Return to Molanphy.com

See last year's Oscar picks

Chris's Best Picture Oscar Predictions 2005

Written: 29 January 2006

Oscar nominees to be announced: 31 January 2006

 
For the 10th year, here are my Best Picture predictions for the Academy Awards. The 2005 Oscar nominees will be announced on the last day of January, and the awards show will take place the first week of March – an unusual schedule driven by the 2006 Winter Olympics. But then, so much of this year's Oscar race has been unusual.

I've been making predictions about the five Best Picture nominees since the 1996 Oscars. In the past, professional Oscar prognosticators (i.e., not I) generally made their forecasts in February and March, after the nominations were announced. But I've always gotten in earlier, focusing solely on the nominees; I spend the fall, the holidays and January seeing movies, reading the trades and following online chatter and rumormongering. By the time the Oscar telecast rolls around, I'm done – I let other people stick their necks out picking the winners. I used to consider myself fairly special for taking this approach.

Not this year! This awards season has seen a wider array of commentators – from the blogosphere and the mainstream media – diving into the nominations game, with more zeal and intensity than ever. The popularization of the blogging phenomenon has certainly accelerated the trend. Both The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times had full-time Oscar bloggers up and running as early as Thanksgiving, and a host of emerging web pundits (GoldDerby.com, AndTheWinnerIs.com) have attained the status of oracles in the mainstream press. It's as if everyone suddenly realized this year what I've known for a while: guessing the nominees is both more fun and more unpredictable than guessing the winners. But I also think it's a function of this year's – here it comes, that old cliché – wide-open race.

The Little Guys Strike Back – Again

Folks who've read my Oscar prattle in years past know that I often talk about "the indie factor" or, more specifically, "the Miramax factor" when making predictions. Ever since Miramax's Harvey Weinstein turned the contest on its head in the ’90s, transforming the Oscars into a race between behemoth studios and scrappy underdogs, we've seen prestige pictures by major directors succumb to little pictures made at a fraction of the cost. Indeed, nine years ago – my first year making predictions – the nominations were dominated by four independent or quasi-indie films (The English Patient, Fargo, Secrets & Lies, Shine) versus just one big-studio movie (Jerry Maguire) that cost about as much as the other four combined. After winning that year's contest with The English Patient, Weinstein's Miramax bulked up and bullied out all other comers; in the years that followed, Miramax's Best Picture competitors were, increasingly, as glossy and expensive as the old studio pictures Miramax once sought to overthrow – Chicago, Gangs of New York and the failed Cold Mountain each came close to the $100 million mark. The underdog became the überdog.

But with the Weinsteins out at Miramax, the little guys have been downsized to modest budgets again, and 2005's Oscars are looking like a repeat of 1996's: David takes down Goliath. At least three, likely four and possibly all five Best Picture slots will go to films costing $10–20 million or less, at least three of them financed by small movie houses: Lionsgate, Focus, Warner Independent (the latter two owned by big studios). And the only likely Best Picture contender from a non-indie, non-"Classics" studio division – James Mangold's Walk the Line – was turned down by all the major studios before landing at Fox.

It's weird to talk about the "power of the indies" at this point in time – and not just because the modern indie sector is a farce, ruled since the turn of the century by Hollywood-backed pseudo-indies (the "dependents," as the trades now call them). Going to the multiplex these days, it doesn't feel like there's a small-film revolution taking place, the way it did in the mid-’90s, when Quentin Tarantino and Kevin Smith and Todd Solondz were leading a cultural movement. The Weinsteins (now at a new, self-titled indie studio) aren't even a big factor this year, their only Best Picture candidate (Mrs. Henderson Presents) a long shot at best.

Still, the low-budget, character-driven films are going to thump the King Kongs at the Oscars this year, even more than they have over the last decade, which I think means two things: 1. 2005 was a terrible year for Hollywood – that is, for mainstream Hollywood. The constant headlines last year about the so-called box-office slump were overheated (most of the studios actually turned solid profits), but there's no question that the tentpole, opening-weekend business model is finally starting to crack. The lousy pipeline of Hollywood product last year left lots of room for interesting stuff – from Crash to March of the Penguins – to rise to the surface. And 2. The major studios have finally given up not just on movies for adults, but on non-franchise movies in general, knowing the dependents and indies will pick up the slack. From well-intentioned flops like The Upside of Anger and In Her Shoes, to bloated prestige pictures like Elizabethtown and Memoirs of a Geisha, Hollywood's star-driven, swing-for-the-fences approach to moviemaking is wobbling, all but requiring the little guys to do the quality stuff. Sure, sometimes a Warner Bros. will take a chance on a Syriana, but if you're Paul Haggis and you want to make Crash (which was not even that daring of a picture with all those stars), you're better off knocking on Lionsgate's door.

Before I take the proverbial plunge, I should add my usual proviso that these are Oscar predictions, not a top-five list of my favorite movies of 2005. For the record, if it were up to me, the five Best Picture nominees would be The Squid and the Whale, Hustle and Flow, The 40 Year-Old Virgin, Match Point and Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. Evidence that, yet again, the Academy and I do not think alike.

The Locks

 
1. BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN — I will spare you all of the obvious jokes: about South Park and pudding, about pitching tents, about trying to Quit You. Why bother? Ang Lee's Western weepie has dominated the cultural discourse for months, prompting late-night monologue jokes, pundit quips and inspired online parodies like nothing since Monica Lewinsky. What a relief that the movie has turned out to be worthy of all the hype. Beautifully composed, well-acted and honest, Brokeback Mountain may not be a perfect film, may not even be the year's best film, but it's a quality film of small truths, and somehow I suspect it won't be dated or embarrassing a decade or two hence. Against long odds, Brokeback has actually avoided what should have been the mother of all backlashes by now – racking up a $50 million gross before the Academy nods are even announced; emerging as the front-runner in the Oscar race and, after winning critics' prizes, Golden Globes and Director's Guild Awards, staying there; impressing virtually everyone who smelled the hype and saw it anyway (I know plenty of people who thought Brokeback was overrated but none that felt it came close to sucking). The trick now will be avoiding a late-in-the-game backlash during the long month between the nominations and Oscar night. But I'm fairly certain Brokeback will go all the way. For one thing, the right-wing pundits are kind of right: Hollywood is full of lefties, and they may not have a coherent agenda but they do like to make statements, especially around Oscar time. Equally important, this is Ang Lee's year, and Hollywood is ready to give him the thanks-for-the-memories statue that Ron Howard and Steven Soderbergh won in recent years; anyone who's loved The Ice Storm, Sense and Sensibility (a Best Picture candidate, and he wasn't even nominated for that one!) or, of course, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon wants to see him win this year. As for me, I will be rooting for my old Film Studies 150 professor, James Schamus, the head of Focus Features and the producer of Brokeback, to made the trip to the podium he's been working toward for 15 years. All that said, even if their nominations are foregone conclusions, neither Brokeback nor Lee are assured this year – especially if a backlash develops in favor of...

2. CRASH — As a New Yorker talking to other New Yorkers, I have a bit of a hard time fully understanding the passionate response Crash has garnered. This is where I rely on left coast pundits: the word from Cali is that Angelenos relate deeply to Crash and its exegesis on race relations in modern-day L.A. – and where do you think most Oscar voters come from? To be sure, it has also played amazingly well with rank-and-file audiences, scoring one of the biggest grosses by a true indie film this year. (Lionsgate, which is totally unaffiliated with the Hollywood studios, released Crash.) On the other hand, cinéastes and most critics have been underwhlemed; with the exception of Ebert and Roeper, who adored it, Crash has been panned, even eviscerated, by most highbrow reviewers. Me, I thought Crash was the best-looking episode of Law and Order I'd ever seen: its plot too tidy, its dialogue too overheated, its entire premise too "provocative" in ways no one actually ever experiences in real life; but chewy and, while it lasted, satisfying. This doesn't feel like a Best Picture to me, but I'm not the one voting here. It's hard not to be encouraged by the genuine grass-roots success of the movie, which at $50 million outgrossed many of the year's putative blockbusters, largely through word of mouth. That's what's going to get Crash into the winners' circle, and Lionsgate has mounted its biggest multimillion-dollar awards campaign ever. Some wags even think Crash could go all the way if a Brokeback-lash sets in, making it this year's Million Dollar Baby, the left-field spoiler. And speaking of Baby, Crash has the advantages of a hot first-time director – Paul Haggis, coming off his screenplay for Million Dollar Baby – and a bigger-than-indie cast anchored by the always-great Don Cheadle and Terrence Howard. Let's be honest: Crash is a middlebrow polemic and not remotely the year's best film, but it's got an aura of quality and scrappiness that makes its nomination, at least, a lock.

The Biopics

 

3. GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK. — Ask Ron Howard: the best way to make your way through Hollywood is to be well-liked, and George Clooney is cashing in his goodwill account this year. The tantrums of the mid-’90s mostly behind him, Clooney has found a way to be provocative and friendly, political but jocular, and that's a knockout combination that could translate into as many as three Oscar nominations: for acting in Syriana, and for writing and directing Good Night, and Good Luck. If you were a betting man last fall, before those two films hit theaters, you probably would have placed the big money on Syriana, co-produced by Clooney and buddy Steven Soderbergh: a virtual sequel to Soderbergh's Traffic, directed by the writer of that Oscar winner, Stephen Gaghan, and featuring an equally tough topic and a twisty screenplay. Trouble is, Syriana was a bit too twisty, with a plot incomprehensible to everyone including, it seemed, its tyro director. That left the more modest, seemingly drier Clooney directorial effort, GN&GL, whose politics were just as forthright but whose canvas was narrower: the claustrophobic, smoke-filled confines of CBS News in the 1950s. A global thriller featuring explosives and Matt Damon, versus a black-and-white history lesson about the McCarthy era? Go figure: even with all that serious-mindedness, Good Night was the more pleasurable, more satisfying film, with its letter-perfect period recreation and an unflinching performance by David Straitharn as Edward R. Murrow. He's a lock for a first-time Best Actor nod, and it's just too bad Straitharn has the misfortune to be facing Philip Seymour Hoffmann, Heath Ledger and Joaquin Phoenix this year. Still, admiration for Straitharn and big love for Clooney should translate into nominations in multiple categories for GN&GL, including Best Picture. It won't do any better in the category than the last nominated exposé of ’50s television, Quiz Show, did in 1994, but Clooney will probably come home from his first-ever Oscar ceremony with a statue for his trouble.

 

4. WALK THE LINE — I know it's a trite comparison, but I had virtually the same reaction to Walk the Line that I did to Ray a year earlier: a pretty good movie, made near-great by tremendous performances. Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon – both locks for nominations, the latter closing in on the win – bring the same lived-in quality to Johnny Cash and June Carter that Jamie Foxx brought to Ray Charles, an innate understanding of the megastars' humanity that goes beyond mere impersonation. All that said, after I saw Walk the Line I thought, "Nice movie; too bad about the timing." I mean, shouldn't there be a bad case of Acclaimed Legendary-Muscian Biopic Backlash setting in right about now? But then a couple of things happened. Against formidable odds, Walk the Line became one of the holiday season's most profitable hits, quietly topping $100 million while The Chronicles of Narnia and King Kong battled for supremacy. And for this movie, a gross like that symbolizes real triumph: a long fight by director James Mangold to get it made, a studio not sure how to sell it but ultimately connecting with both coastal and heartland audiences. The second turn in Walk the Line's favor...well, I forgot about those silly ol' Golden Globes, with all of their extra categories. Though Walk the Line is neither a comedy or a musical, it swept the Best Comedy or Musical field at the Globes, putting it on even ground, perception-wise, with front-runner/Best Drama winner Brokeback Mountain. And critically, this year's deadline for Oscar ballots fell after the Globes, giving them back the outsize influence they lost amid last year's earlier Academy deadlines. Always a contender, Walk the Line now has the feel of a pretty sure thing, the red-state alternative to all the other contenders' unabashed leftiness. But most important, it's got the benevolent spirit of Johnny Cash hovering over it, a towering figure of American music beloved by people – and Oscar-voters – of all generations. George Clooney wishes he were that well-loved.

The...Underdog?

 

I've never had so much trouble filling that hard-to-call fifth slot as I've had this year. Much to my surprise, the top four were not that tough – there's enough conventional wisdom around the above movies that they feel assured. And for all the talk about the "wide-open" nature of the race this year, the pool of contenders for Slot #5 is not bottomless – there's really only four or five movies that could reasonably fill it. The problem is that all of them are plausible, and their pluses and minuses largely cancel each other out. Modest performers at the box office? Check. Passionate fans? Check. Less-than-impassioned studio campaigning? Check. But, forced to make a call, I've decided to go with the movie that's inspired the strongest passions, good and bad – the one that was given up for dead before it even opened to the public.

5. MUNICH — It's rare that you see a movie with this much Oscar potential handled so poorly by its producers and its studio. Let's sum up the series of events that have brought Steven Spielberg's Munich to the sorry state it's in right now: Spielberg, wary of confronting pundits and partisans over the film's fiery subject matter, announces he's not going to do press for Munich; barely a week later, Universal grants TIME magazine an exclusive cover interview with him, wherein the film is called a "masterpiece"; Spielberg finishes editing the movie so late in the year, many critics don't have time to see it in time to vote for it, and those that do are pissed that TIME hyped it and call it overrated or worse; political commentators of all stripes – Zionists, Palestinean sympathizers – start lambasting the film before it's even released; and a buzz builds all through December that Munich is just generally full of shit. Munich has a real stink of failure about it these days, and the box-office gross after a full month reflects it – at $40 million, it could end up ranking among Spielberg's worst-ever performers (even The Terminal made more than that). So, what's the deal? Am I expecting some kind of weird Spielberg-as-underdog phenomenon? Not exactly, although having seen the movie I can confirm that Munich has been pretty seriously underrated by a lot of critics. It suffers from lumpy pacing and a couple of poorly chosen final scenes (sex plus terrorism: not a good on-screen combo). But at its best, Munich is a superb thriller and a smart, non-polemical polemic. The most underrated thing about it is the cast – Eric Bana is fantastic, Daniel Craig is super-cool and Geoffrey Rush is a gas even while he chews the scenery. But a lot of pundits, many with an axe to grind (some with Israel, some with TIME magazine), have already shat upon it. Here's the thing: for every hater of Munich, there's at least one critic or moviegoer who loved it: a handful of critics named it their favorite film of the year, and buzz has started to build among admirers of the film. Weirdly for a Spielberg film, Munich is the stealth candidate, neither a preordained winner like Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan nor an admired failure like Amistad or A.I. Basically, this is my passion pick: I'm counting on Munich fans in the Academy, however many or few there may be of them, to slot it as their #1 vote-getter. Oscar history is filled with nominees beloved by some, hated by others (Forrest Gump, anyone? Moulin Rouge?), and I have to believe Munich is one of those.

The Near Misses

 

THE CONSTANT GARDENER — It's got prestige, it's got a great cast and director (Fernando Mereilles, who's on a roll after the surprisingly Academy-loved City of God), and it's even got a bit of momentum, after Rachel Weisz's back-to-back Supporting Actress wins at the Golden Globes and SAG awards. The Constant Gardener is also a better movie than Munich, no question. What it doesn't have is the sense of moral uplift that would make it a shoo-in, nor the strong box-office that would make it a must-see with lazy Academy voters. Worse, its distributor is the much-admired Focus Features, and those guys are a little busy right now with a gay-cowboy movie you might have heard about. If only because I think Focus is too distracted and the movie's too smart, I'm going with Munich over this, but it's a close, close call. And that's not the only one...

 

 
CAPOTE — A fine film seriously beloved by critics, admired by virtually everyone and commanded by the estimable Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote has nonetheless always struck me as way too inside-baseball for the Academy to nominate in more than a couple of categories. But I may be alone here – a lot of critics think this will make the winners' circle. Director Bennett Miller made a stunning jump from small-budget pictures (The Cruise) to wide-canvas storytelling with this, and the cast is excellent. (The truth? I was even more impressed with supporters Catherine Keener and Clifton Collins, Jr. than I was with Hoffman, who is predictably excellent.) But I still don't see where Capote has momentum with either audiences or middle-of-the-road Academy types. Hoffman will probably edge out Heath Ledger for the hotly contested Best Actor statue as a tribute to his first-rate body of work and his tremendous respect in acting circles; but I just don't see him carrying the movie into the race with him.

 

 

MATCH POINT — Everybody loves a comeback, right? And I do, too – I was stunned at how much I enjoyed Woody Allen's Match Point, how engrossing and un-Woody-like it was while staying true to his tropes and obsessions. It's also about to become his biggest box-office hit since Hannah and Her Sisters. And the Academy sure does love the Woodman, giving him director and screenplay nods even for his lamer ’90s films (Mighty Aphrodite, Bullets Over Broadway, Sweet and Lowdown) and habitually rewarding his actors. Gee, I seem to be coming up with a lot of reasons to vote for Match Point, aren't I? Um...well.... We loyal fans can dream, but come on, we don't actually think Woody's going to be back in the Best Picture race, do we? No, really, do we?


 

 

A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE — Here's another totally plausible nominee that could take the Munich slot. That is, if Academy voters behave like critics, which they don't. David Cronenberg's A History of Violence was second only to Brokeback Mountain among critics last year, and it has received awards from several of the critics' groups and an array of Golden Globe nominations. Trouble is, it didn't win any of those Globes, not even for Maria Bello's first-rate performace (probably a lock for an Oscar nomination, if she gets slotted in the Supporting category where she belongs). Personally, I loved four-fifths of Violence and was only turned off by the Philadelphia sequence, led by a bizarre cameo performance by William Hurt that totally took me out of the movie. Weirdly, I hear a lot of Academy types loved Hurt's scenery-chewing, and he stands a chance at a Supporting nomination himself. So does Cronenberg, an underappreciated veteran who's long overdue for a Best Director nomination. Still, I suspect that's all he can hope for here. I would be happy to be proved wrong.

 

 

THE SQUID AND THE WHALE — A surprise Golden Globe nominee (for, um...Best Comedy or Musical) and my favorite film of 2005, Noah Baumbach's stunning comedic drama is probably a lock for a screenplay nomination. In a weaker year, its array of top-notch performances – all four leads, including the two kids, are superb – might carry it into the Best Picture category, but it's against some very big guns, and quirky, Wes Anderson–like fare is usually shut out of the major races anyway.



 

 

SYRIANA — See above; I think it's a safe bet that if anything Clooney-related ends up in the Best Picture race, Good Night, and Good Luck is taking that slot. Sadly, Stephen Gaghan has no one to blame but himself for his directorial debut's underperformance both with critics and audiences; some judicious editing and a couple of explanatory sequences would have gone a long way toward making audiences feel like they were co-conspirators with the film, rather than victims of it. I had a good time at Syriana and would gladly watch it again, if only to catch the bits of overlapping dialogue I missed (and more of those excellent performances: Chris Cooper, Jeffrey Wright and, no joke, Matt Damon). But Syriana is no Traffic – it's just not as satisfying.


 

 

PRIDE & PREJUDICE — Oh, the howling that will ensue at my house if this ends up in the Best Picture race! My Regency-obsessed wife and sister have a long list of grievances with this radical reinterpretation of Jane Austen's most beloved novel (starting with that ampersand). Even I, an Austen philistine, could see the seams showing – the too-pretty vistas, the choppy editing, the pretensions toward Wuthering Heights. Most surprising for me, I did not fall for the much-praised, seriously hot Keira Knightly, who is easier on the eyes than ever but still, to me, a bit shallow as an actress. (How some critics can accuse Scarlett Johansson of being a mediocre actress and yet praise Knightly to the heavens is beyond me. They're both equally gorgeous and have equal potential, and they both have a ways to go as actors, in my humble opinion.) Nonetheless, P&P has been hovering as a serious dark horse for months now, and like Match Point and A History of Violence it got some helpful Golden Globe attention. By far my favorite thing about P&P was Donald Sutherland's supporting performance, and I was shocked to learn that he's never won an Oscar. Now there's a situation that could be rectified easily.

 

 

MARCH OF THE PENGUINS — Here it is, my dark horse pick – and this year has been just crazy enough to make a nature documentary a viable Best Picture nominee. I never did get around to seeing March of the Penguins, the documentary smash of the summer, but odds are you have: it's the middle-American sleeper hit of the year, the movie you might not have wanted to see all that much but your parents or your kids probably loved. Maybe you did, too. It's the shoo-in to win Best Documentary Feature, but could it go further? This is the longest of long shots mainly because Academy people are not known for thinking outside the box – only one animated film, for example, has ever been nominated for Best Picture. But Penguins was such a genuine, well-loved smash that maybe they'll make history this year. Again, I never saw it, so I don't have any skin in this fight, but...well, it'd be interesting. And isn't that what we all want at the Oscars – something to root for? And just imagine the potential quips from Jon Stewart....

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

Thanks, as always, for reading – and feel free to contact me at chris[at]molanphy.com with your own guesses!

Return to Molanphy.com