The Oscars According To Solon, 2005 Edition

To all my movie-loving mates:

Welcome, or welcome back, to my annual list of Oscar predictions. For the initiates, I started doing this a few years back, and the recipient list has expanded to the point where it now numbers in the hundreds of thousands. As always, your feedback is encouraged and appreciated.

As happens every year, I couldn't see everything I wanted to see. Here are the list of the ones I missed, in case any of you saw one of these and are wondering why I wasn't sufficiently impressed:

Kings and Queen

Black

Palindromes

Nine Lives

Saraband

Duma

King Kong

If any of you have seen these, let me know if they are worth watching or should be ignored. And, just one thing about Nine Lives--I've heard from multiple sources that Robin Wright Penn gives an all-time great performance in her one scene in this movie--can anyone confirm or deny that?

All right, there's not much to be said about this year's crop other than that about a month ago I almost gave up on it. I suppose I'm glad I didn't in the end, but this year's offerings are still clearly the worst of any year since 2000.

Nevertheless, here are the rankings and predictions:

BEST PICTURE

1 A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

2 MATCH POINT

3 LA MEGLIO GIOVENTU (The Best of Youth)

4 THE CONSTANT GARDENER

5 THE SQUID AND THE WHALE

6 DEAR FRANKIE

7 SYRIANA

8 MUNICH

9 THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA

10 TRANSAMERICA

11 PARADISE NOW

12 GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK

13 GREEN STREET HOOLIGANS

14 ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW

15 2046

16 WALK THE LINE

17 BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

18 DER UNTERGANG (Downfall)

19 CAPOTE

20 MANDERLAY

For a long time, I was disturbed by the prospect of my favorite movie of the year being directed by David Cronenberg; perhaps the only thing more disturbing was that the only serious contender to A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE for the top spot was directed by Woody Allen.

A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

This movie is, more than anything, a psychological study of the root causes and effects that violence has on the psyche, and also the role that violence plays in contemporary American society. In fact, this movie uses violence differently than any movie I've ever seen--certainly, there's a lot of violence, but it comes in short bits that are over almost as soon as they begin. Additionally, I've never seen sex scenes used the way they are in this movie--each of the scenes (there are two of them) are decidedly graphic, and also elemental to the development of the plot (for the record, one of the sex scenes is pretty brutal--I don't think anyone would classify it was rape, but it's certainly violent). One problem with this movie (at least, in the context of writing an email like this) is that you can't say too much without giving key plot points away, but suffice it to say that this is unlike any movie I've ever seen, and there's a complexity involved in trying to make sense of the movie through the different sets of relationships it deals with (Tom's relationship with Edie; Tom's relationship with Jack; Jack's relationship with the bully at school; Tom's relationship with his brother; etc.) that sets it apart from this year's other offerings.

MATCH POINT

The biggest problem with this movie, of course, is that it's directed by Woody Allen but unrecognizable in that regard. Most of the talk about this movie is dominated by this fact. When viewed independent of this, it's a great movie--a complex examination of relationships, class, economics, and the role that luck plays in determining our lives. Unfortunately, the strength of the acting is on the bottom--the leads are good, but not great, and the actors in the supporting roles are much better--admittedly, I'm not the biggest fan of Jonathan Rhys Meyers, and I'm not pleased with how Emily Mortimer was used in the movie--but, as a story, it's quite compelling and I was really impressed with the ending. And, another big plus--Woody Allen isn't in the movie, and there are also no characters that act just like him.

LA MEGLIO GIOVENTU (The Best of Youth)

First things first--for those who are unaware, this is a 6-hour movie, shown in two parts, that traces the lives of two Italian brothers over the course of 40 years, and it incorporates historical events into the narrative. Certainly, it's unlike anything I've ever seen, and, with very few exceptions, my emotional investment in the characters was considerably greater than what I'd have in a 'normal' movie. The benefit to its great length is that it doesn't need to hurry through anything, and it's able to fully develop all of the relationships and the motives of the characters--so, while at the end, you are interested in wanting to know what happens next, you certainly don't feel cheated about what you've already seen. For all the talk about Brokeback Mountain, I found this to be a much bolder movie--of course, I live in San Francisco, so maybe that stands to reason.

THE CONSTANT GARDENER

This probably isn't as good as CIDADE DE DEUS, but it's solid and if you can follow the rather complex plot (to be honest, I thought this plot was a lot more difficult to follow than that of SYRIANA), the payoff at the end is great. It's not so much that the plot is complex as much as it is that it's tough to get a read on the characters, largely because for the most part they are developing and changing throughout the movie. In the end, though, this 'complexity' makes for a much better film. Full disclosure--I'm probably going to like any movie that goes after big pharma more than most would, and this one does--big time.

THE SQUID AND THE WHALE

This is a very short movie--only 80 minutes--but it's so full of dialogue and develops so quickly that you'd never guess it was that short. The acting of the four principals are all great--and, really, everyone else is (Baldwin, Paquin, Feiffer), too--and if the movie had a little more to it I'd have probably ranked it even higher. Still, I'd assume it's a pretty accurate representation as to what happens to children of divorce (particularly since it's based on the director's personal experience), it's done very well, and it's certainly worth seeing. It deserves a screenplay Oscar, if nothing else, but it probably won't get it.

RE The Nominees (BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN; CAPOTE; CRASH; GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK; MUNICH)

In terms of the quality of the movies, this is the worst year I can recall. I mean, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN is fine, but it's pretty slow for the first 90 minutes, and while the end of the movie is pretty good, other than the gay angle there's not much to it. I understand that you can't replicate it exactly, but replace Jake Gyllenhaal with a woman and no one would give a shit about this movie. CAPOTE is fair but its inclusion among the nominees is comical, even in a year as weak as this one. MUNICH and GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK are by far the best of the nominees, and neither of them is anywhere near the best picture of the year. The less I say about CRASH the better, because amazingly there are people out there who liked it, and my attitude toward it could easily offend. Suffice it to say, about it I read somewhere, 'Welcome to the movie of the year for the people who say, "Some of my best friends are black.' " I couldn't agree more, what a self-serving piece of shit of a movie.

RE The Winner The only way BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN doesn't win is if there's a backlash--and since there's really not a lot going for it other than its boldness, there could be--and, if that happens, CRASH will benefit. The others won't win. Ang Lee will win Best Director either way, although my personal preference would be for David Cronenberg, for A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE.

BEST ACTOR

1 Philip Seymour Hoffman CAPOTE

2 Jeff Daniels THE SQUID AND THE WHALE

3 David Strathairn GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK

4 Viggo Mortenson A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

5 Heath Ledger BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

6 Bruno Ganz DER UNTERGANG (Downfall)

7 Ralph Fiennes THE CONSTANT GARDENER

8 Tony Leung 2046

9 Tommy Lee Jones THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA

10 Luigi Lo Cascio LA MEGLIO GIOVENTU (The Best of Youth)

A very deep category this year, so much so that I would not object if any of the top 8 won the Academy Award. Even so, Hoffman is the class of the field, and after several strong performances in the past (BOOGIE NIGHTS, MAGNOLIA, OWNING MAHOWNY) it looks as though he will finally be rewarded. There's not much to say about this performance other than that he will be a worthy successor to Jamie Foxx for RAY. I really don't understand how Daniels didn't get nominated; the reaction to his performance was universally positive, and with good reason. Strathairn and Mortenson also were great and each dominated their movies, and in a different year any of the top four could be comfortable and deserving winners of the Academy Award.

RE The Nominees (Hoffman, CAPOTE; Howard, HUSTLE & FLOW; Ledger, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN; Phoenix, WALK THE LINE; Strathairn, GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK)

I didn't see HUSTLE & FLOW, although I did hear that Terence Howard was quite good in it. As far as the other nominees, Joaquin Phoenix wasn't anywhere near convincing enough for me--although admittedly that is probably more Johnny Cash's fault than Joaquin Phoenix's. Certainly his performance pales in comparison to the great performance given by Jamie Foxx last year in RAY. As far as the other nominees, they are all great performances and any of them would be worthy winners.

RE The Winner Hoffman, easily.

BEST ACTRESS

1 Reese Witherspoon WALK THE LINE

2 Felicity Huffman TRANSAMERICA

3 Emily Mortimer DEAR FRANKIE

4 Laura Linney THE SQUID AND THE WHALE

5 Juliette Binoche CACHE (Hidden)

6 Charlize Theron NORTH COUNTRY

7 Embeth Davidtz JUNEBUG

8 Radha Mitchell MELINDA AND MELINDA

9 Q'Orianka Kilcher THE NEW WORLD

10 Scarlett Johansson MATCH POINT

This category is, in my estimation, quite top-heavy. The top 5 are all great, and any of them would be a deserving winner. After that, there's a marked drop-off in the quality of the performances. I give the edge to Witherspoon, largely because I think Huffman's performance is getting a little too much hype. I could understand the hype if the performance had been given by a man (doing something similar to what Hilary Swank did in BOYS DON'T CRY), but as it is, she just puts on an affected voice and touches her boobies a lot. This isn't to say she isn't good--keep in mind that I have her listed 2nd here--but she's no match for Witherspoon, who was quite convincing as June Carter, as opposed to Joaquin Phoenix, who just didn't measure up as Johnny Cash. She did it all--funny, dramatic, happy, sad--and, she sang as well. A solid all-around performance that in my mind was tough to top. I'm also pissed that Mortimer didn't get a nomination for DEAR FRANKIE (for the record, I think her considerable acting talents were underutilized in MATCH POINT). She's one of the best actresses out there, and after not getting nominated for LOVELY AND AMAZING and now this, I'm starting to get pissed off.

RE The Nominees (Dench, MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS; Huffman, TRANSAMERICA; Knightley, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE; Theron, NORTH COUNTRY; Witherspoon, WALK THE LINE)

I didn't see PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, which is probably fine because by all accounts the nomination is not really deserved. I also didn't see MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS, which is also probably fine because Judi Dench is going to be nominated for everything she's in. Theron is all right, but being such a recent winner she's probably got very little chance here. Fortunately, the two best performances are among the nominees, and either would be a deserving winner.

RE The Winner Witherspoon...Huffman...Witherspoon...Huffman...I'll go with Reese, although apparently she's a bit of a wanker, and that could cost her here, which would be unfortunate because I think she deserves it. If any of the others win, I'll shoot myself in the face.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

1 Jesse Eisenberg THE SQUID AND THE WHALE

2 Alessio Boni LA MEGLIO GIOVENTU (The Best of Youth)

3 Jack McElhone DEAR FRANKIE

4 George Clooney SYRIANA

5 Paul Giamatti CINDERELLA MAN

6 Jake Gyllenhaal BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

7 Kevin Zegers TRANSAMERICA

8 Gerard Butler DEAR FRANKIE

9 Ed Harris A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

10 Owen Kline THE SQUID AND THE WHALE

Probably the strongest category this year, and all of these listed are strong performances. A good year for young actors, as 4 of them are in my Top 10. Eisenberg's performance is particularly impressive; in many ways, he's the central character in THE SQUID AND THE WHALE, because he's the one who gathers all of the information regarding his parents and their divorce, and the movie is really about how all of the information he gathers manifests itself in his attitude toward each of them, and his relationships with others. He's a bit of an ass and pretty unlikeable but that is something that works in his favor here. Boni's really good as well--and, for the first half of the movie, he's got the larger role of the two brothers in LA MEGLIO GIOVENTU (The Best of Youth)--and there's not really much to separate the top two. To some extent, the character's complexity works against him, because he's difficult to assess on a first viewing--and if I watch it a second time, it probably won't be for a while, due to its length. I'd give those two a clear edge over the rest of the performances.

RE The Nominees (Clooney, SYRIANA; Dillon, CRASH; Giamatti, CINDERELLA MAN; Gyllenhaal, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN; Hurt, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE)

A decent job here, even with the best performances going unrewarded. And, as always happens, they nominated the wrong person from a film--certainly, Ed Harris was much more convincing, and had a much larger role than William Hurt in A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE. To be honest, I thought William Hurt was the worst thing about A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE--which is not so much an indictment of his performance (which was fine) as it is a testament to all of the other actors, who all played their roles with a subtlety that Hurt's performance lacked. Suffice it to say, Dillon did not do it for me, and I thought any number of other actors in the movie (Pena and Phillippe, most notably) were markedly better. Clooney, Giamatti, and Gyllenhaal were all fine, and although they have all had better performances recently that were unrecognized (Clooney--O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?; Giamatti--AMERICAN SPLENDOR; Gyllenhaal--DONNIE DARKO), I'll not be too upset if any of them win.

RE The Winner There's little doubt that this category has the most potential winners since all of the nominees, with the exception of Hurt, could win it. I'll guess that it'll come down to Giamatti and Clooney, and Giamatti will probably win because he wasn't even nominated for AMERICAN SPLENDOR and SIDEWAYS and voters might want to take advantage of this opportunity to right past wrongs.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

1 Rachel Weisz THE CONSTANT GARDENER

2 Amy Adams JUNEBUG

3 Michelle Williams BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

4 Ginnifer Goodwin WALK THE LINE

5 Jasmine Trinca LA MEGLIO GIOVENTU (The Best of Youth)

6 Maya Sansa LA MEGLIO GIOVENTU (The Best of Youth)

7 Melissa Leo THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA

8 Penelope Wilton MATCH POINT

9 Valentina de Angelis OFF THE MAP

10 Fionnula Flanagan TRANSAMERICA

This is a strange category this year. I'd throw any of the top 6 performances in a pot, and draw them out, and be fine with the order--they are all that good. That said, after the top 6 there aren't too many great performances--or, at least, none that are deserving of an Academy Award. I give the edge to Weisz, because she's got the largest role (when making my preliminary list, I had her listed in the Best Actress category, not Best Supporting Actress), and, she's the fulcrum of a pretty good movie. Adams holds JUNEBUG together, certainly, but as a movie it's far inferior to THE CONSTANT GARDENER--which isn't to say she isn't great (she is), but her performance can't measure up to Weisz's. Williams is also great--when I saw BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, she was the person whose performance impressed me most--but it's clearly a supporting role, and she's clearly a tertiary character. I'm disappointed that Goodwin didn't get nominated, she was totally solid and convincing--but I guess WALK THE LINE got its acting nominations in the other categories, and it was only going to get so many spots. Neither of the Italian actresses was ever going to get a nomination, but they were both great, in addition to both being smoking hot--always good when you are watching a 6-hour movie.

RE The Nominees (Adams, JUNEBUG; Keener, CAPOTE; McDormand, NORTH COUNTRY; Weisz, THE CONSTANT GARDENER; Williams, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN)

As noted above, the top three performances were nominated, so I'm quite pleased. Keener and McDormand are fine, but not really Oscar-worthy, in my opinion. I think Keener was probably better in THE 40-YEAR OLD VIRGIN than she was in CAPOTE, but she was never likely to be nominated for that.

RE The Winner Adams has a small shot, because she is getting a lot of hype for her excellent performance. In the end, though, it will probably come down to Weisz and Williams, and I'd guess that Weisz will win because BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN will certainly be rewarded elsewhere, whereas THE CONSTANT GARDENER will not. And that's not such a bad thing, really.

The Academy Awards this year are this Sunday, March 5th. Enjoy!