And the race is on for the coveted little gold man of 2009. If you didn't catch the nominees, you can get the complete list at Oscar's website: www.oscar.com.
There weren't many surprises other than Revolutionary Road. I think most folks were expecting Kate Winslet to get her nomination for that film rather than The Reader. I can only speak for The Reader since I haven't seen Road and I can tell you she is fabulous as Hannah Schmidt. The other big surprise for me is Richard Jenkins for The Visitor. I have the film coming soon and I hear he is tremendous. While I appreciate Clint Eastwood, I'm glad someone new and different broke into that race.
I am disappointed that Christopher Nolan received no love for The Dark Knight in either Picture or Director. The film is really a work of art and should have been nominated for Best Picture. Having never seen Benjamin Button, I can't really speak about it except to say that several of my friends (and you know who you are) were unimpressed with the film so I am surprised by its many nominations.
Since I have only seen one of the five films up for Best Picture and little else, I shouldn't be making predictions yet. That said, can we finally honor Kate Winslet for her amazing work? Also, Heath Ledger's posthumous Oscar seems a sure-thing. I'll have my predictions closer to the February 22 event. By then, I hope to have seen four of the five Picture nominations (I just can't bring myself to sit through Benjamin's backwards aging process).
I've spoken, let's hear from you!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Taylor loved Benjamin Button; I haven't seen it. I think I am the only person on the planet un-impressed with Heath Ledger in Dark Knight. Maybe un-impressed isn't the right word. I just don't think his performance was Oscar-worthy. And as far as Clint Eastwood goes, haven't we seen this type of role from him already? In the coming attractions, I keep expecting him to say "Make my day." Love Kate Winselt!
I think Heath's Oscar will come from potential as much as the Joker. The Academy is notorious for giving Oscars to people based on body of work rather than specific roles (Russell Crowe and Al Pacino, for example). And Oscar usually likes to honor deceased talent.
I'm right there with you on Clint. I think at this point he should stay behind the camera as that is where he is truly brilliant. He just seems to play the same old roles these days but "Mystic River" and "Million Dollar Baby" were amazing films thanks to his direction.
FYI - I'm not saying that either Pacino or Crowe did not deserve an Oscar. I just think the roles for which they won their Oscars were less than stellar compared to some of their other roles. (If that makes sense.)
I agree with nearly everything you mentioned, except that I do want to see Benjamin Button. I've heard it's a love-it-or-hate-it film. Google the short story--it's available online, and very interesting.
I have a different Oscar-related topic. When the list came out last Thursday, the followup chatter focused on "why is the Academy trying to kill the Oscar telecast?" Apparently Oscar ratings always go high with films like Titanic/LOTR and low when flicks like the English Patient are the leaders. Some people seem to think that the Academy should nominate more popular films to get people to watch the Oscar ceremony, at the expense of not nominating better, smaller movies. Needless to say, this discussion arises the Dark Knight not getting as many noms as some were hoping (or arguably deserved). (One woman even said "What is Frozen River anyway?")
Thoughts? I was amazed by how the ratings/indies argument was such a big discussion topic on TV and online after the noms came out last week.
Here's my take. I don't understand why it is an expectation that the Oscars must have a huge audience every year. I guess maybe that was how it was in the past, but it's not anymore, for various reasons other than how popular the nominated movies are. Of course, every exec wants high ratings, but somehow this is not as much of an issue for the Emmys, Globes, Tonys, et. al. I think the Academy should continue to nominate what it feels is deserving, and they need to stop expecting that a large audience will watch the ceremony. Just my opinion!
I think the Oscar telecast is bound to have lower ratings today. Once upon a time, people only saw the Hollywood elite at the telecast. This was an era before the internet and extreme paparazzi. People tuned in to see the glamor. It was also a time before every organization this side of Mars had an awards ceremony with a red carpet.
Today the people who watch the Oscars are film fans and not just the average joe or jane getting his/her yearly glamor-fest. We watch because we've seen the films and honestly care who wins, not just because we're interested to see what fashions appear on the red carpet.
I will say, however, that the telecast is pretty boring. Something needs to be done about its length as that is probably one reason folks don't watch anymore. Also, there needs to be a single, stellar host and not this current host-jumping. People used to tune in to see Bob Hope, Johnny Carson, or even Billy Crystal be funny.
Finally, I agree somewhat with the comment about blockbusters. People want to see a film they love get an award. If no one has seen the film - quite frankly I also hadn't heard of "Frozen River" before two weeks ago and I'm pretty up on all types of films - why should they care if it wins an Oscar? I'd like to think that people have seen more of the Oscar films this year, but who knows.
Okay, enough rambling. See what happens when I have two snow days in a row? I start to have time to go on and on about the Oscars.
Post a Comment