Once a year, Siskel & Ebert used to do a show entitled
“Memo to the Academy” in which they would give their recommendations for worthy
recipients of Oscar nominations. They were usually pretty insightful, often
very fair, and almost always completely ignored. It made for an interesting
discussion, in any case. Now that they’re both dead, nobody does as good a job
of offering up hypothetical honorees. I don’t presume I’m anywhere near the
caliber of critic that Siskel or Ebert were, but I feel more qualified to offer
up my suggestions this year over any previous year. My Cinetopia Golden Ticket
combined with my regular visits to the Hollywood Theatre means I’ve seen pretty
much every movie worth seeing in 2013. Since the 86th annual Academy Award nominations will be announced tomorrow, I thought I’d submit my own
today.
The thing that infuriates me about the Oscar nominations
ever year is how political they are. They’ll often nominate somebody reputable
who’s coming to the end of their career just because they never won before. Or,
they’ll nominate somebody who should have won last year because the person who
actually did win last year should
have won the year before. Then, of
course, there’s favoritism shown to films with a combined box office and
critical success when lesser-known (but equally good, if not better) smaller
films go ignored. They often confuse good writing with good acting and vice
versa. And, this may sound paranoid, but I think they snub certain people that
they think might give an inflammatory acceptance speech in the event that they
win.
In my fantasy world (which you are about to get a glimpse of), I have
tried to select nominations (of the major awards) as fairly and objectively as
I am capable of. That means, even if I didn’t care for a particular movie or
the performances therein, I still tried to recognize it as fine work and give
credit where credit is due. That also means that, just because I love a
particular film immensely, doesn’t mean it deserves top prize. Another
disclaimer: In the spirit of fairness, I have only selected motion pictures I
have seen personally. No speculation here or decisions based on reputation or
internet buzz, only films I can personally vouch for. In cross-referencing my choices
with the nominations (and recent winners) of the Golden Globes, I don’t believe
I’ve left anybody out, either. Also, just for fun, I have offered up
“alternates” or “runners-up,” if you will, just to show who barely got edged
out. In other words, people and movies I wouldn’t mind seeing nominated in
place of one of my original five choices. Narrowing down the nominations to
five in some categories was incredibly tough (especially in the director
category), but I’m only submitting five nominations for best picture because I
think the ten nomination concept is total bullshit. So, if you’re willing to
indulge me, here’s what should in all fairness be nominated for the upcoming 86th
annual Academy Awards:
Best Picture:
Alternate: August: Osage County
Best Director:
Alternate: Martin Scorsese, The Wolf of Wall Street
Best Actor:
Alternate: Christian Bale, American Hustle
Best Actress:
Alternate: Emma Thompson,
Saving Mr. Banks
Best Supporting Actor:
Alternate: Tequan Richmond, Blue Caprice
Best Supporting Actress:
Alternate: June Squibb,
Nebraska
Best Original Screenplay:
Alternate: Her
Best Adapted Screenplay:
Alternate: The Place Beyond the Pines
There might be some discrepancies in the screenplay
categories because I’m not 100% as to whether some the titles I selected are
adapted or original scripts. For instance, I’m pretty sure that Dallas Buyers Club and Fruitvale Station are original
screenplays, but they are based on true stories, so maybe technically they
should be considered “adapted?” Not sure.
Some other notes on my selections:
I know it’s a tremendous cliché to include Meryl Streep in
the nominees for best actress to the point where it almost feels automatically
obligatory, but she really truly deserves it for August: Osage County. I
wouldn’t say she necessarily deserves to win,
but she certainly deserves the nomination. Shailene Woodley, in the same
category, is probably the least likely to get nominated and that breaks my
heart. She brings so much depth and authenticity to her role as a teenager
struggling with her first love and yet does it in such an understated and
naturalistic way that I can only assume the reason she’s likely to be
overlooked is because she’s so real in the part. Likewise Tye Sheridan’s
performance in Mud. Peter Sarsgaard
in Lovelace is a perfect example of a
movie that’s not so great but a performance that is. So, don’t count on seeing
him on the ballot, either. Rooney Mara will probably be passed over as well
since Side Effects came out so early
in the year. I hate it when that happens.
Tom Hanks is another actor whose nominations often come
across as nothing more than “Yeah, we like him,” but – like Meryl Streep in August: Osage County – he deserves this
nod. The last five minutes alone of his performance in Captain Phillips are enough to justify the nomination.
Fruitvale Station
is this year’s Cinderella underdog, as far as I’m concerned. It’s a simple,
modest film, but so flawlessly crafted and injected with such realism that one
feels like they’re watching a documentary. The fact it’s a true story makes it
all the more haunting. I’m sure it won’t win much (because 12 Years a Slave deserves to dominate), but I hope it at least gets
recognized.
There are few nominees in there from movies you’ve probably
never seen and people you’ve probably never heard of, but that’s the point of
the Oscars – to honor the worthy, not the famous. So, when the nominations are
announced tomorrow, you’ll know why some of them suck: It’s because they didn’t
check with me first.
No comments:
Post a Comment