TM
Why? Because it's just too much obsession clogging up the rest of the site.
Tuesday, March 18th 8:44 PM
I keep wanting to name my final predictions but I'm totally torn on the Supporting Actress category. Zeta-Jones SEEMS like a good bet but something keeps telling me it will be snatched from her. But I'm not so sure about my early prediction for Julianne Moore because her buzz has been so inaudible lately (aside from those two glorious Vanity Fair photos.)
Monday, March 17th 8:00 PM
Sooooooo. I guess we're going to war four days before the Oscars. I know that they've been saying over and over again that they won't cancel or postpone the Oscars. And I believe them. BUT... I do think we'll have a very toned down ceremony. I can't imagine it will have its normal fashion mojo... and given that this was meant to be the 75th blowout celebration -I have no idea how they'll deal with this particular famous night of celebrating the magic of Hollywood.
Sunday, March 16 7:51 PM
OK. So I was supposed to announce my awards today... but it'll have to wait till tomorrow.
Friday, March 14, 7:57 AM
Soooo... sad to say that despite the suddenly hard to predict 50/50 race (at least in the supporting actor and lead actress category) I still feel somewhat like "so what?" and anyway ---due to work and social and personal demands I'm taking a wee break. I'll be back with real updates each day as we count down for the final week beginning on Monday!
Don't know how exactly I'll do that and still prepare for my annual Oscar party blowout. But, I'm Superman this time o' year. Or at least Superman with a huge chunk of Kryptonite flying right at him. Will he make it or will be collapse under the pressure? Stay tuned.
I did have something to say about the Best Actress race... but I can't remember what it was. Even though it seems like a 50/50 race... I'd love to believe it's actually a 20/20/20/20/20 race -more up in the air than we think... because it would be great to be pleasantly surprised with a Diane Lane win or OVERJOYED with a Julianne Moore win. But it's all wishful thinking, I realize since Oscar races -just like Presidential ones are rarely more than a two person game.
CLICK ON THE THUMBNAIL TO SEE THE SAG SCRAPBOOK...
Tuesday, March 11th, 11:24 PM
This Oscar diary isn't what I hoped it would be exactly... I just have no time for anything. How did I do all those spotlight articles last year? How!?
Monday, March 10th, 8:02 PM
As annoyed as I've been lately with Chicago's ubiquity... I have to hand it to that team. If one had the ego of some of these players one would theoretically be tempted to take the lions share of the credit for such a herculean feat as reviving the musical. But I've been pleasantly surprised this whole season to hear the Chicago team make reference to Moulin Rouge! as having an equal hand in it. It's very nice that they aren't trying to rewrite history to take all the credit. In fact they've all been so generous... to one another in speeches... to the history of the show...and to the fact that they weren't "first" that it's really hard to not feel warmly towards them. In fact, I'm thinking that the love fest is serving quite handily to counteract the general coldness of the musical. It is about egomaniacal killers after all.
and earlier at 12:44 AM
So, um. I guess Chicago is going to sweep at the Oscars. Game over.
Can we move on to next year's awards?
The jawdropper is really the Renée Zellweger thing. I just don't get it. She's been nominated twice here at the FiLM BiTCH Awards for both Nurse Betty and Bridget Jones Diary, but winning awards for Chicago when she's a shaky singer and a bad dancer? Hmmmm. The sad thing is her win sort of invalidates CZJ's. Because it means these things are really all about the film. The performances themselves don't really matter. Which is too bad because CZJ's performance is actually deserving. I'm not trying to diss Renée since I really enjoy her in most films and consider myself a fan (and far moreso than CZJ -whom I've only really loved this once.) -but I just don't see how this performance is an award worthy one. Wierd. Wierder and wierdest.
Sunday, March 9th, 10:20
Well, at least Vanity Fair has some good sense. They include a last minute extremely effective visual push for the glory of the Julianne Moore & Todd Haynes teaming, their second wondrous match, in Far From Heaven. There's not one but two photos of the dynamic duo. Honestly, they're gorgeous photographs. Particularly the two page spread of Julianne and Todd in a car. Very noirish, dark, glamorous, and moody. I wish there wasn't text on the photo because I would frame it. That's how much I love the damn thing.
The text is fairly rapturous, too. Well, I guess that goes without saying because this is the Hollywood issue after all and the text is always great PR for the chosen few. But at any rate, any mainstream worshipful exposure is a good thing when your campaign has been this quiet. I still suspect that Far From Heaven will be leaving the Kodak theater emptyhanded... yet another reminder that the Oscars only serve as a barometer of what people "like" at the time -and haven't a clue what to do when confronted with actual cinematic art. Witness the shaft that Mulholland Drive got last year as well for further evidence of this trend.
It'll be interesting to see -with the awards season scrunched up more tightly next year (one month shorter)- if the critics awards take on greater significance in the future. There will at least be less of a lag in time between their announcements and the major campaigning. Could this help films like Far From Heaven or Mulholland Drive? Could it help the release date 12/27 glut as well? I find myself remarkably optimistic. Which is wierd for me.
The WGA awards offered the first real surprise since Dennis Quaids Oscar snub. Who'da thunk that Bowling for Columbine would've beat its competitors to become both the first Documentary ever nominated here AND the first documentary winner of the screenplay prize. This leads me to confirm one belief I've held: Far From Heaven isn't going to win for Screenplay. If it couldn't get enough actor support at SAG to place in the Ensemble category and couldn't get enough WGA support to beat the non Oscar nominated Columbine, I don't think it can win on Oscar night. This also raises suspicion that the film to beat in this category is actually Talk to Her (not WGA nominated) -which would really be something as it's been a few decades since a foreign film screenplay won. The other major Oscar competitors Gangs of New York and My Big Fat Greek Wedding also lost to Columbine -not a good sign for them either. Pedro could win his second Oscar! What a nice thing to hope for.
The SAG awards are tonight which will give us plenty to talk about in the following days. I'm so glad that TNT replays it immediately after it ends. This way I can watch the first half, switch over to HBO for Six Feet Under, and come back and watch the complete SAG awards again.
Friday, March 7th, 1:01 AM
All the Oscar talk one can handle over in reader mail. Including some Oscar Diary responses.
Tuesday, March 4th 9:14 PM
Since we basically know what's going to win, my mind has totally wandered away from the golden statuettes.... Wouldn't it be cool if ALL the categories were like the foreign film categories and you knew that in order to vote the AMPAS members had to have seen all entries?!? I'd bet all the money I'll ever made in my life that that would make the Oscars less predictable each year.
Best Supporting Actress and Best Actor are the only real question marks this year.
Monday...damn, it's Tuesday March 4th 12:07 AM
So CHICAGO has this thing wrapped up after it's PRODUCERS and DIRECTORS GUILD AWARDS. The musical is back. Blah blah blah.
No, actually I'm thrilled that the musical is back. I'm just worried that Hollywood will take ALL the wrong clues from Chicago and kill off the musical just as it's resurrected. (i.e. hiring movie stars and worrying later if they can sing or dance -NOT a good plan. Marshall just barely got away with it.) I'm not trying to diss Chicago which I like a lot. I'm just saying. Musicals need people at least as talented as CZJ and Queen Latifah in all the singing and dancing roles.
Sunday, March 2nd, 11:05 AM
Has there ever been an Oscar season this boring?
I've decided that the problem is that none of the nominees are as crazy as Angelina Jolie in her Oscar year or as wildly watchable or relaxed about enjoying their good fortune this year as Mr. Colin Farrell who seems to be hogging all the Entertainment press these days. And why shouldn't he hog it? It's not like Daniel Day-Lewis is casually seen carousing with Britney Spears or rumored to have bedded Demi Moore. It's not like Renee Zellweger is bragging about having a "fookin' good time" with George Clooney. Even last year's media magnet Nicole Kidman seems really low-key this year. As if one misstep will cost her her Oscar... so she smiles blankly and looks like a regal soon-to-be Oscar winner.So all of this leads me to believe that everybody will be wearing tasteful black at the Oscars and generally not having much fun with it. Sigh. We need more Lara Flynn Boyles, Angelina Jolies Juliette Lewises, Colin Farrells, and Anne Heches in the Oscar race. Hell even Julia Roberts or Sharon Stones would be welcome in this Oscar race for their bizarre "pay attention to me" antics.
Just about the only celebrity that seems to be publicly giddy about the upcoming ceremony is Catherine Zeta Jones but she's about to go into labor so it's not like she's jumping up and down and trying on crazy couture gowns for the big show.We're only one week away from SAG and hopefully somebody will crash and burn (figuratively speaking of course) to give us all something to talk about... or one of the non-Oscar nominees (Pfeiffer, Quaid, or Gere for example) will make a big reckless splash somehow since they don't have much to lose. I realize that's not likely. It's not like Pfeiffer, for example, ever gets out of control at these things ;) She's too Nicole Kidman-esque ---er rather Nicole Kidman is very Pfeiffer-esque (i.e. extremely controlled) about her stature in the industry. Too elegant and above this mortal coil to loosen up and amuse us accidentally.I'm getting desperate. Someone entertain me. right. now.
Hey, has anyone seen those new barely disguised FYC commercials on the networks for CHICAGO? I wouldn't have thought that Miramax would get this nervous about the backlash. But there they are -contextualizing Chicago. Trying desperately to imbue it with depth. Giving you a short history of it's origins in the 70s and ahead of its time beginnings. They can probably rest easy as ROB MARSHALL took the DGA last night.
Saturday, March 1st, 1:54 PM
So, my Chicago plans were thwarted last night. Nearly sold out.This is really dumb of me because I suspected as much. This musical has been playing for 6 years and has recently moved to a smaller theater since it wasn't regularly filling its seats in the massive Schubert Theater (which will now house Bernadette Peters in the revival of GYPSY.) But I always maintained that if they could hold on through the movie's release they'd become a very hot ticket again. And so it has come to pass. This will be the longest running musical revival of all time shortly I believe. (I need to find this statistic -anyone know what the record holder is? ) And now with its "sister act" doing terrific box office at the movies, it will have a massive rebirth onstage as well. Damnit! I really wanted to meet Nini-Legs-In-The-Air.
But I couldn't justify full price for a less than great seat when I've already seen it. Too bad Broadway is such a racket. I'm an avid theater goer but even I can see that with tickets in the $80-100 range for most shows, the theater isn't ever going to be truly alive again in the way that people hope it will be. It's just not feasible from a monetary standpoint that you'll ever build a new rabid fan base. Most Broadway shows run $80-100 for good seats. Most plays don't fill above 75% of the seats. I believe personally that if it were cheaper, they'd make more money... and it would balance out. I go at least once a month but, then, I'm a big theater fan, it's important to me and I make the sacrifice budgetwise. But if shows were say $25 to $40, I'd literally be at the theater every week. People always complain about movies being too expensive. But playing $10 bucks for two hours of enjoyment is no biggie. Paying $100 is quite another matter entirely. The theater has priced itself out of being a habitual pleasure. And therein lies the problem. If theatergoing were habitual rather than event oriented, the theater would be truly thrillingly alive in no time...and then everyone could quit lamenting about its death.
Oops. This doesn't have much to do with the Oscars.
In Oscar news, the DGA is tonight. The PGA tomorrow. Everyone suspects Scorsese will win the DGA but I'm not so sure. I mean, he is receiving the lifetime achievement that same night. Boy, are they trying to make up for something if they give him two awards in one night! We shall see. I have no idea who will win... but I guess a little birdie told me it might be Polanski.
Actually, birds don't talk.
Friday, February 28th, 5:07 PM
I'm hoping to go to CHICAGO (the stage version) again tonight. It is currently starring Caroline O Connor of Moulin Rouge! fame. She played Nini-Legs-In-The-Air, one of the Diamond Dogs who were also charmingly known as the Four Whores of the Apocalypse. If you don't remember who that was just think The Tango Roxanne number in that great film and she'll come immediately to mind. She's a star of much larger stature over in Australia. I've seen the stage version of the Kander & Ebb musical cum this year's Oscar frontrunner only once. That was all the way back in 1999. So, although it feels like I've seen it multiple times given how the soundtrack is embedded into my gray matter and I've seen the movie thrice... I really haven't. The movie doesn't hold up as well I'd hoped it would to repeat viewings so I'm anxious to restore the musicals luster with a trip to Broadway. It's wierd. I've been meaning to see it again for a really really long time. Virtually every time they've changed casts I've made a plan to go but I haven't somehow... I like the stage version of Cabaret a lot less than the film version but oddly enough I've seen that one three times on Broadway. Yet Chicago, which I love more on stage, I'm a one timer. Wierd.
The principle reason that tonight is the night is that Caroline O Connor's run as Velma Kelly ends tomorrow. Her reviews have been raves calling her "the funniest Velma ever" and such. My plan is to get her to sign my Moulin Rouge! book and tell her how obsessive I was about Nini in that film and, well, just generally give her the deranged (but true) impression that I'm a crazed fan of her work of only the past couple of years (I didn't know who this Aussie star was prior to Bazmark's spectacular spectacular production).
The poll for the musical revival on the front page is about to end so if you haven't voted, please do. The news that Miramax plans to take on GUYS AND DOLLS next came out after I made the poll so that's why it's not listed. The others have been in development longer.Thursday....er. I guess it's Friday, February 28th, 12:24 AM
Why did the Oscar talk suddenly die out again? THE PIANIST is gaining steam? But it's not like CHICAGO is really losing any... Best Actor looks more and more like a tossup. Brody, Day-Lewis, Nicholson... everyone disagrees.I don't have anything to say today. Didn't yesterday either.
I saw one of the Oscar hopefuls that didn't make the foreign cut tonight. THE SEA from ICELAND. Very dark and almost baroque in its multiple cruelties... so it's fairly easy to see why they didn't select it.
I'm so anxious for the SAG awards. Not that I think I'll gain hope as far as the Oscars go... but that I want to see all them purty dresses A.S.A.P. And of course I'm hoping that Pfeiffer knocks her dress out of the park and gets all the best dressed headlines. Take that AMPAS. Here's what you missed...
Tuesday, February 25th, 11:21 PM
Polanski on the mind...
Today I tried to think about anything else Oscar-like. But it didn't happen. The Samantha Geimer story is just ever spinning in my head. I was absolutely taken aback at how calm and collected and just matter-of-fact she was last night on Larry King Live. It did make me a bit queasy but giggly that Larry King who has a penchant for much much younger wives was repeatedly trying to drag Polanski's intergenerational proclivites through the muck.But anyway. I surprisingly came away from it with sympathy for both the criminal and the victim. The only enemy here seems to the kneejerk puritanism of the media and judicial systems -neither of which is really anxious to let Polanski or Geimer move on, even 25 years later. If this topic is fascinating you -I'd suggest reading David Poland's lengthy analysis of the whole "story" and it's possible Oscar effects over at the Hot Button. Poland is always a great read.
In other news
OK. It's not entirely true that I thought of only Polanski and Geimer today. I was momentarily diverted by the luscious and pregnant Catherine Zeta-Jones clips from the BAFTA win which have been playing on the entertainment news the past two days. Her gracious, tearful, and obviously happy acceptance speech is going to go a long way toward diminishing her annoying ubiquity on those cel phone ads. Perhaps my prediction for Julianne Moore isn't so sound after all. The buzz does seem to be chasing CZJ with increased fervor these days. And Chicago a major win somewhere, right? You don't go in with 13 and come out with only a couple to show for your troubles, do you?The Oscar ballots have been and will be burdening down the satchels of postal workers on the coasts this week. Which means people will be receiving these promptly. The preemie voters will be scribbling down their preferences in the immediate aftermath of the Geimer OpEd and the news of BAFTA wins for The Pianist, Welsh baby CZJ, Walken, Day-Lewis, and the hardest working woman in showbiz, Nicole Kidman. Whether or not any of this effects the early votes or takes a while to gestate before impacting is anyone's guess...
Monday, February 24th, 9:47 PM
OK, Now we're talking.
I was wondering when things would heat up Oscar campaign wise. Last year the campaigns got heated, nasty, and quite frankly, out of control. But then last year's best picture lineup had motion pictures that actually inspired fierce devotion. In two cases, devotion was an understatement. It was rather like rabid fan mania. This year's selected shortlist is unmistakably lacking in that sort of generalized hysteria so any drama is more than welcome.That the first real drama is an ancient sex scandal revisited, may strike those without hearty constitutions as entirely insensitive. Well, this is Hollywood. If you can't swim with sharks... stay away from the water. It's hard to say exactly where the recent proliferation of stories and interviews with the adult Samantha Geimer are coming from. Polanski infamously had his way with her when she was all of 13. On the one hand, she seems to be on Polanski's side to a certain extent...asking that the Academy voters consider the film and not the scandal. She's much older. She's moved on. Etc... But on the other, the details are rather unpleasant and resurfacing. These things sell papers, generate hits, keep people tuned in between commercials, you know? But they don't (as a general rule) bring sympathy to the perpetrator. A cynic may note that though the woman's message is hardly anti-Polanski, this reportage is coming right on the heels of The Pianist's triumphs overseas and could be motivated by anti-Polanski forces. The Pianist recently swept the Cesar Awards in France. Then, last night, it took the Picture, Director win at BAFTA. One could read those wins as further encouragement that Polanski's Holocaust drama means to have a date with Oscar in late March. But the sex scandal is a definite obstacle and potential battering ram for the other studios on an otherwise well fortified campaign. The revisited scandal could easily prevent the more general embrace the film would need to prevail with the Academy voters.
Another bad sign for The Pianist unrelated to Ms. Geimer: Yesterday reading the New York Times, I was horrified to discover that Focus Features thought it necessary to quote CINEMASCORES! (of all things) of "A+" in the full page ad for their classically crafted Holocaust drama. This leaves a worst taste in my mouth than any quarter century old sex scandal. Cinemascore is the lowest common denominator of all. Wake up, Focus---This isn't the People's Choice Awards. Who'd a thunk that a classy film like The Pianist and a artistically sound studio like Focus Features would be this desperate? Not a pretty sight.
"See, us reg'lar folks like highfalutin' Holocaust dramas too!!!"
Excuse me while I puke.
I shudder to think what other movies have scored "A+" recently. Hmmm, here we have the universally panned The Life of David Gale with an "A+" from girls under 21. The generic Sweet Home Alabama sits comfortably in the "A" range. But, oops, here we have Solaris with an "F" I shudder to think what Far From Heaven or similarly challenging films have earned. Is this something that Focus Features should be proud of (?)
Excuse me while I regroup.
Sunday, February 23rd, 2003 11:03 AM
Just kicking this thing off.
Last year I only did it for the last week but it was fun and a good funnel for my obsession with all things involving naked, golden, 13 and a 1/2 inch men.So this morning I was thinking about Chicago's thirteen nominations and the possibility that the win isn't locked up. It seems locked up, true. But there's real evidence (This is a theory I'm borrowing from Jeremy Heilman) that despite a film having the most nominations, if it's from a single studio -it will lose if it's up against a film that's a co-production -the most recent example of this being A Beautiful Mind tripping up those unlucky Hobbit's feet in 2001. If that theory holds up, in March Chicago will lose to The Hours.
SILLY TRIVIA ALERT !
Chicago is the 8th film to receive a grand total of 13 nominations. Is 13 an unlucky number at the Oscars? Or has the celebrity Kabbalah trending restored good luck luster to those infamous double digits? The seven previous films to hit Chicago's mark were Best Picture Losers: LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001),Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), Mary Poppins (1964) and Best Picture Winners: Shakespeare in Love (1998), Forrest Gump (1994), From Here to Eternity (1953), and Gone With the Wind (1939).The trivial breakdown goes like this:
Films with 13 nominations lose 42.86% of the time.
Whoa, Harvey! Chicago ain't safe, statistically speaking. Add to that this sobering factoid: Of those three losers, two were genre films: A fantasy and a musical. Maybe 13 really is unlucky?
The average no of Oscars won by films with 13 noms is 6.
That's happy news for some of Chicago's technical contributors... those wins have to come somewhere.
Of those films with 13 noms, 5 of them like Chicago, had best actress nominees. 80% of them won.
Good news for Renee Zellweger, non? Bad news for Nicole?
This is the way I see it now for Chicago. No acting wins...But of course, if it happens, it'll be Catherine Zeta-Jones. Unless, we're all underestimating Renee's general warmth and adorability when facing off against Kidman & Moore's cooler film personas.
Of Best Picture winners, 21.6% lose Best Director.
That's the way most pundits are calling this considering Scorsese's lifetime achievement situation. Incidentally film/director splits used to happen a lot more often than they currently do.
I'm sure there's some interesting trivia related to the performance of musicals throughout Oscar history. But you might have to wait for that...
