Oscar picks for what could be a very strange show
From a television point of view, the Oscar broadcast Feb. 24 will be an interesting experiment.
For the first time in memory, the show will not have a host.
Think of it, no one to quip on a bizarre outfit, slip of the tongue, moment of sentimentality, or nervous faux pas of a winner. No one to comment on anything in the audience. No monologue encompassing the nominees and the
2018 film year in general. Ah, my first cavil with the Oscars. Thanks to search engines, Oscar years have turned into the year the award is given, as it will be at 8 p.m. Feb.
24 on Channel 6. In my mind, the Academy Award should always be attached to the year the films were released. To me, these are the 2018 Oscars, for films that made their first appearance in New York and Los Angeles in 2018, and not the 2019 Oscars, the keyword you’d have to use to find out anything about this year’s proceedings in Google and its ilk.
Google, of course, will have last word, even if I’m right.
Back to the host. I’m curious to see how the show will begin. Will it be a montage of nominees? Oscar programs historically do well with montage. Film is, after all their medium.
A lasting problem, even from the glory days of sophisticated broadcasts presided over by Bob Hope and Johnny Carson, is wedding television to what is an industry event, one that can be dry at times.
As a film fan, I’ve never minded the dryness. I consider myself to be an interloper at a major ceremony at which I’ve yet to score an invitation. If award recipients want to make speeches and thank multitudes, I believe it’s their privilege, even if such blabbering violates one of the sacred codes of good television.
Television should come in with production numbers, especially those featuring nominees in music categories such as Best Score and Best Song. Often, these are wretched, overdone affairs that drown the song in production values or resort to choreography television directors don’t have the sensibility to shoot. (Hint: When anyone is dancing, you show the whole leg. Dancing is done primarily with legs.)
This year rare is having nominated songs worth hearing, none of the “Shaft” and “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp” stuff (both winners, 1971 and 2005, by the way).
That gives TV producers a chance to spotlight singers, giving them spotlight instead of moving the camera wildly for the sake of movement or providing dance accompaniment that draws away from the performer and the song, especially when the performer is as electric as Lady Gaga, a nominee in two categories and always worth seeing.
One part of any year’s Oscar broadcast I can do without and usually skip is the report from the runway.
I’d rather drive rusty needles through my eyes that listen to insipid questions from insipid commentators who are more fawning freaks that journalists, hosts, or commentators and who often care more about who designed a dress or suit than anything substantive. Robin Roberts is about the only personality I’ve been able to stomach on a runway show. The rest give a bad name to entertainment coverage, so bad it makes it look as if all show biz reporters deserve it.
So spare yourself Lara Spencer and similar goons and wait until 8 p.m. to see what really counts.
That, is my book, is the celebration of an industry that has done remarkable work from even before the 91 years covered, as of Sunday, by Oscar history.
Movies, more than any live performance or medium, chronicle our times. They exaggerate, of course, but fantasy though they can be, they will inform future generations of the fashions, tastes, attitudes, and customs of given times.
And they entertain while doing it.
Again, I’m a film buff, one who sees more than 100 movies a year and doesn’t mind sitting through trash just to know what it is. One also finds hidden gems that way. If I was giving the Oscar for Best Picture, it would go to a practically unremembered movie called “Juliet Naked.” The female lead of that movie, Rose Byrne, would be my choice above all the nominees for Best Actress.
Now you know why so few of the nominees I prefer to win don’t win.
Since I’ve seen all but one of the nominees (Willem Dafoe in “At Eternity’s Gate”) in the Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, and Best Director categories, here’s a rundown of those field and my thoughts about them.
Hey, someone has to watch these movies, if only to help readers sift through talk about films of which they’ve never heard. Too often, that applies to most of the nominees.
BEST PICTURE: This year, it helped if your movie had a word starting with “B” in the title. The question will be whether Hollywood opts to honor a standard entertainment film such as “Vice,” “A Star in Born,” or “Green Book” over an artistic achievement such as “Roma,” a sprawling work of realism that reminded me of the Italian films from post World War II in the simplicity of its sweep and concentration on slice of life even during moments
of heightened drama, of which there is plenty. Popular or topical movies, such as BlacKkKlansman” or “Black Panther” may also hold sway, even though I doubt they will. “Bohemian Rhapsody” and “The Favourite” round out a varied field. I think the Oscars will go for the classy. “Roma” builds and grabs. It embraces reality and boasts several wonderful performances while using Mexico City — Roma is the lead character, not the setting — like James Joyce meandering Dublin or Orhan Pamuk traipsing throughout Istanbul.
“Roma” would be an historic win for two reasons. It would be the first Oscar victory for a film that was essentially backed by a television company, Netflix, and played on television as it played in the theaters. The marriage between film production and streaming would radiate clearly, and Netflix would have a new and major notch in its already holeriddled belt. It would also be the second black-andwhite foreign language film to receive an Oscar in this decade, the other being 2011’s “The Artist.”
“Roma” is also nominated for Best Foreign Film, the award for which goes to the country of origin, in this case the muchhonored Mexico. Oscar might opt for some diplomacy by giving “Roma” the Foreign Film prize while giving Best Picture to a more commercial product. Certainly, “Green Book,” “Vice,” “A Star in Born,” or even “Black Panther” could fill that bill.
I’m going to a limb, and guessing “Roma” will receive Foreign Film and Best Picture, which may be a another first. I’m blanking while trying to remember another occasion when that happened.
Prediction: Roma; Preference: Bohemian Rhapsody
BEST ACTOR: When “A Star is Born” was released, it looked as if Montgomery County’s Bradley Cooper would ride a high to awards in multiple categories. Then, came the holiday-season blockbusters and washed that all away. Rami Malek as Queen’s Freddie Mercury in “Bohemian Rhapsody” and Christian Bale as Dick Cheney in “Vice” emerged as front runners. Cooper became and is likely to remain an also-ran. So are Willem Dafoe in the sparingly-released “At Eternity’s Gate” — I must catch up with it this week! — and Viggo Mortensen in “Green Book,” though Mortensen has a long-odds chance to pull a surprise.
This is a great field and doesn’t even include Ethan Hawke, who could have been cited for his searing work in “First Reformed” or his gentle, endearing turn in “Juliet Naked,”or “The Wife’s” extraordinary Jonathan Pryce, who I’ll get to in the Best Actress discussion.
It seems most recent Best Actor recipients portray a well-known person — Ray Charles, Truman Capote, Idi Amin, George VI, Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Hawking, Winston Churchill — so why should this year be different. Choosing between Malek, also marvelous in TV’s “Mr. Robot,” and Bale, eternally terrific, is a challenge.
Prediction: Christian Bale for “Vice;” Preference: Rami Malek for “Bohemian Rhapsody.”
BEST ACTRESS: Sentimentality is going to rule here.
I adore Glenn Close. I repeat, I adore Glenn Close. I appreciate she is tied, at six, with Deborah Kerr and Thelma Ritter for the most Oscar nominations without an award. I grant she may have been unfairly overlooked in 1982 and 1988, especially in ‘88 when her work in “Dangerous Liaisons” was the best of anyone’s that year. Heck, I always gloat that Close’s stardom was launched in Philadelphia, when in 1974, Harold Prince replaced Mary Ure for her in “Love for Love,” giving her a Broadway lead and attention she was able to maximize on stage and screen.
I understand why the Academy wouldn’t want a bona fide luminary like Glenn Close to sit unfulfilled for a seventh time. I also know the Academy is not going to let that happen.
“The Wife,” though Close is excellent in it, is the not the movie for which she should win. Heck, she’s outshone in it by her co-star, Jonathan Pryce, who gives an exponentially better performance and should be the one touted for a possible win.
Close competes, but Lady Gaga is the main reason for watching “A Star is Born.” She shows another facet to her talent. Olivia Colman, finally recognized by Oscar contention, is amazing controlled and brilliant in an unattractive portrayal of Britain’s Queen Anne in “The Favourite.” Melissa McCarthy joins the list of actors regarded as comic who excels in an essentially dramatic role in “Can You Even Forgive Me?” And don’t forget the wild card Yalitza Aparicio represents as the title character in “Roma.”
This is a great field, and Close belongs in it, but sorry, Glenn, this year you’re not the best.
Prediction (and I’ll cheer and weep when it happens): Glenn Close for “The Wife.” Preference: Lady Gaga for “A Star is Born”
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: This category always features an amazing field because so many movies offer so many character parts for men. There are always 10 who could take the place of the nominated five. This year, the main competition will be between Mahershala Ali, who could score his second Oscar in three years, for “Green Book” and Richard E. Grant for his witty turn in “Can You Ever Forgive Me?”
Adam Driver may have something to say about that given his overdue recognition for “BlacKkKlansman.” Sam Rockwell also competes for back-to-back accolades for his George W. Bush in “Vice.” Sam Elliott rounds out the category for “A Star is Born” although I would have given the fifth spot to Lin-Manuel Miranda for “Mary Poppins Returns” (as if he needs another award!).
Prediction: Mahershala Ali for “Green Book;” Preference: Mahershala Ali in “Green Book”
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: My choice would be unnominated Clare Foy for “First Man,” but one must move on from the impossible. Besides, this a great field with Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz each nominated for their hilarious turns in “The Favourite,” Regina King getting overdue attention for “If Beal Street Could Talk,” and Marina de Tavira earning her place as the beleaguered wife and mother in “Roma.”
King dealing with adversaries in a Harlem living room and looking determined as she stomps through an airport is formidable and will probably continue her skein of taking 2018 prizes in this category.
Prediction: Regina King for “If Beale Street Could Talk;” Preference: Emma Stone in “The Favourite.”
BEST DIRECTOR: No matter whether “Roma” gets Best Foreign Film or Best Picture or both, its director, Alfonso Cuarón, will be honored for his achievement with the film. This artist with a camera will get his second Oscar, the first coming in 2013 for “Gravity.”