Wednesday, 13 December 2000

RANTING & RAVING

THE SECOND OSCAR COLUMN 2000

Here we go... the critics are about to ring in on the year’s best films and, this year, I think they will have a lot more than usual to do with the Oscar race. Why? Because we have just one or two obvious, "Academy-type" choices and many wonderful, small, challenging, rich films.

When I wrote the first Oscar column just before Thanksgiving (THB 11/22), there were six movies that I thought were potentially important which I still hadn’t seen... I found a few more. I believed in a couple of locks, which I now have to worry about. And the early fall buzz still seemed to have a better hold prior to the holiday movie blizzard. But now, I have seen every movie in anything approaching contention. And so, somewhat suicidally, I will go back in for a second bite at the apple before the critics groups start weighing in. Then I can get to the real work of coming up with my personal annual Top Ten, Worst Ten, and Ten I Didn’t Get lists.

Gee, and to think that if I started counting trade ads and mentions in major newsmagazines, I could be as insightful as Inside.com’s insidious "Oscar Watch" and pretend that all of this made scientific sense... as opposed to just feeling the wind (and the spit in the wind) as it breezes by.

STILL OBVIOUS

Erin Brockovich -- This remains the only movie that everyone seems to agree will be a big-time multiple nominee. As the year continues, it seems that the idea of Julia Roberts winning the Oscar is actually gaining steam. If there is a Best Picture lock, this is it.

THE BATTLEGROUND MOVIES

Three major movies have three major hills to climb. They are amongst the best movies of the year and will likely be amongst the best movies of this decade, but all three make audiences uncomfortable. And, looking at the critics they make uncomfortable, there may be a correlation to Academy voters, who are a bit older and more conservative than the average art house audiences in their towns (New York and Los Angeles). I would be thrilled to see all three nominated for Best Picture and for awards down the line. But it is going to be a fight.

Traffic -- A movie about drug trafficking and the lives it touches. Fifteen percent of the film is in Spanish. The only comfortable answer the film gives is, "Try harder." Not very comfortable. I think it’s by far Soderbergh’s best movie this year, and I love Brockovich. He brings together form and function and makes the audience think from start to finish. People who don’t understand the Benecio Del Toro story line are either stupid or not paying attention. But they are out there, and they are bad-mouthing a work of true genius. There has never been a better movie about drugs and there has never been a film that finds a more honest balance. Let’s hope the Academy can embrace the truth. My guess is that they’ll nominate it but never choose to vote it any award win.

Quills -- Hollywood’s moralists have lined up against this film. What can I tell you? I think it is wonderfully entertaining, beautifully acted, dark, funny, angry, and brilliant. Yes, it is theatrical... but why wasn’t that a problem for Shakespeare in Love or, for god’s sake, The Cider House Rules? Why? Because those were feel-good films. Quills throws the responsibility right back in your face. People don’t always like that. I wish I knew for sure. Critics groups could be very influential here.

Before Night Falls -- An absolute masterpiece. A gay Cuban poet is oppressed from birth to death and yet keeps expressing what his soul demands. There is grime and pain and gay sex and rage and prison and feces and fear and sadness. And I don’t know that I’ve seen anything more beautiful all year.

It’s funny. This trio of films really fits together. All are about oppressive bureaucracies. All are heavy on hypocrisy. All are highly stylized. Two have experienced directors working at the top of their game, while the third is, remarkably, just a second film. None of the three can be reduced to a "high concept" pitch. All three come from art arms of majors. (A bit of a reach with USA and Traffic, though USA has become a kind of Miramax to Universal.)

The battle is on.

THE "NEW" PLAYER

Pollock -- Well, it’s new to me. I couldn’t get in at Toronto and, for whatever reasons, Sony Classics didn’t make an effort to get me to see the film until I asked about it on Monday, after being reminded by a trailer before I saw Snatch on Sunday. There are controversies about whether Ed Harris was as tough on Pollock as he could have or should have been. I’m ignorant about Pollock’s life, so I don’t care. I just saw what I saw in the movie. And it was quite good. I don’t think it’s a Best Picture contender, and the gridlock for Best Adapted Screenplay will probably damn the chances of screenwriters Barbara Turner and Susan Emshwiller. But Ed Harris seems a real likely Best Actor nominee and Marcia Gay Harden could sneak into the Best Actress race. Two amazing performances. And who knows? Amy Madigan’s delightful turn as Peggy Guggenheim could shock the world and steal a nod in the weak Supporting Actress category.

THE HAPPY LONGSHOTS

What Women Want

Chocolat

Remember the Titans

The Family Man

These four movies are going to be popular with audiences; they have a kind of light, happy feel by the end, as well as very strong lead performances. None of them would be legitimate Oscar contenders in a "regular" year. (I’d love to see Inside.com’s stats on "regularity." Ha!) But with the challenges of Traffic and Before Night Falls and Quills, who knows? It’s unlikely that more than one could leap up from the pack, but one could.

PAGE TWO: More Oscar Play-ahs & A Chocolate-Covered ROTD