Chris's Best Picture Oscar Predictions 2000

Written: 9 February 2001

Oscar nominees to be announced: 13 February 2001

 

 

 

As we head into this second weekend of February, as I do every year, I take off my rock-critic hat, don my film hat, and offer my annual prediction of the five Best Picture Oscar nominees. The actual nominees will be announced next Tuesday, February 13.

I do this every year because it encourages me to see a lot of buzz-worthy movies, and because it touches on everything I love as an entertainment junkie: the cross-section of genuine artistic merit, industry hype, and buzz. Honestly, I see the awards show itself as a kind of comedown after the excitement of the December—February nomination season. Besides, picking the eventual winners — via Oscar pools — is usually pretty easy; every year, there's a favorite, and Shakespeare in Love—style upsets are rare.




On to 2000 Movies

It seems that lately, I begin these predictions with the same complaint: "Boy, it's tough this year." But since 2000 has already gone down as one of the worst years in movie history, it's truer than ever. On the surface, 2000 was a traditional movie year: the populist stuff mostly came out in the first eight months, and the prestige pictures all came out in the last quarter. But because the quality of the films across the board was so atrocious, the definitions of "prestige" and "populist" are getting fuzzy. Suddenly, early-in-the-year blockbusters like Gladiator and Erin Brockovich are lionized as being greater than they were, while fourth-quarter hopefuls that were supposed to have a golden glow of acclaim (The Legend of Bagger Vance, Pay It Forward) or box-office success (Almost Famous), well, didn't.

This leaves us with a handful of finalists for the five slots, of which almost none is a lock. Then again, because the dreck in 2000 was so awful, I predict that you're probably not going to see a surprise nominee, a Full Monty or Elizabeth or Cider House Rules, sneak in. Once you get past about eight or nine perceived "finalists," the quality drops off pretty steeply. Hell, even the quality of some of the finalists is pretty shaky — I'll get to Chocolat in a minute.

Making things especially tough this year is a very unusual phenomenon...

 

 

 
THE SODERBERGH VS. SODERBERGH FACTOR: TWO NOMINATIONS, ONE, OR NONE? It's tough being both talented and prolific, isn't it? The embarrassment of riches Steven Soderbergh gave moviegoers in 2000, as the director of both Erin Brockovich and Traffic, could mean he goes home empty-handed.

Imagine what would have happened at the 1967 Grammy Awards if the Beatles' Revolver album had been released the same year as Sgt. Pepper, and you begin to understand what Soderbergh faces in this year's Oscar race — both films are that good and that acclaimed, but they're acclaimed by different factions. Simply put, mainstream/older Academy voters will likely back Brockovich, while edgy/younger Academy members will back Traffic. Is either group big enough to get this guy the nomination(s) he deserves?

Of course, most Oscar watchers are comparing this Soderbergh twosome to 1974's Coppola-vs.-Coppola ticket, but that was a much easier race to call: The Godfather, Part II was a shoo-in that year for a nomination (and, eventually, the win), while The Conversation — Coppola's labor of love — was just the cherry on top; few Oscar-watchers seriously thought it could split the Coppola vote and hurt Godfather II. Soderbergh's situation is much more complicated. Brockovich is a $120m-grossing film with a huge star and (mostly) glowing notices whose only handicap is its trite subject matter and its early release date. Traffic is a $60m-and-counting film, praised by more critics but without a single starring role and a harder-to-love, Hollywood-unfriendly plot. It is sad to imagine it, given how richly Soderbergh deserves the honors, but entirely conceivable that Traffic lovers and Brockovich lovers will cancel each other out.

With this in mind, let's go over my five picks for the nominations — warts and all.


The Sure(st) Things

 

 
1. GLADIATOR — Only in 2000 could this $200m-grossing, F/X-heavy, at times campy action movie emerge as the favorite. But there it is: It's won the Golden Globe, whatever that means. It just became the best-selling DVD of all time, which indicates a certain status among film junkies. Though he's a bit of a maverick by Hollywood standards, director Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, Alien, Thelma and Louise) has his admirers, who feel he's long overdue. It's got the hottest male star of the moment in it and a genuinely excellent, if weird as hell, supporting performance by Joaquin Phoenix. It makes young Academy voters cheer and makes veterans recall the glory days of Ben-Hur. Yet, I must say, much as I enjoyed this entertaining but lightweight film for what it was, I am a bit mystified that it is seen as a shoo-in. None of the critics' groups named it as their best picture, and few critics put it in their 10-best lists. Some action fans I talked to found the jittery Coliseum scenes confusing and nonsensical — they've seen the Ben-Hur chariot race, and this, sir, is no Ben-Hur chariot race. But after all the screenings and Scott/Crowe meet-n-greets DreamWorks has set up, I have to believe the nomination is (almost) a lock. If Gladiator goes all the way, it will be the first late-spring-release, alpha-male, underestimated-by-critics winner since...Braveheart (1995), which makes total sense, actually.

 

2. CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON — Yes, it's my #2 sure thing. No, I'm not crazy. To me, the crazy ones are the wags who talk about what a long shot it is, how Sony Classics should just submit it for the foreign-language nod and be happy about it. Okay, on the surface, it sounds implausible: a chopsocky fantasy in Mandarin Chinese, Best Picture? Don't get me wrong, if it gets the nomination, it won't win. But if Life Is Beautiful could get a Best Picture nod, damned if this can't, too. For starters, CTHD is, along with Traffic, the most critically acclaimed movie of 2000. It's also a perfect Oscar story: acclaimed director of earlier Prestige Picture (Sense and Sensibility) returns to his homeland and produces something even more beautiful, more grandiose and yet more personal. Some feel Ang Lee was robbed of a Best Director nomination for Sense, anyway. And it's a hit, to boot! ($60m and counting.) I keep waiting for a full-scale backlash to set in, but besides a little carping from young, hardcore martial-arts fans (i.e., people who don't vote for Oscars), it just hasn't happened yet. People love this film. Critics love it. Most important, women love it, for its progressive gynocentrism — and in Hollywood, that can't hurt. It's the movie people think they "discovered," even though they didn't (Sony's campaign, to both young and old audiences, has been nothing short of brilliant). Possible downsides: It's not exactly a Hollywood-friendly film, produced by a very New York company (Good Machine) and shot far, far away from Los Angeles (call it the Woody Allen Theory). Um...it's still a chopsocky flick, and it could, possibly, secretly please no one — men could think the action's too girly and women could think the action's too distracting from the story. But I don't buy that. No nomination is certainly possible, but it would be a crime.


The Soderberghs

 

 
3. ERIN BROCKOVICH — I love Soderbergh, and if this is the only way a film of his can get nominated for Best Picture, so be it. But there's no question in my mind or in any other film buff's that Brockovich is a remarkably well-made hamburger while Traffic is the filet mignon. Like Gladiator, Brockovich is another high-grossing, early-in-the-year release defying the odds. To be fair, wags had this movie slotted as a Best Picture in March, but had 2000 been a better year for film, this would have gotten knocked out by now. Anyway, forget Soderbergh; if this gets a Best Picture nod, it'll be all about Julia, Julia, Julia, and the Academy's ability to get carried away. Yes, Julia "I'm still overrated and I'm only good in this movie because of Steven" Roberts will walk away with her Best Actress nomination and trophy, because Hollywood thinks she's SO CUTE! (insert gag reflex here) and the Academy so desperately wants to give her one. Personally, I still say Brockovich is really A Civil Action (1998 Travolta lawyer flick) with a better director and boobs. But those two factors may be all it needs. If there were justice, this would be the slot taken up by Almost Famous; again, I'll get to that later.


 

 

 
4. TRAFFIC — I slot this one under Brockovich with sadness, but the more I listen to the buzz, the more I fear this acclaimed stunner has some fairly serious handicaps going in. Some are built-in: USA Films (the successor to my girlfriend's former company) is not known for its expert Oscar campaigns, mainly because in the last two years, they've had very few Oscar-worthy pictures. The cast has a number of high-wattage names, but because of the Nashville-like structure, nobody's the star. And let's face it, the biggest built-in handicap of all is the subject matter: Traffic is anything but sunny, an unsparing appraisal of the failure of the War on Drugs. Still, you'd think being the most critically acclaimed movie of the year (along with Crouching Tiger) would eradicate all that; hell, American Beauty wasn't an uplifting flick either, right? Plus, the picture is making enough money to be generating buzz among the general populace. Still, it all comes down to this: Critics may love it, but do rank-and-file Academy people love it? Actors, makeup people, the geriatric guild-types? The jury is still out. Remember, these are sentimental people voting for these awards. Recall what happened to the most critically acclaimed film of 1995, Leaving Las Vegas — a statue for Nic Cage, but no Picture or Director nominations, for one simple reason: this brutal film was one Academy people just couldn't love. I still place Traffic on my list, because all that quality and all that acclaim can't be wrong. But it could go any way at this point.


That Tough Fifth Slot

 

5. CAST AWAY — A month ago, this probably would have been my #2 pick, as the film quickly became a must-see, Survivor-like phenomenon with mainstream moviegoers. And it's still packing 'em in — just topped $200m last weekend. Honestly (I may be about to damage my credibility by admitting this), Cast Away really is not a bad film; as foursquare Tom Hanks pictures go, it's a damn sight better than The Green Mile and less ridiculous than Forrest Gump. Hanks's acting is, at times, genuinely affecting, even if you can't forget he's Tom Hanks. But, perversely, I think the more money Cast Away makes, the less likely a nominee it becomes. Let's face it, nobody who made this needs another Oscar: not Hanks, not Helen Hunt, not even Bob Zemeckis (director of Forrest Gump), and certainly not DreamWorks, which has plenty of other films to hype to the Academy. Still, a phenomenon's a phenomenon, and if Wilson the Volleyball is ineligible for a Best Supporting Actor nomination, the Academy has to reward the inflatable round thespian somehow.


The Near Misses

 

 
BILLY ELLIOT — If Traffic or Cast Away fumbles (or, better yet, Brockovich), I fully expect this Cannes winner to step right in. The truth is, BE is a manipulative, predictable weepie, but it's also Oscar bait. I'm shocked that anyone thinks this film is a long shot. It's very enjoyable, and it's got that Full Monty slot all sewn up.

 

 

CHOCOLAT — Could it be? Could Miramax, former art-house, now schlock-house, finally go a year without a Best Picture nominee (their first in a decade)? For all that is good and right in the world, you'd better hope so. Like Shakespeare in Love, Chocolat is a slight film that flatters its audience into thinking it's weightier than it is. Several columnists (EW's Lisa Scwarzbaum, The Wall Street Journal's Tom King) have already declared Miramax's Oscar campaign shameless and wholly without merit, but that doesn't mean Academy voters won't get fooled again. Like Matlock, if Chocolat wins big, you really can blame the seniors. As the lights came up at a recent showing I attended, it was a study in contrasts. A 30something couple sitting next to me had the right reaction: "Hmm. That was cute." "Yeah, cute." Meanwhile, one row in front of me, a whole row of geriatrics effused, "Wasn't that wonderful?" "I know — I've told all my friends to see it." Gulp.

 

 

ALMOST FAMOUS — Sigh. Arriving in September on a wave of hype that DreamWorks hoped would duplicate their 1999 American Beauty campaign, Almost Famous peaked early and died when it tried to go into wide release. Despite Cameron Crowe's talents as a crowd-pleaser, the film was too personal to be truly universal and met with indifference from audiences. I'm saddened, but I can't say I'm that surprised — it supports my theory that even the best rock-and-roll movie just won't sell. (Witness poor High Fidelity. Or Dazed and Confused. And what's Tom Hanks's only flop in the past decade? His rock-and-roll flick, That Thing You Do.) The Famous balloon got puffed up again when it won the comedy-or-musical Golden Globe last month, but the list of that award's winners that went on to nothing at the Oscars (Evita, anyone?) is long. Still, for the record: a nomination for Famous would be the single happiest Oscar upset I've ever seen.

 

 

SUNSHINE — The only potential dark horse I see on the horizon. Starring Ralph Fiennes, this three-hour tale of a Jewish family's rise to prominence in the Austro-Hungarian Empire was the slow-and-steady art-house hit of the summer, and those who like the film really seem to love it. I'm not expecting it, but if any film is going to pull a shocker, this is it.







Other films that are too flawed or underhyped to take seriously but shouldn't be ruled out:

That's it. Hope you enjoyed sharing the buzz with me. I welcome your own predictions — write me at chris@molanphy.com with additions, disagreements, harangues.