Tweet

EMAIL

PRINT

Comments (0)

Related articles and links |  1 of 6

I have yet to meet someone who believes that members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have a good sense of which movie is Best Picture of the Year.

Everyone knows that the Oscars are more a popularity contest than a celebration of artistic excellence. Each year, awards are delegated by Hollywood insiders, mostly actors, who tend to give films as much credit for financial success, political trendiness, and sentimentality as they do for artistic excellence. You can usually bet against titles that were challenging or innovative. And meaning? If a movie says what an audience wants to hear (American Beauty, Shakespeare in Love), it's far more likely to win awards than a movie that profoundly portrays discomforting truths (The Ice Storm, Saving Private Ryan.)

This year is no exception. For instance, almost everyone expects Martin Scorsese will win the Oscar for Best Director this year because he has never won before—not for his actual work on Gangs of New York, a subpar Scorsese picture. The only nominee considered a challenger is Rob Marshall (Chicago), who is being credited as "bringing back the musical." (No one seems to remember Baz Luhrman's Moulin Rouge from last year, or Lars Von Trier's Dancer in the Dark the year before that.)

People are drawn to the Oscars year after year for the spectacle, expensive clothes and jewelry, glimpses of favorite stars in candid moments, emotional acceptance speeches, and the suspenseful game of who's going to win. I enjoy those all-too-rare occasions when someone who poured heart and soul into a project of excellence is actually recognized for the achievement.

You can join me as the awards are handed out on Oscar night, March 23 at 5:30 p.m. (PST) and 8:30 p.m. (EST), to boo, hiss, cheer, and chat about the films of 2002. Just log on to this link and follow along as the show proceeds. While other chats focus on opinions about Halle Berry's dress (or lack thereof), we'll be exchanging opinions, questions, and preferences about which films were most worthy of praise, exploration, and second viewings.

Regarding who will win or lose, J. Robert Parks (The Phantom Tollbooth) says this year's Oscar program has already fumbled: "Given the extraordinarily high number of great films [released in 2002], it was merely inevitable that there'd be some disappointments when Oscar nominations were announced. What I didn't expect, though, was that the Academy would actually look beyond the cream of the crop and honor movies and performances that were just average or worse."

Parks believes the Best Picture award should go to The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, but that The Hours or The Pianist will take home the award. Regarding Chicago, Parks writes, "Let's be honest. It's not a great movie. The decision to cast actresses who aren't singers or dancers makes for wonderful acting and embarrassing attempts to mask their flaws. For a dance movie, the editing in Chicago is atrocious, never giving you a chance to actually see the footwork and choreography. That this piece of fluff was nominated over much more substantial fare … is a serious mistake."

I agree with Parks that the nomination of Chicago is disappointing. There were many titles far more deserving—Punch-Drunk Love, Monsoon Wedding, Spirited Away, The Rookie, and The Quiet American to name a few. But I feel Chicago will beat out the competition. Its victory will be an even greater disgrace than last year's claim that A Beautiful Mind was a greater achievement than Gosford Park or The Fellowship of the Ring.

next page... |  1 of 6

March (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47