1998
Talkin' 'Bout da Movies
Nominees: AS GOOD AS IT GETS
THE FULL MONTY
GOOD WILL HUNTING
L.A. CONFIDENTIAL
TITANIC
Who Should Win: TITANIC
Every year as soon as the Oscar nominations come out, I make a point of seeing the Best Picture nominees that I have not yet seen and that are still in theatres (or that have been brought back in the wake of having been nominated). Sometimes I can’t make it to all of them, and sometimes I’m kept away by excess apathy (in the spring of 1993, I came within 15 minutes of walking into HOWARD’S END before deciding I just couldn’t take another stuffy little mannered British costume drama at that point in my life). This year, for what I believe is the first time ever, I actually saw all five nominated movies before the nominations ever came out, so I feel particularly qualified to pass judgment on this category.
I’d like to get one thing out of the way first: THE SWEET HEREAFTER, my choice for the best picture of 1997, was not nominated, and neither was THE ICE STORM, which was definitely in my top five. Let us therefore address the five movies that were nominated, in decreasing order of irrationality:
AS GOOD AS IT GETS. Frankly, I’m really surprised this movie is even on the list, and if John Sayles or the Coen brothers had made a movie last year, I doubt it would be. As it is, it’s taking up a space that should rightfully have gone to one of the aforementioned travesties. I liked this movie, and I thought Helen Hunt and Greg Kinnear were fantastic, but Jack Nicholson’s scenery-chewing performance was irritating and his transformation into Nice Guy Jack was unconvincing. Plus, it was a New York movie. I hate New York, and I hate New York movies. I think one neurotic-writer-living-in-a-rent-controlled-apartment-on-the-Upper-West-Side-and-pontificating- about-aspects-of-Big-Apple-life-like-fruit-stands-and-cab-drivers-and- cops-on-horses-in-Central-Park-that-are-of-interest-only-to-other-New-Yorkers movie per year is too many, and we’ve already got Woody Allen filling that quota.
THE FULL MONTY. I loved this movie. Everybody I know loved this movie. We all came out of the theatre feeling great. Know what? Ain’t no way it was the best movie of the year, or even in the top five. Sorry.
GOOD WILL HUNTING. Pleasant, but too precious by half. Maybe without the South Bahston accents...
L.A.CONFIDENTIAL. Stylish, noirish, emblematic of everything 1950s Hollywood represents in our fantasies. This is the one that sent the critics into multiple orgasms. In any other year, maybe it would have a chance. But we’re not talking about any other year, we’re talking about 1997, and no other movie stands a chance against the unsinkable...
TITANIC. This film is everything movies were meant to be: big, expensive, epic, ambitious, visually spectacular, manipulative, extravagant, and completely enjoyable in every possible way. I’ve seen it three times already and want to go again. It troubles me that this places me in the same boat (sorry) as hundreds of thousands of hormonal 14-year-old girls who can’t get enough of Leonardo Di-Crappy-O, but that’s as much because I’m something of a Titanic buff as anything else. For the real story I recommend A NIGHT TO REMEMBER by Walter Lord, available in paperback wherever fine books are sold.
Who Will Win: TITANIC
Anyone who disagrees, raise your hand. After a decade in which most of the statues have gone to small independent or foreign films while the studios churned out Olympic-class crap like INDEPENDENCE DAY, I’m guessing the voting members of the Academy are relieved beyond belief that the Hollywood establishment has finally produced a big-budget picture that doesn’t suck bullets. It’s nothing less than a resounding validation of their way of life.
Nominees: Matt Damon, GOOD WILL HUNTING
Robert Duvall, THE APOSTLE
Peter Fonda, ULEE’S GOLD
Dustin Hoffman, WAG THE DOG
Jack Nicholson, AS GOOD AS IT GETS
Who Should Win: Peter Fonda, ULEE’S GOLD
I have a confession to make: If I were being completely honest with myself, Duvall would probably edge Fonda by a nose. When my sister and I were growing up, we used to spend a few weeks each year visiting our grandparents, who lived on a farm about an hour away from Springfield, Missouri, which has to be considered the Most Religious Town in America. In most cities big enough to have the full complement of broadcast television stations (this was before the days of widespread cable TV) you could turn on the TV on Sunday morning and find, somewhere on the dial, a public-affairs program like Face the Nation or Washington Week in Review, or the farm report, or maybe some professional golf in the summer. Not in south central Missouri. On Sunday mornings, the Springfield channels without exception broadcast church shows, church shows, church shows, church shows, and more church shows, on into the late afternoon. I never knew there were even that many clergy in America, much less clergy with their own shows. So I suppose I must acknowledge Duvall’s turn as a charismatic preacher as worthy of recognition, but to be honest I really didn’t notice that much of a difference from all those church shows my sister and I had to sit through if we couldn’t stand the thought of actually going outside and playing. If Duvall deserves an Oscar, why not Dr. Robert Schuller?
I’m really rooting for Peter Fonda, though, for taking a role written for Nick Nolte and playing it in a way that would have made his father Henry proud.
Who Will Win: Robert Duvall, THE APOSTLE
This is going to be one of those Lifetime Achievement awards, in much the same way as Al Pacino’s otherwise-bewildering Oscar for SCENT OF A WOMAN. The difference is that Bob gave one of the true performances of his life instead of simply chewing the scenery like Al.
Next year I hope to see Shelly Duvall and Bridget Fonda competing in the Best Actress category.
Nominees: Helena Bonham Carter, THE WINGS OF THE DOVE
Julie Christie, AFTERGLOW
Judi Dench, MRS. BROWN
Helen Hunt, AS GOOD AS IT GETS
Kate Winslet, TITANIC
Who Should Win: Helen Hunt, AS GOOD AS IT GETS
Having only seen two of the nominated performances in this category, I feel somewhat underqualified to comment. Nonetheless, I have to go with what I know, and my choice ends up being, of all people, Helen Hunt. I am not joined by very many professional film critics in this decision, most of whom think she’s a lightweight and undeserving of inclusion on a list of such luminaries as Julie Christie and Dame Judi Dench, not to mention such pending luminaries like Mesdames Bonham Carter and Winslet (if you’re beautiful, talented, and English, that’s enough to earn you at least Associate Luminary status in Hollywood). Moreover, Kate Winslet is one of the most beautiful women in the history of film and starred in my favorite movie of all time (free cookie to anyone who can name it), whereas Helen Hunt, while quite easy on the eyes in her own right, is known principally for “Mad About You,” an entire episode of which I cannot recall having ever watched. Nonetheless, I really enjoyed her performance as a waitress with more than enough problems in her life but who tries, not always successfully, to handle it all with grace.
Who Will Win: Judi Dench, MRS. BROWN
She plays Queen Victoria. A sweet potato could play Queen Victoria and win this award. (See comment about mannered little British costume dramas, elsewhere; Helena Bonham Carter has an outside chance for the same reason).
Nominees: Robert Forster, JACKIE BROWN
Anthony Hopkins, AMISTAD
Greg Kinnear, AS GOOD AS IT GETS
Burt Reynolds, BOOGIE NIGHTS
Robin Williams, GOOD WILL HUNTING
Who Should Win: Burt Reynolds, BOOGIE NIGHTS
No one is more surprised at my choice of Burt Reynolds than I am, but the fact is that he simply deserves to win. What can I say? He really made us believe he was a porn director. I liked all the other performances, though Hopkins came a little too close to ham at times for comfort’s sake, and Robin Williams could be accused of retreading his Inspiring Eccentric character from DEAD POETS’ SOCIETY, which in my opinion was a better film anyway. But I have to go with Reynolds for the same reason I wanted Courtney Love to be nominated for best actress for THE PEOPLE VS. LARRY FLYNT: regardless of what we may think of either of them as people, they simply each turned in the best performance in their respective category that year.
Who Will Win: Burt Reynolds, BOOGIE NIGHTS
Robert Forster has an outside chance—this is shaping up to be the Year of the Comeback—but Reynolds has the Big Mo.
Nominees: Kim Basinger, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL
Joan Cusack, IN & OUT
Minnie Driver, GOOD WILL HUNTING
Julianne Moore, BOOGIE NIGHTS
Gloria Stuart, TITANIC
Who Should Win: Joan Cusack, IN & OUT
I’m torn. Joan Cusack and Minnie Driver are two of the actresses I’d most like to stalk obsessively, and it doesn’t seem fair that they should be nominated in the same category.
Here again is a choice that others are not likely to make. Gloria Stuart thoroughly deserves this award, and I could make her my own choice in a heartbeat. Really, it’s a three-way tie as far as I’m concerned, with the only also-rans being Julianne Moore, whom I’ll discuss below, and Kim Basinger, who was just fine in L.A. CONFIDENTIAL but for whom I’m unwilling to vote on account of I hate her.
Julianne Moore is the most forgettable actress in the history of film. I’ve seen most of the major movies she’s been in during the 90s, and each time I have to be reminded that I’ve seen her before. Considering she takes her shirt off in every damn movie she’s in, you’d think she’d make some sort of impression on me, but no. And it’s not like she’s a Lon Chaney Jr.-esque master of a thousand faces, or that her roles are too small to be memorable. She’s just boring. I can’t think of any other way to put it. Her name should be Insert Random Actress Here. How did this woman ever become a “name” actress?
As I see it, Cusack is a very funny woman who’s been toiling away in near-obscurity for more than a decade while Driver still has her best years ahead of her, so I’m picking Cusack despite the relative lightness of her character in IN & OUT, to be forever remembered as the movie directed by Fozzie Bear.
Who Will Win: Gloria Stuart, TITANIC
Gotta happen. After becoming known as a beautiful young woman in romance pictures of the 1930s and 40s, Stuart all but dropped out of film for nearly 50 years, only to resurface in what may be the role of her life. The Academy loves stories like this. Hope she’s got space cleared on her mantel.
Trivia: This is the first time in history that two actresses (Kate Winslet and Gloria Stuart) have been nominated in the same year for playing the same character (Rose DeWitt-Bukater/Dawson/Calvert) in the same movie, and we can only thank the heavens that it happened before those goddamn Olson twins start making movies. Gloria Stuart was 21 years old when she made her first movie in 1932, the same age Kate Winslet is now. She didn’t look like Winslet back then, though.
Nominees: Peter Cattaneo, THE FULL MONTY
Gus Van Sant, GOOD WILL HUNTING
Curtis Hanson, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL
Atom Egoyan, THE SWEET HEREAFTER
James Cameron, TITANIC
Who Should Win: Atom Egoyan, THE SWEET HEREAFTER
This is not just petulance over the lack of a Best Picture nomination for this movie. Egoyan’s transformation of an obscure Russell Banks novel is nothing short of masterful. It’s interesting that Egoyan makes for the only difference between this list and the Best Picture list (he replaces James L. Brooks). If he weren’t Canadian, he might even have an outside shot.
Where is Ang Lee? For that matter, where are any nominations for THE ICE STORM? Lee’s meticulous recreation of an America that existed at a time when he himself lived in Taiwan and spoke no English is one of those extraordinary feats that become fascinating only in retrospect, like the ping-pong ball that was digitally added to FORREST GUMP. Of course, I don’t remember much about 1973 America myself, being about Aaron Young’s age at the time, but it sure seemed legit to me. I’m hardly one of the folks who ascribes every Oscar snub of a minority to racism, but Ang Lee’s absence from this list stands out in a most peculiar way. If the other five didn’t richly deserve inclusion, I’d swear something was up.
While I’m on the subject of Oscar travesties, why wasn’t Sarah Polley (THE SWEET HEREAFTER) nominated for Best Supporting Actress? I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a finer performance from a 16-year-old, and not only does she act, she also sang several of the songs on the soundtrack, for which she also wrote the lyrics (and they were good lyrics, too, not at all like the lyrics of, say, Jewel, whom I like, but let’s face it, all her songs sound like she’s reading from the diary of a 13-year-old girl). Where was I? Oh, yes. Anyway, if you can see this movie and not come away seriously affected by Ms. Polley’s performance, you lack a soul. Looking like a younger, prettier Uma Thurman isn’t going to harm her career, either. Mark my words: you haven’t seen the last of this young woman. (Of course, I said the same thing about Mia Kirshner, who starred in Atom Egoyan’s last picture EXOTICA, and she hasn’t exactly been headlining movies since then, so don’t go by me.)
Who Will Win: James Cameron, TITANIC
I won’t be depressed when Cameron inevitably wins. TITANIC was a directorial masterpiece, and James Cameron took an overdue, over budget, surefire turkey and made it the highest grossing movie of all time. One wonders how this movie would have fared in the hands of Kevin (WATERWORLD) Reynolds.
Nominees: Mark Andrus and James L. Brooks, AS GOOD AS IT GETS
Paul Thomas Anderson, BOOGIE NIGHTS
Woody Allen, DECONSTRUCTING HARRY
Simon Beaufoy, THE FULL MONTY
Ben Affleck & Matt Damon, GOOD WILL HUNTING
Who Should Win: Simon Beaufoy, THE FULL MONTY
I know I could be accused of inconsistency here, considering I’m on record as saying THE FULL MONTY shouldn’t have even been nominated for Best Picture, but I started crossing off titles and this is the one that was left. The ingenuity of this tiny little movie is amazing. I believe it can be attributed to the script as much as anything.
Who Will Win: Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, GOOD WILL HUNTING
We all know the story: two popular young actor hunkasauruses, best buddies forever, wrote the screenplay together, inspirational tale of love and self-realization, etc., etc. Herman Mankiewicz’ screenplay for CITIZEN KANE couldn’t compete with a pedigree like that.
Nominees: Paul Attanasio, DONNIE BRASCO
Brian Helgeland & Curtis Hanson, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL
Atom Egoyan, THE SWEET HEREAFTER
Hilary Henkin and David Mamet, WAG THE DOG
Hossein Amini, THE WINGS OF THE DOVE
Who Should Win: Atom Egoyan, THE SWEET HEREAFTER
Yeah, okay, so this is mostly petulance over the lack of a Best Picture nomination. Cope with it.
Who Will Win: Hilary Henkin and David Mamet, WAG THE DOG
A cute, smart movie that’s bound to be helped by the Lewinsky saga.
Director Barry Levinson threw a tantrum when the nominations came out, saying that Hilary Henkin didn’t write a word of the final screenplay and shouldn’t have been nominated alongside David Mamet. I don’t know who Henkin is, but I think “Hilary Henkin” is a cool name, so I’m taking her side in this one. If her name doesn’t deserve to be on the screenplay, it should have been taken care of before now. Levinson’s comments just sound mean, and I somewhat suspect this whole thing is the result of an ego eruption on the part of Mr. Mamet, whose cutesy-poo dialog riffs don’t make my thighs wet like they seem to do to every other movie snob in America.
(Another interesting story. I read the book WAG THE DOG was based on, AMERICAN HERO. (It wasn’t great; don’t waste your time.) The gimmick about a movie maker dreaming up a war for the President is the same, but everything else about the book is different: among other things, the president is George Bush, the dreamt-up war is the Persian Gulf War, and the book’s characters interact with real people in politics and entertainment. Anyway, there’s a scene in the book where an agent is at a Hollywood party and runs into a famous director, to whom he pitches an idea for a movie. The director is Barry Levinson, who would later go on to direct WAG THE DOG.)
This year’s bonus category is:
Nominees: AYN RAND: A SENSE OF LIFE
COLORS STRAIGHT UP
4 LITTLE GIRLS
THE LONG WAY HOME
WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
Who Should Win, Who Will Win: Who cares? Yet again, the Academy has refused to nominate the year’s most critically-acclaimed documentaries, including Errol Morris’ FAST, CHEAP & OUT OF CONTROL, for no apparent reason other than that they were commercially successful. It’s becoming increasingly clear, as if it weren’t clear years ago, that the documentarians in the Academy are frustrated film-school hacks who resent anyone who has the talent to make a documentary that people actually want to see. FAST, CHEAP & OUT OF CONTROL joins HOOP DREAMS, Morris’ THE THIN BLUE LINE, Michael Moore’s ROGER AND ME, Berlinger & Sinofsky’s BROTHER’S KEEPER and PARADISE LOST: THE CHILD MURDERS AT ROBIN HOOD HILLS (see this movie immediately) in the list of films that are entitled to claim Oscar’s cold shoulder treatment as a badge of honor.
I have not seen any of these movies, so I’m voting for 4 LITTLE GIRLS, Spike Lee’s well-received documentary about four girls who were killed in the bombing of an Alabama church during the civil rights era. Better the Academy should honor left-wing propaganda than right-wing propaganda (AYN RAND, WACO).
4 LITTLE GIRLS is expected to win; the fact that it is nominated at all is considered by many critics to mark a distinct improvement over previous years. Look for the other four “films” to show up as episodes of P.O.V. on late-night public television several months from now.
So those are my picks. Watch the awards tonight and let me know what you think about my choices and about the eventual winners. It took a long time to type this—sure, most of it flowed from my brain directly to the keyboard without going through that crucial mental editing phase that’s so vital in preventing one from embarrassing oneself, but I can still only type about 60 words per minute—so I’ll feel stupid if no one has any comments.