|
The Oscar Nominations
With Sharon Waxman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2003; 3 p.m. ET
Nominations for the 75th Academy Awards were announced Tuesday by Frank Pierson, president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and fellow Academy member Marisa Tomei, winner of the Oscar for Supporting Actress in 1992 for her role in "My Cousin Vinny."
"Chicago," "Gangs of New York," "The Hours," "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" and "The Pianist" were announced as the best picture nominees. "Chicago," the musical adapted from a stage hit, also led the contenders with 13 nominations, including ones for lead actress Renee Zellweger, supporting actresses Queen Latifah and Catherine Zeta-Jones, supporting actor John C. Reilly and director Rob Marshall.
Washington Post Style correspondent Sharon Waxman was online Wednesday, Feb. 12 at 3 p.m. ET, to talk about all the nominees and what the buzz is inside Hollywood.
A transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Sharon Waxman:
Hey everybody, great to be back, and thanks for joining us. We're now in the high heat of the Oscar season, with the nominations yesterday. The campaigning has been serious until now, and will continue through until the voting ends. That's the bad news. The good news is that the movies this year have been, I think, of a really high caliber and of a wide diversity. It's a good year. The Oscar nominations have not offered many surprises, perhaps, but they seem to have rewarded most of the great moments of movies in 2002. There are a couple of exceptions, in my view, which we can talk about.
There's lots and lots (really) of questions already, so let's get going...
Andy Serkis was robbed:
While my interest in the art-house flicks is pretty minimal, I was surprised that none of the boffo-box office movies got much love. I would have thought Greek Wedding would have gotten more than screenplay, and I was definitely rooting for Andy Serkis to get a nomination as the most compelling performer I saw all year (in an otherwise mediocre Two Towers).
The academy didn't give me much to root for, I am afraid -- maybe Walken and Enimen.
Sharon Waxman: Thanks for those thoughts. There are a number of strong films (critically adored, don't know if you liked them) that were really shut out this year - Curtis Hanson's "8 Mile" is only one of them, Paul Thomas Anderson's "Punch Drunk Love" is another.
Remember, the big boffo box office movies never really get nominated except with rare exceptions like "Titanic." Did you really think "Spiderman" or "Men In Black II" was gonna be up there on the podium? On the other hand, there was a lot of talk that "Greek Wedding" might have snagged a Best Picture nomination.
As for LOTR 2, that just didn't seem to have any steam behind it this year. Personally, I thought the film was absolutely amazing.
Alexandria, Va.:
I won't be available so I'm submitting ahead of time.
I am flabbergasted that Denzel Washington's movie, Antwone Fisher, came up zero in nominations as far as I can tell. Maybe it's not in the top five for best movie, but it certainly is one of the best this year, and deserved consideration in acting, screenplay and direction! Is it because Denzel won last year for best actor and Academy voters figure they can ignore black actors and creative people for a while? Is it because the producers/studio did insufficient promotional advertising or schmoozing?
Sharon Waxman: That's a very good question. I know that Fox Searchlight had huge Oscar hopes for this movie; they had a very careful two-stage publicity plan mapped out (which denied me access to Antwone any time before the release, so we subsequently did not interview him), and ran tons of ads which you probably saw with figures like Kweisi Mfume and Marion Wright Edelman praising the inspirational theme of the film.
So what happened? I heard from a lot of people that they thought the film was good, but kind of treacly. There was another big problem that it came out at exactly the same time as about two dozen other major films, and got lost in the year-end Oscar shuffle. I personally think Fox overestimated how much people would embrace the film - it's a small film, after all, and you can never count on what's gonna hit (see exhibit A: big fat greek wedding). finally, there may be an element here that Denzel had a huge win last year, and that this year it was someone else's turn.
Don't know for sure, but those are some thoughts.
Dayton, Ohio:
Won't it be a crying shame if Peter Jackson ends up winning nothing for the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Fantasy bias nonewithstanding, the scope of Jackson's accomplishment tackling such an insane project is beyond admirable. The fact that he made so far two films of remarkable quality and box office shouldn't be taken so lightly.
You know, if Harvey Weinstein had made the Rings trilogy, he would have purchased several Oscars for Jackson by now.
Sharon Waxman: Hi Dayton. It doesn't look like this is going to be Peter Jackson's year. Luckily, though, there's another LOTR coming down the pike. The Academy may well be waiting to reward the trilogy with the final installment.
Washington, D.C.:
Re: LOTR TT
In a film trio, the middle one usually suffers most (think of "Blue", "White" and "Red").
So I am eagerly awaiting even greater success for "LOTR -- The Return of the King" this December, AND at Oscar time next year!
Sharon Waxman: Looks like we're on the same wavelength...
Takoma Park, Md.:
I hope people notice that Salma Hayek's nomination for "Frida" makes her the FIRST Latina to be nominated for Best Actress.
Sharon Waxman:
Yes, Salma made a point of noting that this was a big year for Latinos in general. I haven't checked to make sure your claim is correct, but it's worth noting if true.
Mexico City, Mex.:
Sharon, I am a long time fan of Chris Cooper and am thrilled he is finally getting his due this year. But is he really getting his due? Will he prevail on Oscar night?
Sharon Waxman: Mexico! I would offer a trans-border congratulations here, since your countrymen (and women) had a pretty amazing haul yesterday.
Like you, I am a massive fan of Chris Cooper. He's one of those character actors you see in film after film doing excellent work, but never taking the spotlight. I think in "Adaptation" he just finally grabbed it. I'm guessing he's the favorite in the category.
Two Towers:
I think several things worked against Two Towers:
- The been there, done that factor. The Academy was either going to reward the first movie, or the last, but not the middle picture.
- Jackson pointedly didn't campaign, complaining that the gladhanding he did last year affected his work on TTT (which I agree it did). Streep must have been hurt by not campaigning aggressively either.
- The second film had a somewhat choppy script and wasn't exactly an acting showcase.
- Miramax was in such a full court press in the campaign, and New Line didn't stoop to those levels.
That being said, the Helm's Deep sequence was truly wondrous, and will be remembered more than the song and dance of Chicago years from now.
Sharon Waxman: Thanks for that. (My God, you guys are plugged in...)
Arlington, Va.:
I consider myself to be an expert on Oscar trivia. I believe that "LOTR 2" is only the second sequel ever nominated for best picture. The first sequel ever to be nominated was, of course, "The Godfather Part II," which won the Oscar.
Sharon Waxman: Great, thanks. (I definitely do not consider myself an expert on Oscar trivia, or any other trivia for that matter, so we're all hands on deck here.)
Alexandria, Va.:
At what point do you stop caring about the Academy? Nominations and awards just seem to be so haphazard or even unworthy compared to the field of potentials. I just don't get it anymore.
Sharon Waxman: Ouch!! Who were the worthy ones?
Indianapolis, Ind.:
Another Oscar year, another million nominations for Miramax. While Harvey Weinstein is by no means the only villain in Oscar campaigning, he certainly is the poster boy. It seems that Miramax isn't merely content to push hard for their worthy films, they want to humiliate the competition in the process. Case in point being the Shakespeare in Love Oscar, the Chocolat strongarming, and the vicious whisper campaign against A Beautiful Mind.
In my opinion, these tactics make it hard to ultimately feel good about the Miramax films that take the top prize. You can't help that the awards are being orchestrated more than they are being earned. Chicago will suffer some of this backlash in the years to come, I predict.
My question is what can be done to make the Oscars more honest, more in spirit with rewarding artistic achievment. Can the Academy dissuade or even punish the studios for unethical campaigns? Can they openly discourage awarding "makeup" Oscars that rectify previous snubs (Paul Newman, Judi Dench and Scorcese's coming win come to mind).
Sharon Waxman: Wow, that's a big question.
Miramax is not the only studio that relentlessly exploits the loopholes left by the Academy for Oscar campaigns. It just exploits them the best, and has the added luck of producing movies that Academy voters actually like.
However, when Miramax is pushing hard, flogging one might even say, films that the voters are not convinced about - 'Chocolat' and 'In the Bedroom' are two recent examples - the movies have not won.
But generally you're right, these campaigns have gotten out of control. One problem is, the rules are rigged. Some of the people who sit on the comittees who make the Oscar rules are the very studio people, or those hired by the studios, who then go out and circumvent them. So, for example, the latest practice of having 'public' screenings of movies, or guild screenings, where the star and director come to do a Q&A afterward is really an opportunity to shmooze the Academy voters. (The guild members are one and the same as the Academy members, for the most part.)
It really has become very much like political campaigns, where every time there are new restrictions imposed, there are ways found around them.
Washington, D.C.:
I understand best animated feature isn't a high profile category, but the idea that any of the other nominees deserve to be included with such a sublime piece of art as "Spirited Away" is laughable. Of course, it will be curious to see if Disney shills for it (which it distributed in the U.S.) or the execreble "Treasure Planet." But am I right in assuming this is one of those "write the biggest check" categories?
Sharon Waxman: Hmmm, I have no idea. That's a small specialty corner of the Oscar race, and I don't know much about the politics of that. But it was interesting that "Treasure Planet" got a nom. I don't think it's about writing checks, however. The influencing is more subtle than that.
Mclean, Va.:
Have to disagree with Arlington's comments re: Chicago. I will not forget some of those song and dance sequences. Particularly being very familiar with the stage version, the "He had it coming" sequence (e.g. Jailhouse Tango) and the marionette sequence when Roxi first meets the press were nothing short of brillant and inspired.
Sharon Waxman: I loved that sequence too. (Who were those amazing other dancers?)
Arlington, Va.:
Can I just say what a pleasure it was to watch Meryl Streep be unbelieveably great in two movies this year? I missed her.
Sharon Waxman: yes you may.
Washington, D.C.:
I was really surprised and pleased that Salma Hayek was nominated. I thought that "Frida" was very good. Any chance for her, or is it just a nod to Miramax?
Sharon Waxman: Enough with the Miramax! It wasn't a nod to Miramax, it was as nod to Salma Hayek's performance. My goodness you folks are cynical! What's nice is that the film had pretty much fallen off the buzz-charts, and the Academy voters remembered her nonetheless. She really fought like mad to get the movie made, and I think people generally knew that; stuff like that helps. (On that score, I have to think John C. Reilly's nom for "Chicago" was also helped by his two other great performances this year, in "Gangs" and "Hours".)
Arlington, Va.:
Yes, I do believe that Salma Hayek is the first Latina to be nominated for best actress. However, a number of Latina actresses have been nominated in the supporting actress category, including Rita Moreno (winner for 1961's "West Side Story") and Katy Jurado (nominated back in the 1950s).
Sharon Waxman: thank you.
Baton Rouge, La.:
Please elaborate a little about the Mexican nominees. Mexican culture doesn't get much respect in the U.S., so it's most excellent to see that their film industry is doing really interesting things and being recognized for it. Don't you think?
Sharon Waxman: Hello to the home of Steven Soderbergh. (That's all I know about Baton Rouge.)
re Mexico: it really is a banner moment, one I'll probably end up writing about. Not only did Salma Hayek got nommed, along with Mexican art directors on her film, but the Mexican wunderkind director Alfonso Cuaron got nominated for "Y Tu Mama Tambien" in the screenplay category with his brother Carlos, and Mexico won a slot in the best foreign category too, for a film that got no notice here but I thought was incredibly daring and well-done, "The Crimes of Father Amaru." There are a number of cutting edge talents coming out of Mexico, not only Cuaron, but another director Inarritu, who did "Amores Perros."
(worth noting: Pedro Almodovar got TWO noms too, including best director, though of course he's from Spain.)
Rockville, Md.:
I'm very disappointed (though not surprised) that "Secretary" didn't get nominated for any awards. I thought Maggie Gyllenhaal had an amazing breakthrough performance (and the Hollywood Foreign Press acknowledged that with their GG Nomination). If nothing else, I thought it should have been nominated for best original score -- after the movie was over I couldn't get the music out of my head.
Sharon Waxman: She did have a breakthrough performance, and I think Maggie Gyllenhaal is going to be the next big thing. But it was a very tough year, unusually so, for female performances. In a weaker year I think she might have got it.
Annandale, Va.:
Pardon me while I wax philosophical. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm glad Pedro Almodovar got a nod. I love his work. And ditto on Renee Zellweger. But Julianne Moore getting two acting nominations? Couldn't the Academy have nominated someone else to level out the playing field?
Sharon Waxman:
Sorry, I'm a fan of Julianne. (We're committing poetry here today.) She deserved them both, in my view.
Washington, D.C.:
Hi, Sharon--
Pretty predictable batch of nominations this year. Two things baffled me, though. How could Dennis Quaid 'not' be nominated for "Far From Heaven"? I -- and a lot of critics -- considered it to be one of the year's top performances, not to mention Quaid's best work ever.
Also, as long as we're discussing "Lord of the Rings, Two Towers" -- it wasn't nominated in the "Best Cinematography" category! Huh?
What do you suppose is up with that? It was also shut out in the "Best Score," "Best Makeup" and "Best Costume Design" categories
Odd!
Thanks.
Sharon Waxman: I don't have an answer on Dennis Quaid, who was definitely on the short-list around town for the year's best supporting performances in Far From Heaven. Seems just that the competition was too tough. (I was not one of his big fans on that movie, actually. I loved him in The Rookie. But of course I do not vote.)
Latina trivia:
Don't forget Norma Aleandro from Gaby: A True Story in 1988. Take that Arlington!
Sharon Waxman: I'll let you two fight it out...
Re: Chicago dancers:
One of the other dancers was D.C.'s (or the region's) own Mya, who was also featured in Moulin Rouge. Lloyd Grove mentioned her in yesterday's Reliable Source, but doesn't talk about her (fairly small) role in Chicago.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53868-2003Feb10.htmlww.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53868-2003Feb10.html
Sharon Waxman: Excellent. Thanks for pitching in.
Tinseltown:
I have an unusual problem. I look like Russell Crowe. People are always stopping me and asking me questions about Russell Crowe's latest projects. Even when I insist I'm not him, that only makes people more convinced I'm him. Just to keep people happy: what has Russell Crowe been doing lately, and was it any good? And why doesn't Meg Ryan stop me anymore?
Sharon Waxman: You made me laugh. Isn't Russell Crowe busy getting married or somesuch?
Spirited Away:
I will be truly upset if this film loses the Animation Oscar to the Disney tripe du Jour.
"Spirited Away" was easily the best film all of 2002, no question in my mind about that.
Sharon Waxman: thanks.
Washington, D.C.:
I enjoyed "Chicago," but to be honest, I think the movie is more a triumph of editing than it is of directing. In the end, doesn't Peter Jackson's work in "The Two Towers" seem more worthy of being nominated for the best director Oscar than Rob Marshall's work in "Chicago"?
Sharon Waxman: I dunno, I just think the Academy went wild for "Chicago" overall. When they do that, it seems right to reward the director.
Manassas Park, Va:
I am thrilled to see Diane Lane nominated. She is horribly underrated. Does she stand a snowball's chance or is this Nicole Kidman's coronation? What's your take?
Sharon Waxman: Diane Lane is much beloved in the Hollywood community; they've known her since she was much younger, she's an out-and-about kind of gal and very sweet. I figure her to be kind of the Helen Hunt/Gwyneth Paltrow nominee of the year. You notice that no one else from 'Unfaithful" was nominated.
So, yes, she stands a snowball's chance, but that is a very tough category this year.
Arlington, Va.:
Any chance that Polanski will be allowed to attend the ceremony? There is still a warrant out for his arrest for having sex with a 13- year-old in 1978.
Another question -- Will Eminem be performing at the ceremony? That will surely shake up the gray hairs at the academy. Whatever you may think of him, it will certainly be interesting.
Sharon Waxman: From everything I've seen, Polanski has no chance of stepping foot in the U.S. without getting the cuffs slapped on him. They tried to negotiate something with, I believe, the US attorney a couple of years ago and it didn't work out. So, probably no Polanski at the ceremony.
I actually thought it was kind of poignant to think that Nicholson and Polanski - who were bosom buddies for years and are now getting up in years - are both nominated this year, and they won't be able to go together.
Arlington, Va.:
"Chicago" will most likely win the Best Picture Oscar because it received the most nominations, it is earning more and more at the box office, and the Academy will like to give the Oscar to a musical (the last musical to win Best Picture was 1968's "Oliver")...history repeats itself, although 34 years later!
Given that "Chicago" will probably win Best Picture, its director, Rob Marshall, will also likely be a winner ... the same film usually wins both Best Picture and Best Director. However, Martin Scorsese is overdue for an Oscar so he may win, although I predict that "Gangs of New York" will win very few, if any, Oscars.
Sharon Waxman: Thanks for that, we'll check back with you after Oscar day.
Arlington, Va.:
Latin trivia...MEOW!!!!!!!!! You got me. Maybe you and I should compete in an Oscar version of "Jeopardy".
Sharon Waxman: ok, moving on....
Nani/Texas:
Gosh but this is an exciting Oscar season! And I'm delighted to see that Chicago has been nominated -- hope it's just the first of many musicals to come to film for those of us who can't make it to Broadway! Can't decide between John C. Reilly and Chris Cooper as best supporting actors; both are amazing.
Sharon Waxman: I think you can definitely count on more movie musicals coming in the wake of 'Chicago.'
Indianapolis, Ind.:
Is it true that the fictional brother in "Adaptation" was nominated? How does that work?
Sharon Waxman: It doesn't work, it just happened. Donald Kaufman does not exist, but his name is in the credits of the film, and was submitted for a nomination, so the Academy gave it to him. Charlie Kaufman, who does exist, will be attending.
Bethesda, Md.:
Sharon --
So why was Spielberg so badly dissed by the Academy this year? Both "Catch Me If You Can" and "Minority Report" rank with some of the year's best (as well as Spielberg's best). Does the Academy have a sort of love/hate relationship with him? They like the gravitas of a "serious" movie like "Schindler's List" or "Saving Private Ryan" but are cool toward his more general "entertainments" like this year's movies?
Sharon Waxman: I don't think it's as complicated as that. Spielberg is much loved. My interpretation is that people just thought there were better movies out there to nominate.
More Latina Trivia:
Arlington has forgotten about Brazilian actress Fernanda Montenegro from Central Station a few years back (lost to Gwynnie).
Sharon Waxman: that's right.
Takoma Park, Md.:
Most of the films nominated this year were all released in December, some of which were only in small release. Do you think that any movies that were released earlier in the year were forgotten? I'd like to think that this was a great year (and not just great winter) for films. Wish to have seen some nominations for "About A Boy," "Secretary," "Igby Goes Down" and "The Good Girl." What else would you like to have seen nominated?
Sharon Waxman: Those are all good picks. Susan Sarandon, who had three good performances this fall, was completely ignored. Another movie I thought was very provocative and thoughtful which completely sank without a trace was "Max," with John Cusack and Noah Taylor, the latter playing Hitler in 1918. (I wrote about this film in Saturday's paper.) The studio just kind of dropped the film, and I thought Taylor especially gave one of the best supporting performances of the year. I also really liked 'Moonlight Mile,' but the critics hated it.
Laurel, Md.:
My opinion is that this year's Oscar-season releases are the strongest in my memory. I have to wonder, if we might finally be seeing the effects of the pledge during the 2000 presidential race to reduce sex and violence and improve the quality of films?
This is not to say that there aren't still a lot of bad movies. But the KIND of bad movies there are, there seem to be more really stupid comedies and empty dramas (like "How to Lose a Guy") and fewer hyper-violent and super-sexy ones.
Could it be that a push to improve films about two years ago has finally shown up at the box office?
Sharon Waxman: Without a doubt - 'Jackass' notwithstanding - the studios responded to that pressure about reducing sex and violence, and most especially to stop marketing it to children. Patrick Goldstein at the LA Times wrote an interesting article recently on the evolution of "Kangaroo Jack" from a sexy black comedy to a movie that was marketed to kids, inappropriately. That doesn't happen much these days, and is infuriating when it does. (I was one of those parents who sent my kids, in ignorance, to see the film.)
In general it seems to me that the Oscar voters are usually quite conservative in their choices, so I don't know if this year's crop is a departure from that.
Arlington, Va.:
Dear Sharon,
I was disappointed that some of the major summer films that drew critical acclaim, like "Road to Perdition," "Minority Report" and "Insomnia," were shut out in the major categories. Do you think this was just a case of Academy members forgetting about films that came out six or seven months ago?
Sharon Waxman: That definitely happens. Which is why we get that flood of films in the last two weeks of December, when no person who has, say, a job, or a family, or both, has the time to see all of them. It's about the Oscars.
Washington, D.C.:
Sharon:
After hearing the nominations it seems that the nominations do not really represent what was an above-average year in film. The Best Picture nominees are the usual December studio Oscar campaign choices with not a single film having been released in the previous 11 months. Films that have been basically ignored by the Academy include: "Minority Report," "City of God," "Monsoon Wedding," "Igby Goes Down," "Real Women Have Curves," "Punch Drunk Love," even "About a Boy." Of the films that were chosen, I would bet that only "Chicago" and "The Pianist" would have been Best Picture nominees of all had been released six months earlier. "The Hours" and "The Two Towers" are good films but not Top Five material. "Gangs of New York" is over violent and overdone. It seems that the Miramax marketing division is deserving of a Special Award for Hype.
Sorry for the rant but after enjoying 2002 more than most years, the nominees seem to be oh so retread.
Sharon Waxman: Thanks for ranting, we like that.
Re: Award for Cinematography:
I will be thoroughly disappointed if the late Conrad L. Hall does not win for Road to Perdition. That movie was lit beautifully.
Sharon Waxman: You can bet money on that one. Hall passed away recently, so it's probably a lock.
Washington, D.C.:
My impression of these noms is that it's like being in high school voting for prom king and queen.
In general, there are predictable, safe, pretty, choices year after year, with the occasional surpise. Do you think this is the case? Is there a critical mass of people who need to see a movie before it's a serious contender? Personally, I thought "Tadpole" was one of the best written and acted movies since "You Can Count on Me," but I was under no delusions it would be nominated.
Sharon Waxman: Hollywood, especially at Oscar time, really does feel exactly like a big high school, you hit it on the nose. There are the popular kids, and the bullies, and the techno-nerds, and all the social jockeying that goes on.
"Tadpole," meanwhile, was one of the year's disappointments; Miramax paid something like $5 million for it at Sundance, where it was a huge hit, but audiences never seemed to plug in.
Also: can you believe the same Kenny Lonergan who wrote "You Can Count on Me" got a screenplay nom for - "Gangs of New York"?
Awards for Cinematography, Part II:
Yes, I would like to see Conrad Hall win ... but don't forget that he "just" won for 1999's "American Beauty." So who knows if he'll prevail. "The Pianist" was beautiful, cinematographically.
Sharon Waxman: thanks.
Re: Films released in December:
"Most of the films nominated this year were all released in December"
That's no coincidence. Most studios release their Oscar contenders late in the year as one of the Oscar rules stipulates that a film play a certain number of days in NY and LA to be eligible. Studios get most bang for their Oscar hunting buck by releasing their Academy Award contending films late in the year.
Sharon Waxman: Right, and then the idea is to string them out in the theaters through January, while the Academy is nominating, and then if the nominations come through, to 'platform'- release the nominated films like crazy. And that's exactly what Miramax is doing right this very moment.
But it's hard on the moviegoers who starve all year and then are confronted with too many movies-not enough time at the end of the year.
Sharon Waxman: Ok, you guys, I've got to go, we're in overtime here. Thanks so much for the opinions, the analysis, the trivia, I always love learning things from you all, and for a fun discussion. Happy Oscars, everybody!
| |
© Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company | 
