too passive to impress a plurality of the voters, and the Academy as a whole was not, unlike most film critics, smitten with Haynes' postmodernist exercise. Meanwhile, Zellweger has exuberant star quality in "Chicago," but it's traditionally more difficult for performers in musicals to win than their dramatic counterparts.
Critics' darling Diane Lane received a nomination for Adrian Lyne's "Unfaithful," which is the trashiest movie to receive a major Oscar nomination since Adrian Lyne's "Fatal Attraction"; it's also probably too minor a vehicle to take her to victory. The same might be true of the little-seen Frida Kahlo biopic "Frida," which nonetheless earned Salma Hayek a best actress nomination for her interpretation of the Mexican artist, as well as five other nominations. (But nothing for Alfred Molina, whose performance as Diego Rivera was the most impressive element in the film.)
It used to be a rule of thumb that a performer nominated in both the lead and supporting categories would take home the latter prize, but that has not been the case the last four times the situation has occurred. Although Julianne Moore's certainly not out of the running, Meryl Streep and, especially, "Chicago's" Catherine Zeta-Jones are more likely to prevail, unless voters are turned off by Zeta-Jones' wailing in court about her wedding pictures.
