My Oscar Picks! Can Juno Shoot the Moon-O?
The 'Atonement' adaptation might be too British for this year’s Academy. And the others are awfully dark
MORE
At the Movies
The 80th Annual Academy Award nominations have recently been announced amid the usual mix of old and new uncertainties and anxieties. After the political pollsters and pundits bombed out in foretelling the New Hampshire Democratic primary results, it is certainly a calculated risk on the part of this self-ordained prophet to predict this year’s Oscar winners at this early date. For one thing, the writer’s strike and the resultant picketing have paralyzed the publicity machines of the various studios and distributors, not to mention all the stymied personal publicists of the Oscar candidates. Then again, the Academy’s preference for critical ratings over box office success has created more flux than ever this year, a situation in which Academy voters, and certainly most prospective television viewers, may not have seen all the picture and performing nominees. So much gloom and doom, and so little hope and joy. Perhaps this is the prevailing mood of the general public in these chaotic times, but the Great Depression and World War II were no picnics either, and movies managed to be cheerful and optimistic enough to lift a nation’s spirits, especially in the Academy Award season. But enough of my advance alibis for my very possible failure to pick all the Oscar winners. All I ask of my readers is that they not bet their rent or mortgage money on my presumed perspicacity or that of my crystal ball.
For best film I am going out on a limb to predict Juno as the winner over Atonement, Michael Clayton, No Country for Old Men, and There Will Be Blood. My reasons for this selection are, as usual, very convoluted. I’d like to think that my choice had nothing to do with my own enthusiasm for this work, which I picked as the top English-language film of the year. I simply have a hunch that Juno is this year’s Little Miss Sunshine, which many people have regretted retroactively for its losing to The Departed last year, in a burst of unexpected redemption for Martin Scorsese, whom the Academy had denied repeatedly in the past. By the same token, since the noirish Departed won last year, the equally noirish Michael Clayton may have a harder time this year because of its genre, despite the Academy’s proven affection for George Clooney.
Atonement, No Country for Old Men, and There Will Be Blood have each won more than their share of critical superlatives and pre-Oscar awards, but the way I figure it, Atonement may be too British for this year’s Academy voters, and No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood may be competing with each other for the same elitist downbeat votes.
For best actress I am going out on an even longer limb in picking Ellen Page over the logical favorite, Julie Christie, whom I have admired and adored since Billy Liar (1963). But almost nobody has seen her vehicle, Away From Her, compared to all the people who have seen Juno. Ms. Page and Ms. Christie get their stiffest competition from Marion Cotillard for her ugly-makeup triumph as Edith Piaf in La Vie en Rose. Laura Linney in The Savages provides an Oscar-worthy performance in an unfairly neglected film. Cate Blanchett, nominated for her lead performance in Elizabeth: The Golden Age and for her supporting turn in I’m Not There, becomes only the 11th performer in Oscar history to be nominated in both the lead and the supporting categories, joining such actors as Fay Bainter, nominated in 1938 for White Banners and Jezebel; Teresa Wright in 1942, for Pride of the Yankees and Mrs. Miniver; and, more recently, Al Pacino in 1992, for Scent of a Woman and Glengarry Glen Ross. Both Ms. Bainter and Ms. Wright won their Oscars in the supporting category and lost out to Bette Davis (for Jezebel) and Greer Garson (for Miniver), respectively, in the lead category. Actually, I think Ms. Blanchett has a better chance for her transvestite impersonation of Bob Dylan in I’m Not There over Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton, Amy Ryan in Gone Baby, Gone, Ruby Dee in American Gangster and Saoirse Ronan in Atonement—all excellent actresses giving exemplary performances in comparatively straight roles.
The tightest and most uncertain contest will be for best actor, between George Clooney in Michael Clayton and Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood. It will be a battle between a Hollywood superstar with a public service résumé and an international maverick with a reputation for irascibility. It is also a battle between a sympathetic underdog character and an unsympathetic capitalist bully. It would be no contest in Oscar terms if it were not for the support Mr. Day-Lewis has received from the most influential critics. Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Tommy Lee Jones in The Valley of Elah and Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises give good performances in non-best-picture nominees, and are thus automatically handicapped in a race against Mr. Clooney and Mr. Day-Lewis, with their nominated film entries. Next Page >
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
I would simply like to point out two errors in the article-
1. The Diving Bell and The Butterfly is not nominated in the foreign language category
2. The Coen Brothers have won an Oscar, for the best original screenplay of the Fargo (similarly, Orson Welles and Stanely Kubrick have both won Oscars, but not in the best director category)
It is really good to read Mr Sarris' reasoning and selections - convoluted or not.
Though I'm not going to run through the whole list, I have a couple of comments. I only just saw 'Juno' (which is not out this side of the pond) - but managed to get to see two previews and it is almost everything I had hoped for following Mr Sarris' high recommendation. I would not be unhappy if it won Best Picture, but remain convinced that 'Atonement' is a superior film - largely because of its structure and the profundity of its theme. This is not to say that Diablo Cody's amazing debut script is slight, just that Christopher Hampton's adaptation of Ian McEwan's novel is sensational - which is why I think that he should (not will) win best adapted screenplay.
Like Mr Sarris, I find 'No Country for Old Men' too bleak and hopeless, but continue to admire the Coens for their beautiful and visually articulate style. (The other best picture nominees I haven't seen and, for that reason, wouldn't like to comment on the Best Actor choices). I do not see Johnny Depp and Viggo Mortenson as particularly strong contenders.
For actress I would go with Julie Christie, mainly because of the challenge of the rôle, and, however charming, Ellen Page didn't seem *that* good in 'Juno'. And I agree about Cate Blanchett for Best Supporting Actress.
Finally direction - this I think the most difficult of the choices (especially as I have yet to see the PT Anderson film). I really think all of Julian Schnabel, the Coens and Joe Wright would be very (indeed ultra-) worthy winners. Gun to my head? Schnabel for making avant garde visual aesthetics accessible to a mass audience.
I hope there will not be blood...
Just noticed the caption for the 'Juno' image. Caption writer much mistaken if he thinks 'Juno' is just cute...
I guess Bergman, Pasolini, Tarkovsky, Schrader, Cronenberg, Lynch, Antonioni... well, no, not Antonioni... Cassavetes, Erice, Herzog, Solanas and so many other directors should never be (or have been) "oscarized", as they are too "downbeat". Seems like a very banal perception to me, with a hint of populism, coming from a very brilliant critic. But it is not the brilliant man who elevates his banal proposition to greatness, but the proposition that lessens the brilliant man towards banality. You got plenty credit still due, though, Mr. Sarris.
Although I think that NC4OM will prevail for Best Picture, I am going to accept Mr. Sarris' reasoning that it and TWBB will split the hip vote. But I will reach a different conclusion, namely that Atonement will will. Why? The failure to nominate Joe Wright is relevant but let's recall that Driving Miss Daisy won without a director nod. Also, I believe that Atonement will garner the votes of British Academy members, older voters and female voters. The film has range, depth, costumes, British accents, impeccable acting and writing. And it is Important. For whatever charm Juno has (and I think it has none), it is not Important, and voters will pass it over.
What say you now, Mr. Sarris?
One further comment. I'm surprised you see the Best Actor category as close. Day-Lewis is the prohibitive favorite. If there were a backlash against him, I think Johnny Depp is the more likely beneficiary. A year to two from now, Clooney's performance will be largely forgotten.
Honestly, I'm dumbfounded over the reaction to this film. Must be something in the zeitgeist. Only Ms. Page's gamin quality saves much of the dialogue from seeming at once cartoonish and 'cool' without making any real point and then pointedly in-your-face 'un-pc.'
Also, that any high school student should so cavalierly choose to go full-term in a pregnancy (9 months out of her young life--not to mention the recovery time--DOH!) and agree to give away her baby without sweating bullets is insulting to the girls who go through these situations... Yet another in the recent trend of movies that see making babies as being as significant as picking up an In/Out Burger.
Being a dramady the film easily could have spent 2 or 3 more minutes of screen-time on Ms. Page's situation, as it was the major plot point and also give her an opportunity to show off her acting chops... Everybody wins, including any young viewers who may find themselves in such a fix.
Overall, I was put off by this breezy quality which strives for punk Noel Coward and sounds more like a pop culture name-dropping popularity contest ... made sparkling mostly by the performances, particularly those of Michael Cera's and Ellen Page. What genuine finds. Further evidence that without good actors the industry would be up ... stranded in unreal cliches.
i agree with all of mr. sarris' choices except the acting, directing, and writing ones. 'juno' may well win precisely because of Elan Durham's point: it does not handle its dramatic situation in any way other than to use it as a device for all manner of hijinx. it has funny moments, but isn't as good as its ancestors, 'rushmore', 'election', and 'napoleon dynamite'. but it is now familiar and not new or interesting, so people find it comfortable and likable, and not something that actually confronts any reality on earth. you've gotta love a movie about a 16-year old carrying a baby full term with absolutely no downside other than frankie avalon going to the prom with shelly fabares instead of annette. olivia thirlby gives the finest performer in the movie, and of course she is not nominated. the notion that this is the best movie -- or movie-going experience -- of the year is regrettable. if you want a fun time at the movies (which, y'know, me too), then 'death proof' is the best movie of the year. if you want a great movie that people will watch years from now, like they do 'rear window' or '3 days of the condor', then the best film is 'michael clayton'. if you miss the 'phoebe has triplets' storyline on 'friends', then 'juno' is your movie (btw, i like lot of the writing on 'friends', just not that storyline).
film: michael clayton
actor: clooney
actress: christie
director: anderson
supp actor: hoffman
supp actress: swinton (there is acting and there is mimicry; swinton acts)
orig screenplay: ratatouille
adapted screenplay: atonement, which i didn't like much, but which will not be shut out
I think Johnny Depp will pull an Adrien Brody... again on Day-Lewis.
Thanks for the nod of support, Dave of Davenport. Have you ever felt utterly stranded in a pop culture phenomenon? That's JUNO for me; may as well be Alaska for all the immediacy it displays. I also agree with many of the observations Dave makes: love Rushmore, Election, and Michael Clayton... but also loved Atonement and do not see why a toney British period film should suddenly pose such a problem for film-viewers... Did everyone in America suddenly (Jim Jones style) take some STUPID PILLS??
The problem with your Juno/Little miss sunshine theory is that Juno is NOWHERE near the quality of the writing/directing and acting of Little Miss Sunshine. I really wanted Little Miss sunshine to win and thought it had a shot and I'm so glad to hear that a lot of people regretted that it didn't win.
I don't understand why julie christie is winning everything -- did they see this movie?? Amy Adams gave the best performance of the year and if I had to choose among the nominees, I would have to go with Cate Blanchett -- because she should have won best actress for the first elizabeth and she was superb in elizabeth 2.
Had the Academy not snubbed the best movie of the year -- HAIRSPRAY -- I could see an argument for that movie winning because of the feel good factor and that it would have gotten the support of other areas (like costumes, etc).
I am just very disappointed that the Academy did not pick Knocked up or Hairspray instead of Juno. Both of which were far superior films.
Your picks are horrible and and you are bias. You need to really think about if you should be continuing to do this. Hopefully they don't pay you for picking Oscars. I had better picks than you when I was 12. Tells a lot about your fulfillment in your job and the New York Observer. Tsk tsk tsk.
knocked up? are you serious?
I guess that you didn't research the buzz before you wrote this article. Everyone overwhelmingly believes that Daniel Day-Lewis will win for his unbelievable performance (he has been winning awards right and left including the Golden Globes, SAG Awards and other critics awards). None of the actors nominated have any chance against him including George Clooney. George even stated this during the luncheon for all the nominees. I guess that a favoritism for George Clooney is probably influencing your opinion!
I just read your words again, and you show an undeniable bias towards George Clooney. You say that he deserves the award more because of his "public service record" vs. Daniel Day-Lewis who is an "international maverick with a reputation for irascibility." Daniel Day-Lewis has never shown that he is quick to anger that you accuse him of. He interrupted his interview with Oprah to comment on Heath Legder's death (it had just happened), and how much he enjoyed his performances, though he had never met him before in his life! He dedicated his SAG award to Heath. In all of his interviews, he appears to be an articulate and down to earth person who could care less about all the hype around his performance. Maybe you should do some research before you falsely character assassinate someone. Are you really an unbiased newspaper because this article shows none of this! While it is noble that George Clooney does public service (I'm sure Daniel does some of this but with less publicity than George), the Academy Awards is about acting and not about the actors personal life! George was excellent in Michael Clayton. However, Daniel's acting was beyond just excellent. Because of this, he deserves the award, and lots of critics from other papers with true UNBIASED reporting believe the same.
According to you, it will be a"battle between a sympathetic underdog character and an unsympathetic capitalist bully". I think that you are mixing up the character that Daniel plays with thinking that it is the real him! The Academy Awards again is about the acting an not about the unsympathetic character played. Forest Whitaker played the murderous Idi Amin in Last King of Scotland. Are you saying that he shouldn't of won that year because he played that kind of character? Are you saying that the obviously soft-spoken Whitaker is anything like Idi like you are accusing Daniel of being? The Academy Awards is again about the quality of the acting and not the goodness of the character being played. Anthony Hopkins also won best actor for playing the serial killer in Silence of the Lambs. Are you saying that he didn't deserve this win against his opponents because he played a murderer? I'm not sure where you went to journalism school because you're not following one of first rules of "unbiased" reporting not colored by personal biases.